House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The national security law in Hong Kong is not being used for its original avowed purpose, which according to Beijing was to target
“a tiny number of criminals who…endanger national security”.
Instead, it is being used to stifle the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong and undermine the joint declaration.
Aaron Bell
I welcome the continuing success of the new visa relief for holders of British national overseas status; it reflects the UK’s historic and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong in the face of the new national security law, which continues to be used to crack down on freedom of expression, as we have just seen from the recent closure of Apple Daily. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what steps he is taking to ensure that those Hongkongers will be welcomed to Britain and able to integrate into our local communities?
Dominic Raab
I think that this is the most big-hearted offer that the UK has made since the Indian Ugandans fled Idi Amin. My hon. Friend is right that it is not just about offering safe haven; the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has announced a £43 million dedicated support package to ensure that BNOs can integrate and thrive in our country.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) [V]
We have watched as the situation has deteriorated in Hong Kong and as genocide is committed in Xinjiang. The Foreign Secretary has issued statements and introduced sanctions while clinging to the absurd prospect of boarding a plane to Beijing next year to participate in a public relations coup for the Chinese Government. He is asking the royal family and senior politicians to stand by while journalists are rounded up, pro-democracy protesters are arrested and 1 million Uyghurs are incarcerated in detention camps. In October, before he was overruled by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, he said that there comes a point where sport and politics cannot be separated. When is that point?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady knows that the participation of any national team in the Olympics is a matter for the British Olympic Association, which is required, as a matter of law under the International Olympic Committee regulations, to take those decisions independently. We have led the international response on Xinjiang, and also on Hong Kong. Of course, as we have said, we will consider the level of Government representation at the winter Olympics in due course.
Lisa Nandy
While the Foreign Secretary continues to duck the question, the Chinese Government have raised the stakes. Yesterday, he admitted that China was responsible for the Microsoft Exchange hack, which saw businesses’ data stolen and hackers demanding millions of pounds in ransom. He said that the Chinese Government
“can expect to be held to account”.
He might want to have a word with the Treasury, because just two weeks ago, at Mansion House, the Chancellor said that it was time to realise
“the potential of a fast-growing financial services market with total assets worth £40 trillion”.
While the Foreign Secretary is imposing sanctions, the Chancellor is cashing cheques. How does the Foreign Secretary expect to be taken seriously in Beijing if he is not even taken seriously around his own Cabinet table?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady, but she is wrong on two counts. It was yesterday that the UK, along with our EU, NATO and US allies and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, publicly attributed the Microsoft Exchange server attacks to the Chinese; it was not then that they took place. She is also wrong in her characterisation of the Mansion House speech. Of course, we have made it clear right across Government that we will hold the Chinese Government to account on human rights, but also on cyber-attacks or other nefarious activities, while also seeking a constructive relationship.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
Our priority is to get access for humanitarian actors in Tigray. We have seen some improvements since the Foreign Secretary called for greater access, but it is still not good enough. We have, however, deployed an expert at PSVI to Ethiopia in June for a scoping mission, recommendations from which will outline further support that may be possible, including additional deployments.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for deploying a member of the PSVI unit or team—whichever we are calling it. It is particularly welcome that we are stepping forward and providing that assistance, but in the light of the fact that the United Nations cannot consider any of the issues without a resolution, will the UK Government push for a resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Council to consider all the ongoing human rights abuses in the Tigray region?
James Duddridge
We look at all options. Under the G7 presidency, we issued a joint statement of Foreign and Development Ministers on 2 April; there was also a statement on 2 May and a communiqué from leaders on 13 June. We will continue to work with UN colleagues as well.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s response. The allegations of rape and sexual violence have shocked the world. I also welcome the recent comments by our permanent representative to the United Nations about the shocking attacks on humanitarian workers, including those in recent days. Unfortunately, we have heard increasingly inflammatory language from Prime Minister Abiy, and in recent days fighting involving Tigrayan forces has allegedly spread to the Afar region. With famine, violence and so many needs increasing, will the Minister confirm whether our total support to Ethiopia will increase or be cut this year?
James Duddridge
We are committed to helping the community, and our support overall will of course increase, but I think the hon. Gentleman is talking not about support but about finance. Actually, what is critical is our focus on resolving the conflict, because only then can we get humanitarian partners in to deliver the aid. Aid convoys have come under attack and 600 vehicles are needed each week, so without a diplomatic effort to quell that conflict—for the Eritreans to remove themselves from Ethiopia and to quell the types of additional conflicts that the hon. Gentleman is talking about—any more money is not going to get through.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
Humanitarian preparedness and response is one of the Foreign Office’s seven priorities under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and is a priority for the UK’s aid budget spend this year. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will spend £906 million to maintain the UK’s role as a force for good at the time of crisis. We have consistently been one of the largest bilateral humanitarian donors globally: since 2015, the UK has provided over £11.1 billion in humanitarian funding. However, it is not all about money. The FCDO is uniquely placed to bring together diplomatic clout and humanitarian expertise, to ensure the drive for more effectiveness in the response to humanitarian crisis through preparedness, and an example of that is the G7 famine compact.
Patrick Grady
In that case, what is the Minister’s message to constituents in Glasgow North who have donated in good faith to UK Government aid match programmes such as those run by Mary’s Meals or War Child, who have now been told that the match funding they were expecting for every pound donated by a member of the public will be delayed at least until next year? That is delaying and slowing down vital life-saving humanitarian work, so when are the aid match funds going to be released? Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later. [Interruption.]
James Cleverly
As my ministerial colleagues have just said, the hon. Gentleman answers his question in his question. I pay tribute to the generosity of spirit of the people of the UK—all parts of the UK—who have contributed to humanitarian relief causes. I also pay tribute, of course, to the excellent work of the FCDO members of staff who are based in East Kilbride; they do fantastic work .
Kerry McCarthy
May I ask the Minister specifically what support is being made available to the small island states? They have climate vulnerability—they are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events—and they have been devastated financially by the pandemic, but the metrics that are used to calculate whether they count as least-developed countries often do not take into account those particular vulnerabilities. What is he doing to ensure that aid will get to them, and that debt relief is also considered?
James Cleverly
The hon. Member makes an important point, and we take our responsibility to small island nations seriously. That issue does not necessarily fall within the humanitarian spend, which is designed for more acute need, but we will of course, through things like COP26, take into consideration the factors that are difficult for small nations to deal with, whether they be island nations or otherwise, and that will always remain a serious piece of work in the FCDO.
Owen Thompson
The official development assistance budget, before it was cut, would have amounted to 1% of covid borrowing. We all know that the motion that was passed last week essentially spells the end of the 0.7% commitment. In the absence of the development strategy from the Department, which continues to be delayed, is it now the case for the Government that those who need help the most are relegated to the bottom of the pile to wait for everything else to be done, rather than being put front and centre of foreign policy?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman seems to disregard the fact that the UK will remain one of the most generous aid donors in the world, spending £10 billion to help some of the poorest people in the world. We are experiencing the worst economic contraction in three centuries, driven by a global pandemic beyond any of our control, but our commitment to get back to 0.7% has now been set out and the conditions for doing so are now public. We are proud of the work that we do supporting the poorest people around the world, and we will continue to be one of the most generous aid donors in the world.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he does as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. Air pollution is the largest environmental risk to human health and it results in 7 million premature deaths globally. The UK is showing global leadership in this area, and since 2011 UK international climate finance has provided 33 million people with improved access to clean energy and reduced or avoided 31 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
Geraint Davies [V]
University College London found in its February report that 8.7 million people die each year due to air pollution from fossil fuels. That is one in five deaths globally, and one in three in eastern Asia, including China, which now produces more emissions than the EU and the US combined. Will the Minister press the Government to show leadership at COP26 by enshrining World Health Organisation air quality limits in the Environment Bill to help prevent tens of thousands of avoidable deaths in Britain, and millions abroad?
James Duddridge
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise east Asia, but there is also south Asia and the Pacific. We are working closely with the COP26 energy transformation, transition and zero-emission vehicles campaigns to make sure there is closer integration with public health objectives. This will facilitate a global, green, healthy and sustainable recovery from the pandemic. I am happy to work with the all-party group in this regard.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
We continue to fully support the UN efforts to end the conflict in Yemen, alongside the US, the Saudis and other international partners. The United Nations has put a fair deal on the table, consisting of a ceasefire and a measure to ease restrictions in Hodeidah port and Sanaa airport. However, the Houthis are not engaging constructively with the proposals to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people. Rather than coming to the table, the Houthis continue their offensive in Marib. We are committed to reaching a peaceful settlement to the conflict. We await the appointment of a new special envoy, and we look forward to working with them when they are in place.
Paul Blomfield [V]
After seven years of violence, suffering and hardship, there is still no end in sight, as the Minister acknowledges. The UN has warned that Yemen faces the worst famine the world has seen for decades. After more than halving their aid to the country, what will the Government do to stop families dying of starvation and disease? As penholder for Yemen at the UN, we clearly have a special responsibility. What further pressure are the Government putting on all the parties for meaningful and inclusive peace talks involving all key stakeholders—not simply the Houthis, who are clearly blocking the discussions, but the Hadi Government and the Southern Transitional Council?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman is right that we are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Yemen. We have given over £1 billion-worth of aid to Yemen since the conflict began. I recently spoke about the food security issue with David Beasley of the World Food Programme in the margins of the G7 in Italy.
The best thing we can do for the people of Yemen is to bring this conflict to a conclusion. We engage constructively with the Saudis and the Government of Yemen but, unfortunately, the people we have the most difficulty engaging with meaningfully are the Houthis, and I publicly call upon them to engage with us, to engage with the UN, to engage with this process and to bring peace to these people who so desperately need it.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Where is the morality and sense in the Government trumpeting at the G7 the importance of fighting famine while, at the same time, withdrawing food aid from nearly a quarter of a million people in Yemen? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, Yemen is facing what the UN is calling the worst famine in decades. I am told by the aid agencies that the Government have said they hope to restart the life-saving programmes at some point next year, which is a year too late for those in need now. It is also totally impractical and wasteful to shut down the delivery infrastructure, which takes years to build, only to restart it from scratch a year later. Would it not be better to maintain the current programmes, which are so badly needed and which enhance the UK’s global reputation, rather than making the poorest pay for the global pandemic?
James Cleverly
Despite the worst economic contraction in 300 years, the UK remains one of the largest bilateral donors in supporting the humanitarian efforts in Yemen, but it is not just about money, important though that it is; it is also about bringing the diplomatic power of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to bear. I spoke with the Government of Yemen about making sure fuel ships outside the port of Hodeidah are able to land, so that fuel can be used to mill grain and transport food. That work, alongside our work with the United Nations, the Saudis and the Government of Yemen to bring about peace, is the best thing we can do to help the medium and long-term situation for the people of Yemen.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
As set out in the integrated review, tackling climate change and biodiversity loss is this Government’s top international priority. As Minister for Africa, it is integral to my work, and so far this year the Foreign Secretary has raised the issue of climate in more than 100 engagements. We are making progress, as can be seen by last month’s first ever net zero G7, where all countries committed to reaching net zero by 2050.
Selaine Saxby
I warmly welcome the commitment by G7 countries to the Build Back Better World initiative, which will be vital in supporting developing countries with clean infrastructure and could unlock greater progress on climate finance at COP26. While congratulating the UK Government on their leadership, may I ask my hon. Friend how he plans to take this forward and secure firm commitments from our allies?
James Duddridge
At the end of March, the COP President-designate and the Foreign Secretary hosted the climate and development ministerial. Ministers from 35 climate-vulnerable and donor countries attended, plus representatives from institutions and civil society. At that, we saw consensus about the importance of practical action, and we will continue to build on this success.
Suzanne Webb
Climate change remains a hot topic across my constituency, and I intend to engage with my local schools in COP26-style roundtables. Does my hon. Friend agree that working with young people across the world will help promote international co-operation on climate change? Should he need a doughty champion to do that around the world, I have my passport at the ready.
James Duddridge
A stonkingly excellent idea! I am glad my hon. Friend has her passport at the ready—I am sure the Whips will have heard that. Young people are an important voice, and the UK is committed to involving young people in the planning and hosting of COP26. COP26 will engage civil society and the youth advisory council, which is co-chaired by the Kenyan 25-year-old climate change activist and Bella Lack, an 18-year-old climate activist from the UK.
Steve Double
The UK should feel rightly proud of the progress we are making to cut our carbon footprint and our commitment to net zero, but with less than 1% of global emissions it is clear that the UK cannot fight climate change on its own. So will the Minister assure me that we will use both our diplomatic and commercial influence to put pressure on not only the G7, but other nations that are the most polluting to take urgent action to address this matter and reduce their emissions?
James Duddridge
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: tackling climate change and biodiversity loss will require a global effort. We are asking all countries to agree ambitious nationally determined contributions that align with net zero and to invest in policies that will phase out coal, which will turn these targets into a reality. We have already made great progress, as has been seen by last month’s first ever net zero G7, which I believe he part-hosted.
Mark Pawsey
We have already heard this morning about emissions from China. Following up on the point from my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), I should say that China generates 60% of its electricity from coal, which compares with a figure of just 2% in the UK. As well as being a major contributor to global climate change, that gives Chinese manufacturers a competitive advantage, because it makes their energy costs lower. What discussions have been held with the Chinese authorities to encourage them to speed up their transition to carbon free sources of energy?
James Duddridge
The Foreign Secretary raised this issue with Wang Yi, and at the US climate leaders’ summit President Xi made the commitment that China would reduce its coal use. That is a positive sign, but more information is needed, so we look forward to hearing more about how China will strictly control and then reduce coal consumption, to make sure that its commitments are Paris-compatible.
Ian Levy [V]
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Bede Academy in Blyth where concerned students questioned me on the steps that we are collectively taking to tackle climate change. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government are doing all they can to pursue international co-operation on climate change, so that we can best tackle the serious environmental issues and protect our planet for future generations?
James Duddridge
My hon. Friend can return to Bede Academy and reassure students that he has raised this matter in the House and that we will tackle climate change and biodiversity. He can also reassure them that that is the Government’s top international priority. We look forward to delivering a successful COP26 this November. That will be a key focus for Ministers and our diplomatic network over the coming months and, indeed, years.
Deidre Brock
It is vital that climate action does not come at the cost of further crushing debt for developing world countries. Debt cancellation would be one fast way for those countries to free up resources, achieve the sustainable development goals, and tackle the climate crisis. Will the COP26 President and UK Government be pushing for international agreement on this as the SNP has long called for?
James Duddridge
That is something that we have worked and delivered on both in Sudan and Somalia recently. We also had a focus on suspending debt initially during this crisis. However, we need to look at all options going forward as we build back better, sorting the debt issue, but doing so in a climate-sensitive way.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
It is clear that low and middle-income countries are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. Wealthier countries, including the UK, have so far failed to commit to the agreed £100 billion climate finance promise made in Paris to address this. Evidence submitted to my International Development Committee inquiry suggests that only 10% to 15% of the current climate finance available actually reaches the local communities that bear the brunt of this emergency. What steps are the Government taking to secure the £100 billion before COP26 and what is the Minister doing to ensure that local communities in the areas worst affected by climate change are consulted, including in designing programmes, and can actually access the climate financing themselves?
James Duddridge
On the numbers, the hon. Lady is wrong. We have doubled our commitment to international climate finance to take it up to £11.6 billion. That is a big commitment to the global number, but we are asking other partners to step up, and we will use events such as COP26 in Glasgow and the G7 to encourage others to step up as we have done.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
The newly unelected Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links described her Tory colleagues as “a bloody disgrace” for condemning millions of the world’s poorest people to this Government’s death sentence cuts last week. If those cuts were not stupid enough, vital projects combating climate change across the world are now being immediately cancelled as a result. Does the Minister agree with the director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh that the Chancellor has cut the COP26 President
“off at the legs. He will not have any credibility… asking other countries”
to be more ambitious on climate change.
James Duddridge
The COP26 President-Designate has done a very good job in engaging international partners and we are already making traction. I am not predicting that the hon. Gentleman is wrong; I am saying that the facts already demonstrate that he is wrong. Is it not good that we have a thriving democracy and a variety of views in this House and in the other place?
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
We remain concerned about reports of human rights violations in relation to recent protests in Colombia, and we regularly raise our concerns with the relevant state actors. I spoke with the then Colombian acting Foreign Minister Adriana Mejía on 14 May to express my concerns and to welcome Colombia’s commitment to transparent investigations into allegations of excessive use of force by the police. I also spoke with the Colombian ambassador to the UK on 12 July to ask for an update on investigations. I was pleased to learn that more than 200 investigations into alleged misconduct by the police are now open.
Clive Efford
I am grateful for that answer, but the truth is that the UK Government are providing extensive training and support to Colombian police, despite evidence of extensive police brutality, with up to 43 people allegedly murdered, a catalogue of sexual assaults and people being blinded by having tear gas canisters fired in their face. Will the Minister commit to publishing full overseas security and justice assessments for activities under this programme, so that the House can satisfy itself that the Government are not contributing to further abuses of human rights in Colombia?
Wendy Morton
On police training, our conflict, stability and security fund’s Colombia peace and stabilisation programme launched the £2.1 million police innovations for stabilisation in Colombia project in 2021. The project is supporting the transformation of the Colombian national police, but we are not aware of any police units in Colombia that have received UK training support being involved in human rights violations. Colombia is a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office human rights priority country. We take the growing levels of violence against social leaders and human rights defenders extremely seriously, and we consistently raise our concerns with the Colombian Government and in multilateral forums.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
FCDO Ministers are in regular contact with Cabinet colleagues on a range of trade-related issues and we are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of our commitment to human rights. The UK will continue to show global leadership in encouraging all states to uphold international human rights obligations and will hold to account those who violate human rights. Since the inception of the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, we have used those powers to impose sanctions on 78 persons involved in human rights violations. The UK has a strong history of protecting human rights and promoting global values. By having a strong economic relationship with partners, we can have more open discussions on a range of issues, including human rights. We continue to take a balanced and proportionate approach with partners to deliver the best outcome for the UK and to maximise the benefits of trade, while ensuring that we promote our core values.
Ellie Reeves [V]
The UK has a free trade agreement with Colombia that contains a human rights clause, but we have just heard that in recent months protesters in Colombia have faced brutal violence at the hands of Colombian police, with human rights organisations documenting 43 protesters potentially killed by the police. Given those abuses, and the Colombian Government’s repeated attempts to deny and minimise the crisis, will the UK Government signal their commitment to human rights and, rather than turn a blind eye, ensure that this human rights clause is actually upheld?
James Cleverly
Colombia is an FCDO human rights priority country, and we take the growing reports of violence against social leaders and human rights defenders extremely seriously. We consistently raise our concerns with the Colombian Government and in multilateral forums. The point that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), has just made is still very much the case. When we export our products and services, we also export our values and buy the right to have serious conversations with partners around the world.
Chi Onwurah [V]
Will the Minister confirm here and now that it is our foreign policy to defend human rights and the rule of law across the world? Does he agree that, as well as putting UK businesses with high human rights and labour rights at a disadvantage, signing trade agreements with some of the world’s worst human rights abusers without any human rights clauses undermines that policy and our global reputation?
James Cleverly
The UK is proud to be incredibly vocal on the international stage about our commitment to human rights. As I have said, having an open and expansive trade policy is not any kind of contradiction to our passion for promoting human rights. If the hon. Member has particular concerns about forthcoming trade agreements and the human rights elements thereof, please feel free to write to the Department.
Alex Cunningham [V]
During an Adjournment debate earlier this year, the Minister for Trade Policy justified the deal with Cameroon on the basis that there had been a reduction in human rights abuses against its own people. Next day in the House, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), refused to confirm whether he was right or wrong. So can this Minister tell the House what level of abuse the Government are prepared to accept with similar oppressive regimes to grant them a trade deal with the UK?
James Cleverly
We continue to monitor the situation in Cameroon closely. We raise our concerns directly with the Cameroonian Government and within multilateral forums calling for an inclusive dialogue and the end to violence. As I say, the Government have always been clear that increased trade will not come at the expense of our values and, specifically, will not come at the expense of our commitment to human rights. We want to have trade relationships with countries around the world, but ultimately the foundation stone on which all Government activity is built is our commitment to human rights.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I spent 16 years in the European Parliament scrutinising and voting on trade policy. Trade policy is not just about trade; it is an opportunity to raise standards on the environment, human rights and elsewhere. It is therefore really concerning that, in 179 pages, the Department for International Trade’s 2021-22 statement makes no mention of human rights, slave labour or workers’ rights at all. This is a missed opportunity. SNP support for future trade deals cannot be taken for granted—it was not in the European Parliament, as often we did not find them ambitious enough. In a constructive spirit, I urge that we have an FCDO statement to ensure co-operation between the two policy areas so that future trade deals can raise standards in these vital areas.
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us due notice that the support of the SNP for future trade arrangements cannot be guaranteed. I had kind of worked that out by myself, because over the past 15 years the SNP has never backed a trade agreement anywhere. There is, no doubt, always a reason for SNP Members to say no to trade agreements. To return to the broader point, our commitment to human rights is a foundation stone of our foreign policy and our “force for good” agenda in the world. We will ensure that we use our trade relationships not just to export products and services but to export our principles and values. He is right that that should be an inherent part of all trade agreements, and indeed it is, but ultimately, given that the SNP will be looking for an excuse to say no to a deal, he, I am sure, will always find one.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Through our investment in the development of the AstraZeneca vaccine, our finance for COVAX and our commitment of 100 million vaccine doses from surplus domestic supply, the UK is a global leader in our support for vaccinating the poorest around the world.
Jacob Young
Lebanon has been hit by a succession of crises in recent months, not least the massive explosion in the port of Beirut last year, a deepening economic crisis, and rising political instability. Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that his Department is doing everything it can to support the people of Lebanon with their vaccine deployment so that Lebanese people do not have to endure shortages of covid-19 vaccines on top of the hardship that they are already enduring?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall that, last year, as that terrible disaster took place, we committed $2 million in extra support for medical equipment. In relation to vaccines, in March, Lebanon received its first doses from COVAX: 33,600 AZ vaccines. The UK, through our £90 million commitment, got the AstraZeneca vaccine at cost price to the world, and the vast majority of COVAX doses—some 98%—that will have reached Lebanon have been the AZ vaccine. That demonstrates the value that the UK is providing not just with the domestic roll-out but abroad as well.
John Lamont
The UK has amassed one of the largest vaccine portfolios in the world. This has been hugely successful and has allowed all of us to get a jab. In which parts of the world does the Foreign Secretary envisage using our surplus to best effect?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the G7, by making it clear that we would donate 100 million doses from surplus domestic supply by the end of June 2022, we also leveraged 1 billion doses from other countries. We are committing 80% to COVAX, which will be distributed according to its criteria, and a further 20% on a strategic basis. Allocations will be announced in due course.
Simon Baynes
Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the employees of Wockhardt in my constituency of Clwyd South for the indispensable role they have played in our vaccine manufacturing process? It has allowed us not only to roll out doses swiftly and effectively in the UK, but to support countries across the rest of the world that have been badly hit by the covid pandemic.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend can be rightly very proud of the role his constituents have played. It is not only Wockhardt employees, but the wider AstraZeneca collaboration with Government and the £90 million of support that the Government put in for research and development and for getting capacity up that have meant that we not only have this world-beating domestic vaccine roll-out, but have supplied 98% of the vaccine to the poorest and most vulnerable countries around the world delivered by COVAX.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Less than 1% of sub-Saharan Africa has been fully vaccinated, leaving the Prime Minister’s claim that he would vaccinate the entire world hanging by a thread and his credibility in tatters. Having sneaked out cuts to the aid budget, which his Government have now made permanent, he has made the UK the third lowest donor in the G7, and in the middle of a pandemic, this Foreign Secretary has presided over the largest drop in humanitarian aid of any major donor country, apart from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It is clear that the Foreign Secretary’s claim that the UK’s reputation has not been diminished under his watch is unfounded in reality. What does he say in response to the damning comments last week of the former President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf? He said that this Government’s cuts will have
“a negative impact on millions of people in less wealthy nations”.
If this Government have a conscience, they will want to know how many lives have and will be lost as a result of these cuts. I urge him to publish the impact assessments immediately so that more lives can be saved, but will he do it?
Dominic Raab
What I would say to the hon. Lady is that Labour promised it would hit 0.7% in 1974. That was the year in which I was born. Labour has never once hit 0.7%. It only twice hit 0.5%, so we will take no lectures from the Labour party when we are the third biggest G7 donor when it comes to aid.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The UK Government share the objectives of increasing understanding and dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. UK officials remain in close contact with the US Government regarding the international fund. The US is at the early stages in its planning and, once more information is available, we will consider options for collaboration.
The UK’s overseas business risk guidance is intended to provide guidance for UK businesses to identify and mitigate security and political risks when trading overseas. The guidance is not aimed at public bodies or Her Majesty’s Government. The UK’s position on settlements is clear, and we have articulated it regularly. We regard them as illegal under international law, and they are therefore a risk to the economic and financial activities in settlements. We do not encourage or offer support for such activity.
Alex Sobel
The UK consulate in Jerusalem has given vocal support to oppose the illegal evictions in Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah. What practical action can the UK Government take to ensure that those evictions end? They run contrary to the intentions of the international fund for peace and, as the Minister has just stated, we are opposed to illegal occupations.
James Cleverly
The UK enjoys a close and important relationship with Israel, and because we have that close relationship, we are able directly to bring up sensitive issues. I and my ministerial colleagues have brought up with the Israeli Government our opposition to those demolitions.
Andy Slaughter [V]
Given that the Minister has just said that his Department’s policy is not to encourage or support economic and financial activity in settlements, will he at least say that, where public bodies decide that they do not wish to invest in settlements, following his Government’s advice, he will not stand in their way in doing so?
James Cleverly
Procurement by public bodies is governed by various public procurement regulations. The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 require contracting authorities to treat all economic operators equally and without discrimination. In addition, the Local Government Act 1988 requires local authorities to exercise their functions in relation to public supply or works contracts without regard to non-commercial matters, which includes the location in any country or territory.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
Under UK leadership, the G7 has committed to work collectively to strengthen the foundations of open societies and to promote human rights, including agreeing new measures to support media freedoms, tackle disinformation and enhance co-ordination of freedom of religion, sanctions and, indeed, arbitrary detention.
Robbie Moore [V]
[Inaudible]—facing harassment and imprisonment without due cause since the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was revoked by India. The United Kingdom proudly stands for freedom and democracy, so can my hon. Friend ensure that he will use the full weight of his Department, via discussions with the G7 and others, to ensure that these terrible abuses of human rights in Kashmir are put to an end?
James Duddridge
I think I got the drift of the question, although I missed the beginning. We recognise that there are human rights concerns both in India-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We encourage all states to ensure that domestic laws are in line with international standards, and any allegation—any allegation—of human rights violations or abuse is deeply concerning and must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The UK has led international efforts to press China to grant urgent and unfettered access to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Sarah Jones
Is the Foreign Secretary concerned about the deliberate erosion of trust in America’s electoral system—in particular, what is playing out in Arizona—and what lessons should be learned here, where, as in America, there is no evidence of electoral fraud on anything other than a minuscule scale? Does he really think the Elections Bill is going to help or hinder our democracy?
Dominic Raab
We obviously follow attacks on any democracy—particularly, as we have talked about, through misinformation or cyber-crime—very carefully. Ultimately, we work in collaboration with partners such as the US and we will take our lead from them.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for calling me. The line from Kent is pretty terrible, I am afraid, but that is a complaint for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Today, on Eid al-Adha, will the Foreign Secretary join me in welcoming the number of Muslim communities in the UK who have come from abroad to make their lives here, but will he also reach out to Muslim communities around the world and ask them to stand with the people of Xinjiang, who this year will not be celebrating—as, indeed, they have not been celebrating for many years—under the rule of the Chinese Communist party and the authoritarian dictatorship that it has caused?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. We celebrate the role of all communities and all religions in this country: they make Britain what it is. He is absolutely right to say—I regularly raise it with my colleagues and opposite numbers overseas—that particularly in Muslim-majority countries it seems there is not quite as much concern as in the UK and other western, non-Muslim-majority countries about human rights abuses. This is an actor-agnostic issue; it is merely about treatment—persecution—based on religion, creed or ethnicity. We call on all countries to uphold those basic values, but particularly those most directly affected with the victims in Xinjiang.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
Last week, the Government finally gave the EU ambassador the legal recognition they so arrogantly denied him earlier this year, and last month we saw the Government’s needlessly antagonistic approach towards our European partners overshadow the G7 summit and consequently hamper international efforts to tackle pressing global challenges. Does the Foreign Secretary now accept that this was a mistake that has undermined our relationship with Europe, and will he commit to treating our European partners as equals to ensure that we can work together on common concerns such as security, freedom of speech, covid and climate change?
Dominic Raab
Particularly after the Harry Dunn case, and what we learned about the risk of finding gaps in immunity—including long-standing gaps that date back to the last Labour Government—I will make no apologies for being very careful with EU representation, which falls somewhere between a normal international organisation and a sovereign Government’s mission. We must ensure that privileges and immunities are tailored to their functional need, and that we do not find ourselves with a gap. That means that we can hold people to account for ordinary crimes, as the public would expect. Frankly, given the various voices from the Labour Front Bench who have raised the case of Harry Dunn, I am utterly surprised that the hon. Lady would not expect us to take such a rigorous approach.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
My hon. Friend raises an important point on a very sensitive issue. International child parental abduction is a hugely distressing matter for the parents and families affected, and they have my deepest sympathy. Consular officials can provide support to British people affected by such issues both overseas and here in the UK. Officials can advise left-behind parents about the most effective way to make local authorities aware of the court orders they hold. Where appropriate, the FCDO can express an interest in the case with the relevant court and other local authorities. We can also put families in touch with partner organisations, such as Reunite International, which offers specialised support and mediation services. We can liaise with local authorities and, with the permission of UK courts, present with court orders served in the UK, but it is important to note that the FCDO is not a law enforcement body and is unable to enforce court orders in the UK overseas. We are unable to compel foreign jurisdictions to enforce UK—
Mr Speaker
Order. There must be shorter answers, as these are topical questions.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
Dominic Raab
We take our responsibilities on those issues very seriously. We have one of the most stringent export control regimes in the world, and we regularly review it. At the same time, with our introduction for the first time ever in this country of an autonomous human rights sanction regime, the so-called Sergei Magnitsky sanctions regime, we have shown that from Xinjiang to the murder of Khashoggi and the persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar, we will not hesitate to hold those who violate serious fundamental rights to account.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
As I said earlier, the UK values and welcomes means for Israelis and Palestinians to work more closely together, and we call on the leadership of both to do so at Government and Palestinian Authority level. We work closely with our US counterparts, and we will continue working with them as they put more details on that fund. Once they are in a position to engage with us in more detail, we will consider that in due course.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised this very issue with his Israeli counterpart, I have raised it with the Israeli ambassador, and we have consistently called for sensitivity in the security arrangements around the most holy sites in Jerusalem. We continue to call for a permanent ceasefire, and we will continue to work with all parties, both in the west bank and in Israel, to pursue that aim.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Dominic Raab
We scrutinise very carefully any allegations—the hon. Gentleman has called them allegations—of human rights abuses. I can tell him about the supply of rubber gloves from Malaysia. At the peak of the pandemic, when we were seeking personal protective equipment for our NHS staff on the frontline, in care homes, we of course looked at all possible suppliers, including Malaysia, which is one of the biggest global suppliers of rubber gloves.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Wendy Morton
AMR is one of the most pressing global challenges we face this century, and the UK is a global leader in taking action on AMR. We champion it as a priority on the international stage, including through our G7 presidency and the work of Professor Dame Sally Davies, the UK’s special envoy on AMR. Since 2014, we have invested more than £360 million in research and development on AMR.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
Wendy Morton
The Prime Minister did indeed meet Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán on 28 May. Co-operation with Hungary, as the incoming president of the Visegrad Group from 1 July, is important for the UK’s prosperity and security. As hon. Members would expect, the Prime Minister raised various values in his meeting, such as media freedom and issues of discrimination. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that where we have issues of concern, we do not shy away from raising them.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the continued systemic non-compliance by Iran with its JCPOA commitments. Of course, Iran is still subject to wide-ranging sanctions. We strongly urge Iran to halt all its activities in violation of the JCPOA and, in line with the new US position, come back to the table and make sure that we can conclude a return to the JCPOA. I would just say that we do not believe that those negotiations can remain open-ended forever.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
Dominic Raab
I totally agree with the hon. Lady. I have been out to both Israel and the west bank twice. We are a stalwart supporter of Israel, but we also, not least because of our principled approach to international law, make it clear, whether on the evictions, the demolitions in Jerusalem or the broader question of settlement building, that they are not just contrary to international law but entirely counterproductive to the peace set-up we need to see for a durable two-state solution for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Dominic Raab
Labour Members are talking about cuts. We have just made the biggest ever donation to the Global Partnership for Education, a 15% increase on last time. As a result, at the G7 we corralled one of the biggest G7 sets of donations—close to $3 billion. We are hosting, with our Kenyan friends, the Global Education summit in the next few days. The point is that, through the leadership of our official development assistance contribution and our diplomatic leadership, we are bringing the world together in pursuit of two targets: 40 million more girls receiving 12 years quality education, and 20 million more girls literate by the age of 10.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) [V]
Dominic Raab
Our position on the Armenian genocide is unchanged, but certainly in relation to the other disputes the hon. Lady mentioned, we of course work with the international community to try to alleviate the plight of those on all sides who are suffering.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
The UK is supporting the joint investigation into abuses and violations in Tigray, which will inform actions against those identified as having committed abuses or violations. I want to be very clear: we will consider all—all—policy options in response. We will also co-sponsor a resolution at the July Human Rights Council, and conflict experts are providing technical advice to guide our response during this crisis.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Financial Conduct Authority
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Eid Mubarak, Mr Deputy Speaker, to you and everyone.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in relation to the experiences that many of them have had with the Financial Conduct Authority and their feeling that it is not entirely fit for purpose.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) efficacy in overseeing the UK’s financial markets has come under scrutiny; further that the FCA has repeatedly failed in its remit to protect financial markets and consumers; further that such failures have adversely affected consumers and the industry; and further that, despite Section 29 of the Financial Services Act 2021 stating that the FCA must carry out a public consultation on whether it should make general rules providing that authorised persons owe a duty of care to consumers, the FCA consultation is entitled “A new Consumer Duty”, which differs from a duty of care—the legal definition of which we believe is not accurately described in that consultation—and would still require consumers to be beholden to the FCA to take action on their behalf.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure the FCA meets the intention of Section 29 of the Financial Services Act 2021, which if enacted in its true spirit, will strengthen consumer protection and the safety of our financial system going forward by creating a right of private action.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002679]
Voter ID
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition, which states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran,
Declares that the current statistics on voter fraud show that it is incredibly rare and that this is no widespread problem across the UK, thus voter ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem; further that the only type of fraud that photographic voter IDs could prevent is voter impersonation, which is even more rare each year; further that this legislation has been described as draconian, archaic and anti-democratic, as it puts a qualification on the franchise; further that the real consequence of this legislation will be this Government suppressing voting among lower income, ethnic minority, and younger people, all of whom are less likely to vote for the party now in Government; further that, in contrast to this archaic Government, the SNP Government in Holyrood is focused on measures to extend the franchise and encourage turnout; further that the SNP has already introduced votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, refugees, and foreign nationals with leave to remain; and further that voting should be made as easy as possible with no barrier to contributing to democracy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to dismiss any plans to implement legislation that enforces voter IDs.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002680]
Cyber-attack: Microsoft
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the reported Chinese state-sponsored cyber-attack on Microsoft exchange servers.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I thank my right hon. Friend for asking this important and timely question. Yesterday, on 19 July, the UK Government joined like-minded partners to confirm that Chinese state-backed actors were responsible for gaining access to computer networks around the world via Microsoft exchange servers. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in a statement yesterday, this cyber-attack by Chinese state-backed groups was reckless, but sadly a familiar pattern of behaviour. The Chinese Government must end this systematic cyber-sabotage and can expect to be held to account if they do not.
The attack was highly likely intended to enable large-scale espionage, including acquiring personally identifiable information and intellectual property. At the time of the attack, the UK quickly provided advice and recommended actions to those affected. Microsoft has reported that, at the end of March, 92% of customers had installed the updates that protected against the vulnerability.
As part of that announcement, the UK also attributed the Chinese Ministry of State Security as being behind activity known by cyber-security experts as APT40 and APT31. Widespread, credible evidence demonstrates that sustained irresponsible cyber activity emanating from China continues. The Chinese Government have ignored repeated calls to end their reckless campaign, instead allowing their state-backed actors to increase the scale of their attacks and act recklessly when caught.
Statements formally attributing Chinese responsibility for the Microsoft exchange attack and actions of APT40 and APT31 were issued by the EU, NATO, the UK, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Japan. That co-ordinated action by 39 countries sees the international community once again calling on the Chinese Government to take responsibility for their actions and respect the democratic institutions and personal commercial interests of those they seek to partner with. The UK is calling on China to reaffirm the commitment made to the UK in 2015 as part of the G20 not to conduct or support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property or trade secrets.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I simply make the point that it is a surprise that it has taken you, Mr Speaker, to bring the Government to the Dispatch Box when they could have made a statement yesterday.
This is the latest form of Chinese attack—it is not a one-off—on the west, which has included espionage, economic sanctions against Australia, wolf warrior diplomacy and naval aggression in the South China sea to name but a few.
I have some questions for my right hon. Friend. Will he explain why the Government did not come to the House yesterday to make a statement? Given that this is an aggressive attack, why are the Government allowing the UK’s largest silicon chip manufacturer, Newport Wafer Fab, to be bought by a Chinese firm when they know very well what they are up to? Why is it that the US Justice Department, also with this, brought federal criminal charges against four named MSS officers over their role in the hacking of the American targets, yet no such charges have been brought against operatives here?
The integrated review said clearly that Russia was a threat to the UK, but China was merely a competitor. I wonder why, if China goes on attacking us and trashing us, we continue with this deceit when it is quite clear that China is a clear and present threat. Beyond tearing up the treaty, conducting a genocide and upsetting the international order, China has now been found to be conducting systematic attacks on targets in the UK. Will the Government now finally agree to a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing winter Olympics to make their statement clear?
On a personal note, you will know, Mr Speaker, that I set up, with others, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—politicians left and right in 20 countries who are concerned about China’s activities. There are over 200 members. I understand now that there is intelligence from Five Eyes sources that shows that a very active and direct threat from the Chinese Government is aimed directly at the co-chairs of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. Some of the co-chairs, of which I am one, have now been warned by their intelligence services in receipt of this that they should be very careful and that they will be supported. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm whether his Government are in receipt of this same intelligence and, if so, why have they not informed the co-chairs and others here in the UK, as other allies have done?
Finally, Mr Speaker, China is not just a competitor. These attacks tell us that they are a clear and present threat to the United Kingdom and to our beliefs in freedom, justice, democracy and the rule of law and human rights. It is time that the Government stood up, made that clear and boycotted these Olympic games.
James Cleverly
I thank my right hon. Friend for the points that he has made. The unanimity of voice among the international partners—the 39 countries that I listed—is incredibly important to us, and we will continue to seek to work collaboratively with our international partners in our response to this. My right hon. Friend makes the point about Chinese investment, or Chinese purchasing—specifically Newport Wafer Fab—and that is a decision that the Government are looking to review. He asks about the differential language between China and Russia. Our response is based on the actions, and we will continue to react robustly to any and all cyber-attacks that occur. He will understand, I am sure, that I am not necessarily going to go into details here and now about what further measures we might take, because to do so might undermine their effectiveness, but we will continue to work with international partners; and, as I said in my answer to his question, the Chinese Government should expect to be held to account if they do not come back into compliance with norms of behaviour.
With regard the Olympics, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that we have not as yet made a decision on formal attendance at the Olympics. The attendance of athletes is ultimately a decision for the British Olympic authorities. On intelligence matters, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) will understand that we do not discuss intelligence-related issues on the Floor of the Chamber, but I take his point about making sure that people who are potentially the target of overseas intelligence actions are given the opportunity to defend themselves against them.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) [V]
This is an unacceptable attack, costing businesses millions and raising the alarm for people across the country, who will be concerned that their personal information could be compromised. The Government confirmed yesterday that a quarter of a million servers were affected worldwide, but how many British businesses and organisations were victims of the attack and how many may still be vulnerable? What is the cost to British businesses of compromised data and were public bodies among those targeted? Can the Minister guarantee that hospitals, local authorities, universities and this Parliament have not and will not be compromised?
The Government have been repeatedly warned about this. A year after the Russian report was published, still no meaningful action has been taken. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is now three decades old. It was written before smartphones, before Google—before the public could even use the web. When will the Government finally update it? The Minister says that this is a pattern of behaviour, and he is right, but Ministers have tried naming and shaming before. It did not work then, so why would it work now? Only weeks ago, President Xi said that those who expressed dissent about China’s actions would
“have their heads bashed bloody against the Great Wall Of Steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people.”
Last year the Government were willing to act. They announced targeted sanctions against individuals involved in the Russian state-backed cyber-attack on the German Parliament. So why are there no sanctions in response to the Chinese state-backed cyber-attack on, among others, the Finnish Parliament?
The truth is that the Government are unable to send a clear, coherent message to Beijing because they are still arguing among themselves. Just two weeks ago, the Chancellor was telling Mansion House that it was time to realise the potential of our relationship with China. While the Foreign Secretary imposes sanctions, the Chancellor is cashing cheques. It is extraordinary that the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box today and refuse to tell us how he will safeguard critical infrastructure, or whether he and his colleagues will board a plane to Beijing early next year to participate in a public relations exercise. The seriousness of this attack must concentrate minds. We need a coherent strategy. When are we likely to get one?
James Cleverly
In response to the specific questions that the hon. Lady raised, we estimate—we can only estimate—that 3,000 UK-based organisations were put at risk by this attack. It was an untargeted action. It was not targeted at specific sectors. We do not believe that Government organisations were a victim of it, and because it was an untargeted action it is not possible for me to give a credible assessment of the economic damage of this particular attack. The National Cyber Security Centre and Microsoft gave advice at the time and, as I say, by the end of March it was estimated that 92% of organisations had installed the patch to protect themselves. Advice is available to any organisation that still thinks it may be at risk in some way, both from the National Cyber Security Centre and from Microsoft.
With regard to our attendance at the winter Olympics, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary answered that point in departmental questions. There is nothing more that I can add to that.
The hon. Lady asked about naming and shaming. The fact that 39 countries collectively put their name to the statement is unprecedented, and it sends a significant signal that countries are working together to steer China’s actions. China is a significant economic and political player. We cannot pretend that China does not exist. We want China to change its behaviour, and we will work with international partners to urge it to do so. As I say, we reserve the right to take further actions if necessary.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Dr Julian Lewis.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As the ISC’s inquiry into China is still current, I shall limit myself to asking why the Government generally describe the communist Chinese system as authoritarian rather than totalitarian, what the Minister’s understanding is of the difference between the two, and whether the Chinese regime took any steps to close down the hacking group APT10, which was denounced in a similarly forceful statement by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), and our allies in December 2018.
James Cleverly
I understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes about the use of language. I am not in a position to have a debate on that specific point, but I make the broader point that the UK Government’s actions, and indeed the actions of our friends and allies around the world, are based on actions whether they be from Russia, China or wherever else, rather than on the narrow definition that may be found in international documents.
The reason that we put out this joint statement and attributed responsibility to state-backed Chinese actors is to let the Chinese Government know, to an extent, that we can tell what they are up to and we will not accept it. That is why taking actions in concert with our international partners is so important and will always be the foundation stone of whatever else we choose to do in response to the behaviour, if it does not change.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on raising this vital issue, and echo his concern about the fact that this was an urgent question rather than a statement made proactively by a representative of the Government.
I was glad to hear a Minister say that China can expect to be held to account for this truly breathtaking attack, which facilitated a range of attacks on private and public organisations on a broad scale by other actors. I applaud the statement that there will be sanctions—there will be measures—but I would like to hear what they are, because a somewhat homeopathic approach to date does not seem to have had much of an impact on stopping anything.
May I suggest that it is the UK Government’s breathtaking lack of policy coherence that is giving mixed signals to Beijing? I can give a fairly concrete example. China General Nuclear Power Group remains a significant stakeholder in the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant, but the UK is pushing for another deal at Sizewell which will involve an even bigger Chinese state holding. May I also suggest that ending policy incoherence starts at home, and we should really see about that?
James Cleverly
Countries around the world trade with and receive investments from China, and, as I have said, pretending that that does not exist or that it is not a significant economic player in the world is completely unrealistic. What we are seeking to do is change China’s behaviour, and we are doing it collaboratively with our international partners.
The hon. Gentleman asked what specific actions we would take. I will not answer in detail at the Dispatch Box—[Interruption.] For the same reason that we do not discuss intelligence matters, we do not speculate on future sanctions, because to do so would undermine the effectiveness of those measures. However, as I have said, we and our international partners have made it clear that these actions will not go unresponded to.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, I should like to wish you, and especially the people on the estate who are celebrating it, a very happy Eid Mubarak.
I am not going to ask the Minister to explain China’s actions, but I want him to try to explain why we do not align ourselves with our allies—particularly the United States—who have moved much further on this issue, notably in protecting individuals who have been sanctioned or targeted by China. As has already been mentioned, IPAC’s website has been hacked twice; colleagues on IPAC are also being hacked, as it were—I cannot think of a more appropriate term—and there are four sanctioned MPs on the call list today. We need far more support than is being provided at present.
May I ask the Minister whether the Foreign Office has reached out to Alan Estevez, who was appointed by the Biden Administration to take over security with a special focus on China tech concerns? We seem to be moving at a snail’s pace while America is moving far faster, and, of course, China is light years ahead. It is here, Mr Speaker: it could be hacking the estate, it could be hacking sanctioned MPs’ websites or email addresses and it could be hacking Ministers’ servers, but we are none the wiser, and we do not feel any more protected after the Minister’s response to the urgent question.
James Cleverly
I completely understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, but I assure her that we work incredibly closely with international partners, including the United States of America. The unprecedented number of countries and multilateral organisations that co-authored yesterday’s statement is testimony to how closely we are working on this issue as an international community. However, I will certainly take back the points that my hon. Friend has raised about ensuring that individuals who may be the target of cyber-attacks are given all the support that they need both to defend themselves and to respond to those attacks.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
It is absolutely right that we are working in lockstep with our international allies to combat these attacks on our cyber-security. However, the Minister will be aware of hugely concerning reports that activists, civil society leaders, Government officials and politicians around the world have been targeted by NSO Group’s Pegasus software. Is he aware of any individuals in the Government, or indeed any UK citizens, who have been targeted by that software, and is there any indication that it may have been used by the Chinese Government?
James Cleverly
The House will understand that I will not discuss security and intelligence operations at the Dispatch Box, and that I therefore will not be responding to that part of the hon. Lady’s question. We do of course know about the capabilities of the Pegasus software; its licensing is ultimately a decision for the Israeli Government, but we are working closely with our friends and allies around the world in response to any emerging technical threat at this time.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Cyber capabilities are the new arms race, but skills are in short supply. How can we best work with our allies to build the skilled workforce we need to defend ourselves in cyber-space?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that skills are an important part of our arsenal to defend ourselves. The Government are working with industry, academics and many other partners to ensure that we develop the essential cyber-skills we need to be a credible force in the modern world. In April, we launched the UK Cyber Security Council as a new professional body for cyber to raise standards and guide people through their career. In addition, the UK has committed to promoting an international stability framework for cyber-space, based on the application of existing international laws, voluntary norms of responsible behaviour and confidence-building measures.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Once again, we see no member of the Cabinet here. I take it they are all somewhere else, taking precautions I hope, perhaps at Chequers.
Will the Minister please wake up? A young John Kennedy came to the London School of Economics after the war and wrote a book, “Why England Slept”, and of course it was about appeasement. Are we talking today about appeasement? This is a ruthless Chinese Government, and they are systematic in the way they target intellectual property in universities and companies. There is no respect for democratic institutions from China. We have allowed the Chinese to buy significant strategic assets in our country, and the UK Government have no courage in facing them down.
Please do not let England sleep this time. Wake up, Minister. Please deliver that to your boss in Chequers.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman may not have been at his screen during departmental questions, but the Foreign Secretary was in the House earlier and spoke about the UK’s posture with regard to China.
The simple fact is, as I said earlier, that we are acutely aware of the challenges and threats, but we are also aware of the significant position that China takes in the world. We have to be realistic in our response, and we have to work internationally. That is why I am pleased that the 39 countries represented in yesterday’s statement spoke with one voice, and we will continue to work with our international partners to try to drive an improvement in the behaviour of China and to make it clear to China that the countries with which it seeks to work expect a change in behaviour. We will take actions to support that.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), is right: homeopathic remedies do not work when we are dealing with a psychopathic regime. We have had industrial-scale human rights abuses, industrial-scale buying of influence in our boardrooms, universities and schools, and now industrial-scale cyber-hacking of our computer systems.
The Minister has quite rightly said there is widespread and credible evidence that this is a state-backed actor and state-backed sabotage, so where is the beef? Where are the practical consequences for the Chinese communist Government? What officials will be prosecuted or sanctioned? If he will not tell us if, will he tell us when we will get a decision on the Olympics, on which this House voted unanimously last Thursday?
James Cleverly
I am disappointed that my hon. Friend echoes the rather flat joke made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith). [Interruption.] I am glad the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is laughing, but I regard this as quite an important issue.
The sanctions we imposed on the human rights abusers in Xinjiang are not homeopathic. The fact that we have granted visas to British national Hong Kong Chinese is not homeopathic. We are taking action, not all of which I can discuss at this Dispatch Box. As I say, we will continue to work with our international partners to make sure that, collectively and collaboratively, we send a very clear message that there are patterns of behaviour that are unacceptable, and we strongly urge China to change its position and to come into line with international norms, values and standards.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
In Thursday’s urgent question on Newport Wafer Fab, the Government emphasised their desire for a
“positive relationship with China, based on mutual respect and trust.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 537.]
I hope the Minister recognises how naive that sounds, and that it reflects the chilling effect of China’s power and influence on criticism. Fortunately, politicians in all parts of this House, academics and businesses do continue to speak out. What assessment has he made of the likelihood of those who oppose the Chinese state being the target of cyber-attacks, and what is he doing to better protect them and us all?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady raises a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has already raised, and I have already touched on it. As I have said, we will continue to work with our international partners to persuade China to come into accordance with the international standards and norms that we see other countries around the world subscribing to. We want China to be a better-behaved international player. We cannot pretend China away; we cannot prevent China trading and investing around the world, and neither should we, but we should ensure that its behaviour comes into line with the international values, norms and standards that the rest of us subscribe to.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
The exchange attacks mark a further dramatic escalation in China’s state-backed espionage, which is stripping our intellectual property and undermining our democracies. My right hon. Friend the Minister is surely right that we must all work together with our international partners to defeat this escalating and aggressive pattern of behaviour, but will he say a little more about the key themes within that international co-operation to try to stop this increasingly aggressive behaviour?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an important point: working with our international partners is an incredibly important part of this. The joint statement that we made attributing responsibility to Chinese state-backed actors is important because it is the precursor that legitimates further actions that we might take. It seeks to make it clear to the Chinese Government that we can see what is happening—we are not blind to what is happening—and there is no veil of anonymity behind which they can hide. That then gives us, as part of the international community, the opportunity to go further if required. As I said in my statement, we have made it clear, and are making it clear, to China that such future actions will not go unresponded to.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I don’t know, but every time a Minister comes to talk about China to the House it feels as though they refuse to listen to what the House is saying. We are looking for a sense of urgency and determination, of backbone, of steel. Half the time it sounds as though the Minister is bored by what he is saying. We have courageous Members of Parliament from different political parties who are sanctioned by the Chinese Government and are being targeted by them, and all we can say is, “We are thinking of having a review of a policy decision. We might think about whether we are going to go to the Olympics or not.” We need some urgency and determination. We need to stand by those colleagues who have been sanctioned, because this is not just about China—it is about all the totalitarian regimes in the world. If we do not get this right, the rule of law and of democracy will pass us by.
James Cleverly
I understand and respect the passion that the hon. Gentleman and others speak with, and no one takes the targeting of parliamentarians lightly. We do not take the cyber-attacks on organisations around the world lightly. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is no longer in his place, but as I said to him a few moments ago, we have imposed sanctions and we have offered the hand of friendship to British national Hong Kong Chinese in response to the security laws that have been passed in Hong Kong. We are taking action and we will continue to do so. We seek to do so internationally, because that is how we are strongest. We endeavour to speak with one voice on these issues and make it clear to China that so do all the countries with which it may want to work in future. That is what we seek to do, and we have been successful in doing so: an unprecedented number of countries spoke with one voice yesterday. We will continue to work with partners to push China towards a better course of action.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Last year, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council was the victim of a ransomware cyber-attack that originated from Russia. Like others, I am increasingly concerned by the rise of such foreign attacks online, some of which are state-backed like the ones that we are discussing today. Will the Minister assure me that he is working across Government to build our resilience to this worrying trend?
James Cleverly
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working across Government on the issue. We recognise that it is an incredibly important area of activity: as we are now all reliant on information technology and cyber-space, these cyber-attacks go to the very heart not just of our ability to conduct commercial activity, but of public service and government. We are building up our domestic defences and have already delivered a sustained programme of investment through GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre to establish the UK as a global leader in cyber, but we are not just reinforcing resilience in the Government; we are helping everyone, including businesses and families, to take basic, necessary steps to stay safe online.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Given that in the past the NHS in England has been paralysed by cyber-attacks due to outdated systems and Microsoft Windows vulnerabilities, what steps are the UK Government taking to ensure faster roll-out of computer system upgrades with an aim to preventing vulnerability to such cyber-attacks in future?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the immediate response to the attack was to release a patch. By the end of March, 92% of organisations had installed it and closed the vulnerability. Advice has been provided by the National Cyber Security Centre and by Microsoft to deal with any residual impacts. Government computer roll-out programmes will always have cyber-security at the very heart of their thinking, planning and deployment.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Chinese state harbours and collaborates with cyber-criminals, as well as being guilty of genocide. A sound telling off, no matter how stern it might sound, will have no impact on this brutal and ruthless regime. Does the Minister understand the House’s impatience with what seems today like more hand-wringing and platitudes?
James Cleverly
Yesterday, 39 countries spoke with one voice, attributing responsibility to Chinese state-backed cyber-criminals. That is a necessary precursor to other actions that, collectively or individually, we may choose to take.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
China has total disregard and disrespect for anybody or any country that stands opposed to its warped and perverted ideology. The reported cyber-attacks by the Chinese state have undermined the security and integrity of thousands of networks worldwide. What discussions has the Minister had with NATO in relation to the cyber-attacks on Microsoft servers earlier this year? What further steps will he take to expose these Chinese state-sponsored attacks, to ensure that this is not a recurring pattern of events—which it quite clearly seems to be at the moment?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am very pleased that NATO was one of the signatory organisations to yesterday’s statement as an important multilateral partner, along with the European Union. As I have said in response to a number of questions, that joint statement is an important and necessary foundation stone on which other actions are built, making it clear to the Chinese Government that we can see what is happening—we are not blind to it. The fact that we are able, with a very high degree of certainty, to allocate specific responsibility for actions is a really important step, which must not be underestimated, towards what else the UK, more likely working in conjunction with international partners, might choose to do in response to further such attacks.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
China has a widening sphere of influence. Was this discussed at the G7 summit? I am pleased to hear that 39 countries have signed up. Is the UK leading that group or simply part of that group in mitigating threats? Most importantly, what can the Minister say to those in Bosworth and up and down the UK about protections for the UK’s businesses, interests and citizens when it comes to dealing with China?
James Cleverly
I can assure my hon. Friend that the UK is very much taking a leadership role with regard to the development of cyber-security and cyber-response. We are always most effective on issues such as these when we work in close conjunction with our international partners, and I can therefore assure him that at multilateral gatherings this will always be one of the issues that is important to us. On the practical steps that people can take, I would urge people to heed the advice from the National Cyber Security Centre and take a range of relatively simple and practical steps that will help to protect them and their organisations from cyber-attacks.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Chinese cyber-attack is of real concern, but it is most certainly not the only game in town. The Guardian reported on something equally concerning this weekend, which is Project Pegasus from the NSO Group. It has been used in the surveillance of humanitarians, including the late Father Stan Swamy in India. With our own concerns in this House around the surveillance of the former Secretary of State for Health, which led ultimately to his resignation, I would like to know what our involvement is with Project Pegasus, if we actually have any involvement. What are we doing to monitor that undetectable phone app, which provides full access to phones that become infected in a way that is untraceable?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to speculate or comment on individual cases. Ultimately, the licensing of this software is the responsibility of the Israeli Government. I can assure him that we speak regularly with our partners globally about the importance of maintaining cyber-security and about how important it is for us all that cyber-technologies are used responsibly. We work closely with our allies around the world to tackle cyber-threats and to improve the overall global resilience to such attacks.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
It is not just that China steals so relentlessly, but also the reason that lies behind the theft, which is that its communist regime does not support innovation in a way that countries such as the US and the UK do. Does my right hon. Friend agree that countries or companies thinking about getting closer to China should look at this latest example in a very long list of breaking international norms and steer clear instead?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an important point about going into relationships with China with eyes wide open. That is why this message of attribution yesterday was so very important. It sets out that the international community can see clearly what is happening and will highlight it publicly so that, wherever in the world they are, people can see what is really going on. Ultimately it is not the job of the UK Government to dictate to other countries how they interact with China, but we are and will always be a powerful advocate for human rights, for the protection of intellectual property and for those norms of behaviour that the international community, including ourselves, very much holds dear. Ultimately, we want China to amend its behaviour. That is ultimately what we will seek to achieve, and we will work with our international partners to pursue that.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question. He highlighted the recent indirect acquisition by a Chinese firm of Newport Wafer Fab in my constituency. This appears to have slipped through the UK Government’s screening system. My focus and commitment to the people of Newport West is on protecting jobs for people in my community. Does the Minister think that this situation shows that the Government’s security policies simply are not working?
James Cleverly
We do value jobs; jobs matter. Jobs in emerging technologies and high-skilled manufacturing jobs are incredibly important to us, which is why we value overseas investment, but why we also take our responsibility to secure intellectual property incredibly seriously. The Government are looking at the situation with regard to Newport Wafer Fab. We will always ensure that we look at the security implications of our commercial relationships, whether with China or anyone else.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
Listening to the Minister, it appears that the Government policy is that China has done something unacceptable, the Government have found them out, and if the Chinese do it again the Government will take action against China, although they are not specifying at this time what that action will be. If that is the case, I do not understand why there was not a statement to the House by the Foreign Secretary after departmental questions, when he could have laid this out, rather than an urgent question, with the Minister being, if you like, dragged to the Dispatch Box. Will the Minister explain why the Government did not volunteer a statement on this very important matter?
James Cleverly
I was not privy to the discussion about the statement, urgent question or otherwise. Yesterday’s statement was made by and in conjunction with international partners. I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not need to be dragged to the Dispatch Box to be questioned by colleagues and Opposition Members on this incredibly important issue.
Mr Speaker
Just to say—when statements are not forthcoming, I will continue to give UQs.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In March, the former head of the National Cyber Security Centre said that the Government have been confused in their approach to China. After the failed policies of the so-called golden era, the subsequent persecution of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, the persecution of Buddhists and other minorities, the suppression of democracy and free speech in Hong Kong, the military aggression against its neighbours and now this state-sponsored cyber-attack on Microsoft Exchange servers, when will the Government finally lay out a consistent approach to dealing with China?
James Cleverly
I have made the points that the UK Government recognise the significance of China on the world stage, that we want China to be a responsible actor, that we recognise that China will engage in trade and investment with countries around the world and that we seek to influence China to be a better player on the world stage. This is best done in conjunction with international partners, which is why the attribution statement yesterday was so important, with an unprecedented number of countries—39—working together to attribute responsibility. As I said, that is the foundation stone upon which other actions may well be taken in the future.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
The success or failure of the COP26 rests heavily on whether the UK, as chairman, can persuade China—the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide—to set tough targets to cut its output. Is this affecting the Government’s response to this issue? What is the UK’s strategy to influence China across the piece, as there are many areas where it needs to do so?
James Cleverly
I can assure my right hon. Friend that the actions of the UK Government in response to this cyber-attack are driven by this cyber-attack and our complete unwillingness to accept it as a pattern of behaviour. He does make an incredibly important point though, and it reflects the point that I have made that we cannot simply ignore China. A previous question this morning highlighted the fact that China is still heavily reliant on coal as an energy production source, and we know the climate change implications of that. We want China to behave better on the international stage both on things such as cyber-security, intellectual property and human rights, but also on the incredibly important agenda that will affect our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren, which is the protection of the environment and a move towards greener energy generation.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Minister is right in one sense, because attribution is important, but actions also matter, so while we congratulate him on the statement of 39 signatories—that is a positive step—when he looks at sanctions, should he not look at the very least for an audit of the role of Confucius institutes in institutions up and down the United Kingdom? Moreover, the current patchwork of international norms benefits authoritarian states over democratic ones. Is it not time for us to heed the advice of the Microsoft president, Brad Smith, in calling for a digital Geneva convention?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution. Internationally, we will have to look at how we deal with this new sphere of human activity. It is moving quickly and there is not an established framework to which the international community subscribes in the way there is for armed conflict, for example. That is an incredibly important point.
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising the significance of having a range of international partners and multinational institutions on the statement that we made yesterday. As I have said a number of times, it is an important but necessary precursor to other actions that we might take. It highlights to China that we can see what action it is taking and also that its actions contradict commitments that it has made. We are not trying to hold China to our standards; we are trying to hold it to standards that it has put forward itself. That is an important part of trying to establish a global acceptable framework on behaviour in cyber-space.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) [V]
China’s military and Government have been targeting key industries in the west, including the defence industry, Government and intellectual property. This has been known for so long now, yet what have the Government done so far? They have protested, and handed dossiers of evidence on what the Chinese authorities are up to, but it seems that China is almost now no longer scared of being caught because the sanctions are so weak. If we can impose sanctions on Russia for cyber-attacks, why can we not impose hard and hurting sanctions on China?
James Cleverly
I completely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. He will understand that we never speculate on the future use of sanctions because to do so could be counterproductive to the effect that we are trying to have on China. As I say, this is an important foundation stone statement. It sets a very clear line in the sand from the UK, the US, Japan, NATO, the EU and others that we recognise what is happening here, that China can no longer plead ignorance, that we demand that it takes action against organisations and individuals conducting these cyber actions and that it severs any links that it might have with such organisations.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Colleagues across the House have spoken about appeasement. The truth is that the Ministry of State Security will curb its maligned perversion of the digital Silk Road only if the west shows its willingness to respond in kind. Among the 39 signatories that the Minister has cited today, what appetite does he discern for a willingness to develop doctrine around the use of cyber interdiction for use in a measured and proportionate way against those who threaten and attack us?
James Cleverly
I thank my right hon. Friend and predecessor for the point that he has made. I hope he will understand that I will not speculate at the Dispatch Box about the nature and scope of our cyber capabilities, save to say that we are a global leader, particularly in cyber-defence, although of course that is not the only thing that he mentioned. With regard to our international partners, this is something that we do discuss. In the recent G7 Foreign and Development Ministers’ communiqué, the G7 expressed serious concern about human rights violations in Xinjiang and reiterated the call for independent experts to be given unfettered access to Xinjiang. The international community is aware of, thinking about, talking about and taking action on some of the activities of the Chinese state that we find unacceptable.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
This hack shows that the need for a comprehensive approach to cyber-security is probably greater than ever before. In the light of this latest attack, will the Minister now give a date for the publication of the Government’s new cyber-security strategy?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that a comprehensive approach to cyber-security is incredibly important. As I say, the UK is proud of the fact that we are a global leader in cyber-security. The publication of the document she mentions, and others, will come in due course. I am not able to give her a precise date at the Dispatch Box at the moment.
Mr Speaker
Let me just say to all Members who have participated that my call list says that some were to be virtual and some physical, but nobody seems to be what I am being told on this list. A lot of effort goes into creating it—a lot of staff time—and staff need to know where Members are. If you intend to be physical, please let us know very early, and if you are going to go virtual, please also let us know. Do not let me have to start spotting who is here around the Chamber and who is not.
Point of Order
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given you notice and also notified the Leader of the House. You will be aware that yesterday a statement about vaccine passports was made at the Dispatch Box by the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment. There is a relevant part that potentially pertains to the House of Commons. He said:
“By the end of September, everyone aged 18 and over will have had the chance to receive full vaccination and the additional two weeks for that protection to take hold. At that point, we plan to make full vaccination a condition of entry to nightclubs and other venues where large crowds gather. Proof of a negative test will no longer be sufficient.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 688.]
It seems to me that when we get back to normal, that definition, particularly on a Wednesday, could equally apply to the House of Commons. It would be outrageous if the Executive were to attempt to prevent any Member of Parliament from attending this House to represent our constituents without first undergoing a medical procedure.
I raise this matter with you, Mr Speaker, because I hope you will be able to make a ruling on it. In closing, I just note that your 17th-century predecessor, Speaker Lenthall, stood up very effectively against an over-mighty Executive and it did not end well for the over-mighty Executive.
Mr Speaker
It did lead to the end of the monarchy as well, I might add, for a short period, so let us hope we are not quite going back that far.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. I have had no indication that the Government consider that the policy he mentions should apply to this House. What I would say, as Speaker of this House, is that there is nothing to stop a Member coming in here. You have the right to come to this House unless this House otherwise says so. The Government have not been in touch and I do not expect them to be in touch, because as far as I am concerned this does not apply to Members.
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Sir David gets the prize for the best colour co-ordinated background and tie.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock)
Tuesday 20th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Bill 2021-22 View all Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953; and for connected purposes.
Earlier this year, one of the farmers in my constituency suffered a horrific attack on his sheep. Tecwyn Jones found seven pregnant ewes and three rams dead in his field in Bodedern. They had been killed by an unknown dog or dogs in what police described as a “brutal and horrendous attack.”
When I visited Tecwyn’s farm, he told me about the impact the attack had had on his business and his wellbeing. His account of the event was harrowing. Tecwyn shared the awful moment when he found his sheep: coming across one dead sheep, then another dead sheep. They were sheep he had lovingly reared, their faces torn and bodies twisted. His sheep had been brutally killed and had clearly suffered horrendously.
The dogs that carried out the attack have never been identified. Even if a dog were suspected, the law has no teeth to identify and seize it unless it is found unsupervised at the scene of the assault. For Tecwyn, it was not just the financial loss that hit him, although that went into thousands of pounds, but the emotional loss of these prized animals, which he had put his time and devotion into rearing.
Tecwyn is not alone. This is a huge issue for farmers across the UK. Livestock worrying takes place when dogs that are not kept under proper control attack or chase livestock, particularly sheep. Although attacks are not officially recorded, and it is widely accepted that many incidents go unreported, it is estimated that around 15,000 sheep are killed by dogs each year.
With the increase in visitors to the countryside during lockdowns, incidents of livestock worrying have grown over the past 18 months, and the financial impact has increased. Data from the National Farmers Union indicates that the average insurance claim for attacks is over £1,300, and some claims rise to tens of thousands of pounds. In 2020, the cost of livestock worrying to the farming community was estimated to be around £1.3 million.
I first became involved with this matter when local farmers such as Brian Bown and Peter Williams raised it as a significant concern. I met Rob Taylor, Dave Allen and their colleagues from the North Wales police rural crime team, who have been working with farmers, such as the NFU county adviser Iestyn Pritchard, to gather data and work through proposed solutions. It soon became apparent to me that the legislation currently covering livestock worrying, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. It is hardly surprising given that it has barely been touched in 68 years. It has not kept pace with dog ownership, leisure trends, DNA technology or modern farming practice.
Earlier this year, as part of the Government’s animal welfare action plan and as set out in the Queen’s Speech, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs introduced the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Part 2 of the Bill addresses dogs attacking or worrying livestock. Although I welcome its content, I share the concerns of farmers across the UK that it still does not go far enough. Yes, it gives the police greater powers to tackle livestock worrying incidents and it expands the scope of species that are afforded protection to include llamas, ostriches and game birds, but it still fails to give farmers the security they so desperately need.
That is why I have pursued this ten-minute rule Bill to make amendments to the 1953 Act. Specifically, my Bill proposes that the police be given the power to seize a dog or other items and to take DNA samples where they have reasonable grounds for suspicion that a dog has worried livestock. It further seeks a clearer and tighter definition of “close control”, which is used in both the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and the 1953 Act. The definition of “close control” in the kept animals Bill requires that a dog
“is within sight of a person and the person remains aware of the dog’s actions, and has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.”
Experience shows us that the natural instincts of even the best-behaved domestic dog can take over when other animals are in close proximity. It has to be a legal requirement that dogs be kept on a lead when they are near livestock of any kind.
Finally, the upper limit of the fine, currently set at a maximum of £1,000, must be removed. Where farmers are facing costs of up to £20,000, irresponsible dog owners must be made to realise the full financial impact of their actions.
I reassure my hon. Friends that these proposals are not intended to persecute dogs or dog owners. I am a dog owner myself, as are most famers, and none of us wants to see dogs destroyed or owners made to suffer. We know that in many cases the dogs that carry out livestock worrying will be otherwise lovable and good natured family pets that abscond from their premises in the absence of their owner or are left off the lead on countryside walks.
By raising the penalties for livestock worrying and making the regulations clearer, we want the Bill to highlight the problem and be used as a way to educate dog owners. A recent survey found that only 40% of dog owners accept that their dog could injure or kill a farm animal, and the same survey found that 64% of dog owners allow their pets to roam free in the countryside, despite half of them admitting that their dog does not always come back when called. By their very nature, pet owners and farmers almost universally care deeply about animals, and much of the solution to this problem is about raising awareness of the countryside code through legislation. It is vital that dog owners who live near or visit land on which livestock is being raised understand that, even without physical contact, sheep can die or miscarry as a result of the distress and exhaustion caused by a dog chase.
This May, 19,000 people supported the NFU’s campaign for changes to legislation to prevent dog attacks on farm animals. In presenting the Bill, I represent them. I represent those such as the North Wales police rural crime team who have worked hard to raise awareness of this important issue. I represent Tecwyn Jones and the hundreds of other farmers who have suffered financial and emotional loss through dog attacks. I represent decent, law-abiding dog owners everywhere. I represent the animals that should not have to bear this unbearable suffering.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Virginia Crosbie, Sarah Atherton, Craig Williams, Simon Baynes, Alun Cairns, Mr David Jones, Dr James Davies, Andrew Rosindell, Neil Parish, Bill Wiggin,
Damian Hinds and Robin Millar present the Bill.
Virginia Crosbie accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 151).
Nationality and Borders Bill
Tuesday 20th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 359 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 366 / Noes: 265 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
I am delighted to warmly welcome many of the measures outlined in this Bill, specifically those to make some well-reasoned amendments to nationality law and consequently our policy towards those wishing to become British citizens.
As the House will no doubt be aware, citizenship is often the smaller, quieter sibling of immigration policy. Successive Governments have often, and quite understandably, prioritised their focus and thoughts on immigration—how to control it, who to let in, why and when. The Government have done very well in reforming our country’s immigration policy in the midst of our exit from the European Union. We have reshaped our immigration system toward our country’s needs, which is the correct approach for a country navigating different waters in a brave new world as we move towards a global Britain on the world stage.
Previous Governments, however, have seldom thought about the part after immigration, and it is to this Government’s credit that they are now doing just that. Last year I had the pleasure of chairing an independent inquiry into UK citizenship policy with the highly regarded think-tank British Future; it included a number of colleagues from this House and experts from relevant stakeholders such as the Law Society of Scotland. The inquiry’s report, which is entitled “Barriers to Britishness”, sought to explore the means and capacity for possible reform in this often-forgotten area of policy to see how the UK Government could take a more welcoming and positive approach to those who have come here, built their lives here and made a significant contribution here.
It is often said that the journey to become a British citizen is too expensive or too complicated. However, I am pleased that the Government have taken on board a number of my inquiry’s recommendations. As a result, the Bill goes some way towards simplifying the process of becoming a British citizen. For those applying for citizenship, the introduction of the requirement for applications to show a sustained connection to the UK was one of my inquiry’s key recommendations. That is reflected in clause 8. It comes at the expense of the previous requirement for applicants to prove that they were physically present in the UK five years before their application. That helps to remove a barrier towards Britishness while reducing the need for applicants to rely on costly legal advice for their application. The clause may also benefit non-British members of the armed forces, who might serve abroad for protracted periods.
Clauses 1 to 4 remove some of the remaining anomalies associated with British overseas territories citizenship, allowing mothers and unmarried fathers to pass on BOTC status, which could previously be passed on only by a married father. That introduces a most welcome route to full citizenship for those who hold BOTC passports in 14 qualifying territories, including the Falkland Islands, whose residents, as we all know, have as much a sense of being British as those living here in the UK.
Another welcome change is outlined in clause 7, which creates a new process for the discretionary registration of adults as British citizens in circumstances when they would otherwise have become British had it not been for historical unfairness in the law, an act or omission of a public authority, or other exceptional circumstance. As the House will be aware, the Home Secretary already possesses the power to grant citizenship on a discretionary basis to children. However, by extending that right to adults, the Bill will benefit those such as the Windrush victims who have been stranded abroad or young adults who have grown up in care and whom the local authorities neglected to register as British as a child, or registered them under the EU settlement scheme.
The Bill, in making those amendments to nationality law, goes a long way towards simplifying the citizenship process for those who wish to be British. There are, however, further areas of citizenship policy to which I and the inquiry have recommended changes, not least the cost of a citizenship application. The cost of becoming a British citizen is £1,330. Let us compare that to the cost in Australia, which is £155; in Canada, which is £373; in New Zealand, which is £243; and in the United States, which is £590. I would be most grateful if the Minister explained why the cost of an application is extremely high, compared to the cost in those countries. I urge the Government to consider a much more reasonable application fee and reduce that further barrier to becoming a British citizen.
Overall, I welcome the Government’s proposals to make the offer of citizenship more open and accessible. I hope we can go further in ensuring that those who have chosen the UK in which to work and build their lives, and who have made enormous contributions, have that matched by the offer of citizenship. I will support the Government’s Bill this evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We begin with a time limit for Back-Bench speeches of six minutes.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
First, I thank the hundreds of constituents who have written to me asking me to oppose the Bill, which I will this evening. I am proud to be here as a Member of Parliament for Glasgow. I praise Glasgow’s role as a dispersal city, and the great work of organisations such as the Govan Community Project and the Govan Home and Education Link Project, which help asylum seekers on a daily basis.
Glasgow is well aware of the reality of asylum seekers’ experiences, which we cannot really contemplate. Victims of torture, sexual violence and persecution—that is the reality of asylum seekers’ experience. As restrictions ease, the Government had an opportunity to introduce some substantial legislation to address the inequalities that the covid pandemic has exposed, such as an unemployment Bill to deal with precarious work or, indeed, to reform the broken social security system. I am afraid that this Bill exposes the Conservative party in all its guises, because it is the politics of the dog whistle—the politics where every person seeking sanctuary is viewed with suspicion.
I read Hansard today and the phrase “economic migrants” was used liberally by Conservative Back Benchers yesterday. Perhaps they could benefit from Show Racism the Red Card coming in here, as they do in classrooms in Glasgow, and explaining the difference between an asylum seeker, a refugee and an economic migrant, because I suspect that some Conservative Back Benchers would fail that simple test. It is the politics where the legal profession is collectively dismissed as Marxist, despite some incredible court rulings. For example, Serco obtained an extraordinary High Court ruling that private sector companies, which the Government use across public services, do not have to comply with basic human rights legislation when providing accommodation to asylum seekers.
It is surprising to hear Government Members say that the legal routes issue is different from those in the Bill. It is not. If the Government close legal routes to seek sanctuary in this country, it cannot be a surprise that people would be so desperate that they choose to try other routes into the UK. There has been a lack of real engagement in the consultation process for the Bill. The Bill was, of course, published before any formal response to the consultation—a consultation in which many organisations that deal and work with asylum seekers on a daily basis raised real concerns that have not been addressed.
Depriving asylum seekers of the chance to obtain competent legal representation and to challenge poor decisions increases the risk of returning people to extremely serious danger. That approach also ignores the numerous reasons why refugees may be unable to provide all the evidence and information regarding their case at an early stage in the procedure. Such reasons include a lack of knowledge of the system. Asylum seekers do not have expertise in the UK’s immigration system when they get here fleeing oppression. They do not know what evidence they have, so it should not be a surprise that people who are survivors of trauma do not immediately disclose information, especially women and survivors of sexual violence.
There are a number of concerns. I mentioned accommodation. It is astonishing that Home Office providers of asylum accommodation do not need to use registered social landlords to provide that accommodation. Even worse, the Government now want to legislate to increase the use of military barracks. That is utterly unacceptable and will do serious harm, I fear, to the mental health of many of those seeking sanctuary in the United Kingdom. By vowing to continue that practice, the Government are ignoring the views of public health experts. It really is astonishing.
The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration described the Home Office’s use of that sort of accommodation as a “serious error of judgment”, while the immigration court ruled earlier that the Home Secretary failed to ensure that deaths in immigration detention centres were properly investigated. A Home Affairs Committee report published in December 2018 described the conditions in which vulnerable people are being housed as “degrading” and called on the Home Office to show “greater urgency”.
My last concern is that we want to follow the Australian model. Centres in Australia saw cases of sexual abuse and the rape of refugees leading to some falling pregnant, and there were instances of staff using unreasonable force, while the remoteness of offshore facilities also caused deaths due to the lack of healthcare facilities.
Glasgow has risen up to the Home Office time and again, as we did in Kenmure Street, and I was very proud to be there exercising my right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The people of Glasgow in opposing the Bill say this: “Say it loud, say it clear: refugees are welcome here”.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
The Nationality and Borders Bill is important and necessary legislation to address the growing problem of illegal entry into the UK by migrants crossing the Dover straits. Last year, in 2020, more than 8,500 people made such a journey in small vessels: 87% of them were men and 74% were aged 18 to 39. This year, over 8,000 have already completed the trip, including a record number of 430 in a single day—and that was yesterday. For residents on the Kent coast, including in my constituency, it has become a fact of life that, when the weather is good and the sea is calm, hundreds of undocumented asylum seekers will attempt to cross the channel in small boats.
We need to be clear that illegal crossings of the channel are dangerous and cost lives. In recent years, migrants have died while being smuggled in lorries. There have been deaths from people trying to walk through the channel tunnel, and there have been drownings at sea from people trying to make it across the channel in small boats. We cannot allow this to continue. No country would allow this to continue, or should.
The Government have made substantial investments, along with the French authorities, to improve security at the port of Calais and the channel tunnel, making it much harder for people to gain illegal entry there. Improved patrolling along the French coast has led to the successful detection of many people as they attempt to make their crossing, but before their vessel enters the water. Some people have called for vessels to be intercepted at sea, and suggested—I think wrongly—that vessels are just being escorted across the channel by the French authorities or by our own. I do not think that is the case. Vessels need to be intercepted before they get into the water, as interception at sea is dangerous if the migrants on the vessels are not co-operating with the authorities.
We cannot, of course, patrol in French waters, and we are reliant on the French authorities to do that. Of course, it would be much better if they could do that just as those vessels leave French waters, when returning to France would be easier, but we have no means to patrol in its waters. I would say, though, that excellent work has been done at sea when it has been needed by Border Force and most importantly—I would like to thank this group of people—by the volunteer lifeboat men working for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution at the lifeboat stations from Dungeness in my constituency round to Dover, who are now regularly called out to assist people in distress at sea.
Pascale Moreau, the European director of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said a couple of years ago of this problem:
“Our collective response should be comprehensive and complementary—from saving lives to combating smuggling rings, expanding legal options, and ensuring that all those who are in need of protection can effectively access it”.
That is why the approach set out in this Bill is so important.
We need to make it clear that illegal entry to the UK is not a shortcut to residency in this country. We need to make it clear to the people traffickers who prey on vulnerable people for profit that they will face tough sentences for bringing people illegally into this country. We need to make people think again before attempting these life-threatening crossings. That is why it is right that the Bill addresses that. It will make it illegal for people to arrive in UK waters without permission, which it already is; increase the maximum sentences for people who are arriving in the country illegally from six months to four years; make it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK without permission; and introduce tough new sentences for people traffickers, so they know they will face lengthy prison sentences—up to life prison sentences—if they are involved in operating people trafficking rings. These are the reforms we need.
Alongside these reforms must also go the work for safe routes to make sure that migrants and asylum seekers are aware of safe legal routes to enter this country. The safe routes scheme this country invested in saw more than 25,000 refugees settled in this country from 2015 to 2020. In addition, more than 29,000 close relatives joined people in this country. Under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, working with UNHCR, we were able to identify the most vulnerable people in the most dangerous places and give them a safe route to enter this country.
We want people to take that route, not to put their lives in the hands of people-trafficking gangs to make a journey across Europe and a life-threatening journey across the channel, but instead to work with the authorities in war zones and danger zones, where we know people are displaced and need help, to give them a safe legal route to this country and to know that at the end of that safe legal route will be a successful asylum claim and with it indefinite leave to remain in the UK. That is the route we need to establish. We need to close down the illegal crossing points, which are incredibly dangerous, that are profiting criminal gangs and are rightly concerning to people who live on the Kent coast, too. We need to close this route down and give people safe routes to this country and safe ways to claim asylum.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
In 1933, Einstein lived in Norfolk, guarded by local residents and a Conservative MP to prevent attempts to assassinate him by the Nazis. At the time, he said:
“I shall become a naturalised Englishman as soon as is possible for my papers to go through.”
He never did get those papers, though.
Throughout this debate, I have heard Members laud our history of accepting refugees as if it somehow explains and justifies the Bill before us; as if our capacity as a nation to retrospectively see that we did the right thing means that we are doing so now. Yet even when it came to geniuses like Einstein, the term “asylum seeker” has always meant second-class citizen. There are no photographs of the parents of the Kindertransport children, the ones denied entry by Whitehall, only to be murdered by the Nazis. When it came to east African Asians, we introduced the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1968 to make it harder for them to seek sanctuary. Now we have orphaned children sleeping rough on our border with France and in Greece in overcrowded covid-ridden camps, and we say that they must be safe so they are not our problem.
Let us stop re-writing the UK’s history to provide cover for legislation like this, which makes plain the Government’s disdain for those who find themselves with little alternative but to run for their lives. They want to penalise people for how they run, creating a third class of citizens who are at perpetual risk of being deported: because they did not queue properly and fill in the appropriate form, they did not travel directly to an island nation or present themselves immediately for a claim, they must be suspect, regardless of their story or why they fled, breaching the refugee convention. I hear this a lot: “Well, they came through France, Germany, Belgium. Why should we help them?” The convention is clear that there is no requirement to claim asylum in the first safe country. It was intended to get nations to work together to help make managing those at risk possible.
It is true that it was easier to quietly ignore those in danger when there were not that many of them, before the mass refugee camps in Sudan or the Syrian civil war, but just because the challenge is harder does not mean that our response should be, too; that we should be a nation that does not keep its promises to the 3,000 children we said we would take under the Dubs scheme; we have only taken 480. Turkey is taking 4 million refugees and we are quibbling about 26,000 applications. The vast majority of refugees end up staying in the areas they have run from, displaced and living in developing countries when wealthy ones like ours want to look the other way.
Persecution does not happen in an orderly fashion. Wars are not run to a timetable to be able to make people make applications. You run, you grab your children, you flee with what you can, you try to save their lives—yes, many of them boys and young men—from certain death. What parent cannot understand that ambition? We all want to stop the traffickers, but the gangs will use these changes as a selling point to those desperate people. If we want to stop the gangs then take away the market, but there is no safe and legal route being proposed here, no new commitments made. The vulnerable persons resettlement scheme has stopped. If we think that the only place that people are running from is Syria, we do not understand what is going on in Ethiopia, Iran, Afghanistan, to the Uyghurs, to LGBTQ people in Myanmar, or to Christians and religious minorities around the world.
Ministers claim the legislation will protect women from trafficking when it will do the reverse, because it is not based on any evidence. Their own statistics show that the majority in detention referred to the national referral mechanism are then recognised as potential victims of trafficking and that 81% of reasonable grounds rejections that are challenged are granted a positive ruling, yet many of those women would fall into that group, too. Women repeatedly abused on their journeys here, who cannot find the words to speak about the hell they have been through, will be criminalised because they did not have all their paperwork neatly folded about their person for presentation during this time. Locking them up in detention centres reinforces, not removes, the abuse they face. Yarl’s Wood is a stain on our national identity, a place where victims of sexual abuse and rape in war are jailed. Not only does it cost more than community schemes to run, but it retraumatises those women over and over again.
Home Office costs are spiralling, 40% of appeals are successful and more and more people are forced to live in misery and destitution as a result of the scheme we have. The Government’s solution is to try to house them offshore in a move that makes Yarl’s Wood look compassionate. Those who have lauded the Australians and their offshoring facility at Nauru would do well to read the horrifying accounts of the sexual abuse of women and children over the years, in addition to the hundreds of incidents of threatened and actual self-harm, and ask whether this is really the path we want to go down.
Einstein said:
“A bundle of belongings isn’t the only thing a refugee brings to his new country.”
Out there, the British public know that. They know that we need a system that can process people fairly and quickly. They know that but for the grace of God there they go. If the worst were to happen to them and they had to flee their homes, they would want a new home that saw them not as a burden, but as a benefit. Our past does not mean we cannot build a future in which we make that ambition a reality. This Bill will not stop the boats; it will encourage them. So let us not give the criminal gangs their latest recruiting tactic. I urge colleagues to vote this Bill down and stand up to those who want to demonise refugees. Let us come together to come back with something that can make Britain proud of how we treat the persecuted, not an international pariah.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
This Bill is incredibly wide-ranging, and I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) about the nationality changes. However, I will confine my remarks to illegal immigration and allow other Members to get in.
This debate is particularly poignant today, when we hit a new record high for small boat crossings, with 430 people crossing in a single day. While Redcar and Cleveland is more than 300 miles from Dover, I am contacted about illegal immigration almost daily. The Labour party likes to pretend it is not happening, as we have heard from some of the contributions so far today and yesterday, but it is happening, and the refusal of some to acknowledge it is part of the reason why Labour no longer represents seats such as mine. I am here to share the views of those I represent, and I believe that we owe it to the public to finally address the problem.
There are a few in my constituency who want Britain to completely close its borders to asylum seekers and refugees—I believe they are wrong. Equally, there are some who want us to be borderless and do nothing to prevent illegal immigration into this country, and they are wrong, too. The vast majority of people in Redcar and Cleveland, including me, want us to help those most in need and offer protection to those facing persecution while preventing illegal entry into this country.
That is why this Bill is so important. We can have a firm but fair approach to illegal immigration. “Firm” means stopping people from jumping the queue by crossing the channel. “Fair” means new, safe legal routes to asylum in the UK. “Firm” means a new one-stop process for claims and an end to repeated meritless appeals. “Fair” means improving support for genuine refugees to help them to build their lives here.
We have to be honest with our constituents about what is happening in the small boats on the channel and in lorries through the tunnel. People are being smuggled into this country, and those who evade detection are vulnerable to modern-day slavery and further trafficking within the UK. It is simply not a case of people fleeing war-torn areas or escaping persecution; they are travelling from France. The vast majority of those who arrive are male, and almost exclusively they are over the age of 18. Many lie about their age. As the Home Secretary said yesterday, in 2020, 8,500 people arrived by boat. Some 87% of them were men, and of that 87%, 74% were aged between 18 and 39.
These people are loaded into floats that we could barely call dinghies, which are overfilled, leaving them at risk of capsizing, or they are pushed into the back of lorries, where the driver is often unaware of the live cargo being carried. Many have paid hundreds of pounds for the journey, and in some cases thousands, although it has dropped in recent months, to jump the asylum queue and deny a legitimate asylum seeker a space.
I use the word “legitimate” because these people are crossing the channel. They could have claimed asylum in France, Italy, Spain or Germany, or any other safe country they have travelled through. It makes their reason for attempting to settle in the UK solely economic. Without intervention, they risk death in the back of the lorry, like the tragic case of October 2019, where 39 people were found deceased in the back of a trailer in Essex. Many would drown in the channel, like the estimated 300 people over the last 20 years, which is why our emergency workers and Navy must intervene, putting their own lives at risk, too. Who could argue for this to continue? Who could say that we should not do all we can to make this route unviable? What is the compassionate response? We should be proud of our record on overseas aid contributions and to have resettled more refugees than any other European nation. This is a matter not of us turning our back on the world but of making sure that our immigration system is firm but fair in the way that the British people would demand.
I come back to the point that I have made over and over again in this place: the most compassionate thing we can do to help these people is to make the route unviable and prevent the crossings altogether.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Disturbing, dysfunctional and destructive—three of the most commonly used words by my constituents in their correspondence to me when discussing this anti-refugee Bill. To my mind, the Bill is nothing more than a ploy by this consistently callous Tory Government to take a sledgehammer to a 60-year-old treaty, the only global legal instrument that there is to deal with the protection and rights of refugees. This UK Government are torching their international human rights obligations under the 1951 UN refugee convention. We as representatives in this place are in very real danger of assisting in the committing of crimes against humanity by turning our backs on those in need of safety and on how this Bill will criminalise these people. History will shame us all in every essence. That is why I oppose the Bill in the name of the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill.
This legislation will be nothing short of a punishment to those fleeing war, persecution and human rights atrocities. It will create an asylum system that undermines international law and will cost the already failing Home Office vast amounts of time and money. This legislation, despite the Government’s promises to increase safe and legal routes for people urgently requiring refuge around the world, will contain no such commitments whatsoever. The Tories have actually boasted that this Bill will create a “global Britain”, able to act as a force for good; instead, this is a cruel, callous piece of legislation that fails in both practical and moral terms and reneges on our international responsibilities.
The Bill will cause misery to thousands of people, leaving behind what is already a toxic legacy for this Home Secretary, and will introduce a further embedding of a racist, hostile, xenophobic environment for us all to contend with in our daily lives as it leaks from this place into our society. This anti-refugee Bill will not solve any of its real problems, which have been caused not by the comparatively small number of people who do seek asylum but by decades of Governments in this place and their complete mismanagement. Successive UK Governments of any hue have failed time and again to operate an effective and efficient asylum system, fundamentally failing to deliver timely and high-quality decision making. Nothing in the Bill will make the necessary improvements. Instead, taken together, the Bill’s provisions will slow the process down, increase delays, increase destitution and mental illness, and cost the purse and, more importantly, the people of these countries much, much more while it destroys lives and relationships with our global partners.
Many asylum seekers have lived through dreadful experiences and faced devastating loss. The Home Office’s plans will only add to that trauma. Asylum claims in the UK are falling and are at historically low levels, with a 24% drop in the last year alone, yet the Home Office is pandering to scare stories and myths from the far right with the introduction of this Bill. As a result, this legislation will not only seek to criminalise asylum seekers, but create more bureaucracy and a bigger work load for officials, lengthening an already delayed process and trapping people further in limbo for years to come. There has been no real attempt to engage with experts on this approach. Almost 200 organisations have criticised the consultation associated with this Bill, framing it as a “sham” with a premeditated outcome. I could not agree in any stronger terms.
A message from his eminence Pope Francis that we all received for the forthcoming World Day of Migrants and Refugees stated:
“We are all in the same boat and called to work together so that there will be no more walls that separate us, no longer others, but only a single ‘we’, encompassing all of humanity”—
a vision that could not be further from this Tory Government’s agenda.
The UK once had a long history, they say, of welcoming people escaping conflict, poverty, oppression and natural disaster. That tradition should have been protected under any new legislation, recognising the interconnectedness of our global family, and cognisant of the colonial past of this place’s empires. The Home Secretary’s plans to send asylum seekers thousands of miles away, to be processed in third-world countries, are both insane and inhumane. The idea that asylum seekers can simply be shipped off somewhere else while those claims are assessed, is frankly a fantasy. Asylum seekers are people. They are human beings, not packages to be disposed of.
The UK needs only to look at Australia’s experience to learn that overseas processing centres for asylum seekers cause incredible psychological damage. They are eye-wateringly expensive, and they do nothing to deter asylum seekers. It could not be clearer: the Home Secretary is deliberately misinterpreting international law to pander to her own political base. That cannot be denied. The idea that the system is broken for some unknown structural reason is complete and utter nonsense. After 11 years in power, the responsibility for that lies firmly with this Conservative Government. The Bill will do nothing to fix things. It will only make a rotten system worse.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate. Many contributions during yesterday’s debate, and this afternoon, have been about specific legal and technical aspects of the Bill. In the short time available, I want to restrict my comments to the impact of the current system on areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, and say why I support the principles laid out in the Bill. I will outline why doing nothing is not an option.
Stoke-on-Trent has stepped up to take more than its fair share of asylum seekers under the asylum dispersal system. Because we are a compassionate city, we care about the most vulnerable, and we do so by deeds, not empty words. Many who have taken part in this debate represent areas that do not currently participate in the scheme, and I would respectfully suggest that their calls for fairness, and the unwillingness to condemn or curb illegal and dangerous routes into this country, should be matched by a clear commitment to take their fair share of the ever-increasing numbers of asylum seekers who land on our shores.
According to recent figures, the Home Office had voluntary arrangements with 95 local authorities throughout the UK on accepting the dispersal of asylum seekers. To put that in context, there are 398 principal councils in the UK. As part of the regional dispersal policy established in 2000, an advisory cluster limit was set by the Home Office of one asylum seeker for every 200 of the settled population. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have already reached 79% of capacity on that basis, second only to Coventry within the west midlands. Crucially, there are neighbourhoods where the concentration of asylum seekers raises the risk of increased social tension, as well as challenging the capacity of local health, education and other support services. It has placed a heavy burden on our council services, as well as on our brilliant local voluntary and community organisations, especially during the pandemic.
Stoke-on-Trent is a city with a big heart, and no one wants to see this country refusing to help young, unaccompanied minors, or genuine victims of modern slavery. I welcome the Government’s commitment to that principle. It is right that we put into domestic law international obligations for a recovery period, during which victims of modern slavery receive support, and establish a law, on the basis of which confirmed victims are eligible for temporary leave to remain.
I do, however, receive significant correspondence from local residents, calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration. The call comes from ordinary, decent people who believe in fairness and who want our Government to stand up for those in genuine need, while removing those who have no right to be in the UK. They want us to crack down on the criminal trafficking networks that exploit the desperation of the most vulnerable. They want us to ensure that the UK is not a safe haven for foreign criminals. Over the past six years, the UK has directly resettled 25,000 people—more than any other country in Europe—from places of danger, and refugee family reunion has seen 29,000 people come to the UK over the same period, so we will take no lectures on our credentials as a compassionate Government.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council has worked closely with the Home Office, and we welcome the Department’s commitment to bring 560 jobs to our city. It has demonstrated a commitment to levelling up and a recognition that Stoke-on-Trent is the ideal location for the new immigration caseworking innovation centre.
The Bill is important legislation with the principle of fairness at its heart. I am delighted to support it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate. One benefit of having it over two days has been that those of us who are speaking today have had the opportunity to reflect fully on the contributions made yesterday.
I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement with me on Friday about the principles of the Bill, the thought process behind it and what the Government hope to achieve. From reading yesterday’s Hansard, it is clear that there were hon. Members who made thoughtful and considered contributions to the debate, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) did just now, while others took the opportunity to stoke the very worst fears associated with the Bill and there were clearly some who used the basest arguments to debase the process. I do not believe that that serves Parliament well as we consider the Bill’s Second Reading.
I was encouraged by the continued work of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I pay tribute to him for his contributions yesterday highlighting his concerns about part 4. It was encouraging to hear not only about his and Lord McColl’s continued commitment to provisions of previous legislation, but about his engagement with the Home Secretary and her commitment to leave open the opportunity to thoughtfully and productively consider changes to the Bill.
In considering part 4, I think not only of the reduction of the practical support to confirmed victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from 45 days—it will remain at 45 days in Northern Ireland and Scotland—but of the disparity between what is available in those 45 days and what will be available in the 30 days that clause 52 proposes. I think of the conflict that will arise with the legislation that we passed in Northern Ireland, which was sponsored by my noble Friend Lord Morrow: the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. There is much work to do on the issues, and I trust that we will get the opportunity to do it in the forthcoming stages.
I raise again the issue of indefinite detention, which has not featured much in our debates on the Bill. I hope that the Bill will provide another opportunity to build on the cross-party support that has been garnered for ending indefinite detention. It is wrong, it is cruel and it serves no place that somebody can be detained on immigration grounds with no indication of how long they will be detained or how they will be released from detention. I hope that the Bill will give us a fresh opportunity to consider that fully and bring some finality.
On refugees, I think it fair to say that we have a proud record as a country, although we should not rest on our laurels. The figures have been cited throughout our debate: 25,000 refugees have come to the United Kingdom since 2015, and a further 29,000 family members have been resettled in this country. That is good, but it is by no means the totality of the story. Concerns have been raised about conflict with the 1951 convention and about the introduction of a two-tier process. If we are—as I believe we are—a truly welcoming and truly compassionate country, there are issues in the Bill that will need to be resolved in Committee.
I took the opportunity in my engagement with the Minister to highlight a report—HC 158—that issued from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs at the start of this month. It raises the anomaly that, by virtue of the Belfast agreement and the Irish Government’s approach to these issues, someone born in Northern Ireland can attain Irish citizenship by simply filling in the form and paying a fee of £70, whereas someone born in the Republic of Ireland who had spent the entirety of their life living in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland, cannot do the same; they have to go through exactly the same citizenship process, pay £1,330 and prove their proficiency in English. Let me give one example. That applies not only to hundreds of people who live in the north-west and around the border areas of Northern Ireland, but to a former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and a Member of our House of Lords. He is entitled to vote upon and contribute in the parliamentary affairs of our country, but he is not entitled to citizenship unless he pays £1,330 and proves his proficiency in English—that is nonsense. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) referred to clauses 7 and 8, and I ask that the Minister meets us to consider how best we resolve this issue and pick up on the recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee during the passage of this Bill. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), the spokesman for the Scottish National party, made some fair criticisms yesterday and highlighted some fair concerns about the Bill. The Bill will receive its Second Reading, so I hope we continue to engage with and construct the right outcome in forthcoming stages so that it is truly fit for purpose.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I rise to support this Bill, which contains some sensible measures, particularly on regularising the citizenship of certain mothers, fathers and members of the military, and prioritising the rapid removal of foreign criminals, who really should not be in this country. I also appreciate that it is a controversial Bill and it will need close scrutiny in Committee. But something desperately needs to be done, because our asylum and immigration system is broken. It is broken, first, because it is hugely bureaucratic. As the Windrush scandal showed, there are so many different criteria for being able to claim citizenship or right to residency in the UK. It is a hugely complicated and burdensome system. Secondly, it is very expensive, as we have heard. It is becoming a cash cow for the Home Office. For example, a leave to remain application typically costs £1,033, of which the cost to the Home Office is just £142—that represents a profit to the Home Office. Thirdly, for genuine refugees, especially children in potentially dangerous situations, the process takes far too long. There is a lack of urgency from immigration officials on the ground in the country of application or from the Home Office here. As constituency MPs, we know of countless cases of constituents who have waited months and years in limbo simply because their application is still being processed. Whether they are successful or they fail in their application, they deserve to be dealt with speedily and with respect so that they can get on with their lives in whatever form that will take after the application is assessed—that is just not happening. The queue is far too long and is taking too long to shift.
Fourthly, despite its shortcomings, the process is now being routinely bypassed by those who come across the channel illegally, usually because they can afford to pay people traffickers. For those of us representing south coast constituencies, that is causing a huge amount of chaos and great resentment. Without the proper dispersal system that the country desperately needs, Kent County Council bears the brunt of the children who must be taken into care. We also have all the fears about the beta variant coming in through the back door. This is not the way for people to come to the UK. Effectively, these people are queue jumping, taking up spaces that we are quite rightly prepared to offer to vulnerable families in refugee camps coming from those places of danger who have gone through the right procedures—genuinely vulnerable families whose lives are in peril.
Frankly, this is happening because the French Government have consistently failed to close off this route. They could prevent more of those boats getting into the water in the first place; goodness knows we have given them enough resources and security co-operation. They could intercept them and take them back to French shores. They could allow Border Force to take those who have been intercepted in British waters back to French shores. The Home Affairs Committee has been reviewing this issue, and we have taken advice from international maritime lawyers who confirm that the French would be in their rights to do that. They refuse to do so.
That is why there are people coming to Calais, causing chaos on the French coast—because they think there is a chance to get across the channel to come to the UK, whether or not they have any claim to be here. If the French were to cut off that route so that the chances were that anyone trying to get into the water would be returned safely to French territory, having paid a lot of money to people traffickers, people might just think again and the French coast, particularly Calais, would no longer be a magnet for them.
It would be in the interests of the French to do that. Why on earth are they not doing it? There would be a mutual benefit. I understand fully the Home Secretary’s frustration and why further measures need to be taken unilaterally. The French have failed to play ball and are trying to make their problem our problem.
I have a few specific queries. First, I have had a query from the Shoreham lifeboat crew about potential liabilities on lifeboats rescuing some of these migrants trying to get into the UK illegally, and whether they are at risk under the terms of the Bill. Some reassurance would be good.
Many times, I have called for and supported amendments to introduce a proper replacement for the Dublin family reunion scheme—one that is not less generous than what we had pre-Brexit—and for an equivalent of the Dubs scheme, which did a great deal in rescuing genuinely vulnerable children.
I pay tribute to the We Belong charity, led by the excellent Tashi Tahir, which has been standing up for some 330,000 children and young people in a precarious state, having come legally with their families to this country. They are mostly Commonwealth citizens who are bright and want to contribute, but they have to wait 10 years to regularise their status, at a cost of some £12,771, through applications for leave to remain every 30 months. If they fail to pay, their status becomes illegal, and if they then want to start again, they have to start all over again. That is not fair. There should be at least a five-year route to permanent status. I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), has been having discussions with the charity. I hope that he will be sympathetic and we will get some changes to the Bill.
There are many other things that I would mention, but in six minutes I have not had time. Above all, the Bill must get the balance right. We need to be tough on those people who come through the wrong routes but ensure that there are safe and legal routes for those to whom we genuinely owe a debt of safety, to give them proper refuge in this country.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) [V]
I am proud to represent Sheffield, Hallam. Sheffield was the first place to call itself a city of sanctuary, and I pay tribute to all the great organisations, such as City of Sanctuary Sheffield, the South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group, ASSIST Sheffield and many more, that do such good work in my city—my home—to make it as welcoming a place as possible to people fleeing war, persecution and violence.
It is in that spirit of humanity, compassion and genuine internationalism that I completely reject the divisiveness written into nearly every clause and line of this Bill. The Bill is divisive—in the way it pits so-called group 1, or “good” asylum seekers against so-called group 2, or “bad” asylum seekers; in the way that it stacks our legal system against some of the most vulnerable people coming to the UK; and in the way that it criminalises altruism and basic acts of compassion.
Every line of the Bill strains to break the human bonds that hold us all together. It is an affront to the spirit of the 1951 refugee convention. The convention clearly states that refugees
“shall enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms without discrimination,”
yet discrimination seems to be at the heart of the Bill.
The Government know that there are no visa or pre-entry clearances for someone wishing to claim asylum—there is no such thing as an “illegal asylum seeker”—but the most vulnerable asylum seekers are those who rely on illegal methods to get into the country. The distinction between group 1 and group 2 asylum seekers is a completely bogus differentiation which will introduce more legal hurdles for some of the most traumatised and brutalised people on our planet. It is also chilling that there are no restrictions to prevent the Home Secretary from treating group 2 asylum seekers differently. Those people are already under huge amounts of pressure to provide evidence of their cases, often when they have had to leave their homes behind very quickly. There are massive barriers to their submitting coherent evidence on arrival in the UK. The proposal for decision makers to doubt applications on the basis of late evidence is a wilful misunderstanding of the challenges, the horrors and the deep trauma that asylum applicants have faced to be here, as well as the lack of legal advice.
One of the most appalling aspects of the Bill is the criminalisation of anyone who helps someone seeking asylum to enter the country. What does that mean in practice? For example, how is it compatible with the duty of a ship to attempt to rescue people who are in danger at sea?
This Bill is discriminatory, a violation of our international treaty obligations, inhumane, spiteful, and badly thought through. I suspect that it is more about appealing to a subset of ugly populist opinion than about addressing the real problems in the system, such as the lack of safe and legal routes into the UK to claim asylum. Today I will be upholding the best traditions of my constituency, and voting firmly against it.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I will support the Bill. I welcome the aim to establish a plan that will resolve some of the historic abnormalities in British nationality law, particularly in clauses 1 to 4, and I am pleased that the Home Secretary has undertaken this task to ensure that those in genuine need will be protected. This pandemic has shown us that the Government must respond quickly and correctly to emerging crises, and that our border controls must be in place to prevent the flow of covid and to ensure that our citizens are protected both here and abroad.
I also welcome clauses 5 and 6, which strengthen the pathways to citizenship. As one who went through the immigration system, I can attest to how expensive it is and how convoluted it was previously. I welcome the Home Secretary’s work to create a level of expediency and transparency for those who have rightly come here to work, and to enter into legal citizenship because they want to contribute and be part of British society. I have known many people, not only constituents but friends of mine, who had to return to New Zealand, Australia or South Africa because, although they had a right to be here because they were ethnically British and were merely attempting, for instance, some kind of reunion, the Home Office’s administrative hurdles on the path to citizenship were so challenging and difficult that many gave up and went back to their homes. I just hope that these welcome reforms will allow those who genuinely want to be British and have every right to be here to access that citizenship, as I did.
I pay tribute to the UK’s history of refugee resettlement, and to our scheme which will continue to ensure the safety of incoming refugees. I am proud that between 2016 and 2019 the UK resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any European Union member state—and that includes the vital resettlement of vulnerable children and the issuing of family reunion visas to bring families back together.
One of the key provisions in the Bill is the introduction of new and tougher definitions of criminal offences to deter people from attempting to enter the UK illegally. It raises the penalty for illegal entry from six months to four years in prison, and introduces life sentences for people smugglers. I also welcome the additional power given to Border Force, including the ability to search unaccompanied containers in our ports and to seize and dispose any vessels that have been intercepted.
The Government must curb the number of groups who are trying to take advantage of vulnerable people and exploit them for financial gain. Not only is that illegal and inhumane, but it keeps dangerous pathways open, which can lead to the abuse and loss of life of refugees trying to reach the UK. In order to provide targeted support to those who are in genuine need, the Government must regulate who is entering the UK so that they can provide that support as quickly and as effectively as possible. For the safety and sustainability of our country, and the safety and wellbeing of refugees seeking to enter the UK, it is vital that the UK has a clear and effective plan to deter and prevent illegal entry into our country. I welcome the fact that, through this Bill, we seek to crack down on illegal immigration so that we can prioritise those in genuine need.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
May I begin by wishing the Muslim community in my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts and across the globe a very blessed Eid al-Adha? During this pandemic, Muslims have been at the heart of community outreach, with many mosques in various constituencies becoming vaccination centres. Many who follow the Muslim faith will be spending time today with their families and eating. I will miss out on my mum’s famous biryani, but speaking in today’s debate is much more important.
By naming this piece of legislation the Nationality and Borders Bill, this Tory Government are attempting to legitimise a frankly abhorrent way in which to treat those who are escaping extreme violence, so let us just call this Bill what it is: the anti-refugee Bill. This Government want to treat vulnerable people who are fleeing persecution, many of whom are women and children, as criminals. The proposals in the Bill are a brutal, cruel and cold-hearted response by this Government.
I am astounded by the language that has been used by those on the Government Benches; it is of great concern. Refugees need compassion and not to be accused of being economic migrants. They are humans like all of us. To be perfectly frank, one of the main differences between them and us is that most of us were born here.
Members have already referred to the two-tier system that the Tories are creating. This is a horrific way to treat some of the most vulnerable people in the world. We cannot and must not send out a message that anyone fleeing persecution whose route out of that persecution is to travel to the UK via other countries will automatically be viewed as a criminal. By focusing on the method of arrival, the Government are ignoring the fact that people do not have the luxury of phoning up and telling the Home Office that they will be arriving here to ensure that their arrival is approved. They are literally fleeing conflict, running for their lives. They are in danger.
I have been elected to this House for fewer than 70 days. The Tories continually run away from any form of international responsibility and co-operation. From the cuts to aid budgets to this two-tiered refugee system, this Tory Government are pushing their “us versus them” narrative. They are pitching communities against one another. Of course, we should not be surprised by that. I have spoken previously in this very Chamber about the manner in which this Tory Government view immigration and foreigners coming into this country. Just because someone was not born here or does not have a British passport does not mean that they will not make a valuable contribution, whether socially, economically or politically.
Dr Waheed Arain is just one example. Waheed fled forced conscription into the Taliban in Afghanistan as a child and made an irregular journey to the UK. Under the proposed rules, Waheed would not have been granted refuge by this country, which, historically, has offered protection and opportunity. Waheed Arain is now working as an NHS doctor. He released an open letter, in which he said:
“I spent my childhood hiding from rockets in refugee camps in Afghanistan. Fleeing the civil war, I arrived in London, separated from my family, as a traumatised 15-year-old. I dreamed of becoming a doctor.”
He went on to say:
“Under this Government’s proposed plans, I would not have been given the chance to become an NHS doctor, let alone learn English or studied medicine at Cambridge University. I would have been classed as an ‘illegal arrival’, denied access to the asylum system, prosecuted for breaking the law, and…removed from the country.”
My message to Waheed today is: sorry. I am sorry that the country that you sought refuge in is treating people in this manner. I am sorry to those who are seeking refuge that this Tory Government are moving towards a dangerous, far-right trajectory. I am sorry that this country is meant to be a global power but is turning into little, insular Britain. My message to you is that the Scottish National party will stand by you and we will stand by your side against this Bill.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed). It will come as no surprise that I do not agree with a great number of things that she said, but she may get some comfort from one of the proposals that I will make later to improve the Bill.
I welcome any Bill that aims to address historical anomalies and areas of unfairness in British nationality law, and to make the current system of applying for asylum fairer and more efficient. This Bill will ensure that those who are in genuine need can be supported, and, at the same time, deter illegal entry into the UK. This is a timely and important topic and an area of law that we have needed to address for some time.
In recent years, we have sadly been haunted by terrible scenes and tragic reports of migrants losing their lives while attempting to enter the UK. That is why I welcome the changes proposed in this Bill. The Bill aims to save and protect lives by ensuring that only safe and legal routes into the UK remain, and proposes harsher punishments for human smugglers and traffickers, who are responsible for so much suffering. The introduction of life sentences for human smuggling, by way of which so many lives have been endangered, will attempt to combat and condemn the exploitation of migrants. Tougher criminal sentences for those attempting to enter the UK illegally will also steer those seeking asylum towards safe and legal routes, and ultimately protect their lives.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
What the hon. Member is advocating and what the Government have in this Bill is a criminal offence punishable by up to four years in prison that would apply to a Uyghur fleeing ethnic cleansing in China, to a Syrian fleeing war crimes there, or to a persecuted Christian fleeing for their life. How can any Government or any party justify locking up these people for four years?
Rob Roberts
I recall serving with the hon. Gentleman on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, so I am very much aware of the experience and expertise that he brings to this debate. The short answer is that this Bill does an awful lot to end human trafficking and the nasty, awful environment that is being fostered by the criminal gangs who are putting lives at risk. I appreciate everything that the hon. Gentleman says and the expertise that he brings to the debate, but I do not necessarily see it in the same way as he does.
The UK has a proud history of supporting the most vulnerable people worldwide, having resettled more refugees than any other country in Europe. The Bill ensures that the Government stand by their moral and legal obligations to help people fleeing cruelty around the world, while condemning those who break the law.
Let me turn briefly to another element of the Bill. Attention needs to be given to the costly and arduous routes to citizenship that are bureaucratic and expensive for those who are already settled and working in the UK. I declare an interest, as my partner is an overseas NHS worker. This is a perfect example of what I mean: many of our NHS workers who have worked day in, day out to provide the best possible care to patients throughout the pandemic have come from other countries. Often these individuals have travelled great distances and put their own lives at risk to help and save our lives, regardless of their or our citizenship; their duty to care and contribute to the wellbeing of their patients is what comes first and I commend their hard work.
However, with fees for indefinite leave to remain at almost £2,400 and citizenship applications another £1,330, the process of becoming a citizen for many of our NHS workers is a costly and challenging one. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said last week during an intervention in the Health and Care Bill debate, if we offered indefinite leave to remain to all of our NHS workers who are here on renewable visas, I feel confident that the gap in the NHS workforce would almost certainly close and, simultaneously, we would be recognising their hard work and sacrifices. The over 160,000 NHS staff from over 200 different countries who stated that they were of non-British nationality account for nearly 15% of all NHS staff for whom a nationality is known. It is undeniable that we would be in dire straits without them. Should we not therefore consider changing our current citizenship process to one that does not deter NHS workers through high costs and time-consuming processes, one that does not leave them in debt and in poverty but instead rewards their commitment to their communities?
I welcome the many steps that the Bill takes to improve the UK’s asylum and immigration system to make it one that is based on needs, and I welcome the new NHS visa that has been announced by the Home Office. Given that the Government themselves have already recognised the importance of creating a bespoke route for incoming NHS workers, I feel it is also our duty to focus on those who have already given so much to our country, by creating a new route to citizenship for existing NHS workers.
One of the objections to this could be that once indefinite leave to remain or citizenship had been conferred, the NHS worker would be free to go to the private sector or to a different role altogether, having benefited from the fee abolition. That could be easily resolved. Companies do this all the time, paying fees for qualifications for individuals that would become repayable if that individual then left the company’s service. There does not seem to be any reasonable reason why a similar scheme could not be put in place to make this workable.
As I have said before, in this place and in Westminster Hall, it is time to abolish the fees for indefinite leave to remain and for citizenship for those who work in our NHS, so that those who spend time helping and treating us can finally feel like they belong and are welcomed in our country with open arms.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I would like to start by echoing what the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) said and to offer my best wishes to the Muslim community in Bristol as they celebrate Eid.
I am proud that Bristol has declared itself a city of sanctuary for people fleeing violence and persecution, an initiative that was welcomed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Our Mayor, Marvin Rees, has spoken about how providing this safe haven with the right support structures in place has become an asset for Bristol, enriching our culture, driving local innovation and improving international connectivity.
The success of the English football team in the Euros shows the strength that can come from embracing diversity in Britain, whether from first, second or third generation families. Today we heard the good news that Kenneth Macharia, a mechanical engineer who plays for the Bristol Bisons rugby team, has won his asylum appeal after a five-year battle with the Home Office, and I want to pay tribute to his solicitors at South West Law. In my 16 years as an MP, South West Law has been one of the very few firms in the area that I can be confident of referring people to. It has always been there to give reliable legal advice and has helped many people.
Sport is brilliant at bringing people together and bridging cultural divides, and so is food. In Bristol we have a social enterprise called 91 Ways, after the number of languages spoken in the city, that uses food and culinary traditions not only to celebrate diversity but to break down some of the barriers between different communities. The largest such community in Bristol is the Somali community, with maybe 20,000 people of Somali heritage in the city. Some have long-standing connections with this country, particularly those from the former British colony of Somaliland who have served in the British Army and worked in the docks, but many others arrived here as refugees, fleeing one of the most dangerous places on earth in search of a safe place to live.
In my years as an MP, I have met so many people, including children, who have been through horrendous experiences, leaving them with not just physical but deep mental scars. Yes, I have met others whose cases were not so clear cut, but no matter what the stories are behind their journeys to the UK, I believe that people who arrive here seeking refuge should be treated fairly and with dignity, not demonised. They should be given a fair chance to tell those stories with proper legal representation.
Of course we want the people who come here to claim asylum through a safe and legal route, and we need a firm but fair legal process so that we can best support those who need it most, but the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has told us how the few legal routes that do exist are inadequate and highly restrictive. It is clear that this is what needs fixing in the system, not the issues that this Bill is purportedly trying to address. This is especially true for children. It is shocking that the Government have—wilfully, I believe—done so little so far to implement the Dubs amendment.
A refusal to provide ways for people to legally claim asylum will mean that more people attempt to reach the UK illegally, no matter what the penalties are—and dangerously too. It will do nothing to deter the people smugglers or the human traffickers. The Anti-Slavery Commissioner has warned that measures taken to address a potentially small number of people seeking to abuse the immigration system will have a considerable impact on victims of modern slavery. There is a grave danger of viewing victims of modern slavery through an immigration lens and ignoring the trauma and exploitation they have suffered as victims.
This attitude towards people seeking sanctuary in the UK, and to immigration more broadly, is not just morally reprehensible but economically ignorant too. Right now, we are facing acute labour crises in key economic sectors due to this Government’s ideological and narrow-minded approach to immigration: in hospitality; in agriculture, with fresh food left to rot in our fields; and in transport, with firms warning of a 70,000 to 90,000 shortfall of HGV drivers. We are already starting to see empty supermarket shelves as a result, and the crisis will only get worse as we get towards Christmas. Haulage firms have called for drivers to be added to the shortage occupation list, and/or for temporary visas to be issued to overseas drivers as a temporary solution while we try to train up more HGV drivers and deal with the backlog of HGV tests. The Government’s response to these common-sense calls from the Road Haulage Association, Unite and others is a flat no, because they cannot be seen to concede the argument. They do not want to accept that, as with my own relatives from Ireland, immigrants can and do make a huge contribution to this country.
The Home Secretary should stop posturing, stop playing politics with people’s lives, and instead bring forward proposals that would genuinely ensure that we have a firm yes, but also a fair asylum system in this country.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).
During the 2019 general election, I said on many occasions that I supported a firm but fair immigration system—one that prioritises the needs of our economy and provides robust border security to keep us safe, but also, yes, welcomes those who need the shelter of the United Kingdom. We should always be proud of the refuge that we provide to those who need it. In conflict after conflict and crisis after crisis, we have stood up and promised protection to those whose lives are at risk. That shows our compassion as a country.
But we cannot ignore what is obvious: that our current asylum system is broken. We have all watched the frustrating scenes in the English channel—small boats dangerously full of people who have been sold a false promise by criminal gangs. Every time those criminal gangs fill up those boats, they put at risk the lives of innocent and vulnerable people. They also put at risk the lives of the men and women of our Border Force and of the RNLI who go out to avoid casualties at sea.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
If the hon. Gentleman describes the people who seek the refuge of those boats—who seek that terrible means to cross—as innocent and vulnerable, why is he supporting a Bill that is going to criminalise them and put them in prison for up to four years?
Antony Higginbotham
Because this Bill tells people that there are safe and legal ways to get to the United Kingdom, and if they follow those safe and legal ways, then we will provide refuge, but we should not be encouraging people, indirectly, to take those illegal routes that we know cost lives.
We have tried for years to work with France on this issue. We have tried, tried and tried again, and it has not worked. Anyone who says that our asylum system is not broken and does not need fixing must not be seeing the same scenes. They must be oblivious to the thousands of people who have crossed the English channel in dangerous boats this year alone. They certainly are not listening to residents in constituencies like mine, because my residents support a system that works. They support tougher penalties for those who enter the country illegally. The measures in the Bill are tough but rightly so, and they are also simple. The Bill sends a clear message to those in genuine need that we have a safe and legal route into the UK—that people do not need to risk their lives in dangerous small boats. If people need help we are here, but for those who try to game the system and those who think our immigration rules are there to be got around because, somehow, the rules do not apply to them, the penalties are tough. A different approach for those who follow the rules and those who do not—I cannot see how anyone can disagree with that, but somehow, they do.
Some Opposition Members do not seem to have a problem with the last-minute claims lodged to avoid deportation, sometimes in the case of serious criminals. Well, I do have a problem with them, and the new appeals process proposed in the Bill will make a big difference to dealing with those claims. It will allow us to throw out the spurious and deal only with those that are genuine.
It is right, fair and proper that the Home Office plan ahead and consider whether there is a way to look at claims in a safe third country. That would allow us to protect our borders proactively, moving us to a model under which we gave people safe haven while considering their application, then brought them to the shelter of the UK. However, there are two sides to the coin. If illegal entry is one side, the facilitators are the other. Through the Bill, we will empower our Border Force officers directly to intervene in those people-smuggling gangs—gangs that try to find new ways to circumvent the measures that we design here in the House to protect our country and protect our citizens.
Firm but fair rules; secure but compassionate borders; a system that ensures that the people of this country are safe; a system under which we know who is coming to the UK and how they are getting here; and our offer of help and support for those who need them—that is what my constituents want, and that is what the Bill delivers.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Eid Mubarak to my constituents and all who are celebrating.
There are lots of things I could say about the UK Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill and their plans for immigration. I have been overwhelmed by the number of constituents who have been in touch to ask me to oppose the Bill, and I can assure them that I share their horror of the legislation. Criminalising those who seek sanctuary and who have survived experiences so disturbing and so distressing that they struggle to describe them is absolutely abhorrent.
I agree with Members who have said that the asylum system is broken, but the Bill is certainly not how I would go about fixing it. The Home Secretary’s plans to offshore reception centres, echoing Australia’s failed and expensive experiment, are dehumanising and brutal—such places are not for people who have suffered trauma. I commend to colleagues Behrouz Boochani’s auto- biographical account of the Manus Island detention centre, “No Friend but the Mountains”. If the Home Secretary has read the book, it is certainly not meant to be taken as a “how to” guide.
Seeking asylum is not a crime, but this Tory Government are attempting to make it so. The all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention, which I chair, has been taking evidence from medical and legal experts, as well as from people who have stayed in the Home Office’s quasi-detention facilities at Napier barracks and Penally camp. What we have heard so far is incredibly worrying. People moved to facilities were taken from their accommodation without notice or explanation to a place surrounded by gates, fences and barbed wire. They were not told how long they would be there. They described to the APPG how right-wing protesters came to demonstrate outside, and how people came to stare through the fences at them as if they were animals in a zoo. Even though they could move around the local area, they were made to feel completely unsafe in doing so.
Ministers may claim that they are screening for vulnerability, but the evidence is clear and the tools that the Home Office is using to identify both physical and mental vulnerabilities during initial screening are woefully inadequate. Health experts have described the impact of Penally and Napier on those who were forced to live there. This is already, remember, a very fragile population—people who have been exploited, trafficked, tortured, seen their families killed or raped, or been subject to sexual violence themselves.
A third of residents at Napier said they felt suicidal—a much higher ideation rate than would be expected among asylum seekers living in the community. People suffered from lack of sleep and shared dorms with people experiencing night terrors and physical pain caused by the torture they had been through. There was even the mundane, everyday pain caused by lack of basic health and dental care. In addition, there was an outbreak of scabies owing to the lack of laundry facilities to wash clothes and bedding, and residents suffered the indignity of having to share the cream to treat it among themselves.
Legal experts have described the difficulties that those accommodated in such camps experience in gaining access to legal advice, or even knowing their right to access a lawyer in the first place. There are issues with the capacity of local immigration lawyers to take on cases and being able to work with a lawyer when there are no private spaces in which to discuss the case, which is a breach of people’s article 8 rights. Some have described being woken in the morning to be told that their substantive interview would happen imminently, with no time to prepare.
Then, of course, we have covid. Public Health England, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons all raised concerns about the impact of communal living on the spread of covid-19. The Home Office chose to ignore that. A former resident of Napier barracks, describing the covid outbreak, said that
“all you could hear was people coughing…it was like an apocalypse”.
Communal living in the camp made it impossible to prevent the outbreak of a highly infectious airborne virus, with shared sleeping, washing and eating space and a lack of soap and sanitiser. At Penally, it was reported that the isolation room had no toilet and washing facility of its own.
I note with interest that the ICIBI report will be out on Thursday. Will there be a statement in the House on the findings of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration? If not, I would expect some kind of answer on that in the Minister’s summing up. Such facilities are highly inappropriate and they must all be closed, not just expanded, as the Home Secretary suggested. If they are offshore and people are unable to access them, we can bet that there will be even less scrutiny of the conditions.
None of this cruelty is happening by accident. Criminalise those who escape war and brutal regimes—people who can hardly go to the Government who killed their family to make a polite request for travel documents. Make the experience as awful as possible for those who make it here, despite all the odds. Deny adequate medical and legal support, so that it is harder for asylum seekers to make their case. Put people in camps to keep them from making friends, building support networks and putting down roots. Give them a pittance to live on, so that they cannot survive. My constituents and I do not support this anti-refugee Bill. We want none of this brutal hostile environment. All refugees are human beings, who deserve safety and dignity like any one of us, and no one is illegal.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
Overall, this is a horrible and unnecessary Bill. The UK does not have a problem with asylum seekers, nor indeed immigration. Asylum seekers have been unjustly and cruelly demonised. Some specific examples regarding asylum seekers are being magnified and generalised in order to rationalise bad law. Conflict, gross human rights abuses and persecution will result in more and more movements of people over the course of the century. Indeed, climate change will likely be a major driver of that conflict. The UK must acknowledge both its capacity to assist and indeed the requirements of basic humanity, and therefore ensure that its laws are consistent with those realities.
On a per capita basis, the UK accepts fewer asylum seekers than most other European jurisdictions, and faces less pressure due to its geographically peripheral position in relation to some of the migrant routes. The UK is not being invaded or overrun. Asylum seekers and, indeed, immigrants are not overwhelming public services or stealing jobs. Where pressures exist on services, that reflects both poor planning and under-investment. Where pockets of unemployment or under-employment exist, that reflects poor investment in skills and job creation initiatives.
The current high bar to acceptance of asylum claims is expected to be even higher as a result of the Bill, and those who try to assist run the risk of being criminalised. The notion of offshoring asylum seekers is particularly repugnant. We need a system based on humanitarian values and objective consideration of cases. Crucial to that are safe and legal routes to sanctuary in the UK.
I will flag some other concerns on the Bill. The first relates to the clause on electronic travel authorisation. The EU settlement scheme covers those European economic area citizens who are normally resident in the UK, but it does not apply to EU citizens who live in the Republic of Ireland, and they are also not covered by the common travel area. There is a danger that that could have an impact on thousands of people who live on the island of Ireland and cross the border, sometimes daily.
Although the Government have said that there will be no immigration controls at the border on the island of Ireland, there could still be a bureaucratic complication for those EU nationals to comply with any requirements around an ETA, and legal uncertainty for those entering Northern Ireland without one. I would be grateful for clarification on how these particular circumstances will be taken into account.
The nationality parts of the Bill have received much less attention, and I want to focus on the Government’s failure properly to reflect in domestic law the citizenship and identity aspects of the Good Friday agreement, namely that it is the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.
Like many people, I am comfortable with both a British and an Irish identity. However, there is a core of people born in Northern Ireland, as a full part of the United Kingdom, who wish only to identify as Irish and be accepted as Irish. The Good Friday agreement clearly provides for this situation. However, this reality is not yet reflected in UK domestic law, where people are legally treated as British by default at birth.
That problem was crystallised in the Emma DeSouza case. The Committee on the Administration of Justice reported:
“The Home Office response to the DeSouza case included taking the position that it did not have to comply with the GFA as it is not domestically enforceable; arguing a reduction of the scope of the birthright provisions to one of ‘national identity’ in the abstract (overlooking the ‘accept as’ duty)”.
At the very least, the UK and Irish Governments need to meet to discuss these differences and what acceptance of choice should mean in practice. Indeed, that was a recommendation of the recent report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Renunciation is cited as one possible solution, and it may well be for some, but at present the process requires someone to declare that they start as British, which is at odds with the wording of the Good Friday agreement.
At present, this may well be framed as a problem solely for those who identify as Irish, but at some stage in the future there may well be a united Ireland. In those circumstances, there will also be an expectation that those who wish solely to identify as British from birth should also be accommodated, so this issue works both ways.
There is potentially a legislative way forward in the 2020 report completed by the barrister Alison Harvey on behalf of the joint committee of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. I urge the Government to give strong consideration to those recommendations.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
The 1951 UN refugee convention, which was signed by a Labour Government, was born out of the aftermath of the horrors of the second world war, when countries came together to ensure that there would be international protection for those who suffer persecution. That is an incredibly important principle, and one which the Government threaten to undermine with this Bill.
By treating refugees differently, depending on how they arrive in the UK and the point at which they present themselves to authorities, the Bill creates a two-tier system. As the Immigration Law Practitioners Association has pointed out,
“the introduction of differential treatment of refugees depending on how they came to the UK or made their claim cuts against the principles motivating the 1951 UN refugee convention.”
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has pointed out that
“the right to seek asylum is universal and does not depend on the mode of arrival; asylum-seekers are often forced to arrive unauthorised.”
And the Refugee Council has called this Bill
“a cruel, unjust bill unfairly punishing people who’ve fled war, persecution and terror for the way they reach the UK.”
If this Bill passes into law, the Government will be turning their back on some of the most vulnerable people on Earth. This is a source of national shame. It is shameful, too, that the UK Government are acting in a way that risks breaching international law and undermines global efforts to support victims of war and persecution. I urge Members on both sides of the House to reflect, too, on what this means for our reputation and our standing in the world.
The Bill fails to deal with the serious and organised crime groups that are profiteering from human trafficking and modern slavery. Indeed, it removes a number of key protections for victims of these crimes.
Amnesty International and Migrant Voice have pointed out that:
“Far from truly tackling the scourge of human exploitation, including by organised crime, the bill will further empower and enable abusers by rendering the women, men and children on whom they prey ever more vulnerable to that predation.
The introduction of slavery or trafficking information notices, which could be served on people making an asylum claim or a human rights claim, would require individuals to provide the Secretary of State and any other competent authority specified in the notice with relevant status information before a specified time. This totally misses the point that the deeply traumatic nature of modern slavery cases, especially for people abused by sex trafficking gangs, can mean that many victims delay reporting the crime. They may also be victims of coercion, warned not to disclose the extent of their abuse and fearful of what will happen if they do. Given that recent reports show that four out of five rejected trafficking claims are overturned on appeal, this particular aspect of the Bill is extremely concerning.
The Government’s “New Plan for Immigration” paper says that
“we will strengthen the safe and legal ways in which people can enter the UK…we want to ensure that refugees who enter through safe and legal routes can reunite with close family members.”
However, Refugee Action is among those who have expressed frustration that there are no new commitments in the Bill on refugee settlement or family reunion. It has pointed out that there is nothing in it committing to refugee settlement schemes, and that it also fails to reform rules on family reunion or to provide new routes for unaccompanied children to reach safety in the UK.
Several of my constituents have written to me in recent days with their wide-ranging concerns about the Bill. They express concerns about the creation of a two-tier system, the need for safe and legal routes to enable refugees fleeing war and persecution to arrive without making dangerous journeys that put their lives at risk, and the fundamental concern that we should receive vulnerable people fairly and treat them decently.
In essence, my constituents are calling for the UK to play its part in providing humanitarian support to those escaping the most dangerous of circumstances. As Refugee Action says, everyone who has had to flee their home deserves the chance to live again. I call on Members from across the House to vote to protect vulnerable people fleeing violence and persecution.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
The subject of immigration is of great importance to my constituents in Great Grimsby. They have voted time and time again for Government to take control of who enters our country. I am pleased that the Government are finally bringing forward this Bill to do just that. Let me say first, Madam Deputy Speaker, that control of immigration does not mean stopping people coming here. It means that, as a country, we decide on the means by which people enter. My constituents understand that from time to time we need to provide help to genuine refugees fleeing from war zones or from natural disasters. Equally, we have a tradition of providing asylum to people whose Governments are not as generous or as freedom-loving as our own. We as a country do that willingly and with generosity.
What the people of Grimsby do not accept is people travelling through multiple free, safe European countries then attempting illegal entry to the UK and claiming asylum on entry. This is not asylum seeking. This is economic migration.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not against economic migration. How could I be with the surname Nici? My late father came from Italy in the 1960s, long before the EU existed or we joined the EEC, but he had a job in the UK before he arrived and then when he came here he worked here with a work permit. He found this country welcoming. He found that Grimsby was a great place to live and so applied for citizenship and became a British citizen. In the process, he had to give up his Italian citizenship, but he did it willingly because he wanted to participate fully in life in the UK as a British citizen, to work hard, to run a business, to pay his taxes and to raise a family. It is not fair on all those who have followed the proper rules to migrate to this country that illegal immigrants and bogus asylum claimants are treated in the same way.
I have been struck by the contributions of Labour Members giving all sorts of spurious reasons why they will oppose the Bill. What they really mean is that they want to prop the door open and let unlimited people come in. I welcome the measures in the Bill and I will be enthusiastically supporting the Government tonight.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. Like others, I would like to wish Eid Mubarak to the Muslim communities in Newport West and across the UK.
I have also heard from a number of my constituents in Newport West about the Bill and their concerns with it. Like me, they think the Bill is fundamentally flawed, and I shall be opposing it. Its content means that this Conservative Government will turn their backs on some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, and it risks breaching international law. The reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, rightly calls out the Government for their failures and calls for a more humane and decent asylum system, and it has my full support.
In 2021, we need to demonstrate our compassion and our global leadership. That means getting things right. This Government’s approach is weak on taking action against criminal gangs, but brutal when it comes to orphaned children from war zones. Surely this is a case of misplaced priorities. The Bill also risks criminalising the RNLI for saving people at sea. Had the Bill been in place when Sir Nicholas Winton was rescuing hundreds of children from the holocaust on the Kindertransport, it would have risked him being criminalised for his life-saving actions.
Rather than offering genuine proposals to fix the broken asylum system, for which Conservatives have been responsible for over 11 years, this dangerous Bill will make a damaging and indefensible situation even worse. It seeks to allow the Government to deliver on plans to process people’s cases in so-called third countries. In the lead-up to the Bill, Conservative party briefers have told the media that this could include taking people to west Africa or oil rigs to have their cases heard. Those plans are immoral, wildly impractical and simply not fit for purpose.
From the discussions I have had with local people in Newport West and the many other emails I have received, I know they want to see more done to tackle the appalling crime of people smuggling—as do I. However, key to that is having a workable deal in place with France to stop the gangs operating so frequently there exploiting desperate people for money. Yet the Bill contains nothing that will help to address those vital failings. It would be helpful to hear what discussions Ministers have had with the French Government on that matter.
Newport West has a strong moral compass and our city has welcomed refugees and asylum seekers with open arms, and with the respect and decency they deserve. Because Newport is a resettlement centre for refugees and asylum seekers, I have had the privilege of meeting just some of those awaiting decisions on their applications, courtesy of the British Red Cross, in Newport West. I met a doctor from Nigeria desperate to work in his specialism of cardiology, but prevented by Home Office rules. I met a Syrian woman who showed me photos of her beautiful home, now bombed to smithereens. I have met others fleeing religious persecution and seeking sanctuary here in the UK. These are not scroungers or spongers. They have skills and abilities to bring to us, and we can benefit as a society by them living and working with us here.
This Tory Government have refused to reopen many safe routes with little explanation and certainly zero humanity. The new UK resettlement scheme, in its first month in 2021, resettled just 25 refugees—25. The Government also closed the Dubs scheme, having settled just a fraction of the 3,000 children initially envisaged. That is not my idea of global Britain.
It is very hot in Newport West and across the British Isles today, and it feels like the temperature has been raised through the empty promises and hot air radiating from the ministerial suite of offices on Marsham Street and in No. 10. Those most in need of peace and safety deserve better. The people of Newport West deserve better, and I will do my best to fight for it.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak in a debate that has enormous implications for so many of my constituents.
July marks the 70th anniversary of the signing of the refugee convention. Born out of the turmoil and devastation of the second world war, that landmark treaty enshrined the rights of those fleeing persecution and conflict. This anniversary provided the Government with the perfect opportunity to commit themselves to the principle that the UK should provide sanctuary to those who have been forced to flee their homes. Instead, we have abandoned the key principles of the convention, retreating even further from our long-standing moral commitments.
The Home Secretary claims that this Bill will fix a “broken system”, but it was this Government who broke the system in the first place, and nothing in this Bill will clear up the mess they have made. Last year, the number of people waiting more than a year for the initial decision on their asylum claim was 33,000—a tenfold increase since 2010. A staggering 250 people have been waiting for more than five years, including 55 children. The impact on those caught up in this shocking backlog, including many of my constituents, is devastating. Their lives are left in limbo: they unable to work and they are plagued every day by the uncertainty of whether they will be granted leave to remain in the country they call home. Enver Solomon, the CEO of the Refugee Council, has said:
“Leaving vulnerable men, women and children waiting for years on end for news of their fate…is cruel and unjust. It is an incredibly inefficient, ineffective and unfair way to operate a refugee protection system.”
Yet this Bill contains no measures to address these delays or provide justice for those who have been waiting for it for so long.
The Home Secretary has also told the House that these proposals
“will increase the fairness of our system.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 705.]
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Bill risks creating a deeply discriminatory two-tier system based on how people have reached the UK. Those who come via a third-party country or who lack documents will be unfairly penalised regarding the strength of their claim. The UNHCR has condemned these plans as a “recipe for human suffering”, and it is absolutely right. The Bill will make life infinitely harder for those who have been forced to flee their homes. Instead of providing refugees with the support and kindness they so desperately need, the Government seem intent on treating them like criminals. Victims of human trafficking will lose vital protections and struggle to access much-needed support. Meanwhile, young people and children will be forced into the hands of despicable people traffickers because of the Government’s failure to establish safe and legal alternative routes.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Should nations prevent anyone from crossing their borders? We are all citizens of the world, so should we all have the right to live and work where we choose? All Governments have a responsibility to their citizens to keep their country safe, and ensure economic and social stability for their citizens. There would be mass immigration without border control, which would put enormous burdens on infrastructure and public services, inevitably leading to economic instability and unemployment. These are the reasons why every single country has its own rules about who may travel, work and reside within its borders. Every country has the right to protect its borders and every country has legal migration routes via visas or work permits.
Every day, thousands of migrants and refugees leave their countries in search of refuge, safety and better lives. Refugees are unique in their plight. They have fled their country and are unable or unwilling to return because of war, violence or fear of violence, or being persecuted because of their race, religion, sexuality, nationality or political opinion. An economic migrant is different from a refugee, being someone who leaves his or her country of origin for education or for financial or economic reasons. Economic migrants choose to move to find a better life—they do not flee war-torn countries or move because of past persecution—and there are legal routes for economic migrants to come here. Refugees and migrants are not the same, even though many people, especially Opposition Members, argue that all migrants should be treated as if they were refugees on the basis that they are all seeking a better, more secure life. The United Kingdom has a proud record of helping those fleeing persecution, oppression or tyranny from around the world, alongside providing around £10 billion a year to support people through our overseas aid. The UK is a global leader in refugee settlement. Between 2016 and 2019, as a country we resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any member state of the EU. In total, across all Government-funded resettlement schemes, the UK has resettled more than 25,000 vulnerable refugees in need of protection over the past six years, with around half being children. More than 29,000 family reunion visas have been issued in the past five years.
I welcome this Bill because it seeks to retain a compassionate approach and combine it with increased firmness, fairness and efficiency. I welcome the ambition to see an asylum system based on need, so as to better protect and support those who require our help the most. I welcome the fact that the Government are strengthening the safe and legal routes for refugees and fixing historical anomalies in British nationality law. I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that resettlement programmes are responsive to emerging international crises and that persecuted minorities are represented. Continuing to resettle refugees directly from regions of conflict and instability fulfils our manifesto commitment to support those fleeing persecution. Our refugee settlement scheme has protected thousands of people in the past few years.
I welcome the improved support for refugees provided for in this Bill to help those vulnerable people build their lives in the UK. The enhanced integration package and immediate indefinite leave to remain in the UK for refugees who are resettled through our safe and legal routes will make it more attractive to use legal means of resettlement than illegal ones and help deter perilous crossings.
It is well known that refugees seeking asylum in the UK are not penalised for entering illegally. I welcome life sentences for people smugglers. By cracking down on illegal immigration, we can prioritise those in genuine need. That will help prevent people making dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK. I particularly welcome the commitment to tackle modern slavery and the increased protections for those found to be victims of modern slavery.
For too long, criminal gangs have profited from our broken asylum system at the expense of vulnerable people who need protection and the British public who pay for it. The Nationality and Borders Bill will create a fair, but firm system, delivering on our promise to take full control over our borders.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate today, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to focus my contribution on the impact of detention on women. In 2016, the Government committed to reduce their use of detention. While the number of women in detention has fallen since then, the measures in the Bill will likely lead to an increase.
Research by Women for Refugee Women shows that many of those detained in immigration centres are survivors of torture, rape or trafficking, and locking them up severely impacts their mental health. In March this year, there were just 25 women detained in the UK. These are historically low numbers, yet the Home Office is to open a new detention centre for women at the Hassockfield site in County Durham in the north-east later this year. If the Home Office is committed tousb detention reduction, why the increase in detention capacity?
Then we dig into the detail of this Bill, and it becomes clear that measures are being put in place that will increase women’s detention. For example, clause 10 create two tiers of refugee. People claiming asylum will be recognised as a group 1 refugee if
“they have come to the United Kingdom directly from…where their life or freedom was threatened…and…they have presented themselves without delay to the authorities.”
Those designated as group 2 refugees will have more limited protections upon grant of status, including being given shorter periods of leave to remain. However, because many women often do not realise that their experiences of gendered violence make them eligible for asylum, they do not apply straightaway. This will mean that many women will be wrongly placed in group 2 and therefore liable for detention.
Furthermore, clauses 46 and 47 go against the Home Office’s own guidance on penalising individuals for not disclosing details of their exploitation. Such guidance is in place to recognise that trafficking victims may take time to disclose what has happened to them. The move to penalise individuals for not disclosing, will mean that fewer women are recognised as victims of trafficking. That means that they will become liable for detention or, if already detained, that they will not be released.
In addition, clause 48 raises the threshold for being recognised as a potential victim of trafficking through a “reasonable grounds decision” for the national referral mechanism. It means that a positive decision will now be made when there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that the individual “is”, rather than “may be”, a victim of slavery or human trafficking. Like clauses 46 and 47, it also makes it more difficult for women to be recognised as victims of trafficking, which again means that more women will be liable for detention. Overall the Bill signifies the Government’s attitude towards the safety and rights of vulnerable women who have fled abuse and violence. It disproportionately affects vulnerable women, and criminalises them. I reject this hostile environment, and I ask other Members to do the same by voting against the Bill.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
It is distressing that the Government are pushing ahead with this deeply disturbing Bill. A pattern is forming in the Government of introducing legislation that does little or nothing to solve problems, but actually exacerbates them. That kind of right-wing, populist politicking is easy, but it is dangerous and lacks the competence, depth of thought and basic humanity that we have a responsibility to show. The Bill creates a two-tier system for refugees, based on the route by which they enter the UK, and not on need. In doing so, the Home Secretary risks criminalising the majority of refugees for failing to live up to an impossible standard. It does nothing to address the need to create safe and direct routes into the country for asylum seekers, and it essentially criminalises refugees for escaping war and persecution through the only route available to them. It does nothing to stop the risk of refugees falling into criminal hands and using unsafe routes.
I am appalled by the suggestion that asylum seekers could be removed to any third-party country in which they may have spent a period of time, and which the Government deem to be safe. That would renege on our international obligations, put excessive strain on countries that already accept a disproportionate number of refugees, and risk deporting refugees to countries where they will not be safely housed. The most likely outcome of that policy is that vulnerable asylum seekers will be trapped in the system for much longer, without permanent housing or the right to work. I fear the Bill will pave the way for more facilities such as Penally barracks in Wales, and Napier barracks in Kent. When Penally barracks was closed in March, I was relieved. I took it as an understanding that that kind of accommodation was unsuitable. Of course, the UK Government’s understanding of what is suitable is very different from mine, and that of the Welsh Government.
Even more worryingly, the Bill seems to open the door to offshore processing sectors housed in far-flung and remote parts of the world. The suggestion is as baffling as it is inhumane. How does the Bill promote improved dispersal and community integration for refugees? Campaigners have long been calling for a well-funded dispersal system that will safely house refugees throughout the country. Delivering the best outcomes for refugees does not seem to be a priority for the Government, and the Bill does nothing to address the problem of backlogs in the system, and delays in the processing of those seeking asylum. The backlog is now 10 times what it was 10 years ago, but who has been in power all that time? What does the Bill do to improve safeguards for unaccompanied children with bilateral agreements with other countries? What does it do to address the problem of modern slavery? This Government’s decisions are driven not by lack of capacity or funding, but by their total lack of compassion.
These proposals are deeply cruel. My beliefs are centred around fairness, justice and compassion, but it is clear that in introducing such a Bill, the Government do not share those values. The Bill is hardly a suitable 70th birthday present for the refugees convention to which the UK was a proud signatory after the second world war. Thank goodness that those who helped so many people to escape from the horrors of the second world war did not take this Government’s view on refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK. I urge the Government to shelve the Bill and return to the House with a proposal that reforms the asylum system and respects the basic rights of refugees to live a dignified, safe and contented life in the UK, as is their wish.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
The Bill feels like a series of poor choices made on the basis of ignorance of the evidence, or maybe even contempt for it.
Let us start with the Bill’s major premise, which is that we are overwhelmed with asylum seekers. That is not true. The United Kingdom had 35,000 or so asylum seekers last year; Germany had 120,000; France had 96,000. By the number of people we take in and consider for asylum each year, we are behind 16 members of the European Union, so we are low or mid-table. We are an island, so there is an extent to which we are protected; that has some horrific consequences as well, but the notion that we are overwhelmed with asylum seekers is bogus nonsense. It is not true, yet it is the premise of much of the Bill.
There is a problem with the asylum system, but it is the colossal backlog. Somehow, even though the number of people claiming asylum here has dropped by 58% in the past couple of decades and by 21% in the past two years, the number of people languishing in the asylum system has increased by 28%. That is proof that we are overwhelmed not with asylum seekers, but by the incompetence of the Home Office, which is what the Bill ought to be tackling. It pretends there is a problem that there isn’t, and it pretends that there isn’t a problem that there is.
Secondly, let us be quite honest about the whole issue of safer routes. So many comments have been made by Members on both sides of the House about how we need safer routes to prevent people from making dangerous crossings. There is such a need, but unless the Government allow people to apply for asylum from outside the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom will be complicit in and responsible for people making dangerous crossings. That is the safer route, but the Bill sets out nothing of the sort.
Creating two categories of asylum seekers—which I am sure the Government are doing because it winds up namby-pamby liberals and therefore somehow pleases them and their base—is probably illegal under international law. It is morally repugnant and wicked, and surely it is utterly counterproductive. Maybe that is the argument that might land with Ministers: that it will make things worse.
Just yesterday, I was talking to one of the Home Office’s own asylum accommodation providers. I will not name it, because that would not be fair, but it told me that the two-tier system will make no difference whatever to the number of people who come here via the irregular route; it will simply lead to refugees coming here, not claiming asylum and slipping into the informal economy. In other words, the Government are presenting to the House and the people a charter for a massive increase in exploitation, modern-day slavery, a wicked use of people through trafficking and all the awful things that come about when people go below the radar.
That seems an obvious consequence. the Government’s own suppliers know it, and I assume that the Government know it themselves, but they somehow think that they can get some useful clickbait by separating desperate people into the deserving and the undeserving. That is shocking. It undermines what it is to be British, and the Government should be ashamed of themselves for proposing it. Even if they have no shame, surely they have some practical understanding of the consequences of this foolish procedure: that it will force people underground into exploitation, modern slavery and appalling things like that.
It is not just on those issues that the Government have shown contempt for the evidence, or let us say an accidental ignorance of it. There is a huge impact on the world of work. In my constituency and right across Cumbria, the hospitality and tourism industry is by far our biggest employer. If I were to tell the House that, in the Lake district, 80% of the entire working age population already work in hospitality and tourism, Members will be able to see that there is no huge, sufficient reservoir of the additional people we need to work in our hospitality and tourism industry. Eighty per cent. of the working age population already work in hospitality and tourism. We are Britain’s second biggest destination, behind only London. Do the maths: we need overseas labour.
This year, and in the past few days especially, people I have spoken to right across my community, from Grasmere to Grange, from Sedbergh to Staveley, have been telling me that they have fought and struggled, spent their life savings and gone into debt to survive covid. They have been grateful for the Government support that has helped them to just about do that. Having survived covid, guess what? Loads of them are closing now. Why? Because of the Government’s barmy, impractical, stupid visa rules.
Home Secretary, why did you do all this? Why did the Government make provisions to support hospitality and tourism in the past 16 to 17 months if they were only going to kill them off by stupid visa rules at the end? The simple fact is that, if an Italian restaurant or a gastropub in the Lake district sources half its staff from overseas and half from the local area, if it cannot get the half from overseas and the business therefore closes, as dozens have done, the half who are local will lose their jobs too. So I will use the last few seconds to ask the Government to do something sensible— I and many Conservative Back Benchers think this should happen—and have a youth mobility visa with the countries that are close to us in Europe so that we can at least provide a source of labour to protect excellent businesses from going under because of stupid Government policies.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
The reason we need to take action through this Bill today is not, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, because the country is overwhelmed, but because the system is both broken and unfair. It is obvious it is broken to everyone who sees on TV every summer large numbers of people risking their lives as they are trafficked from France, a safe country, to the UK. The system is broken because it is leading to people profiting from putting others’ lives at risk and to people putting to sea in dangerous vessels. It is unfair to those who have played by the rules. They have often jumped through a lot of hoops, paid a lot of money and done everything right, and then they see other people pushing to the front of the queue as economic migrants, despite not following all the rules. Ultimately, we have to insist on a system that is rule-based and set our own rules on who comes to this country. If we are to do that, we have to crack down hard on illegal migration and those who profit from it.
Therefore, I welcome the measures in the Bill. I welcome the extra resources for Border Force to police channel crossings. I particularly welcome the extra life sentences for people traffickers—it is amazing that that is not the case already. It is right to bring those in for people who are profiting from others’ misery and from others being put in extreme danger as they cross the channel. It is right to bring in those tougher penalties and in the legislation to increase the penalties for those who return after being the subject of a deportation order. Those who break the rules in that way again should clearly be the subject of stiffer penalties.
I also welcome, as many of my constituents will, the measures to reduce the vexatious claims that see people potentially taking legal action, even though on the steps of a plane, with the endless appeals and poorly merited cases that people use to clog up the system, slow things down and waste lots of people’s time and taxpayers’ money. We have to have a decision-making system that is not only fair, but makes clear decisions and does not lead to endless legal processes of a kind that many of my constituents are certainly frustrated by. It is also right that we have tougher measures to limit visas for those third countries that are not co-operating with us. If other countries do not want to help us and are not taking back their nationals who are being deported—they are not taking back their own citizens from this country—we have to be more symmetrical about things and look again at the visa rules we have for those countries.
I am proud to support this legislation, which ends a broken system, reduces the chance of people having their lives put at risk and ends some basic unfairnesses in the system that have gone on for far too long. It is a Bill that I am very proud to support.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I rise to speak against this Bill. In the face of an unprecedented global refugee crisis in which 82.4 million people have been forced to flee their homes, what is the response of this Tory Government? It is to close down the dedicated Department whose responsibility it was to provide help and assistance to people in desperate need across the world, giving hope, creating safer, more secure environments and reducing the need to flee their homes. It is to slash the funding for international aid, with a devastating impact on the programmes that support the world’s poorest communities so that they do not become displaced, demonstrating that the UK is no longer leading by example and reducing our authority to ask other countries to step up their contributions.
It is to close down the Dubs scheme for family reunification, having accepted just a fraction of the children that the scheme was designed to resettle in the UK. It is to withdraw from agreements with our European neighbours, with no replacement treaties and therefore no basis for agreeing how to share responsibility for supporting desperate people seeking sanctuary and the opportunity to rebuild their lives in Europe. It is to do everything possible to make desperate people arriving in the UK, many of whom are traumatised, feel as unwelcome and unwanted as possible, housing them in illegal conditions in Napier and Penally barracks, depriving them of sleep and dignity and exposing them to coronavirus infection.
It is to allow the asylum system, during more than a decade in power, to become broken, inefficient, inaccurate and inhumane. It is to close down safe and legal routes to seek asylum in the UK wherever possible, funnelling desperate people into the most dangerous routes—the peril of the English channel—because they feel there is no other way. It is to cut the funding to support English language training and voluntary sector organisations that can help refugees to settle in our communities, rebuild their lives and actively participate in our economy. And it is to bring forward legislation today that risks criminalising the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for saving lives at sea.
This is the Conservative party’s global Britain. This divisive, deeply flawed Bill sits in stark contrast to the response of local communities across the country to refugees arriving in their midst. Time and again, when faced with traumatised individuals who have been through experiences so horrific and distressing that most of us can barely imagine them, we see the deep compassion of our communities who want to help. We see this in the numerous community sponsorship groups springing up across the UK, more than 150 of them—communities coming together to raise funds, provide housing and support to welcome a refugee family to their area. I am hugely proud of the work of Herne Hill Welcomes Refugees and Peckham Sponsors Refugees, both of which have welcomed refugee families to live in my constituency. Community sponsorship works. The families who are welcomed in this way have very successful outcomes because of the support that they receive.
Instead of this divisive Bill, the Government should be bringing forward plans to provide more support to communities and local authorities that want to help with refugee resettlement and working out how lessons from the approach to community sponsorship can be applied to refugee settlement more widely. I see the willingness of our communities to help and support people fleeing to safety in the UK. In the coffee morning I attended last week at a local church in my constituency for people living locally in Home Office initial accommodation, I joined volunteers in listening to the harrowing stories about the traumatic events that led to them fleeing for their lives, their hopes and aspirations for a new life in the UK, and their frustration and despair at being caught up in the Government’s dysfunctional asylum system.
I want to put on record my concerns about the inadmissibility rules in the Bill, in particular. Everyone in this House agrees that people traffickers who exploit vulnerable people are immoral and should be stopped, but whether someone has a right to asylum in the UK must be dependent on what they suffered in their home country and the level of risk they face should they return, not how they got here. The Bill risks creating a two-tier system for asylum that will result in some people being returned to situations in which their lives are at risk solely because of their means of travel.
This Bill is a deep embarrassment to the UK. It is being introduced at the same time as the Government are cutting funding for projects that help to prevent displacement in the first place. They talk of creating safe and legal routes, without taking a single step actually to create or expand any safe or legal route. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has taken the unprecedented step of stating that the Bill will undermine the 1951 refugee convention and international protection system, not only in the UK but globally. The Bill diminishes us in the eyes of the world.
I call on the Government to withdraw the Bill and bring forward proposals to deliver a functioning, fair, accurate and humane asylum system, to restore our leadership in the world on the actions that support the poorest people, to broker peace and uphold human rights, to support communities who want to resettle refugees in their area, and to open safe and legal routes such as the Dubs scheme, so that we can continue in our proud tradition of providing safety and a welcome for those fleeing conflict and persecution.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Since I was elected to Parliament, one of the issues that I have been left in no doubt about whatsoever by many of my constituents is that the UK must take back control of its borders and deal with the tide of illegal immigration. We have all seen the sad and appalling scenes—images of asylum seekers making the perilous journey across the channel in small boats, on dangerous tides. Frankly, it is suicide, and it needs to stop, for all the reasons that have been debated today. The UK has shown itself over many years to be more than generous and hospitable, but there cannot be an indefinite blank cheque for those who come here illegally.
The Bill, as we know, has three main objectives. The first is to increase the fairness of the system—I emphasise the phrase “fairness of the system”—to better protect and support those in need of asylum. The Bill deters illegal entry into the United Kingdom, thereby breaking the business model of people-smuggling networks and protecting the lives of those they wilfully endanger. The Bill also enables those with no right to be in the UK to be removed more easily. The UK’s legal immigration system is being reformed by the ending of free movement and the introduction of a new points-based immigration system. In my view, this Bill is intended to tackle illegal migration and asylum seekers and to control the UK borders, and it fulfils the manifesto promise that was made in 2019.
Let me set out some of the facts. The number of asylum seeker cases is growing. We must assess the current system and innovate to create a fairer and more efficient, modern system. There were 29,500 asylum applications in 2020 alone, and many more continue to arrive. Contrary to popular perception, the UK will continue to resettle genuine refugees directly from regions of conflict and instability. That has protected over 25,000 people in the last six years, more than any other European country.
The proposals in the Bill will rightly create a differentiated approach. How someone arrives in the UK will impact the type of status they are granted in the UK if their asylum claim is successful. Ministers rightly argue that that approach will discourage irregular entry into the UK, such as entry across the channel via small boats, as we have discussed, which, again, increased significantly in 2020.
Stuart C. McDonald
Even on its own terms, that will not work. There is not a shred of evidence in the world that tinkering with the asylum system discourages people from coming to claim asylum. In fact, parts of the Bill are already in force, including the six-month palming off of complaints, and of course we already have Napier and Penally barracks, yet still the number of crossings continues to rise. It just will not work. People will still come. They will not be put off coming to Britain; they will just be put off claiming asylum because of how bloody awful this Government are making the system.
James Sunderland
I am pretty clear that the Bill is designed to do exactly what I said it is designed to do. What we have to do is disincentivise the ongoing passage across the channel. We have to break the cycle. If asylum seekers know that entering the UK illegally via that method is not going to result in a successful claim for asylum, then it may stop. That will also discourage those gangs from wilfully imposing their own selfishness on these vulnerable people.
Let me move on to immigration enforcement. The Australian experience has shown what can be done legally and fairly with state intervention. The Bill will provide our border force with additional powers to search unaccompanied containers located in ports for the presence of illegal migrants. It will seize and dispose of vessels intercepted and encountered, including disposal through donation to charity if appropriate, and it will stop and divert vessels suspected of carrying illegal migrants to the UK, and, subject to the agreement of the relevant country, such as France, return them to where their sea journey to the UK began. Almost all these migrants have passed through many other countries, which should by rights have offered them asylum, to get to the UK, which, clearly, people perceive to be a soft touch, and that has to end.
Currently, there are more than 109,000 asylum cases in the system, 52,000 of which were awaiting an initial decision at the end of 2020. Around 5,500 have an asylum appeal outstanding and approximately 41,000 cases are subject to removal action. These figures are completely outrageous and point not to any failure by the Home Office, but to the sheer numbers of people who continue to seek the UK as a soft touch. Doing nothing is no longer an option. I therefore welcome the measures outlined in the Bill, and I am clear that our current asylum system is unequivocally in need of reform.
In conclusion, this is not a moral or an emotional judgment, but a pragmatic one. Although I urge the Government to ensure that implementation is as humane, kind and hospitable as possible, as we have seen for many years, it is time for change and I shall be voting this Bill through tonight.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
May I say what a particular pleasure it is, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair today?
The great English jurist, Lord Bingham, famously wrote that the rule of law encompassed eight principles. Principle 5 states:
“The law must afford adequate protection of human rights.”
Principle 8 stipulates:
“The State must comply with its obligations in international law”—
as in national law. These principles are widely revered and have gained international respect, yet barely a week goes by when this British Government do not bring to this House a Bill that threatens to breach one or both of those principles. This Bill is yet another such example. It is also another example of the Government breaking their word, given the U-turn on their previous commitment to decrease the use of immigration detention.
If anyone was not following the first stage of this debate yesterday, I would commend to them the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), which set out in a very eloquent and measured way the many problems with this Bill. He described how it seeks, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, to tackle a problem that does not exist and fails to tackle a problem that does exist. My hon. Friend also set out in some detail how, if this Bill becomes law, we risk breaching both our international treaty obligations and our obligations under the European convention on human rights.
Antony Higginbotham
The hon. and learned Lady says that this Bill seeks to address a problem that does not exist, so what about the illegal crossings in the English channel, involving small boats and dinghies, which are overfilled with people who are risking their lives? Would she say that that is not a problem that we should try to address?
Joanna Cherry
When I said that the Bill addresses a problem that does not exist, one of the previous speakers talked of the country being overrun by immigrants. That is simply not the case. As I said in an intervention earlier, yes, I do think—to use the hon. Member’s words—“innocent” and “vulnerable” people crossing the channel with people smugglers is a problem, but I do not think that the solution to that problem is to criminalise those innocent and vulnerable people. That is one of the central problems of this Bill. In fact, to criminalise those innocent and vulnerable people is potentially in breach of our international legal obligations.
If this Bill becomes law, we risk breaching the 1951 UN refugee convention, the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, the UN convention on the law of the sea and the international convention for the safety of life at sea, and we also risk breaching the UN convention on the rights of the child. If this Bill becomes law, we also risk breaching multiple articles of the European convention on human rights, to which this Government assure us they are still committed. In fact, the Lord Chancellor gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week and was most anxious to assure us that the Government are still committed to the European convention on human rights. But there is not much point in being committed to it in name if they bring legislation to the House that threatens to breach it by its terms, as does the introduction of a two-tier system for refugees, which potentially breaches the right to be free from discrimination and enjoyment of one’s human rights.
The changes proposed by the Bill potentially undermine the right to life for those at sea. Changes to the application and appeals process for asylum seekers and provisions regarding credibility, and the weight to be given to evidence, risk breaching the right to a fair trial. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, has already raised concerns that decision making by the Home Office in immigration matters is not sufficiently independent or rigorous to ensure that human rights are respected, and the Bill will make that worse.
Why would Scotland want to be part of a Union where decisions like this affecting our international standing and the perception of the state on the world stage are forced through by a Government with such scant regard for human rights and the rule of law? It is not just this Bill. This Bill is one in a succession of Bills that have gone through this House recently which many independent commentators have said threaten to breach our international treaty obligations and also threaten to breach our commitment to human rights under the European convention. In one case, the Government were quite brazen about it. A Minister stood up in the House and said that
“this does break international law”
but only
“in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
Would that it were so with this Bill. This Bill will break international law, not in a specific and limited way, but in a number of respects that those with more time have enumerated more eloquently than I can.
This is not the way to do things. It is not right and it is not humane. There are millions of displaced people across the world and millions of refugees. The United Kingdom cannot wash our hands of responsibility for them, particularly when at least some of the reasons for their displacement can be laid at our door and at the door of our foreign policy and our colonial past. The real mischief that the Bill should seek to tackle, but does not, is that there are insufficient lawful routes for claiming asylum in the United Kingdom. Yes, resettlement programmes are laudable, but they are not a solution for those claiming asylum because resettlement programmes deal with those already recognised as having a protection need. Those in need of international protection who reach the shores of the United Kingdom should not be criminalised.
It is time the Home Secretary stopped playing to the gallery and did the hard work necessary to fulfil the United Kingdom’s moral and legal obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said so eloquently, there is no point in Conservative Members waxing lyrical about the rights of persecuted Christians and the rights of the Uyghurs to be free from Chinese atrocities if they threaten to criminalise those sorts of people when they make it to our shores.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
My hon. and learned Friend is making the point very eloquently. So many people who come here through an illegal route, through no fault of their own, are often in a set of circumstances beyond their control. The message that this Government send is, “You are not welcome.” What would she say to those who have made a life here and contributed so much, which they could continue to contribute were it not for this abhorrent policy?
Joanna Cherry
What I would say to them, what the Scottish Government have said to them and what my party says to them is that they are very welcome in Scotland, but unfortunately at the moment we do not have control over that aspect of policy. Until we take the steps to ensure that we do have control over that aspect of policy, we are stuck with trying to persuade this British Government that their policies are wrong.
I fear that the chances of this Government amending the Bill in any meaningful way are absolutely zero, but I know that it matters very much to my constituents, other people in Scotland and many organisations—the Trades Union Congress in Edinburgh passed a motion condemning this Bill just in the last few days—that the Scottish National party stands against the Bill. As I say, I do not think that our stand will work, and I continue to look forward to a future where an independent Scotland will be able to set a better example on refugee policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker; thanks for the slight jolt, as I was called a wee bit earlier than I was expecting. I have also forgotten that I can take my mask off while I am speaking. Eid Mubarak to my constituents across Stirling and those elsewhere who are celebrating.
Today’s debate really cuts to matters of deep principle. How we treat the world’s most vulnerable seeking sanctuary here touches deeply held sincere principles on all sides. I detect throughout this debate a real difference in world view between the SNP Benches and the Government Benches. Scotland’s tragedy is that for centuries we exported our people. We are a third of the UK landmass, but we are not full. We need more people, not fewer. Scotland’s challenge for decades has been a declining population. European freedom of movement was helping us with that and then it was ended.
Chris Philp
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being a little more accommodating than the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). He says that Scotland would like more people. Could I therefore urge the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities to accept dispersed asylum seekers? The only one of Scotland’s 32 local authorities to accept dispersed asylum seekers is Glasgow. Scotland accepts only a small handful of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, each one of whom carries with them £53,000 a year of funding. If the Scottish Government are so keen on having more people, how about they play their part in the way that I have just described?
Alyn Smith
The Minister, I presume inadvertently, actually makes my point for me. Scotland, under my party’s philosophy, wants to play a part on the world stage as an independent state of the European Union, playing our part in upholding international law—all of it, not breaching it on a regular basis—however limited or specific that way may be. We want to take our fair share of asylum seekers. We want to be that haven. But the financial mechanisms in the UK, as the Minister well knows, mitigate our ability to do that. That is my answer to him.
I thank the hundreds of my constituents who have been in touch about this Bill—all against it. I thank in particular Forth Valley Welcome, Stirling University Student Action for Refugees, the church groups across the Forth Valley and Start Up Stirling, all of which have done great work to welcome refugees.
I will try for consensus, because this issue is too important for Punch and Judy politics. Let us accept that this is a difficult, sensitive issue for any Parliament, anywhere, to deal with. It is a problem that needs to be addressed; we agree with that. We all want to see the dreadful people traffickers properly penalised for their dreadful actions. Scotland, independent, will have immigration, nationality and asylum laws, and we will control our borders—the UK is not the only country dealing with these issues—but we will not do it like this. The Bill is not all bad, but from our perspective it is assuredly more bad than good. We would contend that the problems of the UK’s complicated, expensive, bureaucratic and slow nationality and refugee policies are entirely made in London and have been made worse by this Government.
The Bill is about issues of deep principle, so let us hear what some of the faith groups think about it. The Very Reverend Dr Susan Brown, the convener of the Faith Impact Forum of the Church of Scotland, says:
“we are urging the Government to think again and listen to asylum seekers and refugees, organisations that support them and people in receiving communities working to provide welcome and friendship.”
How about the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Scotland? It says:
“Creating arbitrary divisions based on people’s method of entry will have profound implications for those who need our support most… many families and individuals have no choice in the route that they take, and to penalise them on this basis dangerously undermines the principle of asylum.”
In the time allowed, I will focus only on clauses 10, 29 and 38, because between them they provide ample grounds for voting against the whole package, although there are parts to which we might be more amenable.
I am particularly grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for its forensic examination of the Bill, on which I will draw heavily.
Clause 10 introduces a two-tier treatment of refugees based on means of entry. The Law Society of Scotland endorses the UNHCR in saying that
“to create a discriminatory two-tier asylum system”
undermines
“the 1951 Refugee Convention and longstanding global cooperation on refugee issues.”
A number of Conservative Members have said that France should somehow solve the UK’s problems for it. If the UK is playing a part in undermining global co-operation, it can hardly expect co-operation back.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Is it not the case that the UK worked with the UNHCR in the refugee camps in places such as Jordan? It selects the people who have a good reason and a right to come here, rather than just being able to afford to pay a people smuggler.
Alyn Smith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I hope I have made it clear that there are parts of the Bill to which we are more amenable. I do not deny the work that has been done internationally, and I do not deny that this is a problem that needs to be fixed, but I see nothing in the Bill that will make it better, and I see plenty of things that will make it worse.
Clause 29 alters the criteria for well-founded fear of persecution. Again, the Law Society of Scotland is pretty trenchant:
“In summary, we take the view that the change in clause 29 appears to go against the intention of the New Plan for Immigration, and flies in the face of 25 years judicial scrutiny.”
Clause 38 expands the criminality of assisting refugees, removing the existing limitation that it is only an offence if the assistance is given for gain, thus effectively extending the penalty to any good Samaritan. The Law Society of Scotland says:
“We are…concerned about…Ships’ Masters who save asylum seekers from drowning as they are obliged to do by…Article 98 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”.
This is a problem to be fixed, and it is a problem that can be fixed, but it is a system that has been entirely home-grown. In our view, the idea that the UK needs to implement what we believe to be flawed legislation is based on a flawed premise. There is a need for legislation to reform the UK’s awful immigration, nationality and asylum laws—we can agree on that—but this is not it. If the Bill is passed tonight—and I hope it will not be—it will not be passed in Scotland’s name, for Scotland can do better on this and many other issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am changing the speaking time limit to seven minutes, with immediate effect.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is great to see you in your new place today, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am not against immigration at all. In fact, I have signed the forms for many friends who have decided to make the UK their permanent home after entering it legally and working here for many years. People who want to come to the UK and work legally can do so under the Bill, and I think that that is exactly the position that my constituents want to see. They want to see those people entering the UK legally, along with others who, in desperate straits, are fleeing persecution from abroad. Britain has welcomed such people for centuries.
The UK Government has proudly welcomed many tens of thousands of people—25,000 under the resettlement scheme—who were fleeing persecution: not those who were able to travel halfway across the world, not those who were prepared to pay illegal traffickers, but people in genuine need, coming from refugee camps that were at the heart of the worst action in recent wars. My constituents are proud to have taken those people in. Several asylum seeker families have settled in my constituency recently, and I look forward to their playing a real part in our local community, as others have done before them. However, my constituents are fed up—
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Will he also reflect on the fact that 25,000 is more than any other European country has taken in? We should be very proud of what we are doing, and should reinforce the legal routes into this country.
Mr Holden
I could not agree more. What I keep noticing today is that Opposition Members seem to be pushing the illegal routes more than the legal routes. We have legal routes into this country, and people can take them. I cannot understand why anyone who actually had the interests of people fleeing persecution at heart would promote people travelling in the backs of lorries or fleeing in boats across the channel, sometimes across the Mediterranean sea to get to France or Italy, and then having to travel all the way here. It is deeply irresponsible of Opposition Members to constantly try to promote these routes and to paint Conservative Members as though they are not trying to act in the best interests of those across the world who are facing incredibly difficult circumstances.
Although my constituents are happy to welcome economic migrants who come through the legal channels and want to play their part in our country, especially those who want to settle and permanently make the UK their home, they are fed up of seeing illegal migrants from across the world taking whatever opportunity they can. They are particularly fed up of seeing people being used and abused by illegal gangs, and being forced into this country. That is what really grinds their gears, and I cannot understand why Opposition Members cannot understand my constituents.
My constituency voted Labour ever since its creation. This was an issue that came up time after time on the doorstep, not only at the last general election but at the previous election. The Labour party has totally lost touch with the reality of the communities it has traditionally represented.
Angela Crawley
The hon. Member makes a number of points that suggest the view of his constituents is the view of all constituents, and it is simply not the case. In Glasgow, on Kenmure Street, we saw people protect individuals from being deported by the Home Office, and in many instances the message has been loud and clear that we welcome refugees in Glasgow. The message the hon. Member sends is not only toxic; it is not representative of all constituents across the UK.
Mr Holden
My constituents are very happy to welcome genuine refugees to the UK. We are taking them now, unlike many constituencies in Scotland where they are not taking asylum seekers, as was pointed out by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). It is quite astonishing really.
My constituents are very happy to take genuine refugees, but they do not want to see an open-door policy, where anybody can just come into the UK and we cannot remove them if they have come here illegally, overstayed their visa or committed a criminal act while they are here, when they should be deported.
If Opposition Members are really interested in ensuring better and safer legal routes for migration, I cannot understand why they are not arguing for that. Why are they not arguing for safer routes? Why are they instead arguing that we should just allow the boats to continue? It seems crazy to me. Totally mad.
As I was saying, people are fed up of seeing people coming to the UK and being used and abused by illegal gangs. They are fed up of seeing them come here illegally. They are also fed up of seeing some lawyers—some lawyers—milking the system. I remember Opposition Members, when I was a special adviser in the Ministry of Defence, defending Phil Shiner, who was saying that British soldiers out in Iraq were doing all the wrong sorts of things. Spurious allegations were sprayed across honourable members of our armed forces. Today we are seeing exactly the same sorts of lawyers doing exactly the same sorts of things to our immigration and asylum system.
Mr Holden
No, I am not giving way to the hon. and learned Lady. I have already given way twice.
Far too often we see made-up claims. And then, time after time, they come back with different claims put in different ways. “I was this age at that time, and now I’m a different age. I was claiming under those conditions, and now I’m claiming under these conditions.” It is absolutely mad.
I can understand why Opposition Members, who supported people like Phil Shiner in the past, are now defending exactly the same system today. It is absolutely crazy, and it was at the time. I am glad the Government have moved on from those systems under Phil Shiner and we are going to tackle some of the same issues today.
There are three key elements that are particularly great to see the Government tackling. One is boat interceptions. It is interesting to see that we are learning from international examples. We are learning from the Australian system, where they have had terrible issues over the years with people coming. They do not have people arriving by boat in Australia any more, because they have dealt with the system.
We are also looking at the offshore processing of claims, and it is similar to the Australian system. They do not have the same problems that we do today. They do not see people dying in their channel any more—the channel between Australia and Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.
Opposition Members seem to think that this is a price worth paying. I do not think it is. The Government, more than any other Government in Europe, are doing the right thing in supporting legal routes from refugee camps. That is exactly what we need to see here.
Let me turn to immigration offences and enforcement. People are also fed up of seeing those who have come to the UK and been deported coming back again, and it is right that we are enhancing the sentences for such people—not only when they are initially deported, but if they come back again, when the sentences need to be tougher still. How can Opposition Members not support those sensible provisions on illegal migrants who have been deported? Surely constituents, whether they are in Consett or in Glasgow, support those sensible measures. They want a sensible immigration system whereby people come to the UK based not on their ability to get here, but on their need. That is what Conservative Members put forward every time—the need of the people in the refugee camps, not the need of the young men who can just make their way here.
The Bill, in the broader sense, also tackles modern slavery. That is a great step in the right direction on what is a real issue in parts of the country. I remember speaking to some long-standing police officers in my constituency who had dealt historically with cases of trafficked women and the horror that they went through. Often, those people disappeared into the system after being smuggled here illegally, so the Bill is taking a sensible step.
We are including a sensible framework to determine the age of people coming over to this country. We cannot have a system whereby someone can destroy the documentation that proves their age but is then able to claim to be whatever age they wish.
We are also including a good-faith provision. People should act in good faith with the Government when they are determining an application. How can the Opposition oppose good faith? It seems like a really sensible thing to me.
I am delighted to support the Bill on Second Reading. It will deliver exactly what my constituents want—a fair, balanced immigration system.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to welcome as Deputy Speaker one of my former neighbours from Cross Gates in my constituency of Leeds East. It is good to see you in the Speaker’s Chair. What it is not good to see, however, is this vile Bill.
I have been a Member of Parliament for six years, and in that time I have seen some vile legislation—legislation that punches down and attacks the poorest and most vulnerable, from the bedroom tax to the slashing and denying of benefits for disabled people, and welfare caps that force children into destitution—but this dreadful Bill is up there with the worst of it.
I find the Bill stomach churning. I cannot help but feel sick reading it, reading the Government’s plans and reading what they want to do to vulnerable people, including children fleeing war, rape and torture. The Bill will criminalise people seeking asylum simply because of how they get here. That is not only immoral; it is in breach of international law, although that is not all. The legislation—this rotten, sick legislation—opens the door to offshore detention centres. What kind of dystopian society do the Government want to create? They want offshore detention centres where, hidden from public view, people seeking asylum can be subjected to the mistreatment the Government are already known for, without any accountability.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the most vulnerable and needy people are from Syria? Would he be surprised to hear that when the camp at Sangatte was cleared, of the 750 migrants who came here, only eight were from Syria? No one in Syria can afford the cost of the people smugglers.
Richard Burgon
It appears that there is a twitching of a conscience one Bench back from the Tory Front Bench. If the hon. Gentleman has a conscience on these matters, if he cares about the people he purports to care about from Syria or from anywhere else, I would urge him to vote against the Bill, because this reactionary Bill should be killed off today.
Stuart C. McDonald
To bring things a little more up to date, if we are looking at the statistics about who is in these boats crossing the channel, the nationalities are Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Eritrean and Sudanese. People from almost all those countries have success rates when they claim asylum of about 60% or 80%. The vast majority of people crossing the channel are refugees. Instead of locking them up, let us look at their applications.
Richard Burgon
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and brings some reality to this debate. This reactionary Bill should be killed off today.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Richard Burgon
No, I will not give way. I will only give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to stand up and say he will vote against this dreadful Bill.
The Bill is not a one-off. It is the latest in a long list of racist interventions from the Government—a Government who have already deliberately stoked division and hate over the past decade. From the “go home” vans touring working-class communities to the Windrush scandal that saw black citizens deported, to the hostile environment policy and the attacks on Black Lives Matter, hatred, division and racism are used as weapons of mass distraction to try to shift the blame for Tory policies that hurt the majority of society. Rather than to blame the Government for the lack of school places and council houses, or the underfunding of our health service, the Government want to encourage people to blame their neighbours and other people in their community. The good news is, however, that the working class in all its diversity in this country is better than that and better than this Government.
Listening to speeches from the Government Benches, they remind me very much of speeches by Donald Trump. I think that, like Donald Trump, the Government’s approach will be thrown into the dustbin of history before too much longer. The policies that this divisive approach seeks to distract from and shift the blame from mean that people’s wages have not improved in over a decade. These are policies that have slashed key local services and ripped the heart out of many communities.
This Bill comes at a time when millions and millions of people have been having a long-overdue debate on racism in our society. Last week, England footballer Tyrone Mings rightly called out the Government for stoking the fire, because racism starts from the top. We have seen, of course, Tory MPs make themselves look like complete mugs, attacking footballers for being opposed to racism and showing their opposition to racism. The Bill that we are looking at today is exactly the type of legislation that we end up with when we have a Prime Minister who has labelled black people piccaninnies with watermelon smiles and Muslim women letter boxes. [Interruption.] Conservative MPs can groan and shake their heads all they want, but they should save their outrage for the people who will be criminalised, demonised and abused by this legislation, should it pass.
The Tories have a low view, as I have said, of working-class people and hope that they can whip up anti-immigrant sentiment to distract from their own failures. I do not share that view, and the response we have seen over the last week in this huge national conversation about racism shows that, while racism starts from the top, anti-racism and solidarity start from below. This legislation is about fear. It is about division. It is about hate. In the diverse, multicultural communities across the country that have come together over the last week we have seen a far better country than the one that this Government imagine—a country full of the spirit of community, the spirit of unity, the spirit of hope, and I encourage anyone, regardless of their political party, with an ounce of humanity in them to reject this Bill today.
I make this speech thinking of the asylum seekers I have met in my immigration surgeries at the Bangladesh centre in my constituency, and thinking of the sons and daughters of asylum seekers who go to school at Bankside Primary in Harehills in my constituency—a school where over 50 languages are spoken. I make this speech thinking of them, and this is just a small part of my effort to speak up for them, because those in power, those in government, are not speaking up for them; they are sticking the boot into them. They are chasing favourable headlines from the disgraceful individuals that run newspapers like The Sun that seek to divide the working class, but those views, I am glad to say, are going out of date. Our country is a far better, far more decent place than this Government imagine. That is why this rotten, racist, divisive approach is, in the long term, bound to fail. So I urge everyone who is appalled by the idea of offshore asylum seeker processing centres and everyone who is opposed to this to do what is right and vote against the Bill.
Jonathan Gullis
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. The hon. Gentleman has thrown the slur of racism at the Conservative Benches throughout his speech, yet he was a key leading member of the Labour party that was found to be institutionally racist at its core due to the antisemitism that took place. I ask for your ruling on whether that—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. That is just a point of debate. It is not a point of order. Moving back to the debate, I call Kenny MacAskill, and there will be an immediate time limit of eight minutes.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I would like to start by saying what neither I nor, I believe, anybody else expressing opposition to the Bill is opposed to, and that is an immigration policy or immigration Acts. Everybody who is taking part in this debate recognises that there requires to be an immigration policy.
I remember many years ago, as a young Scottish Justice Secretary, going to visit my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland and expressing concern for the difficulties they were having. They were requiring to make changes, even constitutional changes, because at one stage anyone who was born in Ireland was guaranteed citizenship, and people were flying in to give birth, to take advantage of that. I was rather naive about that. Ireland has a proud record on how it deals with immigrants and with those seeking asylum in refugee crises, but it recognised that it had to have an immigration policy.
So, in opposing the Bill, nobody is suggesting unlimited immigration. It has to be dealt with in a co-ordinated manner, but equally, this is fundamentally about the manner in which this is being done and, in particular, the steps that are being taken against those who are most vulnerable, those who are most requiring aid, support, sanctuary and whatever else and those who are asylum seekers and refugees.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill does still provide a route for the most vulnerable, but that it is based on need, not on a willingness to make a dangerous journey?
Kenny MacAskill
No; I think it is just creating so many obstacles that it will make life extremely difficult for those who are already the most challenged.
There are also actions that require to be taken against modern slavery—again, I go back to my days as Justice Secretary—but I do not believe that significantly more legislation is required. In fact, what is required is co-ordination. I remember—we are now going back over seven years—requiring to establish a taskforce because we realised that in dealing with serious organised crime, what was needed was the establishment of a taskforce to get everybody around the table, from whatever authority was necessary, to determine what worked and what would maximise the power and punch of the forces of law enforcement. With regard to modern slavery, that was done, but it was not done simply with those forces in Scotland; it was done with forces from Northern Ireland as well. At that stage—I have no doubt that it is still the situation—there was a link and co-ordination between paramilitary groups, and it was a paramilitary group based in Scotland that was operating modern slavery in Belfast. So that co-ordination with my then counterpart, Mr Ford, was welcome.
I also remember bringing together the business community and the local authority, and speaking to a senior representative from the Scottish business community who said that when they had turned up at the meeting, they did not realise why they had been called, but when they finished the meeting, they realised precisely why they were there. There is a suggestion that modern slavery is all to do with the sex trade—it is usually puerilely put in tabloid newspapers or wherever else—but it is not. Overwhelmingly, the victims of modern slavery are working in agriculture and other aspects. They are being used and abused. It might suit the titillation of some to suggest that it is the sex trade. That does happen, tragically, but equally it goes beyond that. That was why we required co-ordination, not legislation.
Similarly, on those who are coming in and seeking to feign marriages and whatever else, that is about co-ordination with registrars and local authorities, not seeking to grandstand and say, “We’re bringing in fantastic new laws.” At the end of the day, laws work only if we have the co-ordination, the force and the resources. That is why we must ensure that the National Crime Agency, Police Scotland, police services south of the border and, indeed, across Northern Ireland, and all other organisations—both civil and in the legal process—are working. That is what needs to be done, not simply to look tough.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman just mentioned that we need to know about organised crime. Is it not right that in the 21st century it is important for a nation to know who is coming into the country, how they are getting here and who is crossing to be here? How on earth can we control organised crime if we have no idea who is entering the country?
Kenny MacAskill
With regard to serious and organised crime, certainly in Scotland, and I think through the NCA, it has already been mapped. We know who it is; what we require to do is to work against them. With regard to those coming in, that comes back to the recently departed Donald Rumsfeld. There are known knowns. There are a lot of people that we know are active in people-trafficking gangs. There are others that we do not. It is about police resource and police intelligence; that is how we deal with it, not by compounding the hardship upon people who are already suffering.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for the very informed comments that he is making from a place of experience, having been in government. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) answers his own point. The way to deal with the issue is to increase the size of the legal resettlement programme. That undercuts people smuggling. Otherwise, we are engaging in a war like the war on drugs—a war against people smuggling that cannot be won.
Kenny MacAskill
I fully agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for his eloquent contribution.
Opposing the Bill is about seeking to protect values, as has been mentioned, as well as opposing actions that, in terms of where people are to be placed and how they are to be treated, I believe are fundamentally wrong. On each of them, I believe that there are clear failures. Foreign venues seem to be mentioned and trumpeted. What we have seen in Australia with the use of Nauru was frankly shameful. Indeed, Australia appears to be backtracking from that because of the failures that have occurred there.
There seems to be little planning and few suggestions. I have recently asked parliamentary questions about what jurisdiction would apply and who would be in charge. We do not know. We are just told to believe that the 1951 convention will be adhered to and all will be well. In Scotland, we would say that all will be hunky-dory. No, it will not. What the Government are seeking to do is to move people to a place away from visibility, where they will be treated appallingly. It has been dreadful in Australia, and it would be shameful if this country were to replicate it.
Mr Holden
I do not think that is what the UK Government are proposing at all. The hon. Gentleman opposes offshore detention centres. The Opposition often oppose onshore detention centres. Where does he think that people who have no proven status, some of whom need to be deported, should be kept?
Kenny MacAskill
If people have to be detained we have measures for detaining them, but in the main we do not have to detain people. I will again digress, with a story not from my period as Justice Secretary, but from when I was a defence agent. I once represented a young woman who had been detained as an asylum seeker. The crime was working in a restaurant in Orkney. She was detained in Her Majesty’s Prison Aberdeen. There was no Chinese translator. It was an overwhelmingly male prison. She was frightened witless. Those of us who know Orkney will know that someone cannot get off the island without boarding either a ferry or a plane. There was no way for her to escape, and to lock her up when she was no danger was frankly shameful. That was more than 25 years ago and things, sadly, are much worse now.
I always remember an old friend of mine, who was a prison governor and indeed a penologist, saying that if we want to look at who the most vulnerable and weakest members of a society are, we have only to look at who is in prison. In America, it is the black population. In Britain, it is the ethnic minorities. In Australia, it is the aborigines. In Scotland, it is the poor. Equally, we can take the corollary to that in this case, and ask who is coming and from what lands.
Kenny MacAskill
No, not at the moment.
That tells us where the areas of conflagration are and where the areas of natural disaster are, because people are coming from Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iran and Iraq, where there has been war and carnage. That is what they are fleeing, and that is why we have a duty to support them.
Kenny MacAskill
No, I have to make some progress.
We have to make progress, because it goes against the values that, I believe, not only do we hold in Scotland but are replicated across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. People have come to this country—the Huguenot French, the Jews fleeing the pogroms, Basque children escaping Franco’s atrocities. They have come here, they have been welcomed and we are proud of that. It is something England and Wales are right to be proud of. Scotland has its own immigration, and I will deal with that in a minute, but that is something in which those who have come to this country and those from south of the border are right to take pride.
In Scotland, we have similarly seen people having to flee here. In fact, I say to Members from Northern Ireland that the first of those fleeing in were probably those fleeing the north of Ireland in the 1798 rebellion, who had to get out after the defeat of the rebellion and the conflagration that took place.
Kenny MacAskill
No, not at the moment.
That was followed by those who fled Ireland during the famine and, similar to south of the border, by those fleeing the Jewish pogroms or war. Scotland has benefited from these people coming: they have made us a better country. As others have said, we are losing population and we require people to come here—not simply retirees who wish to go and buy a nice house on the basis of their pension or the property they have sold, but people of younger age who are willing and able to come here and work, many of them those are asylum seekers and refugees. We need to have them coming because Scotland has a need for them.
Equally, this is about representing our universal values. Every day I see people lining up here for Prayers, and why do we do that if it is not because those in this Chamber are supposed to act according to values, whether Augustinian or whatever else? Within those values, and certainly within the Christian faith, the church was viewed as a sanctuary, yet the terms of the Bill remove sanctuary not from a church building, but from this entire country. It is entirely wrong. It goes against the values of the people not simply of England and Wales, but of Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, and those Conservative Members who are fuelling racism should be ashamed.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
This Bill, of course, reflects a manifesto commitment from the Conservative party at the last election—a manifesto that delivered an overwhelming majority for the Conservative party and a mandate to do precisely what we are doing today.
Since last spring, a great many of my constituents have been alarmed by a still ever-increasing number of migrants making the dangerous channel crossing. They are troubled by the risk to life, the reprehensible actions of illegal gangs exploiting vulnerable people and the challenges of protecting our own borders. This Bill meets all three key concerns of my Orpington constituents for reasons that I will set out, so I will be strongly supporting it this evening. Before I begin, however, I would like to pay tribute to Border Force personnel for all the work they do to save lives and keep our country safe—thank you to them.
This Bill is necessary because conflict and instability have displaced hundreds, if not thousands—or, indeed, millions—of people over the past few decades. In 2015 alone, more than 1 million migrants crossed into Europe. Over the last three years channel crossings have increased: 1,900 made this journey in 2019; that quadrupled in 2020 to over 8,400; and in the last six months alone, it has reached almost 6,000.
Jonathan Edwards
The House of Commons Library briefing on this issue indicates that, at the beginning of the century, the number of asylum claims was about 84,000 a year, which went down to 36,000 in 2019, the last year before the pandemic. Is not this narrative of a deluge of asylum seekers somewhat overstated by the Government?
Gareth Bacon
I do not believe so, and I do not recall using the word “deluge”. It is undeniably a problem, and it is one of the largest things to feature in my inbox on a daily basis.
This has been exacerbated by criminal gangs that are making an immoral profit from human smuggling and trafficking. Critically, migrants are crossing through safe European countries and refusing to claim asylum there. In ever growing numbers, migrants are being drawn to this country, and the situation is becoming unsustainable. The UK is one of the world’s most generous countries for refugee resettlement, and that is right.
Duncan Baker
My hon. Friend is making a wonderful speech. He has made two points that I have sat up at. The first was that it was a manifesto commitment to get this piece of legislation delivered. The second was that his inbox is full every single day with queries relating to the Bill. Is it not the case, therefore, that the British public overwhelmingly want to see this issue dealt with? It dominates the news every single day. That is why the Home Secretary is bringing this piece of legislation to get it dealt with once and for all.
Gareth Bacon
I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. Having listened to the debate on the monitor in my office, I have to say that the tone and content of some of the speeches from the Opposition underline and reinforce why they are the Opposition and not the Government.
Analysis has shown that many migrants might actually be economic migrants and not genuine refugees. Without this Bill, our asylum system is in danger of being continually abused, so we must take steps, as my hon. Friend has just said, to protect our own borders. Part 2 of the Bill, which deals with asylum, is understandably vast, so I will focus on some specific points arising from it. It is remarkable that all claims made by asylum seekers are processed in a homogeneous way and that there is absolutely no distinction between those who have entered the UK legally or irregularly. Some 62% of applicants in the 12 months ending September 2019 entered irregularly.
It is surely common sense that those who have respected our laws and entered our country via legal routes should be on a different footing from those who have sought more clandestine access. Clause 10 will change things by allowing for such differentiation to occur while making the distinction that all genuine refugees will continue to be afforded the same protections under international law. This will in turn help to deter people from making dangerous crossings. Clause 26 will make possible removals to a safe third country while an asylum claim is being heard, further deterring activities that put lives at risk and, in several tragic cases, claim them.
Clause 41 in part 3 is a key part of the Bill, because it gives more powers to Border Force to meet the specific circumstances faced. The problem, as I have said, is severe. Not only are criminal gangs responsible for facilitating these crossings, but they show no signs of stopping and are growing ever more expansionist, using larger vessels and carrying more people.
Migrants crossing in small boats have thus far been intercepted and brought back to the UK to have their asylum claims processed. At present, enforcement powers do not extend to ships in foreign or international waters, and clause 41 would change that by giving Border Force the ability to require migrant vessels to leave UK waters and deter them from our shores. The clause also provides for controlling the vessel and returning it to a safe country—most likely in these instances where it originated from, so the northern beaches of France or Belgium, or any other country accepting disembarkation.
Those who oppose the Bill have claimed that by legislating in this way, the UK would somehow be acting in breach of the 1951 UN refugee convention. That is false. It is fully compatible with all international obligations and conventions. The 1951 convention allows for different classifications where a refugee may not have come directly from a country of persecution. In this instance, if migrants have already transited through a safe European country where they could have claimed asylum, their return is not inconsistent with the convention. Who here in this House would consider France, Belgium, Germany or Italy not to be safe countries? If someone had been in a country where they have seen the worst atrocities possible, they would be lucky to settle there.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
My hon. Friend has made a very important point about travelling through safe countries, but does he not agree that these asylum seekers are not just travelling through one safe country? They are very often travelling through many safe countries. Essentially they have a shopping trolley as to what they want in this economic migration, so the best way to deal with this is to do so up front and have a meaningful policy, which is what the Bill is here for.
Gareth Bacon
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is a fact that people will travel, often by land, through several safe countries to get to the border of northern continental Europe, thereby to embark for Dover or other parts of southern England.
The simple truth of the matter is that between 2016 and 2019, the UK settled more refugees from outside Europe than any other EU member state. Similarly, safe and legal routes for those needing protection or to reunite with their families still exist. More than 5,400 family reunion visas were issued to partners and children, and more than 29,000 family reunion visas have been issued in the past five years. There have been claims that the Bill reduces support for victims of human trafficking, which would be shocking if it were true, but part 4 of the Bill actually strengthens protections for victims of human trafficking and will be supported by a package of non-legislative measures as part of the new plan for immigration to provide enhanced support for victims.
The public, including my Orpington constituents, want strong but fair border controls. The Bill is about creating a fairer asylum system, both for those who need aid and for the British public. It does just that, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and her Ministers on introducing it.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
Albeit remotely, may I join colleagues in saying what a pleasure it is to welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker?
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the Bill, having worked on migration policy in one form or another for much of the decade that I have been a Member of the House. That has taught me that, like many complex policy problems, these issues are most effectively dealt with when we try to work across the House, aiming for consensus where we can find it. That is what we did with the 2014 cross-party inquiry on immigration detention, and its recommendations for a statutory limit and its ambition for community based alternatives were accepted by the House, although still not by the Government.
There is consensus that there are problems with the asylum system, and we are all clearly appalled by the desperate journeys that we see people making across the channel. However, the Bill does not aim to solve the problems with our asylum system; it simply plays to the gallery. It is introduced by a Home Secretary who has been found out for making false claims to pitch for headlines, fuelling another culture war that has sadly been reflected in some of the speeches today. We really should do better with such an important issue.
The Bill cynically claims to support refugees by cracking down on criminal gangs, but in fact it makes pathways to refuge more difficult and dangerous for the most desperate. Whipping up divisive rhetoric about illegal entry to the UK, the Bill proposes to criminalise irregular entry, and it flouts our obligations under article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, according to the UN Refugee Agency. That refugee convention was signed by Attlee’s Government as we responded to lessons from the second world war, and to lessons from pre-war hostility in the media and among politicians to those fleeing Nazi persecution in Germany. The convention prevents states from imposing penalties on account of mode of entry, but as Members know, the Bill disregards that duty altogether by creating a two-tier system.
This is another instance of where this Government are content to degrade our status on the global stage by breaching international agreements and laws to which we have signed up. Clause 10, on the differential treatment of refugees depending on mode of arrival, includes provisions on whether family members will be granted family reunion, on the length of leave to remain given, and on whether a condition of no recourse to public funds is attached. The Bill discriminates in so many ways, and if it passes in its current form, a woman who, through desperation, has fled an abusive relationship in a dangerous country, without passing through a safe and legal route, could be criminalised with a four-year prison sentence. As refugee women whom I met recently told me, we should remember that the nature of women seeking asylum is often a desperate and frantic journey that is incongruent with Home Office procedures.
The Bill’s focus on safe and legal routes would be more understandable if it set out additional provision, but it does not. The UK resettlement scheme that opened earlier this year is not transparent and there is very little information about it in the public domain, so the Home Secretary must see that it is not a viable route for those fleeing urgent danger to seek refuge. In its first month, March 2021, the route settled just 25 refugees. While the Bill has no targets for resettlement and while the only such route is making no significant contribution, the Home Secretary’s rhetoric about safe and legal routes is empty.
The Home Secretary often professes the UK’s generosity in resettlement, suggesting that we take more refugees than our European neighbours; we have heard that in many speeches today. In fact, according to the most recent available data, in 2019 Germany resettled more than three times as many refugees as the UK, while Sweden and Norway, which are much smaller countries, both resettled more refugees than we did—and that was while the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme was still open. That route has now been closed, reducing the safe and legal pathways available to those seeking asylum.
The Bill contains worrying proposals that will allow for inhumane treatment of those who arrive through irregular routes. Clause 12 makes provision that
“An asylum claim must be made…at a designated place”,
paving the way for the offshore reception centres that the Government have flirted with. The Bill’s amendments to section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 will enable the offshore processing of asylum seekers while their claims or appeals are still pending. The reported proposals for processing centres in Rwanda and other locations are not only seriously concerning because of the potential for indefinite detention and warehousing of asylum seekers in out-of-sight, out-of-mind locations, but frankly ridiculous because the Government have failed to strike any kind of international agreement on processing asylum claims or removals to safe countries. Frankly, their bullish approach to international relations post Brexit has left the prospect of any kind of replacement for Dublin III looking unlikely.
Finally, although there are many more issues in the Bill to discuss, I want to cover the proposed changes to the asylum process. Like many others, I am seriously worried that they will disadvantage the most vulnerable, particularly women. Clause 24 proposes that the appeals process be fast-tracked, while clause 23 proposes that judges be told to give “minimal weight” to evidence raised by an asylum seeker later in the process, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Clauses 16, 17, 20 and 23 contain provisions to penalise a submission of late evidence in a case. They ignore the reality of how asylum claims are made and how those seeking asylum can gather and provide evidence.
I recently met refugee women in a meeting facilitated by the charity Women for Refugee Women. They explained how a one-stop process would force traumatised women to raise all the reasons that they need protection at the outset or risk being penalised. Those who have experienced extreme trauma may simply be unable to do that—we know that—and must not be discriminated against for the very circumstances that have led them to seek asylum in our country.
When we seek to reform our asylum system, which does need reform, we should put those most at risk and most in need at its core, alongside the values for which this country stands. Sadly, the Bill has dog-whistle politics at its heart, not those values of which should be proud or the people we should protect. I urge Members to vote against it tonight.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I am conscious that there have been many contributions, so I fear that this will be slightly repetitive, but my constituents in the Black Country elected me on a promise to sort this out. It is as simple as that. This is the way we will ensure we sort out the issue, which has been going on for decades. I find it absolutely laughable that some Labour Members attack us on our record, when they could not get a grip in their 13 years in government. The fact of the matter is that the small boat crossings that my constituents see on their screens every day are what inundates my inbox. That is not made up; it is not laughable. I can show it.
We talked earlier about whether the Bill aligns with public opinion. I will tell the Labour party how the Bill aligns with public opinion. Last week, on a 17.5% swing, Labour lost a seat in my constituency that it had held in perpetuity, because it had lost contact with the communities that it purported to represent.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s description of the by-election in his constituency is absolutely typical. Is it not typical of the Labour party that, in an important debate such as this, on which they express so much passion, so much support, so much belief, there is not one single Labour MP in the Chamber?
Shaun Bailey
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), but, as I say, where are the rest of them? Where are they? We could all ask that question, and my hon. Friend has articulated it in his unique way. [Laughter.] I assure him that that was a compliment.
I sat here last night and listened intently to the contributions on both sides of the House. I was pretty aghast, to be honest, by some of the stuff I heard—particularly the parallels that people tried to draw between the Kindertransport and this Bill. That was abhorrent. There is no way that any conscionable Government would illegalise the saving of people from a regime such as the Nazis. For Opposition Members to use that parallel in a debate shows, quite frankly, that when they have lost the argument, they just throw mud. That is exactly what that analogy—
Shaun Bailey
Not at this point. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will just make a bit more progress.
I thought that was a disgraceful analogy to make. I also want to draw on a point on the 1951 convention that was articulated very well last night. I agree that we make international agreements and we should abide by those international agreements, but it was interesting to hear in the contributions last night that one of the debates that has had to happen is around how the international community defines “migrant” and “refugee”. We have seen the debate that has been going on, and we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) about the conversations she had had with the UN about really drilling down into what that definition meant. By getting the definition right, and through this Bill, we can ensure that we protect those most vulnerable.
Let us just remind ourselves of one thing. We are not trying to turn away refugees and people that need our help. I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends who have been lambasted today and yesterday by some of the most disgraceful slurs I could possibly have heard would agree that we uphold our place in the international community to protect the most vulnerable.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when we have genuine asylum seekers, we want to make the system fairer? In fact, we have resettled directly the most of any European country in the last six years.
Shaun Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which leads me to the point I am trying to make: we need to ensure that we are best placed to help those most vulnerable, by ensuring that the people we are helping are the ones that truly require that help. The ancillary support—ensuring that things such as education and housing and the right skills are in place—is so important as well.
I am a fervent believer that there is a promise that this country has to offer, that there are opportunities here that people can take advantage of and that we are a safe haven for people. I do not think anyone across this House would deny that for one minute, but it has to be done in the right way. It has to be done for those people who are truly vulnerable, and I am sorry, but my hon. and right hon. Friends are right when they say that a lot of the images we see are of economic migrants. I am sorry, but I would rather be taking in people that are fleeing war-torn countries and need that help and support, and I will not take lectures from Opposition parties on that. I fundamentally believe that we do have an international conscience, that we are—
Alexander Stafford
On the economic migrant point, did my hon. Friend see the reports in the paper yesterday about the small boats, with people paying more than £8,000 to criminal gangs to come over? Not only are these economic migrants coming over, but they are funding these gangs—gangs that traffic humans, supply drugs and arms, and bring death and destruction to our streets. Does he agree that the Bill not only helps the most vulnerable coming over, but undermines and destroys some of the criminal gangs and takes the blood off our streets?
Shaun Bailey
My hon. Friend has articulated that really well. Obviously, the Bill is part of that wider jigsaw. We have to nip this because all of us see the impact that these criminal gangs have on not just the migration debate that we are having today, but the follow-through in our communities and the blight of drugs and knife crime that he talked about. We get abhorrent stories in our mailbags—I am sure he gets them just as I do—and the fact is that this underpins so much of our society, not just in the migration debate, but more broadly. He is absolutely right to make that point.
We, as Government Members, are not saying that we do not have international obligations. If anything, we are trying to ensure that we can actually follow through on those international obligations. When I hear the arguments that we are somehow ignoring or riding roughshod over them, I think it truly is laughable.
Let me turn to the citizenship provisions of the Bill. We have heard some quite inflammatory arguments about the migration debate today, but on the citizenship requirements, the Bill reforms the British Nationality Act 1948 and the British Nationality Act 1981. On a broader point, that is the right thing to do, because we have to accept that society has changed in the last 70 years—and in the last 40 years, if we are talking about the previous Act. In my examination of the Bill I noticed particularly the point about family circumstances, and we have to recognise that the family as we see it today is not what it was 70 years ago. It is therefore right that, in drafting the Bill, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have recognised that fact. Our citizenship provisions allow us to ensure that citizens of Hong Kong, for example, can apply for their British citizenship and that we can continue to protect the most vulnerable.
I turn to the notion of the first safe country, which I have touched on slightly in my other remarks. I appreciate that Opposition Members have shouted about the unfairness of that, but I must bring this back to the fact that, ultimately, we have to ensure that within our asylum system, we are protecting the most vulnerable. I will always bring it back to that.
I have raised previously with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the cost of this system: £1 billion. When I think of the communities I represent in my constituency, an example that comes straight to mind is an area called Princes End. It is in Tipton, the beating heart of the Black Country, and has some of the highest rates of child poverty and of unoccupiable social housing. Do you know what £1 billion would do for a community such as that? Of course I am not saying that there is a like for like, but I am saying that by getting these systems right and by ensuring that they are cost effective and streamlined—that has been such an important part of the discussion today—we will have the resource to invest in communities such as that.
There are people in Princes End who, quite frankly, feel, after listening to the debate today, that this House is just talking at them. These are the people raising concerns about small boats with me, and they feel that this place is saying that they are racist and that they are bigoted. No, they are not. They are just concerned about the country that they are in. They are angry about what they see and they have been promised time and time again—[Interruption.] I will not take interventions. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) was trying to intervene, but I did clock her. It is absolutely wrong that they are rubbished like that, because their opinion matters just as much as anyone else. That is the frustration that comes through in my mailbox. It makes me so angry, particularly with the Labour party who purported to represent this community for 50 years and whose Members sit here now and rubbish them.
We have to get this right. I will support the Bill. The amendment by the Opposition just reeks of procedural ignorance, really, and as far as I am concerned, I commend the Bill to the House.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Where to start, Madam Deputy Speaker? Thank you for calling me to speak—I think.
As many Members have noted throughout these proceedings, it is the 70th anniversary next week of the refugee convention—a convention built on article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises the rights of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries. That was the building block: the right to seek asylum from persecution. I know that the current Government are keen to distance themselves from our international treaty obligations. I have been expressly told that those obligations hold no weight in their opinion, but we simply cannot let that be the narrative. That is a concern shared by the Law Society of England and Wales, which sees it as vital that the UK applies, and is seen to apply, a convention that it willingly became a party to.
Anne McLaughlin
No!
Our legal standing on the international stage relies on this concept. Are we not in the strangest position when the Prime Minister, who seemingly holds Churchill in the highest esteem, is willing to undermine and redefine the post-war legacy that his political hero left behind?
The Government are trailing the Bill as a chance to streamline the immigration system and to cut down on so-called unmeritorious claims and time-wasting appeals. They have even introduced a wasted cost order that will ensure that those attempting to pursue their legal rights to a fair hearing are liable to pick up the tab for certain types of conduct that they consider improper, unreasonable or negligent. What about the wasted costs that the Government will run up if this Bill goes through unamended? I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who is so keen to help the most vulnerable in our society, will be interested to know that the cost of imprisoning so-called illegal asylum seekers could be as much as £412 million a year. If we do the maths, as the Refuge Council in England has done, the proposed plan to lock asylum seekers up for four years—yes, four years; there are some people in this House who clearly do not understand that refugees could be locked up as well simply for trying to come here—comes to an eye-watering £1.65 billion. Parts of the UK already have a prison system groaning under the strain of over-population. How can the Government justify moves that increase the number of people crammed into the prison estate?
When I prepared this speech earlier, I wrote that the hardest bit about speaking in this debate is having to leave out so much but that I was grateful to be on the Bill Committee because nothing would be left unsaid. Then, Madam Deputy Speaker, I experienced something that I have never experienced here before: the minutes went up and up, and now I am completely confused and have no idea how long this will take me.
Anne McLaughlin
Well, okay, if it gives me extra time, I will take an intervention.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Lady is talking about costs and the costs of, as she says, locking up asylum seekers, but what are the costs of housing these tens of thousands of asylum seekers? What are the costs in terms of GP services? What are the costs in terms of housing for my constituents. My constituents are struggling to get access to the GP services. They are struggling to get houses—
Anne McLaughlin
Is it not funny, Madam Deputy Speaker, that all afternoon Government Members have been saying, “Why are more council areas in Scotland not taking more asylum seekers?” We want to do that, but the Government do not fund it. If the Government funded it properly, we absolutely, certainly would take more. Sometimes it is not just about the money, but about people’s human rights.
I want to concentrate a little on congregated living—I do not know the term, but Members will know what I mean. Today, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) mentioned Ireland. Yesterday, at the all-party group on refugees, we heard from the Irish Refugee Council, whose chief executive, Nick Henderson, described this as a “Sliding Doors” moment. Just as Ireland changes its immigration system, after a 19-year campaign, and sets out on a path to end congregated living for asylum seekers, we are embarking on the opposite journey, closing down community dispersal for those deemed to have arrived unlawfully by slinging them into degrading and inhumane detention centres—“Sliding Doors” indeed. I will say a bit more in a minute about the Irish experience, but at that same meeting we also heard a Belarusian politician describe his experience of living as an asylum seeker in congregated settings in London. He was at pains to point out how grateful he was that the UK had taken in him and his wife, and he was very clear that, had it not done so, he would have been murdered. He is now settled, but he is worried about others. He knows the impact of congregated living for asylum seekers. None of us knows it, but he does, and he wants to warn the Government against going further down that route. He talked about the powder keg that is created when a melting pot of multiple cultures and languages lives in one space with always just one thing in common: trauma. The constant stress of that and the indignity of communal living left him feeling suicidal. Yes, I agree with those Conservative Members who say that we have a broken asylum system: we certainly do, but they are trying to fix it in the wrong way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) talked about the inquiry that the APPG on immigration detention has been doing. I attended some of those sessions and I was as sickened as she was when I heard people talking about the outbreak of scabies. How is that giving people dignity? She and I have both worked hard to try to close down the so-called mother and baby unit in Glasgow. There is a fantastic campaign called Freedom to Crawl. It is called that because in that mother and baby unit the rooms are so tiny that the babies and toddlers cannot crawl; they cannot move. That is inhumane.
I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about people who come here by very dangerous routes characterised as wealthy and selfish and just coming here for their own benefit because they want to make money.
Duncan Baker
There is an awful lot of talk about refugees. First, would the hon. Lady like to comment on the fact that this country has taken the highest number of refugees of any other European country? [Hon. Members: “Not true!”] Let me finish. Secondly, is there not a part of her that recognises that if we are to house refugees, as we should, and meet our international obligations, giving them a safe route to come here—not making them risk life and limb through coming on boats, as we are hearing—is a sensible and practical way to try to move the legislation forward?
Anne McLaughlin
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, that is not true. We have just heard—he was clearly not listening—about a number of other countries that, per head of population, take far more than us. He might also be interested to know that 82% of the world’s refugees are in displacement camps in developing countries, and that the poorest countries are taking the most asylum seekers.
As I said, the gentleman who came to the APPG on refugees acknowledged that he would be dead if it had not been for the United Kingdom taking him in. Nobody here is saying that it is not a positive thing to have a system, but what the hon. Gentleman’s Government is doing to the system is vile. On safe and legal routes, yes, there is not a single person alive that would not want people to use safe and legal routes, but I must have missed something because I have not seen anything in the Bill that tells me how the Government will beef up those safe and legal routes so that people do not need to desperately cross the channel on those boats.
Stuart C. McDonald
The most important thing is to have a sense of perspective. Everyone supports safe, legal routes, but even in a good year, pre-covid—I think the figure was about 25,000 last year—the total number of resettlements globally from UN-mandated camps was in the region of 50,000. We are talking about 25 million or 30 million refugees. We would be here for centuries before resettlement provided a complete solution. We will have resettlement but we must also have an asylum system alongside that. All we are asking is for the United Kingdom to offer a relatively small, by European standards, number of asylum seekers a place of sanctuary.
Anne McLaughlin
I completely agree, as I always do, with everything that my hon. Friend says.
I ask Conservative Members: just imagine it was you. I talked about a Belarusian MP, but imagine it was you. Imagine that for some reason—lucky us; we do not have to—you ended up in that situation where you had to flee. Is there anything Conservative Members would not do to keep their families safe? If there is anything they would not do to keep their families safe, maybe they should be thinking about their moral code.
Ireland has been through attempts to reform the system. It argued at the time, as Conservative Members do, that its system was a deterrent. Those at the Ministry of Justice in Ireland wanted to build misery into the accommodation system. It was not a train of thought imagined by critics; it was their actual policy. But they realised it was wrong and there is now cross-party consensus that it must stop. They reached that consensus not just because it did not work, but because they have recognised the inhumanity of that system.
Anne McLaughlin
I want to come on to my last point, and I do not get an extra minute.
The Home Secretary set the tone for this debate by immediately, in the first paragraph of her speech, talking about people having “had enough”. She used the words “uncontrolled” “failed asylum system”, “illegal”—that was used three times—“foreign”, “crime gangs”, “pretending to be genuine” “pretending to be children”, “criminals”, “murderers” “rapists” and abusers. Yes, I am sure Conservative Members loved it. That was the first paragraph and it set the tone. It was calculated and it was irresponsible. She knew exactly what she was doing. We will be doing everything to make sure that the people know the truth out there .The Home Secretary should be ashamed of that speech yesterday, and all Conservative Members should be ashamed of this Bill.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I have listened to the debate over the two days and the best thing for us all individually to do is bring our own experiences to it. I represent a multicultural, working-class community in west London, and I have two detention centres in my constituency. I have been visiting them and dealing with asylum cases for more than 45 years now, as a local activist, a local Greater London Council councillor and then as the local Member of Parliament. I can remember when there was a single Nissen hut with no more than a maximum of 20 people in, but now we have two detention centres, with up to 1,000 people detained in prison-like conditions. I listen to the people and their stories when they have been detained there, and it is heart-rending. We need to express what people have been through to get to our country, seeking safety and security. They are just trying to ensure that they no longer have their human rights abused and their lives put at risk. Interestingly, for all the money we spend on detention, the majority of those detained are eventually released and enter into our community. After that, there is the condition that someone must be in this country for 20 years before they can apply for indefinite leave, and then it takes 10 years. People have been talking about the amount of money that smugglers are making, but in the discussions we had yesterday on undocumented migrants we discovered that it costs about £12,000 for anyone to secure status in this country now.
At the weekend, an asylum seeker—a young Sudanese man—died in the Crowne Plaza hotel in my constituency. We do not know the cause of death yet, and I will not mention his name, because I am not sure his family have been traced yet. I went to meet a group of asylum seekers there. They were mainly young men, but we need to understand why that is. It is because families come together and they are desperate. They have tried various routes out of the terrible situation they are in and they realise that there is realistically only one way of getting out, and that is the illegal route for most of them. They will club together. What will parents do? They will choose for their child to go for safety, so that there is some future for them; yes, it is usually a young man, but often young women do this as well. That is why there is a preponderance of young men, and we can understand it. We would do the same: we would sit down and say, “Perhaps our son or our daughter should be the one who has the hope of safety.”
This is harsh but I am going to say it: I hope that anyone watching and participating in this debate wakes up to the depths some of the speeches have sunk to in the past couple of days. Yes, some have been inspiring, but some would not go amiss at an English Defence League meeting. A few months ago, the Government were derided after they published a report suggesting that there is no institutional racism in the UK. Well, today proves there certainly is, because this Bill institutionalises further racism in our asylum and immigration system. It is done with cynicism that has become the hallmark of this Government. Time after time I have heard Conservative speakers refer to the 16,000 arriving illegally to claim asylum; cynically, they know that for people desperately seeking safety, there is realistically almost no other way. There are so few safe routes for asylum seekers to reach this country, and there are no additional mechanisms set out in this Bill. There are so few resettlement schemes for them, and those that have existed in recent years have been limited by successive Conservative Governments.
This Government and, unfortunately, others on the far right of British politics have made much of the increase in asylum seekers reaching the UK via the English channel. If we listen to Home Office statistics, two thirds of them are then accepted as refugees, and appeals push the figure even higher.
I looked at the figures yesterday, and for the year up to September 2020 the UK received 26,903 asylum applications. France had over three times as many, 92,000, while Germany received 122,000. Even countries with smaller economies and populations, such as Spain, Italy and Greece, received more asylum seekers than the UK.
The myth that we resettle more than any other country in Europe is untrue, because those countries use routes other than a simple resettlement scheme. The truth is that we are not taking our fair share of refugees. The Government are complaining about having to do that, and this Bill seeks to demonise people who are fleeing war and persecution. And in many instances we have contributed to those wars, particularly through our arms sales.
This is a shameful, squalid, small-minded and racist Bill, and it does what this Government do best—in fact, the only thing this Government do well—which is whipping up division and demonising people to distract from the Government’s own failures. I join all those who ended their speeches by echoing the call that refugees are welcome here.
To those people I met yesterday, and to the relatives of the young man who died in my constituency at the weekend, I say that refugees are welcome here. I will do everything I possibly can to oppose this Bill. I want people to know that there are many in this country, many in my constituency, who are willing to stand up bravely and say, “We will uphold basic human rights. We will welcome refugees and, yes, we know the benefit of those who come here and the significant contributions they make to our country.”
A number of MPs have stood up and said, “Listen to the people.” Well, I am listening to my constituents—there will be different views, too—and sometimes we have to stand up for what is right.
I know some have criticised my colleague who referred to the 1930s, but some people in the 1930s, and particularly some of the right-wing press, prevented a Government from allowing Jewish people to come to this country from Germany. Yes, we accepted the children, but we did not accept the parents and, unfortunately, they lost their lives in the concentration camps.
Let us stand up for humanity, let us show the best of this House, let us show the best of our country and let us offer people succour, safety and security through the asylum system, with protection for them and their families.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
Compassion and robustness go hand in hand when it come to the way in which we manage our borders. Our common humanity requires that we update our approach as the challenges we face in the world develop. Every Government in every era and every generation have looked for a system that is more efficient, that is safer for those seeking refuge, that is cheaper for taxpayers in the United Kingdom and for the communities taking in refugees, and that is more humane in the way it supports people who have faced some of the most terrible circumstances.
The website of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says that, although our debate is very much about what is happening in the European neighbourhood, the issue is challenging Governments, countries and populations across the world. In Westminster, it is an issue that Parliament has wrestled with since—[Inaudible] —by the post-war Labour Government in response to the retreat from empire.
Most of us, as constituency MPs, will know that our constituents have a very wide range of views on the issue. On the doorsteps campaigning in elections, we will all have heard a good deal of concern from constituents and voters about the impact of migration on the UK. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have had umpteen contacts from constituents asking me to intervene to prevent the deportation from the UK of someone who has been found to be an illegal immigrant in my constituency who they know, who their friends know and who lives in the neighbourhood. I am yet to have a single contact letting me know about an illegal immigrant that someone wants to see removed. So there is a conundrum in this debate, which is that our voters and constituents are in general very concerned to see that our borders are effectively managed, but tend to have a very positive view of the migrants and refugees they know in their community and in their neighbourhood.
Perhaps that reflects the fact that the UK is not a particularly popular destination for asylum in Europe. UNHCR figures indicate that Germany has about 10 times as many refugees as we do in the UK and that the UK is a middling destination in our European neighbourhood for asylum seekers. However, the UK is particularly active in resettlement. That is something that this House and the Government should rightly be proud of, in creating safe, legal routes for people who we have identified as displaced because of war and conflict, and who can be resettled in the UK. For me, it is an essential principle that we build on the success of things such as the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which cut out the people smugglers from the system and enabled communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom to welcome refugees without any of the challenges we faced with some of the parts of the asylum system.
We also know that of those who arrive by any route outside of resettlement, about three-quarters are granted asylum under UK law, which shows that most do have a well-founded claim, however they arrive into our country. So we clearly need to tackle the major problems that are inherent in the routes by which people arrive. The smuggling of people into our country and the rest of Europe is helping to fund terrorist organisations in parts of the world, which are making money out of the deaths and misery of many, many thousands of vulnerable people.
There are criminals closer to home, and we have seen some particularly hideous cases in the United Kingdom where large numbers of refugees have died in the hands of those criminals because of the way in which they are being smuggling into our country. I personally saw, on a visit to the Jungle refugee camp in Calais, smugglers driving around offering what is essentially a rate sheet: “If you can pay this many euros, you are allowed to break into a lorry. If you can pay significantly more, we will smuggle you into the UK in a British-plated car with a British driver.” It is an absolutely evil trade and we have no idea how many people have lost their lives in the waters of the English channel trying to get to refuge in our country, so we must tackle that.
It is clearly critical that we have a really effective programme of safe and legal routes. Those safe and legal routes need to work in both directions. This is not just about people who may be fleeing persecution who need to come to the UK. We need, post-Brexit and the loss of the Dublin arrangements, to have routes in place with other third-party safe countries. It is critical, in my view, that we get a clear assurance from Government that we will have that in place to make a real success of the proposed arrangements.
Fundamentally, we need to ensure that we retain public good will and confidence. We need to consider the way in which this operates in the UK. Asylum seekers were first treated separately from the wider benefit system under the Labour Government of Tony Blair in the early 2000s. Dispersal was created under Andy Burnham, then the immigration Minister and now the Mayor of Greater Manchester, in 2005. There are lessons from that system. We need to be wary of trying to do it on the cheap. Unaccompanied children and dispersal demonstrate that engaging communities is difficult when we do it on the cheap, whereas the Syrian resettlement scheme, which was costly, garnered a huge amount of public good will and was much more effective in securing public confidence because it was demonstrated in advance that people had a well-founded claim to be in the United Kingdom. It is not a matter of law, but the House will need to be vigilant to ensure that the system is resourced so that the ambitions that are set out can be achieved.
Let me turn to the question of how we achieve that. The plumbing and wiring of the system clearly need to work right. The concept of effective advocacy and advice for refugees at the point of entry to enable them to lodge a really effective claim is critical. We need to ensure that the way in which we work at the border enables us to understand the circumstances of the asylum seeker as fully as possible. If we are to have a two-tier system that treats people differently according to their means of transit to the UK, we need to recognise that in some parts of the world it may, for example, have been necessary to pay a people smuggler to get out of immediate danger and then to make the rest of the journey by another route. We need to consider how our courts will carry forward decisions on that process. There have been a number of steps in a positive direction, including the recent announcement about working visas for those seeking asylum.
The House needs to balance the views and needs of all parts of our country. When it comes to migration, that means balancing the needs of the businesses in my constituency that are crying out for new workers to enable them to make the most of opportunities with those communities already under pressure for housing need and social challenges, for whom new arrivals may be seen as an unacceptable burden. If we go local, engage communities and recognise complexity, we have a chance of making the system much more effective.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
It is an honour and a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is clearly an expert in this field. If I remember rightly, his maiden speech was made during a debate on Syrian refugees.
I find myself in the unusual position, very early on, of agreeing with the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), in that I normally get about three minutes for a speech in this place, but that has gone up to four minutes, five minutes and six minutes, and we are now on eight minutes; I am afraid that my notes might not last that long.
I welcome the introduction of the new Nationality and Borders Bill. It is the cornerstone of the Government’s new plan for immigration and delivers the most comprehensive reform in decades to fix our broken asylum system. With this Bill, we are truly delivering on our manifesto commitment to the British people to take back control of our borders and put in place an asylum system that works for those in genuine need—and I do emphasis the genuine need aspect.
I want to take a minute to highlight some of the, quite frankly, disturbing comments from the Opposition Benches. I think in particular of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who called Government Members racist for wanting to look after our borders and the communities that we represent. Quite frankly, comments like that are abhorrent and disgusting. At some point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to speak to you about that, because in my view it is neither honourable, nor respectful of this Chamber, to be insulting Members.
Joy Morrissey
I find it interesting that Labour Members are not here today. They throw odd comments over the virtual airways, but where are they when this is an issue that matters so much to their constituents? Why are they not in the Chamber debating it?
Christian Wakeford
It is almost like they are creating another argument for the Online Safety Bill. They want to insult us via virtual participation, and then turn their screen off and hide away because they cannot deal with the arguments. What we are hearing is generally insulting and, quite frankly, wrong. We are truly representing the views of the people—the views of our constituents.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when Labour Members point at us and imply that we are racist, they are also pointing the finger at millions of former Labour voters who actually agree with us on this matter?
Christian Wakeford
I could not agree with my hon. Friend any more; he puts it far more succinctly than I possibly could.
We also see the Opposition turning their back on the British people and the red wall all over again. We have had this debate many, many times, but unfortunately the Opposition are not listening—well, they are not here. What we are seeing is a paradigm shift whereby the Labour party no longer represents those working-class communities. It is no longer listening to those working-class voters. Thankfully, on this side of the Chamber we do listen.
There is also a particularly harmful argument that we have heard far too many times in the debate. It is about listening.
Duncan Baker
I am thinking of the clock entirely, but I would like to explore the serious point that my hon. Friend has just introduced on the allegation of racism. When people want to disagree with legislation that is all very well, but resorting to calling Members from another party racist simply because they want to control our borders and create a better system so that people can come here without risking life and limb is utterly wrong.
Christian Wakeford
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are seeing a party that wants to fight the deportation of foreign criminals but whose Members then insult their opponents and hide away by turning off their screens.
Let me return to my speech. Britain truly does have a proud history of providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution and oppression. I know that because my own family have been part of it. During the second world war, my grandfather came home from university one day and saw his entire family, other than his twin brother, get shot. They fled during the war and ended up, of all places, in Tamworth, followed by Pendle and finally Keighley, before my grandfather passed on. People who have come here have been part of recent wars and recent refugee camps. They sought refuge in our country. We are a proud nation, a helpful nation and a compassionate nation. We will do what we can. That is especially the case in my constituency of Bury South, where, if people need help, we respond.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
We have heard from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) that there are between 25 million and 30 million asylum seekers worldwide, so demand clearly outstrips any possible form of supply. We should be having a debate about the number of legal asylum seekers within the process. Should it be 10,000, 20,000 or 40,000? There has to be some limit. If the focus of the argument were that, would it not be more sensible to shut down obviously illegal and obviously dangerous routes of alternative entry?
Christian Wakeford
My hon. Friend gets very much to the crux of the problem. I am not going to talk about what threshold is right or wrong, but I am going to talk about the fact that we are trying to achieve a fair system that helps those who are most in need. That is what we truly need to understand. Our communities are rich in their diversity because of immigration and because of the people we have been helping. I think again of the Syrian resettlement scheme, which we are proud of. In Lancashire we have taken thousands, and I am proud of us helping those most in need, but for far too long the system has been exploited by people smugglers, criminal gangs and asylum shoppers, who cheat that system. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, people are paying extra either to break into a lorry or to get into a boat to be shipped across. That is not the right way to try to seek asylum.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
That abuse is not limited to people smugglers. It extends to the so-called human rights lawyers who know how best to game the system and to activists who encourage people to claim asylum on all kinds of different grounds, and when they fail to claim again. The system is corrupted by those individuals who seek not to defend the interests of the most needy, which my hon. Friend has described, but to exploit those who will do anything to get into this country, legal or illegal.
Christian Wakeford
I thank my right hon. Friend for those meaningful comments. I was not going to touch on that matter, but it is an important part of the debate that again takes us to the crux of why we are trying to—[Interruption.] I get the feeling that another intervention is on the way.
Jerome Mayhew
May I elaborate on that point? As a former member of the Bar, I struggle to criticise members of the legal profession who use legitimate means to extend the stay of their clients, but that is surely an argument—a very strong argument—for exactly the terms of the Bill. It is not an abuse of the system to exploit it, so we cannot complain about that, but we need to remove those loopholes so that our legal teams properly represent their clients but it does not slow the system down.
Christian Wakeford
I thank my hon. and, perhaps, learned Friend for his further comments. As I said earlier, this goes to the heart of what the Bill is actually about. Some Opposition Members, in particular, may disagree with particular points. I say to them, “Back the Bill on Second Reading, and try to make the changes that you want to see in Committee.” They acknowledge that there is clearly a problem, but they do not want to do anything to fix it. It is almost as if they want to see us fail and want to see Britain fail, and that is absolutely wrong.
The way in which things currently operate is not fair to the most vulnerable people who are in genuine need of asylum, or to the British public, who unfortunately have to pay for it. We must help to ensure that refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The current trend means that we see refugees reaching a safe country such as France, Greece or Italy—indeed, countries in most of southern Europe—and then pressing on with their journey, paying people smugglers to help them into the UK illegally or falling victim to criminal gangs who exploit them. There was a reference earlier to the Jungle camp. We need only see what goes on there to realise that many of these journeys are life-threatening for many people, so we need to do what we can to prevent them.
In October 2020, a Kurdish-Iranian family tragically died when their overcrowded boat sank off the coast of France. Both parents drowned, along with their nine-year-old, their six-year-old and their 15-month-old baby. Every journey across the channel is life-threatening, so we absolutely need to take this seriously and do everything we can to try to prevent anyone from making that journey when it is not necessary.
Last month was the worst ever recorded for illegal crossings, more than 2,100 people having arrived, and I fear that that figure may be surpassed this month. Many of the people risking their lives to cross the channel are young men who are economic migrants and are denied legitimate asylum seeker status.
As Conservatives, we will protect those most in need and put the rights of those who respect the rules above those of the asylum shoppers who take our country for a ride. We need an asylum system that is fair to everyone—a system that prioritises women and children escaping wartorn countries and those fleeing unwarranted persecution, not a system that is openly gamed by economic migrants or exploited by people smugglers.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The wind-ups will begin at 6.36 pm, and by my reckoning, because there were two late additions who are not on the call list, there are nine Members wishing to get in. This being the final day of a two-day debate, it would be good to get everyone in, would it not? However, I do not want to put the Clerk through the trauma of yet another time change, so if every speaker takes about five minutes—[Interruption.] Too late! If every speaker takes about five minutes, everyone will get in, so please, will everyone play ball?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish not only to speak about the Bill, but to describe the type of Bill that I would like it to be. The Minister and I have similar opinions on many matters, and I know that he has spoken about these matters before, so I am fairly hopeful that in Committee we can make changes to bring about what I would like to see in place.
I am ever minded that children from the Kindertransport came to my constituency during the second world war. They came to my constituency because they had nowhere else to go. When it comes to speaking in debates on this topic—and I have spoken in many—I express my belief that there is a right to flee persecution on religious grounds. We want to see the safer legal route to which the Government have referred; I certainly do, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak up for those with Christian beliefs, those with other beliefs and those with no beliefs.
Across the world, so many people find themselves in positions where they cannot practise their religion, or enjoy the human rights that we enjoy in this country. When it comes to putting a legal system and an immigration system in place, I look to the Minister, because I see in him someone who encapsulates what I believe to be a system that helps people in other parts of the world to relocate here because of the persecution they have been experiencing.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about religious persecution. Does he agree that sometimes it is the very Governments of the countries that people are from who engage in and endorse such persecution? That makes it all the more important that we have safe and legal routes, because those Governments would not allow people to leave their country.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree with her.
The Minister knows that I have been a great supporter of the Syrian resettlement scheme throughout. I was glad whenever we were able to send people to Newtonards town and families were able to relocate. The Government bodies and the Churches that were there brought communities together to help. Those people are well settled today. None of them want to go home. Their home is now Newtonards in my constituency. Will there be more opportunities through the Syrian resettlement scheme? If there are, I believe we can produce a safe haven in Strangford and across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The world is a dangerous place. People are persecuted because of their religious views. Their human rights are abused. I would like to think that the United Kingdom has a reputation for being a generous country, and part of that lies with having a fair and efficient asylum process for those who need it. Recent stats show that in the year ending March 2021 the UK received 26,903 asylum applications, meaning that possibly that number of people needed a better life with better choices and better opportunities. There has been a lack of direction in the past number of years regarding the position of asylum seekers, meaning that people are left in disarray, unable to seek work or resettle. I want to see that system improved in the future; access to the UK asylum system should be based on need, not ability to pay people smugglers, to whom other hon. Members have referred.
Detention Action—a charity that dedicates much time to ensuring fairness for asylum seekers—has used a great slogan to describe the situation. It says:
“It is political will—rather than legislation—”.
That is wholeheartedly accurate. Welfare should be at the core of legislation. In 2019, 24,400 people entered immigration detention in the UK—the lowest figure since 2009. However, I am not classifying that figure as necessarily low.
Another major issue surrounding the Bill is that young children are being placed in immigration detention. I made that point to the Secretary of State yesterday. I make it again today because it is a key issue for me and where I am. I want to see young children getting opportunities. They are often separated from their parents and family members. They come here and are sent straight into detention. The Secretary of State mentioned it yesterday, and I very much look forward to seeing changes on that. I wish to see legislation to protect children, particularly those who are fleeing persecution.
The Government have stated that they will support victims of modern slavery. What they have said so far is good news, and it is important that we have on record where we are on that. The Government have also stated that they wish to give people the opportunity to come here if they are under any distress in other countries. While asylum seeking is something that we should take seriously, illegal immigration also needs to be taken into consideration when discussing the Bill. In the year 2020-21 alone—I conclude with this comment, Mr Deputy Speaker, ever mindful of your request about time—3,500 people are said to have crossed the Channel to enter the UK illegally to work and live without the correct documentation. Both issues need to be given the same importance, and I urge the Minister to shed some light on the steps that he will be taking to address both. A humane approach must be used when discussing such a sensitive issue. Individuals should not be criminalised for seeking asylum. A sustainable system needs to be in place for those who want to enter the UK and can legally do so. There should not be a prolonged process. More important, asylum seekers should not be mistreated.
I call on the Home Office and the Minister to provide the necessary assurance that the United Kingdom can and will deliver a trustworthy haven for those who seek asylum. I wish to see in the legislation that we give protection for those overseas who are persecuted because of their religion and whose human rights are abused.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank Mr Shannon for his co-operation, but the Clerk informs me that trauma management is one of his specialities, so we have decided to introduce a five-minute limit, which means that we will now get everyone in. I will call Peter Gibson next. If you do not mind, Peter, could you stick to that limit?
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
This Bill is the cornerstone of the Government’s commitment to reforming our immigration policy. Having taken back control, following our departure from the European Union, it is essential that we deliver for our constituents, who want us to take proper, effective control of our borders.
The Bill will introduce new and tough criminal offences for those entering the country illegally, and introduce life sentences for those who perpetrate the despicable crime of people smuggling—those who would willingly and knowingly put men, women and children in the backs of lorries and in dinghies, and take money for doing so, with not a care in the world for whether their victims will live to see another day, never mind complete their journey. Those criminals are clearly the lowest of the low, and it is right that we do all that we can to stop that trade. That means prosecuting those who facilitate it and sending a clear message to those who seek to make such illegal entry into our country.
We all know that the system as it stands is in need of reform, with lengthy waits for decisions, bureaucracy that makes little sense, endless appeals, and no certainty for anyone in the system. People live lives in limbo for years—in some cases, decades. That is not right, and the new regime will be based on firmness and fairness. The Bill will deliver key elements of the Government’s new plan for immigration, on which I and my colleagues on the Government Benches were elected. The plan addresses our broken asylum system, which sadly has provided incentives to sickening people smugglers and illegal immigrants at the expense of those in conflict zones who are unable to travel.
The UK has a proud record of supporting those in genuine need of refuge and asylum. Far from closing the door on the most vulnerable, the Bill ensures that safe and legal routes remain open. It cannot be right for a decent, civilised society that welcomes those fleeing persecution to allow an unsafe, illegal route to be repeatedly exploited by criminal gangs. Immigration is a good thing. It brings skills, talents and abilities to our country, and has provided us with some of the most diverse communities in our towns and cities across the country. It has made our culture richer and is something to celebrate, but at the same time it is right that that immigration is controlled by the Government and legislation, responding to the needs of those in need around the world in a controlled way, not through a system undermined by criminal gangs sending victims to their deaths in lorries and dinghies.
The UK is delivering support through the world-class vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which has protected 25,000 people in the last six years—more than any other European country. That is 25,000 people who have been able to restart and rebuild their lives in safety. We will also continue to offer family reunion, which has enabled a further 29,000 people to come to the UK and settle here. At its heart, the Bill will break human smuggling and trafficking chains, introducing new criminal offences for those attempting to enter the UK illegally and new life sentences for people smugglers. I know that the majority of my constituents in Darlington will welcome those steps.
Closing legal loopholes and opening safe routes, ending the horrific practice of people smuggling that has seen thousands put on small, unsafe boats in northern France, is testament to the resolve of the Home Secretary, who has faced the most dreadful personal abuse for doing the right thing by this country. She has my full support in all her efforts. She knows that the overwhelming majority of the British public want to see the problem of illegal entry tackled. It is such a shame that Her Majesty’s Opposition remain completely out of touch with what our country needs and what our constituents want.
We have seen the Opposition’s true colours today—determined to oppose the Government’s plans to tackle a problem that has beset us for many years. We know that they would sign up to free movement once more. Why they would want to enable a system to continue that sees people die in the channel or in the backs of lorries is truly unfathomable.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said a little while ago, we need a system that commands public good will and confidence. I am afraid that what we have at the moment is not that.
My constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme expect us to follow the rule of law, and they expect fairness. What is going on at the moment is not fair to anyone. It is not fair to the migrants making the dangerous journeys. It is not fair to the migrants unable to make those journeys, who tend to be women and children, who are perhaps at more risk, and it is not fair to my constituents, and the constituents of all of us in this Chamber, who are paying for the system. The only beneficiaries are the people smugglers, and we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—sorry, my hon. Friend, but I am sure it is only a matter of time—that those people smugglers are making thousands and thousands of pounds for every journey across the channel. This Bill dramatically changes the incentives involved in the immigration system and the illegal immigration system to deter illegal entry, as well as to remove those with no right to be here and remove them more easily. In so doing, it increases fairness and reduces the danger in the system.
I would like to make it clear that we are not hard-hearted and Newcastle-under-Lyme is not a hard-hearted town. We support those in genuine need of asylum—for example, we support those who have been displaced from war zones. We have resettled more refugees in this country than any other country in Europe. Our vulnerable persons resettlement scheme has resettled 20,000 refugees from Syria in the UK to rebuild their lives. We should be proud of that, and I am proud of it.
However, I think the Government are right to try to find a better way, first, to differentiate between economic migrants and refugees, and secondly, to make sure that there is still a route for the most vulnerable, but one that does not mean that most dangerous of journeys. Bluntly, there is almost unlimited demand for a place in the UK. If were to open our borders completely, as it seems some of the Socialist Campaign Group members want us to do—by the look of it, they are going to be proscribed soon, the way the Leader of the Opposition is going—millions of people would want to come to the UK, because we are an open, tolerant nation. But supply is not unlimited, so we should—in fact, we must—prioritise those most in need, not those who are most able to get here. That is the only moral thing to do.
On deterring illegal entry, today, like every other day, there are hundreds crossing the channel and taking that risk. First, my constituents want to know why they are coming from France. France is a safe country, and they could claim asylum there, and before that they could have claimed asylum in Spain, Italy, Greece or wherever they crossed into the European Union. But the European Union does not want to defend its border there, because it knows that people just migrate through the European Union to the United Kingdom. Under this Bill, we will now look at removing those people, and if France will not take them back—I believe it should, but I do not think it will—then we will look at removing them to a safe third country.
The example for this is Australia. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who is no longer in his place, abhorred the Australian system, which is known as Operation Sovereign Borders. However, let me say that that has been not only a successful policy, but a deeply moral policy. To quote the evidence the Australian Government submitted to the Home Affairs Committee:
“Between 2008 and 2013, more than 50,000 people travelled illegally to Australia on more than 820 individual maritime people smuggling ventures. During this period, more than 1200 people drowned in the attempt to reach Australia…Following the establishment of Operation Sovereign Borders on 18 September 2013, it has been more than six years since the last successful maritime people smuggling venture to Australia, and more than six and a half years since the last known death at sea”.
That is what we should be aspiring to—a system that commands public confidence, but reduces the risk of people losing their lives.
We should also of course remove those who have no rights to be here, and we need to do that more quickly, because the spectacle of these appeals lasting years is undermining public confidence. We are going to look at accelerating removals and measures to combat lengthy vexatious claims. We are going to put in statute a single standardised minimum notice period for migrants to access justice, and we are going to make that into a one-stop process. We will also expand the early removal scheme, which will remove foreign national offenders, and we will remove criminals who are currently in our prisons as soon as possible.
I would like to ask why 60 Labour MPs, none of whom are here—there are only those on the Front Bench—have written to Government opposing the removal of foreign national offenders. They could not be more out of touch if they tried.
Aaron Bell
Yes, indeed.
To conclude, the British people have repeatedly voted, most recently in 2019, to take back control of our borders. After our exit from the European Union, we now have the tools to do so. We have already put in place new rules for legal immigration, and with this Bill we are going to put in new measures to deter illegal immigration. I believe this Bill will give our Border Force and our justice system the tools they need to deter that illegal immigration at source and to change the incentives. In so doing, we will cut out the criminal gangs, and we will finally deliver a fair system that can command credibility both at home and abroad.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Since I was elected in 2019, one thing many of my constituents have told me they want to see is this country taking back control of its borders. They are not racist; they are genuine, hard-working, decent, honest people, and they are actually generous to those in genuine need.
Our asylum and immigration system is not fit for purpose. It lines the pockets of criminal gangs and people smugglers, and it is not fair on genuinely vulnerable people who need protection. It is also not fair on the British public, who pick up the tab. There appear to be some in the Opposition who cannot see a problem, but there is a reason why they no longer represent constituencies like mine.
Yesterday saw record numbers of people arriving in this country by boat, with 430 crossing in a single day. Since 1 January, approximately 8,000 people have made that crossing. Something is wrong. Many of them have travelled across several safe countries; some have paid as much as £5,000 for a ticket to board those illegal crossings and jump the queue for asylum. Most of the genuine asylum seekers I have met in my constituency could not afford £5,000 and would not be able to make a journey across five countries to get here.
Of the whopping 8,500 people who arrived here in 2020, 80% are male and 74% are aged between 18 and 39. Something has to be done, not only to stop abuse, but to ensure that the world’s most genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers are not arriving in this country via legal routes to join huge queues and be left in limbo for months, if not years, by our overburdened system. This country cannot allow criminality to be rewarded, especially not at the expense of providing haven for those in genuine need.
The Bill will bring forward fundamental and—in my view—long overdue reform, creating a system that is firmer and fairer. It is firmer on criminal gangs of people smugglers and those who enter the UK illegally, it increases the penalty for illegal entry, and it introduces life sentences for the disgraceful people smugglers who put lives at risk to profit from this illegal and dangerous activity. It is firmer on foreign national offenders, increasing sentences for those who return to the UK in breach of a deportation order. That will save British taxpayers’ money that could be spent on building back better and levelling up the most left-behind areas, or on actually supporting vulnerable people such as those subject to slavery and people trafficking. Importantly, the Bill will rebuild the British public’s confidence in our asylum and justice system.
The Bill is not just firmer; it is fairer. It is fairer on our border forces, which will now have the power and resources they need to do the job that we have tasked them with—powers to search unaccompanied containers, to seize and dispose of any vessels intercepted, and to stop and divert vessels entering the UK illegally. It will be fairer on genuine vulnerable people who are fleeing persecution and tyranny, who currently join a queue in a system stretched to its limits, often by repeated and vexatious claims.
The total number of people in limbo waiting for a decision has doubled since 2014. I have spoken to genuine refugees who have seen some of the most terrible atrocities. They have been forced to wait for more than a year simply to get an interview date, because they are in a queue behind those who cross the channel illegally. That is unsurprising, considering that this country has 109,000 outstanding asylum claims that need to be dealt with. The system cannot cope. It is at breaking point, and that is utterly unfair on those who follow the proper channels to claim asylum.
The Bill is also fairer on the British taxpayers, who have voted time and again for the UK to take control of its borders and who, while generous to those in need, do not wish to see that generosity abused. It is firmer on the criminal gangs that profit from putting others in peril, and firmer on foreign national offenders in breach of a deportation order, but fairer on genuine asylum seekers, on our border forces and on the British people who pick up the tab.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I am slightly disappointed: not only do I not get nine minutes to speak, but there are no Opposition Members. They have all gone home, when we are debating such important legislation. What a disappointment! I wonder why.
Our immigration and asylum system, as we have heard many times today and yesterday, has not worked properly for years. It is fair to say that leaving the European Union was about many things—it was about controlling our laws, our money, our trade and our borders. Along with a points-based immigration system, we can look to control our borders further with proper legislation to deal with the issues that have dogged our country for many years. In the shortish time that I have, I want to make two overall points.
First, there is an issue that has been raised many times already, the thousands upon thousands of migrants making dangerous crossings to get here. We read that yesterday saw a record number of people crossing the channel to arrive on our shores. We saw 2,000 in June. Quite simply, constituents write to me every single week imploring us to get to grips with this situation, to have control of our borders, of who is here and of how many people are entering the country. In doing so, the Bill has to deal with the criminal element and deter people from coming en masse to claim illegal asylum.
The Bill, as we know, will make it a crime to knowingly arrive in the UK without permission. In doing so, these measures will act as a strong deterrent to curb those who, as I said in my interventions, have many times risked life and limb to come here.
We also know that people are being led here or smuggled by gangs, and the Bill has new powers to deal with that. There will be maximum life sentences for those convicted of people smuggling, which has to get to the very core of the gangs that profit from such heinous crimes. It is absolutely right that we prosecute those people.
Secondly, I draw attention to our ability to properly protect and support those who genuinely need safe asylum here. As the Home Secretary said yesterday, we need a firm but fair asylum system that provides a safe haven to those fleeing persecution and oppression. I do not think anybody on either side of the House has disagreed with that point.
Those claiming asylum should be doing it in the first safe third country they travel through, and I welcome the provisions in the Bill to try to achieve that. We have heard a lot about this in the past few weeks, and we should not forget that we are the third highest contributor of overseas development aid in the entire world, and we have resettled more refugees than any other country in Europe. This Bill is about having the powers to discourage those making crossings and irregular entries. It is right that, if a person ends up on our shores, their asylum claim should be impacted, because it has to be part and parcel of the deterrent mechanism to try to stop people risking their life to be here.
We will continue, no doubt, to resettle genuine refugees directly from regions of conflict and instability. As I said, we have already protected 25,000 people in the past six months. This Bill, which many constituents regularly write to me about, is finally here. It takes time so, to all those who write to me wanting to see it done and dusted as quickly as possible, we have to get it right. Complex legislation takes more than just a few months to get right. The Government have done a good job of introducing the Bill today. It will hopefully have its Second Reading and we will finally start to get an end to this problem that has dogged the country for years.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker).
I will tell the House a little story, if I may. When I was listening to the debate yesterday, I was particularly taken by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). He talked about Janis Bite from Latvia and his experience of being conscripted by the Nazis during world war two, fighting on the Russian front and, ultimately, coming to the UK as a refugee.
I have a similar story, featuring Anton Petela—lovingly known as “Gido”. He was my wife’s grandfather, and he was a gardener in Ukraine. Like Janis, he was conscripted by the Nazis and forced to fight a war on the Russian front. It was a dreadful experience in unimaginable conditions, and he suffered the horrors of war. He could not return, because he would have been either executed or exiled, and he came as a refugee to Britain. He joined the bomb squad, fell in love and started a family. I am not sure how he would feel about his granddaughter marrying a Conservative MP, but he was always grateful for the chance to start a new life here in the UK.
Gido and his family did not see a cruel and heartless country. We have nothing to be ashamed of; we are a kind, tolerant and welcoming country. Nothing evidences that more than the city of Peterborough, a caring and special city. Peterborough is the home of many different communities—people from all over the world, who quite often started their life here as refugees. I pay tribute to Moez Nathu from the Peterborough Asylum and Refugee Community Association, who does brilliant work advocating for refugees in my city.
My inbox and constituency mailbag are regularly filled with asylum cases, and of course my team do their very best to help. They regularly deal with asylum and wider immigration claims that have been ongoing for 15 or 16 years. Endless legal processes and appeals, lawyers and professionals have made things very complicated and difficult, and there have been many heart-breaking phone calls and meetings with those going through this. Empathy and compassion are skills that MPs should have, but nothing prepared me for the sheer weight of numbers my office would encounter when I took this job. Some of my team are even going through legal training on asylum and immigration—something they are very happy to do, but not something they expected to do when they applied to work in an MP’s constituency office.
Opposition Members have shouted and made passionate speeches, throwing around accusations of racism and a lack of compassion. I just find that offensive. They are talking to committed Conservative activists and constituency staff—my constituency staff—who are comforting those trapped in this endless and unfair system. They are talking about decent people—Christians, Muslims; compassionate people—who are trying to make sense of a nonsensical system. There is nothing kind about throwing people into this appeals system for years on end, and our work in Peterborough makes the case for reform much more clearly than shouty speeches from the Opposition Benches.
I must say that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a typically insulting speech, suggesting that Members on the Government side of the House are far-right. The right hon. Member does not own compassion on this issue. The left do not have a monopoly on empathy. We need a much quicker and much fairer asylum system, and I know that those who work on asylum and advocacy in my constituency would agree with me. We need to prioritise those in need of protection while stopping the abuse of the system.
In the few seconds I have left, I want to make this point, because I fear that something very shocking is about to happen if we are not careful. The English channel is the busiest shipping route in the world. Over 600 cargo ships use it. It is a dangerous sea crossing. If we are not careful, and if we do not do something, we are going to see dead bodies floating in the English channel. A compassionate Government would do something about that, and that is what we have here today—a solution to that problem. I know that Anton Petela and the people of Peterborough have one thing in common: they want to see a fair, empathetic and compassionate asylum system, and that is what this Bill will deliver.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There are 13 minutes before the wind-ups and there are three speakers left, so if you all speak for a shade under five minutes, you will all get roughly the same.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), who gave a very thought-provoking account of Gido and of the experience he has had in Peterborough.
I want to start by thanking the Home Secretary, the Immigration Minister and the entire Home Office team for their hard work in bringing this Bill before the House. It has been a long time coming and I think all of us on the Government Benches are very proud to see it arrive.
Thanks to freedom day’s relaxation of restrictions, later this evening—depending on the time—I am hoping to attend an event with the Australian high commission. I mention that not just because it will be a lovely do with great wine, but because I have a great deal of respect for the way that Australia has handled the entire debate around immigration and asylum through Operation Sovereign Borders, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) gave a great account of earlier.
Wanting to have integrity of one’s borders and an immigration system that suits one’s nation, yet some out there would have us believe that that is not only shameful, but thoroughly unpopular with the public. That is not my experience.
Shall we just remember the general election of 2019, in which one party stood on a manifesto with a promise to tackle immigration as a key tenet? Which party was it? It is the one represented on these Government Benches right now. May I say, it is shameful to see so few Labour Members on the Opposition Benches when they claim to represent people right across our nation?
If it is true that the Bill is not popular, that is not reflected in the communications that I receive from my constituents. Local people across Bishop Auckland have not been shy in letting me know their views on the channel crossings and the wider asylum system. Their overarching opinion is not bigoted or racist, but it is clear that we need to protect our borders. We must tackle illegal immigration. We must crack down on the criminal gangs and people smugglers and their exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people. Those who have a genuine need to uproot their families and move to Britain because of war, discrimination or persecution should be welcomed.
Despite the outcry from some, I perceive the Bill to have safety at its core. We know that those who board small boats or cling to lorries to make the perilous journey across the channel are often being exploited by sophisticated criminal gangs of people smugglers who charge thousands upon thousands for a ticket and a new life in the UK, and that is precisely what they sell. We heard in the Home Affairs Committee about carefully marketed images of a better life, with some even posting adverts on Facebook and TikTok featuring pictures of luxury cruise liners and promotional videos of the glamorous life people can lead in London. I will never ever criticise someone for wanting to lead a better life, but I will always condemn these lying criminals exploiting people for profit without any apology.
Mr Goodwill
Does my hon. Friend agree that often the fee paid is only the down payment to a life of modern slavery?
Dehenna Davison
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. There was a very interesting report in, I think, The Independent earlier this month. It went into the detail, talking about people effectively being kidnapped and their families being exploited to allow them to make the next stage of their journey, which I think we would all agree is an absolute disgrace. It is exactly the sort of thing that the Bill aims to tackle.
For me, people smugglers are the key to cracking this issue. We need to crack down on them and get rid of these routes as a legitimate means of entry, and that is what the Bill seeks to tackle. There seems to be a very strange perception that the Bill seeks to stop us offering asylum to those genuinely seeking refuge, but would that not be thoroughly un-British? From the Kindertransport to the Bosnian genocide, the UK has a proud history of welcoming people fleeing war and persecution, and we should be proud of our reputation as a tolerant nation holding out its arms to the most vulnerable.
I am very proud that our nation has resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any other European nation. With more than 25,000 refugees and 29,000 close relatives welcomed to the UK since 2015, our record shows global Britain in action. Earlier, I heard the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) say that I should be ashamed to support this Bill, but the Nationality and Borders Bill will fix our broken asylum system with a dual approach, tackling dangerous and exploitative illegal routes while honouring our moral obligation to provide safety and security for the world’s most vulnerable. [Interruption.] I hear an SNP Member on the Opposition Benches claiming that is rubbish, but where were they earlier in the debate to make that point? That is why I will be proudly and unapologetically voting for this Bill tonight.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). In Ipswich, we have extended the hand of friendship to huge numbers of refugees over the years. We have a very significant Kurdish community in Ipswich, which has made a massive contribution to the town, supported by the Suffolk refugee centre.
Only recently I was in the Bloom Lounge, which is quite a trendy, upmarket cocktail bar in Ipswich, where I had pornstar martinis and all that sort of stuff. It is run by Erion and Francesko. They run the hugely successful new cocktail bar, and they came here from Albania. They were refugees. They fled Albania, and the people of Ipswich and this country extended the hand of friendship to them. What is more, Erion is a Conservative councillor. The local Conservative party in Ipswich is a party of refugees—far more so than the local Labour party.
We have a major problem here. We must realise that there are those who make the decision to come to this country illegally. They shun the legal process and come here illegally—break the law. Every person from that category who stays limits our capacity to show compassion towards the most genuine of refugees. There is also a limit to how many refugees we can take, so we need to be realistic about that. Each one of those people who decides to come here illegally—some are economic migrants—means that one fewer family can be supported. That is the reality of the situation.
The Labour party makes this charge of racism, but the vast majority of the British public support the position that we are adopting today. Frankly, they probably want to go a bit further. That is the reality of the situation and that comes across in the correspondence that I receive. The vast majority of people in this country abhor racism. They welcome immigration, and they want to extend the hand of friendship, but what they do not want is lawlessness. What they do not want is what we are seeing at the moment. Sadly, the message that is going out is that once you are in, you are in, so it is worth the risk. The consequence of that is the loss of human lives, an unsustainable pressure on public services, and a limit on our ability to show compassion towards the most needy.
I have met the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on many occasions to discuss this issue. He knows my views on it, and I am rather robust on the issue. I have to say that I never thought that the French would deliver on this for us. Ultimately, the people of this country voted to take back control of our borders and they do not want a situation in which we are dependent on the French playing ball for us to be able to do so. This Bill enables us, on this vital issue, to take back control and make sure that we deliver, but we must deliver. We can sit on these Benches confident that the vast majority of our constituents and the British public—decent British people—stand four-square behind us, but their patience is wearing thin. We cannot be here in six, seven or eight months’ time with the numbers that we are seeing today, because it is a problem and it is getting worse. Denying that there is a problem is for the birds.
The Labour party will vote against this Bill tonight. Ultimately, Labour’s position would mean that we have thousands more people attempting this dangerous route. The Labour party would probably put all those individuals up in hotels. The Labour party would send out a clarion call, “Come over. Once you’re in, you’re in.” That would put intolerable pressure on public services. That is the Labour party’s position, is it not? It is the Conservative party’s position to have a humane system that welcomes genuine refugees through a rules-based system, but that acknowledges that many people attempting this route are not refugees. Some are and they should follow the correct procedures, but many are not.
I welcome this Bill. I am incredibly proud to support it, but we need to deliver it. My view is that all options should be on the table when it comes to this vital issue, because this simply cannot continue.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for working so hard to get all colleagues in.
The issue of our borders has always attracted attention and the strongest feelings both here in the House and across the country. Judging by my inbox, there are some actions that my constituents want to see taken very promptly. The first is to ensure that safe routes to come here are the primary routes to come here, and that means making them more attractive and it means making the unsafe routes less attractive. What does that mean in policy terms? Well, we can see from the Bill that it means improving support for refugees to help them build their lives in the UK with an enhanced integration package when they come here. It means tackling the process so that it works much better. The speed of processing claims is absolutely woeful. All of us, I am sure, have dealt with difficult cases in our constituency casework of people who have been in the system in limbo for years. It is inhumane, not fair at all, and it needs to be speeded up.
We also have to tackle the illegal route by making the unsafe route less attractive, and that means tackling the evil of people traffickers. This is organised crime, and these are peddlers of misery. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) spoke powerfully about how people had died during this process. Improving judges’ sentencing options to include life sentences is a welcome step forward. There are huge links between people trafficking and modern slavery. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) spoke about the links with the sex trade, but it is not just that. There are all sorts of other parts of our economy where modern slavery is an evil. Other measures in the Bill will prove attractive as well, such as the speedier removal of foreign criminals.
Overall we have a system that is broken. That has been fairly clear from comments across the House throughout the two days. It is less clear what the Opposition parties would do about it. They have been keen to use blood-curdling language to criticise those who may take different views, but I am absolutely sure that the Government are right to look for a better system, to promote the legal over the illegal, to focus on need, to tackle organised crime and to support people better when they get here. I want to see a continued focus on the resettlement scheme, tackling the most vulnerable parts of the world’s conflicts and bringing people here from those regions. I am sure all of us want to see support for those fleeing persecution, and I will—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, Andrew, we have to leave it there.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
We have had a lively debate, and I want to pay tribute to the many excellent speeches made on this side of the House. On the issue of the broken asylum system, I want to thank colleagues including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who all spoke about the length of time it takes to process claims.
On the need for safe routes, I want to thank colleagues including my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for pointing out the need for those routes.
On the issue of the two-tier system, which penalises asylum seekers in breach of the 1951 refugee convention, I want to thank colleagues including my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who also spoke about Einstein’s experience during the 1930s when he was a refugee here.
On the issue of strong support from the community for refugees, I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who spoke about their cities of sanctuary and their community groups that are ensuring that there is support for refugees in their communities.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, next week marks the 70th anniversary of the refugee convention. I am proud of the leading role that the UK played in coming together with our international partners in the aftermath of the second world war to offer refuge to people seeking sanctuary here and across Europe, and to help to rebuild a shattered Europe. That legacy goes hand in hand with the British values of fair play, decency and respect for international law, but this Bill steps back from that agreement and once again further diminishes the UK’s international standing in the world. It is a dangerous, draconian, dog-whistling piece of legislation. It threatens those values, it is ill conceived and it is being rushed through for media headlines rather than getting to grips with our broken asylum system.
The basis of the Bill was the Government’s consultation, the “New Plan for Immigration”. The consultation was meant to inform the Government and help to shape policy, but as yet we have not been told what the responses to the consultation said and we have not seen the Government’s response to the consultation. Instead, we have this rushed Bill. Like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, the Bill is a case of sentence first, verdict afterwards. That is how the Government want to treat asylum seekers: criminalising them first and checking their claims later.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has said twice that the Bill was rushed, but we are now at the end of the second day of debate on Second Reading. This is extremely rare, in my short experience in this House. How many days of debate would he want before he would say that it was not rushed?
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Member misunderstands me. It is the process of the Bill getting here that has been rushed, not the debate we have had today.
There is also no impact assessment accompanying the Bill. We have no idea how much it will cost or what the overall impact will be.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Bill has seven placeholder clauses—something I have never seen before—so the House will not see what the Government are up to until the Committee stage where most Members will not take part.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Member makes an excellent point.
Less than a week ago, we had hon. Members rightly berating the Minister for Care, screaming blue murder at her failure to produce an impact assessment for the health and social care regulations. Where are those howls today? Not a word. I dare not ask about the legal advice that was sought to formulate this Bill, but if there was an Olympic event for legal gymnastics, it would definitely win a gold medal.
The Bill is riddled with holes. It is fatally flawed and it will not work. It will not work because of the glaring omission of the lack of bilateral agreements with France and other EU countries. Conservative Members can huff and puff all they like, but it should begin to dawn on them that without any such agreements the Bill will not work and it will not stop any channel crossings.
Aaron Bell
If France will not take people, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the proposal in the Bill that we find a safe third country that is willing to take them—we may have to pay it—and they can be processed over there? It worked in Australia and it saved thousands of lives.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Member is running roughshod over international law. I would be interested to see which third countries would be interested in taking people. If there were such third countries, I am sure the Minister would have introduced them today.
Many colleagues have spoken about the broken asylum system, but let us be clear about who broke it. The Government have had 11 years to fix the system but there is nothing in the Bill about how they will fix the current scandalous state of affairs. I know many hon. Members who have constituents who have been waiting for a decision about their asylum status. I have had one case where a constituent from Afghanistan had to wait seven years for his claim to be processed. It took my direct intervention with a Minister for his claim to be determined. It should not take the direct intervention of MPs for the system to snap into action. With fewer claims being made—yesterday the Home Secretary mistakenly said that claims have gone up when in fact they have gone down—it should not be taking longer to process applications. If the asylum system was operating as a business, it would be going bust by now.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Member accept that the basic principle of asylum is that people should claim asylum in the first safe country that they meet? As far as I am aware, France is a safe country, Greece is a safe country and Italy is a safe country. There are a lot of safe countries that people cross before they arrive on our shores.
Bambos Charalambous
I invite the right hon. Member to read the refugee convention and he will find there what the actual law is. On the basis of his logic, we would only be taking asylum claimants from France, Ireland and Belgium.
Looking at the detail of the Bill, many hon. Members have quite rightly highlighted the odious clause 12, which creates a two-tier system for refugees based on how someone arrives in the country and their mode of transport, not on the strength of their claim. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) put it, it is
“judging them on how they arrived, not what they have left.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 757.]
Once again, sentence first, verdict later.
Bambos Charalambous
Criminalising people who have come to this country irrespective of what they have left behind makes them criminals. What law have they broken when they are seeking refuge here?
What we have seen playing out in the channel crossings over the past few days occurred because the Government have closed down all safe routes for refugees to travel to the UK for protection. People are being driven to make dangerous journeys because they are out of options. To this callous Government, it is all a game—pure theatre. The Tories use all migrants, an ever-easy target, as a distraction from their own institutional failings and the gross inequality that falls upon their citizens.
The Bill does nothing to propose refugee resettlement or family reunion routes and will only put more pressure on Britain’s broken asylum system. About 10% of arrivals are expected to be unaccompanied children. The Government should be properly addressing the issue of safe routes for claiming asylum and helping unaccompanied children. Penalising refugees is a clear breach of article 31 of the refugee convention, but even more disconcerting is that clauses 27 to 36 seek to interpret the refugee convention to suit the Government’s whim. Unilaterally deciding how international law should be interpreted never ends well for the Government. The reason they feel the need to do so here is that they know they will be humiliated when those clauses are challenged. Once again, it is not so much a case of marking their own homework; more a case of being judge, jury and executioner.
One thing the Bill will almost certainly do is ensure that people seeking asylum here are kept longer. Whether through imprisoning asylum seekers for four years in our prisons or detaining them in barracks, that is an awful lot of money to spend on something that is not going to work. I dread to think what impact that will have on our creaking criminal justice system. Again, we have not seen the sums. Why not? Surely the Home Secretary will have cleared this with the Chancellor and costed it?
Bambos Charalambous
I am conscious of time. I have to sit down in three minutes.
The Law Society of England and Wales warned yesterday that the Bill risks putting England’s global reputation for justice at risk—shameful. This is the Government who are reducing the country’s global standing so significantly. As if the inhumanity in the way the Government propose to treat asylum seekers is not bad enough, they go further by deciding to punish victims of modern slavery. The Bill peddles the Government’s signature toxic politics of fear and hostility by changing the standard of proof for determining if someone has a well-founded fear of persecution and making it more difficult for people to be recognised as victims of human trafficking. Despite choosing to start by disbelieving trafficked victims, there is nothing in the Bill about setting up a national operating standard procedure to train those whose first point of contact is clearly to identify victims of modern slavery. Why is that not in the Bill? Once again, it is just like the Queen of Hearts: sentence first, verdict afterwards.
We should most definitely be going after the traffickers and people-smuggling criminal gangs, but without international co-operation we will struggle to do that. The Bill is high on rhetoric, but low on action. Without introducing any safe routes, the Bill will be a boon for the international criminal gangs and a boost for their profits. Rather than breaking the business model, the Government have breathed new life into it by pushing people further into the arms of smugglers. Having reduced our ties with Interpol and tarnished our reputation with the international community, we have lost the soft power that things such as our commitment to international aid bought us.
We have been asking for safe routes to replace Dublin III since last year, but we have had nothing from the Government. Meanwhile, the Bill gives the Secretary of State new powers to act like the playground bully in delaying or suspending visa processing for citizens of countries that she believes are unco-operative with removals. In all honesty, if the Government seriously think that that will work in getting international co-operation, they are deluded. It is the same desperate politics that created the hostile environment and the Windrush scandal. Labour strongly opposes this misleading and deeply flawed legislation, and urges the Government to engage responsibly in a debate that recognises the humanity of those who have to flee their homelands and seek protection, no matter how they arrive in the UK.
This Bill is nothing more than a house of cards. It does nothing to address the crisis in our asylum system. It is deeply flawed and will end up collapsing if there are no bilateral agreements with our EU neighbours. We on the Labour Benches will be opposing the Second Reading of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I thank all Members who have spoken in this extremely thorough two-day debate.
The public expect this House to protect our borders, they expect us to combat the dinghies crossing the English channel and they expect us to remove those with no right to be here. This Bill will deliver those people’s priorities. The Labour MPs who say those priorities are somehow racist are not only wrong, but they are insulting our fellow citizens who rightly want proper border control. The Bill is fair but firm: fair to those in genuine need, but firm towards those seeking to abuse the system. Let me reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting those in genuine need. Of course, we cannot help all 80 million displaced people around the world who may wish to come here, but we will play our part.
First, we are continuing our world-leading resettlement programme. We are working with the UNHCR. We resettle the world’s most vulnerable. We have resettled 25,000 people in the last six years—more than any other European country—half of them children. We will be strengthening that arrangement by immediately granting indefinite leave to remain to those entering via the resettlement programme. I am concerned about the poor integration outcomes in the resettlement scheme—fewer than 5% are in work after a year—so we are going to do more on integration. We are also going to draw in a wider range of persecuted people, recognising, for example, that the most persecuted group globally are persecuted Christians, whom we should make an effort to look after as well.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister talks of what the public expect, but one thing I do not think they would expect is for this Government to create a criminal offence that would see a Uyghur fleeing genocide in China, a Syrian fleeing war crimes or indeed a persecuted Christian who gets here without a visa subject, potentially, to a four-year prison sentence under this Bill.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman mentions Syrians fleeing war crimes. Our resettlement programme has principally focused on Syrians fleeing war crimes, who, via the UNHCR working in the region, have been able, safely and legally, to come to this country in greater numbers than are seen in any other European resettlement programme. That is quicker, safer and easier than illegally crossing the channel in a dinghy. We are not just running Europe’s resettlement programme; as we speak, we are bringing locally engaged staff from Afghanistan to the UK, and we have opened up a route for British nationals overseas from Hong Kong to come here, escaping the oppressive regime of the Chinese Communist party. In addition, 29,000 people have come in the past six years as part of refugees family reunions. So when the Opposition claim that we are not offering safe and legal routes, that is simply not true.
The Scottish nationalists have been saying that Scotland would like to do more. I am very disappointed, as I said in my intervention, when I was able to get in, that out of the 32 local authorities in Scotland only one, Glasgow, takes dispersed asylum seekers. If Scotland wants to do more, they have the opportunity to do so. Moreover, when it comes to taking unaccompanied asylum seeking children under the national transfer scheme, Scotland took only a very small handful of the 600 or so who were transferred last year. Scottish National party Members cannot talk about money, because those children have more than £50,000 a year of funding going with them. There are children right now in Dover who need to be looked after, so I call on the Scottish Government to put action behind their words and take some of those children on—tonight. They do not need independence to do that; they can do it now.
Let me be clear: we will always play our part for those in genuine need, but we should choose who deserves our help. Illegal immigration undermines that choice. Instead of the UK being able to choose the children and families most in need, illegal immigration instead allows those who pay people smugglers or who are strong to push their way to the front of the queue.
Chris Philp
I will give way in a moment. There is no worse example of that than the small boats crossing the English channel. About 80% of the people on them are young single men, who have paid people smugglers to cheat the system. They are not fleeing war. France is not a war zone. Belgium is not a war zone, and nor is Germany. These are safe European countries with well-functioning asylum systems. These journeys are dangerous and unnecessary, and push to one side those in greatest need, including women and children.
Sir John Hayes
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has brought us this Bill. He deserves great credit for it, alongside the Home Secretary. But will he go further? Will he fulfil the pledge to actually turn back the boats in the channel that he has just described, using the Royal Navy, if possible? Will he process claims offshore, as has also been pledged? Will he do something to frustrate those lawyers who game the system by claiming all kinds of international obligations taking precedence over our sovereign law and our sovereign Parliament?
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. Friend for his very timely intervention and I agree with what he says. This Bill contains provisions such that people arriving by small boat and other illegal means will be liable to prosecution and a four-year jail term, and people smugglers will face a life sentence. This Bill also gives Border Force the powers it needs to make interceptions at sea. Let me be clear: nothing in this Bill would have made the Kindertransport from the 1930s illegal. That was an authorised and organised programme that would be perfectly legal. Indeed it is rather analogous to the safe and legal route we are at this very moment offering locally engaged staff from Afghanistan. Let me also reassure the House, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), that there is no intention in this Bill to criminalise bona fide, genuine rescue operations by the RNLI.
Let me also be clear that nothing in this Bill infringes our international obligations. Opposition Members should study article 31 of the refugee convention, which makes it clear that it is permitted to impose penalties where someone has not come “directly” from a place of danger and where they did not have a reasonable opportunity to claim asylum somewhere else.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 10MC.] The people coming from France are not coming directly from a place of danger, as required by article 31, and they did have a reasonable chance to claim asylum in France. These measures are wholly consistent with our international obligations.
Chris Philp
I must finish soon. I apologise.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) asked about the legal system, which also needs reform as it is open to abuse. People make repeated human rights claims to asylum and modern slavery claims, which are often strung out over many years in an effort to avoid removal. Very often those claims are later found to be without merit. For example, in 2017, 83% of the last-minute claims that were raised in detention to frustrate removal were later found to be without merit. I have seen terrible examples of murderers and rapists making last-minute claims, without merit, to avoid deportation. It is not just me saying that. Let me quote what the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, said in a judgment last October:
“Late claims raised shortly before…removal have been endemic, many fanciful or entirely false…It is a matter of regret that a minority of lawyers have lent their professional…support to vexatious representations and abusive late legal challenges.”
In those remarks, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is saying that change is needed.
The Bill also contains measures on age assessment. We are the only European country not to use scientific age assessment. Recent evaluations in Kent concerning 92 people claiming to be children later found that half were not. There are obvious and serious safeguarding issues if men who are 23 years old, for example, successfully pretend to be under 18 and get housed or educated with 16-year-old girls. We cannot tolerate that.
Chris Stephens
The Minister has referred to Glasgow’s dispersal area, but there are also individuals who have come over on false passports because that is what they were given to flee their country of origin. They are children, but their passport says they are adults. What assistance will the Home Office give those individuals?
Chris Philp
Where somebody claims to be, or says they are, under 18, if there is any doubt, there is already a system—and in future there will be a better and more rigorous system—for properly assessing someone’s actual age. There are risks in both directions. If we wrongly assess someone to be over 18 there is a risk, but equally there are risks in the other direction, and it is time those risks were recognised.
On modern slavery, I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). The Bill will ensure that we identify genuine victims of modern slavery and avoid unmeritorious claims that are designed to delay removal or deportation. Where someone is a genuine victim, we will ensure that they are properly looked after. This policy will make it clear for the first time in legislation that confirmed victims with recovery needs stemming from their exploitation will be entitled to a grant of leave, where that is necessary to assist them in their recovery, or to assist a prosecution. We hope that by encouraging people to bring their claims upfront in one go, asylum claims and matters involving modern slavery and human rights will be identified early and properly, and that we avoid some of the abuses that we have unfortunately seen all too often.
Some Members raised questions about detention, claiming that it was indefinite. That is not the case. We do not have indefinite detention, and 75% of people spend less than a month in detention prior to removal. The Hardial Singh case law principles mean that someone cannot be detained if there is no reasonable prospect of removal. There are frequent opportunities to apply for immigration bail, in addition to the protections afforded by article 5 of the ECHR. On the Dubs amendment that we have seen in the past, we prefer to prioritise, not people who are in safe European countries, but those who are in dangerous places.
The public expect us to look after those in genuine need. We will do so, but the public also expect us to protect our borders from illegal immigration and to promptly remove those with no right to be here. The Bill delivers those objectives. When the Labour party votes against it in a few minutes, it is voting against border control, and against removing dangerous foreign criminals who pose a threat to our constituents. The Labour party may not be prepared to protect our borders, but the Government are. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am anticipating two votes. Even though we have relaxed the regulations, I still urge Members to show due caution in giving safe distancing to their colleagues.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
European Union
That the draft European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 (References to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.
Medical Devices
That the draft Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Device Approvals) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Customs)
That the Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021, No. 661), dated 9 June 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Value Added Tax)
That the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments and Repeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021, No. 714), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 June, be approved.
Income Tax
That the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (2021 UEFA Super Cup) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.
Independent Expert Panel Recommendations for Sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015
Motion made,
That—
(1) the following Standing Order be made:
“IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015
(1) The Chair of the IEP shall send to the Chair and Members of the Committee on Standards and to the Clerk of that Committee any report from a sub-panel of the IEP which he has referred to the Clerk of the House under subparagraph (5)(d) of Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) and which contains a determination for a sanction that would, if made by the Committee on Standards, engage the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015.
(2) Where a report has been sent to the Committee on Standards in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order the Committee of Standards shall make a report to the House in relation to the Member named in that report, setting out a recommendation for a suspension equal to that recommended by the sub-panel to run concurrently with any sanction imposed as a result of the sub-panel’s determination.
(3) Reports under paragraph (2) must be made no later than on the third sitting day after the report of the IEP sub-panel is sent to members of the Committee on Standards, save that the day on which the report is sent shall not be counted in calculating this period.
(4) If the Committee on Standards is unable to meet within 3 sitting days, the Chair shall, if satisfied that the report from the IEP sub-panel has been sent to all members of the Committee, make the report to the House from the Committee required under paragraph (2).”
(2) The following amendments to Standing Orders be made:
(a) In Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards), paragraph (1), at the end insert:
“(c) in accordance with Standing Order No. (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015) to report to the House recommendations for sanctions to run concurrently with sanctions determined by a sub-panel of the IEP and implemented by the House.”
(b) In Standing Order No. 150D (Motions consequent on the ICGS), paragraph (1), at the end, insert:
“( ) a motion under paragraph (1) of this Order includes a motion to implement a sanction recommended by the Committee on Standards under Standing Order No. (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015), or a motion to implement both such a sanction and a sanction determined by a subpanel of the IEP”.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Mr Deputy Speaker
I should inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition wishes to move the amendment, which means that the motion will be contested. That in itself constitutes an objection, and I am therefore not able to proceed to put the Question, other than to say that the objection is taken.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the matter that you have just described. Could you advise the House whether you have received any intelligence from the Government about whether they will grant time for the full motion, and any amendment tabled by any Member, to be properly debated and voted on before the summer recess? Staff should have an assurance that where any Member may have committed any offence to which the Recall of MPs Act 2015 should apply if the motion and amendment were agreed to, it can be properly considered and voted on by the House. I seek your guidance on whether that intelligence has been received.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice that she intended to raise the matter. She will know that it is a matter for the Government rather than for the Chair. I certainly have not received any information, but the Leader of the House has come to the Chamber especially to listen to her point of order and will have heard her point, which she has now put on the record.
Foreign Affairs Committee (Free Trade Agreements)
Petitions
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Eid Mubarak, Mr Deputy Speaker, to you and everyone.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in relation to the experiences that many of them have had with the Financial Conduct Authority and their feeling that it is not entirely fit for purpose.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) efficacy in overseeing the UK’s financial markets has come under scrutiny; further that the FCA has repeatedly failed in its remit to protect financial markets and consumers; further that such failures have adversely affected consumers and the industry; and further that, despite Section 29 of the Financial Services Act 2021 stating that the FCA must carry out a public consultation on whether it should make general rules providing that authorised persons owe a duty of care to consumers, the FCA consultation is entitled “A new Consumer Duty”, which differs from a duty of care—the legal definition of which we believe is not accurately described in that consultation—and would still require consumers to be beholden to the FCA to take action on their behalf.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure the FCA meets the intention of Section 29 of the Financial Services Act 2021, which if enacted in its true spirit, will strengthen consumer protection and the safety of our financial system going forward by creating a right of private action.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002679]
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition, which states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran,
Declares that the current statistics on voter fraud show that it is incredibly rare and that this is no widespread problem across the UK, thus voter ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem; further that the only type of fraud that photographic voter IDs could prevent is voter impersonation, which is even more rare each year; further that this legislation has been described as draconian, archaic and anti-democratic, as it puts a qualification on the franchise; further that the real consequence of this legislation will be this Government suppressing voting among lower income, ethnic minority, and younger people, all of whom are less likely to vote for the party now in Government; further that, in contrast to this archaic Government, the SNP Government in Holyrood is focused on measures to extend the franchise and encourage turnout; further that the SNP has already introduced votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, refugees, and foreign nationals with leave to remain; and further that voting should be made as easy as possible with no barrier to contributing to democracy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to dismiss any plans to implement legislation that enforces voter IDs.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002680]
Scotland Act 1998: Role of the Lord Advocate
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I believe that many of the ills that afflict Scotland can be laid at the door of this Tory Government. The Tories have not been elected in Scotland not just for the 55 years of hurt experienced by English football fans, but for 65 years—longer than I have lived. Independence is therefore essential, but not all ills rest there; some, along with our demons such as alcohol and violence, can and must be addressed by ourselves. The role of the Lord Advocate is one.
The Lord Advocate and Law Officers, along with Ministers, are part of Scotland’s offices of state. They are enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament. That is why legislative change is required, so I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. I welcome the willingness of the UK Government to assist, and I hope that urgency will now be shown by the Scottish Government. Scottish democracy badly requires it.
Before the post of Secretary of State for Scotland was created, the Lord Advocate was the power in the land, and some postholders were despotic indeed. The transportation of Thomas Muir and the hanging and beheading of Baird, Hardie and Wilson, the Scottish radicals and 1820 martyrs, are crimes that lie with them. Thankfully, the post devolved and became a purely legal role, but an anachronism was built in, for the postholder is both principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government yet also head of the prosecution service—the Crown Office, as it is known. That is something replicated neither elsewhere in the United Kingdom nor, indeed, in any modern democracy. Conflict of interest precludes it. In England and Wales, an Attorney General advises the Government from within. Meanwhile, a head of the prosecution service is both separate and independent from Government. But not so in Scotland, and therein lies the problem.
To be fair, apart from those despotic years, postholders, irrespective of political hue and whether pre or post-devolution, have acted with the impartiality expected. Modest steps were taken to mitigate the conflict of powers. Under Alex Salmond’s Administration a convention was invoked that the Lord Advocate appeared at Cabinet only when legal advice was to be given and did not participate in wider political debate. But the anachronism still lingered. Under Nicola Sturgeon’s Administration it has been brutally exposed by both Scottish Government and Crown Office actions, with the Lord Advocate straddling both. Change is now needed, and fast.
Firstly, there has been an admission by the outgoing Lord Advocate of malicious prosecutions involving the administrators in the Rangers FC liquidation. That is unprecedented in Scotland, not just in recent years but since those days of the early 19th century. Even south of the border there have been no such cases since 1999, and high-profile cases before such as the Winston Silcott and Daniel Morgan cases were rare. It has caused alarm with the public and been of huge reputational damage in an organisation where impartiality is imperative. It has also caused consternation and anger within police and prosecution services, where the overwhelming majority of staff act without bias and free of any favour or prejudice. The reputation of the many has been traduced by a few.
It was the former Lord Advocate’s decision, and seeking to cast blame on his predecessor was shameful and inadequate. An inquiry, perhaps even by a non-Scottish judicial figure, has been promised. Additionally, there is the financial cost. The quantum of damages is for the court, but suggestions are that the final bill could reach £60 million or £80 million—this in an organisation with an annual budget of £300 million, struggling to meet existing commitments. The price will be paid by Scottish taxpayers and the loss felt by hard-pressed Scottish public services.
Secondly, and just as alarming, has been the role of the Lord Advocate and a coterie around him within the Crown Office in the Alex Salmond case, and the fallout from it. It is another instance of the public having to pay the price of Government incompetence, with the legal expenses bill in the civil case amounting to £500,000, but where the issue of impartiality as well as competence was raised. In the civil case, the presiding judge described the Scottish Government’s actions as “unlawful”, “unfair” and “tainted by apparent bias”. During proceedings, senior external counsel, Roddy Dunlop QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, expressed horror at the situation he and his colleague had been put in by their client. They could no longer rest on pleadings they knew to be untrue. The client was the Government, and their senior legal adviser was the Lord Advocate. A criminal case followed the failed civil case and was prosecuted by the Crown Office, where the same Lord Advocate remained in office.
Despite growing pressures on police and prosecution, nothing has been spared—nothing has been too trivial—but the targets always seem selective. The Alex Salmond case saw resources deployed that are normally reserved for serious organised crime figures or serial killers, for charges that, were it not for who was being prosecuted, would either never have seen the light of day or appeared only in the lowest courts, not the High Court. I say that as someone who was Justice Secretary for seven and a half years but also a defence agent for 20 years. As it was, Mr Salmond was acquitted on all charges, by a majority female jury.
It is standard practice in cases involving politicians that the Lord Advocate recuses himself from involvement in the consideration or prosecution of the case, and that was done here, with no direct involvement in the prosecution. However, at the same time, the Lord Advocate had been, and was, sitting on Scottish Government committees dealing with the civil case, where referral or prosecution was being actively sought and advised by the Administration.
Let us recall that a prosecution was sought by the Scottish Government, as the actions of the director of human resources in contacting the police confirm. Many—indeed, most—complainers were and remain at the heart of Government, or are officials or otherwise closely linked with the governing party. Prosecution was encouraged and pressed for by the chief executive of the governing party, who is the First Minister’s husband.
Chinese walls and recusal are entirely inadequate. In one role, the Lord Advocate was supporting a Government pursuing prosecution; in another, he was denying that it was anything to do with him. A separation of powers this certainly was not. When James Wolffe appeared before the Holyrood Committee considering the Salmond prosecution, he was frankly evasive and obfuscating, mirroring the actions of the Crown and the Government in a lack of openness and transparency. There was neither contrition nor candour. Open government this certainly was not.
The fallout and failures continue to reverberate. Following on from the Alex Salmond case has been that of Craig Murray, a writer and former diplomat. His conviction is under appeal at the Supreme Court; accordingly, I refrain from commenting on specifics of the case. Instead, I restrict my remarks to the decision by the Crown to prosecute Mr Murray for jigsaw identification of complainers in the case. Why was he prosecuted when others who did so—in one case certainly overtly, and in many others much more flagrantly than by Mr Murray—were not? No action was taken against them.
Moreover, publications that in any other case would have constituted a clear contempt of court went without censure by the Crown. They included newspaper articles as prejudicial as I have ever seen, but they were supporting prosecution, whereas Mr Murray, though seeking to report factually, was not. It seems that the Crown has one law for those supporting the Government line and another for those who challenge it.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
My hon. Friend will be aware of the case of journalist Mark Hirst, who was arrested and charged with threatening and abusive behaviour. However, when that case went before Sheriff Paterson, he ruled that there was no case to answer, and that Hirst had simply been giving his opinion of the situation in the SNP and no more than that. There are also cases of police knocking on doors for single tweets, and others that are sub judice or where charges have yet to be brought.
All this is exerting a chilling effect on democracy in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, even in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing or malfeasance, any continued failure by the Scottish Government to address the separation of powers reinforces talk of deliberate and targeted harassment of individuals critical of the Scottish Government, their policies and their leadership, including their role in the Salmond affair?
Kenny MacAskill
Absolutely. There is a clear perception of there being far from equanimity or, indeed, even balance by the Crown.
Now James Wolffe has stepped down as Lord Advocate, replaced by Dorothy Bain. Ms Bain has an illustrious record of service and I wish her well, but the structural flaw remains. Personnel changes, no matter how merited, cannot resolve the fundamental flaw of a lack of separation of powers. The impartiality of the Crown is an imperative in a democracy. It must be seen to act in the public interest, not that of the Government or their friends or allies. The coterie who surrounded Mr Wolffe and who were instrumental in driving these policies and actions, often against the wishes and views of long-serving staff, still remain—in particular, the Crown Agent, Mr Harvie, the senior civil servant. Unusually among senior Crown staff, his career has not simply been as a procurator fiscal in Scotland, but has included service in and secondment to British Government Departments.
The situation is now critical as a police investigation has opened into the SNP’s finances. The party leader is the First Minister and her husband is chief executive. This situation would be intolerable in any public body or private company, or even in a bowling or social club in any Scottish town. The idea that the chief steward could be the spouse of the treasurer would draw derision and rejection, but not so in Scotland’s governing party. Worsening that further is the fact that all three members of the SNP finance and audit committee resigned from their roles when refused information by the chief executive. That has been followed by the resignation of the elected treasurer, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), for similar reasons. Given what has happened, can the Scottish public be assured that the investigation will have access to all information, and that any decision to prosecute or not will be made on legal criteria and in the interests of justice?
Protocols have failed, been breached or even abused. Interim steps can be taken to separate the roles. Perhaps there should not just be a recusal, as there no doubt will be by the Lord Advocate, but, as with the Rangers FC investigation, the bringing in of an external judicial adviser. Moreover, the Lord Advocate has recused herself from involvement in the Rangers FC civil proceedings. Maybe she could recuse herself from all direct Government involvement. An in-house legal department exists. The duty to represent the Government in court and pursue constitutional challenges remains, but that can be dealt with by external counsel.
Change and a separation of powers there must be. The twin roles of the Lord Advocate in prosecution and in advising Government are an historical anachronism, and are entirely unsuited to a modern democracy. As a former Justice Secretary, as well as someone who has practised law in Scotland for over 20 years and cherishes our distinct system, I am appalled at what has happened, and I know that is echoed in legal circles.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am not going to comment on any of the particular cases that he has mentioned, but is he aware that the First Minister of Scotland has recognised that there is a case for reform and does he agree that all that is really needed is for this House to pass a Bill to amend the Scotland Act to give the Scottish Parliament the power to make alterations to the role of Lord Advocate? The Scottish Parliament could then properly consider what I think he is suggesting—that is, separating the position into roles akin to the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in England. I stress that I am not making any comment on the cases that he has mentioned. I am simply drawing to his attention the fact that the First Minister has recognised the case for reform and that this might be the best way to do it.
Kenny MacAskill
Recognition is one thing; progress is quite another. We are now in July. Holyrood is in recess. We have had an election. And we are still to see any action other than rhetoric from the Scottish Government. It is entirely inadequate. I do accept what the hon. and learned Member says—that it should be for the Scottish Parliament to decide what the structure should be. I think it has to be a structure that will mirror most democracies south of the border or indeed elsewhere. It should be for the Scottish Parliament to decide, but they have to show greater willingness.
I call on the Minister to engage with the Scottish Government as a matter of urgency so that changes can be made to the 1998 Act to provide for a complete separation of powers between the head of the prosecution service and the senior government legal adviser. Every modern democracy does so and so must Scotland. The failures have been too many and the risks are too great, for justice has not only to be done, but must be seen to be done.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and congratulate him on calling this Adjournment debate. I know that he and others—he in particular—have taken a keen interest in this subject. I am grateful for the opportunity to hear his views and those of others on this important constitutional issue, particularly in the light of the hon. Member’s former role as Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Government.
I recognise the concerns that the hon. Member raised during his speech regarding the dual role of the Lord Advocate, both current and historical—we always enjoy a bit of Scottish history when we hear the hon. Member speak in this place—as the senior legal adviser and the most senior Law Officer. The hon. Member referenced specific cases. I hope he understands that it would be inappropriate for me or any Minister to comment specifically on those cases at this point. Although the UK Government would have a role to play in any changes to the role of the Lord Advocate, I stress that it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on what action should be taken at this time. I will therefore provide some context on the role of the Lord Advocate before I explain the set process that any changes must go through before the UK Government can take a position.
Joanna Cherry
I hear that the Minister is not going to speculate or set out a plan, but does he agree that one route might be for this Parliament to pass a Bill amending the Scotland Act so that the dual role of the Lord Advocate could be revisited by the Scottish Parliament? Of course, under the current Scotland Act, the role of the Lord Advocate is reserved to this Parliament. Does he agree that one potential way forward would be to pass very straightforward Bill that gave the power to change the role to the Scottish Parliament?
David Duguid
I will be coming to that point in a bit more detail later in my response. Although that is possible in theory, I will explain later why in practice the UK Government would choose not to go directly down that route. If the hon. and learned Lady will forgive me, I will come back to that in a minute or two.
The context of the role of the Lord Advocate is the Scotland Act 1998, which I will refer to, for brevity, as the 1988 Act. Section 48 of that Act makes provision regarding the appointment of the Lord Advocate and their removal from office. The 1988 Act itself came about after 74% of voters in the 1997 devolution referendum were in favour of a Scottish Parliament. The subsequent ’98 Act devolved significant powers to Scotland and legislated for the establishment of a Scottish Executive, later known as the Scottish Government, and a Parliament. The Scottish Parliament took responsibility in areas such as education, law enforcement, health and social care, and local government, among others, but there are many others that remain the prerogative of the UK Parliament through schedule 5 to the Act. There are too many to list, but a few examples would be foreign affairs, international trade, defence, national security, energy and, of course, the constitution.
Since 1998, there have been two major adjustments to the devolution settlement, the Scotland Acts of 2012 and 2016. The 2012 Act represented the first transfer of fiscal powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament following devolution. After the independence referendum of 2014, where the clear majority voted to stay in the Union, and after the Smith Commission, the 2016 Act was passed to transfer a range of tax and welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament. These Acts have created one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world and give the Scottish Government power over numerous aspects of Scotland’s governance.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Lord Advocate is the Scottish Government’s most senior Law Officer and principal legal adviser—that is the topic of this debate. Section 48 of the 1998 Act, in addition to providing for the appointment of the Lord Advocate and their removal from office, also makes provision for the independence of the Lord Advocate in their capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. This was to ensure the traditional independence of the Lord Advocate when taking decisions related to those matters continued after they became a member of the Scottish Government.
The Lord Advocate’s role as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths is, in section 29 of the 1998 Act, protected from modification by an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member for East Lothian has mentioned the limitation on legislative competence in section 29, and any formal separation of responsibilities would require legislation. Although the UK Government have the power to bring forward legislation to make this change, in practice we would want to ensure the Scottish Government have first put their proposals to the Scottish Parliament for scrutiny.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is a complex matter, but does the Minister not agree that there is distrust and conflicting opinions on the division of the role of the Lord Advocate within the Scottish Parliament and Holyrood, and that these proposals would need to be scrutinised before the Scotland Act 1998 is changed? Does he further agree that these matters must be addressed in Holyrood before Westminster is expected to change law?
David Duguid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention, because that is kind of the point I was making. Although the UK Government, as I said to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), have the power to bring forward such legislation, in practice we would want to ensure that the Scottish Government have put the proposals to be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore a matter for the Scottish Government, in the first instance.
It is only right that the Scottish Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise and debate these proposals. Only once these proposals are agreed in principle in the Scottish Parliament would we expect the Scottish Government to make a formal representation to the Secretary of State for Scotland, as custodian of the devolution settlement, and then the UK Government would consider the next steps.
As I think the hon. and learned Lady said, the SNP made a manifesto commitment ahead of the recent Scottish parliamentary elections to consult on whether the dual function should be separated in the future. It is right that our colleagues at Holyrood, rather than UK Ministers, take the lead on deciding what must now happen, or at least they should take that first step. We have not received, as far as I know at this time, any requests from the Scottish Government to amend the 1998 Act, and it would therefore be premature for the UK Government to comment further on that point.
Neale Hanvey
Surely there is nothing to prevent the Scottish Government from returning to the arrangement of the Salmond Government, where the Law Officer recused himself from Cabinet discussions on an informal basis, despite the separation of powers not being in place. That would at least show some willingness towards a formal separation, or towards a consideration of that matter before the Scottish Parliament.
David Duguid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, what he is referring to is an informal arrangement, and by definition there would be nothing to stop such an informal arrangement if that was agreed by those involved, but again the question is not one for me, as a UK Government Minister, to decide.
The UK Government continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on all amendments to the 1998 Act to ensure that we are delivering together for Scotland. Devolution, brought about by that Act, is the means by which our two Governments work together. It is also the means by which we continue to live in one of the most successful and long-lasting political unions in history, as part of a devolution settlement that is aimed—and we strive for this, at least—to strike the right balance.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
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 |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Ben Lake |
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 |
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) | Ben Lake |
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) | 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) | Ben Lake |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Ben Lake |
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) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | 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 |
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 |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale (LD) | Ben Lake |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Ben Lake |
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) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD) | Ben Lake |
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 |
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Ben Lake |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Ben Lake |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John McNally (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 |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Ben Lake |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) ( LD) | Ben Lake |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind) | 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 |
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (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) | Ben Lake |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Ben Lake |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin I would like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that the wearing of face masks is encouraged. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. As people can see, there is no need to wear a jacket in this inclement, for a Yorkshire man, weather.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 161).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. For record, the shadow children’s Minister is very sad not to be here. She was pinged last night, and has become part of the ping epidemic that is crossing the country. It is a pleasure for me to stand in her place.
Labour do not oppose the regulations, and I am happy to tell the Minister that we will not seek to divide the Committee. We are simply here to scrutinise the proposals, and I hope that the Minister can do us the courtesy of answering our many questions about them.
The Opposition support the principle of the regulations, as we believe that a ban on unregulated accommodation for children under 16 is right. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable children in our society. From my time as shadow youth justice Minister, I know that many of those children are known to local authorities, children’s services and youth offending teams. They are often the victims of crime and exploitation themselves. They deserve a guarantee that when they are in, or near, the care of the state, that care will be of the highest quality, meet their needs and support them as they grow, learn and prepare for adulthood.
The Government’s policy to end the use of independent and semi-independent care settings for under-16s is not just welcome, but long overdue, but I am concerned that that policy does not go far enough. By not reaching the thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds in the care system, the regulations risk creating an unfair, two-tier system of care that is arbitrary and not built around the needs of the child. Under the current proposals, a vulnerable child could suddenly find themselves in or moved to a new unregulated care setting on their 16th birthday; a setting that, according to the Government’s own policy, would not have been judged appropriate for them even a day beforehand. That seems highly reckless given the well known risks posed by child criminal exploitation in unregulated care settings. To use the age of 16 as the point at which a child’s entitlements change so dramatically seems to entirely arbitrary. There is nothing that fundamentally changes about a young person enough on the day that they turn 16 to suggest that unregulated care would suddenly become appropriate.
I would like the Minister to explain that decision in some detail. Can she tell me why the Government chose not to extend the regulations to all children under 18, as Labour believes should be the case? Can she explain why the cut-off of 16 is appropriate for a significant change in the care that a child could receive? Does she accept that that change would certainly appear to be entirely arbitrary to a child? Does she not believe that the care system should be built around the needs of vulnerable children, rather than an arbitrary age or date selected for the convenience of the regulations? In short, can she give me a credible explanation for the decision not to extend the welcome content of the regulations to all children under the age of 18?
Charities supporting vulnerable children, the Labour party and the Children’s Commissioner are all clear that extending the scope of the regulations to all children under the age of 18 would improve the care that children receive and make the system fairer and more consistent. Why does the Minister not act on that unjustifiable inconsistency? Perhaps she will argue that for some young people an independent setting is right when they are older, or that the quality of care could be just as good in an unregulated setting. However, it seems to me that her own policies show that that is unlikely to be the case, because the national standards for semi-independent and independent accommodation are significantly narrower than the quality standards to which regulated children’s homes are currently subject. For instance, the proposed standards for semi-independent and independent settings do not include the quality and purpose care, educational standards and health and wellbeing standards. Although I am sure that we all want unregulated accommodation to deliver on those standards, the reality is that under the current regulations such accommodation would not be required to do so. Such settings would still be part of the care sector, but subject to much lighter-touch regulation, with no clear justification for that.
Will the Minister take the opportunity to clarify why she believes that there should be a two-track system of regulation of children’s homes and accommodation, with a much lighter touch for some providers? Does she not see that this two-tier system risks some young people finding themselves in accommodation not suitable to their needs, which does not deliver the care and educational support that they so desperately deserve?
The Minister could address those shortcomings by establishing a fair and consistent regulatory framework, either by holding independent and semi-independent providers to the same standards as others, or by extending the ban in the legislation to cover all under-18s. Will she commit to doing that?
The Minister must also address questions about the implementation of the regulations, in particular regarding the support available to local government to provide appropriate placements for children. From early September, children under 16 will no longer be housed in independent or semi-independent settings. What additional support will local authorities receive to find appropriate care and accommodation for those children? We know that funding for local placements is already incredibly stretched, so has the Minister made an assessment of the costs local authorities will face in funding regulated placements for those children? Will her Department provide any additional funding to support them to do so?
The care that we provide to the most vulnerable children in our society speaks volumes about the priorities and principles of the Government of the day. And it affects the economy and safety of tomorrow. Today’s regulations do the right thing for some children, but leave others out in the cold. They create a two-tiered system of regulation that could be deeply unfair and create arbitrary outcomes based on the age rather than the needs of children in the care of the state. I hope that the Minister will listen seriously to the concerns raised by the Opposition, and acknowledges the substantial risks facing 16 to 18-year-olds in unregulated care settings. I hope that she will outline a plan to ensure that every child, whatever their age, receives the care needed to keep them safe and to realise their potential.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member Hove, who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. However, I respectfully rise to speak against the regulations.
The Government spin on the regulations has really been something else. The line they take is that they are ensuring children of 15 years of age and below must live in setting where they receive care, but that is wrong, because what the statutory instrument really does is legislate to deny children aged 16 and 17 years of age—children in the care of the state—any care at all. Our social care system does not even do that to vulnerable adults in supported accommodation, and I am aghast that it is proposed for children. It is legitimising, encouraging and increasing the shameful practice of placing thousands of children in unregulated, unsafe hostels, bed and breakfasts, shared homes and caravan parks. Some children have even been placed in tents on campsites. All those settings leave them without any support and vulnerable to criminal abusers, drug gangs and sexual exploitation.
The SI creates a two-tier discriminatory system, because children in foster care can remain in that setting until they are 21-years-old, but those without a foster family are being told they their leaving age will not be 18, as it always has been, but now 16. How many children who have lived in unregulated accommodation has the Minister spoken to? I sincerely hope that it is none at all because if she has spoken to them, it makes what the Government are pushing through today even more shameful, because in those children’s own words they are literally just surviving, not living, and not being allowed to prepare for adulthood. They are not in education, they are not in employment, they are literally just surviving hour by hour.
The SI is nothing more than another step in a long line of attempts by the Government to shamefully deregulate the care of our most vulnerable children, to make it profitable for providers and ripe for further privatisation, because removing care removes extra costs.
The Association of Directors of Children’s Services has warned that the reforms could result in
“a number of unintended consequences”.
The children’s rights charity Article 39 has made an application to court for a judicial review of the proposals. Become, a national charity for children in care and young care leavers, has said that the Government have systematically
“failed to listen to young care-experienced people who have spoken out about the lack of security, stability and support they have experienced living in unregulated accommodation.”
I could never support any legislation that not only denies children the care they so desperately need, but actually makes them deeply unsafe. This is a shameful SI, and if given the chance, I would vote against it every single time.
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
Let me start by saying that the Government firmly believe that every child deserves a place to live where they feel safe and receive the care and support they need not only to survive but to thrive. To be clear, anything less is unacceptable. Having dedicated foster carers, excellent children’s homes and high quality semi-independent settings for older children who are ready for that and which is of the right quality are essential. Our care system should not be a one size fits all, but one that is based on the needs of children and young people. We therefore need a range of options for care placements and support that reflects the diverse needs of children in care and care leavers. Therefore, independent and semi-independent provision can be the right option for some older children, but let me be clear that that is an option only where it is of high quality and the young people are ready for it.
Such a setting can never be the right choice for children under the age of 16; children of that age should be placed in children’s homes—
Mrs Lewell-Buck
What the Minister is saying is all very nice, but the SI we are discussing places children who are 16 and 17-years-old in unregulated accommodation where they are not safe. There is no safety mechanism to protect them. How on earth does the Government think that provision will make them safe, protected and cared for?
Michelle Donelan
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come on to how we are raising the quality of care, but she is free to intervene again if she wishes.
Children under the age of 16 should be placed in children’s homes or in foster care, which is why we have laid the 2021 regulations, which ban the practice of placing children under the age of 16 in unregulated independent and semi-independent settings from September.
We know that the number of under-16s placed in unregulated settings is relatively small, with around 100 placed nationwide at any one time, but we also know that this often involves children with the most complex needs. Let us be under no illusion, one child in such a setting is one too many, and the Government believe 100% that that is unacceptable.
I reassure hon. Members that we have been working closely with local authorities to understand better what leads them to place under-16s in unregulated provision, so that we can consider how best to support those authorities in the run-up to September, and beyond. That addresses a point raised by the hon. Member for Hove. We have updated statutory guidance, published on 8 July, to make it clear to all local authorities what is expected of them when the ban comes into effect in September. We know that some local authorities have already taken significant steps to reduce the use of unregulated provision, and in many cases have eliminated its use already. All local authorities, of course, must do the same in the coming months.
I know that the Opposition have raised concerns in the past that we are creating a two-tier care system, but that is simply not true. The 2021 regulations do not change the existing duties placed on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children in their care, to meet their needs and to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation. The needs of the child are paramount when making decisions about the right care placement.
Local authorities have statutory duties to meet the needs of children that they look after. To be crystal clear in response to some of questions asked today, where older children’s needs would be best met in a children’s home or in foster care, that is exactly where they should be placed. Banning the placement of children under the age of 16 in independent or semi-independent provision does not in any way establish an arbitrary point at which children in care are moved into such provision on their 16th birthday. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Hove and others on that point.
In fact, the majority of 16 and 17-year-olds will continue to be placed in children’s homes or in foster care. The latest data show that, as on 31 March 2020, there were more than 80,000 looked-after children and of those, 6,490 were living in independent or semi-independent provision, the majority of whom were over the age of 16. I want to reiterate that the Government are clear that independent and semi-independent provision can be the right option for some older children, but only where it is of high quality, and the young person is ready for that level of independence.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I am little bit curious because the Minister claims that this type of accommodation can work for some children, but the SI actually removes the current level of responsibility that the local authority has for those children by removing the national standards that are a requirement under Ofsted. Can the Minister explain exactly what the Government think is different between a vulnerable child who is 15 and one who is 16 or 17? That is the distinction that is being made in the SI.
Michelle Donelan
There are many cases where semi-independent or independent provision for children aged 16 or 17 can be appropriate, for example, asylum seekers who are used to independent living or those children who are judged to be ready to learn to be independent. I am sure that my colleague, the Minister for Children and Families, would be only too delighted to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the matter further in detail.
It is important that we ensure that high-quality option is available to facilitate the development of young people’s independence as they prepare for adulthood and learning to live independently. We already set a high bar for the level of care that must be delivered in a children’s home or by a foster carer. That gives the provider and the commissioner of placements the confidence that those placements are high quality. We believe that it is only right that that standard is also met in independent and semi-independent provision for 16 and 17-year-olds. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Hove, that is why the Government recently consulted on the introduction of national standards and an Ofsted-led registration and inspection regime for independent and semi-independent settings that accommodate 16 and 17-year-olds.
We are committed to designing that regime in partnership with the sector and care-experienced children and young people to ensure that it delivers the very best for children in the future. Through that consultation we sought views on what the national standards should cover, what the Ofsted regime should look like and how we should better the define the distinctions between care and support—often the dividing line between a children’s home and semi-independent settings.
I feel strongly that the views of young people should shape those vital reforms, which is why we also published a separate consultation aimed at children and young people with experience of care. We have also commissioned a series of focus groups with care experienced young people to complement the public consultation. The reforms will deliver lasting change for children of this country.
We understand that local authorities sometimes find themselves in positions where the most appropriate placement is difficult to access, a point raised by hon Members today. That is why we confirmed in February that we are developing plans, supported by additional investment, to support local authorities to create more places in children’s homes. That includes the £24 million investment announced in the spending review in November to start a programme of works to support local authorities to maintain and expand provision in secure children’s homes.
Although local authorities are responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient places, the Department for Education has supported local authorities through investing in new approaches to increase capacity. Crucially, we are also supporting projects to reduce the number of children needing to come into care in the first place. We have also invested in behavioural insights research to understand better why people choose to foster and adopt. We have also invested nearly £500,000 between September 2019 and March 2020 in seven partnerships to test new approaches to commissioning and sufficiency planning in foster care. A further £600,000 for four of those partnerships is ongoing from September 2020 to September 2021. We have invested £1million in adopter recruitment in 2020-21 and £84 million over five years through the strengthening families, protecting children programme in 18 local authorities, where evidence shows that that could reduce looked-after children numbers. We have also invested £17.2 million in the supporting families, investing in practice programme in up to 45 local authorities.
Crucially, the Department is also developing a new capital funding programme to aid local authorities to establish new children’s homes. We will finalise the details in the coming weeks, but we are proposing that local authorities will be able to bid for the funding through an open competition on a match-funded basis. That funding will be used by local authorities to establish innovative approaches to reduce over time the number of children needing care, address current shortfalls, including in geographic areas where fewer children have access to available local children’s homes, and ensure sufficient provision for children with more complex needs, or children on remand.
Finally, we have announced that the Government will legislate to give Ofsted additional powers to take action against illegal, unregistered children’s homes—homes that should be registered with Ofsted because they deliver around the clock care, but are currently unregistered. Ofsted can already prosecute those providers but we want it to have access to quicker, earlier legal steps to force providers to close or to register.
I assure hon Members that that legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity. I hope that I have reassured the Committee of the importance of those vital reforms. The Government are committed to delivering meaningful, lasting change for children in care and care leavers. I commend the 2021 regulations to the Committee.
Peter Kyle
This is one of those moments when the Opposition are put in a tricky position. We welcome the increased provision and regulatory safeguards for children under the age of 16, but we are frustrated that those same protections are not available to older young people.
We live in an age where young people are exposed to additional harms that simply did not exist in the past with the incredible rise of criminal exploitation of children—adults who exploit young people and bring them into criminal enterprise through endeavours such as county lines. The people who perpetrate those crimes are smart; they know the settings that house vulnerable children and they target them. That is why the Opposition are so keen that the maximum regulatory support and protection is in place for all young people who, by definition in these settings, are some of the most vulnerable in our society.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields for bringing the voice of the most vulnerable to our deliberations in Committee. We will not push the motion to a vote because we believe that any move forward and any additional protection for any number of young people is something that we should never ever block, but we will push hard in the coming months of this Parliament to make sure that those same protections are extended to children of an older age.
Question put and agreed to.
Electoral Commission
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I will allow people to take off their jackets. I know that the Leader of the House probably will not want to do so. But if you wish to do so, you may. I remind hon. Members that Mr Speaker has stated that the wearing of masks is encouraged. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dr Katy Radford as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 September 2021 for the period ending on 31 August 2025; and that Her Majesty will re-appoint Sarah Chambers as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 31 March 2022 for the period ending on 30 March 2026.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, for what I believe is the first time in my spell in Parliament? The motion proposes that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dr Katy Radford as an electoral commissioner with effect from 1 September 2021 and for the period ending on 31 August 2025, and that Her Majesty will reappoint Sarah Chambers as an electoral commissioner with effect from 31 March 2022 and for the period ending on 30 March 2026. The Speaker’s Committee has produced its second report of 2021 in respect of Dr Radford’s appointment, and its third report in respect of Sarah Chambers’ reappointment.
It may help if I set out the key points for the record. Electoral commissioners are appointed under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as amended by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. Under the 2000 Act, the Speaker’s Committee has a responsibility to oversee the selection of candidates for appointment to the Electoral Commission, and any reappointments can be made only on the committee’s recommendation.
Dr Radford is being proposed as the electoral commissioner with particular responsibility for Northern Ireland. The post fell vacant on 31 December 2020, when Anna Carragher’s term of office came to an end. The Speaker’s Committee has expressed its gratitude to Ms Carragher for her nine years of service on the commission. At the request of the Speaker’s Committee, Mr Speaker appointed a panel to assist with identifying possible candidates for the post. The panel initially consisted of Professor Dolores O’Reilly, who is an independent assessor for the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland and who acted as chairman of the panel; the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson); my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg); and Sir John Holmes, the then chairman of the Electoral Commission. As Sir John’s term as chairman drew to a close during the process, he was replaced, following the shortlisting stage, by John Pullinger, who was then the chairman-designate.
The post was initially advertised last September but, having reviewed the applications received, the panel decided to re-launch the process and the post was readvertised in December. Following that open competition, and interviews in April with the shortlisted candidates, the panel’s unanimous view was that Dr Katy Radford should be recommended for appointment. The Speaker’s Committee, having considered the panel’s report, agreed to put Dr Radford’s name forward for consultation with the party leaders.
Dr Radford is a social anthropologist who currently serves as a commissioner on the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. She recently completed terms as vice-chairman of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and as a member of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition. She was previously acting director of the Institute for Conflict Research and was awarded an MBE in 2011 for her contribution to community relations in Northern Ireland.
Sarah Chambers has served on the Electoral Commission since 31 March 2018, and her term of office expires on 30 March 2022. In May, the Speaker’s Committee discussed a letter from Mr Pullinger, now chairman of the Electoral Commission, setting out an appraisal of Sarah Chambers’ work as an electoral commissioner during her first term. Mr Pullinger’s appraisal was positive, and he concluded that “he had no hesitation” in recommending Sarah Chambers for reappointment. Having considered Mr Pullinger’s appraisal, the committee concluded that it was content to recommend Sarah Chambers for reappointment, subject to the statutory consultation with the party leaders. Sarah Chambers was previously—from 2004 to 2008—chief executive of the Postal Services Commission. She has also been a board and committee member of a number of public organisations, including the Competition and Markets Authority, the Bar Standards Board and the Judicial Appointments Commission. She is currently chairman of the Legal Services Consumer Panel.
Statute requires that proposed appointments or reappointments to the Electoral Commission be the subject of consultation with the registered leaders of each registered party to which two or more Members of the House of Commons then belong. The statutory consultation provides an opportunity for the party leaders to comment, but they are not obliged to do so. Mr Speaker therefore consulted the qualifying party leaders on the appointment of Katy Radford and Sarah Chambers. No objections were received in response to that consultation. As required under the Act, Mr Speaker has given his agreement for this motion to be made. I hope that these appointments will have the support of this Committee and, ultimately, the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, in this, my first outing in this wonderful role as shadow Leader of the House. I thank the Leader of the House for today’s motion on the reappointment of an electoral commissioner, Sarah Chambers, and the appointment of an electoral commissioner with responsibility for Northern Ireland, Dr Katy Radford.
As the Leader of the House has said, Mr Speaker has consulted with the Leader of the Opposition about these appointments and no objections were received, so we are very happy to support them today. Both candidates were recommended for appointment or reappointment by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Dr Radford has a long record of service in contributing to community relations in Northern Ireland, something for which she received an MBE in 2011. I also thank Anna Carragher, whose term ended on 31 December 2020, for all her contributions while in office. Sarah Chambers has a long record of service to public organisations, and has served on the Electoral Commission since 31 March 2018. She was recommended to be reappointed for a second term, with the chair of the Electoral Commission, Mr John Pullinger, noting that she had
“met the high expectations of performance set for all Commissioners”
and concluding that
“he had no hesitation in recommending her for re-appointment.”
Her Majesty’s Opposition therefore have great pleasure in supporting the appointment of Dr Katy Radford as electoral commissioner with responsibility for Northern Ireland for a four-year period, and the reappointment of Sarah Chambers as an electoral commissioner for her second four-year term.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grant Shapps
For example, he asked where the 4,000 buses are; I have some good news for him, and it is not just that when one comes along there are three: there are 900 buses in production right now, and 50 are already on the road.
[Official Report, 14 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 408.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon).
The correct response should have been:
Grant Shapps
For example, he asked where the 4,000 buses are; I have some good news for him, and it is not just that when one comes along there are three: there are 900 buses funded right now, and 50 are already on the road.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that, if anything, we are ahead of schedule on the bus target, with 900 already on their way—in production—so I hope that we can go even further.
[Official Report, 14 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 414.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith).
The correct response should have been:
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that, if anything, we are ahead of schedule on the bus target, with 900 already funded so I hope that we can go even further.
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Scully
I and my officials have regular conversations with the Competition and Markets Authority on a wide range of issues, although open banking is normally handled by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch). We support independence as a key criterion for the future open banking governance model.
[Official Report, 6 July 2021, Vol. 698, c. 745.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose).
The correct response should have been:
Paul Scully
I and my officials have regular conversations with the Competition and Markets Authority on a wide range of issues, although open banking is normally handled by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). We support independence as a key criterion for the future open banking governance model.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Reducing Baby Loss
(3 years, 4 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
James Gray (in the Chair)
I start with a few parish notices, as it were. First, we do all continue to wear a mask, apart from when we are speaking. Secondly, I am told that we are now allowed to intervene, if we are physically in the room, on one another, although perhaps we want to keep such interventions to a relatively minimal number. Thirdly, let me remind those who are with us virtually—welcome to you all—that you have to remain in the room with your television camera on throughout. You cannot turn the TV camera off and go off for a cup of coffee; you have to be here in the debate throughout—from beginning to end.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered progress towards the national ambition to reduce baby loss.
Sir James, it is a pleasure—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I regret to say I am not Sir James—perhaps one day. I am just Mr Gray.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Thank you, Mr Gray. I had just promoted you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
The ambition is to halve the rate of stillbirths and neonatal deaths by 2025 and to have achieved a 20% reduction in these rates by now. Every day in the UK, about 14 babies die before, during or soon after their birth. Baby deaths need to fall much faster if the Government’s national maternity safety ambition is to meet that important target. The ambition also includes halving maternal deaths and brain injuries in babies that occur during or soon after birth by 2025, and reducing the pre-term birth rate from 8% to 6% by 2025.
Earlier this month, the Health and Social Care Committee published its report about maternity safety. I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss with the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). The Select Committee report echoes much of what we have been hearing from hospital trusts, health professionals, bereavement charities, bereaved families and others throughout our work in the APPG. I pay tribute to everybody who speaks out on this most upsetting of topics. It is a crucial issue on which we must all work together to achieve success.
The Select Committee report notes that progress towards reducing the rate of stillbirths and neonatal deaths has been “impressive”, with its external expert panel rating it as good, although it notes that the baseline for the progress was low in comparison with other countries, such as Sweden, and that there is still a “worrying” level of variation in the quality of care. On stillbirth, the report from the expert panel notes:
“The Department has achieved the interim target of a 20% reduction earlier than the 2020 deadline. However, increased efforts are required to meet the final target”
of a halving in 2025. On neonatal deaths, the report states:
“Good progress has been made towards achieving a 50% reduction…by 2025. However, it has been difficult to determine the full extent of the Government’s progress due to a change in the measure of progress against the National Maternity Ambition on neonatal deaths, with concerns expressed about the validity and unintended consequences of this change. This change in measuring progress has potentially inflated the achievement in the data analysed and may inadvertently exclude extremely pre-term babies from the on-going national efforts to improve neonatal outcomes. We encourage the Department to continue to measure and drive progress towards reducing mortality in both the population of babies born before and after 24-weeks’ gestation.”
On maternal deaths, the report concludes:
“No discernible progress has been made towards reducing the 2010 rate of maternal deaths by 50% by 2025”,
which I find alarming. It continues:
“The factors contributing to maternal deaths are predominantly indirect, such as existing disease, and therefore complex to address. Tackling the causes of maternal death will require concerted efforts, with a focus on pre-conception interventions and improved post-natal support, particularly relating to mental health support…In addition, the worsening disparity in risk of maternal death for women from minority ethnic and socio-economically deprived backgrounds needs to be urgently addressed.”
On pre-term births, the report acknowledges that
“this target was only added to the National Ambition in 2017. Therefore, the window for newly introduced measures to impact on the data is very narrow…While the initiatives currently being implemented by the Department are welcomed, we anticipate that increased efforts will be required to counteract the setbacks to reducing pre-term”
deaths arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Great strides have been made in this vitally important space, and it is important to acknowledge that, but there is still more to do. Last week, I had the pleasure of speaking to some members of our excellent midwifery team at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Treliske, in Truro. Because of continuing covid restrictions, that was conducted remotely, and it was a bittersweet meeting for me, not least because the tech let me down after about 20 minutes. I had a conversation with the fabulous consultant obstetrician, Karen Watkins, who was able to tell me how things were going at Treliske and what further things the team felt needed to be done to accelerate the national ambition.
It was Karen who had delivered the shattering news to my husband and me that our baby could not be saved, that she would have no chance of life. It was Karen who performed the procedure to humanely end Lily’s life—the most frightening point of mine. Last week, I had the privilege of thanking her, as face to face as we could get online, for her kindness, compassion and professionalism in such devastating circumstances. Not everybody gets the chance to do that. The entire bereavement midwifery team at Treliske are outstanding, and I continue to be in awe of our local team, of how they do such a difficult job, are able to support families at their lowest ebb, and continue to take special care of our babies after they have died.
The impact of covid on those issues seems to be a mixed bag, which is against the expectation. There was a peak in stillbirth and neonatal death in March 2020 and another in January 2021. Our team in Cornwall points to a slow and steady decline in the numbers since 2010. This year, there have been two stillbirths so far. In a so-called usual year, there would have been between eight and 12 by now. It is difficult to commend this figure, however, as the team do not yet really know what to attribute it to, apart from natural peaks and troughs. It could be a temporary irregularity; more research will need to be done to see whether we can find a pattern. This is no comfort at all to the two Cornish families who have suffered that unbearable loss.
The APPG has heard evidence from the sector about how covid has exacerbated existing inequalities. Inequality is the biggest issue that needs to be tackled to reduce the number of babies dying and to improve maternity safety. The Health and Social Care Committee report highlights the need to tackle “unacceptable inequalities in outcomes”. The report by the health and social care expert panel report notes that
“improvements in rates of stillbirths and neonatal deaths are good but are not shared equally among all women and babies. Babies from minority ethnic or socioeconomically deprived backgrounds continue to be at significantly greater risk of perinatal death than their white or less deprived peers.”
It is fair to say that mums and babies should not be at an unfair risk just because of their background.
The Select Committee’s recommendation that the Government introduce a target to end the disparity in maternal and neonatal outcomes, with a clear timeline for achieving that target, is exactly right. Work must be done urgently to identify a suitable target and ways to evidence the gap closing nationally, supported by the evidence of progress locally. The target must aim to achieve equity among all groups and ensure that those who currently have the least good outcomes have the best outcomes.
What needs to be done? I have taken it down to five or six points. First, on staffing, action is needed to address staffing shortfalls in maternity services. At a minimum, we need nearly 500 more obstetricians and nearly 2,000 more midwives. I welcome the recent increase in funding for the maternity workforce, but there will need to be further funding commitments to deliver the safe staffing levels that expectant mothers should receive. In Cornwall, when Karen Watkins started 14 years ago, there were eight consultant obstetricians. Today, there are still eight. None of them are dedicated bereavement obstetricians, and staff need to take on this role as part of their existing duties.
Secondly, on training, the 2016 maternity safety training fund has delivered positive outcomes. More funding is required to embed ongoing and sustainable access to training for all maternity staff, given changes in the practice, developments on how to deliver safely and aspects related to covid-19. Funding for backfill cover when training takes place is also desirable.
Thirdly, on parent involvement, after a patient safety incident, too often families are not provided with the appropriate, timely and compassionate support that they deserve. Involving families in a compassionate manner is a crucial part of the investigation process. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch has taken considerable steps to improve family engagement but must continue to pursue improvements in that area.
Fourthly, on clinician confidence, this is related to the earlier point about training, but is also about giving clinicians the confidence to report issues without worry. I welcome the Government’s proposal to review clinical negligence in the NHS more broadly. Elements of the rapid resolution and redress scheme have been implemented, but the scheme has not yet been implemented in full. Until it is, there is a high risk that the fundamental changes needed to improve the safety of maternity services may fail to be achieved.
Fifthly, carer continuity is close to my heart. I am a huge advocate for this, and it has been shown to improve the outcomes of those who currently have the worst outcomes. I would like to ensure that those involved in delivering carer continuity have received the appropriate training, and that all professionals are competent and trained in all the work they are able to do, particularly in relation to black mothers, where the disparities are the greatest. Carer continuity helps to point out other issues that might not be specifically or medically looked for such as domestic violence.
Sixthly, we need more research. If a baby dies at term, the parents ask why, and often there is no answer. I would like to see more money put into research and development so that we can understand more about this horrific phenomenon. There is more to say, and I am sure colleagues will add to the discussion today. I thank the Minister for her continued support in this area, and I know she is listening.
Group B strep is the most common cause of life-threatening infection in newborn babies, causing a range of serious infections including pneumonia, meningitis and sepsis.
Screening could save 50 babies a year, and protect a further 70 from life-changing issues. Our Minister has been a force in trying to ensure that all women can ask for the group B strep screening and that all hospital trusts can offer it.
We have just passed the halfway point in this important journey to 2025, and I would like to thank all the healthcare professionals who have contributed to the successes so far. I call on the Government to work with them to achieve the rest and save as many lives as possible in the future.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) on securing this timely and important debate, and on continuing to campaign on these issues. Her bravery in sharing her story is inspiring, and the work of the APPG should be commended. I agree with all her final points wholeheartedly. I was contacted by a number of constituents before today’s debate, and hundreds of people over the past year have shared harrowing stories of their own experiences of baby loss and miscarriage. I would like to thank all those who are campaigning for change.
The overwhelming feeling from all of those I have spoken to is that baby loss, like many other women’s health issues, still does not receive the attention, research or funding it deserves and so desperately needs. As a result, not nearly enough progress is being made. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned, every day in the UK, around 14 babies die before, during or soon after birth. An estimated one in four pregnancies end in loss during pregnancy or birth. These statistics are difficult to read, but what is much, much worse is the fact that many of these deaths are preventable. According to the recent report by the Health and Social Care Committee, 1,000 more babies a year would survive in England’s maternity services if those services were as safe Sweden’s.
While it is good to hear about improvements that have been made, my constituents and those who have experienced baby loss or miscarriage are more concerned about what more needs to be done to reduce the numbers experiencing loss, especially when the Committee’s report has shown that we are far from meeting our 2025 ambitions. Services are seriously overstretched, underfunded and understaffed, and huge health inequalities in perinatal outcomes remain unaddressed. If we are to buck this trend, the Government need to take the opportunity to reset and refocus perinatal services across England on meaningful and long-lasting transformation.
To begin this transformation and to ensure it results in meaningful change for all women, we need immediately to introduce enhanced data collection and sharing of all adverse perinatal outcomes. During my Adjournment debate earlier this year on the findings of The Lancet series, “Miscarriage matters”, the Minister committed to include the report’s recommendation to record every miscarriage in England in the Government’s women’s health strategy. This is a huge win for campaigners and a really welcome step, which I hope will come to fruition very soon.
However, we must ensure that there is consistent data collection on all adverse perinatal outcomes, including brain injury, and on loss during pregnancy before 24 weeks’ gestation. We must also ensure that all perinatal deaths are recorded within a 24-hour period, rather than the seven-day period that we currently have, to allow for more accurate and timely data collection.
Finally, and most importantly, we must ensure that data are consistently collected on ethnicity and social factors in pregnancy and the post-natal period, so that we can identify groups whose outcomes are worse than the average and set more robust targets. We know from the available data that stillbirth rates for black and black British babies are twice as high than those for white babies, and that the rates for Asian and Asian British babies are 1.6 times higher than those for white babies. Stillbirth rates for babies from the most deprived families are 1.7 times higher than those for the least deprived.
It is deeply upsetting that we still have no evidence-based interventions to reduce the risks that black, Asian and socioeconomically disadvantaged women face. I think we can all agree that we need a strategy in place to end the disparity in maternal and neonatal outcomes, but without available data on specific targets, we do not stand a hope of reducing the inequalities. Consistent data must be recorded and made accessible, so that collectively we can sound the alarm and set specific, tailored targets and strategies for meeting them. Although I welcome the forthcoming confidential inquiry into the deaths of black and black British babies, I am disappointed that Ministers feel unable to fund a similar inquiry into the deaths of Asian and Asian British babies, and I call on the Minister to look at that again.
For too long, baby loss has not received the focus it deserves, and it is dismissed all too often as an inevitability. Only by properly tracking baby loss will we be able to break the taboo, properly address the inequalities in health outcomes, and ensure that we have a foolproof strategy to reach our 2025 ambitions and improve outcomes. For those going through baby loss or still living with the trauma of prior experiences, progress cannot come soon enough.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for securing the debate. Her personal story, which she bravely told today and in a previous and moving Westminster Hall debate, has shone a spotlight on the pain and anguish faced by parents who suffer the tragedy of baby loss.
Almost 60,000 babies were born prematurely in 2019, with one in five pregnancies ending in miscarriage during the same period. The effects of miscarriage, stillbirths and neonatal deaths are devastating for parents, with impacts that can and do last a lifetime. It is essential that the Government continue with their 2015 ambition to reduce the rate of stillbirths, neonatal deaths and maternal deaths in England by 50% by 2030. I welcome the provision in the NHS Long Term Plan to bring forward that ambition to 2025. To this end, the Government announced only this month, on 4 July, that they were making an additional £2.45 million available for NHS maternity staff in order to improve safety in care settings.
As the son of an NHS community midwife, I know the care, dedication and effort that our amazing midwives, such as the incredible team serving my community in Darlington, put into their vocation. They are on the frontline of safety, bringing new life into the world, and all too often they are at the side of parents who have suffered the worst loss imaginable. We must ensure that our midwives are provided with the skills to give the most appropriate care to parents at their time of bereavement.
In Darlington, I recently met Claudia and her husband, Andy, who have suffered two late-term losses—first, at 20 weeks of pregnancy and, more recently, at 18 weeks. Although Claudia was thankfully entitled to statutory sick leave to recover, Andy was not entitled to leave and had to negotiate with his employers to take time off. I am thankful to the two of them for meeting me to talk about their experience, the impact of those losses and the challenges they have faced. I am glad that they have continued to work with me to gather information and understand the patchwork of provision by UK companies whose employees suffer miscarriages. For the sake of Claudia and Andy, I am hopeful that the threshold for statutory bereavement leave will be revisited. The impact of a loss in the second trimester will almost always be just as painful, devastating and hard to overcome as a loss in the third trimester.
Another constituent, Angela, has shared her tragic story with me. Angela suffered two ectopic pregnancies and two miscarriages, and now feels that she will never experience one of the most natural things in the world: the honour of giving birth. Angela described to me that she feels crushed, and would like to see more support for people in her position than was available to her in the first years of the 2000s.
Improving maternity safety, delivering personalised care and improving training will all help to improve outcomes for future expectant parents across the UK. I sincerely hope that a future review of bereavement leave will be extended to those parents who suffer a miscarriage in the second trimester of pregnancy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what more the Government are doing to achieve our national ambition to reduce baby loss.
I am thankful that the Government have taken and are taking firm action towards reaching the 2025 ambition that will reduce the number of future parents experiencing the pain that Angela, Claudia, Andy and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth have experienced.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I would like to focus on the progress towards safe births at my local trust. I wish I did not need to speak in this debate; I wish that Nottingham’s hospitals, Queen’s Medical Centre and Nottingham City Hospital, were safe places to have a baby. That is what parents in my constituency need and have a right to expect. But right now, that is not what they are guaranteed, as the trust’s chief executive admitted a few weeks ago:
“We fully accept that, although our staff are passionate about what they do, we have not created an environment where these same staff can provide a positive and safe experience for every family in their care, every time.”
A recent investigation by The Independent and “Channel 4 News” found that since 2010, there have been 201 clinical negligence claims against the trust’s maternity services—almost half lodged in the past four years. In those claims are 15 deaths, 19 stillbirths, 46 cases of brain damage and 18 cases of cerebral palsy. The trust has already paid out £79.3 million in compensation but, of course, the human costs are much higher.
In September 2019, Wynter Sophia Andrews was born at the QMC. She died 23 minutes later. It was only after the healthcare safety investigation branch’s findings were published that the trust admitted failings and that earlier intervention would have avoided Wynter’s death. Wynter’s death was the subject of an inquest, and in her verdict the coroner was highly critical of Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. The coroner said that Wynter would have survived if action had been taken sooner. I will not read the detailed quote from the coroner, but she said that the incident reports and staff accounts demonstrate that
“this was not an isolated incident. An unsafe culture had been allowed to develop as these systemic issues had not been adequately addressed by the leadership team.”
During the inquest, it also emerged that a letter from maternity staff at the trust was sent to the hospital board in 2018 asking for help and raising serious concerns about safety.
Following the coroner’s report, NUH maternity services were subject to unannounced inspections by the Care Quality Commission, which published its report last December. The inspector said:
“During the inspections, several serious concerns were identified. For example, risk assessments which women were expected to have undertaken during their care were not always completed in line with national guidance. Staff did not always use a nationally recognised tool to identify women at risk of deterioration. n addition, the service did not always have enough midwifery staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep women safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Managers regularly reviewed and adjusted staffing levels and skill mix but were limited to the resources available. Following this inspection, maternity services at Nottingham City Hospital and Queen’s Medical Centre are rated Inadequate overall. The services are rated Inadequate for being safe, effective and well-led. Maternity services were previously rated Requires Improvement.”
The worst thing about the situation is that it did not need to be like this. When I read Gary and Sarah Andrews’s account of Wynter’s death, I felt sick—not just because it is tragic and heart-breaking for anyone to lose a much wanted baby, but because there were striking similarities to an earlier case.
My constituents Jack and Sarah Hawkins’s daughter was born dead at Nottingham City Hospital in April 2016. Harriet was a healthy, full-term baby. She died as a result of a mismanaged labour. The trust initially claimed that her death was caused by an infection. Jack and Sarah were told to “try to move on.” It was only thanks to their incredible courage and determination to fight for the truth that the trust was finally forced to admit gross negligence.
I sat with Jack and Sarah in a meeting with the trust’s then chief executive, with photos of Jack, Sarah and their dead daughter on the table in front of us. He apologised and promised that the trust would learn the lesson. Following the coroner’s verdict in Wynter Andrews’s case, I read the comments from senior staff at the trust, apologising and promising to learn the lessons. They were the exact same promises that I had heard more than three years earlier.
Gary and Sarah Andrews wrote to me in March. They said:
“All we want is for other parents to be taking their children home.”
They, Jack, Sarah and other parents are calling for a public inquiry into maternity services at Nottingham University Hospital Trust. I am sure that the Minister will tell me, and them, to put their faith in the Care Quality Commission and the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, but they do not share her confidence that that will be effective. In Harriet’s case, there were numerous investigations, both internal and external, but things did not change or did not change enough.
As the Health and Social Care Committee report notes,
“Involving families…is a crucial part of the investigation process…Families must be confident that their voices are heard and that lessons have been learnt to prevent the tragedy they have endured being repeated.”
When I met the CQC investigation team in April, I was shocked to hear that they have not contacted bereaved parents or sought to hear their views. They claimed to be unaware of Harriet Hawkins’s case.
When I raised concerns with the Minister, her reply contained the news that NHS England, NHS Improvement and the clinical commissioning group are
“finalising the terms of reference for an independent thematic review of maternity cases going back to 2016”.
As Jack Hawkins told me, this has happened without any input from families. The review was due to go back to only 2016, although we know there were many improperly investigated baby deaths and harmed babies before then. That is why they want a truly independent review, not one where it is too easy to suggest that Nottingham University Hospital Trust has a hand in it, and where parents of dead and damaged babies are ignored and excluded from the process of deciding what needs looking at.
I hope that when the Minister meets me and other MPs she will also hear from the parents affected by some of these tragic failures to improve maternity services at Nottingham University Hospital Trust. I look forward to hearing her response both today and on that occasion.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for securing this incredibly important debate. I am so sorry for her loss but I thank her for her bravery in sharing it and for her ongoing campaigning in this area.
I also thank campaigning organisations, including the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society, Tommy’s and the Lullaby Trust, and all the members of the Pregnancy and Baby Charities Network, as well as bereavement organisations such as the Good Grief Trust for all they do to support parents and families and for their continued campaigns for change.
I thank all my constituents who have recently written to me about this important debate, underlining the reason for having this debate now and why we need to look again at the plan for the national ambition to reduce baby loss and at progress towards that. I am certain that all Members present share my ambition that the UK should be the safest place in the world to have a baby. However, as broken-hearted mothers and fathers across the UK can testify, it is not, and that is the reason for the debate today.
There are stark inequalities: background makes a difference, as well as where mothers have their babies. That should not be case—the highest standards should be equally available across our country. Recent reports from the Health and Social Care Committee, the Ockenden review of maternity services at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, the ongoing investigation at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, and the devastating revelations from Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust—which have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South—plainly demonstrate just how much more there is to do.
Although huge strides have been made over the past two decades, that progress has now plateaued and we need to know why and address this. In 2019, the neonatal mortality rate in England and Wales was 2.8 deaths per 1,000 live births, the same as it was in 2017—the third consecutive year of no change. The latest statistics for neonatal mortality published by the World Bank rate the UK as the 37th country globally, making us one of the worst-performing countries in the developed world in this area. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth highlighted, the recent report into progress on maternal mortality said that
“No discernible progress has been made towards reducing the 2010 rate of maternal deaths by 50% by 2025.”
There are huge inequalities in the experience of maternal mortality and baby loss that have gone unaddressed for too long. Babies from minority ethnic and socioeconomically deprived backgrounds remain at an increased risk of death: if a woman is black or poor, it is more likely that she will die or that her baby will die, which is absolutely unacceptable. In 2017, babies born to black or black British parents had a 67% increased risk of neonatal death compared with babies of white ethnicity, and babies born to Asian parents had a 72% increased risk of neonatal death compared with babies of white ethnicity. The 2020 MBRRACE-UK “Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care” report shows that the risk of maternal death in 2016 to 2018 continued to be four times higher among women from black ethnic minority backgrounds than among white women, and that that risk is twice as high for women from Asian backgrounds as it is for white women.
The Office for National Statistics’ latest “Births and infant mortality by ethnicity in England and Wales” report, published in May this year, highlighted substantial inequalities in infant mortality rates among black and other ethnic minority groups. Some of this variation may be explained by other areas of inequality, including deprivation, but the association between social deprivation and child mortality is clear, and there are modifiable factors that can make a difference. This can be addressed—it can be changed. I have raised this issue with NHS South West London Clinical Commissioning Group, and it must be addressed in partnership with those who have relevant lived experience and build on the knowledge of specialist agencies in each area.
Two further issues that need action have been raised with me by constituents. The first is miscarriage: a constituent has raised with me the issue of access to information and support following a miscarriage, and Tommy’s is campaigning on this issue as well. I met with a constituent yesterday who told me that women in the UK have to endure three consecutive miscarriages before they are referred for full investigation. She feels very angry about this situation and how it has affected her and women across the country. It is simply unacceptable for a couple to go through that much suffering and uncertainty and for it not to be addressed until there have been three miscarriages.
Another issue is that of culture. We are talking a lot today about funding: there is a need for increased funding, for staffing in particular, but there is also the issue of culture, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South. One constituent wrote to me to say that there had been a lack of investment over a long period of time and that that had played a big part in why the services are what they are today, but she also wanted to highlight behavioural issues within maternity—with bullying and hostile attitudes among members of staff. She said that trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology report a high rate of being undermined, higher than other medical specialities.
It is also well known that, in some services, hostility between midwives and obstetricians contributes to services being unsafe. These issues, not only about resources but about culture, need to be addressed and understood: there needs to be a cultural shift. Reporting should be welcomed within NHS trusts, and change should result from such reporting.
I have some requests for the Minister today. First, I underline the calls from Members earlier in the debate about the need for enhanced data collection and sharing. What gets counted counts, and the first thing anyone sitting down and looking at this area sees is that there are big gaps. Secondly, there should be a review of the impact of covid on our neonatal services.
Thirdly, there should be a plan to increase staffing levels; as has been outlined, we need to increase those. How much will they be increased by next year, the year after and the year after that, so we can achieve those 2025 levels? There needs to be action on ethnic disparity and much more focus within every clinical commissioning group on why those differences exist, learning from each other and from best practice and building on that, with a change in culture where needed.
What additional measures is the Minister taking to achieve the national ambition to halve stillbirths, neonatal deaths, maternal deaths and brain injuries by 2025? As we have seen in the debate and from the recent reports and statistics, business as usual is not going to achieve those aims at all. Will the Government commit to publishing specific national targets before the end of 2022—earlier, ideally—that reflect a bold commitment to action on inequalities due to ethnicity and deprivation, underpinned by specialist pathways and workstreams in every local maternity system?
I pay tribute to all the midwives working so hard across our country for all that they have had to change and go through in the last year, and to all the families affected by the issue. Ambition is all well and good, but it needs to be matched by action and boldness. A lack of both is currently letting down parents and babies across the country and it has to change, starting today.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for securing this important debate, for her incredibly moving contribution and for her work on baby loss. I also pay tribute to my constituents in Liverpool, West Derby who have been in touch to ask me to speak today and raise their concerns, and to all those affected by the devastating loss of a baby. Nothing I can say here can do justice to the heartbreak they have been through, but I hope to do my best to raise some of the issues that constituents have shared with me.
It is truly heartbreaking that every day about 14 babies in the UK die before, during or soon after birth. The recent report by the Health and Social Care Committee notes the good progress made, but stresses the urgency with which actions must be taken to achieve the Government’s ambitions of reducing baby loss by 2025. The expert panel also raised serious concerns about aspects of continuity of carer, personalised care and safe staffing, and the Committee has made a series of recommendations, including for a Government commitment to funding the maternity workforce at the level required to deliver safe care to all mothers and their babies.
The report also states that the improvements in rates of stillbirth and neonatal deaths are good but are not shared equally among all women and babies. Babies from minority ethnic or socioeconomically deprived backgrounds continue to be significantly at greater risk, and as the charity Sands says in its report:
“Babies should not be at a higher risk of death simply because of their parents’ postcode, ethnicity or income.”
I wish to raise a case on behalf of one of my constituents today and to pay tribute to her. Can the Minister provide an update on the progress made since the important debate on covid-19 and baby loss in November and outline the steps the Department is taking on research and actions to make sure that nobody has to go through what my constituent has experienced?
My constituent is a health worker who became poorly last year with covid, 36 weeks into her pregnancy. At 37 weeks, she attended hospital with reduced foetal movement, and her daughter was monitored for five hours. When she got to the delivery suite, her daughter had died.
The hospital completed an investigation and found that there were many lessons to be learned. Policies and procedures were not correctly followed. My constituent should have been reviewed by a senior consultant and was not. There were delays of hours in transferring her to the delivery suite due to low staffing levels. The cardiotocography traces showed that her daughter was in distress, but unfortunately at the time that was not acted upon or escalated. If it was, she would have been taken for a caesarean section earlier in the day.
I close with the words of my constituent:
“I have spoken to other women who have been in the same position as me with covid at the same time but their hospitals have acted fast and thankfully their babies have survived. I have also spoken to women in other areas who have sadly lost their babies because their hospitals did not act appropriately. A gold standard of care should be followed nationally. It should not be a postcode lottery if your baby lives or dies.”
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), who spoke wholeheartedly on behalf of his constituents. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for her courage and compassion, and for her campaigning throughout. She is an inspiration to so many women out there.
The last time we debated this subject, although it was in Westminster Hall, as opposed to here, we had a very emotional debate on baby loss. It was Parliament at its best. MPs from across the House brought their life experiences—and, yes, painful experiences—to benefit the people we seek to serve. That is Parliament at its best.
This has been a painful year for many women and families. We have heard from constituents who were forced to receive bad news apart, were unable to grieve losses together or were even unable to hug a friend or a loved one they saw in pain. Those of us who have experienced baby loss and miscarriages know the pain and anxiety that appointments and scans can cause. I remember breaking down into bits at just the first appointment. It was just a question-and-answer session with a midwife during my second pregnancy, but it can be a horribly anxiety-provoking, triggering experience to go back to a place you have received bad news in the past, let alone doing that during a pandemic. Many women this year have been robbed of the joys of pregnancy.
Although I have had two pregnancies that ended in miscarriage, I now speak from the fortunate position of having a beautiful rainbow baby, which is the term used for a baby following miscarriage or baby loss. That is a very different experience from before. I do not know how others have the strength to speak out while they are still on that journey or without their rainbow. I know I would struggle; you are truly inspirational.
It is because of that shared experience that I am especially proud of the teams at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital, who recognise the pain and stress this has caused. I thank the team at Luton and Dunstable for working with me and families to accommodate visitors at scans and appointments as soon as possible. I appreciate that they are under huge stress and pressure during the pandemic, but the difference they make to families is priceless. Thank you to the sonographers, the early pregnancy units, the admin staff, the midwives, the GPs and the consultants who have helped women through this difficult year. You have gone above and beyond—thank you.
To fast-forward to just a few weeks ago, I met some of the brilliant midwife team at the L and D to talk about the changes and the challenges of the future. One is always staffing. They are doing wonders, but to limit the burnout that this pandemic has caused, we need to ensure that we not only retain midwives but recruit adequate numbers. NHS staff have experienced increased stress and pressure, which would test even the toughest of heroes. Hospitals could delay some procedures and surgeries, but as one midwife told me, people do not stop having babies.
We know how important continuity of care is to the health of both mother and baby, so it would be great to get an update from the Minister on where we are on the target to improve continuity of care for women, especially for black and Asian mothers, for whom the maternal health outcomes have been particularly poor. We have heard that stillbirths have doubled for black women, and Asian women are more than 1.6 times as likely to experience stillbirth.
I hope the Minister takes a serious look at the proposals in the report of the Health and Social Care Committee, on which I sit. The Committee heard evidence from a range of parents, grieving families and health experts. I hope the Minister takes a serious look at the recommendations and takes steps to implement them. One of the crucial recommendations is about having adequate levels of staffing. How many midwife vacancies are currently unfilled? How many do we need to train and retain in position to meet future challenges and targets on providing continuity of care to all mothers?
To focus quickly on the pandemic, we know the devastating impact that covid can have on pregnant women. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists released shocking statistics relating to pregnant women and covid. One in 10 pregnant women admitted to hospital with covid symptoms needed intensive care. More than 100 pregnant women have been admitted to hospital with covid-19 in the past two weeks. No pregnant women who have received both doses of the vaccination have been hospitalised since vaccination programmes began. Those are startling statistics.
The Minister joined me to meet my constituent Ernest Boateng who lost his wife Mary more than a year ago, shortly after she contracted covid-19 and gave birth. Ernest has shown amazing strength after losing Mary to look after his two beautiful children. His campaign to see pregnant women prioritised for vaccination is inspirational and one I wholeheartedly support, as do the facts. Yet, throughout this year, and despite protestations from Ernest and MPs such as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and others, the Government have failed to prioritise pregnant women for vaccination, relying on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommendations. I feel the figures now show that that should change. I ask the Minister to commit that, should boosters be needed in future, pregnant women will be some of the first to receive them, and that alongside that there will be an education and information programme targeted at pregnant women.
Before we get to that stage, there is the issue about which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) has spoken so passionately from the heart: the ludicrously cruel requirement that women should suffer three losses before support is given specifically for miscarriage and baby loss. Let that sink in. In 2021, we are asking women to go through such a physical, emotional and painful loss three times before they qualify for extra tests, or even early pregnancy support in future pregnancies. How can that be right?
I was lucky to receive extra help and access to some of those tests, but only because a consultant was kind enough to count the losses that I had in the number of babies, rather than pregnancies. I am currently working with a constituent in a similar situation. I am pleased to say that she is now accessing the support she needs, but that should be the norm; it should not be extraordinary. Why are we making women and families go through such pain before they even get a simple blood test? It is cruel beyond belief.
To summarise my points: first, we should make pregnant women a priority for covid-19 vaccines and ensure that they are prioritised for any subsequent boosters. Secondly, we need to recruit, retain and reward midwives to ensure that we have adequate numbers, while being honest about the scale of the challenge ahead of us. That leads on to point three about continuity of care. We need to see continuity of care, prioritising those who are most in need, particularly black mothers, who are four times more likely to die during childbirth.
We must implement the recommendations in the Health and Social Care Committee report. Many of my colleagues on the Committee would have joined today’s debate, but that Committee is sitting at the same time. I pass on their apologies, knowing their strength of feeling and that we are united on those recommendations. Finally, we must end the requirement of three losses before intervention and support is given to women. Pregnancy can be a painful journey for far too many women. Let us listen to women, end that cruel requirement and support women through their joys and their losses, and so improve the statistics on baby loss and miscarriage for good.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to see you back in your place again, Mr Gray, after the operations you have had. I am very pleased you are back in Westminster Hall. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for leading the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and the contributions from other hon. Members.
Very personal stories have been told, some of which have been raised in earlier debates. That does not lessen the pain and heartache that we feel. I imagine the introduction was not easy for the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, given the grief and tragedy she has had to deal with after the loss of her little baby last year. As politicians, we often disagree—we can agree to disagree and are given this platform to represent our differing opinions. However, this issue has brought us together and it is heart-warming to discuss a topic that has touched us all in some form and enabled us to come together. My mother had five miscarriages, my sister lost three babies and the young girl who is the PPS in my office had two, so this issue is very real to myself.
Estimates suggest that there are 250,000 miscarriages in the UK every year. One in five pregnancies miscarries and there are 11,000 emergency admissions to hospital for ectopic pregnancies. Those figures sadly represent the mothers, fathers, grannies and grandas who have suffered a heartbreaking loss. I stand here today as someone who has witnessed the effects that this can have on a family. I extend my sympathies to those who have been faced with this in the past and those who unfortunately will be in the future.
The impact of baby loss is difficult enough and I have no hesitation in saying that the covid-19 pandemic has not made these situations any easier. I had multiple constituents contact me regarding hospital appointments and scans. They expressed concern that restrictions only allowed an isolated appointment. A number of MPs—some here and others not—have raised this issue with Ministers and asked them to address it. It has always made me think of those who went through the tragedy of a miscarriage or pregnancy complications and, in some circumstances, went through it all alone. As an example, I remember my mother. We had a shop in Ballywalter. My mother had a miscarriage and the next day she was back in the shop working again. That is how things happened in those days of long ago.
I have heard multiple reports from those in my constituency. One is a student midwife studying in Glasgow. She said that although tests can sometimes not identify any major issue, having efficient staffing levels and more adequate nurses and doctors allows staff to catch issues earlier. When responding, could the Minster give some assurance and encouragement that staffing levels will be sufficient to ensure that there is oversight and that these issues do not happen? An additional step that we as elected representatives can take is to ensure there is sufficient funding to employ more healthcare professionals, if this is what staff are telling us they need—and the staff are telling us that. We need to respond to that.
This is not the responsibility of the Minster but to give the figures, the latest report has shown that the neonatal mortality rate—deaths in the first four weeks of life—is the highest in Northern Ireland, when compared with England, Scotland and Wales. We have an issue back home, which is a devolved matter that the Minister Robin Swann is directly looking at.
When it comes to baby loss, hospitals do not have enough counselling services for parents who have suffered miscarriage, stillbirths and neonatal deaths. There need to be more trained counsellors in our hospitals to act at immediate effect. Baby loss can be prevented through increased research. Again, I urge the Minster and her Department to allocate funds for this.
I am a person of faith, as hon. Members know, and I believe it is important to have church representatives, be they leaders or those with pastoral abilities, to respond to people in hospital when they need it most. Has that been available for those who seek assurance at a particularly difficult time? Life is precious. There is nothing more valuable than the people we have around us and the loss of a wee baby, who has not even had a chance at life, occurs all too often. The Royal College of Midwives stated:
“Maternity and health services cannot do this alone, fantastic as their efforts are.”
We must add more support to our health service on baby loss. I am pleased to see the Minister, and look forward to her response to assure us on this issue.
I very much appreciate the subject of this debate, which is
“the national ambition to reduce baby loss.”
That ambition is shared by so many. I assure those going through the process that they are not alone. It is so important that people realise that they are not alone and that many others out there are trying to help them through those trials. Baby loss has touched the lives of so many, including mine. I am proud to stand here representing those who wish that those babies were with us today—they will not be forgotten. I call on the Minister to commit more time and more financial support to the national ambition to reduce baby loss. If we achieve that, we will have achieved a whole lot.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As many others have done, I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for securing this important debate and for helping to ensure that the issue remains firmly and high up on the political agenda.
Although health in Scotland is a devolved matter, there is no diversion in our collective will across the UK to do all we can to reduce baby loss. In almost every debate on baby loss that I have spoken in—all of them, I think—I have said that in the past, too many women have reported that they felt concerned about their unborn babies because, “Something just doesn’t feel right.” They go on to report that they have been dismissed and have subsequently suffered a stillbirth. I have repeatedly made the fundamental point about stillbirth that women know their own bodies and that clinicians need to listen to them. If that were done routinely, some tragic baby losses could be avoided.
The devastating loss of a baby brings with it not just crushing grief for the bereaved parents and the wider family, but a real social cost. We know that 50% of marriages end in divorce, and that people are eight times more likely to divorce if they suffer the loss of a child in any circumstances. Of course, the cost of divorce to society is well documented, as are the social and personal costs for all those involved. We need to bear those things in mind.
It is truly devastating when the worst happens and a baby is lost. High-quality bereavement care is very important. I am pleased that, alongside the UK Government, the Scottish Government are funding Sands UK—the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity—to develop national bereavement care pathways for different types of baby loss. I also have a sense that the culture in some quarters of dismissing pregnant women who report that something is not quite right is changing, and I really and truly hope that it is. People have talked a lot about figures today, but in recent years there has been some modest improvement in the stillbirth statistics, which is welcome. There is a long way for us to go, however, in understanding more about stillbirth and baby loss.
The Scottish Government have unveiled the women’s health plan to improve women’s health in the round. We have talked about how health inequalities inevitably affect outcome, so looking at women’s health in the round is important. That would, of course, include maternity, neonatal and postnatal care. “The Best Start: A Five Year Forward Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care” recommends that all women in Scotland receive continuity of maternity and obstetric care. A number of hon. Members have spoken about that, particularly the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth. That does help to improve outcomes for mother and baby.
Any focus on reducing baby lost must consider pre-eclampsia, which is the most common of the serious complications of pregnancy. If we knew even more about that condition, we could save around 1,000 babies from stillbirth each year. The challenge that pre-eclampsia poses is that in its early stages, it has no symptoms. I declare an interest: my baby son was stillborn on the very day that he was due to be delivered because of an extreme form of pre-eclampsia called HELLP—hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets—syndrome. I will not recount the details of baby Kenneth’s death again; I have done it several times in previous debates. Kenneth would be coming up for his 12th birthday, and I am now just getting to the point where I can talk about it without automatically bursting into tears, so I suppose that is progress for me.
As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth pointed out, knowing why your baby has died is really important. Many bereaved parents find, just as I did, that the shutters come down when they ask the question why. It is very hard to get answers and they are much more likely to be fobbed off than to be given any explanation. I can testify to the impact of such treatment after your baby is stillborn, and it is beyond what any bereaved parents should have to suffer. If there is anything that can make a stillbirth worse, it is that treatment of being dismissed.
How can we honestly say that practitioners are seeking to improve how they do things and how they improve outcomes if, when mistakes happen—as they inevitably will at times—they too often appear to go unacknowledged? Sadly, I have no reason to believe that that culture has changed. In my case, all the signs of HELLP syndrome were there, but they were missed by a series of clinicians. That very nearly also led to my own death from a ruptured liver.
The Minister knows about the really interesting work going on with regard to pre-eclampsia called placental growth factor testing, which can point us towards improving the early detection and diagnosis of pre-eclampsia and will save babies’ lives. Offering this test to every mother has implications for lab capacity and other resources—resources are always more scarce than we would like—but it compensates by reducing the demand on maternity services in other ways. It offers the potential to reduce admission of expectant mums for suspected pre-eclampsia in lower risk women, as well as reducing unnecessary in-patient monitoring tests. In the next few years, I hope that we will be able to reduce a significant number of stillbirths caused by pre-eclampsia through the use of the PGLF testing for suspected cases.
However, I am deeply concerned—as everyone else will be—that some of the very modest progress made in recent years in tackling baby loss and stillbirth appears to have been reversed since the start of the pandemic. This phenomenon has been noted in a number of countries across the world. St George’s hospital in London highlighted a fourfold increase in stillbirths, and in Scotland, too, there has been an increase since the March 2020 lockdown. Although stillbirth rates were lower than they have historically been, even during the lockdown, it is still very alarming that there has been a rise. To have suffered a stillbirth during the pandemic while separated from the wider support of family and loved ones is truly heartbreaking, and has made it all the worse.
Experts are investigating the increase in stillbirths during lockdown, but we need to know the true cause. Was it because expectant mums were more reluctant to seek help? Was it caused directly by the effects of covid-19 on babies, or is there some other explanation? Regardless of the cause, this is a very worrying development. We are all waiting on the publication of research on that to see what can be learned to inform future care that is better and more responsive to women’s needs during covid, which we must remember is still with us.
I am delighted that we have had this debate today on this very important issue, and hope that wherever reductions in baby loss are made, the whole of the UK will share best practice and each part of the UK will learn from its other constituent parts, because expectant mothers and families awaiting a new arrival should all be entitled to the safest possible delivery of their baby.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for securing today’s debate and the compelling way she spoke both today and in the debate last November. I was not present for that debate, but I read it over the weekend. I never thought that reading Hansard would bring a tear to my eye, but the way that she and many other Members spoke in that debate was incredibly moving and powerful. Today, she said some very important things that we all need to reflect on. She talked about the staff who cared for her during her difficult times, and she used the words “kindness, compassion and professionalism”, which are absolutely the qualities that we need in our NHS workforce in this particularly sensitive area. We should all put on record our thanks to those who do incredible work in incredibly difficult circumstances.
The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth also mentioned the Select Committee report and noted that progress had been good, but it was from a low base. As a number of Members said, variation still exists across the country. The hon. Member talked about her six priorities. A number of Members talked about some of them, but she set out clearly where we need to do more about staffing the shortfalls. She made an important point about providing not just training, but the back-filling of positions while staff go on training. She also made an important point about parents’ involvement and engagement with such issues, because those who have been through awful experiences have the best input to give us on how to make it a little easier for those who have to face it in the future.
Clinician confidence to report issues was another important point that several Members raised. It is important that clinicians feel able to raise concerns and that they are acted on, which does not always happen. Like most Members, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned continuity of care and the importance of more research. One of the things that parents want to know is why this happened to them.
Lilian Greenwood
Each year, 1,200 babies are stillborn, and a third of those die after a full-term pregnancy. We know how important coroners’ inquiries can be in getting to the truth and preventing future deaths, but they are currently unable to investigate stillbirths. Does my hon. Friend think it would be helpful if the Government now responded to the 2019 consultation on extending coronial powers to cover stillbirths, so that some of that important investigative work can contribute to attempts to reduce the number of stillbirths in this country?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Her speech gave a very clear example of how that can be of benefit not just to the parents, but to the wider system. Parents will always want to know why this has happened to them. It will not always be possible to give an answer, but if we can do more to look at that, it would be of great benefit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke in November’s debate as well as today, and her contribution was incredibly moving. She raised the issue of research and the need for more funding to be brought into this area. Like many Members, she talked about the huge inequalities in perinatal outcomes. She also raised an important point about data collection, which will of course inform policy moving forward. It is not just about collecting data, but about collecting it in a timely manner and accurately.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) mentioned the experience of his constituents Claudia and Andy, and he made a very important point about statutory bereavement leave, which we ought to look at again.
The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) about her own trust, the death of baby Winter, and her constituents Jack and Sarah, who had a similar loss with Harriet in 2016, were telling. That really was a case of many of the issues being repeated, and it sounds to me as if the trust has not done enough to learn the lessons. My hon. Friend also made a vital point about parental involvement in the review process. It seems to me that 2016 is an arbitrary date, and I encourage the Minister to engage in a dialogue with parents to make sure that the scope of the review is as wide as it can be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) made an excellent speech, highlighting just how far we still have to go with obstetrics and how inequalities in outcomes still exist. She made the important point that these issues need to be addressed in conjunction with those who have experienced a loss. Parental involvement is a theme that has come through several times today. She also made a very important point about the culture, which is not always the best for raising concerns and learning from past experiences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) also mentioned continuity of care and the workforce challenge, something that most Members raised. He said that postcode, ethnicity and income should not be telling factors in outcomes. He also told a very moving story about one of his constituents, who suffered their own loss. Unfortunately, it seems that the failings that were identified there will resonate with many trusts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) spoke incredibly movingly today, as she did in the previous debate. She brought home how difficult it is for those who have successful subsequent pregnancies still to have to deal with previous losses, which are still on their minds, as one would expect. Again, continuity of carers and workforce issues were raised. She made a very important point about vaccines and the admissions that we have seen in recent weeks of pregnant women with covid. A very important point was put to the Minister about the priorities for booster jabs, which I hope she will address. The point my hon. Friend made most powerfully was about the three miscarriage rule, and the way she spoke brought home how cruel it is. It really does need revisiting.
Finally, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave a very heartfelt speech. Again, he raised a number of issues about staffing.
I am nearly out of time, so I will make just a couple of points. A number of Members touched on issues that have arisen during the pandemic. We know that there has been reduced access to face-to-face appointments. Partners have sometimes been excluded, leaving women to receive this terrible news on their own. That has obviously been deeply isolating for mothers, but also for fathers. Virtual appointments just do not allow for the compassion and assurance that is really needed in those difficult moments. Of course, even if the woman has had her partner with her, the wider family has not always been able to comfort them during those difficult times.
We know that, for those who have had a loss, time is of the essence. There is a direct correlation between when someone receives mental health support and how long it is needed. A survey by Sands found that nearly two thirds of bereaved parents who felt they needed psychological support were unable to access it on the NHS. We really need to do much better on that.
Finally, I want to take a few moments to recognise the fantastic work that the more than 60 charities that collaborate together in this area do and the way they support anyone who has been affected by pregnancy loss or the death of a baby. They work very constructively with health professionals to improve services and reduce deaths. I also pay tribute to Donna Ockenden and her team for the work they are undertaking. There is no doubt that the more work they do, the more it becomes apparent that there is an awful lot more to do.
It is now approaching five years since we had the first of what has become an annual debate on baby loss in the House. Those debates have seen the House at its best. Members recall their own experiences, and no one should underestimate how difficult that must be. That plays a vital role in helping to inform policy, but it also says to those who may be going through these awful experiences that they are not alone.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and a huge pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). Many tributes have been paid to her bravery, courage and compassion and to how inspirational she is on this issue. I echo all that and thank her for securing this debate today on an incredibly important issue.
This debate has an hour and a half. If we had half a day, it still would not be enough. I have 10 minutes and a huge amount of information to respond to. I will not be able to respond to all the questions and issues raised in those few minutes. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and I have a call very soon and we will discuss Nottingham in detail during it.
I want to start by saying that the UK is one of the safest countries in the world to give birth. We are safer than Canada, the United States, France and New Zealand. I could go on listing how safe we are. We have made good progress. I want to start with that context. We have made really good progress in improving maternity safety over the past few years. The original ambition was to halve the 2010 rates of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths, and brain injuries in babies occurring during or soon after birth by 2030. We updated that ambition in 2017 to bring forward that date to 2025 and to include an additional ambition to reduce the rate of pre-term births from 8% to 6%.
In relation to stillbirths, we are making solid progress towards meeting that ambition. Since 2010, the stillbirth rate has fallen from 5.1 stillbirths per 1,000 births to 3.7, which equates to a 25% reduction in the stillbirth rate. That places us firmly ahead of our target to meet the 2020 ambition for a 20% decrease, and that means there are now at least 750 fewer stillbirths each year.
Similar progress has been made on reducing the number of neonatal deaths. According to the ONS, there has been a 29% reduction in the neonatal mortality rate for babies born over 24 weeks of gestational age of viability. I am particularly proud of that progress and acknowledge that progress on reducing the maternal mortality rate, the brain injury rate and the pre-term birth rate has been slower. However, according to a bespoke definition developed by clinicians at the request of the Department of Health and Social Care, the overall rate of brain injuries occurring during or soon after birth has fallen to 4.2% per 1,000 births in 2019 from 4.7% per 1,000 in 2014. Although that progress is slower, we are still seeing a reduction.
Because of that slower reduction, on 4 July I announced £2 million of funding to support a new programme to reduce brain injuries in babies. The first phase of the programme is being led by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the RCM and the Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute at the University of Cambridge. It aims to develop clinical consensus on the best practices for monitoring and responding to babies’ wellbeing during labour—the progress of the baby during labour has been mentioned a number of times—and in managing complications with the baby’s positioning, specifically when a baby’s head is impacted in the mother’s pelvis during a caesarean section.
Funding for the second phase of the work, beginning later this year, will begin to implement and evaluate this new approach to inform how we can roll it out nationally. On pre-term births, recent ONS provisional data shows the percentage of all pre-term live births decreased for the second year in a row, from 7.8% to 7.5%.
Although we have had a reduction in maternal deaths, there is still more work needed to address the underlying causes of why mothers die in or shortly after childbirth. In the 2016 to 2018 data, 217 women died during or up to six weeks after pregnancy. That represents a 9% reduction in the maternal mortality rate against the 2009 to 2011 baseline, but we obviously need more up-to-date data on that. Some 58% of the deaths were due to indirect causes, such as cardiac disease and neurological conditions. This means that we need to look not only at what maternity services can do during the 40 weeks or less they may care for a woman while she is pregnant, but also at a lifetime approach—supporting women to be in the best health before pregnancy.
To care for pregnant women with acute and chronic medical conditions, NHS England is rolling out maternal medicine networks to ensure that there is timely access at all stages of pregnancy. In the debate today, a number of people have mentioned staffing levels and workforce. We have recently announced £95 million towards increasing the workforce in maternity units—some 1,200 additional midwives and 100 additional consultant obstetricians. The figures have been calculated at trust level on the basis of birth rate, along with the RCOG. We have also given the RCOG £500,000 to develop a workforce tool for planning, so that we have as safe staffing levels as we can have on maternity units, when they are needed.
I am going to go on to the nitty-gritty of the problems that affect some of the outcomes that we are trying to negate during pregnancy. We know that obesity during pregnancy puts women at an increased risk of experiencing miscarriage, difficult deliveries, pre-term births and caesarean sections. I underline the importance of helping people to achieve and maintain a healthy weight in order to improve our nation’s health.
That is why we launched the obesity strategy in July 2020. The strategy sets out a campaign to reduce obesity, including measures to get the nation fit and healthy. We know that obesity has a huge impact on covid-19. According to the RCOG, the overall likelihood of a stillbirth in the UK is less than one in 200 births, but if a woman’s body mass index is over 30, the risk doubles to one in 100. According to Public Health England, 22.1% of women were obese in early pregnancy. If a woman’s BMI is higher than 25, that is associated with a range of additional risks, which I will not list now, but which include miscarriage.
On smoking, some 12.8% of women in the UK were smoking at the start of pregnancy and 10.4% of women were smoking at the time of delivery. With the new emphasis on public health post covid, I requested meetings with Public Health England to discuss how we once again emphasise the negative effects of smoking during pregnancy and the impact of obesity, particularly given the RCOG figures of the doubling of the risk of stillbirth for women with a BMI over 30.
Sarah Owen
I am sure it is not the Minister’s intention that the tone of the response, particularly in this section, feeds into the guilt that many women experience having suffered miscarriage or stillbirth. It feels as if the onus is being put on the woman—that the reason they have experienced this loss is entirely their fault. Perhaps, if we want to tackle the root causes of obesity and smoking and those reasons for baby loss, we would be tackling the root causes of deprivation, not necessarily focusing on personal responsibility in the way that the Minister has just outlined.
Ms Dorries
I could not agree more, but we are doing nobody any favours whatsoever if we do not inform women of the impact of smoking and obesity during pregnancy. Before covid—some time ago—Public Health England had a huge emphasis on the negative effects of smoking during pregnancy, and we think we need to focus once more on the fact that 12.8% of women are smoking at the beginning of pregnancy and 10.4% are smoking at the time of delivery, as part of this approach to continuing to reduce the number of stillbirths. To keep that trajectory moving, we have to discuss all the reasons why and all the health implications during pregnancy.
A number of Members mentioned the continuity of care programme. We are committed to reducing inequalities in health outcomes and experience of care. In September 2020, I established the maternity inequalities oversight forum to bring together experts from key stakeholders to consider and address the inequality for women and babies from different ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic groups.
In response to a direct question from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, we wanted to see all women placed on the continuity of care pathway by March 2022, but that will not be possible. We are therefore focusing on having 75% of black, black British, Asian and Asian British women on the continuity of care pathway by 2024. We will have 20% of all women on that pathway at the same time. The issue of training on continuity of care was brought up, and that is the important point. We can talk about continuity of care pathways, but it is about having the right training in place and ensuring that those midwives who have those women on that pathway and are caring for them are trained in the particular inequalities that my hon. Friend mentioned. That is why it will take us to 2024, but we will have 75% of those ethnic minority women on that pathway by that date.
A number of Members mentioned covid-19. It has caused a huge amount of disruption to our lives. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said, women have continued to have babies throughout that time. Maternity and neonatal services have worked hard to enable partners to be present during labour and birth. According to the latest information, all maternity partners are accompanying women to all antenatal scans and appointments in acute settings.
The hon. Member for Luton North also brought up vaccinations. She made the point that the Government need to ensure that all pregnant women are vaccinated. My daughter is 32 weeks pregnant, so no one has been more aware of that than me, but I am afraid that politicians do not make clinical decisions, and the Government are not the JCVI—the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is completely independent. The committee decides who is vaccinated.
After constantly asking why pregnant women were not being prioritised and taking a glance at the make-up of the JCVI, however, I was shocked to discover that it is made up of 14 men and three women, so I am unsurprised at the JCVI not emphasising or prioritising pregnant women for vaccination. Again, that is a point I am making in the Department and in particular with the women’s health strategy. Perhaps all scientific committees that make decisions about women’s health should have a gender balance.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Luton North that I am absolutely on to that and have been all the way through. I might just be beginning to get a bit of insight into why the JCVI has not prioritised pregnant women for vaccination. It is shameful that they were not; they should have been. She highlighted the data herself at the L&D hospital, which is one of my local hospitals, and I hope that the hospital will now begin—despite the constant requests and pressure from Government—to review its policies on pregnant women and vaccination.
I thank the Health and Social Care Committee and its independent expert panel for its inquiry into the safety of maternity services and evaluation of maternity commitments. The Department is considering the recommendations made in the report and will publish a full response in September.
In conclusion, I am absolutely proud of the progress that we are making on stillbirths, neonatal deaths and maternal deaths, but we have to do more. That will involve Public Health England, and that will involve looking at all the reasons why and all the targets that we have to beat so that we can reach those ambitions and reduce those figures.
Cherilyn Mackrory
In the short time left, I thank all Members for their kindness. I have been catapulted into this position quite recently and it was not something that I was expecting to have to advocate on, but I am pleased that I am. I am pleased that I can stand up for parents and families who have had to go through a similar thing. We have had a robust and interesting discussion.
I make a plea for two things. First, our all-party parliamentary group on baby loss is meeting the Minister this afternoon at 3 o’clock, so anybody watching who would like to come along is very welcome. Secondly, I will be applying for another debate from the Backbench Business Committee for Baby Loss Awareness Week this autumn, in October, and if the Committee is listening, please, please, may we have it in the main Chamber? It is important, and that would show the utmost respect to parents who have been through this.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered progress towards the national ambition to reduce baby loss.
Rural Banking Services
(3 years, 4 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
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That his House has considered rural banking services.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gray. I am grateful to other Members for attending the debate. It is hot outside but there is no reason it should be hot in here. This does not need to be a divisive debate and I hope we can talk about the positives and the negatives of the issue.
I want to cover both the availability of cash and the importance of banking infrastructure in rural areas. There is no doubt that the pandemic has forced businesses to adapt and accelerated a wider move towards digital payments. That is to be welcomed and I thank businesses across the country that have bent over backwards and adapted their systems to ensure that they can provide a service to isolated or elderly customers. However, I am concerned that this has implications for some members of society, particularly older and vulnerable people, who are much more likely to use cash. Lower income households and those without internet access are likely to be the most affected.
During the pandemic, cash use has declined, often in constituencies with higher levels of deprivation. In my constituency, cash withdrawals dropped by 55% in the first six months of the pandemic and in areas such as mine, where our broadband and mobile coverage is poor, cash is extremely important for rural businesses and individuals. I am grateful that the Government are listening on this and are proactive, as I know the Minister will outline later, and we have already made some good steps in that direction.
In 2019, the “Access to Cash Review” report highlighted the need for different Government bodies and regulatory authorities to work together to protect access to cash. That was then followed with a commitment from the Chancellor in his Budget to legislate to protect access to cash. In April 2021, the Government accepted an amendment to the Bill that became the Financial Services Act 2021, which would allow consumers to withdraw cashback from more retailers without having to make a purchase. We have a real-life example of that amendment working well in my constituency.
I have been working with the community access to cash group in Hay-on-Wye, which is a group of volunteers who have gathered together to focus on the problem of cash availability. I do not know if you know my constituency, Mr Gray, but Hay-on-Wye is a beautiful town and has a wonderful culture of striking out on its own. In fact, in 1973, Richard Booth, who appointed himself the king of Hay, declared Hay an independent kingdom, so we did not need to go through the Brexit referendum—it really was that easy.
As a result, Hay-on-Wye has a culture of fixing its own problems. I want to commend the group of volunteers who have been organising this. They got together after the final bank left the town in 2018. At the same time, the post office has been going through some turbulent times after the postmaster, Mr Steve Like, stepped down from the business. I want to thank Steve and his family, who have owned the post office in Hay-on-Wye for more than 60 years. It was the end of an era when he stepped down in June.
With those two pressures in mind, a group of volunteers led by Josh Green got together to tackle the issue of cash availability. As well as creating a scheme where customers from different banks can speak to a representative from their bank in the parish hall one day a month, they have got together a large group of businesses that are now offering cashback after the Government stepped forward with the change to the Financial Services Act 2021. I want to celebrate what those volunteers have done. It is a meaningful difference and proves just how important cash is.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) on bringing forward this debate. My constituency of Strangford is similar to her own. We have had a number of bank closures and the latest one is Barclays in Newtownards, just 30 minutes away from Portavogie and Cloughey in my constituency. They are closed and the options are away. I agree with the hon. Lady that there is an important parallel between banking and broadband services. More time needs to be committed to improving internet services in rural communities to ensure that constituents can use online banking efficiently, in addition to doing it in person. It doesn’t suit everyone, but it will suit a whole lot of people. The option needs to be there, perhaps as an opportunity for banks and broadband to work together.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She could well be describing Aberconwy: it is beautiful and rural, and it has trouble with broadband and, unfortunately, the withdrawal of banking services. In my constituency, the experience of the residents and small businesses of Llanrwst is that first they saw banking and counter services withdrawn from the town and going down the coast to Llandudno, and they were told that they could travel to Llandudno. Now, they hear that the counter services in Llandudno are closing, at some banks, and moving further along the coast. These are areas that do not have the benefit of extensive public transport, so it is physically difficult to move from the valley to the coast—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions must be brief. I call Fay Jones.
Fay Jones
I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), too. I will cover later in my speech the issues that have been raised. They are common issues, and that is why we all need to work together. This involves not just the UK Government, but the devolved Administrations in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Northern Ireland.
This proves the point that cash is extremely important. The Lloyds group talks about a group of 3 million cash-critical people. These are not the people that we might expect: 41% of this group are aged between 35 and 54; they earn less than £20,000 a year; and they often rent their home or live in social housing. Therefore, we are not just talking about the elderly, the vulnerable and those who live on their own. We need to ensure that this extremely important group in society has access to cash.
Let me turn to my ask of Government. As I have mentioned, the Government have taken some really positive steps towards addressing the challenges, and there is currently a consultation open on access to cash. The proposals include the Treasury granting powers to require certain firms such as retail banks to provide deposit and withdrawal facilities for customers within certain distances, and the Financial Conduct Authority would have oversight for monitoring and enforcing those requirements. I very much welcome that. Those proposals suggest that the Government are introducing a legal guarantee for consumers and businesses to be able to withdraw and access their cash. That is absolutely what we need. I think that the point about certain distances will be critical for people in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. We are the largest constituency in England and Wales—the constituency is bigger than Luxembourg—and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to bear that in mind as the consultation goes forward. I will certainly respond to it, but it is imperative to remember that miles are not the same in urban areas as they are in rural areas.
Brecon has four banks, and that is great news, but Ystradgynlais, the largest town in my constituency by population, has only one. Builth Wells has one. Hay-on-Wye, as I have said, has none. Crickhowell has none. Rhayader has none. Knighton has none. Since the mid-1990s, the number of bank branches in the UK has been falling steadily.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
My Welsh colleague is making important points on the importance of banking infrastructure. In my constituency of Pontypridd, loyal customers whose life savings have been invested in banks are being abandoned by these corporations, which claim to serve the communities that we represent. Does the hon. Member agree with me that it is completely wrong for banks to bale out of local communities such as ours and others across Wales when just a few years ago they had to be bailed out by the public purse themselves?
Fay Jones
I certainly agree that it is wrong for banks to withdraw when there are no options left. We need to be really careful. I have worked with and spoken to a number of them in preparation for this debate, and I implore them to remember that we do need physical banking services. We cannot just push them down the line or rely on a certain urban area.
On that point, it has just been announced that Barclays bank in my constituency, in Llandrindod Wells, is about to close. From my office in Llandod, I can see the number of people who use that bank every day, and I am quite surprised that the decision is going ahead. I understand it is too late to influence that, but I make the plea none the less. It will cause considerable problems for people in my constituency: those who live in Knighton or Presteigne, or further north. I again remind the House that it is the largest constituency in England and Wales.
As much as this decision causes a headache for personal banking, businesses will also suffer. It is crucial that we recognise the value of these rural businesses. Farmers rely on good relationships with their banks, for obvious reasons. It is often said that nobody knows how to spend money better than a farmer, and it is really important that we remember how that money gets filtered out right through the rural community. One farmer sustains hundreds of businesses in a rural area, including the vet, the insurance agent, the feed merchant and the contractors that he will work with, so remembering that rural businesses need access to banking infrastructure is so important. I urge the Minister to put some real teeth behind the proposal in the consultation for a right to withdraw cash, again remembering that point about mileage. Some of my constituents who used to rely on Barclays bank in Llandrindod Wells are now going to need to travel 20 or 30 miles to get cash to pay their bills, or to give a grandchild their birthday money, so that right is absolutely essential.
The final point I will make is about the importance of banks to the high street, because nobody just pops to the bank as a one-off transaction: they pop into the post office, go into the butcher or go for a coffee. Banks are important parts of a thriving high street—again, I stress the importance of a high street to rural areas, particularly in Brecon and Radnorshire, where we do not have large urban conurbations or city centres. Our high streets are the lifeblood of the rural economy, and it is incredibly important that as we move towards a purely digital platform, we remember the need for face-to-face contact. If the pandemic has demonstrated anything over the past 18 months, it is that we all need and cherish human interaction, and it is incredibly important that we remember the impact that closures like these can have on mental health. Again, I think of the farmers in my constituency who take their cattle to market and then, while they are in Brecon market, go to the high street and into the bank. This is part of an important rural chain, and when one link goes, so goes the rest of it.
I really want the Government to think about the impact that these closures can have. Obviously, we cannot control the commercial decisions that the retail banks make, but I believe we should be doing all we can to preserve rural communities, remembering that rural banking services are so crucial. We talk a lot in this place about levelling up, and rightly so, but there can be no levelling up if we forget rural areas. I urge the Minister to think about that.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gray, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) on securing this debate and on the eloquent way in which she set out a whole range of issues concerning her constituents. I know that she has deep first-hand experience of rural affairs, given her prior role working for the National Farmers Union before she came to this place, and she spoke very clearly about the significance of bank branches for many in rural areas across Wales, England, and indeed Scotland too. I also listened very carefully to the three interventions from the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), and I am keen to address those in my response.
From my first-hand experience growing up in rural Wiltshire, as part of a family running a very small business, I know the significance of bank branches and the central role that they have in the community. However, I also have to recognise that the world that we live in today is very different from the one of a few decades ago. Technological progress means that more consumers and businesses are opting for digital payments and banking, and last year’s figures from UK Finance show that around seven in 10 adults in this country used online banking and eight in 10 used contactless payments. Although cash represented almost a fifth of the total number of payments, this was a reduction from 56% a decade earlier in 2009, so while the longer-term impact of the pandemic on banking is not yet absolutely clear, the switch to those digital methods is likely to have been accelerated by coronavirus. Times are changing and have clearly changed, and digital technology is transforming banking just like ATMs did in the 1960s.
None the less, as we have heard today, bank branches still matter a great deal to many people, and permanent branch closures can be a source of real dismay to communities across the country. Although closures can be upsetting, they are commercial matters and the Government cannot intervene. Indeed, one could argue that the UK’s financial services sector is among the most competitive and productive in the world precisely because it has the flexibility to respond to market changes.
It is also crucial that the impact of branch closures is understood, considered and, where possible, mitigated so that all consumers across the country can continue to access over-the-counter banking services as they choose. As has been mentioned, since 2017 the major high street banks have been signed up to the access to banking standard, which commits banks to ensuring that customers are well informed about branch closures and the reasons behind them, and that customers have options for continued access to banking services, including specialist assistance for those who need more help. That is not some passive intervention. The operation of the standard is monitored and enforced by the independent Lending Standards Board, which holds banks that close branches accountable for their treatment of customers. That means monitoring to see whether they help individual customers to make the transfer to using the Post Office or other solutions.
Last September, banks’ responsibilities around closures were further clarified by the Financial Conduct Authority when it published guidance setting out its expectations of firms that decide to reduce their physical branches or the number of free-to-use ATMs. Under that guidance, which seeks to ensure that customers are treated fairly, banks are expected to consider the impact of planned closures on customers’ everyday banking and cash access needs. In addition, banks should consider alternative access arrangements. On that last point, it is my understanding that within a short distance of the Llandrindod Wells Barclays, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned, there are two post offices and two free ATMs. In addition, I note that Lloyds and NatWest provide fortnightly mobile bank branches throughout the constituency.
My hon. Friend quite rightly highlighted the great significance of cash to constituents, and the Government recognise that we have to address that need and the ongoing importance of cash to millions of people, particularly those in vulnerable groups—often the elderly and the poorest. I am therefore glad that LINK has already said that it will protect the broad geographic spread of free-to-use ATMs. It is being held to account against those commitments by the Payment Systems Regulator.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the Government are committed to legislating to protect access to cash for those who need it while ensuring that the UK’s cash infrastructure is sustainable. Clearly, the way it is funded and the way the wholesale system works has to evolve to reflect the changing usage pattern. That is why we brought new laws into effect at the end of June through the Financial Services Act 2021 to support the widespread offering of cashback without a purchase by shops and other businesses. That exciting development unlocks the potential for cashback without a purchase. It will provide a valuable facility for cash users and will play a major role in the UK’s cash infrastructure. As my hon. Friend highlighted, cashback without a purchase has been trialled in Hay-on-Wye—clearly a community with a strong independent streak, from what she said—for some months under the community access to cash pilots.
In addition, earlier this month we published a consultation outlining broader legislative proposals to protect access to cash. Those proposals seek to ensure that people need to travel only a reasonable distance to pay in or take out cash, and that the right regulatory oversight for cash access is in place for the future. My hon. Friend made a point about the rurality of her distinctive and distinguished constituency, with respect to its geographical size. This is obviously a matter that we must consider carefully as we move forward with these proposals.
Together, these measures will support the use of cash and help local businesses to continue accepting it by ensuring reasonable access to cash depositing facilities for small and medium-sized enterprises. The Post Office is also playing a key role; the Post Office banking framework allows 95% of businesses and 99% of personal banking customers to deposit cheques, check their balances and withdraw and deposit cash, across a network of 11,500 post office branches across the country. The Post Office is also required to ensure that 95% of the total UK rural population is within three miles of an outlet. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that the Post Office is trialling bank hubs as part of the eight community access to cash pilots around the country that I mentioned earlier. Rochford in Essex and Cambuslang in south Lanarkshire are benefiting from those shared branches. They are a significant innovation from the business hubs that were on offer a few years ago, and I am very pleased with the direction of travel in that area. The hubs will offer access to face-to-face community banking services provided by the banks with the most customers in each area. In addition, Hay-on-Wye’s post office is being refurbished to better support banking services, as part of the eight pilots. I look forward to learning lessons from the pilots and to the future industry models for supporting access to cash that they will help to inform.
A final point, which has been raised, is that there is a need to improve mobile and broadband coverage in rural areas, to make the immense benefits and opportunities of online products open to all. That is why the Government remain committed to delivering UK-wide gigabit connectivity as soon as possible, with £5 billion to support roll-out in the hardest to reach areas. As the Prime Minister mentioned in his levelling-up speech last week, we have made great progress. By the end of this year, 60% of the country will have a gigabit connection. We are working with industry to target a minimum of 85% giga-capable coverage in just four years in 2025. We will seek to accelerate roll-out further to get as close to 100% as possible.
However, while 4G coverage continues to improve in rural areas, admittedly it is not yet as good as in towns and cities—again, Members rightly raised that. As a result, the Government are providing £510 million for the shared rural network. Mobile operators will contribute an additional £532 million as part of this deal, which will extend high-quality 4G mobile coverage to 95% of the UK by 2025. We are also focused on removing the practical barriers that stand in the way of our broadband and mobile coverage targets, through our barrier busting task force. We are looking at the difficult challenges in some communities, many of which are in rural areas, to try to make a real difference on the ground.
While technology is continually changing, the principles that guide the Government’s approach to banking services remain entirely consistent. I have been in this role now for more than three and a half years, and I continue to work with banks, the Post Office and industry stakeholders to try to find practical solutions. We are working to ensure that all consumers, in both rural and urban areas, can access the services they need. We are committed to legislating to protect access to cash for those who need it, and to maintaining the sustainable cash infrastructure that the country needs. We are determined to help the whole country benefit from better broadband and mobile coverage, so that everyone who wishes to use digital and online services can do so.
I will continue work with colleagues across the House, and with my hon. Friend, on these important matters in the coming weeks and months. I hope that that is a reasonable appraisal of and response to the issues that she rightly raised this morning. I am happy to continue correspondence with all Members, because I know that this is something that concerns our constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Tackling Knife Crime
(3 years, 4 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
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
I am sure that hon. Members are aware that social distancing is no longer in operation, but I would like to remind them that the Speaker has encouraged us, where possible, to wear facemasks when not speaking. I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between debates.
I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of debates in Westminster Hall, and are expected to remain for the entire debate. Those Members who are participating virtually are reminded to keep their camera on as they will be seen at all times by those viewing these proceedings. If Members experience technical problems, they should contact the Westminster Hall Clerks via their email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before leaving the room.
There are no Members sitting in the Public Gallery, and there are four speakers for this debate. Before I call the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) to move the motion, may I suggest that I intend to call the Scottish National party spokesperson at around 3.20 pm? We do have lots of time and I do not think I need to impose a time limit at any point, but that is the time at which I would like to call the first Opposition spokesperson. I call Sarah Owen.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tackling knife crime.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. I applied for this debate after the recent sad death of Humza Hussain in my Luton North constituency. Humza was just 16 years old. Let me repeat that: he was just 16 years old. He had his whole life ahead of him, but he was stabbed by another young person and killed outside his school.
Over the past few weeks, people across Luton have been shaken by these events, and many people in the town rallied around all the families involved, but especially Humza’s parents, when they received the worst news a parent could ever possibly receive. My heart goes out to Humza’s family and people in Luton North who have been affected by this tragic death over the past few weeks. Today, I hope to be a strong voice for them in Parliament. I will work with whomever it takes to end this situation in which our young people are carrying knives because they are involved with things in their life and they see it as the only way out. They see carrying a weapon as the only way to feel safe. What makes this even more tragic is that it did not need to happen; every death caused by a knife is avoidable. It just takes the political will and targeted resources to stop it. Unfortunately, we have instead seen a rapid rise in knife-related crime over the past few years across the country, and Bedfordshire is no exception.
Figures from the Commons Library tell us that in 2010 there were 397 offences involving a knife in Bedfordshire. By last year, that number had climbed to 530—an increase of over a third in a relatively short space of time. It is important to say that this is not just young people; it includes knife crime committed by adults in domestic settings, as well as on the streets.
This is against a backdrop of 11 years of central Government gutting funding for our councils, forcing what few services we have left to operate on a skeleton budget or close altogether. In Luton, one of the biggest towns in the country by population that does not have city status, we have seen police officers having to operate with the budget of a rural police force. There is no single cause of the recent rise in knife offences, but in a debate like this it would be wrong not to remark that the kids who had their services closed and gutted 10 years ago are now the young adults left without aspiration, left without hope for the future, who are now falling into crime and being targeted by criminals.
Our local newspaper, Luton Today, launched a campaign after Humza’s death a few weeks ago encouraging people to “Bin Your Blade”. This is a campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and I were keen to endorse, because we both want to do all we can to tackle this problem. Most people in our town want to do something about it as well, but we need support from the Government to help us to do that.
This is not a party political issue. Helping our young people make the properly informed decision not to carry a knife should not be party political. Getting knives out of our schools should not be party political. I am sure that the Minister will at least be able to agree with that.
Before today’s debate, I spoke to a brilliant officer at Luton Borough Council, Dave Collins, whose passion, after a 30-year career working on these kinds of offences, shone through. Dave told me that the public and media narrative about knife crime is often unhelpful and tends to paint a very incomplete picture. That has been echoed by many organisations working to tackle this issue, including the charity, London Youth.
Figures from Barnardo’s show that over a fifth of offences involving a knife involve somebody under 18. Last July, a quarter of Barnardo’s frontline workers said that they had supported a young person who they thought had been coerced, deceived or manipulated into criminal activity; 15% said they thought the first lockdown led to more children and young people becoming involved in serious violence and exploitation. That is exactly what it is: criminals exploiting our young people. This is a safeguarding issue. Young people, who might have experienced the trauma of early family violence, neglect or adverse childhood experiences, are put on a path at an early age—no longer with the youth services or safety net to help them break out of that cycle.
Public Health Wales research reveals that adults who experienced adversity like this in their early years are 14 to 15 times more likely to be a victim of violence or a perpetrator than those who did not. Those children are also more likely to be excluded or off-rolled by schools. From a young age, they are told that they are “naughty kids” and put on the “too difficult to deal with” pile. We have seen that pile grow over 11 years with the marketisation and academisation of our schools. When that happens, youth services play an invaluable role in reaching young people who are otherwise disengaged from statutory services.
However, spending on youth services has been cut by Government over the past decade. A freedom of information request by the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction—chaired, with real commitment to the issue, by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who is a staunch campaigner on this issue—revealed that local authority funding for youth services was reduced by 40% in real terms between 2014-15 and 2017-18. It is absolutely no coincidence that, after 11 years of cuts to those services, we are seeing a rise in exploitation and these kinds of offences.
The rise in knife crime is a direct result of Government policies, neglect and austerity, all of which are related. We have seen the mistrust of police that stop-and-search fosters among black and minority ethnic people across the country. In Bedfordshire, official figures show, black people are three times more likely to be stopped and searched, with some 70% of those stops resulting in absolutely no arrest whatsoever.
Young people in Luton are scared and often do not trust the authorities or the rest of society to protect them. We have seen that a style of policing that breeds mistrust is compounded by overstretched forces that have been held back by cuts for 11 years. Rather than policing that works with communities to prevent crimes like this, we have seen an increase of 33% in knife offences, as I mentioned earlier.
Community policing and trust take the investment of both time and money, which are two things that our police forces have been starved of. I repeat the call to the Minister, from, I think, all of the MPs in Bedfordshire, for our region to be funded to city levels and not as a rural area.
For all the brilliant hard work of Bedfordshire police in getting another knife or gun off our streets through Operation Boson, more will continue to be fed in, unless the cycle is ended. Although enforcement is important, if somebody is already carrying a knife, by definition it is already too late. We should be working with people from a young age to stop them picking one up in the first place.
In the spirit of cross-party working, I welcome the funding that the Government have given to Bedfordshire for enforcement and the violence reduction unit. However, these crimes are still happening. Our local youth services and our council need the Minister’s support to tackle this.
From conversations that I have had with people in Luton North over the past few weeks, I have a few questions to put to the Minister. What extra funding can he make available for youth services? I am not talking about services that just tackle crime but services that prevent it and that truly invest in our young people. The pandemic has added fuel to the fire of a crisis in mental health services across our country—and even more acutely among young people. What are the Government doing to tackle that? Will the Minister commit to approaching the issue of knife crime in a way that seeks to prevent it, rather than just fight it—an approach that deals with it as a public health issue and gets to the root cause of the problem?
Will the Government end the short-term approach of the past and really invest in early-years support and funding from a primary age for families at risk? Will they give schools the funding necessary to be able to support children to stay in education as long as possible and to support families through that process? Will they commit to looking again at the funding formula for Bedfordshire police, which covers my constituency? As it is, that force is currently funded as a rural force, yet Luton North has very little in the way of rural crime.
The final question I give to Qazi Chishti, the imam at Jamia Islamia Ghousia Trust in Luton, who said last week: “Knife crime has become one of the most widespread issues affecting not only our community but the UK as a whole. It affects not only the lives of the victims and perpetrators, but their families and communities. In the 40 years I have served my community, I have presided over the funerals of three young men who were the victims of knife crime. Each one has remained with me. Unfortunately, knife crime has only increased over time and it is now rife within our communities. The most recent attack left a family and an entire community in shock and pain. A barely lived life was lost and another will be lost to prison. The Government must take steps to tackle this issue. More must be done for those living in areas with high levels of knife crime. I urge the Government to fulfil its promise of tackling this issue and ridding our communities of this.”
Is the Minister able to tell me, Imam Chishti and the entire community of Luton North, that he will fund and take the necessary steps to give our young people hope and better opportunities than picking up a knife? I will work with whoever it takes in Luton North and across our town to end this problem. The will exists in our community to fix it, but we need the support from people in power and those with the purse strings in this place to make it happen.
Without a big, comprehensive plan to take on what is an all-encompassing issue for our communities, the Government risk just tinkering around the edges and allowing this form of exploitation to grow even stronger roots. It simply cannot go on. No parent deserves to be on the end of that phone call, hearing their child has been killed. No other child deserves to have their life ended before their time.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on an excellent introduction. I feel for her constituents. She told a heartbreaking story about her 16-year-old constituent who was murdered. I am afraid that I shall give some examples of very similar stories from my constituency.
In Sefton and across the Liverpool City Region, we have very good practice in the prevention of violent crime, including knife crime—in stopping people being stabbed in the first place, which we would all agree must be the absolute priority. It means working with young people. It means working with parents, as my hon. Friend said, right from the early years, all the way through. It means challenging gang culture in the Liverpool City Region and the carrying of guns and knives. It means addressing in young people the kind of risk taking and antisocial behaviour that is synonymous with what leads to taking and using a knife and, indeed, with carrying a knife in the first place. It means disruption; it means redirecting. It means finding other interests for young people to be involved in, so that they do not want to be involved in crime in the first place.
The projects that Sefton Council for Voluntary Service is responsible for co-ordinating are life-changing for those involved and they save lives, but building relationships takes time, because a relationship of trust is critical, especially for young people. That takes time, and more than a year of funding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, this is a public health approach across numerous agencies in the public, private and voluntary sectors.
I fully support the Merseyside police and crime commissioner, Emily Spurrell, in her work. She is reversing some of the significant cuts in police numbers, such as the 1,500 police who have gone in Merseyside since 2010. She is working with partners across all those sectors, building alternatives to crime for young people. This is not just in one borough, but across multiple boroughs, or in one region. Of course, we know the way that criminal gangs and organised crime like to engage with young people to get them to cross county lines, particularly with drugs.
Emily Spurrell and Sefton Council for Voluntary Service need help from the Government, because, as I alluded to before, funding is often too short term. It is often last minute, in response to the latest problem that has come up. That is not a basis on which to build the kinds of relationships, services and successful partnerships that are needed to redirect young people from serious and violent crime in the first place, or to prevent them from picking up a knife and getting involved in crime longer term.
In order to have those resources, the cuts made since 2010 have to be addressed. The cuts have to be reversed; that is true for the police and for local government, as well as for grants in the voluntary sector. Those cuts have made it much harder to tackle the causes of knife crime, as well as knife crime itself. The consequences and the human side of knife crime are utterly devastating.
Take what happened to Sam Cook from Crosby. Sam was on a night out celebrating his 21st birthday. His girlfriend, Charlotte, was assaulted and Sam intervened to protect her. Sam was stabbed through the heart. Sam’s grandad died of a broken heart hours after a court convicted Sam’s killer, Carl Madigan, of murder. Sam’s mum, Gill Radcliffe, told me she found it difficult every single day, for months after Sam’s murder, just to get up and get on with her day. That is the human side, both for the person who dies and for their families and loved ones left behind.
Talking of love, Sam loved football and in his memory his mum has been involved in the Liverpool No More Knives campaign, which talks to young people after football matches to encourage them not to use knives. Using sport to get people away from the danger of becoming involved in violent crime is a great example of an effective intervention.
What happened to Sam is the reality of knife crime, as is what happened to Jacob Billington and Michael Callaghan, friends from primary and secondary school, also from Crosby. They were two of the eight people stabbed in Birmingham city centre in September last year by Zephaniah McLeod. Jacob sadly died but Michael was saved, despite the fact that the knife had severed his carotid artery, his jugular vein and his vagus nerve. The quick thinking of their friends saved Michael, but sadly they were unable to do the same for Jacob. I cannot begin to imagine what Jacob’s family have gone through and I know from talking to Michael’s family just how difficult it has been for them.
In 2001, 21-year-old Colin McGinty was stabbed 15 times. His killers have histories of violence and were part of the Liverpool underworld of the time. Colin’s sister, Laura Hughes, is an amazing woman I have had the privilege to get to know a bit recently. Laura and his mum and dad are all dedicated to saving the lives of knife victims in Colin’s memory.
I mentioned the way Michael’s friends saved his life. They stopped him bleeding to death while waiting for the paramedics. Laura and Colin’s parents want bleed control kits to be available in public places so that more people can be saved if they are stabbed. Laura is asking for funding for the kits. They were designed by Liverpool surgeon Nikhil Misra as part of the Liverpool KnifeSavers project, and they cost about £95 each. Laura is looking for places to put the kits, which can be used to reduce bleeding while waiting for an ambulance or paramedic. They can of course be applied to any situation where someone is bleeding heavily—for example, a road traffic accident.
We can only imagine the devastation caused to the families of knife victims. The lives of Sam, Jacob and Colin all ended in violence, and Michael’s life changed forever. He was in a coma and suffered a stroke. He is recovering slowly 10 months after the attack, but as he says,
“In time I will recover, but I can’t get Jacob back.”
Jacob was his best friend from school.
We have heard of the importance of prevention and of investing in the long-term activities needed to disrupt potential knife attacks, and of the need for investment in services and support across organisations and sectors. It is not just a policing matter, or a matter of responding when an attack happens. I have also given the amazing examples of how Michael Callaghan’s friends saved his life and how Colin McGinty’s inspirational sister, Laura Hughes, is campaigning for bleed control kits, which improve the chances of saving lives. Laura does not know whether a bleed control kit could have saved Colin’s life—or Jacob’s, or Sam’s, or the thousands of lives of knife victims across our country—but she knows that bleed kits would have given them a better chance, had the kits been available.
My plea to the Government and the Minister is for long-term funding for prevention to support the long-term relationships that develop the trust that is needed to ensure young people decide not to be involved with serious and violent crime in the first place. I also plead with the Government and the Minister to take a good look at what Mr Misra of Aintree University Hospital has developed. It is very similar to battlefield first aid and it uses the same principles, with gauze and shellfish enzymes that help blood clotting. We need funding for prevention and funding to save lives when things go wrong. Tackling knife crime is about both. It is about prevention and response, but we need the Government to intervene, reverse those cuts and provide support for prevention and response.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for securing this important debate. Knife crime is a deeply sad fixture of our society. It destroys lives and can tear them apart. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) has given us some sad and distressing, but very pertinent and important, examples.
In order to truly tackle knife crime, we must do more to support those who fall into it. The victims and perpetrators of knife crime are varied, but today I will speak about children and young people. In London, the victims and perpetrators are children and young men, often from black backgrounds, who are used by drug lords. Many of them are victims of growing up in Tory austerity. They have been stuck in overcrowded housing and have lived in poverty. Crucially, their access to youth provision has been stripped away from them and their local authority budgets have been slashed.
Statistics provided by Barnardo’s show that funding for youth provision fell by 40% between 2014 and 2018, and it has only got worse. My constituency, which is one of the most deprived areas in London, does not have any youth provision at all except what has been provided by faith groups. The media and the over-policing of black children and young men in London and other regions of the country contribute to crushing the dreams and aspirations of these people. They are told they will not amount to anything—except, in some situations, a criminal. That is a lie, and we need to change it.
When an experienced criminal manipulates or threatens a black child or young person into delivering jobs and carrying knives, it means that that child or young person is helpless and controlled by the criminal masterminds, and pressurised by their peers who are already involved in this awful way of life. Who is behind the criminal masterminds? Where are the drugs coming from, and what is being done to stop this trade? We do not have enough answers to these questions. What does our country need to do? What do our families need, and what does the child need?
First, they need a Government who care enough to want to make the right changes and to invest in young people, not just a Government who want to build more prisons and put pressure on police officers to boost data, arrests, charges and imprisonment. Our Government need to focus on preventing the exploitation that leads to gang involvement early on, rather than tackling the crime when it is too late. We need more women’s centres and community alternatives to custody. We need to invest in after-school clubs in school holidays. I remember going to after-school clubs in the school holidays. What has happened to them? They have disappeared. We need youth services so that young people have a safe place to go and safe people to speak to, and so that they are supported physically and emotionally in their development from the early years to older ages.
We need schools to be resourced and teachers to have new skills, new passion and new aspiration. They need the support and the confidence to be able to support young people, to keep them safe, to keep them out of crime and to keep them away from people who put pressure on them. We need our teachers to be supported with the skills to keep young people safe. We need better solutions than putting young people in prison and forcing them to grow up there.
There must also be recognition of when the perpetrators of knife crime are also victims. If our Government are serious about ending knife crime, they must seek to end the social and economic deprivation that leads people into crime. Crime ultimately comes out of poverty, and we need to do more to tackle poverty. If we tackle poverty, we help to tackle crime. The Government must protect young people so they can confidently go to the police for help. In the main, they find it difficult to go to the police for help, because they experience hurt from the police. The police can hurt them with abusive words, and by using handcuffs on the streets while doing stop and search. The police hurt black children and young black people by humiliating them in public, and by making them turn out their pockets or get partially undressed. They feel intimidated, embarrassed and like a criminal. Often, the parents know none of this.
What do we need to do to bring about change? It has to be through adults, not children. A child growing up in prison is not the answer to ending crime in our society. A child’s brain stops growing at the age of 25, so why are we expecting children to behave like adults? We need a compassionate society that cares for the vulnerable. The Government must put strategies in place to protect young people and their families. I am convinced that children and young people and their families will come forward to say who the real criminals are and who is carrying knives, because nobody wants knives and drugs in their society and their community. I will be more than happy to further this conversation and to help in these matters where I can.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her powerful speech, which highlighted how important this subject matter is, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for their powerful contributions. They set out some of the statistics and facts, and I am sure that the Minister was quite aware of them in his former role as deputy Mayor for policing.
As the MP for Vauxhall and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction, I see the devastating impact that knife crime is having on our families and the communities of those affected. We see life-changing injuries that victims have to live with for the rest of their lives. Most tragic is the avoidable loss of life—mostly among young, male black people. Just two weeks ago, the latest stabbing occurred in my constituency. On 5 July, a short walk away from my constituency office near the Oval, 16-year-old Keane Flynn-Harling was stabbed.
We know the journey towards committing knife crime starts from a young age. More than a fifth of offences involving knife crime were committed by children under 18, some as young as nine years old. I have a six-year-old. She will be nine in three years. It is impossible for me to imagine a scenario where a nine-year-old child could be charged with stabbing somebody. A nine-year-old is just a child, but a 17-year-old is also just a child. They may look and sound more mature, but they are still a child, both in the eyes of the law and according to our values as a society. However, the criminal justice system does not see that those children and young people are as much victims of child criminal exploitation as perpetrators who have committed a criminal act. We have to recognise that, as victims, these children need our help and our protection.
The National Youth Agency report “Hidden in Plain Sight” highlighted that gangs have been running recruitment drives of vulnerable children, especially girls, because they are less likely to be stopped by the police. We know that young people were coerced into dressing as key workers during lockdown so that they could move around freely with a supply of drugs. These criminals will stop at nothing to exploit people. They will stop at nothing to exploit young children.
At the all-party parliamentary group, we have heard from many frontline workers and experts in the field about measures that the Government can take to help tackle this epidemic. We have to acknowledge that it is an epidemic—children are dying. We cannot put this in the “too difficult” box, as unfortunately we have done for many years. A number of those practitioners call for a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation. We know that agency safeguarding responses differ from area to area because there is no overarching statutory definition. This is an area that the Government are looking into, so can the Minister tell us what progress has been made?
Secondly, it is essential to look at the measures to tackle knife crime and make sure they are co-ordinated in a multi-agency approach and across a geographical area. A number of practitioners call this the public health approach. I congratulate the Government on introducing serious violence partnerships in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and I welcome that. However, those duties do not specifically cover criminal exploitation and serious youth violence. The practitioners could provide a clear partnership and a vital means of support for children who present with signs of exploitation and serious violence. Can the Minster confirm that the serious violence partnerships will cover child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence?
Lastly, we know that youth services and activities at the local level are a vital tool in the box to reach young people who are disengaged from statutory services. In my humble opinion, if we view social care as the fourth emergency service, youth services are the fifth emergency service. The basis of youth work is built on trust, with professionals working with our young people. They are in such a unique position in building that trust with those young people, who some people describe as hard to reach. They are not hard to reach; we just have not found a way to reach them. Youth workers do, and in many cases, their work saves lives. They have the vital information that the police, our teachers and social workers need, so they should be supported.
I have long campaigned for youth services to be a statutory provision so that all young people can access free, high-quality youth services to help to develop and support them in their formative years. Youth services must be part of the holistic approach, linking up with public health, children’s social care and housing. I pay tribute to the youth workers, voluntary groups and community groups across Vauxhall and right across the country, who are working flat out to support our young people day in, day out. When we are all away, at home with our families or on vacation, they are working—some of them on a shoestring budget, and some of them chasing application after application to support our young people.
Over the last decade, we have seen severe cuts in this sector, leading to reductions, and in some cases closures, of vital youth provision. Cuts to youth services are a false economy, because young people will continue to be exploited and violence will increase. I ask the Minister to work with the Treasury to look at how we can truly restore funding to youth services and invest in our young people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for setting the scene so well, and I associate myself with all her comments. As I always do, I am trying to put myself in the hon. Lady’s position in relation to her constituent, and I would have found it very hard to deal with that situation. It is never easy.
This is a topic that I feel we have been discussing and debating for years and, sadly, it seems to be an ongoing issue, with crime figures still on the higher side and continuous calls for the Government to act. I am of a certain age, and I was a member of the boy scouts. I remember well that we each had a small penknife. What did we use them for? To make bows and arrows, to carve sticks and for all the innocent purposes a boy scout would. Today, however, in the society we live in, things are very different.
I want to go back to basics and ask why knife crime is such an issue to begin with. Knife crime is a complex social problem, as hon. Members have said when they have spoken about the issues in their own constituencies. It is a symptom of toxic environments that are created around younger children. Socialised by their peers from a young age, these children grow up to become the perpetrators of such violence. Knife crime figures may be higher in certain sections of the United Kingdom, but such crime impacts on all regions of the United Kingdom, including back home in Northern Ireland.
I will give an example. I told you this story at the table last night, Mr Paisley, and I told it to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) beforehand. My son is the manager of a shop in Newtownards. I met him on a Monday morning when I went to collect the paper as usual, but he was outside and the shutter was down. I asked, “Jimmy, what’s wrong?”, and he said, “Dad, I was robbed last night at five to 10.”
The guy who came to rob him had a long-handled fish-knife, and in all honesty he was probably spaced out. Jimmy said to him, “Look, the tills are cleared. We clear them early. All we have here is the £50 float.” The man pushed by him with the knife, and Jimmy said, “If you want the float, take the float; don’t stab me. Take the two bottles of Buckfast and move on.”
As I said to the hon. Lady beforehand, in this case, the better part of valour was to do nothing. It is not as if Jimmy is not courageous or does not stand up for himself; he was also a manager of a shop in a different part of Northern Ireland and he got to know people like that quite well. On other occasions, when he knew who the people were and they tried to rob him but they did not have knives, he took them on. In many cases, the police were called to arrest them.
The point I am making is: why do these people use knives? The knife this man had was a large fish-knife. We have a fishing community in our area; did the knife come from there? Those knives are incredibly sharp. One wrong move, and we could be looking at a very different situation. The point is that it is not just a problem in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Luton North, for Lewisham East, for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). It is a problem across the whole of the United Kingdom, and it is particularly worrying. It is worrying because a person can get a knife from their kitchen. They can take one from their job down in the fishing ports in Portavogie. They can lift one up in a shop, or from the hardware shop two or three doors up. That is how easy it is.
Recent police recorded crime figures published by the Office for National Statistics show a 2% increase in the number of knife offences recorded: from 35,146 in the year ending March 2019 to 35,815 in the year ending March 2020. It has continued to increase since 2013. I am looking to the Minister—I am not being critical, by the way, and I always try to be constructive in my comments—but the frustration is, how do we stop this crime? That is the question we are all asking. How can we stop it happening? I look to the Minister in the hope that he will give us some encouragement. I know that the Government are doing lots of things; I always like to give credit where credit is due. They have lots of strategies and policies, but I want to put forward something for down the line, which I hope the Minister, in conjunction with other Ministers, will take on board.
We have proof that current ways, means and legislation are not working. I say that really respectfully. Across mainland England there is an increasingly concerning issue with knife crime in schools. In 2019, 45,000 young people aged 10 to 17 were sentenced for carrying a knife or offensive weapon, with more than 1,000 of these weapons found on school property. In my day, school was always a safe place to be. We have to ask how we can make it the safe place that it was before. Every one of us today wants to make sure that that can happen again. Why do they carry knives? I cannot fathom why they do. If they carry one, the use of it is not too far away. It is easy to pull it out and then the inevitable can happen. We want to stop that.
The police recorded 275 murders involving a knife or sharp object in the 12 months between April 2019 and April 2020; 23 were children under 17 years of age. Why are under-17s being stabbed to their deaths, and what further action can we take to stop that from happening? The Ben Kinsella Trust, a leading charity in tackling knife crime, has also revealed that from April 2020 to July 2020 there was a 54% increase in hospital admissions for those who were victims of knife crimes. What discussions has the Government had with the Ben Kinsella Trust? There are charities working on the frontline. They must know the symptoms and must have an idea of how to respond to try to control it.
As a possible way forward, there should be more mandatory resources available, particularly for young people, where the danger of knife crime is brought to light. If it happens in a certain area and if it happens on a regular basis, we need to put resources and time into trying to address the issues. All too often, children are blamed and stereotyped for societal issues surrounding knife crime, but the bigger picture is not evaluated. It is all very well to sometimes point the finger without looking at the source of why the problems happen.
For example, I stated earlier that these situations are created around younger children. Ultimately, it can be said that they do not know any better. In some cases, they might not, but they have to be taught what it means to carry a knife. Growing up, we were all taught to do as we were told and to obey our elders. Again, that is a generational thing. I think a lot of us will subscribe to that. Can we really place full blame on the young people?
I believe there is a partnership for the Minister on schooling and education; I hope we get an assurance on that when he replies. This is a crucial element in the debate. It is critical. It is not just the responsibility of the Minster here today; it is the education Minister’s, too. A partnership of the two together could try to address the issue.
Schools are a safe place for children, and the correct facilities should be in place to reassure them that they can talk about issues surrounding knife crime. How do we do that? We need to have teachers available to engage with children and look out for them. I am not saying that they are not doing that; teachers are very responsive to their pupils. However, if young people are worried about getting mixed up with the wrong crowds, support needs to be available.
If a pupil tells a teacher that their friend carries whatever it may be, we need to be able to respond, to take that pupil away and to address the issue for their friend. I therefore call again on the Secretary of State for Education—it is not the responsibility of the Minister—to ensure that schools in England have the funding to add that support for children, so that partnership between schooling and policing can work successfully.
I would also like to mention the relationship between local communities and our policing systems across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We need to focus on maintaining a steady and trusting relationship between the two. It is really important that local communities and the police come together—another partnership—to work out how we can provide safety for our young people, as opposed to provoking violence and hatred.
The hon. Member for Luton North referred to the “Bin Your Blade” campaign, and I commend her for supporting it. I hope that it encourages people to come forward, discard weapons and seek help to become better people. It is the second time today that the hon. Lady and I have been in a debate: we did the first one this morning, we are doing another this afternoon. These are important issues that we are dealing with on behalf of our constituents.
There is no time for complacency when it comes to any crime, but especially when it is a crime that is killing hundreds of our young people. It cannot go on. When I read about cases in the press or see them on the TV, I do not know the cases, but I always see the pictures and they tell me about a family that is devastated because their loved one has been killed by knife crime. That has a lasting effect on everyone in the family. Mr Paisley, you and I, coming from Northern Ireland, know that the ripples from those things go long and deep. I cannot begin to imagine the harrowing phone calls that parents must face.
I therefore call on the Minister to encourage the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary to work in partnership. I encourage the Minister to ask communities groups and police to engage together in a more effective way. All those bodies, Ministers and local bodies must get together and take all the steps that they can to reduce knife crime in the United Kingdom.
If we can save one life, and we can stop the heartache of others, we will have done a good job. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response; I look forward to the SNP spokesperson’s and shadow Minister’s responses as well. What the Minister has heard today is a small capsule of what we all think: what we need is something more effective. I hope that the Minister will have answers.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, for the first but hopefully not the last time.
Knife crime, crime involving an object with a blade or a sharp instrument, is a persistently worrying concern, especially as it disproportionately impacts our young people and the disadvantaged. Worryingly, knife crime in England and Wales has risen each year since 2014. In the year ending March 2020, there were around 46,300 offences involving a sharp instrument, 6% higher than in 2018-19 and 51% higher than in 2010. That trend is obviously a cause of great concern.
I bring to the attention of Members some positive news and hope for optimism in the fight to reduce violent crime overall, including knife crime: the success of the Scottish violence reduction unit. Less than 20 years ago, knife crime was the basis of Glasgow’s unenviable reputation as the murder capital of Europe. The Scottish violence reduction unit was established with funding from the Scottish Government in 2005 to stem the tide of homicides, gang violence and knife crime. Its strategy, based on a public health approach to violence, treated it like a disease and dealt with the causes, rather than the symptoms, which was motivated by the belief that violence is preventable, not inevitable. It has been hugely successful. This approach refers to a whole school of thought that suggests that, beyond the obvious health problems that result from violence—the psychological trauma and physical injuries—violent behaviour itself is an epidemic that spreads from person to person.
In the last 16 years, the number of homicides in Scotland has more than halved, from 137 in 2005, of which significant numbers involved knives, to just 64 last year. The approach has received worldwide attention and is endorsed by the World Health Organisation. It is a strategy that works. The deputy Mayor for policing and crime in London, Sophie Linden, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, visited Scotland in 2018 to learn about the successful public health approach deployed in Glasgow. The London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has already incorporated elements of that public health strategy in his knife crime strategy. It was announced in 2019 that London will echo Scotland’s approach to tackling serious violence by treating it as a public health issue. A violence reduction unit has been set up in London, which includes public health staff, police and local government. Through that violence reduction unit, the Mayor is investing in programmes that can tackle the causes of violence and promote opportunities.
A key programme focuses on reducing school exclusions, keeping young people in education and enabling youth practitioners to reach out—a point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi)—visiting people in A&E and in the custody suites, providing support for parents or carers and creating resilient home environments, and providing young people with positive opportunities to develop skills and broaden their prospects for employment and life chances.
It is very welcome that Scotland’s world-leading approach is being replicated in other areas across the UK and the world, but there is more that we can do as politicians. We can fundamentally change the underlying conditions leading to knife and violent crime. The violence reduction unit in Glasgow and the trainers at the College of Policing, know only too well that the causes of knife crime are complex and numerous, but poverty and lack of opportunity play a large part, brutalising lives and making them in turn prone to brutal responses.
Just last year, researchers at Birmingham University found that one of the most important factors in the significant increase in knife crime is unemployment. They found that a 1% increase in unemployment on the previous year increased knife crime by 1% to 2%. In terms of numbers, a rise of unemployment levels from 5% to 6% would lead to more than 3,600 more knife crimes annually.
Unemployment, though important, is only part of a much bigger story and according to analysis by the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence, the rise in knife crime can be linked to austerity budget cuts, which have dramatically scaled back youth services in parts of England and Wales. The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to that point. The link between inequality and homicide rates has been shown in as many as 40 studies and the differences are large—there are fivefold differences in murder rates between countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia compared with those in Scandinavia, which is all related to inequality.
The most important reason why violence is more common in more unequal societies is that it is often triggered by people feeling marginalised, hopeless and without the opportunity to improve their lives and life chances. There is much that the police and other public services can do to manage and even reduce violent crime, but we as politicians have a bigger task on our hands in countering the effects of poverty and deprivation, which is inevitably linked to the prevalence and increase of not only knife crime, but all crime.
Violence is preventable; it is not inevitable. We need to continue to develop strategies that adopt a multi-agency approach to the reduction of crime, rather than dealing with it just as a criminal justice matter.
Recently, having sat on the Public Bill Committee on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—now with the House of Lords—I was pleased to see measures are being introduced to reduce violent crime through the introduction of a legal duty for local authorities, the police, education authorities and others to collaborate, plan and share information to prevent and reduce serious violence, including knife crime. As politicians, we need to do all we can to reduce knife crime by tackling poverty and inequality and addressing the factors that cause knife crime by providing hope and opportunity for all in our society. That, along with other measures, will I hope bring significant reductions in knife crime in this country.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. Apologies for my tardiness at the start, coming in a bit late. I had made the schoolboy error of going to Westminster Hall itself, but of course we are not there.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing this debate and on her speech. I congratulate everyone who has spoken on the knowledgeable and thoughtful way in which they approached a difficult topic. It is easy to have a sense of moral panic, which does not lead to solutions. I hope that the Minister has listened to everything that has been said by Members today on what needs to be done.
Practical measures, for example, include what my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said about bleed control kits. I have heard about and seen that campaign, and I have talked to Emily Spurrell about the great job that she will do and about the support that she needs. My hon. Friend and all Members present are doing an incredible job on behalf of their constituents, trying to reduce violence. That has to be the first job of us as politicians, to keep people safe. What more important job do we have?
We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) who, like me, are from south London constituencies and have particular issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East talked about relationships with the black community. It is of course incredibly important to understand that although I might feel that if something happens to me I can go to the police as my place of safety, there are communities that do not feel that. That needs to be fixed.
I pay tribute to my police force in Croydon. Every single week on Friday morning, the community and the police meet. They have built relationships ever since the death of George Floyd, to the point where there is a new trust and respect on both sides and a much better approach to things like handcuffing during stop and search. On that front, some brilliant activities by the police are going on. We need to harness and replicate those.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, who now chairs the APPG, which I founded and was absolutely my baby for three years; these things are so important. She is doing a brilliant job keeping up the campaign.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made an interesting speech. He was talking about what I was talking to some police officers about the other day: people who are in the Scouts learn how to use pocket knives. People should learn how to use knives and what the implications might be, the knock-on impact, of using them wrongly and stabbing somebody. Many young people I have met have no concept of what might happen if they stab someone in the leg. They think, “They will be fine”, but of course they are not—the chances are, they will die. If we had more uniformed organisations teaching people how dangerous those things are, but how to use them safely, we might have a slightly different approach to some of the issues.
The spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), talked about the Scottish approach, which I know well. I visited and spent a long time with people from the violence reduction unit in Scotland and with others in America who have done similar things. The public health approach is absolutely the right one. There is plenty of evidence, which the Government are yet to pick up or act on, sadly.
Yesterday, I was with a senior police officer who said to me, “We are in a perfect storm. We have had years of cuts to services.” My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, I think, said that the children who suffered the cuts 10 years ago are now the teenagers who are involved in knife crime, and that is exactly what the police officer was saying to me yesterday. He added that, on top of that, we have had a year and a half of covid restrictions with people in lockdown. Now potentially we face a summer of violence.
Knife crime reached its highest level on record in 2019-20, at more than 50,000 offences. That is an extraordinary number, which has doubled since 2013-14, when there were 25,000 offences. Between 2010-11 and 2019-20, knife crime rose in every single police force in the country. Since 2014, there has been a 72% increase in the number of 16 to 18-year-olds admitted to accident and emergency for knife wounds and the most common age group for victims of homicide recorded in the year ending March 2020 was 16 to 24-year-olds. That was followed by 25 to 34-year-olds. While the effects of lockdown saw a fall at the beginning of the year ending September 2020, there were still 47,119 offences: an average of 120 knife crimes a day.
Last week, the UK’s anti-slavery commissioner found that for the first time more children than adults were identified as potential modern slavery victims last year. The commissioner’s annual report found that of the 10,689 potential victims referred to the national referral mechanism, 4,849 were children. The unrelenting rise, which Members have discussed today, in county-lines drug dealing, where criminal gangs exploit children, is fuelling violence. and the Government are simply not doing enough to stamp down on criminal drug gangs. The Minister for Crime and Policing said last November:
“Back in the early part of the previous decade, we thought we had beaten knife crime, but unfortunately it is back.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 595.]
He may be good at acknowledging that there is a serious problem with serious violence in this country, but not so good at actually doing something about it.
More than 20 teenagers have been killed in London this year and many more have had their lives cut short across the country. How many children will die before the Government recognise this as the violent epidemic that it is? I came into the House in 2017 determined to tackle the scourge of rising levels of serious violence. I set up and chaired the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime, and it is very sad to be speaking in the House today when yet another young life has been lost in my constituency. Two weeks ago, a 16-year-old boy called Camron Smith was murdered in his own home in front of his mother in a horrific murder that could have been avoided.
Last week in the Chamber, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), whether the Government would commit to helping every vulnerable child this summer. She replied by saying that they were doing that through increased investment through the Department for Education funding over the summer, but that funding is limited. It amounts to a few pennies per child and excludes a large number of children who might otherwise need safeguarding support. The Government’s education recovery proposals are one tenth of Labour’s offer and, unlike Labour, contain no money for breakfast clubs or extra-curricular activities. The Under-Secretary referred to the Youth Endowment Fund, which is welcome, but it is £200 million over 10 years. Again, statistically, if we look at the number of children we need to help, that sum is small fry in comparison with what is needed.
I do not need to repeat the level of cuts to youth services that we have seen over this period of government, as well as the cuts to local government, policing, police staff, domestic-abuse risk officers and forensic officers. We have not just lost police officers on the beat; we have lost the whole apparatus behind that of people who actually help prevent and solve crime. We have 8,000 fewer police staff now than we did 10 years ago and more than 7,000 fewer police community support officers. We know that PCSOs were a key link between communities and the police: people we know, see and understand, and we and know their names. We have a relationship with them and they might talk to someone’s mother if that person got into trouble. That has been decimated by the Government.
We have heard many solutions and I think we would all be happy to sit down with the Minister and talk about those further. We know it is possible to reduce violence. As the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) says, violence is not inevitable. We know that things can be done. We know that knife crime goes in peaks and troughs and when there are interventions, violence goes down. However, those interventions need to be long term and rooted in communities.
It is important that the Government, local authorities, the police and the voluntary sector are able to join together to prevent, recognise and respond to violence. Central to that is the need to prevent the criminalisation of children, as well as early intervention to prevent young people from becoming involved in violence in the first place. So many cases of youth violence tell the same sad story in which the victim and the young person inflicting violence have both had adverse childhood experiences.
We need to look to authorities such as Lambeth Council. Over the summer, Lambeth has taken the approach of identifying the most vulnerable children—the 100 most vulnerable, say—who are at risk of getting involved in crime or who are already involved in crime. The council has a plan for what each of those children will be doing over the summer and where—for example, this week, that child will be going to this activity; the following week, they will go to that one, and so on. That is a really interesting and important approach, and one that we can look at replicating. The amount of money that we spend on interventions with our young people— social care, council and police interventions over the years—is probably absolutely extortionate, but all those interventions do not actually amount to the protection we need to give those children so that they are not getting involved in crime.
It is time that we looked at the justice system and sentencing. That is a really difficult area because we are talking about children. We know that prison is not the answer, but the police would say that if a vulnerable and exploited child becomes involved in a criminal gang, and he carries a knife, no one will tell the police, so they do not know. If he stabs someone in the leg as part of the criminal activity, that person will go to hospital, but no one will tell the police, so they do not know. If he then gets caught with a knife, the police know, but there is no intervention to take him out of that situation. He will be referred to the youth offending team and there might be some kind of intervention.
This is very difficult, but I know of cases where young people have been caught carrying knives and, because there was no intervention at that point, they have gone on either to commit murder or to be murdered themselves. This conversation is very difficult because they are young children. Of course, we need to do all the prevention and intervention, but we also need to think about when we do it. I know of a case where somebody was caught carrying a 3-foot zombie knife and nothing happened as a result. I think the Minister needs to look at that.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
That is exactly what knife crime prevention orders are for.
Sarah Jones
As well as prevention, at some point, we need to think about wrapping our arms around those people. I do not think that knife crime prevention orders are the answer, but they are being piloted. [Interruption.] The Minister talks about them from a sedentary position. He announced them with great fanfare in the middle of the knife-crime panic a couple of years ago, but nothing has actually happened yet. They are being piloted now, two years after they were talked about as the answer to everything. I am just saying that we need to have a conversation about the pathway and about exactly what happens to young people when they come to the attention of the police.
As I said in the Chamber last week, our summer holidays should be full of opportunities, including youth work, mentorship programmes, sports clubs, mental health support, as well as good neighbourhood policing, of course. In the medium term, we need proper wraparound support for at-risk children, including different housing when it is needed—moving people away from the area where they are susceptible to violence is a huge issue—people to talk to, mentoring, and proper youth services. In the longer term, we need to completely change the way that we tackle violence. The Government need to do more work in schools to better detect, prevent and eliminate violence, and they need to work with the NHS to properly treat the epidemic and immunise our society.
Under this Government, criminals are getting away with it, pathways to crime are wide open, and our children are being exploited by criminal thugs and groomed into violence. Our justice system is not taking the right response, and our Government are not taking the problem seriously. My question to the Minister is: where is the emergency summer plan to stop our children fighting and murdering one another over the summer holidays, and how does he plan to stop riots over the summer? Knife crime prevention orders have not been piloted yet; the education recovery plan is one tenth of what it needs to be; the Youth Endowment Fund is spread super-thin over 20 years; and the summer activities fund amounts to pennies per child. We need action. The scale of the problem needs to be matched by a proper response, because at the moment, drug use is rising, crime is rising, and the Government have no summer plan.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Minister, it is your opportunity. You have lots of issues to respond to.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I should begin by recognising the important reason that the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) referenced for raising this particular issue in debate, and expressing my condolences to the family of Humza Hussain on that horrendous event, recognising that his family are sadly going through something that too many families have gone through. Like the hon. Lady, I have sat with too many of those families over the years and seen the devastation that is wrought by these terrible acts, within the family, among friends and loved ones, and in the wider community that is affected by these events.
It is clear from today’s debate that this is an important issue to lots of Members from across the country, as indeed it is to me and to the whole Government. It should come as no surprise that it is an issue of importance, given that the Prime Minister was previously Mayor of London and dealt with a similar knife crime epidemic in the capital, which was reflected across the whole of the country, and he dealt with it successfully over that period, if I might say so. It is not enough, but we managed to get the number of teenagers stabbed and killed in the capital down from 29 in 2008 to just eight in 2012, and kept it at a low level. That is obviously eight too many, but nevertheless we learned a lot during that period, and we are trying to put that learning into effect as we do our work now.
We are taking significant steps, and I had hoped that they might be recognised across the House, because a number of Members here represent areas of the country that are particularly affected by knife crime—areas where we have been both putting in significant extra resources and galvanising effort to try to achieve a step change in the response of all the partners who are required to tackle knife crime: not just the police, or indeed the Government, but everybody else as well. That has involved personal effort as well as investment across the piece, not just with the police but in local government.
I will begin by reflecting on the police. As Members know, we are recruiting a huge number of police officers at the moment: the latest published figure is approaching 9,000. We are well ahead of schedule on getting 20,000 extra police officers, with many parts of the country back to where they were pre-2010 in terms of numbers. In important parts of the country, of course, police-officer numbers have remained high. For example, in London—we have three Members representing London here today—the number of officers in the Metropolitan police has been consistently higher than it was at the all-time low for murder in the capital, which was 2014. That number has been consistently higher ever since; much of that has been down to Government funding, and obviously, that number will go higher still. We believe that those police officers will make a big difference—including the 74 in Bedfordshire so far, with more to come—and that by having a significant police presence in a focused way, we can do an awful lot of preventive work tonight.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) has referenced the experience of Glasgow. I met Karyn McCluskey, who was leading the charge in Glasgow all those years ago. It is often forgotten that police enforcement played a very significant role in the fight against knife crime in Glasgow. Certainly in the early years, it was the use of heavy police enforcement, identifying and removing knives from the street, that created the space for some of those other, more supportive, therapeutic interventions to take place, and police enforcement still has a part to play. Although Scotland has had success on knife crime, sadly it is still plagued to a certain extent by this offence: we have seen machete gangs openly attacking people in the street in recent times, as we have across the rest of the United Kingdom. The experience of Glasgow is obviously something that we would love to learn from and benefit from across the whole of the country.
Critically, we are rolling out significant resources to police forces across the land as we speak. Over the past couple of years, there has been a surge fund focused on those 18 forces in whose areas knife crime and violence is most prevalent, and that funding has been used to good effect by the police. We are bringing a sharper focus to it this year, with the allocation of what we are calling GRIP funding, which is looking at hotspots where we want police to take a very targeted, analytical, data-driven approach towards dealing with violence in particular parts of their geography. That is now embedding and will be in place during the summer. It is part of our plan to deal with a possible resumption of violence, post release from lockdown.
The hon. Lady is right that we saw a significant reduction during the past year, with a spike in August as we were released from lockdown. We have put in place comprehensive plans with the police to ensure that we stay on top of any such repetition over the summer. That funding is rolling out now. I am personally driving that programme, and I have met lots of those forces to talk about how they are going to put that funding into place.
We are now in year three of violence reduction units, which similarly received significant funding as part of our £130 million package this year. In my experience of year three, we are seeing a much greater sophistication in violence reduction units, and a much greater level of partnership in areas that receive that funding. For example, I sat down with representatives from Greater Manchester this morning, to go through their plans and look at their violence reduction work. It was very powerful and a sign that those units have matured in terms of the identification of individuals and what they are going to do to support and assist them in turning away from knife crime.
That is a critical part of our architecture in 18 parts of the country. Bedfordshire has a unit that has received funding of £2.6 million. It is a valuable hub for the co-ordination of work that is needed to fight violent crime. We have now funded eight interventions across Bedfordshire, reaching about 12,000 young people. I hope that that will have an impact in the hon. Lady’s constituency, as it will across the rest of the county. A number of Members made the point that, at the same time as looking towards the police to help with enforcement immediately—tonight, because we know there are people out there carrying knives—we must also do the long-term work that targets the crime at its root. That will be done, as the hon. Lady said, by investing in prevention and early intervention.
The hon. Lady disparaged the amount of money that is being invested through the Youth Endowment Fund, but that misunderstands what the fund is there to do. It is investing in transforming our understanding of what works, ensuring that it sits alongside other organisations, funding grants and evaluation programmes, so that they can maximise their spending, whether that is local authorities, police and crime commissioners, police forces or health services, many of which will have to work alongside one another in the fight on serious violence, once the serious violence duty comes into place later this year.
We want to ensure that every pound spent has significant impact. In my experience of talking to many of the groups working with young people to prevent crime, although they are often well meaning and committed, there is often a paucity of evidence, a lack of an investable proposition that what they are doing is working, beyond the anecdotal. There are some programmes that we are investing significant amounts of money in, which we know have an effect, and where there is evaluation.
For example, there is our investment in programmes that look at teachable moments, where young people have a moment of crisis that allows us to get into their thinking and steer them on to a different path, either in police custody or accident and emergency, hopefully the former. Investing in that holds enormous promise and the evaluation shows that it is a strong way to get people out of violence and, in particular, out of gangs, and to move them on to a better life.
We want to ensure that all the money we spend is spent on trained, professional, therapeutic intervention. There are other funding pots that can look at the more general provision around youth services, and I recognise what has been said about those over the years. We want to ensure that our crime prevention focus is sharp and targeted, to ensure that we can exactly target the young people the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) pointed to in Lambeth, to ensure that they head towards a life of truth and light.
Alongside that, there is a lot we can do from a legislative point of view.
Alongside that, there is a lot we can do from a legislative point of view. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has been referenced. As I mentioned, that contains the important serious violence duty, which for the first time will put a statutory obligation on all partners in an area to come alongside the police and work to prevent violence, plan, understand the data, look at what the funding streams might be and leverage off each other.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution, I referred to the need for a strategy or partnership between the Minister’s Department and education. Is that part of the strategy? If it is, I believe that is core to changing the mindset but also to improving the situation. I just ask the question.
Kit Malthouse
That is a good question. It is certainly the case that violence reduction units, which are led locally, include wider education programmes, and I have seen good examples of that. They are there to generally educate young people about the dangers of carrying a knife, and the fact that someone carrying a knife is more likely to be a victim than to protect themselves. I have seen some imaginative use of such programmes. I was in the west midlands a couple of weeks ago, where a virtual reality set-up was used with schoolchildren to indicate to them the best way in which to continue their lives.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a strong interest in the Bill. It contains serious violence reduction orders, which give the police the power, as the hon. Member for Croydon Central pointed out, to stop those individuals who are known knife carriers, and are known to have been convicted in the past and to have shown a proclivity to violence. They are designed to discourage and deter people from carrying weapons, given the increased likelihood of getting caught, and to protect offenders—to give them an excuse to move away from being drawn into exploitation by criminal gangs.
Florence Eshalomi
On the serious violence reduction orders, can the Minister confirm that there will be a full evaluation before they are rolled out across the country?
Kit Malthouse
They have been through significant scrutiny. Obviously, they will be rolled out subject to evaluation, as we are doing with knife crime prevention orders. As the hon. Lady said, we are piloting those at the moment in London. Those orders have both a positive and a negative impact. For example, somebody subject to a knife crime prevention order can be stopped from going into Croydon town centre, but at the same time in the same order be required to attend an anger management course or some kind of training course—some positive activity that would steer them in the right direction. We will look at any innovation that comes forward and pilot it and try it. Such is the urgency of the problem that there is no monopoly on ideas; we should be willing to try everything.
We can also do more to remove knives. Last week, we commenced the provisions of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, bringing in a ban on a range of knives and other weapons: specific firearms; cyclone knives, which are a sort of spiral knife—Members may have seen those deeply unpleasant weapons for sale online—and rapid-fire rifles. Anyone who possesses these weapons could now face up to 10 years in prison. We think that this ban will help save lives and get more weapons off the street. Certainly, as part of the surrender programme, enormous numbers of these weapons have been surrendered to us.
Although I understand the desire of Members present to push the Government to ever greater efforts, I would like to reassure everybody that there is an enormous amount of effort and commitment going in, both at the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and more widely at the Department for Education and among all those partners who are required to drive down this problem. I know that there has been a lot of challenge this afternoon about the amount of resources going in. I just point out that when I was deputy Mayor of London dealing with a knife crime epidemic back in 2008, that was when spending under Gordon Brown was at an all-time high. Police officer numbers were similarly high and there were youth groups all over the place. Yet still our young people were stabbing each other in great numbers. The connection between knife crime and social structure is not as simple as people sometimes portray.
Kit Malthouse
No, because I am running out of time.
I finish by posing a question. We think this is a priority and we are putting enormous effort into it, but the challenge has been made that the issue is very much about poverty. What if it were the case that violence causes poverty, not poverty, as a number of Members have alleged, that causes violence, and that our job, in order to create prosperity in Luton, Vauxhall and everywhere else, is to clear that violence out of the way so people can build the lives for themselves and their children that they deserve?
Sarah Owen
We have covered a lot of ground during these 90 minutes and I want to touch on a couple of points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) made a point about funding being too short term. It was great to hear the Minister reel off the pots of funding that have suddenly been made available, but that is reactionary and short-termist. What happens next year and the year after? Children deserve to be invested in, which was the point that my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) made so eloquently. We are talking about children and they deserve a future that is much brighter than the one that is currently on offer from this Government.
When it comes to tackling poverty, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East said it perfectly: if we tackle poverty, we tackle crime. Our shadow spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), said precisely what the police officer had relayed to her: austerity and deprivation are a perfect storm for criminals.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) eloquently pointed out the importance of investment in youth services. Those are essentials, not additional extras. They should be an essential part of every young person’s life growing up.
I thank everyone for their heartfelt, thoughtful and intelligent contributions. I am surprised that the Minister was by himself representing the party of Government, given that we know that knife crime and serious and violent crime have increased in every single force over the last 10 years. We should all tackle this matter together, across the political divide. I know the problem cannot be solved in this room in 90 minutes, so is the Minister willing to meet me and colleagues from Luton North to tackle the issue and continue the work that is going on, but in a long-term and strategic fashion, not in the short-term and reactionary way that has failed children time and again?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered tackling knife crime.
Welfare System and Child Poverty: Wales
(3 years, 4 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
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Welcome to this afternoon’s debate. As you know, there are special arrangements in place because of covid. I only remind Liz Saville Roberts, who is appearing virtually, that she will be on camera the whole time. I know she will already be aware of that, but I say it for the record.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the welfare system and child poverty in Wales.
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Paisley. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I wish to debate the welfare system and child poverty in Wales.
The current welfare system in Wales is failing many thousands of children. Even before coronavirus, almost a quarter of people in Wales were in poverty, living precarious and insecure lives. That included 200,000 children. Something institutional is happening to drive a longer-term rise in child poverty, with 20 of Wales’s 22 local authorities seeing an increase over the past five years. Of course, covid-19 has exacerbated the inequality by hitting low-income families hardest, which means that Wales now suffers the highest rate of child poverty of any nation in the UK. Shockingly, one in three children lives in poverty. I am sorry to say that the situation is likely to deteriorate further, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that 39% of children will be living in poverty by the end of the year. As Plaid Cymru’s spokesperson for social justice and equalities, Senedd Member Sioned Williams said recently:
“It’s a national scandal; a damning reflection of the impact of Conservative austerity and 20 years of the failure of Labour in Wales to do little more than manage poverty.”
The United Nations convention on the rights of the child sets out the rights to which all children are entitled and against which the performance of Governments, both in Westminster and in Cardiff, should be measured. For children living in poverty in Wales, many of those rights go unmet. Children and young people are going hungry, and they are unable to access the basic clothing and equipment necessary for school. When a family cannot afford to pay for the oil to heat water, meaning that they cannot have a bath, it takes no great leap of the imagination to understand why children will not go to school to suffer bullying and teasing, and little further imagination is needed to see how children’s education suffers as a result. That is what we mean when we say that children living in poverty are more likely to have adverse childhood experiences—those are the real effects on individual families—and to face economic and social exclusion, resulting in worse life outcomes as adults. It is important that we have an illustration to bring that home to us.
Although poverty is not inevitable, it is a structural feature of the current welfare system that has been exacerbated by the failure of the Welsh Government to address the cost of living, which led them to miss meeting their own target of eradicating child poverty by 2020. In today’s debate, it is important to show how the jagged edge of devolution—the incoherent illogicality of what is devolved and what is retained—indicts both the UK and Welsh Governments. It is worth considering the drivers of poverty: namely, people’s incomes and their cost of living. On the former, with universal credit as an example, the current temporary £20 uplift was a step in the right direction to bolster incomes from the effects of the pandemic. The number of people claiming universal credit has nearly doubled in Wales, to more than 280,000 by June 2021. However, the uplift is not enough, and it has been estimated that 26,373 Welsh households, including 38,014 children in those households, are still unable to meet their costs, even with the uplift. The uplift is now due to be removed, and modelling carried out by Policy in Practice estimates that 47,543 Welsh households, including 53,065 children, will be unable to meet their costs. The numbers are huge, but they should not blind us to the reality of the experience of every family and every child.
In an answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), the Department for Work and Pensions confirmed on 6 July that no assessment had been made of the impact of the uplift’s removal on child poverty in Wales, yet Wales is the UK nation most afflicted by poverty. Does the Minister really believe that it is not possible to produce an assessment of the impact of their own universal credit uplift policy, and that it is appropriate not to do so in relation to child poverty? I would like a response from the Minister on that.
Not only is the removal of the uplift utterly damaging to children, it makes little economic sense. Rather than pulling the rug out from under people midway through the year, retaining the uplift permanently would help secure the UK’s family safety net and boost consumer spending in Wales, aiding the long-term economic recovery. The End Child Poverty network has said that any
“credible plan to end child poverty…must include a commitment to increase child benefits.”
That should include revoking the removal of universal credit uplift and extending it to those people on legacy benefits.
Despite the Government’s promised levelling-up agenda, the chair of the UK Social Mobility Commission said today that it is “nowhere near” achieving this aim, as the UK lacks proper plans and policies. Its social mobility in 2021 report also criticises the punitive two-child benefit cap in universal credit. That was echoed by the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, who this year called on the DWP to lift the cap, noting that it is a significant barrier to alleviating child poverty, given that the loss of benefits is worth £2,700 per child per year.
The cost of living was recently illustrated in the Bevan Foundation’s report entitled “A snapshot of poverty in spring 2021”, which gives grim account of the situation facing families and children in Wales. It found that households with children are more likely to face rising costs and a squeeze in living standards compared with households without children. The increase in the cost of living for families with children is likely to be exacerbated by the predicted increase in inflation over the coming months. The UK’s annual rate of consumer price inflation was 2.5% in June, up from just 0.7% in March, and is set to go higher. Of course, that will affect the cost of living. In response to the Bevan Foundation report, the Welsh Government said:
“The key levers for tackling poverty—powers over the tax and welfare systems—sit with the UK Government, but we are doing everything we can to reduce the impact of poverty and support those living in poverty.”
Sadly, Labour in Wales seems to want to have it both ways. It acknowledges that the key levers of policy are controlled at Westminster. Yet First Minister Mark Drakeford opposes having control over those levers, as he believes—for some reason—that the powers are better off at UK level. That prompts the question of whether Labour in Wales is serious about tackling child poverty or content to avoid the implicit responsibility if it were to be equipped with the means to make a difference.
The claim that the Welsh Government are doing all they can with their current powers is a questionable and dubious one. Free school meals are just one example. Labour here in Westminster has praised Marcus Rashford for his relentless campaigning on the issue in England, while simultaneously running a Government in Wales that refuse to extend free school meal eligibility to all children whose families are in receipt of universal credit, which is some 70,000 more children. That is despite extensive reports, including their own child poverty review, on the benefits and how expanded provision could be funded within the existing Welsh budget.
It is also within the gift of the Welsh Government to do more with the other powers available to them, such as the consolidation of housing, education and emergency health benefits, which are complementary to the reserved UK system, to develop a distinct Welsh benefits system. Those measures would certainly help mitigate, but ultimately they would not end child poverty.
That leads me inevitably towards what we could do if welfare powers were devolved from Westminster to the Senedd. First, there is the more limited proposed devolution of the administrative powers over welfare, which would still allow the Senedd to take positive steps to tackle child poverty by boosting the incomes of struggling families via increasing frequency of payments, ending the culture of sanctions and ensuring payments to individuals rather than to households. That is something that Mark Drakeford himself has said that he wants, and it has already been recommended by the Senedd’s Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee.
I therefore ask the Minister what conversations the DWP has had with the Welsh Government about the devolution of administrative powers over welfare. Of course, the administration of welfare is merely a stopgap towards the devolution of welfare powers, with the aim of bringing Wales to parity with Scotland at the very least.
In 2016, the UK Government gave Scotland control over 11 welfare benefits and the ability to create new social security benefits or policy areas. The Wales Governance Centre subsequently published a report in April 2019, which stated that giving Wales the same powers over benefits as Scotland could boost the budget of Wales by £200 million a year. Under those proposals, the Senedd would have the power to determine the structure and value of benefits, and replace existing benefits with new ones, in line with the legislative framework.
An example of just one such new benefit is Plaid Cymru’s proposal for a targeted child benefit. That would involve payments of initially £10 a week per child, rising to £35 per week over a Senedd term, to families living below the poverty line. It would be a direct intervention to address child poverty. Implementing that policy would require the devolution of welfare powers from Westminster, with an agreement to ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions—this is important—would not claw back any payments. Does the Minister agree that the proposed targeted child payment would indeed help alleviate child poverty? What reason or reasons can he give for not supporting the devolution of such powers to the Senedd, in line with Holyrood, especially given that they would be of financial benefit to the Welsh budget?
The Welsh Government have yet again decided to defer the issue of pursuing further powers as they are waiting for further evidence to emerge. Just such an opportunity will arise during the Welsh Affairs Committee’s upcoming review into the benefit system in Wales, which has broad terms of reference and deals directly with the questions of what reforms are needed to the benefit system and what the further devolution of powers might be able to achieve. I therefore ask the Minister whether his Department will commit to take forward the Committee’s recommendations in full, even if that does indeed involve the further devolution of welfare powers to Wales. Will the Department approach this with an open mind and with that commitment?
Tackling the injustice of child poverty is vital if the potential of every single child in Wales is to be realised in full. It is disgraceful that in one of the richest states in the world, poverty is such a widespread feature of our society. With the full devolution of welfare, Wales could develop a more compassionate system as part of the creation of a Welsh wellbeing state, which would ensure that no child is held back by their family’s lack of wealth or status. Plaid Cymru laid out that bold agenda in our Senedd 2021 manifesto, which included a new child poverty Act as a road map to eradicate child poverty, and a target of reducing the number of children experiencing relative poverty to 10% by 2030. The abolition of poverty and inequality needs to be a core national mission but, as I have outlined, that cannot be achieved if we do not have our hands on the key levers of welfare and tax policy.
Poverty is a multi-faceted problem that requires a range of interventions to address it. We cannot do that in Wales without those key levers, in the form of power over welfare. I therefore implore the Government to respond when the evidence is overwhelming and give control over welfare to the people of Wales so that we can end the blight of child poverty in our communities for good. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for securing a debate on this hugely important issue. I share many of the concerns that she has expressed about poverty levels in Wales. I do not want to see a single child in Wales, which she knows I have huge affection for, or anywhere else in our United Kingdom, growing up in poverty.
It is absolutely right that all Governments are held properly to account for the effectiveness of their policies for tackling child poverty. Although I do not have all the levers to tackle child poverty within the Department for Work and Pensions, I assure the right hon. Lady that I take this issue incredibly seriously, and I am working with my counterparts across Government to identify and address the root causes and drivers of child poverty.
Our working relationship with the Welsh Government is well established and positive. The commitments made to Wales by the UK Government are central to delivering policies and services across the Union. We will continue to work closely with the Welsh Government on the commitments set out in their programme for government 2021 to 2026. An example is our collaboration with Careers Wales to revisit our redundancy offer and develop the service through a digital platform. In adapting our approach, we maintained distance support, one-to-one advice and fully engaged with employers to guide them and their workforce through the full package of support from both the DWP and the Welsh Government.
Over the past year, our priority has been to help families in all parts of our United Kingdom withstand the financial hardships brought about by the covid-19 pandemic. Such unprecedented times and circumstances have called for an unprecedented response. The Government have delivered this by spending over £407 billion on support measures to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, including the furlough scheme and the self-employment income support scheme. That has helped to protect jobs, keep businesses afloat and help families get by.
Spending includes an additional £7.4 billion injected into our welfare system to further support those most in need, targeted at those facing the greatest economic shock and financial disruption, and raising our total spend on welfare support for people of working age to over £111 billion in 2020-21. Extra funding includes the temporary £20 increase in the universal credit and working tax credit standard allowances, which the right hon. Lady referred to. In addition, nearly £1 billion has been spent on increasing local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile of local market rents, which we are maintaining for a further year at cash level.
As we look to economic recovery, tackling child poverty will be very much at the heart of our mission. We have long championed the principle that the best way to do so is to support parents wherever possible to move into and progress in work through our reformed welfare system, which ensures that families of all backgrounds are better off in work. The Department for Work and Pensions in Wales, in partnership with the Welsh Government, delivered two community project: Communities for Work, helping the economically inactive and long-term unemployed in some of Wales’ most disadvantaged wards; and Parents, Childcare and Employment, for those for whom childcare is the main barrier to employment. Through these projects, eligible parents can access support for childcare while training and gaining skills to get a job. Since both projects started in 2016, Communities for Work has helped almost 11,500 customers to move off benefits and into work.
Statistics for 2019-20 show that before the pandemic the UK was in a strong position overall, with record levels of employment, rising incomes and 1.3 million fewer people, including 3000,000 fewer children, in absolute poverty after housing costs, compared with 2010. In the right hon. Lady’s constituency, the proportion of children in absolute low income reduced by three percentage points to 16% before housing costs in 2019-20, compared with 19% in 2014-15. However, there is still a huge amount to do.
Helping people back into work is also key to levelling up across Great Britain. My Department is playing a central role in the Government’s ambitious £30 billion plan for jobs, which is already delivering for people of all ages across the country. This includes over £7 billion on new schemes, such as the kickstart scheme, which in Wales is running alongside Youth Offer Wales for people aged over 16. Since the kickstart scheme launched last September, over 8,000 kickstart jobs have been advertised in Wales, and over 2,000 young people have started in roles.
During the last financial year, we fulfilled our commitment to recruit 13,500 more work coaches across Great Britain and our jobs army is working across all regions to give people the support needed to find employment. Each work coach receives specialist training to give in-depth knowledge of local labour markets, matching the skills of the claimant with the needs of businesses in their area. Under our rapid estate expansion programme, or REAP, we are opening new job centres to accommodate the work coaches. I refer the right hon. Lady to the opening on 19 May of a new site on Queen Street in Cardiff, which is now fully operational, with over 63% of interventions carried out face to face. Plans are underway to open additional REAP sites in Wrexham, Rhyl and Swansea.
The evidence is clear that parental employment, particularly full-time employment, substantially reduces the risk of child poverty. However, we know that having a job is not always enough to lift families out of poverty. People also need the right skills and opportunities to progress in their roles, so that they can increase their earnings and build their careers. The independent in-work progression commission published its report on the barriers to progression for those in persistent low pay on 1 July. We will consider its recommendations carefully before responding later in the year. I encourage the Welsh Government and employers in Wales to do the same.
The right hon. Lady raised a number of issues, and I will do my very best to respond to as many as possible in the time remaining. First, she referred to devolution in Wales. The Department for Work and Pensions is committed to delivering the St David’s Day agreement in full. As she knows, the Wales Act 2017 implements the parts of the agreement that require primary legislation. However, employment and social security, as she mentioned in her speech, did not form part of that agreement. The previous Welsh Government commissioned work on the question of more devolution in the administration of the benefits system, but they have made no request to the UK Government for further powers in that area.
A single labour market needs a system of financial support for jobseekers and workers that provides a common framework of support, conditions to be met in return for that support, and access to employment and training opportunities. As the right hon. Lady knows, that is delivered through universal credit and associated employment provision, operated locally by Jobcentre Plus across Wales, and reflects both local labour markets and the differing needs of individuals. That not only ensures a coherent system across a single labour market, with equal treatment regardless of geographical location; it also allows for a pooled risk system that flexes and is able to accommodate asymmetric economic circumstances in different parts of the country.
The right hon. Lady knows that in the Department for Work and Pensions, and in particular within my remit, there are two potential levers for tackling child poverty: benefits and support for those of working age, and support to get people into work and to progress in work. However, she will know that some of the other drivers of child poverty, the root causes, are housing, education, health, addiction, family breakdown and debt. Many of those are issues on which the Welsh Government can take action. I know that they are doing so in many areas, and she may wish to push them further.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the removal of the universal credit uplift. As she rightly said, universal credit has provided a vital safety net for over 6 million people during the pandemic. We announced the temporary uplift as part of a £400 billion package of measures that will last well beyond the end of the road map. However, it is right that we now focus on our multibillion pound plan for jobs, which will support people in the long term by helping them learn new skills and increase their hours or find more work.
The right hon. Lady rightly referred to a response to a written parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), in which I said that it was not possible to produce a robust estimate of the impact on child poverty of removing the £20 uplift. That is particularly the case at the moment because of the uncertainty around the speed of our economic recovery and how that will be distributed across our population.
The right hon. Lady also rightly mentioned food insecurity, which is an issue that concerns me too. We take the issue incredibly seriously, which is why we have, for the first time, published data on household food insecurity from the family resources survey, in order to get a better understanding of the lived experience of families. I have gone one step further: in subsequent editions of the survey, we will now ask questions specifically on food bank use.
The most recent data from the survey shows that most households were food secure, with either high household food security or marginal household food security—high household food security at 87% and marginal household food security at 6%. A minority of households were food insecure, with low household food insecurity at 4% and very low household food insecurity at 4%. That is why we want that additional data, so that we can really get to the bottom of the core drivers of food insecurity.
The right hon. Lady referred to the two-child policy. We have a benefits structure that adjusts automatically. If we were to set up, as she would like us to, a benefits structure that adjusted automatically to family size, it would be unsustainable. Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that, in 2020, of all families with dependent children, 85% had a maximum of two in their family, and for lone parents the figure was 83%. The Government therefore feel that it is proportionate to provide support through the child tax credit and universal credit systems for a maximum of two children. What I will say, though, is that we recognise that some claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children in their family, and that is why exceptions have been put in place.
I am conscious of the time and would be very happy to pick this up with the right hon. Lady at a later date to discuss some of the issues that I have not been able to cover as part of my response now. To conclude, I restate the Government’s firm belief that the approach that we are taking to support families back into work is the right one for families, wherever they live across our United Kingdom, if we are to tackle child poverty in a way that is sustainable and to level up opportunities across our country. Of course it is absolutely right that as the country begins to recover from the effects of the pandemic, we ensure that our welfare state continues to support the most disadvantaged; and as we have done throughout the past 16 months, we will continue to assess how best to target taxpayers’ money on support for the most vulnerable families beyond the pandemic.
Question put and agreed to.
Stoke-Leek Line: Reopening
(3 years, 4 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
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Members are very welcome and are of course aware that the social distancing rules no longer apply. They are no longer in operation. Members attending physically should clean their spaces when they arrive and when they leave. I think that is all I have to announce. It gives me great pleasure to call Karen Bradley to move the motion.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reopening the Stoke-Leek line.
Or, as I like to call it, the Leek-Stoke line.
This is a first for me. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I know you are an impeccable Chair and your timing is even more impeccable, so I am delighted to serve under you. I am not sure whether you have visited the Staffordshire Moorlands. It is very much like the constituency that you represent—a beautiful rural area. It has amazing scenery, lots of great dairy farms, which you will understand, and some great tourist attractions, although, unlike the Giant’s Causeway, we have Alton Towers.
Many people come to visit the Staffordshire Moorlands. They come to see our amazing scenery. The Roaches, for example, is a place that people travel to from all over the world to do rock climbing and just to observe the views; from there it is possible to see lots of different counties—I think I once counted 16 of them—and all the way to Snowdonia. We cannot quite see the Isle of Man or Northern Ireland, but we can see into Wales.
We have the Manifold Valley, the beautiful Thor’s Cave, and a bit of Dovedale, which is also one of the great tourist attractions. As well as Alton Towers, we have the Peak Wildlife Park and Biddulph Grange Garden—beautiful places that people come to visit. We have amazing hospitality venues such as the Lazy Trout in Meerbrook, the Yew Tree at Cauldon, the Stafford Arms at Bagnall, and the Auctioneers—a community-run pub in Caverswall that I helped the community to buy and is a fantastic place to visit. We have wonderful independent shops in all our towns and villages, but in Leek we are very proud of our “Totally Locally” campaign and our local markets. We have a heritage railway in the Churnet Valley railway. We have so much to offer.
The question one might ask when looking at the map and seeing those wonderful attractions is, “How on earth can I get there?” I am afraid to say that unless someone has a car it is a struggle. Last summer—we are seeing it again at the moment—the villages of the Staffordshire Moorlands were totally overwhelmed with traffic; we got to the point where emergency vehicles could not get through. Villagers felt like prisoners in their own homes because of the cars that were parked, and there is simply no other way to visit the Moorlands than by car.
We have a fantastic mainline station only a few miles away in Stoke-on-Trent; the same line runs on to Macclesfield, of course. The train from Euston to Stoke takes one hour and 24 minutes when we are not on a reduced timetable as we are at the moment. If I can make a plea to Avanti rail: we need two trains an hour to Stoke-on-Trent as soon as possible, because it really is not working at the moment with only one an hour.
We have some buses, but I am afraid they are an endangered species. They are very difficult to find. If someone does find a bus, they might be able to travel into the Moorlands, but it is not easy. If someone gets to Stoke train station with a view to visiting Alton Towers, which puts on special buses, or the Roaches, the Manifold Valley or any of the other great attractions, they find that the only way to get public transport is to walk about a mile and a half to Hanley where the bus station is—because, of course, the bus station is not in the same place as the train station in Stoke-on-Trent. That person would then have to wait for a bus that is usually hourly. Perhaps they might be lucky and the buses might be every half hour, but it is not easy and it takes a significant amount of time to get to the Staffordshire Moorlands.
Even if someone can get to Stoke-on-Trent station by taking a taxi or finding a very amenable friend to give them a lift, to get from the station to Leek—which is where I live: the centre of the constituency—they could drive along the main Leek road, which is the A52, the A5009 and the A53. To do so means travelling through the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) before reaching the Staffordshire Moorlands.
This route passes through some amazing parts of the city: Joiners Square, Abbey Hulton, Milton, then entering Stockton Brook and then on through Endon, Longsdon, and finally into Leek. The problem is that it is a single-lane carriageway. Actually, there is not a dual carriageway anywhere in the Staffordshire Moorlands constituency. One cannot legally go faster than 60 miles an hour, even though some motorcyclists believe otherwise. It is a genuinely beautiful route, which runs along a disused railway line. It is absolutely stunning, but it is a very slow road.
Alternatively, there is the A520, taking a route through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and then on to the Moorlands. That goes through Fenton and Longton, Weston Coyney and Meir, to Cellarhead, Wetley Rocks, Cheddleton, Leekbrook and then into Leek. All of these places are beautiful, ancient villages; they do not have capacity to make the road any wider. On visiting Wetley Rocks, one discovers it really is rocks, driving along the edge of the cliff, so there is nowhere to go to extend that road.
So I ask: what can we do? If you are lucky, Mr Paisley, you might find you could get off the train at Stoke and I would be waiting for you with my car, because I would be delighted to give you a lift to Leek—obviously socially distanced with appropriate facemasks and so on. If we were lucky, it could take about 30 minutes. However, I must say that I have driven from Stoke-on-Trent station back to my home in Leek, and it has taken over an hour and a half. During rush hour, those two A roads that are the main roads into Leek from the city are absolutely full. They happen, at the moment, to have an enormous number of roadworks on them as well, which does not help, but in normal times they are still absolutely full. There are some very difficult junctions on them, particularly the junction at Endon going up to Clay Lake and Brown Edge and on the A520. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and I both know about the issues around the Advanced Proteins site and the fact that we have an awful lot of very heavy vehicles travelling along that road and turning into the plant, causing congestion.
It really is not an easy journey, and it is getting harder. Given the volume of traffic and the demand for journeys between the Moorlands and the city, I do not see that it is going to improve any time soon, and the fact is that the Moorlands is missing out on the advantages of being only a few miles from the west coast main line. It is missing out on the opportunities that the Government’s investment in Stoke-on-Trent as part of the levelling-up agenda is bringing to the area, because people simply cannot rely on being able to work or live in the Moorlands and commute to the city given that the commute is so unreliable. We really do need an alternative.
There are two alternatives, and the debate title gives us a clue about what one of them is. There is another one, however, and it is that we could use the canals. We have a fantastic canal system built by James Brindley for the purposes of Wedgwood, to bring the raw materials from the Moorlands into the city where the potteries were founded in Burslem—the mother of the potteries in my hon. Friend for Stoke-on-Trent North’s constituency —but also around the whole city.
There are still fantastic potteries in the city, but it was the canals that made that possible. I love being on the canal—it is a really wonderful day out—but I think we would agree that it is probably not a good alternative for commuting into the city, given the speed at which one could travel. That then leaves us with one remaining alternative: to reopen the railway line between Leek and Stoke-on-Trent that closed as a victim of the Beeching cuts. When it closed it was probably not very well used, but I know now that the demand is there, and that people want to get back to being able to commute into the city from the Staffordshire Moorlands. Not only do we not have a dual carriageway, but we do not have a mainline train line running through the constituency. It would be wonderful to bring these things back.
This could be a fantastic clean, green alternative to roads. Residents live very close to the road, with houses along the whole way. My hon. Friends from the city will describe the experiences of their constituents who live alongside those roads, and the pollution and noise they suffer. We have this alternative; the line is there. Only a couple of weeks ago, the four of us here—myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central, for Stoke-on-Trent North and for Stoke-on-Trent South—together with the leader of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, Councillor Sybil Ralphs MBE, visited where the line travels between the Moorlands and the city at Stockton Brook. The line and track bed are there and we stood on them. There is quite a lot of weed but the line is there; it can be reopened. We were pleased to be there and see for ourselves that that could be done.
A bid has gone in to the Restoring Your Railways Fund. The bid is led by Staffordshire Moorlands District Council and Councillor Sybil Ralphs, and is supported by Stoke-on-Trent City Council, and its leader Councillor Abi Brown. We have the support of the local enterprise partnership, Staffordshire County Council, North Staffordshire Chambers of Commerce, the Peak District national park, local businesses and the key partner, the Churnet Valley railway. As I mentioned earlier, we have this wonderful heritage railway in the Moorlands, which has kept the track going for pleasure visits around the Moorlands on its steam trains. That heritage railway, with its use of the line, is a really important part of the bid.
I know the Minister is stepping in for my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who has sent his apologies. It is wonderful, though, to see the Minister in her place. I am hoping she will say that she will put personal endeavour into pushing this bid through. The bid has been submitted and we want to ensure that we get the funding we need, so that we can explore the possibilities.
We can see what could be achieved. We can see what the opportunities are for passenger services. That might be light rail; it might be different from what was envisaged when people closed the line—what it looked like then and what it might look like today. We want to see what the possibilities are for freight on the line, but we need to have that time and the expertise of officials at the Department for Transport to work with, to explore what is possible.
The line could not only go to Leek, but the line that the heritage railway uses now—to Froghall, through Cheddleton and Consall—could be used. That line goes to the village of Alton, where Alton Towers is. We have one of the largest cement plants in the UK at Cauldon, which is also the line used by the heritage railway. There are real opportunities to get freight off the road and on to the railway line.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister that all we want is a chance to see what is possible. I know she will use her best endeavours to support us on this. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friends, who are all fully behind this bid.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
I thank Karen Bradley for moving that motion and painting such a pretty picture postcard and advertisement for the Staffordshire Moorlands. She probably won the record for name-checking every single village in a constituency. If Members wish to remove their jackets, please feel free to do so because it is stifling in this room today.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) on securing this excellent debate. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) to her first time responding on behalf of the Government. I thank Ministers and the Department for Transport for the support they have given so far. The Restoring Your Railways Fund has been a model of excellence and innovation, about which the Government should be incredibly proud. Ministers and civil servants across Government should pay great heed to it in developing future similar schemes.
There is a clear need for reopening the Stoke-Leek line. Our roads are full and one in three households in Stoke-on-Trent has no access to a car; in some wards, it is as high as 40%. For access to skills and jobs, this severely limits aspirations and opportunities. The situation is made worse by the fact that our bus services have declined by around a third in the last decade. Congestion and air pollution have only become worse.
Additionally, there are no direct bus links between Leek and Stoke station, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands described, nor do they directly serve Fenton. Operators have said that the main reasons for bus decline are the challenges faced by running a reliable service, given how congested some of our roads are. In many cases, they now run fewer services during peak hours than during the rest of the day, because they just get stuck in the congestion.
Our roads are operating well above capacity and where others may have seen recent improvements, with more people working from home, our local manufacturing, distribution and retail industries mean congestion is almost back to normal levels. Victoria Road in Fenton Manor is notorious for sitting traffic and it is under ministerial directions to improve on the significant breaches of air quality limits, including nitrogen dioxide levels. I fully support the city council in its efforts to address that; a proposal was submitted recently to Ministers.
Better public transport will also be a key part of this. Fenton once had two stations: Fenton Manor was lost in 1956 and Fenton station on the Crewe-Derby line closed in 1961. Those were the bad old days of the north Staffordshire railways decline, exacerbated by industrial decline. Where many parts of the country have seen local stations and lines return since that axe fell, there is a great chasm in north Staffordshire where nothing has reopened. In fact, it got worse with the west coast upgrade, with services removed from Wedgwood and Barlaston, and Etruria closed entirely to shave off just a few minutes. I am pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) in her bid to reopen Etruria station.
Improving our local public transport, both rail and bus, is absolutely vital. New employment and housing growth cannot be accommodated within the constraints of current car-focused networks. We are one of the fastest growing cities: housing development numbers are way above target, with more than the average London borough, and 99% are on brownfield land.
Stoke-on-Trent is on the up and the reindustrialisation of the local economy over the last decade needs an efficient and comprehensive transport network. That includes options for rail. Reopening the Stoke-Leek line would not be happening in a vacuum. Work is under way to deliver on the Transforming Cities Fund, improving local bus flows, revitalising Longton station and creating a transport hub, with Stoke station connected by a dedicated last-mile bus corridor through the city centre.
The reopening of Meir station, east of Longton, which was lost under the Beeching Act—something that I have championed—is an advanced project under the Restoring Your Railways Fund. We are actively seeking to reopen a station, also lost under Beeching, to serve Trentham. By delivering all these priorities, we can build that critical rail mass for north Staffordshire to make public transport a much more viable option, particularly with the development of integrated ticketing.
Employers, educators and providers right along the line all support the benefits that would come through reopening the line, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands suggested. A station at Fenton Manor would be vital to serve many of my constituents. St Peter’s Academy and the main Fenton Manor sports complex would be directly served by a station at Fenton Manor. Fenton Park would also be within easy walking distance. Most importantly, increased numbers of Fenton residents would have easy access to rail, opening up employment, education and leisure opportunities, including the Moorlands countryside, as my right hon. Friend eloquently described.
Equally, this would plug a whole number of communities along the line directly into proposed High Speed 2 services feeding Stoke station and beyond. Public transport journeys between Fenton Manor and Leek would plummet from 55 minutes to around 18 minutes, and fall from 20 minutes to just three minutes between Fenton Manor and Stoke station. Properly integrated with the bus network, with funding that we also hope to secure through the Bus Back Better Fund, journey time savings from reopening the line could be felt much more widely across the whole of north Staffordshire. It could halve public transport journeys across my constituency alone. Only through enhancing public transport will we fully realise the benefits of HS2. The alternative is that a journey for just the final few miles will end up taking longer than the entire HS2 journey.
By more than halving journey times—potentially, more than two thirds at peak times—the real benefits of enhanced transport connectivity can be fully realised. By freeing up some of the road capacity, there will be advantages for motorists, too, and more reliable buses attracting people back on to public transport. It is also worth noting that single-stop rail travel between local stations in Stoke-on-Trent is often considerably cheaper than single-journey bus travel.
To conclude, reopening the Stoke-Leek line is a highly realistic option for levelling up opportunities in one of the most deprived cities in the entire country. It would reconnect communities and radically reduce journey times. Crucially, it would help us to reach a critical mass of public transport provision that we currently lack. I hope that our bid to explore reopening in detail is won and that the Government support our proposals fully.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
I congratulate my constituency neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) on securing this important debate. We are hearing the hymn of us all singing to the same tune. Ultimately, it is so important for the connectivity of Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire Moorlands and north Staffordshire that we see not just the Stoke-to-Leek line, but the Meir station bid, which is led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), and the Etruria station bid put in by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon). I am proud to be a co-signatory and co-supporter of the Stoke toLeek line.
It looks like we want all the sweeties from the jar, but we are saying that Stoke-on-Trent and the Staffordshire Moorlands have been long overlooked. My right hon. Friend lives in Leek, so she knows that it is one of the largest towns in the country, at 21,000 residents, and yet one of the only towns of that size that does not have a rail station in it, which is utterly bizarre in itself.
If we are ever to hit net zero, which is an important agenda that we should be aiming for, there have to be public transport options to enable people no longer to have to use the car. If we are to allow people from Stoke-on-Trent opportunities to work at, maybe, one day in the future, Alton Towers, which supports the bid and has discussed the potential of linking the line to its theme park at a later date, there is a long-term benefit for tourism opportunities. Alton Towers gets about 2.1 million visitors directly and, pre-covid-19 pandemic, Stoke-on-Trent city received about 6 million visitors a year. The problem for Stoke-on-Trent, however, is that 5.7 million to 5.8 million of them were day visitors.
A public transport network can link the Peak national park and, potentially, Alton Towers. It can connect our fantastic cities, so people could visit the fantastic and award-winning Gladstone Pottery Museum in the south or the mightily superior Middleport Pottery museum up in Middleport, where shows such as “Peaky Blinders” and “The Great Pottery Throwdown” have been filmed. We can then start to say to people that tourism is more than just a day visit to the north of Staffordshire; it becomes longer term and creates more jobs. Given that tourism is our second largest employer in the whole of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent combined, it is an important market. Let us not forget that the pandemic has made it so difficult for that sector, so better connectivity can only help us bounce back quicker in those types of industries.
I am proud to serve Stoke-on-Trent, North. We have fantastic schools, for example, such as the Excel Academy in Sneyd Green, a council ward I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. A railway line could link that closely, as it could the Birches Head Academy in Stoke-on-Trent Central. Parents would not have to go on already congested roads and the children would have an opportunity to access the city and to get to and from school, pretty much door to door, by the railway network.
That would also mean that the people of Leek and of Milton—a fantastic little village, which again I share my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central—could think about getting to and from Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College, with its UK-leading digital T-levels, and Staffordshire University, which is the UK leader in video games technology. We, the Stoke-on-Trent MPs, want to make Silicon Stoke our real agenda. With our gigabit broadband already in the ground, and with those students, better connectivity will create business opportunities.
There are hectares of brownfield land along that track, waiting to be unlocked, but that requires the railway line back open and the critical rail mass back within north Staffordshire. By doing that, we are more than happy to play our part in meeting the Government’s housing targets.
In Stoke-on-Trent, we are planning for around 14,000 new homes, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has already said, we are well above our targets. We are building—there are cranes going up everywhere—and we have put in some fantastic levelling-up fund bids to focus on regenerating one of the largest city centre regeneration sites in the west midlands, the East-West Precinct, as it is known. We have also had the fantastic opportunity to partner with Capital & Centric, which has put in £55 million of private sector investment, and with the gap funding from the levelling-up fund, we will unlock hotel space, office space and homes right by Stoke-on-Trent railway station. We also hope that the Home Office will make that location their new HQ for the 560 new jobs that the Stoke-on-Trent MPs and Councillor Abi Brown have secured as part of the Places for Growth programme run from the Cabinet Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South always uses this line, and I absolutely love it: getting to Stoke-on-Trent is not the problem. We have the M6, the A50 and the A500, we have the west coast main line, and we have HS2 with the Handsacre link coming, so getting to us is not the issue. Getting around the city is the problem: getting around north Staffordshire is where the problems lie, and when roads such as the A50 and the A500 are at 110% capacity despite the fact that 30% of the people of Stoke-on-Trent do not have access to a private vehicle, there is clearly a big gap in the market for public transport.
We would love to be able to say that we just want the railways, but we need buses as well, because we have had a massive reduction in our bus usage over the past decade, from 15 million to 9.3 million journeys. This reduction means that people in Brindley Ford, which I represent, in Great Chell and Packmoor, which is superbly represented by Councillor Janine Bridges, in Milton, which used to be represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and is now represented by Councillor Dave Evans, Councillor James Smith and Councillor Carl Edwards, and in other remote parts of the constituency cannot get to and from, or around, the city. We seem to have bus links that do not link up our main retail units, our main business parks, and our main hubs of transport and the city centre. That means that bus fares have become too expensive, and that means that people are not using the buses, as I said. That is why I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we do not just want rail: we need to “bus back better” if we are ever truly going to make sure that we deliver for our constituents in Stoke-on-Trent.
I want to moan a bit about the roads as well, because if we do not get this line, I will be banging on the door of the Department for Transport relentlessly to talk about the funding formula for national roads. I represent Kidsgrove and Talke, which is part of Staffordshire County Council, so I am sure that Councillor Alan White and maybe even my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands will not thank me for this, but large county areas with lots of minor roads, for example, will always benefit from a larger pool of funding when it comes to fixing potholes or resurfacing our roads. The city of Stoke-on-Trent simply does not get its fair share.
I was very happy to have a Westminster Hall debate on this issue, because it is something that my hon. Friends from Stoke-on-Trent have raised time and time again. We want to fix our roads, but we need more money, and the funding formula cannot just be based on mileage of road: it has to take in the usage of roads and the congestion on those roads. If we did that, Stoke-on-Trent would get a fairer share of the money. We are not asking for a U-turn, with Staffordshire Moorlands getting nothing and Stoke getting everything. We are asking for a slightly bigger slice of the cake. We have the fantastic JCB Pothole Pro machine going around our city now. We are the first local authority in the country to procure that machine, which fixes potholes in half the time and at half the cost to the taxpayer, and we are already seeing the benefits in Councillor Abi Brown’s ward, where it is being trialled. However, ultimately, we need more money.
Going back to the important reason why we are here, this is not just about connectivity: it is about the economic opportunity that the Stoke-to-Leek line brings. As I say, the village of Milton has one of the finest high streets I have ever seen. It is a beautiful traditional village, with a local butcher, local nail salon, local card and balloon suppliers, local florist and local café—The Teapot At Milton, which I frequent too often, hence the size of the gut. This is the issue: we have that beautiful little village, but not as many people are accessing it as we would want, because the problem is that parking becomes difficult. It is a very narrow high street, so having the railway line would mean that people from Leek could come and experience the benefits of Milton, just like the people of Milton would go to Leek to experience the benefits there. There are some fantastic markets in the Staffordshire Moorlands that many of my residents would want to access. If this railway line came back, they might even set up a second market in market towns such as Burslem. That town has a market already—Our Burslem—but that could be expanded with a Sunday farmer’s market, depending on what happens in the area.
We want to make sure that at the end of the day, we do not get left behind or forgotten about. We have already seen fantastic Government commitment: we have received £29 million through the Transforming Cities fund and £800,000 for upgrading our bus network, so that 15 of our old buses will become brand new and the rest are going to have newer engines, which means we can improve our local air quality. I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central will mention that in her speech, because she has been a doughty champion on the issue for the city and for her constituents.
Alongside that pot of money, we must make sure that we have Meir station open, get Etruria station open and open the Stoke-Leek line, which has the unanimous support of all four Members of Parliament here today, the fantastic leader of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, Sybil Ralphs, the fantastic council leader, Councillor Abi Brown, the Staffordshire local enterprise partnership, the city centre business improvement district, local schools and numerous parish councils from the numerous villages in Staffordshire Moorlands—I cannot bear to name them all, as I might forget some.
There is support not just from national representatives, and at local level with local government, but on the ground, from local schools and businesses. I hope we will have the opportunity to get the £50,000 we need to top up the money provided by the city council and Staffordshire Moorlands District Council and that we can then go away, put a really good business case together and, by all means, allow the Department for Transport to decide whether this is a project that is worth investing in in the long term.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) on securing this debate. Members may think that, having pulled the graveyard slot, there would not be anything to add—quite frankly, I think we have named every village along the line, every tea room and every pub— but I do have a few things to say.
Reopening the Stoke-Leek line is a key need in a series of public transport projects that will level up opportunity for deprived communities across central Stoke-on-Trent. Like my colleagues today, I want to see the reopening of the stations that were lost when the line closed to passenger traffic in 1956. In the area of the old Bucknall and Northwood station, an interchange is possible with the existing bus routes westwards into Hanley for the city centre and eastwards to Bentilee, Townsend and the full length of Werrington Road.
In addition, I want to see a new station convenient for Abbey Hulton and Birches Head and their significant residential estates that were never served by the old line. Such a station could serve Birches Head Academy, Abbey Hulton medical centre, Abbey Hulton football club and the remains of Abbey Hulton itself. Getting the location right needs investigation and the Restoring Your Railway fund is an excellent means of exploring the necessary detail—so long as we win the bid. Reopening the Stoke-Leek line is entirely complementary to reopening Etruria station, too. If we are to reach a critical rail mass for Stoke-on-Trent, we need to win both bids and share commissioning efficiencies for the necessary research.
The current public transport journey time from Leek to Etruria would easily be halved from an hour-plus to perhaps as little as 25 minutes. In a city with chronic congestion and ministerial directions on air quality at both Etruria and Fenton, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) said, we simply cannot afford to leave the Stoke-Leek line mothballed. It needs to be open to passenger use.
A third of households are carless, buses struggle to be reliable in congestion, and our growing economy is being held back. Stoke-on-Trent is on the up, but the opportunities that brings must be accessible to many more communities across the city, including those who suffer from the urban splintering caused by what we know locally as the D road.
Reopening the Stoke-Leek line, along with Etruria, will create a U-shape around the city centre. The Transforming Cities fund is already establishing a fast corridor from Stoke station to the south of the city centre. Etruria would establish one from the west and a Stoke-Leek line station at Bucknall Park would establish one to the east. When we look at the map, the Stoke-Leek line joining the Stoke-Crewe line around the city centre looks strikingly like the wires around a bullseye on a dartboard.
Staffordshire University and Staffordshire sixth form college are both solid supporters of reopening the line for pupil and staff use. I know from the vice-chancellor that some university students had to drop out because of transport difficulties, which is an unnecessary tragedy, given that the university is pretty much right next to Stoke-on-Trent railway station. Given the increasing importance of the university and the apprenticeship training centre for local businesses, connectivity to the university quarter is vital to many more young people than the traditional academic student. I very much hope that Stoke College and the Goodwin engineering training school will also be more accessible to left-behind communities.
We struggle with the current inadequate public transport system. The Transforming Cities fund is a great start, but it cannot be the end. I do understand that there are some local concerns about noise from services and the loss of what might be seen as a green corridor—the walking route. But the line is a mothballed rail line, not a pedestrian link. It is so dangerous at Abbey Hulton that the bridge over Leek Road is completely fenced off. We are establishing a new green corridor through the city, with the rewilding of the River Trent, that is accessible to pedestrians, which we must continue to pursue. There is no alternative train or light rail route to Leek, but there are alternatives for better cycling and pedestrian routes.
For far too long, Stoke-on-Trent has had a public transport system in decline. It was not just Beeching; in fact, Etruria was closed by the last Labour Government. What we have now is a real chance to look properly at how to reverse that. It will level up life chances and make Stoke-on-Trent an even better place to live, visit, study and work.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) on securing today’s debate. As we heard from all Members, there is plainly a great deal of local support for reopening and re-imagining the Stoke-Leek rail line. What was once constructed to carry limestone, cement and other freight should now be seen as a potential part of a modern, clean and green post-carbon railway. That makes the decision by Government to turn down the bids for funds from the Restoring Your Railway fund for even more frustrating and perplexing. No wonder local MPs and councillors are so exercised on behalf of their constituents, and campaigners are so vocal.
Ministers have simply got this wrong; if they do not allow the rail line to happen, it will be to the detriment of the local area and, indeed, the wider region. We have heard the benefits for local businesses, communities and places such as Norton, Stockton Brook and Milton. We all know that a new railway would help cut carbon emissions and reduce the number of lorries on local roads—particularly the aforementioned A53, A520, A52 and A523—and benefit the communities living along those A roads. It would create new opportunities for local businesses in Stoke, Leek and across north Staffordshire. The reopening would create new jobs in construction and the supply chain.
Most of all, it would tackle social exclusion, open new labour markets and help people in the area travel for work and leisure, particularly since, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), 30% of local people do not own a car. In some areas of Stoke-on Trent, that percentage is even higher. The railway remains one of the safest, cleanest and most convenient ways to travel.
By creating the Restoring Your Railway fund, the Government have unfortunately set community against community, creating a forced competition with winners and losers. Worst of all, they have abdicated their responsibility for a strategic national plan to reopen mothballed railway lines. We need a strategic plan, not a competition. The Campaign for Better Transport has shown through its research that huge social and economic benefits would accrue from a strategic approach.
Jonathan Gullis
I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s full-hearted support, and I hope it puts even more pressure on the Government, but I firmly disagree with the idea that competition is bad. It was entirely appropriate for the Government to make us submit a good bid and to make sure that the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed. Ultimately, that is to make sure we are being serious. We could end up getting a very large amount of funding from the Government, and at the end of the day it is Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Moorlands taxpayers’ money, so we need to ensure it is spent appropriately and delivers for them in the long term. While we are here enjoying discussing what we want from the Stoke to Leek line, we need to make sure it is economically viable in the long term.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but we must agree to disagree on this issue. Although it is okay to have competition in certain arenas, in this arena what is required is a national strategic policy. As we have seen, in parts of our country there have been accusations of favouritism and of politics coming into play, rather than an overarching policy that would benefit our country.
The Campaign for Better Transport has shown through its research that huge social and economic benefits would accrue from a national strategic approach. It points out that adding 343 miles to the network, including 166 miles of reopened route, would create 72 new stations and 20 million new journeys, bring half a million people within walking distance of a station, create 6,500 new jobs, serve more than 100 of the most disadvantaged wards in the country, enhance air quality, cut carbon, and generate an annual gross value added of between £155 million and £245 million, as well as indirect benefits to our economy.
So many communities, like the ones in north Staffs, are crying out for this kind of investment. We must never lose sight of the need for new freight lines, as the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands said, as well as passenger lines. According to the International Energy Agency, rail uses as much as 90% less energy than road transport per unit of freight, yet the Government have set a high bar of financial sustainability, with predicted fair income underwritten by the scheme sponsor.
Network Rail’s governance for railway investment projects is conservative in its approach, according to the Campaign for Better Transport. That combination of factors explains why progress has been so slow. Ministers’ attempts to expedite projects—in particular, the rail network enhancement plan—contains the fatal design flaw that each scheme is viewed through the lens of local demand, not an overarching strategic approach to meet our national needs. It feels like road is still the Government’s favourite, and rail is still the runner up.
I congratulate the campaigners for the Stoke to Leek line, who have come so far. I appeal to Ministers to clear the leaves off the line and let the people of north Staffs have the railway, but let us be equally ambitious for all communities campaigning for reopened lines. Let us finally bury the Beeching axe. Let us offer a vision of local lines with well-lit, safe railway stations with beautiful architecture, full access for people with disabilities, sustainable energy use and integration with cycling, walking, trams and buses. Let us offer services that are frequent, convenient and on time, and digital ticketing that reflects the new realities of when and how often people want to travel—one national railway, owned by the people and viewed as a vital national asset.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Maggie Throup)
To begin, I would like to pass on the apologies of the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who had planned to attend this debate. He is self-isolating after being pinged by the NHS Test and Trace app and asked me to stand in. I am delighted to have been asked to respond, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) on securing this debate on the proposals for reopening the Stoke-Leek line—or, as she said, the Leek-Stoke line. I thank all Members who contributed. My right hon. Friend is a committed advocate of this scheme, alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), who have spoken passionately with one voice in today’s debate. Their collective campaigning to reinstate the Stoke-Leek line is second to none. I am sure the description that my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands gave of her constituency will definitely have put it at the top of the tourist map for those who are listening to the debate. I also pay tribute to all right hon. and hon. Members who have sponsored applications to restore rail lines and stations in their own constituencies. I know just how much these schemes mean for local communities. Those Members are great advocates for the restoration of their railways.
This Government are committed to levelling up the country, and a strong, effective railway is central to that ambition. As part of that levelling-up agenda, in January 2020 the Government pledged £500 million for the Restoring Your Railways programme to deliver on our manifesto commitment to start reopening lines and stations. This investment will reconnect smaller communities, regenerate local economies and improve access to jobs, homes and education. The Beeching report led to the closure of one third of our railway network—2,363 stations and 5,000 miles of track were identified for closure. Many places that lost their railway connection have simply never recovered. For the towns and villages left isolated and forgotten by the Beeching cuts, restoring a railway line or station has the potential to revitalise the community. It breathes new life into our high streets, drives investment in businesses and housing and opens new opportunities for work and education. Ilkeston station, in my constituency, which reopened in 2017 after more than 50 years of closure, is a proven example of this positive impact.
Karen Bradley
I am very much enjoying what the Minister has to say. I add my congratulations on the reopening of Ilkeston station, which I remember her predecessor, the great Jessica Lee, campaigned so hard for.
Maggie Throup
It was a long-fought battle, like that which my right hon. and hon. Friends in the room are fighting.
More broadly, investing in transport links is essential to levelling up access to opportunities across the whole country, ensuring that our regions are better connected, local economies flourish and more than half a century of isolation is undone. By building back with a real focus on better connections and supporting left-behind communities, we are delivering our promise to level up this country, as set out last week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The Restoring Your Railways Fund has three parts, with part of the £500 million fund allocated to the ideas fund. Aimed at early-stage proposals, the ideas fund is helping communities to develop ideas to restore railway lines and stations across England and Wales. These proposals are led by the affected communities, supported by their local Member or Members of this House, giving them an opportunity to make the case for how the railway can transform their area. The Department is funding 75% of the study costs of successful proposals, up to a maximum of £50,000. Over the first two rounds of the ideas fund, 25 promising schemes across England and Wales have been awarded up to £50,000 in development funding to help them get to the strategic outline business case stage.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands has taken advantage of this opportunity and submitted a proposal to restore rail services between Stoke and Leek—or between Leek and Stoke—to the first round of the ideas fund in spring 2020. While the bid had the potential to deliver benefits, it was not successful at that time, and the rail Minister wrote to the right hon. and hon. Members who sponsored the bid to inform them of the outcome. Feedback on the bid was provided at the same time, setting out why it had not quite made it in that round of funding and what could be done to further strengthen the proposals. I know that the rail Minister was therefore pleased that earlier this year—I think it was on 5 March, the deadline for applications for the third and final round of the fund—one of the more than 85 bids that the Department for Transport received was a revised proposal for the Stoke-Leek line.
As my right hon. Friend explained, the proposal details the many benefits that restoring the Stoke-Leek line would bring to the area—she was so graphic earlier about all the benefits—including providing residents of Leek with direct access to education and employment opportunities in Stoke-on-Trent and the opening up of Staffordshire Moorlands to the tourist trade. The assessment process for those bids is currently under way. The Department expects to announce outcomes over the summer. Decisions on bids are made by an expert panel, which the rail Minister chairs. It is informed by analysis from the Department for Transport, technical advisers and Network Rail. The standard of the applications is, as ever, very high.
In nearby Meir, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, a proposal to reopen the railway station has already been successful in the ideas fund. This scheme used the funding awarded to create a strategic outline business case, which the Department will be considering soon. If delivered, the scheme would reconnect the people of Meir to the rail network for the first time since 1966, giving them access to new educational and economic opportunities, making new housing developments in certain areas viable and levelling up a region that suffers from poor productivity relative to the rest of the UK.
Advance proposals for the second part of the £500 million Restoring Your Railways Fund are being used to accelerate the development of closed lines and stations that are already being considered for restoration and have existing business cases. As a result, certain reopened railways will be connecting commuters again very soon, with regular passenger services set to be restored for the first time in almost 50 years by the end of 2021. The third strand of the Restoring Your Railways funding has been used to provide £32 million for a third round of the new stations fund, which is funding six new stations and providing development funding for a further two stations.
This country has a rich railway history, which puts it on the world stage, with its Victorian pioneers, its commitment to innovation and its engineering achievements. Thanks to record levels of funding, which will help us to build back better as we recover from the pandemic, we will also deliver the biggest modernisation programme to the railways for more than a century.
Of course, new rail lines are not the only way to reconnect our communities. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a £4.2 billion city region sustainable transport fund, which local leaders can spend on projects, such as new tram lines or bike lanes. The west midlands will receive a share of this fund, providing further opportunity for the constituents of my right hon. and hon. Friends to benefit from improved transport infrastructure.
Jonathan Gullis
In Staffordshire, we are just on the edge of the West Midlands Combined Authority. Mayor Street does a fantastic job of delivering public transport, but I want to make sure that any money does not come at the detriment of areas, such as Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Moorlands, that are not part of combined authority areas.
Maggie Throup
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has put that on record, and I am sure it will be listened to and noted.
Additionally, Stoke-on-Trent has been awarded £34.5 million from the Transforming Cities Fund towards improvements at Stoke-on-Trent and Longton rail stations, new cycling and walking schemes, installation of electric charge points and upgrades to the city centre bus station. The local growth deal is also investing £121 million of transport infrastructure in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, including constructing new highway infrastructure to improve access to business and employment sites around Stoke-on-Trent, new access to the Etruria Valley enterprise area and the new Stafford western access route, which will provide an alternative route to the town centre this year. All this investment will improve transport connections for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, helping residents access new opportunities.
I conclude by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands for securing this debate and thanking my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent the area for all their thoughtful contributions. I can reassure the House that there is a tremendous amount of work being done in this area to reconnect smaller communities, regenerate local economies and improve access to jobs, homes and education. I will make it my personal commitment to ensure that the rail Minister is fully updated on the compelling case for the Stoke-Leek Leek-Stoke line, which I have heard loud and clear this afternoon.
Karen Bradley
I have really enjoyed this debate, and it has been good to hear from all the Members who would be affected positively by the reopening of the Stoke-Leek or Leek-Stoke line. I am grateful to the Minister for her words and for the support from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi).
Mr Paisley, you suggested that I had mentioned every village in my constituency. This is only an hour-long debate, and therefore I have not been able to mention them all, but they are all very important to me and they could all benefit from the Stoke-Leek line.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) referred to some people who were worried about the reopening. I understand that some people who live along the line are concerned that there will be an adverse impact on them. That is why it is important that the funding is provided so that we can explore the implications and look at what can be done to reassure those people who are concerned, as well as helping those who are really enthusiastic.
I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that many, many people are very enthusiastic. In fact, when we had our photo opportunity in the drizzle in Stockton Brook a few weeks ago, a couple were walking their dog down the side of the canal, where the canal and the railway line up next to one another. They stopped and said, “Wow, are you looking to reopen this? I remember this line when I was a boy. I can’t tell you how exciting it would be to see this line reopen and see trains back along this line.”
It is important to note that the plan is part of a wider project. It is not just another project to be seen in isolation; it is part of all the work being done to transform the whole of north Staffordshire, including the stations at Meir and Etruria, which we all want to reopen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) spoke about day visitors. He is absolutely right: we suffer in that we have an enormous number of visitors, but they are day visitors. They do not come to stay overnight; they drive in and then drive out again. We have some fantastic places for them to stay. I put on the record that only last week, I visited the Tawny Hotel in Consall, a brand-new hotel next to the heritage railway line of Churnet valley. It is another fantastic place for people who want to visit and stay in the Staffordshire Moorlands and north Staffordshire.
The reopening could bring so many opportunities. Around the whole of north Staffordshire, the vision that the reopening of the line would be a part of is tangible, and it would be such an exciting thing to see. The Minister said that this country has a rich railway history. I want it to have a rich railway future, and I want the Stoke-Leek line to be very much part of that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered reopening the Stoke-Leek line.
Written Statements
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
National Security and Investment Act 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The National Security and Investment Act 2021 received Royal Assent on 29 April and provides for a new investment screening system to help protect our national security. Today I am publishing three sets of documents related to the Act: a consultation on the draft statement on the use of the call-in power, made under section 3 of the Act; the draft notifiable acquisition statutory instrument; and guidance documents on the Act.
I am announcing today that the commencement date for the sections of the Act not already commenced will be 4 January 2022.
Statement on the use of the call-in power
This statement—a draft of which was previously published as the “Statement of Policy Intent”—sets out how the Secretary of State expects to use the call-in power under the Act. The call-in power enables the Government to screen qualifying acquisitions for national security risks. During the passage of the Act, the Government committed to consulting on this statement and I am launching the consultation today. The consultation is available on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk and will be open until 11.59 pm on 30 August.
Draft notifiable acquisition statutory instrument
The draft notifiable acquisition statutory instrument sets out the proposed descriptions of the 17 sectors of the economy that would be captured under the mandatory notification requirements set out in the National Security and Investment Act 2021. The Government have previously consulted on the mandatory notification sectors and published a response in March 2021. The draft sector definitions have been refined in response to stakeholder feedback and the draft statutory instrument has been published today on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk to update businesses and investors about mandatory notification requirements.
Guidance
I have today published the first set of guidance documents on the Act. The guidance will build understanding and awareness for all parties who may be affected by the Act and who may need to comply with its provisions. The Government have tested and refined these documents with an expert panel of industry representatives, which includes business representative organisations, higher education bodies, investment associations and other stakeholders, who provided important feedback.
These guidance documents are: an overview of the Act, explaining what types of acquisitions are covered, whether parties need to tell the Government about an acquisition and how the Government will investigate an acquisition; the extraterritorial application of the Act; how the Act works alongside other regulatory bodies and market practices; and guidance for higher education institutions and other research organisations.
I will place copies of the section 3 statement for consultation, the section 3 statement consultation document and the draft notifiable acquisition SI in the Library of both Houses.
[HCWS220]
Competition and Consumer Policy
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Today I will lay before Parliament two consultation papers on competition issues which respond to proposals that have been put to the Government in recent years from a variety of stakeholders. This includes those directly commissioned by the Government from Jason Furman, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), Lord Tyrie and the Competition and Markets Authority. The consultation periods will end on Friday 1 October.
The first document, entitled “Reforming Competition and Consumer Policy—Driving growth and delivering competitive markets that work for consumers” sets out the Government’s vision for the future of competition and consumer policy. We aim to create a competition regime that reflects the Government’s strategic priorities and intervenes quickly and effectively when markets are not working, and consumers are being harmed. It also updates consumer rights so that consumers can navigate changing and new markets with confidence. Our proposals also aim to provide easier routes for consumers and traders to resolve problems amicably on their own and ensure the Competition and Markets Authority and regulators have the powers they need to fix consumer problems, delivering our manifesto commitment to give the Competition and Markets Authority enhanced powers to tackle consumer rip-offs and bad business practices.
These proposals will create a prosperous economy where vigorous competition drives growth and productivity, where businesses that do the right thing are rewarded with greater market share so that consumers can engage in markets with full confidence they will get a good deal.
The second publication called “A New Pro-Competition Regime for Digital Markets” is a joint publication with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I will invite him to provide further detail on this consultation.
Both consultations invite views from consumers, businesses, civil society, think- tanks, academics, public authorities, and the devolved Administrations to ensure our new approach works for the UK economy and supports growth and productivity in markets in every part of the country.
Subject to the outcomes of the consultations, the Government will bring forward legislation to implement reforms.
[HCWS217]
Magnox Inquiry Report: Government Response
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
We today publish the Government’s combined response to the March 2021 final report of the Magnox inquiry and the June 2021 Departmental Review into the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The response has been co-authored by BEIS, the Cabinet Office and UK Government Investments. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has developed its own combined response to both the Magnox inquiry final report and the departmental review, which is also being published today.
Since it was established under the Energy Act 2004 the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has driven a significant step change in the decommissioning of the UK’s legacy nuclear sites. The organisation’s portfolio includes 17 licenced nuclear sites, with over 15,000 people across its estate, and contributes very significantly to the Government’s levelling-up agenda. However, there is an ongoing need for the organisation to evolve to become a more resilient, efficient and effective organisation that continues to drive transformation on the ground and deliver value for money for the taxpayer.
The Magnox inquiry was an independent, non-statutory inquiry commissioned by the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, right hon. Greg Clark MP in 2017.
Its purpose was to review the procurement and subsequent termination of a management contract for decommissioning the Magnox nuclear power stations. An interim report was published in October 2017 with a number of initial findings and the March 2021 final report contained a total of 57 recommendations. These recommendations centred around future commercial assurance, oversight of governance procedures and organisational culture change.
The departmental review into the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, conducted by an independent team within BEIS, was published in June 2021, with a total of 26 recommendations. These centred around the form and function of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, its oversight by Government and their internal governance, organisational health and operational effectiveness.
I am grateful to Mr Holliday and his team and to the independent departmental review team for their comprehensive and rigorous work, which is reflected in the reports.
Since the publication of the Magnox Inquiry interim findings, significant progress has already been made to strengthen and simplify the organisation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estate. This includes the replacement of management contracts with direct subsidiary arrangements to support improved efficiencies across the estate and improvements to the governance of assurance and approval decisions, especially in the area of commercial assurance. There has been a complete overhaul of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority leadership team since the 2017 Magnox procurement and the Government have also enhanced its oversight arrangements for the organisation. The recommendations from the reviews complement the progress made and propose further improvements.
Both reviews that are being responded to today contain further valuable lessons for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and for the Government. We take the recommendations very seriously and have considered them with great care. The responses will give stakeholders confidence of the depth of reach and robustness with which the learnings from the reports will have an impact on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
The Government and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will prioritise the implementation of the commitments within these responses as we continue to deliver against the UK’s critical nuclear decommissioning challenges.
[HCWS219]
Energy Digitalisation and Smart Technology Strategies
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I am pleased to announce the latest steps the Government are taking to decarbonise our electricity system, to meet our net zero target by 2050, delivering on commitments made in the Energy White Paper.
First, the Government have today published a new smart systems and flexibility plan, jointly with Ofgem. Technologies such as energy storage, interconnection and smart charging of electric vehicles are essential to balance supply and demand as we deploy more intermittent renewables to power our buildings and vehicles. Flexibility reduces the amount of generation and network we need to build, and costs for energy consumers—flexibility could reduce the cost of the system by up to £10 billion by 2050. It is critical for energy security as we shift away from unabated gas over the next decade. System flexibility is therefore fundamental in reducing emissions to net zero by 2050.
The transition to a smarter and more flexible energy system is also an opportunity. It will be delivered by UK businesses and will benefit consumers across the country. It will create nationwide jobs, potentially 24,000 by 2050, and drive investment across the UK. The UK is a global leader in smart systems and there is significant export potential—which could contribute as much as £2.7 billion per year to the UK economy by 2050—for the solutions that we will need to deploy at home. As nations confront the challenge of climate change, markets for new green products and services will spring up around the world. Taking action now will help position UK companies and our world-class research base to seize the business opportunities which will flow from it, creating jobs and wealth for our country.
The new smart systems and flexibility plan sets out how we will drive flexibility across the system, including a vision, analysis and suite of actions, focusing on:
Facilitating flexibility from consumers
Removing barriers to flexibility on the grid
Developing markets for flexibility, and
Improving monitoring of flexibility.
Secondly, the Government have published the UK’s first energy digitalisation strategy, jointly with Ofgem and Innovate UK. Energy system digitalisation is essential to enabling millions of assets—including solar panels, heat pumps, batteries and electric vehicles—to be optimised across our energy networks. A digitalised system will spur innovation, remove barriers to new entrants, facilitate new consumer offers and services, and enable system flexibility.
The energy digitalisation strategy sets out a vision and suite of actions to achieve this, focusing on:
Providing leadership and co-ordination to the sector
Incentivising the sector to digitalise, and
Supporting the development of digital tools and infrastructure.
These documents have been produced in close co-ordination with the energy sector.
Thirdly, the Government have published a call for evidence on de-risking large-scale, long-duration electricity storage. Large-scale and long-duration storage can provide additional benefits to other forms of flexibility, in particular by storing energy over long periods of low wind. The Government have developed a call for evidence from industry, investors and other stakeholders on the barriers and financing challenges that this type of storage faces, and how these barriers might be mitigated while minimising distortions in the market. This is the first stage in deciding whether a bespoke de-risking mechanism, such as a “cap and floor” regime is needed to accelerate deployment of this technology on the system.
Fourthly, the Government have published a call for evidence on the barriers to widespread deployment of vehicle-to-grid (and similar) technologies. Vehicle-to-grid technologies enable electric vehicles to balance the system by exporting electricity in return for payment when electricity is scarce—and reimporting it when it is abundant. The Government have developed a call for evidence to gain wider market views on the timescales, opportunities, and barriers as well as invite discussion on potential solutions to the widespread deployment of these technologies. The feedback will aid in creating a policy strategy for this area, help to design future innovation competitions and show the Government’s ongoing commitment to an area where the UK is a global leader.
I will place copies of the 2021 smart systems and flexibility plan and its appendices—appendix I: electricity system flexibility modelling, and appendix II: smart systems and flexibility plan monitoring framework—the energy digitalisation strategy, the call for evidence on facilitating the deployment of large-scale and long-duration storage, and the call for evidence on the role of vehicle-to-X technologies in a net zero energy system in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS203]
Future System Operator and Energy Codes Reform
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I am pleased to announce the launch of the consultations on the future system operator (FSO) and the energy codes governance reform. This is a key step that will contribute towards helping us achieve the Government’s net zero targets and our commitment in the Energy White Paper,
“to ensure that the institutional arrangements governing the energy system are fit for purpose for the long term, consulting in 2021 over organisational functions, including system operation and energy code governance”.
Net zero is an unprecedented challenge for our economy and society—and the energy system at its heart. It has created the need for new technical roles and responsibilities in the electricity and gas systems to drive decarbonisation while minimising costs and maintaining resilience. We will require an organisation with the mandate, whole-system perspective, and engineering capability to fulfil the new and enhanced roles effectively, and the organisational design, incentives, and accountability to fulfil them impartially in the best interests of consumers.
The future system operator (FSO) consultation sets out the case for an expert, impartial, cross-vector FSO to ensure the energy system drives progress towards net zero. The system operators are in a unique position at the heart of their respective systems, both to keep each system operating in real time day to day and to be forward-looking. To help us achieve net zero, we propose bringing the electricity system operator (ESO) and the forward-looking elements of the gas system operator (GSO) together in a new entity, which will enable the systems to be transformed. The consultation also sets out the potential roles that could fall to the new organisation and presents two potential organisational templates which might be adopted. Finally, it sets out considerations on implementation.
Today, we are also launching a consultation on the design and delivery of the energy codes reform. The energy codes are the detailed technical and commercial rules of the gas and electricity system, which cover wholesale, transmission, distribution, and retail. Many of the codes were designed pre-privatisation which has resulted in a code governance framework that is complex, fragmented and lacks incentives to innovate, despite our urgent need for a more unified, flexible and dynamic approach.
Building on a consultation from 2019, we have now developed two governance models further and will be consulting on our preferred option of designating Ofgem as a strategic body over the energy codes, alongside separate code managers. As the strategic body, Ofgem would assess and respond to relevant Government policy and priorities to ensure these are reflected in codes. It would also select and license code managers, who would replace the existing code administrators and take on most of the roles that are currently held by industry-led code panels. However, crucially, we expect that industry input will remain key to the code change process, including though new stakeholder advisory forums.
To help us develop our view on these reforms, we are seeking views on where improvements could be made to existing arrangements. Our final position will be shaped by the outcomes of these consultations.
These energy system governance reforms are intended to apply only to England, Scotland and Wales. Energy is generally devolved in Northern Ireland and so the scope of the review and proposed reforms do not apply to NI’s energy system governance, system operator or energy regulator.
I will place copies of both the future system operator consultation and energy codes consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS202]
Debt and Fraud Powers: Statutory Review
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Efficiency and Transformation (Lord Agnew of Oulton) has today made the following written statement:
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), and I are announcing the statutory review of chapters 3 and 4 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. Chapters 3 and 4 provide legal gateways which enable specified public authorities (and persons providing services to public authorities) to disclose information for the purposes of reducing debt owed to the public sector and combating fraud against the public sector respectively.
Cabinet Office Ministers are under a legal duty to review the operation of both chapters as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of three years beginning with the day on which the chapters came into force (1 May 2018) for the purposes of deciding whether they should be amended, repealed or retained in their current form.
To commence that review, we are today publishing the criteria by reference to which that determination will be made, in accordance with sections 53 and 61 of the Act. Those criteria are set out below.
To determine if the debt and fraud powers of the Digital Economy Act 2017 should be amended, repealed or retained in their current form, the following criteria will be used:
a) What has been achieved in the three years since commencement and how has the risk of fraud and debt changed?
b) Have the powers been effective in managing and reducing debt owed to the public sector and in combating fraud against the public sector?
c) What positive and negative impacts (including societal impacts) have the DEA powers had? Due to their different characteristics, separate criteria will be used for fraud and debt:
i) For debt: have the powers led to improved management and recovery of debt owed to Government authorities, increased fairness and better approaches to vulnerable debtors among such authorities and sustainable business-as-usual processes which allow recovered money to flow into the public purse?
ii) For fraud: have the powers led to improved identification, prevention and recovery of fraud committed against Government authorities and sustainable business-as-usual processes which allow the prevention of fraud and recovered money to flow into the public purse?
d) Have the powers contributed to the effective delivery of Government policy, helped support manifesto pledges and supported the maintenance of the integrity of the Union and devolved Administrations?
e) Have the powers enhanced the willingness of public authorities to engage with and utilise data-sharing powers, reduced or created burdens for public authorities and/or given rise to any privacy concerns (such as in relation to reductions in privacy or the misuse of data)?
(f) Are there changes that can be made that would improve the effectiveness of the debt and fraud powers’ operations?
As part of this review, the Cabinet Office will include a consultation to obtain the views of all interested parties.
A copy of the review criteria is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS214]
Border Operating Model
(3 years, 4 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 in the Cabinet Office (the right hon. Lord Frost CMG), has today made the following written statement:
Today, the Government will publish an updated border operating model. This will reflect the revised timetable for introduction of the next stage of UK import requirements as well as including additional detail on policies and processes.
This updated border operating model will continue to help businesses, which trade with the EU, to understand the approaching new requirements as well as those which are already in effect. We are also encouraging businesses to go to gov.uk/guidance/help-and-support-if-your-business-trades-with-the-eu to gain access to the host of resources the Government have created to assist traders.
A copy of the updated border operating model has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS205]
Cash Ratio Deposit Scheme: Review
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Cash Ratio Deposits (CRDs) are non-interest bearing assets deposited with the Bank of England (“the Bank”) by banks and building societies. They are invested in gilts by the Bank and the income is used to finance its policy functions, in particular its efforts to secure price stability and the stability of the financial system in general, from which these institutions are key beneficiaries.
The CRD scheme was extended to include building societies, and was placed on a statutory basis, when the Bank of England Act became law in 1998. At the last review, the Government committed to review the scheme within five years. The last review was in 2018 and resulted in the CRD ratio being moved from a single fixed ratio, to a variable ratio indexed to gilt yields, reindexing the ratio to prevailing gilt yields every six months. The Treasury, working closely with the Bank, will now begin the next review.
The review will include an assessment of the detailed arrangements of the scheme as well as the continuing suitability of the scheme itself compared to alternative sources of funding. It will also address the impact of the scheme on eligible institutions and involve a public consultation.
[HCWS211]
Finance Bill 2021-22: Draft Legislation and Tax Documents
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
In line with the tax policy-making framework, the Government are publishing draft legislation to be included in Finance Bill 2021-22. This allows for technical consultation and provides taxpayers with predictability over future tax policy changes. Alongside this, the Government are making announcements in a number of areas of tax policy.
Publication of draft legislation
The Government are publishing draft legislation and associated documents, further to previous announcements, including at Budget or in “Tax Policies and Consultations” (CP 404, published on 23 March 2021):
Sanctions to tackle tobacco duty evasion: The Government are publishing a summary of responses to the consultation on “sanctions to tackle tobacco duty evasion” alongside draft legislation. Respondents to the consultation indicated broad support for tougher sanctions to tackle small scale repeated tobacco duty evasion and for the concept of extending the use of these new sanctions to trading standards authorities. The draft legislation will introduce a package of sanctions, including a new penalty of up to £10,000 for repeated contraventions. The legislation will also grant HMRC the power to make future regulations for the operation of these sanctions, including provisions to extend their use to trading standards.
Clamping down on promoters of tax avoidance: As announced in November 2020, the Government are bringing forward a package of measures to clamp down on promoters of tax avoidance. Proposals include ensuring HMRC can protect their position by freezing a promoter’s assets so that the penalties they are liable for are paid, tackling offshore promoters and the UK entities that support them, closing down companies that promote avoidance schemes, and supporting taxpayers to identify and exit avoidance schemes. This package of measures builds on the promoters strategy, announced at Budget 2020, and the measures to strengthen existing anti-avoidance regimes which were legislated for in Finance Act 2021.
Hybrid and other mismatches: The draft legislation will make a technical change to the rules governing hybrid and other mismatches. The change will ensure that the legislation applies to certain types of entities that are seen as transparent in their home jurisdictions, including US limited liability corporations, in the same way as it does to partnerships.
Capital allowances—Technical amendment to allowance statement requirements for structures and buildings allowance (SBA): The draft legislation will amend the requirements for SBA allowance statements, to include the date qualifying expenditure is incurred or treated as incurred when the allowance period commences from this date. Without this change, subsequent owners of an asset on which SBA is being claimed may sensibly assume the date the allowance period commences is the date the asset is brought into use. Clarity for businesses on the remaining length of the allowance period means they will not be adversely affected by failing to claim the full relief to which they are entitled.
Powers to tackle electronic sales suppression (ESS): This draft legislation will introduce new powers to tackle electronic sales suppression. The new ESS-specific powers and penalties will make offences of possessing, making, supplying and promoting ESS software and hardware. There will also be ESS-specific information powers allowing HMRC investigators to identify developers and suppliers in the ESS supply chain; and access software developers’ source code and the locations of code and data.
Scheme pays deadlines: The draft legislation will extend the reporting and payment deadline for individuals to ask their pension scheme to settle their annual allowance charges from previous years by reducing their future pension benefits in the process known as “Scheme Pays”. This will resolve a technical issue that arises within the pension tax framework as a result of the Government’s planned remedy for addressing the age discrimination found in the 2015 public service pension reforms (the “McCloud case”). The Government will make further technical updates to pension tax rules as necessary to remove any other anomalies as a result of the remedy.
Increasing normal minimum pension age (NMPA): The draft legislation will increase the normal minimum pension age from 55 to 57 in April 2028. This is the age at which most members of registered pension schemes can draw benefits without incurring unauthorised payment charges. Members of uniformed public service pension schemes and those with unqualified rights to take their pension below age 57 will be protected from these changes. After considering consultation responses, individuals will be able to keep their protected pension age if they transfer their pension.
Notification of an uncertain tax treatment by large businesses: The Government are publishing a summary of responses and draft legislation to implement a new requirement for large businesses to notify HMRC where they have adopted an uncertain tax treatment. This will apply to returns due to be filed on or after 1 April 2022. This requirement to notify will provide HMRC with accurate and timely information to encourage earlier identification and resolution of uncertain tax treatments. This will help address the legal interpretation portion of the tax gap, estimated to be £4.9 billion in 2018-19. The Government will also publish accompanying draft guidance in due course.
Tax treatment of asset holding companies (AHCs): The Government are responding to their second stage consultation on, and publishing initial draft legislation relating to, the tax treatment of AHCs. These targeted reforms are designed to enhance the UK’s attractiveness as a location for AHCs, and represent a balanced approach in response to stakeholder representations.
The Government are also publishing draft legislation and associated documents in the following areas which have not been previously announced:
Basis period reform: Under the current system, tax returns filed by the self-employed and partnerships are based on a business's set of accounts ending in the tax year. A set of complex rules can apply to allocate the profits of those businesses to a tax year, which can cause confusion and error. The Government have announced a reform and consultation on how to simplify the system.
Location of risk regulation: Under current legislation, the determination of the location of a risk for insurance premium tax (IPT) purposes is unclear. The Government have therefore published draft legislation to clarify the rules for determining the location of a risk by placing the criteria into the primary legislation governing IPT. This will ensure clarity for taxpayers and HMRC, and retain the principles initially set out in legislation in 2001.
All draft legislation is accompanied by a tax information and impact note (TIIN), an explanatory note (EN) and, where applicable, a summary of consultation responses document.
Policy announcements
London capital and finance compensation payments: The Government will legislate in the autumn to ensure that payments made by the London capital and finance compensation scheme will not be subject to capital gains tax. This will provide certainty to bondholders that these payments will be free from income tax and capital gains tax. This measure will apply retrospectively from the date payments are made. The Government will also ensure that the compensation scheme terms enable bondholders who receive compensation in respect of a subscription to an ISA to return the money to an ISA without it contributing to their annual subscription limit.
Income tax exemption of new social security payments in Scotland: The Government will legislate in the autumn to ensure that two new social security payments made by the Scottish Government will not be subject to income tax (as provided for in the 2016 fiscal framework). This legislation will apply to the child winter heating assistance (introduced in November 2020) and the short-term assistance (introduced in July 2021). The legislation will be retrospective, from November 2020 and July 2021 respectively. HM Revenue and Customs will not collect any income tax that may have been due on payments made from November 2020 to the date the legislation takes effect.
Covid local grant scheme payments: The Government will legislate in the autumn to ensure that payments made by local authorities to families through the covid winter grant scheme and covid local grant scheme, and similar schemes operated by the devolved Administrations, are not subject to income tax. This will provide certainty to those who have benefited from the additional funding provided to local authorities. The legislation will be retrospective and cover payments made from 2020-21 onwards.
Other publications
The Government are also publishing summaries of responses to the following consultations:
“Modernisation of the stamp taxes on shares framework”
“VAT grouping—Establishment, eligibility and registration”
“VAT and the public sector: Reform to VAT refund rules”
“VAT and the sharing economy”
“VAT and value shifting”
Finally, the Government are also publishing a research report titled “Impact of making tax digital for VAT”. This considers the impact of making tax digital (MTD) across those taxpayers that have been required to operate it for VAT from April 2019 and further demonstrates that taxpayers are experiencing benefits in operating MTD.
All publications can be found on the gov.UK website. The Government’s tax consultation tracker has also been updated.
[HCWS204]
Digital Markets: Pro-competition Regime
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
Following the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy today, I would like to further update the House on the consultation on “A New Pro-Competition Regime for Digital Markets”.
The consultation sets out our proposals for a new pro-competition regime for digital markets which will tackle the unique sources of market power in fast-moving digital markets. The new regime will drive a more vibrant and innovative economy, across the UK.
The proposals include new rules that will ensure consumers and businesses are treated fairly and will help to level the playing field so that new and innovative tech firms can flourish. Alongside these rules, new measures will be put in place to tackle the sources of market power, injecting much needed competition into digital markets and spurring growth and innovation across the economy.
The new regime will be overseen by the Digital Markets Unit that will proactively shape the behaviour of the most powerful tech firms and protect those who rely on them. The Digital Markets Unit will be given robust powers to enforce the regime and the most powerful tech firms will face tough new fines if they do not comply.
The consultation builds on the Furman review, which highlighted the specific characteristics which make some digital markets susceptible to competition issues and made the case for a more targeted and forward-leaning regime to address these competition issues. It also draws on advice from the Digital Markets Taskforce on the design and implementation of the regime.
This consultation invites views from businesses, civil society, think-tanks, academics, public authorities, and the devolved Administrations to ensure our new approach works for the UK economy and supports growth and productivity in markets in every part of the country.
[HCWS218]
Adviser on Concussion in Sport
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I wish to inform the House that the Secretary of State for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, has appointed Laurence Geller CBE as a ministerial adviser on concussion in sport.
Mr Geller is a leading expert in dementia care and is a pioneer in bringing the latest research and technology to bespoke dementia care facilities. He has a background in the business, hospitality and charity sectors.
The Secretary of State and I have made the issue of concussion in sport a priority. Mr Geller is an advocate on improving the safety of players across a wide range of contact sports and attended the two ministerial roundtables held on the subject earlier this year—attended by players and the national governing bodies of sport.
Mr Geller will work with DCMS officials to improve understanding of head injuries in sport and co-ordinate action to address it. Mr Geller’s experience in this area will be invaluable in increasing safety standards in sport to the benefit of individual players and sport as a whole.
This role is not remunerated.
[HCWS215]
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
On 20 July, the Department for Education confirmed it will be continuing the extended powers given to the SEND tribunal to hear appeals and make non-binding recommendations about health and social care aspects of education, health and care (EHC) plans, provided those appeals also include education elements.
These extended powers are currently being tested under a national trial, which began in April 2018. The trial will end on 31 August 2021 and the powers will continue.
Our ambition is for every child, no matter what challenges they face, to have access to a world-class education that sets them up for life. It will enable the tribunal to continue to take a more holistic view of the needs of the child across education, health and care while the cross-Government SEND review completes its important work.
Full details of this announcement have been published on the Department for Education section on the gov.uk website here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extended-powers-send-tribunal-national-trial.
[HCWS212]
EEA EFTA Separation Agreement Joint Committee
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
The EEA EFTA separation agreement, which was agreed with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, and signed on 28 January 2020, covers citizens’ rights and other separation provisions.
These provisions wind down certain arrangements that the UK had with the EEA EFTA States by virtue of their participation in the single market and other EU-led initiatives. The separation agreement established a joint committee whose primary role is to supervise and facilitate the implementation and application of the separation agreement, with the power to make decisions. The joint committee has a rotating chair which is currently held by Iceland.
The second meeting of the joint committee took place on 27 May 2021, by video conference. Each of the parties gave an update on implementation and application of the separation agreement, and reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring the citizens’ rights provisions are upheld for those in scope. The independent monitoring authority and the EFTA surveillance authority also attended to give updates on their monitoring and complaints handling functions required by the separation agreement.
The joint committee adopted a decision to amend part 1 of annex I of the separation agreement to reflect decisions taken by the EU’s administrative commission for the co-ordination of social security systems that have also been incorporated into the EEA agreement. The decision of the joint committee ensures the separation agreement reflects the latest position under the EEA agreement. These decisions concern the interpretation of relevant social security co-ordination, including on data processing and exchange. They do not impact the rights provided for in the separation agreement. Full detail on and copies of this decision have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The joint committee will meet at least annually, with Liechtenstein holding the next rotating chair. The next meeting is expected to take place in 2022. I commit to updating Parliament immediately following future meetings of the joint committee where decisions are taken.
[HCWS207]
Covid-19 Tests: Mandatory Validation Regime
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
This statement sets out the analysis used to support the development of the mandatory validation regime for covid-19 tests before they can enter the UK market. This goes alongside the full impact assessment, which we have published.
Testing will continue to form a crucial part in the response to covid-19. Consumers must have confidence in the performance of tests they use. That is why the Government are bringing in draft legislation under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, which will require all antigen and molecular covid-19 tests to undergo mandatory validation to assess their performance before being permitted for sale on the UK market. This will ensure that any covid-19 test on the UK market meets a minimum standard, the same standards as those met by covid-19 tests procured for the NHS.
We have engaged with the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) throughout our work to ensure that our analysis meets the high standards the committee upholds. We thank them wholeheartedly for their constructive feedback and for working at pace to meet an unusually tight legislative timetable.
While the Department is working to produce a revised impact assessment, we intend to publish the current draft in the interim for transparency. In developing this assessment, we brought together regulatory knowledge in an area where we have not innovated policy for decades, alongside the ongoing challenges of modelling both economic and epidemiological predictions. We were unfortunately red rated in one key area which has resulted in a red rated IA. While I am obviously disappointed in this rating, we remain committed to working closely with the RPC to ensure that we produce a final IA that we are all satisfied with and proud of, making use of the latest data from a nascent and rapidly evolving market.
The analysis to date strongly supports our planned policy intervention. This is a necessary regulation to protect consumers and give reassurances to producers. While we do recognise the potential profit loss for companies whose products do not meet the required standards, this is a necessary move to ensure the highest-quality tests are available to protect consumers and public health. We have looked carefully at this and are committed to work closely with these producers to ensure they understand the requirements and can work to achieve them. Furthermore, the potential profit loss needs to be set against the additional profits that manufacturers who are producing high-quality tests that meet the validation standards could potentially gain, and the benefit to society of removing poorly performing tests and associated public health impacts.
The RPC has identified areas for further development, which include:
The need to enhance our analysis of the latest evidence of the share of the market for covid-19 tests which are accounted for by businesses based in the UK. This determines whether business impacts are reflected in the equivalent annual net direct cost to business (for businesses based in the UK) or as trade impacts (for businesses based elsewhere).
The need to test with stakeholders (or otherwise confirm) our assumptions about the proportion of devices presenting for validation (currently assumed to be 60%)—this affects profit/EANDCB/trade impacts since products not validated will be removed from the market) and the life cycle of devices (currently assumed to be 1-5 years—this affects programme costs in determining how frequently manufacturers need to submit devices for validation)
The need to explain further how we have:
extrapolated from third party estimates of the future size of the private testing market size;
established and treated stakeholders’ estimates of market profit margins; and
estimated familiarisation and transition costs, including the use of any non-wage uplifts.
The need to add new content (and test with stakeholders - or otherwise confirm) to address:
familiarisation costs incurred by retailers; and
how devices online will be monitored and enforced.
The RPC fulfils a crucial role in ensuring that analysis and evidence in regulations are robust and assessed to an extremely high standard. The Government are committed to this process and in relation to this policy, we are determined to ensure the impact assessment we complete includes the best possible research and evidence available.
The impact assessment is a living document, used to support the process of policy design and implementation. We plan to make further iterations of this impact assessment publicly available ahead of the next statutory instrument we intend to lay in the autumn, which will introduce a second element of laboratory validation.
[HCWS208]
Deaths in Police Custody
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
On 23 July 2015, the Home Office announced a major review into deaths and serious incidents in police custody, to be carried out by the right hon. Dame Elish Angiolini, QC. On 30 October 2017, Dame Elish’s review was published, alongside the Government’s substantive response. In December 2018, a progress update was published focusing on three main themes: supporting families, strengthening accountability and preventing deaths.
The ministerial board on deaths in custody has continued to oversee and drive progress work resulting from the recommendations in the Angiolini Review. Today, as co-chair of the ministerial board on deaths in custody, I report on the progress made in delivering this work programme since the last update.
There has been significant progress made in response to the recommendations made by Dame Elish. Of the 110 recommendations, 65 have been completed fully, with a further 20 completed in part. The Government update addresses in detail each of Dame Elish’s twelve thematic areas covered in her report: restraint, custody environment, health and wellbeing, funding for families and family support, communications, investigations, coroners and inquests, accountability, training, learning, statistics and research.
Since 2018, the Home Office has substantially reduced the use of police custody as a place of safety for people undergoing a mental health crisis and introduced a major package of reforms to improve the effectiveness of the police complaints and discipline systems in order to increase accountability and help reduce delays. The Department for Health and Social Care has rolled out NHS England and NHS Improvement-commissioned liaison and diversion services to ensure when vulnerable people are in custody that their needs are identified and addressed and introduced the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 (Seni’s law) to increase the oversight and management of the use of force in mental health units, so that force is only ever used as a last resort.
The Ministry of Justice has undertaken a range of work to make inquests more sympathetic to the needs of bereaved people, including updating materials to aid families throughout the coronial process, publishing a protocol on how Government will act when it has interested persons status and encouraging local authorities to provide areas in coroners’ courts that are suitable to family needs.
The College of Policing has published guidelines on conflict management, including de-escalation and negotiations to promote safer resolutions to conflicts, updated its training to cover acute behavioural disturbance and introduced guidance on the role of a safety officer to monitor the use of restraint. Agencies, including the coroners’ services and Independent Office for Police Conduct, are continuing to ensure the voices of bereaved families and victims are part of their training, harnessing their knowledge to ensure they receive appropriate support and that no one else endures the same experience.
Since becoming Policing Minister, I have met a number of key stakeholders to develop my future priorities to tackle deaths in police custody in line with the spirit of Dame Elish’s recommendations. These include supporting police chiefs and police and crime commissioners to continue to drive forwards a zero-tolerance attitude to deaths in state custody, to treat each death as a serious tragedy and to learn quickly from deaths that do occur; ensuring detainees receive the response most appropriate to their needs as soon as possible and that appropriate health and social services are available; improving data collection to fully understand the extent to which protected characteristics impact detainees’ experience and use of powers within police custody and consideration of support for detainees judged at risk of post-custody suicide.
I am committed to keeping our work in this vital area transparent, and will ensure that regular updates on work to prevent deaths in police custody will be included in the published annual progress updates of the ministerial board on deaths in custody.
Every death in police custody is a tragedy. The impact is devastating on their loved ones. Dame Elish Angiolini’s report has been and remains a catalyst for change, and I am determined that we continue to prioritise preventing deaths in police custody and, in the tragic instances that they do occur, holding organisations to account and improving support for families to demonstrate how seriously we take these incidents.
I am placing a copy of our progress update in the Libraries of both Houses and on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS206]
Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group: Annual Report
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) has today made the following written statement:
I am pleased to announce the publication of the 4th annual report of the Biometrics and Forensic Ethics Group on 20 July 2021. The group provides Ministers with independent advice on matters relating to ethical issues in forensic science and biometrics and considers issues in data ethics.
I would like to thank the group for their advice concerning the use and retention of biometric identifiers and for their advice on the development and testing of biometric technologies.
The BFEG has published two reports this year; on the feasibility of using genetic genealogy techniques to assist with criminal investigations by UK law enforcement; and on the ethical issues arising from public-private collaborative use of live facial recognition technology. The group has also updated its ethical principles for the development and use of biometric and forensic technologies and the use of large datasets.
The group continues to provide valuable advice and guidance: on policy changes relating to the use of the National DNA Database; in support of the Home Office Biometrics programme; and for projects involving large data sets or machine learning applications. The group also provided advice on a leaflet for arrestees explaining their rights regarding deletion of custody images.
The Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group annual report can be viewed on the website of the group at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/biometrics-and-forensics-ethics-group
and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS210]
Building Beautiful Places
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
The Government have set out to put beauty and design, for the first time, at the heart of the local planning system. To that end, we are changing the system so that local people are empowered to set standards for beauty and design in their area through local design codes. These codes will reflect their area’s unique aesthetics, culture and heritage, with tree-lined streets accompanying new developments.
The Government are publishing today the revised national planning policy framework (the framework), the new national model design code, and the Government’s response to the consultation on both. The consultation on the draft framework and national model design code ran from 30 January to 27 March and the Government are grateful to all who responded. In light of comments received, the Government have made important changes to this framework and national model design code.
The new framework is fundamental to ensuring local authorities and communities can shape and deliver beautiful places to live and work, with a greater emphasis on quality, design and the environment than ever before.
The changes we have made take forward the recommendations of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission that national policy should place a stronger focus on the creation of beautiful buildings and beautiful places. The framework will ensure that communities are more meaningfully engaged in how new development happens, that local authorities are given greater confidence in turning down schemes which do not meet locally set standards, and greater certainty to those schemes that do. This is part of the Government’s programme of improving the planning system to put high-quality, environmentally friendly design front and centre of new development.
Our policy changes will ensure the system helps to create buildings that fit in with places, while maintaining the framework’s existing strong focus on delivering the homes and other development which communities need. The changes:
Make beauty and place-making a strategic theme in the framework
Set out the expectation that local authorities produce their own design codes and guides setting out design principles which new development in their areas should reflect
Ask for new streets to be tree-lined
Improve biodiversity and access to nature through design
Put an emphasis on approving good design as well as refusing poor quality schemes
We have also made a number of environment-related changes, including on flood risk and climate change. These changes are an initial response to the emergent findings of our joint review with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) of policy for building in areas of flood risk. For instance, highlighting the opportunities from improvements in green infrastructure and natural flood management techniques. We are also amending guidance on flood risk to emphasise that checks done by local authorities should steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source.
Our changes also include:
emphasis of the importance of retaining and explaining the historic and social context of historic statues, plaques, memorials or monuments rather than removing them
an update on the use of Article 4 Directions
an expectation that local planning authorities take a proactive approach to engaging with key delivery bodies and other stakeholders at the pre-application stage of local plan making
Alongside the national planning policy framework, the Government are also publishing the national model design code. This provides detailed guidance on the production of local design codes, guides and policies to promote successful design. It expands on the 10 characteristics of good design set out in the national design guide, which reflects Government priorities and provides a common overarching framework for design. The national model design code forms part of the Government’s planning practice guidance. Creating more beautiful places requires a greener approach that supports progress towards our 25-year environment plan goals. The national model design code sets a baseline standard of quality and practice which local planning authorities are expected to take into account, including the approach to landscape, green infrastructure, biodiversity and tree-lined streets.
The national model design code should be used as a toolkit to guide local planning authorities on the design parameters and issues that need to be considered when producing design codes and guides. It also sets out methods to capture and reflect the views of the local community from the outset, and at each stage in the process. Design codes are important because they provide a framework for creating healthy, environmentally responsive and sustainable places, with a consistent and high-quality standard of design. This will provide greater certainty for communities about the design of development and bring conversations about design to the start of the planning process, rather than the end.
Our changes will ensure that new homes in England are built to a dramatically higher standard, embedding the work Sir Roger Scruton, Nicholas Boys Smith and everyone involved in the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission began. And we are now establishing the Office for Place within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), advised by a board led by Nicholas Boys Smith, who will look to help local authorities across England create user-friendly but effective design codes for their communities. Fourteen councils across England are now testing this new approach and we will undertake further pilots over the course of the year.
[HCWS216]
Lasting Powers of Attorney: Consultation
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Today I am launching a public consultation on modernising lasting powers of attorney.
There are things we take for granted until we no longer have them—our ability to make decisions, our ability to express ourselves, our ability to choose. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) led to the implementation of lasting powers of attorney (LPA) in 2007. An LPA gives people the opportunity to appoint someone they trust to make decisions on their behalf, in the event those abilities are taken from them, whether through accident, disease or illness.
The MCA also created the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. The OPG is responsible for registering LPAs. This must be done before an LPA can be used. The OPG is also responsible for taking action where there are concerns about an attorney’s use of the LPA.
When the LPA was introduced in 2007, the safeguards put in place were appropriate for the time, but technology and society have moved on. Society’s attitudes to fraud and abuse, and the expected protections against them, have also changed. Technology now offers new ways for the OPG to protect its users through identity and information verification.
An LPA must be printed out so that it can be signed and witnessed on paper, no matter how the LPA documentation is completed. In the 14 years since LPAs were introduced, technology has advanced and become more widely available. People increasingly expect to be able to access Government services online and many donors and attorneys have told us the paper-based LPA is cumbersome, bureaucratic and complex.
Due to LPAs being paper-based, the OPG is required to handle a large amount of paper, which is costly and inefficient for the organisation, creating an ever-increasing need for staff, equipment and storage. The OPG’s operating costs are funded entirely by the income from the fees it charges. If the LPA service is not made more efficient, either fees will have to increase or the way the OPG is funded will become unsustainable.
We need to respond to these challenges and look at how technology can make it easier for people to make and register an LPA. We must also fully consider concerns about security—finding the right balance between ease of use and protection against abuse. Ease of access and protections must also be ensured for those who cannot use digital services or do not want to.
We believe that a move towards automating the OPG’s services will improve efficiency and reduce costs. It will also allow resources to be moved to improving other OPG services that provide more benefits for users.
It is for these reasons that I am launching this consultation on modernising lasting powers of attorney—to consider how to increase safeguards, while ensuring accessibility and OPG sustainability, and any changes to primary legislation that may be needed to facilitate this.
To develop the proposals put forward in this consultation, we have undertaken user research, interviews and surveys to gather the views of the public and professionals. We have engaged stakeholders from a range of sectors, including finance, legal, charity and social care. We now want to gather evidence from a much wider group and are asking for views on the following:
The role and value of witnessing on LPAs and how to keep that value.
The role of applying to register an LPA and who can apply.
Changes that may be needed to the OPG’s remit.
Changes to how people can object to the registration of an LPA.
Changes to when people can object.
The speed of the LPA service and whether a dedicated faster service should be introduced for people who need an LPA urgently.
How to ensure that solicitors have access to the service.
The consultation is available in full at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/opg/modernising-lasting-powers-of-attorney and a copy has been presented to Parliament.
[HCWS209]
Improving Support for Disabled People and People with Health Conditions
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I am pleased today to update the house on the publications of Shaping Future Support: the Health and Disability Green Paper and the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation response.
The Government have a clear objective to make sure that disabled people and people with health conditions can lead the fullest, most independent lives possible, reaching their potential. As part of this, we remain committed to our ambition to see 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027.
Today’s publications and the work that follows will help us take an important step towards improving the way we help disabled people and people with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work.
In 2021-22 we are forecast to spend a record £58 billion on benefits for disabled people and people with health conditions, and we have witnessed record levels of disability employment. We must now build on these achievements, unlock new opportunities and consider how support can be made sustainable for the future, so we can continue to help those most in need.
The consultation launched by today’s publication of the Green Paper will help us do this. It focuses on issues that disabled people and people with health conditions have told us they would like to see improved. This includes:
Testing new advocacy support, drawing on support already being provided by partners, so we can test and develop new ways to support the most vulnerable people who need extra help accessing and using the benefits system and who do not have families, friends or trusted networks to support them;
Making changes to the way we deliver health assessments, including considering future use of telephone and video assessments where that is right for the individual and exploring how we can improve the decision making process, including the evidence we take into account;
Reducing the number of assessments that we undertake by exploring the extension of the principles of the severe conditions criteria;
Exploring ways to strengthen the process people follow if they think the decision from a health assessment is wrong, building on the changes we have already introduced at the mandatory reconsideration stage; and
Building on our commitment to reform the work capability assessment, following work with disabled people and people with health conditions to consider future changes to assessments.
It is essential that any changes we make are shaped by disabled people and their representatives. This is why the Department and I have hosted a series of engagement events across the country, to hear about disabled people’s experiences of DWP services and priorities for future changes. This has also included a number of sessions with Members of Parliament who have held sessions in their constituencies, sessions I am thankful to have held. These experiences have directly shaped the Health and Disability Green Paper.
The consultation started by the launch of this Green Paper will last for 12 weeks. Following the consultation, detailed proposals will then be brought forward in a White Paper in mid-2022.
Taking action to better support people in work is another crucial element of our agenda, and with the publication of the “Health is everyone’s business” response, we are setting out the further action this Government intend to take to tackle ill-health related job loss. I am grateful to the almost 500 respondents to the consultation.
Reducing health-related job losses is as important as helping people into work. While most people return to work following a period of long-term sickness absence, disabled people have a heightened risk of falling out of work, an estimated 300,000 disabled people falling out of work a year prior to covid-19. The initiatives set out in the “Health is everyone’s business” response will work to address this challenge. They are designed as a package that both increases employer responsibilities in managing employee health at work, while also improving employer access to Occupational Health (OH) advice and Government support.
Employers have an important role to play in creating inclusive and healthy workplaces. Government recognise that employers need both more clarity on their existing responsibilities and clearer information to enable them to have the right guidance to support disabled people and people with long-term health conditions to remain in work or return to work following sickness absence.
Cross-government collaboration will continue as we enact proposals, ensuring we are well equipped to meet the challenges ahead. We will also continue working with key stakeholder organisations, employers and employees to deliver the proposals into the future. This will reduce the chance that certain individuals or groups are left behind and complement existing initiatives to help employees manage the employment impact of their condition, such as integrated Employment Advice provision in the NHS’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) services in England.
I am hugely excited by this work. It is a real opportunity to deliver a more effective health and disability system and unlock every disabled person’s potential. This Green Paper will deliver ambitious policy reforms to improve the lives of disabled people, while the package outlined in the “Health is everyone’s business” response will ensure all employers are equipped to do the right thing for their employees, helping disabled people and people with health conditions stay in and thrive in the new world of work. The Health and Disability Green Paper and “Health is everyone’s business” response, alongside the forthcoming National Disability Strategy, will set out holistic approach to enable disabled people and people with health conditions to thrive in work and live more independent lives.
[HCWS221]
Office for Nuclear Regulation: Annual Report and Accounts
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Baroness Stedman-Scott, has made the following written statement.
Later today I will lay before this House the “Office for Nuclear Regulation Annual Report and Accounts 2020 to 2021”. These documents will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with schedule 7, section 25(3) of the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published documents on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS213]
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, and 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 touchpoints 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 those in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk using the Grand Committee address if they wish to speak after the Minister. 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.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 20th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 View all Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (15 Jul 2021)
Viscount Trenchard
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to move Amendment 17, which my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean had intended to move, but he is unable to be in his place today. I was unable to speak at Second Reading due to my incompetence in failing to put my name on the speakers’ list on time.
I was able to take the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act through your Lordships’ House in spring 2019, rightly removing the argument of self-defence from those who attempted to escape arrest by attacking and harming police dogs and horses. Finn’s law received unqualified support from all sides of the House, and I think it is highly desirable that, in this field, the Government should support legislation which is similarly supported by all parties.
Her Majesty set out the animal welfare programme in her gracious Speech with these words:
“Legislation will also be brought forward to ensure the United Kingdom has, and promotes, the highest standards of animal welfare.”—[Official Report, 11/5/21; col. 3.]
I fear that, whatever the Government’s intentions, this Bill will add nothing to our excellent standards and is likely to be counterproductive.
My Amendment 17 seeks to restrict the activities of the committee to policies that are in course of formulation, or at least have not been formulated. I support Amendments 18 and 23 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which seek to ensure that the committee is not required to review policies that are already being lawfully implemented. I also support his Amendment 29, which ensures that on any further formulation of a policy already being applied the committee is not expected to report. All these amendments are designed to remove retrospectivity from the workings of the committee and its reports and recommendations.
Retrospective laws which upset legally compliant settled patterns of life and expectations are not good policy. They undermine the security and continuity of a way of life consistent with the values of the community and a sense of its continuity. Legislation which retrospectively changes a legal activity into an illegal one is likely to have adverse repercussions on decisions made reasonably and in good faith by citizens in the past. In the context of this Bill, that might cover farming or other business plans and investment or the purchase of property in order to carry on a particular activity or country sport.
I also support Amendment 35A in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. Measures which support conservation or biodiversity may very well not support crop protection or indeed human health. How to balance these conflicting policy areas while having to have regard to animal welfare for reasons different from those for which we look after animals so well in this country is an extremely complicated subject. Indeed, most policies that the Government might develop may well have negative consequences for at least one of the excluded areas in my noble friend’s amendment.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, and I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I commented earlier in Committee on the potential problem which would be created if existing policy could be reviewed by the committee. The trouble that could be caused by reviewing existing policies is as nothing compared to the turmoil which could come from the ability to go backwards and review existing law. This would be an enormous power which very easily could, and almost probably would, get out of hand. It would require almost unlimited resources and place intolerable burdens on other departments of state.
In addition to that, unlike European countries, Britain has had animal welfare laws for 200 years. Allowing the committee to recommend repealing or amending already implemented law would be a recipe for unimaginable chaos and expense. I cannot believe that this is what this Bill intends. If the Bill is to have any sensible purpose, it must be limited to recommending on future policy and legislation which, by itself, would be a monumental task, without the potential of causing almost unlimited trouble by going back historically.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising’s amendment, to which I have put my name. It strikes me that the Government have not really thought this through very carefully, because if this is going to be retrospective and it will be possible for this committee to review all legislation that has already been passed, then this will provoke a need for massive new legislation stretching into the future. The Government have the option, I suppose, of ignoring recommendations from the animal sentience committee, but if they do not ignore its recommendations, then of course that means they will inevitably get involved in more legislation in the future. I am not sure that that was really the intention of the Bill in the beginning. Surely, the original point of the Bill—not that I am a great supporter of it—was that there should be some form of oversight of government legislation to ensure that the sentience of animals was being taken into account, but if it works retrospectively, then of course it has unlimited capacity for creating ever more work and expense, as has been mentioned by my noble friend. Therefore, I very much support his amendment.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 18 and 23, which carry my name, and in support of Amendments 17 and 29. These all rule out scrutiny of policies established in the past and are consistent with my Amendment 3, which we discussed on the first day in Committee, which laid out the function of the committee and confined it to considering policies subsequent to the committee’s establishment. The arguments for not having any retrospective powers have been well made by others.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
One of the worst things in this Bill, with its miasma of uncertainty, is its retrospective effect. Along with others, this amendment is designed to cure this defect. We have to stop the committee considering, let alone making suggestions to change, policies that were established in the past, that are currently being lawfully implemented and on which people base their livelihoods, food and sporting pursuits.
As it stands, the Bill would allow the committee to reopen of its own volition policies that have been in place for perhaps a century, as some of our animal welfare laws have. It could make recommendations designed to undermine the use of animals in medical research, the practice of killing animals according to Jewish law and country sports, already hedged about with qualifications and reached by consensus a long time ago. We might accept that this committee, expert or not, will consider future proposals, but we cannot let it loose on the established law.
I say this not wholly as an advocate of the positions I have mentioned but as a reminder that retrospective legislation and changes of policy are to be assumed to be a bad thing. They may undermine settled patterns of life and livelihood, taking away certainty of freedom from criminal and civil prosecution. We cannot allow this committee to propose legislation to take away the validity of decisions made in the past and in good faith by people relying on the law as it was. In the case of the traditional Jewish way of killing animals for food, it has been permissible ever since the Jewish return to England some 350 years ago and it is established policy under UK regulations to permit it, as it was under EU legislation—although not that it could be relied on, as I explained in my last speech on this when I pointed out that the European Court of Justice allowed the Belgian prohibition of Jewish non-stunning methods.
As a legal situation, at common law, there is a presumption against retrospectivity. Article 7 of the Human Rights Act prohibits arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment. At common law, there is also a presumption against interference with vested interests. A leading judgment on this was in the case of Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 2003; one of the judges in that case, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, is happily still with us. The judgment explained that there is a powerful presumption against statutes changing the substantive law in relation to events in the past; this is precisely what could happen if the powers of this new committee are not curbed.
There is also a presumption against legislation affecting vested rights unless Parliament is expressly making a new start for the future. So, on the one hand, recommendations by this new committee to change existing practices would be a waste of time in that, if they were acted on, they would be contrary to the rule of law; on the other hand, the Bill would accord better with human rights and the rule of law by making it express that its actions must be confined to future policy.
I hope that this amendment will be supported by the Government; otherwise, I can see legal action looming ahead on the horizon. This also applies to Amendments 18, 21, 23 and 29, all of which I support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the conspiracy theorists among you will wonder whether the insufferable heat in this Room is a plot by me to speed up events.
Lord Benyon (Con)
However, I can assure noble Lords that that is not how I operate. I am looking forward to lengthy discussions this afternoon.
I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for his Amendment 17, with which I will take Amendments 18, 23 and 29 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. I agree that we would gain little from a committee that devotes its energies to reopening old debates. We want a committee that improves the policy decision-making and implementation process now and in future.
However, policy is not a static thing. This afternoon, we have heard descriptions of policies that go back centuries. Policy is always being reassessed, reinterpreted and, above all, implemented. It would be difficult to pin down a working definition of established policy, particularly in statute, that does not shut the committee out of a number of areas where its scrutiny would be most valuable.
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 Bellingham.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I have a quick question to ask the Minister. The cost of the committee will be very substantial indeed, with its wide-ranging remit across all government. If these amendments are passed, can he tell us exactly what would be saved in the costs of running the committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am sorry, but I did not quite hear the last part of the question. I wonder whether my noble friend could repeat it.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Yes, indeed. If these amendments are passed, they will obviously greatly restrict the remit of the committee in what I think would be a very wise manner. Can my noble friend give this Committee some indication as to what would be saved in the costs of running the committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I understand the question and apologise for missing it first time. No, I cannot give my noble friend that assurance, because the work programme and what the committee would look at will change from year to year as developing evidence about animal welfare takes it down different priority routes. The amendments would obviously quite dramatically restrict the ability of the committee to influence government policy, but I cannot put a monetary value on that. It would be part of the economic impact assessment, which would have to take place at a different stage in this process.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I have also received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I want to follow up on the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about ritual slaughter. We have been reading in the newspapers that, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will become illegal to drop lobsters into boiling water to kill them. Is that one aspect of the thinking behind what the Government are doing? If that is the case, where does it leave pigs being slaughtered? They are highly intelligent animals and with a very high sense of smell. One might say that the slaughter of pigs does serious damage to them and to their feelings. I would just like to know where the Minister stands on this.
Lord Benyon (Con)
If my noble friend is referring to the article that I read at the weekend, it was full of inaccuracies and hyperbole, which is not what this Bill is about. At a later stage in this afternoon’s proceedings, we shall move on to talk about decapods and cephalopods. In relation to the amendments concerned, if the government Minister in the future felt obliged to include some of those species within the terms of the Bill, they could be looked at by the committee, which could advise a future Minister what they could or should be doing in terms of how different animals are treated at end of life. However, my noble friend is absolutely right to point out that there are gradations in unpleasantness involved for the animal, whether it is a pig or a lobster. The point is that the Bill does not dictate how a lobster is killed at the time of cooking or how a pig is killed at the time of slaughter. This is about informing policy using experts who can guide a Minister to take the right position. But that Minister, when considering all the factors that my noble friend mentioned, can take into account other matters, such as the value of sustainably produced seafood in a diet or the importance of the rural economy or the Government’s balance of payments in terms of rearing pigs. This Bill does not affect that, and so my noble friend can be quite relaxed about his concerns.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and I am heartened that both my Amendment 17 and the other amendments in the group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howard, have received such unqualified support.
I totally understand my noble friend the Minister’s response that legislation does not stand still, and it is of course reasonable that, where the Government propose a new policy that requires changes to existing legislation, the committee or the Animal Welfare Committee might be tasked with looking at how the policy impacted on the welfare of animals, including having regard to their sentience, which any look at animal welfare automatically does anyway. Nevertheless, I find his answer unconvincing because I think that there is a real danger, especially since we know nothing about any requirements for the composition of the committee, that a huge amount of public time and public money would be spent looking at all past legislation that affects animal welfare. I worry that this would be counterproductive.
However, having heard my noble friend’s response, I will at least for now withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20.
Amendment 20
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, before speaking to my amendments, I should just say that there is a certain underwater quality to the sound, and it has been quite difficult to follow the previous group. I think that is because somebody called John Turner has not muted. There are quite a lot of people who have not muted on the call, and I think that is giving some feedback—oh, he has now. Thank you. Let us see if that improves things.
It is my pleasure to open this debate on this group of amendments—or at least those amendments that seek to improve the committee and strengthen its functions, such as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I remind all noble Lords that this was a government promise. Something has to come out of this that is positive and that the general public, who asked for this, understand as being a reasonable policy. The Minister said that expert scrutiny is needed and that policy is not static. Can we not live 100 or 500 years in the past? Can we understand that things have to move on? As he also said, animal sentience is a fast-evolving field, and we need to make sure that we are up there, aware and legislating in the right way.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who signed my Amendments 27 and 41, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. She is unable to be here for this group but she will be here later.
My Amendment 20 is the crucial one because it would toughen up the committee. I am not very welcoming of Amendments 21 and 22, which seem designed to weaken the committee into total obscurity. Why any scrutiny body would be reduced to the position of seeking permission from those it is scrutinising to actually do the scrutinising is beyond me, but then there are those who believe in the divine right of kings and see scrutiny of the Government as a bad thing.
I am very pleased that my Amendment 20 would have the opposite effect. I would like to see a strong, broad-based animal sentience committee that conducts deep analysis of all government policy to ensure that its impact on animals has been properly considered. I would much rather that the committee looked at everything in the round than sporadically look at piecemeal bits of policy. The former seems the right way to go, especially when the Bill is premised on the fact that these animals are sentient beings with the capacity to feel, perceive and experience. I have confidence that your Lordships can improve the Bill and give short shrift to the wrecking amendments that would reduce the sentience of the committee to a lump of stone. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to these amendments because I have an amendment in my name, which I will come to in a minute. First, I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, when she said that she hoped the committee would look at policy in the round. That is what we all hope. However, we all fear that it will not. We need reassurance from my noble friend the Minister to convince us. We are not conspiracy theorists; we are practitioners who wish to see this operating sensibly in the United Kingdom.
The reason for my Amendment 38 is perhaps best illustrated when we look at Amendment 46, which is also in this group and is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Hayman of Ullock. I look forward to hearing what they have to say on their amendment. I cannot detract from subsection (1) of their proposed new clause. It is quite right that, if a piece of legislation sets up a committee, that committee ought to report to Parliament to be properly scrutinised. But then we come to subsection (2), which is where I get a little concerned. First, in subsection (2)(b), the noble Baronesses propose
“an overview of the implementation of animal sentience requirements across government”.
As I read and understand this, if my noble friend the Minister is right that the animal sentience committee is all about—and I quote his words—“informing policy”, it should not be looking at the implementation of policy. That is for the Government and Ministers, having looked at whatever report comes out of the committee.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, Clause 2 sets out the manner in which the animal sentience committee reports. In particular, Clause 2(2) sets out
“whether, or to what extent, the government is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
Assuming that there is an adverse effect, subsection (4) imposes a duty on the Government to have “all due regard” to this adverse effect. Amendment 44 ensures that, in making their response to the committee’s report, the Government include what steps they are going to take to remedy this adverse effect. The primary purpose of the Bill is to advance animal welfare, and the Government are setting up this animal sentience committee to provide a critique of the Government’s policies as a way of achieving this. The committee will publish reports and the Government will respond.
Amendment 44 deals with another what and when. What happens when the committee finds that the Government have not had all due regard for the welfare of animals as sentient beings? In the case of past policy, will it be repealed or amended? In the case of present policy, will it be paused? In the case of future policy, will it be suspended? What happens when a policy is found to have been answered negatively but cannot be repealed or amended? Do the Government continue with the policy in conflict with their own committee’s report? Can the Government then be subject to a judicial review? These are important questions, and it is therefore necessary that the Government in their response go to some length in trying to satisfy them so that they can continue governing.
It is equally necessary for businesses to be made aware of any changes, so that they, too, can prepare and make appropriate changes to their actions. We know what happened when Natural England suspended general licences. We cannot experience such chaos and such tragedies again. We all agree that we must do our best to prevent unintended consequences, especially ones that harm the welfare of animals and people’s livelihoods.
In short, that is what Amendment 44 seeks to do: to ensure that any actions to be taken are properly communicated and delivered in such a way as to avoid harming the welfare of animals, and in doing so to protect the associated livelihoods of those whom the action will impact. Be under no illusion: as drafted, the powers of this committee are significant. The demands on government will be even more significant and the potential consequences may be enormous. We must therefore have answers to the why, the what and the whens before this legislation becomes law; otherwise, it will be far too late.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. I was not here—because I was at a previous engagement—when the debate was held in this Room about merging the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee. My noble friend the Minister made the point that the two committees did two different jobs and therefore there had be two different committees. That was really accepted rather too glibly. There is no reason why we should not keep one committee and give it two different jobs to do. It is a pity that we seem to be so dedicated to the spread of bureaucracy and quangos in this way, when the Government have made it clear that they do not really agree with that.
However, let us leave that and move on to the fact that there is obviously potential for conflict between the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Caithness. We have to do everything we can to avoid that and ensure that they work together—not in opposition to each other, which seems highly likely knowing the way that Whitehall works. I therefore sincerely hope that my noble friend the Minister will look hard at this amendment, because it has great value.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Caithness that the committee should look at policy in the round, I regret that I cannot support Amendment 20 in her name and that of my noble friend Lady Fookes. I also strongly support the objective of my noble friends Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Hamilton of Epsom in their Amendment 2, previously debated, that the duties of the animal sentience committee could better be given to the existing Animal Welfare Committee.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said on 6 July:
“It feels as if this is just a bit of window dressing, a bit of virtue-signalling, which is actually going to create great problems for the Government.”
My noble friend the Minister told the Committee that the Government
“want the animal sentience committee and the Animal Welfare Committee to have a constructive relationship, but it is not quite as simple as saying that we could hand over the ASC’s responsibilities to the AWC with no legal powers to back them up.”
That would of course have been far better.
I have the highest regard for my noble friend Lord Benyon, but I found his explanation as to why we need two committees completely unconvincing. It is a disproportionate and unnecessary response to the Government’s manifesto commitment. Those animal rights activists who support the Bill claim that the public want it. If you tell the man or woman on the street that there is an Animal Welfare Committee already and ask if he or she thinks we should have a second committee, you will get a different answer. My noble friend said:
“It is important to remember that the two committees have distinct roles. The Animal Welfare Committee exists to provide advice to Defra and the devolved Administrations, whereas we are establishing the animal sentience committee to scrutinise policy decision-making across the whole of government. Any relationship between the two would need to support these two distinct functions.”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; cols. GC 337-8.]
I do not think these functions are distinct in any way. Without exception, noble Lords who spoke on 6 July asked him to come back with at least some definition of the committee on Report.
I also support Amendment 16, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, which stated that the new requirements to consider animals as sentient beings in the formulation of policy should be limited to those areas covered by Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty. UK Parliaments have recognised the sentience of animals since the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822, and our animal welfare standards go far beyond what we were required to do under EU law. If the Government really think that they must establish a new quango of such dubious merit and opaque purpose, the four amendments in this group will at least restrict that quango’s activities to examining new policies under consideration rather than opening up the entire existing statute book to reconsideration at great expense.
Although I was unable to speak in the earlier debate, let me say that I also support Amendment 31, which would provide exceptions for religious rites and cultural traditions. Without that, a large part of Japanese cuisine —to which I am partial, having lived in that country for many years—would probably be deemed illegal.
I have added my name to Amendments 21 and 22 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. Amendment 21 could have been grouped with amendments that we have debated previously, which also sought to prohibit the committee reporting on established government policy. Amendment 22 would require the committee to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before committing taxpayers’ funds.
I cannot support Amendments 27 and 41, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because they assume that the committee’s answer to the question is binary—that is, yes or no. The existing draft at least raises the question of the extent to which the Government are having due regard to animal welfare in the formulation of policy. Surely this is an instance where the proportionality principle should be applied.
I strongly support Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. If we must have two overlapping committees, at least the animal sentience committee should consult the Animal Welfare Committee and publish a note explaining its opinion on any report.
In Amendment 44, my noble friend Lord Mancroft seeks to find out what the Government might do in cases where the committee finds that they have not had due regard to the animal welfare consequences of any policy. Earlier, we debated the incorrect assumption of the Bill that any effect would be adverse. Obviously, any policy designed to make it easier for gamekeepers to cull predators has positive effects for the prey of those predators. I support my noble friend and look forward to the answer from my noble friend the Minister on this question.
I cannot support Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because subsection 2(b) of the proposed new clause makes it clear that she intends that the committee’s remit should extend across government, whereas I believe that it should be limited to those areas that were previously covered by Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty, as I mentioned. Furthermore, the amendment raises the question of the other activities that the committee may have undertaken during any financial year.
There seems to be no limit to the scope and remit of the Bill. Unless it is appropriately restricted, the committee will need huge resources.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 27 and 41, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fookes; they also carry my name.
These two amendments are linked. Amendment 27 asks the animal sentience committee to answer the question asked in Clause 2(2)
“in the affirmative, or … in the negative.”
For example, if the animal sentience committee states that the Government have had all due regard to animal welfare in the formulation and implementation of policy, Amendment 41 would remove the requirement in Clause 3(1) for the Secretary of State to lay a response before Parliament. This seems to be a common-sense reduction in the obligation of the Secretary of State while retaining the fact that the report of the animal sentience committee, whatever it concludes, remains a matter of public record. It removes the burden of work on the Secretary of State.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trees. This group of amendments is varied and I am grateful for the various briefings I have received, particularly from the Better Deal for Animals coalition. I am disappointed that some Peers taking part today are asking the Minister questions which he already provided full answers to on the first day in Committee.
Amendment 21 restricts the work of the animal sentience committee to impending policy and prevents it reviewing existing policy, even though there may be evidence that a review is necessary. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard: I am not sure why this amendment was not included in the previous group. Amendment 22 requires the ASC to obtain consent from the Secretary of State before beginning to construct the report on its work. The noble Viscount spoke to these two amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has introduced Amendments 20, 27 and 41, which deal with ensuring that a report is produced by the ASC and that it should declare whether it is to be answered through the affirmative or negative procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has supported these amendments, as do we.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has introduced Amendment 38, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. Again, this introduces more bureaucracy into the workings of the ASC by insisting that it consults the Animal Welfare Committee. While these two committees are complementary and should share information in order for both of them to be effective, I do not believe that making it a requirement that the view of the Animal Welfare Committee should be published in all the reports of the ASC is necessary. It may well be desirable and happen as a matter of course, but making it a legal requirement in the Bill is unnecessarily bureaucratic.
I also do not feel it necessary to include Amendment 44, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The animal sentience committee is there to provide additional evidence to inform policy rather than directing policy itself. The Minister will decide whether they wish to take notice of this, and it is therefore unnecessary to put it into the Bill. Whether the Minister should have a duty to take notice of the advice is another matter, but attempting to prove whether the advice has been adhered to is not currently a requirement of the Bill. There are examples of other countries’ animal welfare legislation which offer advice: the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission; New Zealand’s National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and its National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee; and the Dutch Council on Animal Affairs. All these bodies offer advice which their respective Governments may consider when forming policy; they do not direct policy themselves.
I put my name down on this group to be able to speak in favour of Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Hayman of Ullock. For animal charities and the public to have confidence in the work of the ASC, a published annual report on its work will be necessary. Transparency, rather than bureaucracy, is essential.
We have seen through the first day of debate in Committee that there is some considerable opposition not only to setting up the animal sentience committee but to the way in which it will go about its work, and the groups of animals that it can consider. The Bill currently limits the animal groups to vertebrates, which is very wide. We will return to whether this should be widened in the last group of amendments this afternoon. On the first day in Committee, several Peers wanted to limit the group of animals to be covered by certain activities such as agriculture, transport or space, with others wanting to exclude the words “sentient beings”.
Given the level of unease around the Bill and the setting-up of the committee and its work, it is essential that a report of its deliberations and advice given to the Minister should be published annually. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has also spoken in favour of a published report. As I have indicated, transparency is very important, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In this group, I support Amendment 46 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, to which I have added my name. This is a fairly straightforward amendment designed to enable the animal sentience committee to submit annual reports to both Houses of Parliament. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their support. The amendment would ensure transparency and oversight of the work of the committee.
Coming to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—I thank him for his introduction to his amendment—he referred to the three points in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in our Amendment 46. The first is
“a statement of the policies on which the Committee has reported”,
which I cannot imagine anyone would object to, as we need to know what the committee has been looking at. Then there is
“an overview of the implementation of animal sentience requirements”,
which is the part the noble Earl raised.
The reason for this provision is that I have often seen in pieces of animal welfare legislation, covering wildlife crime, for example, that legislation is brought forward in good faith but then not enacted. It does not get enforced and is not implemented properly. Often, that legislation does not work to deliver what it was designed to deliver. We want to have oversight of that and to ensure that other government departments co-operate with the committee in the way that is expected. That is the purpose behind it and I hope I have explained it to the noble Earl. Lastly, there is
“a statement of the other activities”.
I am aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, took exception to that, but we think it is important that we get proper oversight of everything that the committee is currently expected to look at.
Just before I finish on these, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, introduced his Amendment 38. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that it could bring in unnecessary bureaucracy. However, there are clearly important questions that he has asked the Minister to consider.
I support Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fookes, which would provide that the committee “must” produce a report when any government policy is formulated or implemented. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we need a strong, broad-based committee that looks at everything in the round. We have talked about this before: the remit and the focus are of such importance that we all know exactly what is expected from the committee once it starts working.
I also support Amendments 27 and 41, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I thank the noble Lord for introducing that amendment clearly. Again, this is all about proper reporting, which will be critical.
On Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that this does not necessarily need to be in the Bill. But in introducing his amendment, the noble Lord asked some important questions that need to be considered as we move forward.
Finally, Amendments 21 and 22, tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Etherton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, were introduced today by the noble Viscount. We believe that these amendments are unhelpful. Amendment 21 amounts to a significant weakening of the animal sentience committee because of the way it restricts the committee’s work. By not being able to report on existing government policy, it rows back from the original vision of a body that is free to consider sentience questions right across the range of government policy. I know a number of noble Lords do not think this is necessary, but we think it is very important.
We also think it is important that the initial vision is retained in the Bill so that the animal sentience committee can make a positive contribution to policy-making. It can best do that as a public body that provides expert input to inform complex policy questions that touch on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. As we and the Minister have said, this is not about the committee making policy; it is about the committee informing, answering questions, passing comment and being there as a critical friend, if you like, for policy decision-making in this area.
If we erect arbitrary barriers to that expert advice, it will impoverish the policy process. We should not make laws that prevent Ministers accessing knowledge that could improve their decision-making. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, mentioned the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which we know is carrying out this important work. It is an interesting example of what could be achieved if we move forward with the Bill as proposed. As the Minister said on the first day of Committee:
“In our manifesto, this Government as a whole committed to the introduction of new laws on sentience, with no suggestion of carve-outs or exemptions.”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 288.]
We strongly support him in that ambition.
As we heard, Amendment 22 would require permission to be received from the Defra Secretary of State before a report could be prepared. We believe this would also significantly weaken the committee and reduce it from being a body that is free to consider sentience questions across government policy to basically a Defra scrutiny committee, which would then scrutinise only with the Secretary of State’s permission. We therefore cannot support the amendment.
This has been a really interesting discussion on this group. It has been good to hear all the different contributions from noble Lords. I now look forward to hearing the Minister’s contribution.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely agree: this has been a really interesting discussion.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her Amendment 20, which would place a legal duty to publish reports on the animal sentience committee. This Bill makes provision to empower the committee to scrutinise Ministers’ policy formulation and implementation decisions with a view to publishing reports containing its views on whether Ministers have paid “all due regard” to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings. When the committee publishes a report, this will trigger the accountability mechanism to ensure Ministers respond formally to Parliament. The committee will be able to issue reports on central government policy decisions, without exception. This includes past policies as well as policies in the process of being formulated.
Naturally, the committee will not be able to scrutinise every single policy-making decision. This would be an impossible undertaking for a single committee, so we will support the committee to identify and prioritise areas where it can have the most important impact. I am sure your Lordships would agree that the committee should focus on policies where it can add the most value.
As the experts, it is ultimately for the committee to decide how best to use its time. We therefore do not want to prescribe what it must do any further in statute, beyond the powers given to the committee in the Bill. We want to give the committee flexibility to work in a way that best suits its priorities. For example, the committee may decide to issue advice and input as a policy is being formulated. We will support the committee in identifying opportunities for this. I assure the noble Baroness that the committee will have a work plan that will be made publicly available. We think it best for the committee, as the experts, to decide what it chooses to look at.
We will, of course, work closely with the committee, which will have a dedicated secretariat to support its work. We want to ensure that the committee is appropriately resourced with sufficient membership and administrative support to make an impact and scrutinise the most important decisions but is not so large as to become unmanageable or overbearing. Your Lordships tried to pin me down on this when the Committee last met. I am happy to give a little more clarification. As has been said, your Lordships can look at the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, with its 12 members and a proportionate dedicated secretariat, as a rough indication of the scale that we are looking at.
I offer my reassurances to the noble Baroness that it is very much intended that the committee will publish reports on how Ministers have paid “all due regard” to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings. This will be a key tool in embedding consideration of animal welfare into the policy decision-making process.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I am moved to intervene briefly because the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said that the people want it—I think I quote her exactly. I think the people want animals to be well treated; I think that everyone in this Room wants them to be well treated, and we have pretty good legislation that already protects animals, both domestic and wild, from unnecessary cruelty and ill treatment. However, in my 23 years in the House of Commons—I know that the noble Baroness represented people in the London Assembly—I can certainly say that nobody mentioned animal sentience. They mentioned lots of animal welfare issues, but nobody mentioned animal sentience. I think they were about as concerned about animal sentience as about the divine right of kings, which the noble Baroness also mentioned. Although the noble Baroness cannot intervene, perhaps my noble friend the Minister might say how many people came to him when he was an MP and said they wanted an animal sentience Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will explain why. My noble friend was—as the previous Speaker used to say—a great denizen of the House of Commons for many years, as he rightly reminds us. But, sadly, he was not there when the Government of the day decided, for reasons that have always been slightly obscure to me, not to include the provisions of Article 13 in the legislation that took us out of the European Union. Those of us who were there found a tsunami of emails and letters from people who may not have understood the most detailed aspects of animal sentience but were very concerned that the Government were not reflecting their views. This resulted in rather a lot of mid-air turbulence in trying to get to this point. Without baring the soul of the discussions over that time, I respectfully correct my noble friend to say that this was something people were very concerned about in the much wider sense of where animal sentience and animal welfare combine.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Perhaps my noble friend might list the constituents who wrote to him.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very full reply. He did comment on my amendment; I will have to read what he said in the Official Report, but towards the end, he said quite rightly that the remit of the animal sentience committee was across Whitehall. That includes the devolved Administrations. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission was set up specifically to look at how the welfare needs of sentient animals are being met by devolved policy. I am now unclear—perhaps my noble friend could help me—about how much of sentience is devolved and what exactly the committee will be able to do in the devolved countries. Will it be able to go to the Scotland Office and thus up to Holyrood, look at its policy and tell Scotland that it has to change its ways? I am not quite certain how this will work in practice. As this is Committee, it is an ideal time for my noble friend to explain the Bill a bit more to us.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, and I hope to be able to reassure him. The job of the animal sentience committee will not be to walk into Holyrood and instruct our friends in Scotland how they should deal with animal sentience. It is a committee based around the UK Government that, as he rightly says, covers Scotland, but these matters are devolved issues—animal welfare is a devolved issue. But, on these small islands, it would be absurd if we were not working closely across borders with the devolved Administrations to make sure that our animal welfare laws broadly align. We have livestock bred in one country and slaughtered in another, or bred in one country and fattened in another. We have other activities, such as fishing and all forms of animal welfare, which require a cross-border understanding.
The Animal Welfare Committee’s remit is right across the country. The animal sentience committee will be restricted to the UK Government and will work with the devolved Administrations to make sure that the policies it is commenting on are properly managed in respect of the department to which it is making its report.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I think that I may be interrupted by a vote at some point so I will try to be quick, although I might not be.
I thank the Minister for his comments; I will read them in Hansard to make sure that I have understood fully where our interests overlap and where there is any divergence. I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I listened carefully to everybody. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Mancroft, care deeply about these issues. Their views are valuable, but I found them quite repetitive. We have heard all this before. We have been told that the two committees will not clash and will have particular remits that will be extremely clear. I think that we perhaps underestimate the interest of both committees in terms of being able to understand where they might work together and where they absolutely must not because it is not relevant, so I do not have the same fears about any sort of overlapping.
I am happy that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, agree with the concept of policy in the round. The minute they started agreeing with me, I started to wonder whether I did not know what I was talking about, but I will look into that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is trying to tie the hands of the animal sentience committee. I just do not think that that is appropriate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned animal rights activists. This term has been thrown at me since we did round one of this Bill; perhaps he can tell me what he thinks he means by it in reference to me. He can always send me a private email if he would prefer.
I offer a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his comments and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, for their support, which is incredibly valuable. They both made an excellent summary —much better than I did. I thank them for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about the committee being a critical friend, which is incredibly valuable and something that the Government do not have enough of. I would argue that your Lordships’ House is a critical friend, but we do not always have the same opportunities to support the Government when they change their mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, talked about the tsunami of people who wanted us to put animal sentience back into legislation. Of course, most people probably had not used that term before, but they certainly had once the Government had taken it out of the EU legislation that they moved over—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Baroness but I must adjourn the Committee for five minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee is resumed and I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
Finally, I thank the Minister for his simple explanation of how the two committees will work. That is incredibly useful, and I hope that it calms the fears of the noble Lords who have worried about that during the course of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 28.
Amendment 28
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure the academic robustness of the Committee’s work.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 28, which is supported by my noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and Amendment 42, which is linked. The purpose of these amendments is to require that any report of the animal sentience committee be peer-reviewed academically before publication and, connected to that, that the period for the Minister to respond to any such report be not three months after it is published, but three months after it is published in the said peer-reviewed journals. The second amendment is tidying up and consequential.
Science is at the heart of the Bill. Every proponent and supporter of it would agree that the claims for animal sentience must be scientific, not merely a sort of infantile anthropomorphism. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Inglewood said rather tellingly, and rightly I thought, that Bambi was an illusion. If our approach to animal sentience is simply that animals feel and look nice—what I would call Bambi-ism—then the whole Bill is pointless. The Bill has to rest on a proper scientific basis. I thought it was worth having a few moments while we are in Committee to discuss some things about the science of animal sentience because they have not as yet been debated. These amendments give an opportunity to do that and a rationale for them as well.
When we met a couple of weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, pushed back against any suggestion that there was no science behind animal welfare. Before she becomes too worried or excited, I am going to agree with her on this: there is indeed science behind it. She cited courses in animal welfare at the University of Glasgow and the University of Winchester and the Royal Veterinary College’s animal welfare science and ethics group, which specifically researches in the field of animal welfare, animal behaviour, veterinary ethics and law. What is notable and revealing about that list—as I say, I agree with everything the noble Baroness said, as a matter of fact and a matter of opinion on this point—is that nowhere in it is animal sentience.
It might be easily thought by the Committee that “Ah, you see, animal behaviour generally must include sentience” and so forth, and that it must be all wrapped up in there, but there is a genuine conflict between animal behaviourism and animal sentience as a scientific methodology. If one goes back, in the great part of the 20th century, studies of animals and animal welfare were based on behaviourism—the study of behaviour. So if you apply a stimulus, the animal reacts in a certain way; if that is repeated in other cases and experiments, you begin to establish a body of knowledge about the behaviour of animals. That scientific approach specifically eschewed trying to delve into what was happening in the animal’s mind, so to speak, because there is almost no scientific way in which one can establish that. It dealt with the epiphenomena of behaviour in trying to understand how to deal with animals and how to do so in a kind and humane fashion.
The origins of animal sentience science come much later. At Second Reading I mentioned the work of Professor Peter Singer and his seminal book Animal Liberation, published in 1975. I remind noble Lords that when a young man, Professor Singer was suddenly converted to vegetarianism and then, as a professional philosopher, later wrote a book trying to justify the choice he had made. At the root of this was the concept that what animals and humans had in common was sentience. It is not surprising that studies of animal sentience science as a discipline originated in that last quarter of the 20th century, but it is at odds with the traditional and established behavioural approach, which has not been abandoned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, illustrated when she listed the subjects of study there.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. It brings us back to the concern expressed on previous amendments about the committee’s composition—that people who feel very strongly about this will not necessarily share the broad spectrum of views on this whole issue. I have nothing against people being vegetarians or vegans but the reason why they are is because they cannot bear the thought of animals being killed to feed human beings. If we were to have a significant number of vegetarians and vegans on this committee, it might start producing rather strange judgments about animal sentience.
My noble friend Lord Moylan is absolutely right to express concern about this. This committee will have enormous power and its composition will be critical to the judgments it will come out with; that is why it is very important that it gets subjected to peer review and that others can comment about the judgments made by it. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will say that he is determined to set this committee up in a way in which it is sensibly and broadly based and reflects all people who might have an interest in this matter, but of course it will be set up by statute and I have no doubt that subsequent Governments might have different views about its composition. That is why I think that we need some form of academic peer review so that this can be subjected to expert opinion from outside and have a bit more balance in some of its judgments. I support this amendment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 28 and 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan; I have added my name to Amendment 28. As my noble friend pointed out in his impressive speech at Second Reading, and again today, our animal welfare legislation to date has not been based on any animals rights deriving from our recognition of their sentience; it has been based on our moral obligations as rational human beings endowed with conscience. I agree with my noble friend that the scientific basis for the recognition of sentience needs to be examined. I do not believe that sentience is something that one species has and another does not. I am sure that all forms of life possess a degree of sentience—perhaps even trees and plants. It is not the reason why we should look after animals well.
This Bill could become a Trojan horse and be used by activist groups to attack proper wildlife management, farming and the economic well-being and way of life of our rural communities. Throughout my life, I have noticed that those who genuinely care for wildlife are often the same people who engage in country pursuits and field sports. They are often the people who understand animals, birds and fish better than most. They are prominent among people who perform acts of kindness towards animals and are most determined to spare animals suffering. I worry that the Bill will be used against them and that our rich and diverse wildlife will suffer.
These amendments will ensure that the committee’s work is underpinned by robust academic findings. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that the Government will accept them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, has withdrawn so I call the noble Lord, Lord Benyon.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his Amendments 28 and 42. Members of the animal sentience committee will be appointed through a rigorous procedure of fair and open competition. As I have said previously, the committee will be comprised of experts who will be best placed to decide what the committee’s priorities should be, although they will of course be able to consult others.
Peer-reviewed evidence from academic journals will have a role in informing the committee’s work. While we do not propose to dictate to the committee how it should set out its reports, it is usual for expert committees such as this to present well-reasoned reports that show their working. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, for example, publishes its reports online and includes its reasoning and references. However, I do not believe that it is necessary for the committee’s reports themselves to be published in academic journals. To require the committee’s recommendations to undergo a full academic peer-review process would be impractical and inappropriate, and would risk creating a process that would slow down the publication of the committee’s views and delay the opportunity for Parliament to hold Ministers to account.
It is key that the committee should be able to advise on policies while they are being developed. This amendment would severely compromise its role. The committee will publish reports, so it will naturally have an open way of working. I believe that this will provide transparency about its work. If a Minister felt that a report of the committee identified a need for further evidence or assessment, they would be free to highlight this in their response to the report.
Nothing would please me more than to spend time talking about the philosophy behind what we are talking about. We could even, if we had time, discuss Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, in which he said that animals possess life
“nobler than any merely corporeal grade of being”.
However, in terms of how we approach this Bill, the definition of sentience is important. Our scientific understanding of sentience has come a long way in recent years and will continue to evolve. The Bill does not therefore have a fixed definition of sentience. It is not necessary to define sentience in statute for this Bill to work. We can all recognise that animals are sentient and that their welfare should be considered in decision-making; there is no need to make it more complicated than that.
Our GB-wide Farm Animal Welfare Committee issued a definition of sentience in 2019. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission recently published a statement on sentience. There are some differences; this shows the importance of adopting a flexible approach that can evolve. It is worth noting that neither definition is set out in statute. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s definition is one that it has adopted for its own purposes; similarly, if the animal sentience committee considers it expedient to adopt a working definition of sentience, it would of course be free to do so, but that is a discussion for its members to have.
I hope that this reassures my noble friend and that he will withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I just want to refer to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. He said that he hoped that vegans and vegetarians will not be on the committee as they might sway its decisions. Can the Minister confirm that the appointment of members to the committee will not be prejudiced against those of religious persuasions or other protected characteristics?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee stands adjourned for five minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, it is time to resume. Perhaps the Minister might like to say a word in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It would not be our intention to edit the committee’s membership by their eating habits or by any other habits or disciplines. We want a balanced committee that draws together a wide range of expertise across the whole field of animal welfare.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for contributing to the debate. I reiterate the point that the science that underlies animal sentience is of crucial importance to the Bill and deserves further debate, which may come at a future stage in the Bill. To be absolutely clear on my own position in case it was not, I am not saying that there is no such thing as animal sentience science—I believe there is such a branch of science—but I am saying that it is a relatively new, relatively specialist and slightly political branch of science. It needs the buttressing of peer review.
In that regard, I was disappointed by the response of my noble friend the Minister. He said that the Government did not want to dictate to committees such as this because they usually did well-reasoned reports. I thought “usually” was interesting. I quite understand that the Minister does not appear to want to dictate to committees that do badly reasoned reports; he wants to stand aloof from good research, from good reason and from bad reason alike. But that is not a very good basis for carrying the public with you. When this committee comes into existence and produces its reports, I think that much of what it says will be met by the challenge, “Well, that’s not really science anyway.”
It is slightly remarkable that, given the opportunity by these modest amendments to rebut that challenge and say, “No, this is science at the cutting edge. It is the best science we have and we know that because we have ensured that it is properly peer-reviewed”, the Government have turned away in distain and said that they would rather have uncertain science and not have any checks on what the committee is going to do. I am sure that, if they reflect, they will think that that is not really a sustainable or credible position. For the moment, to allow them time to reflect, I am happy to see my amendment withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 35A.
Amendment 35A
The Earl of Caithness
“(4A) Recommendations under subsection (3) must not be detrimental to—(a) conservation,(b) biodiversity,(c) crop protection, or(d) human health.”
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, this amendment came to me when we were discussing the Environment Bill last week. I know that it is not drafted as well as it should be; I apologise to the Committee for that. I say to my noble friend the Minister, “Forget about the drafting. It is the principle of what I am trying to get at that is important here”.
Most of our conservation work to improve our biodiversity and wealth of species has been habitat-based. It has not been very successful because when we were in the European Union, and since our exit, the Government have not focused on the critical issue of management. Management requires human decision. There are some fairly easy examples to make about species and how people will react to them, but when you look at pests, people’s opinions start to vary and that perception could be translated into legislation. That is my concern here. Take deer, for instance. You can have lots of photographs and everybody will look at Bambi and ooh and ah, but deer are a pest that need to be controlled. We discussed this in the Environment Bill and there seemed to be unanimity there. It would be an easy species for a committee to make an emotional, rather than scientific, decision on.
One can get into more questionable species. What about rats and wasps? If you analyse what people think about them, they have less feeling for them and are much more prepared to allow proper pest control of those species than they are of some others. That is why local authorities have pest divisions that deal with wasps—I have had to use them—mice and rats. What about bedbugs? Until recently, they were fairly common in this country, and in lots of places they are sadly still common. People’s perception of a bedbug is not the same as their perception of deer or seals. We need to have a scientific basis on which to approach this matter.
We could turn to brown hares. Brown hares are on our biodiversity action plan and are rated an important species but, at certain times of the year, in certain parts of the UK, the hare is a pest, and there needs to be the ability to control it. The ability to control pests in the most humane manner possible was a great omission from the badger Act, and we are paying the price for that with the increasing amount of predation of ground-nesting birds by badgers. We have seen it with lapwings and curlews. I have given examples in the environment committee of the destruction of lapwing at the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust farm up in Aberdeenshire, where the badgers have actually been photographed destroying the nests and reducing species as a result.
During debates on the Environment Bill, we came across the conservation covenants. These will be an important part of the Government’s policy on improving our biodiversity and species number, but, again, action needs to be taken with management in view, not just the habitat.
So, what I am getting at with this amendment is whether the Minister, when he gives the brief to this Committee, will include management and pest control as an important aspect for the animal sentience committee to take into account so that the policies it comments on and the position it urges the Government to take do not contradict with the Government’s well-intentioned position on conservation, biodiversity, crop production and human health.
I have talked mostly about conservation and biodiversity, but I would like to give an example that was raised during the debate on the Environment Bill by my noble friend Lord Lucas, again on deer. It was about a wood that the RSPB looked after in Dorset. The RSPB got round the problem of the deer by fencing that bit of wood so that the deer were no longer a problem. However, that forced the deer on to the neighbour’s land —this is pretty bad management—and the devastation of the crops growing on the adjacent farmland was much more intense because the deer were not allowed into that bit of woodland.
As usual, there is a balance to be struck in all this. I hope that my noble friend will be able to make some comments on this. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity given by my noble friend Lord Caithness in moving his Amendment 35A to probe my noble friend the Minister and the Government a little bit more on the cross-departmental responsibilities of the animal sentience committee. I also want to explore what the relationship will be within Defra and the relationship between existing legislation and soon-to-be legislation in the form of the Agriculture Act and the Environment Bill, the latter of which my noble friend Lord Caithness referred to. We spent some time in the first day of Committee on the amendments looking at pests—particularly deer, badgers, bats, grey squirrels and insects—and sentience. It begs the question: are insects to be treated as sentient beings within the remit of this Bill?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for his Amendment 35A, which seeks to ensure that the animal sentience committee’s recommendations are not detrimental to conservation, biodiversity and other matters. The House has been clear that the committee should not usurp or encroach on the role of Ministers to formulate and implement policies in the public interest. It is, and will remain, for Ministers to decide policy and for Parliament to hold us to account. If the promotion of animal welfare is ever not fully compatible with other important goals, it is for us—not a committee—to determine the best course of action.
I agree entirely with my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lady McIntosh of Pickering. They are right to state their concerns about the anthropomorphisation—I think that is the right word but I am not sure; I look to the noble Lord, Lord Trees—of species. We make gradations of cuteness in our own minds. We look at a deer and compare it to a rat; we often do not mind very much what happens to the rat but mind when it is the deer, when the latter may be more of a pest in terms of conservation and biodiversity. As one person lecturing me on forestry when I was studying land management said, “Remember”—he was referring to grey squirrels—“it is not the squirrel’s fault that it is a pain in the backside”. His point was well made. Even allegedly non-interventionist activities, such as rewilding, actually require enormous amounts of interventionism when it comes to animal welfare. If you go to Knepp, that estate still has cattle, horses and pigs to manage, so there are animal welfare considerations.
However, I reiterate that the animal sentience committee is not there to make recommendations about how Ministers should decide what policy should be. The purpose of its recommendations is to highlight certain effects on which it has the expertise to assess, so that Ministers can understand those effects better. The committee’s members will be well aware that Ministers have myriad other important factors to consider when reaching their decisions—I hope this addresses my noble friend’s point—and that their recommendations are likely to relate to one of a number of important considerations that Ministers will want to take account of.
I fear that directing the committee to prejudge recommendations based on factors other than animal welfare would risk undermining the clear distinction we have drawn and force it to assess matters beyond its expertise. It bears repeating that, rather than being some sort of power-grabbing cabal, this will be a committee of experienced scientists, veterinarians and other experts. These will be level-headed, thoughtful people who are unlikely to wish to advise on matters beyond their remit.
There is also a real opportunity for the committee to add value to the policy-making process. I know that some of your Lordships fear that we will be told we must sacrifice important human needs, such as crop protection, to animals. Instead, the committee will help policymakers to reach intelligent solutions which allow us to advance human interests in ways that are compatible with the welfare needs of animals. I say to my noble friend that we both want to see the committee make suggestions on how well the welfare needs of animals have been taken into account in policy decisions. But I reiterate that it is for Ministers, not the committee, to decide how animal welfare itself should be balanced against other matters of interest, such as conservation and biodiversity.
To be specific on whether the Bill will interfere with pest control, the answer is no. Pest control is highly regulated. Rules ensure that the trapping and killing of vermin is humane, using permitted methods. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that we are talking about vertebrates here. A vertebrate is an animal with a spine: mammals such as dogs, cats and cows; birds; reptiles; and amphibians, such as frogs and toads. Vertebrates do not include decapods and cephalopods —we might come to that later—arachnids, insects and myriapods. With those assurances in mind, I hope that my noble friend Lord Caithness will be content to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Moylan. I call the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned the predation of badgers, which of course do not come under pest control; they are protected. He did not mention that badgers very much like eating hedgehogs. They are skilled at rolling them over and disembowelling them. When we worry about the decline in hedgehog numbers, very rarely does anybody mention that perhaps badgers are responsible for this.
Another protected species is the sparrowhawk. If you shoot a sparrowhawk you get fined £1,000 because all hawks are protected, but 34 songbirds every week account for their diet. We have to bear in mind that in nature, almost all species are predated on by others. We just want to get all this into perspective.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I would be going down a very dangerous path if I moved on to cats and how many songbirds they account for, and would probably find this getting out of hand, but my noble friend is absolutely right. What we seek to achieve through not just animal welfare provision but other legislation and regulation is a balanced countryside. We do not get it right; we are suffering a cataclysmic decline in species, which means that our children and grandchildren will not see the species that we have perhaps relied on seeing regularly. That is a tragedy that we are seeking to reverse through a variety of other policies. At the same time, when it comes to pest control, we can do it as humanely as possible, and we can have management techniques that protect both species and landscapes. It is not an exact science and it will be got wrong at certain times, but, by and large, I think there is a great unity of purpose in trying to reverse these tragic declines in species.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, given our discussion at our earlier session two weeks ago about the composition of the committee, I was struck by the Minister’s certainty that he could describe the members of the committee in such paradigmatic terms. I cannot recall his exact words—I will look at them in Hansard—but he said that the members of the committee would be knowledgeable, balanced, cautious, restrained and unwilling to rush into areas where they were not wanted. This must narrow the number of people who would qualify to sit on the committee to the point where I suspect the Minister must have a list of names already. If he has not, or is not willing to disclose it, is he at least willing to assure us that, when the public appointment process is launched and the person description drafted, the words that he has used now will be carried over verbatim into the person description for the applicants so that we get exactly who he appears to be promising us?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very worried about my noble friend. He appears to have a very jaundiced view of human nature. There are a great many people with those skills whom we meet every day, whether we are having our dog treated at the vets or talking to farmers or discussing wider policy areas in this field. I hope I can prove to him that his glass should be half full on this; we will find the right people.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate, in particular my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her helpful contribution. When my noble friend Lord Hamilton intervened, I too immediately thought of cats and the very good debate on cats that we had before my noble friend the Minister joined the House, when the wonderful work and research done by SongBird Survival was referred to, because of the millions of birds that cats take every year.
I listened with care to what my noble friend the Minister said and was heartened by a lot of it. If what he said works in practice, I think that a lot of our concerns will evaporate. My fear is that when he goes and the Ministers change, the committee will undoubtedly change too, and then the trouble will begin. That will be a few years down the road; I do not wish my noble friend to leave his position any time in the next four years or even thereafter, because this committee will be too important.
I am grateful for what my noble friend said. I shall read it. He was absolutely right that this is not an exact science; it is not, but I fear that we have spent too much effort on habitats and not enough on management. Therefore, the problem has been exacerbated. I hope that, with my noble friend’s experience and knowledge, Defra will spend more time on management than it has in the past, because it is only through management combined with habitats, species and the right amounts of food given at the right times of year that we will be able to increase the biodiversity of this country, which has suffered in the recent past. I am happy at this stage to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 48.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the application of the Bill to mammals.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, there are four amendments in this group in my name, Amendments 48, 52, 53 and 57. I will come in a moment to say exactly what they would do, but I shall make some preliminary remarks that arise from something my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said and which has not been sufficiently discussed. This is the famous metaphysical bit that the Minister has been worried about, although I hope to get through this while skirting Descartes—or anybody difficult or foreign, for that matter.
The difficulty we have is that we are asked to assess to what extent, in a meaningful way, we think that animals can feel pain. That requires us to think a little about what pain and feeling are. My noble friend Lady McIntosh brought up insects as an example of this, but it relates to other creatures as well. Pain itself, of course, is not just an interior experience; it is, to some extent, a social concept. Pain is an abnormality, but we learn from others that it is an abnormality that is expressive of something that requires a response. So, we learn as children, “Don’t put your hands on the coal. If you do put your hands on the coal, that is what we call pain; learn not to do it again.” There is a social element to it, and it is not by any means clear that that can be translated to animal experience. This is the problem of operating on a non-behavioural scientific basis.
We humans also have coping strategies for dealing with pain. When I know I am going to have an injection in my arm, I always make sure that I look the other way; that is a very small example of a coping strategy. That illustrates another thing about the human experience of pain, which is that very often it is worse in anticipation than in the experience itself. All of this is tied up with what we understand by pain: for humans, it is not simply a neurological experience that can be tracked by chemicals and electrons, although it has all those aspects to it.
It is very difficult to know how one can map that across the bulk of animals. It is easiest to do so, of course, in the case of mammals, because there we have a closer link with ourselves in terms of DNA composition and so forth. To map it to fish and birds is extremely difficult. Indeed, it is scientifically quite challenging to understand how the very limited neural capacity, or brain capacity, of fish and birds could accommodate that range of complex experiences of pain characteristic of humans and, perhaps, of primates and other higher mammals.
There is also a similar question about what it is to feel something. In ordinary English, “feel” has two aspects: I can feel a table—that is a physical sensation—but I can also feel love, disdain and other emotions. Nobody doubts at all that the vertebrates we are discussing can feel in the former sense but, simply as a matter of their neural and brain capacity, the notion that they even have the ability to feel love, affection, fear and complex emotions such as those is a very challenging one.
We really need to understand that sort of background before we do what the Bill does, which is to cast an extremely wide net. It includes all vertebrates, but it goes beyond that: it gives the Secretary of State the power, which I think is completely unprecedented, to decide that any invertebrate, including the insects referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, are in fact sentient. That is the power given to him which, as I say, is almost incredible.
I turn to the detail of what my amendments seek to do. They would cut the thing in different ways. First, Amendment 48 suggests we “leave out ‘vertebrate’” and limit the scope of the Bill to mammals. This would make it much easier for the public, and for many members of this Committee and your Lordships’ House, to accept the Bill. It could be regarded as a first stage; there would be nothing to prevent the Government coming back subsequently and saying, “Having won over opinion on the question of mammals, we could now extend it to the broader class of vertebrates.” Amendment 52 explicitly invites the removal of fish—it is playing the same tune—and Amendment 53 proposes the removal of birds. These are all different ways of coming at the same thing.
Amendment 57 is slightly different, because I still cannot get over my outrage that Parliament is proposing to give the Secretary of State the power to designate any invertebrate as sentient. Here, simply for the sake of modesty and respectability, this amendment would limit that power to “cephalopods and decapod crustaceans”, simply because one knows from conversation and debate that that is the category of animals most likely to come within scope of this unprecedented power. It should none the less, in my view, be limited.
That is the purpose of these amendments and it is important that we explore them, because I do not accept that it is easy to map notions of feeling and pain on to these classes. Perhaps I may briefly refer to—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee stands adjourned for five minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we shall resume. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, may complete his speech and move his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I had just finished commenting on my own amendments when we were interrupted, so it was a convenient break, but before I conclude I shall comment on a few other amendments in this group.
Amendment 50, in the name of my noble friend Lord Robathan, would exclude the actions of wild animals upon other animals from the scope of the committee’s activities, and I think that must be sensible.
Amendment 56, from my noble friend Lord Trenchard, to leave out the power to designate invertebrates is in keeping with my amendment, and I support it.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft’s Amendment 59, which would require a scientific report that a being is sentient before it is redesignated as such by the Secretary of State under this very broad power, is an absolute minimum requirement and one that is very much in keeping with my comments on the previous group.
Finally, Amendment 49, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, concerns cephalopods and decapods. As the same words are used in a different order it might easily be confused with my amendment, but on careful examination it has a very different effect. My proposal at least puts some decency on this unprecedented power so that it is confined to the most likely class of animals. I understand—and I am sure I can be corrected—that Amendment 49 effectively takes the decision for the Secretary of State and includes cephalopod and decapod crustaceans as sentient beings on the face of the Bill. That is quite different from what I am proposing, if I have understood the amendment correctly, and I do not think that without proper and rigorous scientific reports, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, this august Committee is quite the place in which to make such a radical transformation in our understanding of the natural world. I beg to move.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I shall confine myself to speaking to my Amendment 50 for reasons of brevity. The more astute Members of the Committee will have realised that this refers to Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but this seems to me, to a certain extent, the nub of the Bill. It concentrates on what we, as people, are responsible for.
As a slight side-issue, I was asked to change the language because, of course, these days parliamentary language should be gender-neutral. However, surely everyone—however ill-educated—knows that the term “mankind”, or “man” in this context, has always included all human beings, all humanity, of whatever gender. I mention that because language is important, and this is legislation. To have been not specific about “mankind” might have been an example of lack of clarity, of which I fear this Bill is also an example.
On the substance, if I am responsible for an animal, I have responsibilities and duties to that creature, be it my dog, my rather foolish hens—which are not laying eggs at the moment—a cow or, indeed, a pheasant. However, I am surely not responsible for the rats we all live with, nor the squirrels destroying the trees I have planted, nor if my dog catches a rat—it is a terrier, and that is what terriers do. We then come on to fish in a river. Is the owner of a particular stretch of river responsible for a fish moving up and down it? Fish have backbones and are indeed sentient beings. Or is a fishing club responsible? Am I responsible if I run over a squirrel or hit a bird in the road, which I try pretty hard not to do?
I regard myself as a conservationist. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to himself as such in a previous debate. However, unlike him, I see the way this Bill is phrased as paving the way for interference in anything and everything. It has been suggested that it is a Trojan horse and that there will be mission creep. I think it will be an activists’ charter. My noble friend Lord Herbert said in another debate that we need clarity.
The Minister, for whom I have a very high regard—we go back quite a long way and he called me, I think, a “denizen” of the last Chamber we served in—said earlier today that there is a very specific role for the committee. What is that role? It is not clear to me, and I am afraid that the debates so far have not clarified the situation. I hope this amendment may go some way towards clarifying the situation: that we are responsible for those animals for which we are responsible and not responsible for those which we cannot be responsible for.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next three speakers—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—have all withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 59 in this group. Clause 5(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to bring any invertebrate of any description within the meaning of “animal” and thus within the scope of the Bill—thus declaring them sentient in law. My noble friend Lord Moylan has already drawn attention to the extraordinary breadth of this new power. At Second Reading, he said:
“The clause that strikes me as most extravagant, however, is the one that gives the Secretary of State the unfettered power to declare, should he wish, that an earthworm is a sentient being. This is a power greater than that given by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden, which, as I recall, was restricted to the power to naming animals. Here, we are giving the Secretary of State the power to reclassify them almost without check.”—[Official Report, 16/6/21; col. 1921.]
I do not feel qualified to comment on the powers that God gave to Adam, so I will, if noble Lords forgive me, confine myself to this Bill.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Randall, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, called for decapod crustaceans, including lobsters, crabs and crayfish, and cephalopods, including octopus, squid and cuttlefish, to be included in the scope of the Bill. Some argued this point on the basis of a film called “My Octopus Teacher” and were advised to have tissues on hand to watch it. However, the evidence contained in a tearjerker does not seem to be the best foundation for the law of the land. The law should be based on hard evidence—hard science and sound evidence—and that is where the problems on animal sentience start and lie.
While everyone agrees that animals are sentient, philosophers and scientists are still arguing about what that means. Does a dog, for example, have the same feelings as a crab, or a crayfish the same feelings as a cow? Perhaps that is why there is no definition of sentience in the Bill. Scientists are not agreed, despite the fact that in the previous debate the Minister gave us two separate definitions of sentience, although neither of them are included in the sentience Bill, which strikes me as a bit odd. So how will a committee opine on something that is neither defined and on which there is no widespread agreement, in fact, on which there is widespread disagreement?
The Government have commissioned an independent review of the sentience of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods. This amendment would require only that where the Secretary of State declares an invertebrate sentient, the scientific evidence on which the declaration is based should be published. It seems unarguable that such transparency on the science must be good, and I cannot imagine any arguments for hiding the evidence and not publishing it. If the Minister rejects the amendments, perhaps he can enlighten the Committee about why the science and the evidence should be hidden away.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the last group of amendments is quite long and seeks to limit the scope of the Bill and the groups of animals considered to be sentient.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has spoken in favour of Amendment 48, which would remove vertebrates in favour of mammals, Amendment 52, which would add fish, Amendment 53, which would add birds, and Amendment 57, which would limit the classification of invertebrates to cephalopods and decapods. The noble Lord makes a claim that animals are capable of feeling pain but not other emotions, such as pleasure. I fear I do not agree. A family pet dog is very capable of showing pleasure. When I get home after a week in London, our collie is overjoyed to see me, and there is no mistaking his enthusiasm. As regards the scope of sentience, we should be led by the science available for each group of animals.
Amendment 50, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, is to apply to domesticated animals in the British Isles,
“under the control of man”
and not living wild. I am certain that he would have been supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, if he had not withdrawn. I support the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, in not changing the wording of proposed new subsection (1)(b). He is correct: we all understand what is meant by mankind, and I am not personally offended by the use of that word. While I sympathise with these amendments, I am not sure why it is necessary to limit the group of animals to be included or excluded. It is likely that by adopting Amendment 50 in particular, some animals which are being farmed and also live wild, such as deer—not really cute ones—are likely to be treated differently depending on their status. That is likely to cause unnecessary confusion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, put her name to Amendment 51, which we support. I am speaking in particular to Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to which the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and I have also added our names. At Second Reading, reference was made to the evidence on decapod crustaceans and cephalopods being sentient beings. I am not naturally squeamish, but I found the deliberate shocking of shore crabs to see whether they were capable of feeling and remembering pain somewhat unpleasant. The experiment having been conducted during trials, the result is conclusively that they are sentient and have some advanced cognition. Similarly, the octopus is capable of feeling and remembering pain, so I believe both groups should be included in the Bill rather than being left to be added at some later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, has raised some interesting publicity on the fate of lobsters and how those destined for the restaurant trade should meet their end. Given that the vast majority of lobsters reach restaurants in a live condition, I cannot see that the Bridlington lobster trade will be adversely affected by how lobsters are prepared for the table.
I can also see that some will think that the Bill is a back door to banning angling and the shooting of game birds. I believe that we are a long way from reaching that conclusion; I would not support it if that were the case.
I fully support moves to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopods in the classification of sentient creatures. I will listen carefully to the arguments in favour of the rest of the amendments in this group and the outcomes their tablers are looking to achieve.
In response to a question on the first group, the Minister gave the impression that the inclusion of these groups is something for another Minister. I hope he can confirm that the classification of animals included in this Bill should be widened at this stage and not at some date in the future.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Robathan’s Amendment 50 and have added my name to it. It would be a sensible and logical addition to the Bill. It is absolutely right that where men and women are in charge of an animal they are responsible for it being treated in the most humane way possible, but if that same animal is running free and is wild, then it cannot possibly be under the control of a human being. Therefore, the words that my noble friend wishes to include in the Bill would make the position absolutely clear. I support him on that basis.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who is next on the list, has withdrawn.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, a crucial aspect of the Bill is determining which animals within the vast animal kingdom are sentient. Crucially, of course, that depends on how sentience is defined. The Bill does not attempt to define sentience, and various expert opinions, which I respect, have suggested that that is sensible. But we can be sure that, if and when the Bill becomes law, there will be those who will start to question the limit currently in the Bill or that proposed in Amendment 57, which I support. It is almost certain that at least some scientific opinion will be arguable and credible to propose further extending the range of animals included.
Current definitions of sentience include capacity to have feelings. I know of no way of determining what animals feel, but we know that many lifeforms sense and avoid potentially harmful stimuli, which we do, of course. Although we would sense pain on that occasion, we can only guess at the feeling the animal has, but presumably it is not a pleasurable sensation. Of course it is important to consider the science, but extremely respected scientists can and do differ even when confronted with the same data.
The frontiers of what sentience is will likely shift. I listened yesterday to the evidence given to the EFRA Committee in the other place by Jonathan Birch of the London School of Economics. He is the lead author of the LSE report referred to on the first day of Committee, which has yet to be published but has been carefully considering whether to include cephalopods and decapod crustaceans as sentient beings. Professor Birch commented yesterday with respect to the definition of sentience that the science is evolving. Indeed, the Minister commented in much the same way today.
Clearly it would raise huge issues were more and more animal taxa credibly—and, indeed, scientifically—argued to be sentient. So, although I accept that Amendments 59 and 60 are improvements on the current Bill, I feel that the range of animals included in the Bill should be a political decision determined by the Secretary of State and with the complete and full consideration of Parliament, where the cost-benefit considerations can be properly weighed—taking scientific opinion into account, of course, but not being bound by it.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being here earlier in the afternoon when noble Lords debated amendments to which I added my name. Unfortunately, there was an additional meeting of the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, meeting on a different day and at a different time. However, I am here now. I will speak to Amendment 51 in particular; in that connection, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to say that they fully support the remarks I intend to make about it.
I make no apology for wishing to see cephalopods and decapods included in the realms of sentience and not left until some future date. I am aware that the Minister is awaiting the LSE report to which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred. I would be interested to know from the Minister when we might expect to see that report and whether it is likely to be in time to make a decision about including these creatures in the Bill before it reaches its final stages. For my part, I believe that there is already sufficient hard evidence to make it perfectly acceptable to include them here and now.
It is interesting that, way back in 2005, the European Food Safety Authority’s Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare considered these animals sufficiently sentient to be included. Since then, a lot of work has been done by Professor Robert Elwood of Queen’s University; I believe that he has provided good scientific evidence. I am happy to accept scientific evidence. I think mention was made earlier of one experiment where hermit crabs, which like to retreat to quiet places, were given an electric shock if they entered one refuge but not if they entered another. It soon became evident that they knew which one to choose and that they remembered it. Shortness of time forbids me from giving any further examples, but I firmly believe that there are good examples that give hard evidence. We know, too, that a number of other countries are ahead of us on this issue. They include, for example, New Zealand, some of the Australian states, Austria and even, surprisingly, Italy.
The final point I want to make is that I commend to the Minister the precautionary principle. Great publicity was given to it in the Environment Bill as one of five principles. It was given a good boost. I suggest that the precautionary principle is one to adopt here and now. As I understand it, it means that, if there is some evidence, you do not have to wait until something is proved to the hilt before you take action. On that basis, I have no hope that the Minister will accept Amendment 51 as it stands, but I hope for better things before the Bill reaches the statute book.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am speaking to Amendment 49 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I thank them for their support. Before I move on, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that he has understood the purpose of my amendment completely correctly. We also support Amendment 51 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fookes.
Clause 5 currently defines “animal” as any vertebrate other than homo sapiens. Amendments 52 and 53 talk about adding “fish” and “birds” to the scope of the Bill. I know that they are probing amendments, but they are vertebrates—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Okay. As I was saying, they are probing amendments that are basically asking for animals to come in that are already covered, as they are vertebrates. I am just a bit confused about that. If we look back to the European Council directive in 1998 which preceded the Lisbon treaty, fish and birds are included all the way back to then. I will be interested in what the Minister has to say and why the probing amendments are felt to be necessary.
Looking at Clause 5(2), we have had some debate about the fact that the definition could be widened in future to include invertebrates if evidence of sentience among invertebrates comes forward. We have put forward this amendment because we believe that evidence of sentience among two groups of invertebrates, cephalopods —for example, octopuses—and decapod crustaceans, is already established and has been for a number of years.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spoke about the importance of scientific evidence in the debate on an earlier group, so I am sure he will be interested in the fact that back in December 2005, the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare of the European Food Safety Authority published a report that examined the scientific evidence about the sentience and capacity of certain invertebrate species to experience pain and distress. It concluded that decapod crustaceans and cephalopods can experience pain and distress, and that the largest decapod crustaceans are complex in behaviour and have a pain system and considerable learning ability.
As regards cephalopods, the scientific panel concluded that they have a nervous system and a relatively complex brain similar to many vertebrates and sufficient in structure and function for them to experience pain. Notably, they can experience and learn to avoid pain and distress, such as avoiding electric shocks. In addition, they have significant cognitive ability, including good learning ability and memory retention, elaborate communication systems and individual temperaments. More recently, a number of scientific papers strongly point to the conclusion that both cephalopods and decapod crustaceans are capable of experiencing pain and suffering.
Even more recently—the noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to this—evidence was given to the Select Committee in July, this month, by Dr Jonathan Birch from the LSE, who is, of course, the author of the report that Defra is producing. He provided written evidence, along with Professor Nicola Clayton and Dr Alexandra Schnell from the University of Cambridge, and Dr Heather Browning and Dr Andrew Crump from the LSE. These are serious academics, who are the kind of people we should listen to when we consider scientific evidence in making decisions. If noble Lords will bear with me, I just want to pull up a couple of their points on this Bill. They say:
“In our opinion, the evidence vindicates the 2012 extension of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to cover all cephalopod molluscs. We now have a very strange situation in the UK: all cephalopod molluscs are protected in science but they are not protected by robust animal welfare laws outside scientific settings.”
Coming to Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—and perhaps to answer his considerations about this—they also say that:
“Regarding decapod crustaceans: although it would be possible for animal welfare law to protect some infraorders while excluding others, this has the potential to generate significant confusion. A better approach would be to protect all decapod crustaceans in very general legislation such as the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill”.
Having made that point, I would like to look at the work of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. In February this year, it issued a definition of sentience to cover both groups we have been discussing in light of the accumulating evidence, and that preceded the evidence I have just read out to noble Lords. Our amendment acknowledges this growing amount of evidence and seeks to embed it within the Bill by extending the definition of “animal” to cover cephalopods and decapod crustaceans. We know that they are already protected in some other countries—Australia, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand—and in some states in the United States and Australia. The recognition of cephalopod and decapod crustacean sentience has already been acknowledged within the scientific community, so in our mind there is no good reason to delay acknowledgement of it within the Bill.
The independent review has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. There is huge expectation that this report will be published soon, and it has a significant role to play in informing the Bill we have been debating in this Committee. It would be extremely useful if the Minister could give us an update on its progress because to have it before us before Report is very important.
Before I finish, I want to speak very briefly to a couple of the other amendments. First, on Amendment 50 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I just feel a bit disappointed that it has been tabled to remove wild animals from the scope of the Bill. I do not think there is a case for their removal. I heard the noble Lords’ concerns around responsibility, and I would be very keen to hear some clarity from the Minister on this area. I really think that if we accept that animals are sentient by virtue of their biology, sentience applies whatever the condition an animal is in, whether it is wild, farmed or kept as a companion. Human activity—what we do—impinges on wild, farm and companion animals alike. So, consideration of how our activity impacts on the welfare of sentience should cover all animals that would come under the scope of the Bill at the moment.
Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and other noble Lords, would limit the Bill’s coverage to mammals, as we heard in the introduction. I would just like to make this point: when we consider whether an animal is sentient, we should not be affected by how like it is to us. That is not the point of sentience. As noble Lords, we need to consider this fact very carefully, and that is borne out again by the scientific evidence. On that basis, being an invertebrate should not automatically preclude sentience, so the limitations proposed by the amendment would then become an entirely arbitrary limitation given the overwhelming evidence I have just expressed concerning the fact that sentience exists across vertebrates.
I am aware that there has been quite a bit of press interest in our amendment. I know we are not allowed to use props, but I have a newspaper here, the Times, whose editorial on 8 July said, “Considering the Lobster” —it is almost getting a bit Lewis Carroll, is it not? The subheading was:
“Ministers are right to ban the practice of boiling shellfish alive.”
In light of this, I urge the Minister to take action and accept our amendment.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will start with Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. With it, I will take his Amendments 52 and 53, together with Amendment 59 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft and Amendment 60 in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.
It is evident that there is a rather wide range of views in the Committee about which animals should be recognised in this Bill as sentient. Some noble Lords wish to see the scope of the Bill immediately broadened to include decapods and cephalopods; others additionally wish to see the exclusion of certain classes of vertebrates. As drafted, the Bill defines an animal as a non-human vertebrate—that is, an animal with a backbone. The scientific evidence is clear that vertebrate animals can experience pain and suffering. It is on that basis that the definition of “animal” in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 extends to vertebrates.
Government policy will continue to be guided by scientific evidence. That is why we have future-proofed the Bill with a delegated power for Ministers to add different species of invertebrates to the definition of “animal” by regulation. We will use this power where supported by robust scientific evidence. This corresponds to the similar delegated power contained in the Animal Welfare Act. I am mindful, of course, that this House has mixed feelings about the inclusion of delegated powers such as this in public Bills. It is rightly expected that Ministers offer a good reason for their inclusion. I can assure your Lordships that we would not have taken the trouble to seek this power if we were not prepared to use it when needed. I can confirm that new additions to the remit of the Bill—new species—are subject to an affirmative resolution, so noble Lords can scrutinise them.
On Amendment 56, my noble friend Lord Trenchard would, had he been able to speak to it, have sounded a note of caution regarding the delegated power in the Bill. I can assure him that such a power will be exercised appropriately, as I said. That is why the affirmative resolution process applies; Parliament will have the final say on any extension to the Bill’s scope. If either House is not satisfied that Ministers have good evidence to justify their use of the delegated power, then its use can be vetoed. We know that scientific research is a continuous process and new evidence on sentience will emerge over time as our understanding increases. That is why we have included the delegated power. I am aware there may be different views on the inclusion of a delegated power in the Bill. However, this power is necessary to allow us to recognise other species as sentient if there is sufficient evidence to support it, and I can confirm we intend to use the power if that is the case.
Naturally, when we talk of possible extensions to the Bill’s scope, many noble Lords are thinking primarily about its extension to decapods and cephalopods. This is reflected in Amendment 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, as well as Amendment 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. As noble Lords know, my department has commissioned an independent review of the available scientific evidence on sentience in decapod crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters as well as sentience in the cephalopod class, which includes octopus, cuttlefish and squid. I can confirm that the report will be published before the Bill returns to the House on Report.
We want this Bill to stand the test of time. Our understanding of animal sentience has developed in recent years and will continue to do so. I say to my noble friend Lord Moylan that I would be reluctant to do away with the ability to extend the Bill’s scope to other species, subject to parliamentary approval, if that is what the evidence calls for.
Turning to Amendments 55 and 58, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I am not sure whether there is anything to be gained from explicitly excluding or including foetuses and embryos from the committee’s remit, as the noble Baroness’s amendments would require. In practice, it would be difficult for the committee and government departments to identify the way in which a policy under consideration affects the welfare needs of a foetus or embryo, as opposed to those of the mother animal. It is therefore unlikely that the committee could find itself considering a policy beyond its remit.
To conclude my remarks on what species the Bill covers, I recognise that there are strong views advocating for many different directions. We want to ensure that any extension of the recognition of sentience is informed by engagement with the evidence from experts and stakeholders. Parliament can expect us to weigh the evidence carefully, with the assurance that it will always have the final say on the matter.
I saw and was profoundly affected by the documentary “My Octopus Teacher”, which has been frequently quoted. Other than the beauty of that particular animal, it also showed the healing power of nature for the individual who made that film. It is one of the most remarkable programmes that I have seen for a very long time.
I turn now to Amendment 50, in the name of my noble friend Lord Robathan, which seeks to refine the scope to kept animals. Your Lordships might wonder what is the point of recognising the sentience of animals that are outside human control, such as wild animals—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made this point. It is simple: these animals are sentient and equally capable of feeling pain and suffering. Sentience is not a capacity limited to those animals under the control of man, nor does government policy impact solely on kept animals. There are numerous ways in which a government policy might affect wild animals. Crucially, we share an environment. Hence we should not limit the committee to considering the sentience of kept animals alone.
I will answer various points that have been raised. To my noble friend Lord Moylan, I will quote Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men: animals should be part of natural law
“less because they are rational than because they are sentient”.
I do not usually pray him in aid—his writings led to the French Revolution and the Terror—but I think that, in this case, he was right.
Like many others, my noble friend Lord Robathan referred to the words “Trojan horse”. I do not understand why they keep being used in the context of the Bill. The Trojan horse was a special forces operation, as he should be well aware, and it led to the sacking of a civilisation. I do not see that it has any corresponding circumstances here.
Finally, my attention was drawn to something in Hansard on 25 July 1979—so in the first few weeks of the then Conservative Government—where an MP who then went under the name “Miss Fookes” asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
“what progress has been made with the Government’s review of their animal welfare policy”.
She was clearly on the march on animal welfare matters even then. In his reply, the Minister, Peter Walker—obviously late of this parish—set out the parameters that he thought were important for the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is obviously a different organisation. However, his reply clearly sets out the level of expertise and—I say this to my Conservative colleagues—an enduring determination to improve the welfare of animals. It finishes:
“The actions the Government intend to take will provide a more efficient and effective means of furthering the interests of animal welfare.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/07/1979; cols. 295-98W]
I could not have put it better than that in the context of this Bill.
Finally, as this is the last group, I thank every one of your Lordships who has spoken on the Bill today and at the previous session. As a new Member of this House, I can certainly say that its reputation as a place of careful consideration and scrutiny is well deserved. I hope that my noble friend will feel content to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister think that there is a fundamental difference between a lobster and a prawn? If an image of a prawn is magnified many times, we see that it is not dissimilar to a lobster. Of course, when children go shrimping or catching prawns, whelks, cockles or mussels, those creatures are all put into boiling water, pretty well killed immediately and cooked. Does the Minister feel that there is a fundamental difference between those bigger crustaceans such as lobsters and crabs and the smaller ones?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am not an expert, and that is why I want an animal sentience committee that will advise me and my successors on the rights and wrongs of dispatching species of all kinds. I cannot answer my noble friend. I understand the point that he makes. He is a seasoned political debater. This is an issue which requires people who will make decisions about such matters, and that should not be lay men like me.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to other noble Lords who have spoken on this group of amendments, particularly my noble friends Lord Caithness, Lord Robathan and Lord Mancroft. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, felt able to express support for Amendment 57 in my name.
I also want on this occasion to thank the Minister for handling us so well. These have been two afternoons of extremely informative and at the same time very good-natured debate, and he has taken everything that we have thrown at him and come back with a dazzling display of intellect and sympathy, though it is mildly regrettable that the only philosophers he cites are all French—maybe he should have a closer look at that for the future.
I apologise for expressing myself badly if I conveyed to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that I did not think that dogs could feel pleasure. That is not what I intended to say. In fact, one of my amendments specifically preserved mammals as part of the scope of the Bill. I was trying to say that, while we can certainly understand pleasure and indeed pain in a dog or in the higher mammals, it is very difficult to understand what that means in any meaningful sense when one is talking about fish, for example. It was simply that point that I was trying to make; I am sorry if I did not express myself well.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, that Amendments 52 and 53 would add fish and birds to a clause that excepts—it is an exception clause—so that it would except homo sapiens “and fish” and so on. It takes them out of the scope of the Bill. Clearly, the noble Baroness does not want them taken out. However, she was never going to express support so, in a way, it does not matter.
As a final point, I want to pick up on what the noble Baroness said about cephalopods and decapod crustaceans, and it is a bit of commentary on much of the Bill. I think that we are all agreed that the Bill has to say something, and we have a Bill here which is so empty of content that it would almost be a scandal if it passed in its current circumstances. Today and on previous occasions, we have discussed how it ought to say something about composition and about term limits—which we discussed last time. Perhaps there is a feeling that it ought to say something too about cephalopods and decapod crustaceans. Where we might differ around the Committee, because we have not sufficiently coalesced, is on what exactly it should say on those issues, but I think that many of us sitting here, from all political parties and groups, can probably agree with me if I say to the Minister that as the Bill stands, it is not good enough, and that when it comes back on Report we expect many things that we have said to be heard and the Bill to be improved in a number of respects.
I wish the Minister well in his endeavours to make the Bill better so that we are all as happy with it as we have been with him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, that concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links
Oaths and Affirmations
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 while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
The social distancing requirements in the Chamber have been removed, but I strongly encourage Members to continue to wear face coverings while in the Chamber, except when speaking, and to respect social distancing in relation to staff in the Chamber.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to adopt the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents (CETS No. 205).
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for not being present in your Lordships’ House—I have been since the first lockdown—but I am currently isolating and will not be able to attend the House this week. The United Kingdom Government have no plans to adopt the Convention on Access to Official Documents.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I send my sympathies to the Minister but that is a very unsatisfactory answer, and I wish he was here in person so I could tell him to his face. Does he agree that, with certain limited exceptions, access to official documents is essential for transparency, good governance and a functioning democracy? A number of countries—Ukraine, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Sweden and others—have agreed to adopt this convention. Can the Minister give us just one simple reason why the British Government are not doing likewise?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord always tells me that my Answers are unsatisfactory; I do not always agree with him. As it stands, the convention, which has not been adhered to by the overwhelming majority of EU nations, would not, in our view, allow for the appropriate protection of sensitive information or of journalistic independence, as Parliament intended when it passed the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister help the House? Can he explain what it is about releasing the official documentation concerning the £37 billion test and trace scheme and the £12.5 billion of PPE contracts—including the VIP route, which has been roundly criticised by the National Audit Office—that might conceivably make the Government reluctant to sign this convention?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have given the House the reasons for the Government not wishing to adhere to the convention. However, the United Kingdom Government are absolutely committed to transparency and the principles behind the convention and recognise the work done by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in this sphere. We routinely disclose information well beyond our freedom of information obligations and in line with many of the provisions of the convention.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
I am sure the Minister is entirely apprised of the fact that the Council of Europe is completely separate from the EU. The attitude of the Government on an issue such as this tends to smack of an anti-European thread in the Government, which I am sure is not in the interests of this country. Can the Minister kindly explain why such a universally accepted treaty should not be acceded to by this Government?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have underlined the principle of this Government’s belief in transparency. I refute the idea that there is anything anti-European here. The current adherents to the treaty are Bosnia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Montenegro, Norway, the Republic of Moldova, Sweden, Ukraine and Iceland. The majority of EU countries are not signatories. I think that answers the noble Lord’s point that this is some kind of EU line.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say whether a Cabinet paper would be an official document in terms of this treaty and, if so, would it be protected under Article 3k?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right to draw attention to this. Although protection for deliberations within public authorities is allowed for in the convention, it does not provide the specific exemption that Parliament felt was necessary in order to protect Cabinet collective responsibility, which is one of the key conventions underpinning our form of Cabinet government. It informed the Labour Government in 2000, at the time this Act was passed, and continues to inform us.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has given quite inadequate answers as to why the Government will not adopt the convention. Can I press him on the issue of transparency and whether the Government would obey the law—their own laws? In February, the High Court confirmed that the failure to publish the details of all the PPE contracts is unlawful. The Government responded that they were working hard to do so. Just how far have the Government got? In March, more than 100 of the contracts awarded last year were still unpublished. Some 93% of contracts awarded to suppliers with political connections have been published late, and it is estimated that nearly £2 billion-worth of contracts have gone to those with Conservative Party links. The Government will not adopt the treaty, even though other countries have published this information. As of today, how many contracts awarded more than 30 days ago have yet to be published by the Government?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, on the specific question of the number that the noble Baroness asks about, I will have to write to her; I apologise for that. Obviously, the Government hold the principle of transparency as paramount. There are always issues of commercial confidentiality, as all noble Lords will understand. However, we go far beyond the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act in publishing information about the conduct of business within government.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answers and his assurance that there is not an anti-European element to this, which I wholeheartedly accept. However, does he agree that access to official documents is even more important in times of crisis and that there is a need for openness and transparency in public authorities, partly to restore trust but also to expose or reduce any corruption and make the public feel more confident in their authorities?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, wherever, if ever, corruption exists, it should be mercilessly rooted out and dealt with; I think that would be the united resolve of your Lordships’ House, of the Government and the whole of Parliament. All central government departments are required to publish datasets, including central government contracts, tender opportunities and contract award notices over £10,000, central government spending over £25,000, the gender pay gap data—I will not prolong the list, because other Members wish to ask questions. However, I stress to your Lordships that a great deal of information is voluntarily published by the Government and that we do and will adhere to the law.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am absolutely thrilled to hear that the Government are, in the words of the Minister, committed to transparency. A few Members of this House—I do not know how many—have been told that MI5 has files on them. Can the Minister therefore, in this spirit of transparency, get those files for us so that we can see exactly what information is held on us? I cannot believe that any of us is a threat to national security—apart from, obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
Lord True (Con) [V]
I could never conceive that the noble Baroness would be a threat to anyone and I rejoice in her kindly words always. The reality is that Parliament agreed in 2000 that it was appropriate to protect sensitive information from inappropriate disclosure and legislated for exemptions in some areas, including absolute exemptions for information relating to security and intelligence agencies and communication with the sovereign. That decision was taken by Parliament, and in the spirit of adhering to the law, the Government continue to follow that provision.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I also have an MI5 file, which I discovered after a recent government publication. What distressed me was that all the information in it was wrong. Can the Minister make these files available so that MI5 at least has accurate information about why we are totally untrustworthy?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord would not expect me to have access to any such file, and we do not comment on security matters in any case.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, given that England, Wales and Northern Ireland already have the Freedom of Information Act in place, could the Minister comment on whether, after 20 years of that Act, it is due for review to assess its effectiveness and whether it needs to be broadened to cover other bodies?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, other bodies are covered. If I said that it was time for a review, people would immediately say, “Oh, they are planning to do something different to what we have now.” There are no current plans for a review. Obviously, every piece of legislation is constantly kept under consideration both by Parliament, including your Lordships, and by those responsible for conducting government business, but currently there are no such plans.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the second Oral Question.
Human Rights Due Diligence
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make human rights due diligence mandatory for businesses, in particular those engaged in forest risk commodities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government expect businesses to target their human rights due diligence approaches according to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. We currently have no plans to make this mandatory because there is existing legislation which holds businesses to account on human rights. All UK quoted companies are required to report on relevant human rights issues in their annual reports, and large businesses must publish supply chain transparency statements on steps they take to prevent modern slavery.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The European Commission plans to publish its sustainable corporate governance proposal this autumn, and UK companies operating in the single market would fall into its scope. I hear what the Minister says about the Government having no plans, but what consideration are they giving to keeping pace with the European Commission? Does he really believe that the current law is satisfactory to enable business practices to ensure that all commodities and services are subject to human rights and environmental due diligence processes?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, we will keep these matters under review, but we believe that mandating compliance presents some practical challenges in definition, enforcement and so on. However, we will of course keep it under review.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to the policy of the National Investing Bodies of the Church of England on extractive industries, which has an explicit commitment drawn from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the
“free, prior and informed consent”
of indigenous communities on major projects. Indeed, the Church Commissioners and other Church of England investment bodies engage with investment partners across a range of industries, including where forest clearance is involved. Will Her Majesty’s Government consider the principle of the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities as a legislative requirement for companies incorporated in the United Kingdom but operating overseas?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for sharing that research. The UK is committed to supporting indigenous peoples and local communities, who play a vital role in protecting forests. Our proposals in the Environment Bill will require UK companies to conduct due diligence based on the laws of producer countries, in particular those laws that relate to land use and land ownership.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I declare my interests as set out in the register. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that human rights due diligence should not be mandatory for businesses given the modern slavery and supply chain requirements, the welcome shareholder demands for ESG transparency, and the widespread adherence in this country to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said in my initial Answer, I agree with my noble friend. Human rights abuses are a wide and varied issue, which is why the UK Government prefer the approach of encouraging businesses to follow the voluntary framework of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, the rainforest needs urgent protection—we all know that, as does the Minister. The Government have already made good progress with the Environment Bill, but how will they enforce compliance; for example, on companies which are not in the Retail Soy Group or which do not intend to convert to sustainable products? Does the Minister agree that any UK financial services which clearly support the production or trading of forest risk commodities would be acting illegally and should be caught by Schedule 16 to the Bill?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Earl is perhaps getting a bit ahead of himself, as we are still considering the Environment Bill—it is not in law yet. When it is, as I hope it will be, details on the enforcement regime will be subject to further consultation and regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure so that the House can debate them fully.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
Given the complexity of supply chains and the way business with indigenous populations is conducted, will the Government give an undertaking that human rights should be written into the contracts of the small companies that then sell to larger companies, as well as the need for satisfactory equal pay and the gender lens? This is a complex situation and we need to get a grip of it and have it written into contracts.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is right; this is indeed a complicated subject with a lot of different areas for consideration. We need to be careful not to impose undue burdens, particularly on small businesses.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, I hope the Minister will agree that Governments as well as businesses have a moral duty of due diligence on human rights. Can he therefore tell the House what due diligence the Government conducted prior to chartering a flight to deport Zimbabwe nationals tomorrow to a country where human rights are consistently violated? Will the Government now halt that flight and place a moratorium on further deportations until the Zimbabwean Government can demonstrate that they respect the human rights of their citizens and the rule of law?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity in getting a question on deportation flights into one considering forest communities. I do not have the information about that particular flight—I was not aware of it—so I will write to him.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, local indigenous communities are the best custodians of the forest, yet they are often not considered, consulted or listened to. Looking ahead to COP 26, how will the Government ensure that the voices of indigenous groups are heard?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. The UK is working closely with the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change and the UNFCCC Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform to champion engagement and participation by indigenous groups in COP 26.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
A recent G7 communiqué said that the G7 was
“concerned by the use of all forms of forced labour in global supply chains”,
and G7 Ministers have been tasked
“to identify areas for strengthened cooperation and collective efforts towards eradicating the use of all forms of forced labour in global supply chains”.
Can the Minister clearly outline how this engagement will work ahead of the G7 ministerial meeting in October, and what do the Government want to achieve through this process?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The UK was the first state to produce a national action plan to respond to the guiding principles. We have continued to develop our approach, particularly with the Modern Slavery Act. We are working across the UK Government on this, and involving the devolved Governments in proper enforcement of the provisions.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, Eid Mubarak to all those celebrating. While we are very efficient in detailing the human rights abuses in overseas supply chains that we source from, we do not demonstrate the same enthusiasm when we export our trash to those same countries. What about the environmental and human rights abuses that happen in the global waste trade in which we participate? Can my noble friend see how this sends mixed messages internationally?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Businesses involved in the export of waste are required to take all necessary steps to ensure that the waste they ship is managed in an environmentally sound manner, throughout its shipment and during its recycling. Current penalties for breaching the legislation are a two-year jail term and an unlimited fine. My noble friend will be aware that the Environment Bill will introduce even tougher controls on illegal waste exports, including powers to make it harder for criminals to obtain and export waste illegally.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I am supporting a project with Rewired.Earth, which aims to deliver full and proper ESG audits, including through the supply chains. If achieved, this would provide a huge step forward in delivering environmental, social and governance oversight, going a long way to answer the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan.
With $110 trillion of worldwide investment already being directed through ethical investing, this would be a great opportunity for the UK. Do Her Majesty’s Government support the premise of ESG audits as a way for the UK financial sector to lead the way across the globe, both in financial investing and by creating a vehicle that can help save the planet?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, we have just finished a consultation on the audit reform proposals, which include extending audit to some non-financial matters such as climate change. Of course, we will be very happy to consider all other proposals.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in an earlier reply, the Minister said that he is considering enforcement issues. Given that the UK has no central enforcer of company law or regulator of corporations, and that auditors, just mentioned by him, have absolutely no expertise in human rights, how will the Government monitor compliance with and enforcement of any proposed legislation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are considering the issue of enforcement in the audit reform consultation that I mentioned in my previous answer. We are extending the powers of the FRC, creating a new audit reform regulator in ARGA and we will be issuing our response to the audit reform consultation later in the year.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the third Oral Question.
Chinese Products and Companies: Human Rights Violations
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to curtail reliance on Chinese products and companies linked to violations of human rights.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in so doing declare my interests as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uighurs and patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, in 2020, China was the UK’s third largest import market, and in 2019, more than 60,000 UK VAT-registered businesses imported goods from China worth about £46.4 billion. We want a positive and constructive trade relationship with China, but we will not sacrifice our values in doing so. In January, the Foreign Secretary announced a comprehensive package of measures to help ensure that no UK organisations are complicit in the serious human rights violations being perpetrated against the Uighurs and other minorities in Xinjiang.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, given what the Minister just said, why has Hikvision, the Chinese company banned in the United States, which makes the surveillance cameras used to oppress Uighurs in Xinjiang, where the House of Commons has determined that a genocide is under way, and which has installed CCTV cameras all over the United Kingdom, not been banned here? Will he say what the cost of the 1 billion lateral flow tests that this country bought from China was, whether slave labour in China was used to produce them and why they could not have been produced in the United Kingdom?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That was a series of questions from the noble Lord, and I start by applauding his persistence on this important subject. On his questions relating to the US, I shall have to write to him, but I may be helpful to him by saying that ensuring a tough response to modern slavery, which is part of what we are trying to do here, remains a great priority of this Government. The Government have already committed to strengthening the landmark transparency provisions contained in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, following the transparency and supply chains consultation.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, what steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to follow the example of Japan and the United States and encourage our companies to relocate key supply chains out of China and, where possible, back to the United Kingdom?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I hope I can be helpful to my noble friend by saying a little more about the measures we are taking—which are being implemented by the Government—including strengthening the overseas business risk guidance; a review of export controls; introducing financial penalties under the Modern Slavery Act, alluded to earlier; and increasing support for UK government bodies to exclude suppliers complicit in violations or abuses.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I fully support the need for sanctions against China and Chinese products for the gross abuse of human rights in the persecution of the Uighur Muslims and other minorities, and the people of Hong Kong. Does the Minister agree that our actions would carry greater weight if we looked closely at our policies? Does he agree that refugees fleeing the Middle East are human beings, and that jailing them for daring to try to escape their misery is hardly consistent with Christian teachings?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important and, indeed, a moral point. The UK launched the global human rights sanctions regime in July last year, giving us the power to address the very worst human rights violations across the world. We have already used that regime to place sanctions on more than 70 individuals and entities around the world. The noble Lord will know that this, for the first time, includes assets that are frozen and travel bans on four Chinese government officials.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, according to the latest ITUC Global Rights Index, the UK now has trade deals with dozens of countries with the worst track records in the world for exploiting workers. During debates on the Trade Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, argued forcibly against my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because the FCDO’s Human Rights and Democracy report
“touches on many relevant issues”,
and would be
“enhanced in further reports.”—[Official Report, 23/3/21; col. 766.]
When I read the report that was recently published, it is clear that no enhancement has been made. Trade agreement is not even mentioned once. Can the Minister explain what has happened? Why have not the Government kept their word?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We have taken a lot of action in this respect, and at the UN Human Rights Council in February 2021 the Foreign Secretary called on China to allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights or another independent expert urgent and unfettered access to Xinjiang. More countries than ever are speaking out about Xinjiang; China has already been forced through our actions to change its narrative about camps, and its denial of these violations is increasingly hard for it to sustain. We believe that the actions that we are taking are having effect, but it is not, of course, always a fast process.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an officer of the APPG on Magnitsky. The Minister did not manage to answer any of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about lateral flow tests. We are exhorted to take those tests twice a week before coming into the Chamber or into your Lordships’ House. Why are all those tests made in China and what due diligence has been carried out to ensure that none has been made using slave labour?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I do not have any information in my pack about lateral flow tests. Picking up on what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, I will certainly look into that and make sure that I write to him and the noble Baroness on those points.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, we live in a “chips with everything” world and have recently seen what disruption to the supply of semiconductors can do in closing down vital manufacturing industries in this country. Taiwan is the biggest supplier in the world of semiconductors, and what happens there matters. What plan or strategy do the Government have to ensure that our manufacturing industries can deal with any disruption of supply?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Supply to these markets is obviously important, certainly when talking about the Far East. Looking at that area, although I do not have figures on Taiwan, some crucial goods are imported and exported, and it is therefore important to keep those lines open.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I know that the noble Viscount says that he has no information about lateral flow tests, but he must surely know that during the public procurement of those tests for the NHS, only 25% passed through all stages of validation, including assessments of performance and quality standards. Surely the Government must be concerned at the poor quality of imports, often from very dubious sources. Is it not the case that his department must be concerned that the UK becomes self-sufficient?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I cannot comment on that; it is certainly a point that I am taking extremely seriously, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I will take back the three questions on lateral flow tests, which is clearly an important subject.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, several countries have accused China of committing genocide, and so has the House of Commons. The FCDO said in a Written Answer to me that China is running concentration camps, yet we are encouraging more trade with a country that is behaving like Nazi Germany. Is it not high time that we brought in sanctions to prohibit organisations and individuals doing business with companies known to be associated with the atrocities taking place in Xinjiang province?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I alluded earlier to the named people affected by the sanctions system, which is ongoing and working. On 12 January, the Foreign Secretary announced the series of measures to which I alluded, which includes a review of export controls to make sure that we are doing all that we can to prevent the export of goods that may contribute to human rights violations.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
Last week, President Biden released formal guidance for US businesses operating in Hong Kong following the increased restriction of freedoms as a result of the national security law. When will the UK Government issue similar guidance?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The UK has no plans at the moment to issue guidance but I am very aware of the United States export administration regulations, which contain a list of the foreign entities, including businesses, that are subject to specific licence requirements.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the global economic power that China has established must concern us all. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the intentions of that global reach? Is it purely about the economy or is China in fact trying to establish a hegemony that will lead to it being able to dictate to the rest of the world how it behaves?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
It might be both of those but if we look at the work being done through the G7, which is the high-level stuff, trade Ministers have committed to work together to protect individuals from forced labour, including mitigating the risks of it. We are convening a technical discussion in order to share lots of data and evidence. G7 leaders are committed to continuing to work together through domestic means and multilateral institutions to protect individuals. That very much relates to my noble friend’s question on China.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
National Food Strategy Independent Review
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take in response to the recommendations of the National Food Strategy independent review, published on 15 July.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, we should like to thank Henry Dimbleby and his team for their work on this independent review. We are committed to carefully considering the review and its recommendations and responding with a White Paper in the next six months setting out the Government’s ambition and priorities for the food system. That will support our exceptional British food and drink producers, protecting and enhancing the nation’s health and the natural environment for generations to come.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. There was considerable dismay in many quarters last week at the Prime Minister’s public perfunctory dismissal of the National Food Strategy’s recommendations on the need for sugar and salt taxes. Can the Minister ensure that all levels of government understand that the sugar tax on soft drinks that this Government—or, I should say, Mrs May’s Government—introduced in 2018 was seen generally as a success? It did not raise prices but instead encouraged manufacturers to reformulate their products on a healthier basis. Why should the principle of that sugar tax not be extended to help ease the country’s obesity crisis and a salt tax be similarly explored, instead of being so summarily dismissed?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that the soft drinks industry levy—it is not a tax—has been a great success. The sales-weighted average sugar content per 100 millilitres in fizzy drinks reduced by 43.7% between 2015 and 2019. It is worth looking at how Henry Dimbleby has nuanced his recommendations by proposing a look at wholesale sugar and salt used by the industry to make food items that are becoming a serious problem to the health of this country.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, are the Government proud of our status as the second most obese nation in the world after the United States, with which, presumably, they have a special relationship? Surely a tax on salt and sugar will reduce obesity and the cost to the NHS and, maybe, even make people happy. Why are the Government not doing it?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point. The Government have set out a very clear obesity strategy, with particular emphasis on children. Henry Dimbleby’s report is stark in its warnings about the health trends that have been created in this country. They are mirrored in other countries as well, but we have a serious problem. What the ground-breaking obesity strategy sets out is important. It is not just about what we eat but about how we encourage people to eat, through using watersheds in advertising and a range of other means. We are considering this report and all its recommendations, and will publish a White Paper within six months, which may satisfy the noble Peer.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am encouraged to hear the Minister say that the Government want to encourage people, particularly children, to eat better. I ask specifically about the recommendations in the Dimbleby report, and I declare an interest here as one of its advisers. The holiday activity fund ensures that poor children get a decent meal in the holidays; the early start vouchers enable pregnant mums and young kids to get fresh fruit and vegetables; and the extension of free school meals enables all people in poverty to have one decent meal a day. What are the Government going to do about these recommendations or will they again wait for Marcus Rashford to run them up the publicity flagpole, then give in?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are very grateful to the noble Baroness for her involvement in this report. She knows we have increased the Healthy Start programme; we have provided schools with fruit and vegetables; and we have had an impact particularly on low-income families, in the variety of ways we have supported them. Food and our diet have to be looked at holistically with household income and all the pressures on it. Within a month, we as Ministers will be clear about how to respond to this and will take forward six work streams, most of which will please the noble Baroness, and we will publish that White Paper within six months.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, the national food strategy is clearly important and timely. It should help us as a country combat carbon emissions and deal with the obesity crisis, so graphically underlined by the pandemic. Like others, I encourage the Minister to bear in mind the great success of the soft drinks industry with the 28% reduction of sugar, inducing change in producer behaviour. I also ask my noble friend to ensure that there is concerted action in this important area across the devolved Administrations.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, Henry Dimbleby’s report was focused on England, but he worked very closely with the devolved Administrations as well. Our food network and supply chains are interwoven, as they are with the European Union and beyond, so we absolutely will.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, will the White Paper include ensuring that people without gardens who wish to grow their own healthy food have access to land for allotments without having to pay high fees? Will local authorities be funded to provide these facilities in the interests of public health and to encourage school gardens? Does the Minister accept that children who grow vegetables eat vegetables?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Getting children used to the production of food is a vital part of helping them to enjoy it, so I am absolutely on the same side as the noble Baroness. I would like to see a great many more schemes being developed. It is probably not for the Minister to do this from here, as local schemes are best suited, but I will work with other departments to make sure that that is happening.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
Does the Minister share my disappointment that the national food strategy made no mention of the importance of physical education and sport for young people in schools? We are seeing that being very reduced—not in private schools, but it is still being reduced in our state schools. Surely for a youngster starting off, getting the opportunity to learn about sport and physical education means that they will be much healthier, whatever they eat.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that this is not my ministerial responsibility, but what we are doing in Defra to encourage people to get outside, to learn outside and to enjoy the outside is really impressive. We are working with other government departments to help her ambitions come true.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the national food strategy proposals are evidence based and are further steps towards correcting the UK’s diet, which is the worst in Europe. The Prime Minister’s dismissal of a salt and sugar tax is a political decision. Can the Minister assure the House that, in future, scientific evidence will form the basis of decisions affecting the health of the whole country?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, scientific evidence is the basis of what my department works for and through. We will certainly apply scientific and societal evidence to inform our White Paper. I assure her that that will happen across government.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The report highlights some key questions for the UK’s trade policy. The UK cannot work to transform its own food system and support people to make food choices that are better for their health and the environment if we allow foods to be imported that are produced to lower safety, environmental or welfare standards. I ask the Minister how the Government will heed the report’s warning on the worrying precedent that the Australia deal could set on food standards for imports.
Lord Benyon (Con)
Australia is a country that shares our values and it is important that we have a free trade agreement with it. The noble Baroness will be pleased that it contains a chapter on animal welfare, which is often overlooked in criticisms. I assure her that the Government’s commitment to standards will be underpinned throughout all the trade agreements we sign.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
Would the noble Lord accept and consider two points? It is not just sugar or salt but the combination of the two that often makes many foods moreish, if not addictive—Chinese takeaways and tomato ketchup, for example. Secondly, it is not just obesity that we should worry about, as another noble Lord said, but the chemical and psychological effect on mood and behaviour. Anyone with children knows the hyper-effect of sugar on children’s moods.
Lord Benyon (Con)
One of the most fascinating parts of the report was when it spoke about satiety. The junk food cycle is based on the desire to eat more than we need to feel sated. That is a real problem and a cycle that we have to break if we are to tackle obesity and other wider health issues.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Minimum Energy Performance of Buildings Bill [HL]
Tuesday 20th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Minimum Energy Performance of Buildings Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Minimum Energy Performance of Buildings Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Conduct
13:07 - Division on Lord Cormack's amendment. - Ayes: 107 / Noes: 331 - Amendment disagreed.
13:22 - Division conducted remotely on the Motion - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 86 - Motion agreed.
Lord Mance
That the Report from the Select Committee The conduct of Lord James of Blackheath, Lord Kalms, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Baroness Mone (3rd Report, HL Paper 36) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I remind the House that, under Standing Order 68, reports from the Conduct Committee resulting from an investigation under the Code of Conduct are non-debateable.
Lord Mance (CB)
My Lords, I beg to move that the third report of the Conduct Committee be agreed to. As your Lordships are aware, and as has just been said, the House, by Standing Order 68, has decided that such a report is decided without debate, so I will confine myself to a brief introduction.
On 3 November last year, the House agreed to a recommendation from the Conduct Committee, consistent with the independent reports of Naomi Ellenbogen QC, as she was, and Alison Stanley, that all Members of the House be required to undertake Valuing Everyone training—a study course—by 1 April this year. Nearly all Members did so by the deadline.
The House recognised that some Members might, for exceptional reasons, not be in a position to undertake this. In a report on 18 May, the commissioner identified seven Members as falling within this category. She held that a further 47 Members were in breach by failing to take the course by the deadline, but she accepted sufficient remedial action, arrangements or promises made by them to undertake the course in the immediate future.
The four Members who are the subject of the present Conduct Committee report did not proffer any exceptional reason for not taking the course. Of the four, one, although in breach, then explained to the Commissioner that she was willing to undertake the course; she has now done so. A second, the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, has very recently, since the Commissioner’s report was published, also agreed to undertake the course and has signed up to do it tomorrow.
The second Motion in my name before the House therefore relates only to the two remaining noble Lords, Lord Kalms and Lord Willoughby de Broke, who have not appealed the Commissioner’s finding that they breached the Code of Conduct, and have continued to refuse or fail to undertake the course. This second Motion therefore seeks to restrict their access to staff of the House and other Members of the parliamentary community, as well as facilities, until they undertake the training. The Committee believes that this is a proportionate sanction which balances the importance of protecting staff with the undoubted right of the two noble Lords to continue exercising their core parliamentary functions.
I include a further word on Standing Order 68, under which the two Motions in my name fall to be decided. The report recommending the new Standing Order was agreed in a full sitting of the House after nearly two hours of debate on 30 April 2019. Members who are the subjects of reports by the commissioner have a full right of appeal to the Conduct Committee, a right which I stress again that neither noble Lord has exercised in this case, but certain sanctions can only be imposed by the House itself on recommendation of the committee. The Standing Order was designed to promote an objective and independent process protecting complainants who cannot speak for themselves and ensuring that future complainants know that their conduct will not be debated on the Floor of the House. A similar Standing Order exists in the House of Commons.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is a matter for the House. There is little that I wish to say. Standing Order 68 will apply on 12 October, as the House will be no more or less legitimate then than it is today. Delay would not change the appropriateness of the sanction but could convey an unfortunate message about the House’s willingness to enforce its own agreed code. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Cormack
Leave out after “that” and insert “consideration of the Report from the Select Committee The Conduct of Lord James of Blackheath, Lord Kalms, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Baroness Mone (3rd Report, HL Paper 36) be deferred until 12 October.”
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I have put down this amendment for one simple reason. By voting for it—and I intend to test the opinion of the House—we will give ourselves time to reflect on the wisdom of Standing Order 68 and to decide whether it is in accordance with natural justice to impose penalties on those who have done no personal wrong or injury to anyone within or outside the House but who are being punished because they have not followed, within a prescribed time and in a difficult year, an instruction to follow a training course on how to behave. Standing Order 68’s constraints, within which I am having to speak, do not permit of others to speak in this debate. However, I know that many in your Lordships’ House share my concern.
The Standing Order prevents discussion. I know that a number of colleagues share my feeling that in the high court of Parliament we should not be forbidden from exercising our judgment on the recommendations of a small group of colleagues and outsiders who are deciding sanctions on a small group of other colleagues. We may debate at length the recommendation of every other Select Committee but, to those reports from the Conduct Committee, we can only say “content” or “not content”.
This final week of term is a very full one, and our brief September sitting is very crowded, with four long days devoted to the vast and important Environment Bill. In October there should be a chance to look at how we regulate and organise ourselves, perhaps reflecting on Harold Macmillan’s famous reminder that:
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles any knot.”
I submit that we have tied ourselves in a very restraining knot. I urge that we begin to untangle it today. Do we really want to treat former captains of industry and others as recalcitrant schoolboys and say: “Because you didn’t do your prep, you can’t go to the tuck shop or the library,” especially as the Library has a number of books on good behaviour?
I urge those of us who share my concerns to vote for this amendment, which does not pass any judgment on the report that the noble Lord, Lord Mance, has moved, but which gives us an opportunity, during the forthcoming recess, after a very tiring and difficult year, to reflect, “Have we got this right? Is this the way to treat colleagues?” I beg to move.
Lord Mance
To resolve that, in accordance with paragraph 159 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct, and without prejudice to their ability to carry out their parliamentary duties, Lord Kalms and Lord Willoughby de Broke be denied access to certain facilities of the House and be restricted in their access to certain services, as set out in paragraph 18 of the 3rd Report from the Conduct Committee; and that these arrangements shall continue until they have completed Valuing Everyone training.
Medical Devices (Northern Ireland Protocol) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 July
Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Device Approvals) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:10 - Division conducted remotely on Baroness Thornton’s amendment. - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 230 - Baroness Thornton’s amendment disagreed.
Lord Bethell
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 June be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 12 July.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]
I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Thornton
At the end to insert “that this House welcomes that the draft Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Device Approvals) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 introduce a quality approval process for all COVID-19 tests sold in the UK; but regrets that the regulations assume a change in policy by not making guaranteed provision for the continuation of free NHS COVID-19 tests and will therefore rely on private sector testing for which fees are charged; further regrets that private sector tests do not appear to be integrated with the NHS test and trace system, including legal requirements to report and self-isolate; notes with concern that Her Majesty’s Government have previously stated that regular testing is an essential part of the easing of coronavirus restrictions; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to guarantee that reliable, high-quality, free NHS tests remain available to all beyond 19 July to support the effective management of COVID-19.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords who have read the record of the debate on this SI in Grand Committee will not be surprised that this regret amendment has been brought to the House today, given the Minister’s inability to answer the questions posed by noble Lords or indeed to reassure us over our concerns. Since then, we have had a weekend of further chaos on testing, tracing and isolating, which we will discuss tomorrow when the House takes the latest Statement on the matter. I understand that it is the 49th such Statement; it is certainly the 49th in the Commons.
For complete clarity, as the amendment states, I say that we on these Benches are in favour of guaranteeing and improving the quality of Covid tests. We also recognise that the private sector has a role to play in providing tests for those who wish to travel abroad on holiday and for business purposes. My amendment highlights the issues that were of concern to the Grand Committee and which prompted many questions, based not least on the excellent report from the SLSC, that I am afraid went unanswered.
I thank the Minister for his letter yesterday, which provided much-needed clarity on some of the issues raised and contained the kind of details that would have been helpful in last week’s debate. These regulations are not being introduced with the urgency characteristic of previous points in the pandemic, and they must be introduced and debated in a considered fashion.
This is a public health pandemic and surely no barrier, particularly a financial one, must be put in place that hinders testing and tracing, yet there has been deep unease that lateral flow tests were guaranteed to be free only until the end of July and that people could subsequently be charged under plans being considered by the Government. The Minister’s letter includes welcome confirmation that free NHS tests and universal testing will continue until the end of September. That raises the question of why the Minister could not give us that answer last week in Grand Committee. He should have been well prepared for it given the public interest, media reports and indeed the SLSC report on this instrument, which specifically raised concerns about changing policy and recommended that free testing continue. Can he confirm when that decision was made and when it will next be reviewed?
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked some thoughtful questions about the supply of tests and their reliability. He asked the Minister to explain the Government’s intention on charging for tests, particularly for employers who want to institute testing regimes to bring their staff back into their premises and to protect the public and their customers while doing so. He eloquently made the point that businesses have lost significant revenue over the last week and have asked whether it is right to expect them to meet further costs at this stage. Since April, companies have been able to order rapid lateral flow tests for their workers. While we now know that individuals can still claim free tests through the NHS, at least until the end of September, there seems to be confusion as to whether the scheme for companies has closed. The Government’s website says the cut off for new orders was 19 July—the UK Government’s freedom day in England—as the requirement for masks and social distancing ended. Can the Minister confirm whether the scheme for businesses will also run until September? Does he agree that responsible employers who are ensuring their workers are regularly undertaking lateral flow tests should be congratulated on their approach rather than suddenly being asked to source tests from a private provider, which would dramatically increase costs?
My noble friend Lord Rooker, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, all raised the issue of the missing impact assessment, which the Explanatory Memorandum said would be published in time for the parliamentary debate, which was on Monday 12 July. Again, the Minister failed to answer this question during Committee, but his letter of 19 July reveals that the impact assessment has been red-rated by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee and withheld. Noble Lords will be aware that red-rated impact assessments are deemed not fit for purpose. This is deeply concerning. In his letter, the Minister further committed to publishing the impact assessment as it currently stands and a supporting statement “shortly”, and therefore before the parliamentary vote, following the opinion of the RPC, outlining the areas where further improvements can be made. Here we are, over a week later, about to vote—possibly—yet this important documentation has still not been published. Can the Minister explain why this has not happened, despite his assurance? Where does the buck stop for this latest failing?
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and I are very concerned about the seeming lack of link between test and trace and the proposed new private testing regime. While the noble Lord’s letter to me notes that it is
“vital that we introduce a regulatory regime to ensure COVID-19 tests available on the market are of sufficient quality and produce accurate results”,
it does not offer assurance in detail about how this regime and the NHS Test and Trace will work together to provide a comprehensive safe regime that the UK can depend upon. I sincerely hope that the Minister can provide some much-needed clarity.
There are many matters to regret here: the impact, or lack of it, the policy changes, the process and the timeliness. This was not an urgent matter, the Minister said. It could have been done over a month or so, and it would have definitely benefited from that. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad to support my noble friend in her Motion. I want to put two points to the Minister. The context of this SI is the poor quality of many tests. Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum makes the point that, during public procurement of lateral flow tests for the NHS,
“only 25% passed through all stages of validation including assessments of performance and quality standards.”
That is a pretty shocking statistic. Can I take it that most of these tests came from China? We had an Oral Question on this from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, only a few minutes ago. That being so, can the Minister assure me that Uighur slave labour in Xinjiang was not used in the manufacture of those tests?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for giving us the opportunity to have a discussion around this; I will support her amendment. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and to echo some of his remarks and questions.
In doing so, I return to a Question that I put during Oral Questions, in an earlier part of our proceedings today, where I specifically asked about the number of lateral flow tests that have been produced and where they have come from. My interest in this originated during a hearing of the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, when were told by a witness that he was delighted that a package had arrived at his home containing a lateral flow test and that it had originated in China. This prompted me to ask a Written Question about how many of these tests had been produced in the People’s Republic of China. The Answer I was given was staggering: we had bought not 100,000 or 1 million, but 1 billion. I also asked, in that same Question, two other things: how much this had cost British taxpayers and which companies, both British and Chinese, were involved in these deals. I did not get an answer to the second two parts of my Question, so I tabled a further Written Question, asking again. It stands on our Order Paper today as having the greatest longevity of any unanswered Written Question. It was tabled on 12 May and it was due to be answered by 26 May; it is now 20 July. It is grossly discourteous to the House for Written Questions not to be answered in this way—it would have maybe saved the Oral Question having to be asked earlier on.
At the heart of that Question is the issue of due diligence. I echo something that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, asked during our earlier exchanges. The duty is on the Government, not on individuals, to ascertain, as the purchaser of these lateral flow tests, what the supply chain transparency is. I should mention two things here: I am a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Uyghurs and I have a Private Member’s Bill before your Lordships’ House on supply chain transparency. What due diligence has been done in establishing the provenance of these lateral flow tests, and why have we not had answers? Perhaps the Minister can give the answers to us now. Who are the companies that have been involved in the purchasing of these tests and what has been the cost overall?
I would also like to ask the Minister something that was put to him on 12 July by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in Grand Committee. It is always a pleasure to find myself on the same side of arguments as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. When I took my seat in another place, over 40 years ago, it was the noble Lord, then as Jeff Rooker MP, who welcomed me; I am glad he has lost none of his bite.
The noble Lord asked the noble Lord, Lord Bethell— I read the Minister’s reply and he did not appear to answer him in that debate, so I simply reiterate the noble Lord’s question:
“why do we need to buy the NHS Test and Trace kits for the lateral flow test, the one being given out by local chemists, from one of the Chinese Communist Party-approved companies? How do we know they are not made with slave labour? What kickbacks go to that corrupt political party? What efforts are being made to get them made in the UK—dare I say Europe—or, indeed, Commonwealth countries? We now have the capacity to check the tests in laboratories. Why have we not done something about manufacturing capacity? Why are we reliant—we appear to be reliant—on the fix of the Chinese industrial structure, which is controlled by the Communist Party or it cannot operate?”—[Official Report, 12/7/21; col. GC 430.]
That is at the heart of this question and of the debate today. It is not a trivial issue. One billion of these tests have been purchased by the UK. Just think what the costs of that will be: if it is 50p a time, that is half a billion pounds; if £1 a time, that is £1 billion. We have a right to know.
This is a point that the noble Baroness made in her remarks earlier: there needs to be not just due diligence but transparency. As far as I am concerned, there has not been sufficient transparency. We are right to press on this, just as it was right earlier to raise the issue of Hikvision. These are cameras that have been put up in our town centres and high streets all over this country, in NHS hospitals and in schools, and they are manufactured in Xinjiang. They are the same cameras being used to monitor Uighur people, 1 million of whom are incarcerated in camps. That company has been banned in the US but not here, and I would be keen to hear from the Minister what the Government—because he will be speaking for the whole Government—are doing to enforce such a ban in the UK.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the principle of this SI. Of course we want to see a mandatory standard for tests. I do not think anyone who spoke in Grand Committee argued against the principle of the SI, but there are concerns about a few issues in it. The Minister replied to the issues raised in Grand Committee with soothing words rather than convincing answers, hence the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has tabled her amendment to the Motion today.
I want to raise a few of the issues that the Minister either ignored by not answering or used soothing words about but did not give convincing answers to. The first question is: if we are to have a mandatory standard for tests, why have we got new Clause 39A, which is an exemption from the mandatory tests and standards that can be applied at the stroke of a ministerial pen? What is the point of having a mandatory standard for safety if the Secretary of State, at the stroke of his or her pen, can decide to do away with that? In what circumstances and for what reasons would the Secretary of State wish to bring in tests that would lower the mandatory standard, and how would the public know that they were purchasing a test that did not meet the statutory standard that had been set?
I want to address the issue of openness and transparency, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, regarding the validity of the standard of the test as well as human rights issues. Where is the research in public on the validity of the standard of the lateral flow tests, particularly the one from China brought in via Innova, the main intermediary for a Chinese company? This test, as raised in Grand Committee, was given a class I notice in America, and an FDA email says it is not effective and gives the instruction:
“Destroy the tests by placing them in the trash”.
That is the same lateral flow test bought for billions of pounds by the UK. Again, there were soothing words from the Minister in Grand Committee about this: he said that the Government were working with the FDA. That might be true but having two differing positions— the Government saying that the test is safe while the FDA says to throw it in the trash—is not working together. Could the Minister elucidate on why the British Government still feel these tests are safe when the FDA says they should be thrown in the trash? Which part of the FDA’s analysis do the Government disagree with?
The key issue for me is the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has already raised: this is not linked into the total public health system to deal with the virus. The key issue is not the standard of the tests themselves but that it should be linked into test and trace. To say that we are going to have a high standard without linking it into the test and trace system is like saying you want the best electric car in order to be environmentally friendly, buying it and then, once you get it home, realising that the nearest charging point is 100 miles away. This is not fit for purpose. To be so, tests must be integral and integrated into the test, trace and isolate part of the public health response to coronavirus.
I ask the Minister, as I and others did in Grand Committee: if someone carries out a private test, how does that link into test and trace? There is no mandation anywhere in UK law to say that a private test, once proved positive, has to be fed into the test and trace system. All the evidence suggests that the way to deal with the virus most effectively is to break the chains of transmission within 48 hours. If tracing is not told that you have tested positive, there is no way to have an effective public health response. So, even if you have the best standard of tests, with no tracing or isolation the chain of transmission will continue.
When I and others asked in Grand Committee, the Minister said that this is also a significant public health policy change. I am not aware of any infectious disease anywhere in the UK or in the world where a market approach to the testing of infectious diseases has become the bog-standard approach, but that seems to have been the Government’s policy after September.
The Minister mentioned Germany in Grand Committee, saying that that country had moved to a specifically private-led testing system. There are two differences in the German system. First, it is controlled by state subsidies; to do it, the companies get a state subsidy, which has now been reduced significantly so the level of private testing is levelling off. Secondly, and most importantly, there is a mandatory requirement in German law to report positive cases from those positive tests to the national Covid test and trace system in Germany.
This statutory instrument, while well intentioned, is riddled with weaknesses. It is not linked to the test and trace system and will not help keep the country safe. It will not have the desired effect, and we will end up with a system that basically has a good standard of tests but then does not do the next, vital part, which is to trace people and then support them in isolating.
That is why we on these Benches will support the amendment to the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—unless the Minister can come up with convincing answers this time, not just soothing words.
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her support for the regulations in the round, for her supportive words about the role of the private sector in the round and for raising many important points in her amendment to the Motion, stressing the vital role of NHS testing as we continue to manage the pandemic.
I want to clarify that these regulations are not connected to the future of free NHS testing. This SI, as noble Lords have noted, is solely focused on ensuring the quality of any Covid test in the UK and that they are of the same standards as I would procure for the NHS.
It is self-evident that poor-quality tests, when used privately, could pose a risk to the health of not only the individual but the public. All that is necessary for entry of Covid test products into the UK market is controlled by EU CE marking, which, as noble Lords noted, is currently a self-declaration process for most Covid-19 tests on the UK market. The performance declaration made as part of this EU marking does not need to be independently verified ahead of sale of such tests. There is no legally binding agreed process for establishing performance. That just is not good enough. It became clear as I sought to procure tests at scale for the national effort that many kits that had passed a CE mark were not fit for the real world. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is not right that the quality of tests correlated to any particular nation; this applied to all nations.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we have audited the supplies of medical devices and there are no current slavery or human rights concerns. We do, however, remain vigilant. I regret that his question on sourcing has not been answered, particularly because there is a very large amount of public material on the procurement framework, the suppliers to it and the arrangements we make to run that framework. I will address that gap with speed, and with regret.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that there is a very large amount of published material on the internet on the validation of tests, including the protocols and the results from Oxford University and Porton Down, which conducted the validation of the tests. These validation protocols have been assessed by a very large number of experts, and I would be glad to send him links to the protocols and the assessment processes. I reassure him that our tests have been tested against alpha, beta, gamma and delta variants and successfully detect all of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referenced “kickbacks” to the Communist Party. I very kindly and respectfully ask him to remember that British officials have operated a remarkable procurement programme during the pandemic at the very highest standards of integrity. I gently ask him to provide evidence for such accusations before making them in the House.
To the question of why we buy so many tests from China and not from Britain, the simple answer is that they pass our protocol and meet the requirements of the procurement framework regarding quantity, speed and product design, for example. We buy them to ensure a good deal for taxpayers and effective tests for the public.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we need a strong UK manufacturing base. I reassure the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Scriven, and others who have raised this point that we have a major programme on this, with subsidies, expertise and support available. I would be glad to arrange a briefing session to run noble Lords through all the measures we have in place to support the UK diagnostics industry. I believe the high-quality regulations we are discussing today provide the certainty business and investors need to invest in the UK diagnostic system. We need this market to provide additional capacity at the time of the pandemic, to ensure that we have outstanding testing capability while also encouraging innovation.
I was keen to take an evidence-based approach to developing this policy, so we ran a very successful consultation that had a broad range of respondents. Some 73% agreed that mandatory validation of tests prior to entry to the market was the best approach; 88% of those agreed that this should be legally backed; 71% agreed that a validation process would not significantly reduce supply; and 79% agreed that mandatory validation processes will increase safety.
In April this year we launched the universal testing offer, so now anyone in England can access free LFD self-tests by ordering online or collecting then at over 9,000 pharmacies across the country. To reassure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords concerned about this, our recently published road map out of lockdown made it clear that we are keeping in place key protections, including free testing for people with symptoms, but we are standing down the workplace testing regime, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly pointed out, from 19 July.
On the rationale for regulation, I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for NHS tests, which have always been of the highest standard. The objective of the legislation is to ensure that the same high standards for tests that we see upheld when the Government buy them are equally reflected in the testing market for all consumers. That market already exists in this country; over 1,000 providers are already going through the UKAS accreditation process. These tests are being used to enable activity across many areas of the economy, including travel, film, TV production and sport. It is critical that we put in place processes to ensure that these tests are high quality and accurate: that is what this law does.
On the integration of private tests and the NHS test and trace system, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that significant work has already successfully linked private sector testing results with the NHS Covid app, the JBC and test and trace. When a test is conducted by a testing provider, whether public or private, the result of that test, whatever the outcome, is legally required to be reported to PHE as a notifiable disease by the provider. To the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: this is true for a private test or a public test, and I would be glad to send him a copy of the long-standing regulations that make this law. This must be done within 24 hours for all positive tests. Any self-administered test provided by the Government can be reported via our online portal by members of the public. Any positive test reported to PHE will be passed on to our contact tracing system.
The draft impact assessment has now been published in the interest of transparency, as has an impact statement. It is a living document, and we want to make the best analysis available. We intend to update the impact assessment and address the RPC’s comments ahead of the introduction of the second SI in the autumn. I would like to put on record my thanks to the RPC for working so closely with us and at such pace on this matter.
I want to ensure that all tests are available in the UK, whether they are offered by the NHS, a charity or a private provider, and whether they are supplied by a British diagnostic firm or an overseas firm. I thank the noble Baroness for giving me this opportunity to respond to her important points. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister. I feel for the Minister, and I wish him well in his self-isolation, and I congratulate him on his immediate and unfussy decision to obey the ping and the trace system. I hope he is going to have a great summer, because I think he has earned it.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Alton and Lord Scriven, for their support and the questions they have asked. I apologise to the House that we did not put this amendment down in the first place. It should have come straight to the floor of the House rather than going through the Grand Committee first. It was only the gathering concern in Committee that led me and other noble Lords to the conclusion that we needed further discussion about this.
It is not up to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to prove the veracity of the sources of any goods we purchase through the NHS or anywhere else. If it is being bought by the Government, it is up to the Government to demonstrate that those supply lines are not exploitative and do not use slave labour. That is part of the transparency we are calling for. I do not think the Minister answered very well on that matter.
I am concerned that workplaces, as I suspected, will now have to pay for the testing regime we have. I am somewhat reassured by the noble Lord assuring us that tests have to be fed in through the test and trace system wherever they happen, but I am concerned that, given that workplaces will now have to purchase all those tests, the system will break down quite quickly over the summer. We still have many questions and regrets, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
For Report on the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill, I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. Any Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. The groups are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 20th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead 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-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (15 Jul 2021)
15:46 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 9 - Ayes: 243 / Noes: 238 - Amendment 9 agreed.
16:11 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 26 - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 243 - Amendment 26 disagreed.
16:51 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 256 - Amendment 27 disagreed.
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Report be now received.
Clause 1: Regulated leases
Amendment 1
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment excludes leases of multiple dwellings from the definition of “regulated lease”.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have participated so far in the debates on the Bill and who have met me to discuss the policy and principles behind it. These discussions have led directly to the first set of amendments under consideration today. The government amendments in this group provide greater clarity in two key areas—rack rents and intermediate long leases—addressing issues that emerged both at Second Reading and in Committee.
First, government Amendment 1 inserts the word “single” into Clause 1 to put beyond any doubt or ambiguity the fact that the Bill is intended to apply only to a lease of an individual dwelling. My noble friend Lord Hammond has noted, both in this Chamber and in various meetings, that, as drafted, the Bill could perhaps be interpreted as also applying to cases where a lease is made up of multiple dwellings, held collectively.
Where a lease is for multiple dwellings, such as a where a business has a lease for all or part of a building, the intention of the policy is that there should be no restriction on such leaseholders arranging their finances with the superior landlord in a manner that suits the commercial needs of both parties. This amendment clarifies that the Bill is intended not to capture such leases but to protect individual leaseholders.
Noble Lords will have heard me say many times that this is narrowly focused legislation. Ending this legitimate practice is not, and never has been, the intention of this Government. By amending this clause so that it refers to a long lease of a “single” dwelling, we ensure that this legislation does not inadvertently put an end to this business model. The addition of this word provides welcome clarity on this matter, and I hope that the amendment will attract support from across the House.
Government Amendments 2 and 38 concern the exemption from the provisions of the Bill in cases where a leaseholder has taken up a long residential lease without the customary payment of a premium and instead pays a full rent for the term of the lease. As I am sure your Lordships are aware by now, the purpose of the Bill is to protect the large majority of leaseholders who pay a substantial premium on the granting of a lease, often with a mortgage, from further rental charges. Our guiding ambition here has been to put an end to the otherwise continuing unfairness of such leasehold arrangements.
It has been brought to my attention by noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Hammond, that a small number of long residential leases are let where no premium is paid for the granting of the lease and where, instead, a market rent is paid by the leaseholder. I thank once again my noble friend Lord Hammond for drawing our attention to this issue with the drafting of the Bill. It is perhaps no surprise that a former Chancellor should have such attention to detail, and we are grateful to him.
Although such arrangements would still be possible for a lease of 21 years or less, we understand that there are occasions when such arrangements may take place with leases over 21 years—a commonly understood definition of a long lease. I reiterate that it is not the intention for the Bill to apply to long rental leases such as these, so, for the purposes of clarity, the Government have tabled these amendments. They provide that regulated leases will be only those leases granted in exchange for a premium; as a consequence, we have also defined a “premium” in government Amendment 38 as
“any consideration in money or money’s worth for the grant of a lease, other than rent”.
I trust that this allays the concerns of the House on the matter of market rents for long leases.
Amendment 3, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would remove new leases where there is a “deemed surrender and regrant” from the provisions of the Bill. I am grateful for his explanation that his amendment is to address concern that landlords may be reluctant to change a lease, even where requested to by a leaseholder, if this would result in a deemed surrender and regrant because this would mean that the peppercorn limit would apply.
The noble and learned Lord has explained that the two common circumstances where a leaseholder may request that a lease is varied are a change to the demise —for example, to include additional land or property—or to change the term. I will address the concerns about the change to the demise first. We agree that such variations would usually take place in a way that results in a deemed surrender and regrant and that the Bill would discourage that because the resulting new lease would need to be for a peppercorn ground rent.
However, the same outcome can also be achieved with the agreement of the leaseholder by the grant of an additional separate lease, meaning that the ground rent can remain on the unaltered existing lease. This might also be done by altering the lease and extending the lease for a single day. This would then be caught by Clause 6, thereby allowing the ground rent for the existing term to be retained. As we have discussed previously, any extension would be at a peppercorn rate. We believe that this is an achievable workaround that means that variations for the leaseholder’s benefit can be introduced without detriment to the landlord’s existing rights.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I wish to speak to Amendment 3, in my name. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for speaking to me about my concerns about Clause 1(4). It is important that today, we have had an acknowledgement that Clause 6, which I understand is the way the Government intend to deal with preserving the right of a landlord to continued receipt of ground rent for the duration of the original lease, does not extend to a situation where the tenant requests, and the landlord might otherwise agree, subject to this Bill, to grant an extended demise or an extended grant of property.
At the moment, the Bill does not address one of the two circumstances in which, in the normal course of events, there will be a deemed surrender and regrant by operation of law, which operates irrespective of the intention or awareness of the parties. The Minister says that it does not matter because the landlord can always agree with the tenant to grant a separate lease of any extended area of land which the tenant wishes to include in the lease, and that the landlord would otherwise be willing to grant. This leaves a very messy situation. Clause 6—which, with respect, is not entirely straight- forward—is intended to deal with the second situation whereby there is a deemed grant and surrender, and that is where there is any extension to the duration of the lease.
The second normal circumstance is not addressed at all. It is an everyday occurrence, not an unusual one, for a tenant and a landlord to agree informally to changes in the area of the lease. Therefore, subject to the solution that is proposed, which is a separate lease of this grant of extended land included within the lease, there is nothing in the Bill that addresses this. This can be dealt with quite simply, either by taking out Clause 1(4) or by extending Clause 6 to include this second situation, which is the granting of greater land than is currently within the original lease. It makes absolutely no sense to include something dealing with the one but not the other, when those are the only two circumstances which would normally give rise to a deemed grant and surrender. It leaves a lacuna in the Bill, in that there still may well be a landlord who is not aware of the terms of the Bill and who may not appreciate that granting, in accordance with the tenant’s request, a greater piece of land to them has the effect of removing the ground rent to which the landlord would otherwise be entitled.
Although I very much welcome what the Minister has said about many of the amendments he has tabled, and his explanation, legally speaking we are left with a very untidy situation. There is now a distinction between the two circumstances in which there is a deemed surrender and regrant, one being expressly dealt with in Clause 6, and the other not at all. That could lead to a landlord with no awareness of the situation—and with no intention of doing so—losing the benefit of the ground rent under the original lease.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and I thank the Minister for introducing this group of amendments, in which I have two: 5 and 39. I declare my property interest but hasten to add that it does not involve long leasehold; I also declare my interest as a property professional. I particularly thank the Minister for meeting me this morning at short notice; I very much appreciate that and I think it is fair to say that we had a frank and generally constructive conversation. I am indebted to the British Property Federation for the comments it sent me, to the Wallace Partnership Group for its observations on the Bill, and to the Homes for Later Living group, which is a retirement homes specialist.
The pivotal point here is the question of who takes on the responsibilities of property management and things such as safety oversight, particularly in complex buildings. I am thinking of developments such as Salford Quays, but there are others in the pipeline, including King’s Cross and Battersea, that will come on stream and are in the process of evolving even as I speak.
The British Property Federation believes—and I agree with it—that most leaseholders in these large, complex, often urban developments will not want to take on the sort of responsibilities implicit in the management and future-proofing of the common areas and common parts of buildings in these multi-occupied developments. Hardly had I considered that point when it was pointed out to me that a poll by Savanta found that only 31% of people would willingly take on the management of their apartment block, even when faced with the option of saving on ground rent. I have some experience that reinforces this, so much more so when we come to the scale of some of these urban and often redevelopment situations that are truly industrial in their complexity.
A buy-to-let investor is hardly going to have interest in participating in the day-to-day running of an estate. Freeholders, with a nil or peppercorn rent and no other interest beyond the maintenance and management charges that may be taken away from them by right to manage, are hardly going to have an interest in taking on costs that they might not be able to recover. By that I mean costs on things such as long-term capital expenditure on visual improvements or repurposing parts of the development—matters that are not a service charge and therefore there is some question as to the degree to which they could be recovered. With no skin in the game, how is the freeholder going to finance or forward-fund these things? For practical purposes, the Bill ends up providing us with the opportunity for non-responsive freeholders.
If leaseholder-led arrangements fail or the leaseholders want to hand back the management process, an effective freeholder is traditionally there as a backstop to take on the responsibilities. Curiously, under the Bill that onus will persist, with the freeholder having a peppercorn rent. I question whether the liabilities will in fact be shouldered in that way or can be imposed in practice.
I do not intend to press either of my amendments, but it is worth my while going into Amendment 5 in a little more detail. The amendment would make leases that meet certain criteria excepted leases and therefore still able to operate on a ground rent principle. Freeholders would thereby be incentivised to invest in the property in the long term and to bring their expertise, their ability to deal with complex developments at scale and their property management skills and safety oversight.
As buyers of individual long leaseholds, consumers would still have the choice at the market-wide level as to whether they wanted to live in a block run by a freeholder and pay a ground rent or to purchase a flat in a communally run block. Consumers would also retain the right, as they have now, to enfranchise or exercise their right to manage and take over the block, which the Government have said they will seek to make easier as they work on a second leasehold reform Bill.
I propose the choice of a functioning leasehold system in larger and particularly complex apartment building arrangements because, as I say, there is good evidence that a lot of leaseholders do not want the responsibility of running these blocks. It must be pointed out that service charges relate to current expenditure. They do not customarily cover future investment, improvement or adaption and may potentially be challengeable by leaseholders.
A point about retirement developments was rather eloquently made by Homes for Later Living. These often have specialised development models, including extensive communal facilities, so although they are not the same as these large, mixed-use commercial redevelopments, they have some of the same problems.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Grender is very sorry that she is not able to be present, having led for this side of the House in the previous stages of the Bill. She has put into my somewhat inadequate hands the job of taking us to the next stage. I thank the Minister for his very helpful approach to all sides of the debate so far—in the preceding stages and, indeed, right up to this morning, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has commented.
These government amendments are examples of clarifications that have emerged as a result of our discussions; I am sure we would all agree that they are leading to an improvement on the Bill in its original form. Not all of us brought to bear the knowledge and background of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was credited by the Minister a few minutes ago, but, even so, we have been treated with courtesy and respect, and we very much appreciate that.
I turn briefly to the proposals tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The noble and learned Lord made the point that an untidy situation will be left should his amendment not be adopted by the Government. The noble Earl, in his extremely technical presentation of the difficulties and intricacies of leases on big developments, has also shown very clearly the further unfinished business that the Bill by no means addresses. Because of my own interest in the Building Safety Bill, I picked out his suggestion that that Bill—in its current form, at least—could put on to property owners obligations that they will no longer be funded to support should various scenarios sketched out by the noble Earl come to pass.
The Minister’s initial response was that he could not accept Amendment 5; I take that to mean that neither does he accept the arguments that the noble Earl has just presented to your Lordships’ House. It seems to me that, if not here then at some later stage, he will have to answer and have properly investigated the question of whether the Building Safety Bill, if enacted in its present form, would lead to an unacceptable outcome because it would mean that the obligation to inspect, certify and rectify would be placed on the shoulders of a person or body without the means to do it.
The Minister has very helpfully said that he will consider the practical consequences outlined by the noble Earl in relation to Amendment 35. I will be very interested to see how that proceeds. He gave us a little hint that something might come up at a later stage of the Bill. I hope that that will be the case.
In conclusion, I say only that the Minister has been presented with strong evidence from every side that this is an incomplete Bill. It does not tackle the whole problem even in terms of its own limited reference point. I am grateful, as I think the whole House will be, that improvements are being made, but further improvements are needed and the urgency of proceeding to the second stage of leasehold reform is underlined every time one of your Lordships contributes to this debate.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this first group, like most that have been tabled on Report, are technical amendments that do not alter the central provisions of the Bill but none the less aim to improve its application. Amendments 1, 2 and 38, each tabled by the Minister, deal with the definition of “regulated leases”. Specifically, they exclude leases of multiple dwellings, with Amendment 2 adding that a regulated lease is considered such only
“if it is granted for a premium”.
Can the Minister confirm whether there have been any impact assessments or informal consultations on the application of these changes?
Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, probes the relationship between the Bill and “large and complex buildings”. He gave a large and complex explanation of his amendment. In there somewhere, I think he said that the commonhold might present a solution to the complex problem raised, but it is probably a little more difficult than that. These Benches fully support the removal of ground rent for all leaseholders, but I hope the Minister can confirm what support and engagement are ongoing with this impacted group.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has probed the provision on “deemed surrender and regrant”. I look forward to further clarification from the Minister on this as well—to tidy up the somewhat contradictory nature of the legislation in Clause 1(4) and Clause 6, as the noble and learned Lord explained.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their ongoing engagement and for the substantive points raised. I want to pick up on the issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, of orphan freehold syndrome, in particular with regard to complex leases. I point out that leaseholders can collectively exercise the right to manage; they can appoint a managing agent to discharge the stewardship function that the noble Earl outlined.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked whether we carried out an impact assessment for the two technical changes, which really preserve what is happening today and were not meant to be captured by the provisions of this narrow Bill. We have not carried out any impact assessments. We are looking to continue a practice that we see as being sensible, on occasion. It was never meant to be captured as part of this Bill, so it is not something that requires a full impact assessment as such.
Once again, I commend Amendments 1, 2 and 38 in my name. These changes address important points raised by noble Lords in previous debates on the Bill. I thank noble Lords for recognising that they do so. I think they will agree that they improve the legislation—indeed, as a direct result of the scrutiny in this House—and that it will not have effects beyond those intended. I have listened carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on his two amendments; I remain of the view that Amendment 5 is inconsistent with the intent of the Bill and that the case for Amendment 39 needs further consideration.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I have received a request from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, to speak after the Minister.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the definition of rent in the Bill is not intended to include other fees and charges, such as event fees and indexed service and management charges, which the Law Commission has concluded play a key role in supporting consumer choice in the UK retirement community sector? Do the Government still intend to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations in this area?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm that the definition of rent does not include the items that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned. I cannot state, at this stage, exactly how we will take forward the legislation for the next stage beyond the measures that we have already announced, which are to make enfranchisement easier, to adopt full-throated commonhold—we have already created a commonhold council—and to look at issues around the right to manage, but I am sure that we will be able to give the noble Baroness a response in due course, and that will play a part in the next stage of reform.
Lord Greenhalgh
“(aa) it is granted for a premium,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a lease will only be a regulated lease if it is granted for a premium. “Premium” is defined in Lord Greenhalgh’s first amendment to Clause 22, page 13, line 28.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. I remind noble Lords that anybody wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must declare that in debate.
Clause 2: Excepted leases
Amendment 4
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with Lord Greenhalgh’s second amendment to Clause 22, page 13, line 28, allows the Welsh Ministers to make regulations under Clause 2(6)(b) in relation to premises in Wales.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group relate specifically to Wales. This legislation applies to Wales as well as England, and it is our intention that it works in the best way possible for leaseholders in both England and Wales. We have been working with colleagues in the Welsh Government to understand how the Bill might impact leaseholders in Wales. I take this opportunity to thank Ministers and officials within the Welsh Government for their constructive engagement on the legislation.
Amendments 14 to 24, 45 and 46 make a common-sense change to the legislation that I hope all noble Lords will agree is appropriate. They would see breaches in Wales taken to the relevant residential property tribunal—the leasehold valuation tribunal—instead of the First-tier Tribunal. These are pragmatic amendments, and I hope that they will have support of noble Lords from across the House.
The other amendments in this group confer powers on Welsh Ministers that would, as the legislation is currently drafted, be exercised by the Secretary of State. We have carefully considered which of these powers it would be appropriate to confer and which should be restricted. For instance, we share the concerns that my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham raised at Second Reading about the potential for different commencement dates in England and Wales. This would cause unnecessary confusion for both leaseholders and developers working in both jurisdictions. However, there are areas where we believe that powers should be given to Welsh Ministers to allow them to align these reforms with the housing policy that they are pursuing for Wales.
First, Amendment 4, read with Amendment 40, would give Welsh Ministers the power to update definitions of excepted leases in relation to community housing. This would give the Welsh Government more flexibility and allow them to ensure that this legislation is fit for the purpose of Welsh community housing schemes, including work related to co-operative housing. These amendments recognise the importance of the devolution settlement and are intended to facilitate the Welsh Government in exercising their powers in relation to housing policy.
Secondly, Amendments 11 and 12, read with Amendment 40, would allow Welsh Ministers to increase the size of the penalty in line with changes in the value of money. This would allow them to ensure consistency of approach with other penalties in their competence. For example, they could increase the penalties for breaching the provisions of this Bill in line with increases to other housing-related penalties set by the Welsh Government, even if the UK Government decided not to increase the penalty in England. Conversely, the Welsh Government could decide not to increase penalties even where they were raised in England. However, it is important to note again that any increase, whether in England or in Wales, would only be in line with inflation. It is therefore unlikely that we would see a large gap open up between the levels of penalties in the two jurisdictions.
Amendment 13 would enable the Welsh Government to produce their own guidance for enforcement authorities to achieve the best fit with the Welsh context. This recognises that the Welsh Government’s understanding of the different local authority structures in Wales would ensure the effective implementation of this legislation there. The Welsh Government would also ensure that the guidance is translated into Welsh. We will, of course, work closely with the Welsh Government to ensure consistency across all guidance on enforcement.
I mention at this point that we no longer intend to move Amendments 31 to 34, 36 and 37, related to conferring the powers for Welsh Ministers to make consequential amendments in relation to the Bill. As noble Lords will know, consequential amendments are essential in ensuring consistency across legislation. While we have made every effort to identify where existing legislation needs to be updated in drafting the Bill, we need to ensure that further changes can be made when needed.
Not moving these amendments today does not mean that we are no longer seeking to provide Welsh Ministers with the appropriate powers. However, following discussions late last week with the Welsh Government, we both agree that further engagement is required to ensure that we achieve the right result in setting out how Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State should exercise their respective powers under Clause 20. To that end, we intend to continue our constructive discussions over the summer and reach an agreeable position to bring forward any appropriate amendments at a later stage. The Welsh Government want to ensure alignment of this legislation, including within the context of their ongoing codification of Welsh law. Our continued joint working should ensure that this can be achieved.
Amendment 35, the final amendment in this group, provides that the default procedure for regulations made under the Bill by Welsh Ministers is the negative procedure.
Taken together, the amendments in this group will ensure that the Bill works in the Welsh context. They recognise the interconnected nature of property law and housing policy and give reasonable powers to Welsh Ministers to adapt this legislation to ensure the best fit for Wales. The amendments that we have not moved will continue to be discussed and do not have a significant impact on the operation of the Bill as currently drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome these technical amendments to recognise the role of the Welsh Government in these matters. While I will not go through each in turn, I would appreciate clarification on a few broad points.
First, the Government stated that provisions are not within the legislative competence of the Senedd Cymru. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government received any advice to the contrary, and whether this was anything to do with the decision to withdraw the amendments that were originally scheduled? Secondly, why were the amendments not included in the initial draft of the Bill? Thirdly and finally, can the Minister detail how the Government have engaged with both the Welsh Government and the wider Senedd during the passage of the Bill?
I am sure the Minister will agree that the principle of devolution has become a cornerstone of our modern democracy; that is exactly why I welcome these amendments. I look forward to clarification on the questions that I have put to the Minister.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord on exactly what occurred. I know that this issue raised its head only very late last week. I am happy to outline that and put a copy in the Library in response to those questions.
We want to ensure that this legislation works for both England and Wales. This group of amendments achieves this by giving certain powers to Welsh Ministers that would otherwise be exercised by the Secretary of State. We have worked closely with the Welsh Government on this issue and I hope that these amendments will have your Lordships’ support.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 6
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)
My Lords, this amendment repeats one I put forward in Committee. It is obvious that the Government’s policy suggests that the ground rent arrangements that apply at the moment are unfair to many people. This Bill prevents that kind of arrangement being made for the future but does not cover many people suffering from the present disadvantage.
It has been made clear to me by the Minister—indeed, fairly clear from the start—that dealing with the existing position is quite complex. The Competition and Markets Authority has dealt with it, and we have seen some arrangements that have come out of that. I was particularly pleased to notice that one at least of these arrangements looked quite like what I had proposed in the new clause in Amendment 6—paying off what remained of the obligation according to some formula.
I move this amendment only to emphasise the need for early implementation of the next stage. I am sure that the Government wish to move quite quickly, but I think we need as a House to make sure that that is made quite clear to the Government. I know that among the other proposals is one to make it easier to move to commonhold. Long ago when I was Lord Chancellor, I was keen to promote the idea of commonhold, because I had been brought up under a system of tenement property where people owned their own property. I was keen to seek to avoid the idea of leasing all the property. Of course, commonhold was difficult, but it has come in as a reasonable proposal now, and I would be very keen to see it being easier to get there than it has been in the past.
I very much welcome what the Government are proposing in this area. I am supported very much in that by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham who did the much more difficult task of tabling a very full amendment in Committee for dealing with the matter. I left the main difficulty with the Minister, which I think is always quite a wise thing to do.
I simply move this amendment for the purpose I have mentioned and do not propose to insist on it at all.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I am grateful to the Minister for finding the time to have a meeting with me. It was very helpful.
I shall come on to another amendment I have later. For this group, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned the need to speed things up. I entirely support that. We should get the rest of the Law Commission’s report on the statute book as quickly as possible. The noble and learned Lord’s amendment and that from my noble friend Lord Lennie are fundamental in trying to, shall we say, stem the tide of very unfair practices that seem to have developed in some parts of the market. I do not know how widespread it is, and I am quite surprised that the CMA has not been more helpful because its role, after all, is to look after the interests of consumers. Sometimes I feel that it possibly does not do that, but we can discuss that another time.
I have the pleasure of being on your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee that has just started one inquiry—out of two—into housing. At our meeting this morning, I was struck by three of the witnesses all saying that security of tenure was one of the biggest problems in housing. Whether it is leasehold or rental, it does not really matter very much. It is important to understand that people need to have some comfort that they can continue to live where they are living if they want to, and that the amount that they pay cannot go shooting up because of the wishes of the owners or other people involved in a way that could not have been foreseen when they took out the lease. It is not good when people are locked in—there are many press comments about it—and cannot sell. What do they do? That is before you get into the problem of cladding, which again is outside this discussion.
I am not sure whether my noble friend’s amendment or that of the noble and learned Lord is the best one. They both try to find some way of providing financial comfort to those who have been caught in this sudden upsurge—to me anyway—of increasing ground rents or other similar charges.
When we do these stages, it is funny that the Minister answers before the amendment has actually been proposed—but that is another thing we will get to. I look forward to my noble friend speaking on this matter, as he is much more knowledgeable than I am on it. I shall also be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. It is really important that something like this is done very quickly, long before the next stage of the Law Commission’s report becomes a Bill.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am largely supportive of this group of amendments, particularly the one moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It always seemed to me that some of these clauses, particularly relating to escalating ground rents, were unfair, with hidden implications that were not apparent to purchasers at the time when they were entered into. The CMA intervention is welcome but the ongoing blight continues. This is certainly an evil that causes me to support this amendment very much.
I also support Amendment 9. This seems to be a logical provision against pre-emption and creates, as I see it, greater transparency, which really should be the hallmark of landlord/tenant relationships in this area.
It is unfortunate perhaps that I am speaking before Amendment 26 has been spoken to. I see it as potentially retroactive, and think it might remove the value of an asset without fair compensation. In its specific scope, it would not distinguish between a fair and reasonable ground rent and one that was flagrantly unfair. I do not in any way defend leasehold interests as such, but if we go down this road it has much wider public interest and property law implications.
Again with Amendment 30, I would have liked to have spoken after the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, whom I believe will speak to it, but, from a technical standpoint, the question of rent is a payment that in this instance the tenant makes to the landlord for the bits of the property which exist but which are not within the tenant’s specific demise under their leasehold. It is not a service charge. Are we at risk of getting rent and services provided for rent confused—in other words, the use of property as opposed to a tangible benefit in terms of the service charge? In general, however, subject to those points, I support this group of amendments.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 30. I will focus most of my remarks on Amendment 9, but I cannot speak without first saying that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which I see as essentially introducing an early buy-out option for existing leaseholders, is the next necessary step and should have been endorsed by the Minister and incorporated in this legislation. It is yet another of the unfinished bits of business dogging our debates on the Bill. Like others, I am looking forward to Amendment 26 being presented by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, which, as far as I understand its meaning and intention, has essentially the same purpose of moving forward the implementation of leasehold reform for that cohort of existing leaseholders who will be left out of this legislation. As such, in principle, we support that strongly.
Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 30, tabled by my noble friend Lady Grender and myself, are various alternative approaches to ensure that if the limited circumstances of this Bill are as far as the Minister is prepared to go, it is at least not a cause of exploitation of existing leaseholders who may be very close to agreeing an informal lease extension. The process of informal lease extensions is a well-accepted norm in the leasehold industry and, as was discussed extensively at previous stages of this legislation, one which comes into play when the existing lease is within sight of its end. That may be some distance away but nevertheless the value of the lease is declining rapidly, and perhaps its mortgageability on resale is compromised because there is not a sufficient existing term of the lease. If a completely new lease is not to be entered into, an informal lease extension may be negotiated between the leaseholder and the proprietor.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, described Amendment 9 as an anti pre-emption provision. Perhaps his three-word soundbite says it all. The risk at the moment is that an owner—or, should we say, one of the less-scrupulous landlords—may see this as an opportunity to preserve the value of his asset by offering an informal leasehold extension on terms which would be applicable under the current legislation now to pre-empt the possibility of that extension value declining to nil once the new legislation comes into force.
The Government have set their face against either of the approaches set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, at least at this stage, and I suspect that they will strongly resist the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. That is a pity and comes despite the evidence that has been put on the table by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the examples given by my noble friend Lady Grender in Committee, which were referred to extensively at Second Reading. That leaves precisely the problem that I have outlined. An informal leasehold extension may very well be useful to both parties when the leaseholder is shortly to sell or is making arrangements prior to disposal, but clearly it is dangerous if the leaseholder simply wants to continue their lease.
It is also dangerous if the condition for entering negotiations is that the lawyers will be appointed by the owner, and it is dangerous if the new terms which are inserted into that leasehold extension are not drawn properly to the attention of the leaseholder. The evidence shows that it is not unusual for escalator clauses to be built into those leasehold extensions, which are not transparent and not brought clearly to the notice of the leaseholder who is going to sign. The risk is that unscrupulous landlords can see very clearly that, after Royal Assent, their golden goose will be stuffed. If I can mix my metaphors, they have an incentive to offer new lamps for old when it comes to extensions. To offer informal leasehold extensions to unsuspecting leaseholders locks them into a new, unfavourable set of terms when, if they had waited, under the full enactment of the Bill they would have been eligible for its new provisions limiting the ground rent to a peppercorn.
We have tried to fix this statutorily. Amendments 7 and 8 set this out in different ways, but Ministers resisted our efforts strenuously. We have had discussions with the Minister, which I have very much welcomed. He has been very generous with his time and with his officials’ time in working on this problem. Amendment 9 is therefore really quite modest in its intent and its impact. It simply proposes that landlords should have an obligation to alert their leaseholders in advance of these changes coming into force of informal leasehold extension terms being altered by this new legislation. It is a proportionate safeguard which is not onerous on landlords but gives leaseholders a clear sight of the forthcoming changes before they commit to less favourable terms under the existing law. It does not prevent those to whom the balance of advantage still lies with a speedy signature on the existing terms for an informal leasehold extension from choosing to do so, but it seeks to protect the unwary from making a costly mistake which ultimately, as in one or two of the examples which my noble friend Lady Grender brought to the House in Committee, may lead to them losing that property entirely.
I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 9 when the appropriate moment arises.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak primarily to Amendment 26 in my name, which would ensure that the Government bring forward legislation to end ground rent for existing leaseholders. I also add my thanks to the Minister for making himself and his officials available and for seeking to explore whether there is any chance of a solution to this. There was not, although he described this problem as “a top priority for the Government”. That is something that the noble Lord, Lord Young, heard when, in the other House, he was trying to deal with the question of hereditary Peers in this place. He was persuaded not to move an amendment by the then Government and was promised that legislation would be forthcoming. That was 20 years ago.
Millions of people are trapped in these contracts and the Government must end the feudal system for them as well as for new leaseholders. That is the whole purpose of this amendment—to make life equal for all leaseholders. Almost 5 million properties in England are leasehold dwellings—around one in five of all homes —and the House will be aware that many of them, if not all, are seeing their ground rent increase at incredible rates. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, memorably described this in Committee as a legal racket. That is what it is: it leaves a loophole available which sees rents increasing without any explanation, for no service whatever to leaseholders. It is creating immense misery and financial difficulties and there is no reason for the Government to maintain the system when they have already acknowledged how outdated ground rent is.
That is why the amendment would ensure that the Government bring forward early legislation within 30 days to end the practice once and for all. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, identifies the same issue and tries to deal with it, but I am afraid I do not believe it goes far enough. Ground rent must be ended for leaseholders, including those in existing arrangements, and for that reason I will be testing the opinion of the House on Amendment 26 at the appropriate time.
I confirm the support of these Benches for Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and I also welcome other amendments he has tabled to probe aspects of these provisions. Amendment 9 raises the crucial point that leaseholders must always be informed of arrangements, and I hope the Minister will accept that point. With that, however, I will leave it to the Minister to respond.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, several issues have been raised in relation to existing leaseholders in previous debates and engagements, and I thank noble Lords for their close examination and engagement with the Government on these issues. However, as I have stated previously, this Bill is deliberately focused tightly on only new residential long leases.
As noble Lords will know well by now, the Government are approaching their leasehold reform programme in two stages. First, the ground rent Bill before us today is intended to look ahead and transform the economic relationship between leaseholders, freeholders and developers. A comprehensive leasehold reform Bill will follow during the course of this Parliament to end unfair practices in the leasehold market, ensure that consumers are protected from abuse and poor service, and reinvigorate commonhold.
Noble Lords are understandably keen to know precisely when this second and more comprehensive leasehold reform Bill will be introduced. They will of course understand that scheduling of legislation is a complex process, and that consideration must be given to the Government’s wider legislative agenda. It is therefore simply not possible to make such concrete commitments at this stage. However, your Lordships should rest assured that the Government have no intention of going slowly when it comes to leasehold reform, which is one of the Secretary of State’s top priorities.
Amendments 6, 7, 8, 26, and 30 ultimately seek to widen the scope of the Bill so that it applies to existing leaseholders. Amendment 6, moved by my noble and learned friend, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, would allow existing leaseholders to pay a capital sum to reduce their ground rent to a peppercorn. As I have laid out in previous debates on the Bill, while we are sympathetic to the aims of this amendment, the Government do not believe that it is necessary. Existing legislation already allows leaseholders of flats to reduce their ground rent to a peppercorn on extending their lease through the statutory route. Meanwhile, leaseholders of houses can buy the freehold of their property and so eliminate ground rent altogether.
In January of this year, the Government committed to allowing existing leaseholders to buy out their ground rent without the need to extend the term of their lease: for example, where their lease is already long. For the purposes of calculating the premium payable for this, the ground rent will be capped at 0.1% of the property value, making it significantly cheaper for leaseholders with onerous ground rents. We will also introduce an online calculator to simplify the process of enfranchisement and ensure standardisation and fairness. We believe that these measures will achieve broadly the same effect as my noble and learned friend’s amendment, so I cannot accept it today.
Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, would restrict ground rent for existing leaseholders who enter into non-statutory lease extensions to 0.1% of the value of the landlord’s interest in the dwelling. It is important to state for the record that the peppercorn requirement will apply to the newly extended portion of the lease once an extension has been granted under the voluntary route. In addition, for the period of the lease that reflects the term that remained on the original lease, the ground rent cannot be higher than in that lease. There will be no opportunity for a landlord to use the point of lease extension to increase ground rent.
I have discussed Amendment 8 with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and we are of course all of the view that we do not wish to see exploitation of this legislation. However, it cannot be right that we take away the option of a non-statutory lease extension which would enable the leaseholder to pay a lower premium in return for continuing to pay some ground rent on the remaining term of their lease, with limitations as set out in the Bill. Where a leaseholder wishes to follow this route, Clause 6 allows for a monetary ground rent to continue to be paid on the remaining part of a lease—that is, the “pre-commencement lease”. This can be common where the leaseholder wishes to agree this approach with their landlord in return for a reduced premium payment.
The “voluntary” or non-statutory process is a more flexible route to lease extension and can in some cases actually be more cost effective and quicker for both the leaseholder and the freeholder. Naturally, therefore, as I am sure we would all agree, we do not want to remove that option from the Bill. I can reassure the House that as part of taking forward the Law Commission’s recommendations on leasehold enfranchisement we will be considering the matter of non-statutory extensions further, and when the time comes we will again seek input from noble Lords on this important issue.
Amendment 9 is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. Attempting to amend the Bill as proposed in the amendment will not guarantee the outcome that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, wishes to see, and the Government continue to consider this issue a matter of implementation detail rather than something to change on the face of the Bill. Amendment 9 would require all landlords to inform leaseholders of the changes introduced by the Bill before entering a formal or informal renegotiation or extension of an existing lease. Where a landlord failed to do so, they would face a penalty of between £500 and £30,000. However, the drafting of this amendment means that it would cover only the period from Royal Assent to the commencement date.
I appreciate that consumer rights and awareness is of particular concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and I would be very keen to work with them and others on the issue of implementation. We have concerns that, while we recognise the need to ensure that leaseholders are aware of their rights and are not rushed into a lease extension before this Bill can take effect, we also need to ensure that any penalties are fair, justified and as far as possible are not incurred accidentally. Were the fines set out in the amendment to apply immediately upon Royal Assent, there is limited time to ensure that landlords are aware of the requirements and could end up receiving a fine for extending a lease in line with a request from a leaseholder.
We agree with the principle of this amendment, and I have discussed with the noble Baroness that we would like to work with her on the implementation of the Bill. This will include, for example, provision of comprehensive information to conveyancers, landlord representatives and leaseholder groups to ensure awareness of the new ground rent limits.
I have had constructive conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about how we might get the word out about these upcoming changes. Several solutions were proposed and I was particularly taken by the noble Lord’s suggestion about engagement with the legal profession to ensure that it can best advise its leaseholder clients. I have asked my officials to consider how we might take forward these proposals. This is important not just so that leaseholders are aware of their rights but so that landlords know what is required of them and do not inadvertently receive a large fine. However, we do not believe that financial penalties should apply as proposed by the noble Lord’s amendment, and I hope that he will not move it.
Amendment 30, again in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would put a requirement on landlords to write to their leaseholders to justify the payments by reference to the expenses to be met from the ground rent, or else to confirm that the ground rent is not used to pay any expenses. We agree that transparency is vital in the leasehold sector. However, we do not believe that this is the appropriate way to ensure that existing leaseholders are better informed about ground rents. As noble Lords know, ground rents are charges paid with no clear service in return. Most leaseholders will be aware of this and it is unclear what benefit they would get from receiving a letter from their freeholder or managing agent to that effect.
However, we are working to prepare the sector and leaseholders alike, assessing where better advice and support can be provided through ongoing regular engagement with the sector and our delivery partners. However, I acknowledge the broader concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in their Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 30 about pre-commencement leases and the consumer awareness challenges in the run-up to this legislation coming into force. It is a noble intention, and we are agreed that leaseholders should have the right information to hand when making important decisions about whether to extend or vary their lease.
I am grateful to noble Lords for raising their concerns about the implementation of this Bill. I understand that it is noble Lords’ desire, as it is mine, to improve the Bill and see it delivered as smoothly as possible. That is why my officials are working carefully to craft an implementation plan that takes account of these concerns, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, to do what we can to ensure that leaseholders are aware that this change in the law is coming and that they are equipped with the information they need to make the decision that is right for them.
This is a good opportunity to inform your Lordships that I can today commit to the House that the commencement date for this legislation will be within six months of Royal Assent, an issue which my noble friend Lord Young raised on numerous occasions. This issue was raised multiple times at previous stages and, while writing the date into the Bill would be inappropriate for reasons that I hope noble Lords will understand, I am pleased to make that commitment today.
More broadly on consumer awareness, the Government are pleased to hear the recent update published by the CMA on 23 June, whereby settlements secured with a leading housing developer and an investor in the leasehold sector have committed them to changes that will benefit thousands of leaseholders by refunding homeowners who saw their ground rents double, and allow leaseholders to buy the freehold of their properties at a discount. One of those companies has also committed to extending the timeframe that prospective buyers are given to exchange contracts after reserving a property, and to providing people with more up-front information about the annual costs of buying a home.
I am sure that noble Lords will also be pleased to hear that that includes ensuring that all marketing materials provided to consumers before the signing of a reservation agreement clearly and prominently state a greater level of information of benefit to the leaseholder—for example, the tenure of the property, the ground rent payable and any circumstances that may potentially lead to an increase in service charges. These landmark commitments will ensure greater transparency for leaseholders, thereby helping future buyers to make informed decisions without feeling pressured by time constraints. The CMA has made excellent progress, and that is just the start. We support the ongoing investigation and believe it will send a clear signal to others in this sector to follow this lead or face legal action.
Finally, Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, would require the Government to produce draft legislation within 30 days to reduce ground rents to a peppercorn in existing long residential leases. I have listened carefully and appreciate the noble Lord’s sense of urgency in wanting to address issues faced by existing leaseholders. I can reassure the House that the Government are working at pace to bring these reforms forward. However, I must once again state that arbitrary deadlines are not useful in this context. It is, frankly, not possible to publish a Bill to the timescale proposed by that amendment. The reforms we are planning are a once-in-a-generation shake-up of the leasehold system, with the effects being felt for years to come.
I have outlined some of the changes, including on enfranchisement, transparency, a commitment on commencement and the ongoing work of the Competition and Markets Authority. I hope that the information I have given satisfies noble Lords that we take the issues facing existing leaseholders very seriously and that we are working at pace to deliver the improvements that all noble Lords here today want to see. As they will no doubt appreciate, this ambitious reform programme is complex and has many interdependencies. Therefore, while being mindful of the need for progress, it is important to take the time required to get it right. It is for these reasons that the Government cannot accept these amendments and I urge that they be withdrawn or not moved.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the Minister for his answers and, so far as I am concerned, the commitment to bring the legislation into effect is an important one that we were given some time ago. So far as my amendment is concerned, I am keen that the new proposals come forward quickly but their nature is such that it would be impossible to formulate them in a clear timescale of the kind suggested. However, that is for others say. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Stunell
“Duty to inform the tenant
(1) Before entering a formal or informal renegotiation or extension of an existing lease, the landlord must inform the tenant of the changes introduced by this Act, if the sections of the Act in relation to prohibited rent are not yet in force.(2) An enforcement authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if the authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has breached the duty in this section.(3) The amount of the financial penalty under subsection (2) is to be such amount as the authority determines but—(a) is not to be less than £500, and(b) is not to be more than £30,000.(4) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require landlords to let tenants know of the upcoming changes to ground rents to try and prevent lease extensions before the changes in this Bill are implemented.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 10. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 9: Financial penalties
Amendment 10
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum penalty that an enforcement authority may impose.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, in constructing a penalty regime for any landlords who breach the provisions of this legislation, we wanted to set the penalty at a level that was proportionate but acted as a deterrent. As the average ground rent is around £250 per year, we felt that £500 would be a reasonable and proportionate minimum penalty. Once again, I remind noble Lords that this would be paid in addition to repaying the prohibited rent with any interest due, and that £500 is a minimum penalty amount. Breaches across multiple leases could also be penalised, resulting in heavy fines.
However, both at Second Reading and in Committee, noble Lords felt that the balance between proportionality and deterrence was not quite right. The noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, were among those who made very strong arguments that the proposed regime was set at too low a level to act as a serious enough deterrent to freeholders, particularly larger freeholders with high annual turnover. In addition, while local authorities should not design their enforcement strategy to function as a revenue stream, we have been clear that we believe that any penalty recovered through the enforcement process should cover the cost of that enforcement.
I have listened carefully to the arguments made in Committee in favour of higher financial penalties and considered the impact that changing these amounts would have. We have concluded that the maximum should be raised to £30,000 which, as some noble Lords may know, is in line with this Government’s Tenant Fees Act 2019. However, we intend to keep the minimum penalty at £500, in recognition that this is proportionate where, for example, a small freeholder charges a non-peppercorn rent.
For those noble Lords who think we are a soft touch, I note that this is the first example of a minimum penalty in leasehold law. This amendment will significantly strengthen the enforcement regime and further deter freeholders from attempting to breach this legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I enthusiastically welcome this amendment from the Government. I am very pleased that the Minister has seen the strength of the arguments put forward by noble Lords from all around the House on this issue. It is not just that the original figure would not have been a significant deterrent for those determined to carry on with bad practice. Worse than that, it was not going to be sufficient to fund or permit trading standards to carry out their enforcement duties. The enforcing body around the country is short of funds and staff, and a new burden placed on it to enforce this provision without the means to do so was a recipe for failure. I am delighted that the Minister has seen the compelling strength of the view that my noble friend Lady Grender and others advanced passionately and congratulate him on persuading his colleagues around government of the need to move forward on this as he has.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the sole amendment in this group increases the maximum penalty to £30,000 per lease, in line with other housing legislation—namely, the Tenant Fees Act. I am pleased that the Minister has brought forward this change following concerns raised in Committee, but I trust that the sum of £30,000 has not been decided purely based on precedent —not just because there is not a direct precedent to compare it to. The use of £30,000 penalties in this legislation will apply to freeholders, many of which are incredibly wealthy businesses. Does the Minister believe that £30,000 will be sufficient deterrent in such cases? As I said, I am concerned that this figure has been chosen because of the so-called precedent. Can the Minister dissuade us of that notion by confirming that an impact assessment has been carried out and, if so, tell us when it will be published?
We welcome an increase in the maximum penalty, but I am not entirely confident that it will be sufficient deterrent. I look forward to the Minister’s assurances.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I point out that the maximum penalty would apply per lease and, for highly complex buildings, that soon multiplies to a substantial amount of money, so we believe that we have got the balance right in meeting the need for deterrence while recognising that some freeholders are not in the class of those that own considerable amounts of property. The amendment should be broadly welcomed and will strengthen the enforcement regime as a result, responding directly to the points made at various stages of the Bill. I believe it significantly strengthens the legislation.
Lord Greenhalgh
“(9) The relevant authority may by regulations amend this section so as to change the minimum amount or the maximum amount.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with Lord Greenhalgh’s second amendment to Clause 22, page 13, line 28, enables the Welsh Ministers (instead of the Secretary of State) to make regulations changing the amount of the minimum and maximum penalties for breaches of Clause 3 in relation to leases of premises in Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 9, page 7, line 37.
Lord Greenhalgh
(b) the Welsh Ministers about the exercise of its functions under this Act in relation to a lease of premises in Wales.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires enforcement authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to enforcement action in England and by the Welsh Ministers in relation to enforcement action in Wales.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 17, page 11, line 17, requires applications for the recovery of prohibited rent paid under a lease of premises in Wales to be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal (instead of the First-tier Tribunal).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 13, page 9, line 24.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 13, page 9, line 24.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 14, page 10, line 5 are consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendments to Clause 13, and enable a leasehold valuation tribunal to order interest to be paid on amounts of prohibited rent that it orders to be repaid to the tenant under that Clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 14, page 10, line 4.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 17, page 11, line 17, requires applications as to the effect of Clause 7 on the terms of a lease of premises in Wales to be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal (instead of the First-tier Tribunal).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 15, page 10, line 19.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 15, page 10, line 19.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 15, page 10, line 19.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendments to Clause 13.
Lord Greenhalgh
“(1) For the purposes of sections 13 to 16 and the Schedule, the “appropriate tribunal” is— (a) in relation to a lease of premises in England, the First- tier Tribunal;(b) in relation to a lease of premises in Wales, a leasehold valuation tribunal.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines the “appropriate tribunal” for the purposes of Lord Greenhalgh’s amendments to Clauses 13 to 16 and the Schedule.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects the drafting of Clause 17(b) to reflect the fact that the right to apply to a tribunal for a declaration as to the effect of the Bill on the terms of a lease does not extend to a tenant’s guarantor.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on government Amendment 25, which is a minor technical change to correct a small drafting error.
Clause 17 defines “tenant” for the purposes of Clauses 10, 13 and 16. Clause 16(1)(b) enables an enforcement authority to assist a tenant in an application as to the effect of Clause 7—that is, in regard to the effect of a term reserving a prohibited rent on the terms of a regulated lease. This amendment rectifies a discrepancy in the Bill, in that the assistance provided under Clause 16 would not extend to the tenant’s guarantor, as a guarantor does not have the right to apply for a direction as to the effect of Clause 7. This amendment ensures that there is no discrepancy between the clauses of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, obviously we welcome this amendment to the drafting error in the original Bill. Can the Minister explain briefly what the consequences would have been if it had not been identified? I mean briefly; I do not want a whole essay on the subject. Is there a risk that similar errors could be identified in other legislation which relates to guarantors?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for testing my knowledge of the consequences of a small technical amendment. I am just glad that we picked it up; I will have to write to the noble Lord on what the consequences would have been had we not done so. This happens from time to time. I am fairly new to the House but, when we find these errors, there are plenty of opportunities to correct them before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Lord Lennie
“Ground rent for existing long leases
Within 30 days of the day on which section 3 comes into force (for any kind of lease), the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation to restrict ground rents on all existing long residential leases to a peppercorn.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that the Government introduces further legislation to remove ground rent for all leaseholders, whereas the Act currently only applies to newly established leases.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move and wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 27. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 27
Baroness Pinnock
“Review of the financial impact of the Act
(1) Within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the financial impact of this Act on leaseholders.(2) The review must make a recommendation as to whether further legislation should be introduced to extend the ban on ground rents to existing long leases.(3) The recommendation in subsection (2) must take into account the potential financial impact of an extension of the ban on ground rents on those leaseholders and tenants who have been charged for the cost of fire remediation work.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the financial impact of this Act and make a recommendation as to whether a further extension of the ground rents ban could benefit existing leaseholders, especially those facing bills for fire remediation work.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 27 in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Grender and Lord Stunell. I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests in the register as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Amendment 27 asks that:
“Within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed”
the Government
“carry out a review of the financial impact”
on leaseholders. Reviewing the impact of legislation is important, especially in instances such as these, where changes to an already complex situation are likely to result in unforeseen consequences—despite many noble Lords and the Minister doing their utmost to ensure that all aspects are fully considered. The amendment then goes further to ask that the review actively considers and makes a recommendation about “further legislation” —either for or against it.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause makes specific reference to those leaseholders and tenants who have been charged for “fire remediation work” consequent to the Grenfell tragedy. Noble Lords will notice that I am taking the opportunity provided by this Bill to raise again very grave concerns many of us have for those leaseholders and tenants who are, through no fault of theirs, at the heart of the cladding scandal.
The fact that up to 1.3 million households are at a very considerable risk of bankruptcy as a direct result of serious construction failings must never be allowed by decision-makers to remain unresolved. Leaseholders have done everything right and nothing wrong, yet they are being expected to pay for the failures of construction, developers and materials manufacturers.
I recognise that the Government have provided over £5 billion towards remediation but the total cost is anticipated to be over £15 billion—the vast proportion of which is being passed via so-called service charges to leaseholders. We are not talking about charges that are in any way affordable. For example, Pippa in Leeds has a bill for £140,000. The highest bill I have seen was reported in the latest article on this issue in the Sunday Times: a staggering £204,000.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide advice on how these leaseholders are to pay the bills that have landed on their doormats. He will be aware that a leaseholder’s major asset is their flat and that, currently, has no value. It is not only the costs of remediation that are pressing down on leaseholders, there are service charge increases—consequent, again, to the cladding scandal.
I have heard from a leaseholder today, who says: “I am knee-deep in service charge admin. I am being harassed with bills that I know are inflated and incorrect, and with huge penalties for late payment. No one should have to live like this. It takes a toll on every aspect of your life, and that is before consideration of planning bills.”
It is not only leaseholders who fear the worst. The Investors Chronicle has reported in the last two weeks that this may become the next PPI scandal. Flat sales are in decline. They affected flats are neither sellable nor mortgageable. Before long, the Government will have to take action to save leaseholders from bankruptcy and homelessness and the housing market in flats from collapse. This amendment simply asks the Government to take stock within six months and, in doing so, to be cognisant of the leaseholders whose dreadful plight I have described. The leaseholders have done everything right and nothing wrong, which is a phrase I cannot attribute to developers, constructors, material manufacturers or the Government, as the final regulator. Between them, they have responsibility for this absolute scandal.
I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. However, if he is not inclined to accept this simple amendment, I give notice of my intention to seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
I am a fan of what I see as post-occupation evaluation. I welcome the amendment for that alone. I would more comfortable if it did not just refer to leaseholders, because the whole dynamic—as regards the ongoing interaction between leaseholders, freeholders, management and so on—is ever moving. That needs to be seen in the round. It should include not just the financial matters referred to in the amendment but a more holistic measure in terms of the sense of place, security, ability to control or influence outcomes and user contentment. I suspect that the Government have a system anyway for reviewing the effects of legislation, but I ask whether that is frequent enough to meet the noble Baroness’s objectives. In general, I support the other amendments in this group.
The noble Baroness referred to the driver behind this being the tragedy of Grenfell. Although the process of evaluation and what has come out of it may be seen, in government terms, to be moving at lightning speed, it has not been nearly fast enough for leaseholders and those who pay service charges. The consequences of that have been amply exposed by the noble Baroness and are ongoing. This is truly a tragedy for many households, which have walked unknowingly into a situation created by the neglect of others. The auguries are not particularly good. The proposal, as I interpret it, to leave the power in the hands of leaseholders to claim—admittedly on a longer timeframe—against those who did not observe basic construction standards creates an almost insuperable hurdle.
It is appropriate that I pay tribute to those outside the House who have promoted the polluter pays principle. I know that this matter has been brought to the attention of the Government, and it would place the basic strict liability on those who failed to make the grade in construction standards. My question is: when are the Government going to act on it? I consider the matter of such importance that if the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, I shall be voting with her.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, this is a devastating case, again, of unfinished business. We have talked several times about unfinished business in respect of reforming the whole leasehold system. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has spoken with great passion about the need to deal with the unfinished business of getting the damaged blocks discovered since the Grenfell fire put back in a safe and workmanlike position. That is a terrible story, which is still unravelling and still producing—I think we can say—shock and amazement as the evidence comes out of the inquiry at Grenfell. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it is not an isolated failure. I ought to have started by reminding the House that I was the Minister with responsibility for building regulations between 2010 and 2012, which was well before this but is nevertheless relevant.
There was a failure of regulation, a failure at every level of the supply chain, a failure of the designers and a failure of those responsible for monitoring progress. Of course, the fallout is not simply that one building was found to be dangerous and defective and burned at the cost of 72 lives, but that more than 400 other buildings have been found to be equally defective or worse. As is so often the case, once you begin to look, you see plenty else. The British Woodworking Federation estimates that 600,000 defective fire doors are installed in buildings in this country. In that context, it is good to know that the Government have come forward with a compensation scheme, allocating £5 billion. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the guidelines for applying for that compensation have yet been published. My last understanding is that they have not, but maybe he can bring some information to your Lordships’ House today.
It has to be right that this House considers the situation facing those leaseholders and, in so far as we can, safeguards their position. This is actually a very modest amendment; it calls only for a review within six months, not for the spending of government money, so there is nothing for Ministers to shy away from. It would simply make sure that this legislation, relevant to the ongoing tragedy of Grenfell and the ongoing battle that hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are facing with enormous bills—which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, eloquently spelled out—cannot be passed by your Lordships’ House without serious consideration.
I know that the Minister has repeatedly found himself at the Dispatch Box having to say essentially the same thing: “This is not the time; this is not the place; this is not the right legislation.” We have to reply to him: “Well, when is the time? Where is the place? Where is the legislation?” We need to see some answers. Certainly, this is a matter we wish to press in the oncoming vote.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 28 and 29, in my name, and welcome Amendment 27, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.
Amendment 28 is intended to raise four issues, which I have focused on at previous stages of the Bill: lease forfeiture, transfer fees, redress schemes and enfranchisement. This amendment is intended to probe, and, while I will not introduce each issue again, I hope that the Minister can provide clarification in the following areas. On lease forfeiture, can the Minister confirm that legislation will be forthcoming to prevent possession being taken over small debts? On transfer fees, has the Minister made an estimate of how many freeholders are placing charges on the sale of properties? On redress schemes, will the Minister consider a trial for the most serious of leasehold abuses? Finally, on enfranchisement, what assessment have the Government made of the obstacles currently in place?
The intention of Amendment 29 is to raise the need for the Government to champion commonhold arrangements. The House will be aware that the Mayor of London is committed to furthering commonhold, and his manifesto pledged to trial the arrangements in London. Can the Minister confirm what support will be offered to the mayor as part of these pilots? Will he make a statement on the Government’s policy on commonhold?
Finally, I turn to Amendment 27, which calls for a review of the relationship between the Bill and those facing bills for “fire remediation work”. Unfortunately, the Government have again ignored those people during the drafting of this legislation. This Government’s continued mismanagement of the remediation work is one of their most shameful aspects. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to finally change track and at last deal with the issues of remediation costs being charged to leaseholders for building safety faults. Rather than another betrayal of their promises to leaseholders, we need legal protections to ensure that millions of pounds of building safety remediation costs are not passed on to innocent home owners and tenants.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments calls for a variety of impact assessments to be produced. It is, of course, very important that we understand the impact that this legislation will have. That is why we have already produced an impact assessment, which I would encourage all noble Lords to read.
Amendments 27 and 28 would both require impact assessments relating to how this legislation would impact on issues facing existing leaseholders. As throughout the passage of the Bill, I understand noble Lords’ desire to assist existing leaseholders. Noble Lords will be well aware by this point that this is just the first of a two-part legislative programme, with further leasehold reform due later in this Parliament.
We have considered the impact of the Bill on existing leaseholders, and this is informing the process of policy development, ahead of future legislation. This is within the broader context of the important work being done by the Competition and Markets Authority to address unfair terms and mis-selling. As discussed previously, we are committed to measures to help existing leaseholders through significant changes to the enfranchisement valuation calculation, making it cheaper for many leaseholders to extend their lease, buy their freehold or buy out their ground rents.
Noble Lords can rest assured that my officials have been listening very carefully to all of the points that have been raised during the debates on the Bill. However, producing detailed impact assessments is likely only to distract from the important work that is being done on leasehold reform.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, again raised historic fire and building safety remediation costs. I was struck by the very high bill of around £204,000 per leaseholder that was quoted. This may be a building in Manchester, but I would be very keen to know further details and to understand the approach that has been taken. Very often, when I have inquired and understood the situation, I have found that the most proportionate response is not necessarily considered by the building owner—but I would be very interested to look into that case in more detail.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I say that we are very aware of the polluter pays Bill and the work that is being led by Steve Day of RAQ. We are looking at it very carefully to see whether it could further enhance the proposed Building Safety Bill. Of course, we have already looked at strengthening redress by extending the statutory limitation period in the Defective Premises Act 1972 from six to 15 years, applied retrospectively. This could provide further support to ensure that it is the polluter who pays. We are looking at that very carefully, as I said.
Also in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on the Building Safety Bill, I say that the first £1 billion of this has of course been in play and spent. In fact, the fund is very much overcommitted. Further details around the further £3.5 billion will be published in September, but works are not being delayed because of that. I am happy to provide assurance that the further expenditure will therefore be outlined at that stage.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and support on the very important issue I have raised again today. I particularly thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his supportive contribution. He is a recognised expert on these issues, and he expanded on my points. He has raised them before, and I certainly think the Government need to listen carefully to what he has to say.
The Minister has been handed the impossible task of defending the indefensible. Unfortunately, he always has to rely on the fact that future Bills will help solve this problem—but the future will never come soon enough for leaseholders struggling now. They have these bills now and will have to pay them by the end of the year.
As my noble friend Lord Stunell said, this is just a modest amendment. All it seeks is a review of the Bill’s impact in six months, with special reference to leaseholders who have been adversely and gravely affected by the consequences of the Grenfell tragedy.
I apologise to the House for not having moved my amendment formally at the end of my initial speech. I beg to move it now, but I also have to say that, having heard what the Minister said, I wish to seek the opinion of the House on this matter.
Lord Greenhalgh
(b) Senedd Cymru, if the regulations are made by the Welsh Ministers,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the default procedure for regulations made under the Bill by the Welsh Ministers is the negative procedure.
Lord Greenhalgh
““premium” means any consideration in money or money’s worth for the grant of a lease, other than rent;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for Lord Greenhalgh’s second amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 5.
Lord Greenhalgh
““relevant authority” means—(a) in relation to a lease of premises in England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to a lease of premises in Wales, the Welsh Ministers;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “relevant authority” for the purpose of Lord Greenhalgh’s amendments to Clause 2, page 2, line 21 and Clause 9, page 7, lines 37 and 39.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We come to Amendment 41. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 41
Lord Greenhalgh
“(2A) A sum expressed to be payable in respect of rates, council tax, services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or other ancillary matters is not rent for the purposes of this Act merely because it is reserved as rent in the lease.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that service charges and similar payments are not to be treated as rent only because they are reserved as rent in the lease.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, before coming to the detail of this amendment, I want to stress the importance of the broad definition of “rent” as it appears in the Bill. Your Lordships are aware of the Government’s position. We believe it is vital for the effectiveness of the Bill that the definition of ground rent is drawn up in such a way as to head off the potential for avoidance measures by the small proportion of landlords who are intent on abusing the leasehold sector for their own financial gain. Any attempts to change this approach would do little more than provide a fixed obstacle around which a nimble landlord may divert with relative ease, certainty and confidence.
Alternative versions for the definition of a rent that stray away from this approach have been considered but they all reached the same conclusion and were found to be lacking. It is precisely because of the broad definition of rent in the Bill that any landlords and their investors seeking to charge what is in essence a ground rent by any other name will need to think very carefully if they believe the definition provided in the Bill offers an easy workaround—it does not. That is to say, if a landlord were to attempt to charge a ground rent by any other name and that charge provided no meaningful benefit or service to the leaseholder, that charge may be considered within the nature of a rent for the purposes of the Bill, and a tribunal or enforcement authority could consider the case for enforcement against that landlord.
I believe that Amendment 41 will provide further clarity regarding the meaning of a “rent” for the purposes of the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that there was a good deal of debate over that definition in the Bill in Committee. My noble friend Lord Young made reference to the Law Society and raised his concerns that the wide definition of rent contained in the Bill could give rise to unnecessary litigation as the lawfulness of certain charges being able to continue as being “reserved as rent” was not wholly clear.
I have listened carefully to the arguments made by my noble friend and others and am not unsympathetic to the views expressed that tighter wording of what is considered a rent would provide even greater clarity for both leaseholders and landlords. The amendment therefore provides that valid charges, even if they are “reserved as rent” in a lease, are not intended to be captured by the provisions in the Bill just because they are “reserved as rent” within a lease.
It is not our intention for valid charges, such as the charging of insurance or service charges, to be adversely affected by the Bill. Neither is it the purpose of the Bill to address the practice of reserving as a rent charges that are not in fact rent. The amendment simply clarifies that, just because a charge is reserved as a rent, it does not automatically follow that it is a prohibited rent for the purposes of the Bill.
I reassure noble Lords that the amendment does not give a green light for landlords seeking to avoid the measures of the Bill to merely reserve any charge as a “rent”. As I have described, the definition of a rent is drawn deliberately as widely as possible and will capture any charge that is in fact in the nature of a rent, whatever it is called. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I always welcome efforts by Ministers to clarify the law, although I sometimes struggle to understand exactly how the law has been clarified. It has been suggested that this is, if you like, a step of relaxation or at least inclusion that will permit landlords to get away with—I think that is the technical term—bad practice. I am sure the Minister will reassure me that that is absolutely not the case and, far from opening a door, it is trying to make sure that the door is firmly shut.
I fear that the technicalities of this will be worked out in the law courts over time, whatever provision the Minister puts in the Bill or takes out of it. I wish him luck and I hope he has succeeded in what he hopes to succeed in. I guess we shall find out, when we do the evaluation in a year or two, how accurate that is.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be glad to hear that this amendment is another technical change that we on these Benches fully support. However, has the department identified whether the same drafting issue is present in any earlier legislation?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we could not have had more different responses to the government’s amendment. I would like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that this is indeed a clarification around enabling landlords to continue to pass legitimate valid charges. It will not promote the practice of continuing ground rents by another name, and I made that point very clearly in outlining this in my speech. I am sorry it was quite technical; obviously, people with legal eyes helped me to formulate the syntax but I give that assurance. But the noble Lord is right: only time will tell how the legislation will work in practice.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, I have never heard anything quite so overwhelmingly positive about an amendment that I have moved—perhaps we are reaching a new era in understanding. I am not aware of this being relevant in any other part of our approach to the reform agenda that we are putting forward. However, leaseholder legislation covers many decades. Despite having studied some land law in the 1980s, I am not in a position to give a very detailed legal answer on that point.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 42. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make this clear in the debate.
Clause 23: Crown application
Amendment 42
Lord Berkeley
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove the Duchy of Cornwall from the definition of Crown Land since the Duchy describes itself as a private estate.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, in moving the amendment in my name, Amendment 42, I will speak also to Amendment 43. This returns to the subject of the Duchy of Cornwall, which we discussed at some length in Committee. The Minister responded very helpfully, at col. GC 362, setting out the current exemptions from existing legislation for the right to buy. He also mentioned that the Crown Estate had given a parliamentary undertaking that it will not seek any special arrangements. He mentioned the comments on the Law Commission report about the concerns that the Duchy of Cornwall had on enfranchisement itself. Not much has happened since then.
The Minister did say that he would write to the Duchy of Cornwall. I would be interested to know whether he has written, whether he will put a copy of the letter in the Library and whether he has had an answer. If he has, it will be the first that any Minister has published—a first certainly for any noble Lords who have written. As I have mentioned before, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Crown Estate respond very helpfully and in a timely manner to letters from me and others; that does not apply to the Duchy of Cornwall. Mind you, the Duke of Cornwall is visiting the Isles of Scilly today; maybe that will remind him that there needs to be an answer, but I am not holding my breath.
The Duchy of Cornwall has confirmed, in its latest annual report, that it is in the private sector. On that basis, I would like to reinforce my argument: if it is in the private sector, as it says it is, then it should obey the same rules, laws and everything else that the rest of the private sector has to. There are many other private estates—earlier today, somebody mentioned the Grosvenor Estate—and they will all comply with the legislation, I am quite sure. Therefore, it seems to me that, in respect of this particular clause, the Duchy of Cornwall should be removed from it, which would turn it into the private estate that it says it is.
Amendment 43 reinforces the arguments about Crown land not including land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall. This is the continuation of my probing amendment. I certainly will not seek the opinion of the House, but I will be interested to hear whether the Minister has made any progress on this, because it will, I hope, have much more effect on the next Bill, which we hope will come soon. I beg to move.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, which returns the House’s attention to the application of ground rents charged by the Crown, such as the Duchy of Cornwall. It is a bad day to be away from the Scilly Isles, but there you go. My noble friend is probing the issue again, after clearly incomplete answers in Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Since the Minister was also unable to provide answers to my questions during Committee, I hope he will be able to do so on this occasion. They are these. First, can he confirm how many Crown properties this relates to? Secondly, do the Government intend to engage the residents of these homes?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I now turn to Amendments 42 and 43, brought to your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I understand that it is his wish for the Duchy of Cornwall to be considered as private land and not Crown land under this Bill. Irrespective of the definition, both Crown land and private land are captured by the Bill. This Bill will therefore apply to the Crown Estate, of which the Bill stipulates the Duchy of Cornwall is part. As I am sure noble Lords are all aware, the Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate which has a Crown exemption. However, the purpose of this Bill is not to decide how these estates are defined; rather it is to get a better deal for future leaseholders to prevent them being exploited by ground rent in the leasehold market.
The Duke of Cornwall’s estates will be treated as any other private landlord under the provisions of this Bill and will no longer be able to collect ground rent in future leases. I will clarify again that this Bill is narrowly focused on ground rents and not all leasehold matters. That is why, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we have not yet written to the Duchy of Cornwall about the issues around enfranchisement and other matters, but we will be doing so as part of the second stage of the legislation. I will obviously keep noble Lords informed if we get a response, but the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seems rather sceptical of that. Nevertheless, we have made that commitment and will write at that stage.
The Government have committed to an ambitious, large-scale reform programme, and we will deal with all these other issues not related to ground rents in the near future. I am very sorry that, on two occasions now, I have not been able to give a precise response to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, but I will make sure that we get the information to him at the earliest opportunity, in writing, and lay a copy in the Library—I believe that is precisely what you have to do in these circumstances.
The Government will consider the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, regarding the Crown Estate exemptions from the parliamentary undertaking on enfranchisement rights for leaseholders in the next stage of the leasehold reform programme. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the Government will consider his concern in tandem with the Law Commission’s recommendations on the issue of enfranchisement rights for leaseholders. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response and I will read it with great interest. He has tried to answer most of my questions, even if he has not yet got my noble friend’s numbers. We will look forward to seeing them in the Library. It is very important that what he has said may well set a precedent for the next Bill. That is why we will need to read what he has said with great interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 44. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a division must make this clear in the debate.
Clause 25: Commencement
Amendment 44
Lord Lennie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that the provisions also apply to retirement properties, whereas at present the Bill will prevent provisions coming into force for retirement properties before April 2023.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment may be the final one to be considered by the House today, but I hope the Minister agrees that the issue at hand is very important none the less. It relates to retirement properties, which are excluded from the main provisions of the Bill. I was grateful for the Minister’s confirmation in Committee that they will soon be included, following the transition period. While this is welcome, I hope the Minister confirms that there are no reasonable circumstances in which this period would be extended.
Over 50,000 people in the UK live in retirement community units and they each deserve the same housing rights as everyone else. That is why I remain concerned that they will not benefit from the provisions until much later. I have no intention to divide the House on this issue, but I hope the Minister recognises that I am not alone in raising it, given the interest in Committee.
Finally, I ask the Minister to confirm how the department is informing these 50,000 residents of their leasehold rights and that they will be delayed by at least two years. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I speak only briefly to say that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, has raised an important issue that was debated in Committee, to some extent, when I heard voices calling in both directions. The overwhelming requirement of this legislation is that it leaves certainty in the market about the position of leaseholders. However partial or slow it may be, or however much you might criticise it overall, the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, has advanced a very strong case that this should apply to all leasehold contracts from a set date and not with a phased introduction.
I would be interested to know if there is a reason for this staggered introduction and, if so, what it is. A number of major landlords run very large businesses on the leaseholding of retirement homes, not all of which have always proceeded entirely ethically. There have been some well-evidenced scandals, one of which I played a part in unravelling when I was at the other end of this building. I hope the Minister has not been too influenced on this provision by any pressure he may have received from landlords about some complexity, difficulty or whatever with an earlier introduction. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s justification for the subsection that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, is proposing to delete.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, in considering Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, it is important to once again lay out the rationale for the transition period for the retirement sector. In October 2018, the Government launched a consultation on reforms to the leasehold system, which attracted over 1,200 responses. In our response to the consultation, published in June 2019, we announced that we would
“proceed with the proposal to exempt retirement properties”
from the peppercorn ground rents policy. This decision was made on the basis that developers of retirement properties incur additional costs, as a result of the communal spaces that are characteristics of these kinds of developments.
However, having reviewed this in further detail, we concluded that arguments in favour of an exception did not outweigh the desirability of ensuring that those who purchase retirement homes are able to benefit from the same reform as other future leaseholders. Therefore, we decided to capture retirement properties in the Bill, so that those who live in retirement housing are protected from exploitation in the same way as other leaseholders. We announced this in January this year, and it is effectively a change in the Government’s position. I am sure all noble Lords agree that, as a basic matter of fairness, those buying retirement properties should also benefit from these reforms.
As a result of this change, we have consulted closely with the retirement sector and continue to do so. As such, we have decided to grant a transition period in recognition. As a result of their initial exemption, this new transition period will allow developers of retirement properties time to adapt to the forthcoming changes. We believe this transition period has been fairly granted, in balancing the needs of developers and fairness to leaseholders. It will be sufficient to allow the retirement sector to adapt to the changes. The Government do not wish to extend the period at the expense of leaseholders. I give that undertaking; we believe we have got it right.
As it stands, the commencement date for retirement properties is no earlier than 1 April 2023. We have no reason to believe that the commencement date will be any later than this. Given the sector was first informed in January this year, this commencement date has given them over two years’ notice.
This issue has been carefully considered and we believe we have struck the right balance for both lease- holders and developers. Indeed, in Committee, we had a competing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, which would have extended this transition period. I am sure noble Lords agree that our proposals are a pragmatic and fair compromise between these two positions. I beg to move that the noble Lord withdraws Amendment 44.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
I will briefly comment on the position that has been arrived at on retirement properties. Initially, there was to be an exception for retirement properties; then it was decided that there would not be. That was from 1 April this year, giving two years’ notice. The main argument of the noble Lord, Lord Best, was that this would cause price rises, as it would falsely inflate the market from people not receiving ground rent and prices would therefore go up. That may have had some justification, but was not part of the Government’s assessment of what would happen to retirement properties. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but we need to look closely at the impact this has on retirement property leaseholders.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 17, page 11, line 17, requires an appeal against action taken by an enforcement authority in relation to a lease of premises in Wales to be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal (instead of the First-tier Tribunal).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to the Schedule, page 16, line 37.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Principal Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. The time limit for the following debate is one and a half hours. I call the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. Lord Bethell?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that we adjourn for two minutes to see whether the technical connections with my noble friend can be restored. If not, I have his opening speech.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:04 - Division conducted remotely on Baroness Wheeler’s amendment. - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 211 - Baroness Wheeler’s amendment agreed.
Lord Bethell
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 22 June be approved.
Relevant documents: 8th and 10th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]
My Lords, more than ever, the social care workforce demonstrates unwavering compassion and dedication for our elderly and most vulnerable. We are proud of and immensely grateful to them. I pay huge tribute to their tireless work during this pandemic to protect people who are most vulnerable to Covid-19, including their incredible efforts to support the vaccination rollout across the sector, to bring in infection controls and to provide pastoral care during this most heartbreakingly lonely episode.
To date, 1.2 million social care workers in England have been vaccinated. This is an incredible achievement and an important step for staff to protect themselves, their loved ones and the people they care for from becoming seriously ill or potentially dying from Covid-19. However, there is a tipping point here. It is a tipping point of safety when it comes to care homes, where many of our most vulnerable priority-list loved ones live. We are not quite there yet.
SAGE recommends that 80% of staff and 90% of residents should have received their first dose of the vaccine to provide a minimum level of protection against coronavirus outbreaks. We have all been witness to the incredible pace at which vaccination programmes have been rolled out. I am delighted to report to the House that 96% of those living in older-age care homes have received their first dose and 93% their second dose. Meanwhile, 93% of those living in younger-age care homes have received their first dose and 88% their second dose.
In many places, take-up among care home staff is also impressive. Some 87% of those working in older-age care homes have had their first dose and 76% their second dose. This compares with 83% and 73% respectively for staff working in younger-age care homes. However, there is also significant variation at a regional and a local level. Only 65% of older care homes in England are meeting SAGE’s stipulated safety tipping point in the latest published data. This drops to an even more worrying 44% in the London area.
As a result, despite very high levels of vaccination, testing, PPE and other infection control measures, we are still seeing outbreaks in care homes, where residents are incredibly vulnerable to the serious effects of this terrible disease. Since January this year, care homes have tested staff more than 21 million times and made proper use of 1.2 billion items of PPE. Yet nearly 14,000 care home residents have died because of the virus this year alone.
This winter will be challenging and, in the face of rising case rates across the country, we need to make sure that we have done everything we can to prepare and to minimise the risks for residents in care homes and the incredible staff who care for them.
This is the context. It makes this legislation critical. By November this year—and subject to the usual parliamentary approval and, we hope, a helpful and practical 16-week grace period—anyone entering a CQC-registered care home in England must be vaccinated, unless a valid exemption applies. This will apply to all care home workers, agency staff and volunteers. Visiting healthcare workers, tradespeople, hairdressers and CQC inspectors will also be obliged to follow the new requirement.
We have considered this policy incredibly carefully, consulting thoroughly and extensively to get this right both for residents who are so vulnerable to Covid and the staff who go above and beyond in caring for them every day. The policy will therefore apply to all people over 18 who work inside a care home unless they have a medical reason not to be vaccinated.
Further limited exceptions have been made to ensure that this works on the ground. Emergency services, people providing emergency assistance and those undertaking urgent maintenance work can all enter a care home without needing to show that they are vaccinated. Visiting family and friends are also exempt, given the significant well-being benefits such contact provides. While we would always encourage all these people to take up an offer of a vaccine, we have acted on the advice from SAGE that a balance must be struck.
Before I turn to our assessment of the impact this may have on the workforce, I acknowledge the vital role the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has played in its calls for further details outlining the Government’s current analysis of the expected impact of the draft regulations. Following its eighth report, we made an impact statement available to this effect, and we note the further points raised in its 10th report yesterday. I can also confirm to the House that we will be publishing a full impact assessment as soon as possible.
After everything care home staff have done in the pandemic, we owe them the greatest consideration and respect. We understand that providers and their staff need time to prepare for these changes, which is why the 16-week grace period immediately following the enactment of regulations will allow staff who have not been vaccinated to make arrangements to have both doses. Unfortunately, we recognise that there will be some staff who will choose to leave rather than be vaccinated. Our central analysis estimates that around 7% of current staff may not meet the requirement by the end of the 16-week grace period. This equates to 40,000, out of a workforce of 570,000, who may need recruiting to replace staff who do not meet the requirement.
However, this estimate is very uncertain. We just do not know yet exactly how staff will respond to the requirement, not least because staff turnover in this sector is around a third each year. I am grateful to Professor Martin Green of Care England for talking me through these concerns. Of course, we do not want to lose valuable care home staff who have made an enormous sacrifice over the last year and a half, and we will continue our efforts to drive uptake across the sector. We owe it to ourselves and to their commitment to try our hardest. However, our overriding priority has to be the safety and well-being of the people they care for.
Before closing, I pay a final tribute to all care home staff, past, present and future, who have played a vital role in our nation’s recovery from the pandemic. We did not take lightly the decision to introduce this legislation. However, the risks that this winter will undoubtedly pose to the most vulnerable in our society make clear the choice that we must make: to do everything in our power to protect them. With that sentiment in mind, I commend these regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Wheeler
At the end to insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations do not include any information about how the legislation will operate and that this will be left to guidance that will not be available until the end of July; further regrets that a full impact assessment has not been published including analysis of the number of current staff who may not comply and the potential impact on care homes if care home staff become ineligible for work because they are not fully vaccinated or medically exempt; notes that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that the debate on the instrument should be deferred until the operational guidance and full impact assessment has been published; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to provide stronger supporting evidence for permanently requiring staff to have received both doses of the vaccine or, if they have not, to be banned from entering their workplace.”
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I am moving my amendment in the light of the deep concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its eighth report. I listened to its 13 July questioning of Nadhim Zahawi, the Vaccine Minister, which was held on the same day that the SI was debated in the Commons. The committee produced a further, 10th report yesterday in response to this. As its eighth report says,
“effective Parliamentary scrutiny is impossible”
by the House because crucial operational guidance and the impact assessment are not available, because none of the practical information about how the guidance is to operate is in the actual legislation before us, and because no reasons have been provided as to why the legislation is not a restricted pandemic measure rather than the permanent measure that the Government are proposing.
The Commons debate was focused on the failure to produce the impact assessment so essential for understanding the full consequences of the legislation. The Health Minister promised that we would have it before our debate today; the Vaccine Minister instead undertook to provide an impact statement, which the committee still had not had at the time of its further report. I am still not clear which piece of the last-minute information promised has been delivered, and the Minister’s speech may have confused me still further about what is and what is not available.
So we have more documentation and more information but not the full and detailed impact assessment that is needed. Overall, we still do not have the answers to the committee’s fundamental questions: why has the vaccination programme not managed to achieve the required levels despite care home staff being prioritised, and why the regional variations? Why has there been no detailed analysis of the impact the policy will have on care home staff and the possible risk to the viability of care homes as a result? We still have had no real analysis of the degree and nature of the opposition to the proposals expressed during the consultation, which could provide helpful guidance on how it is to be addressed.
This SI is muddled, confused and disjointed and, in places, contradictory—across the SI itself, the Explanatory Memorandum and in the Government’s consultation response. This makes even more urgent the publication of clear and detailed guidance which includes not just the practical detail the committee wants to see but the full policy framework. We are assured that the guidance has been produced in consultation with the sector. Can the Minister confirm that this has included care home providers from both large and small group homes, and the staff unions? Is there now a firm publication date, other than just the end of the month, in 11 days’ time, that we have been promised?
Specifically on consultation, the Government’s consultation response document itself admits that 57% of respondents were against the mandatory vaccination of staff. Nadhim Zahawi stressed to the committee how important it was to “carry people with us” and our Minister told the House on 8 July:
“We are in a consultation … it is an honest consultation. We have to take people with us: this is not something that we can impose on people against their will.”—[Official Report, 8/7/21; col. 1454.]
How will the Minister now honour that commitment, and how does he square it with the legislation that the Government have actually produced?
In its report, the committee is particularly scathing about the DHSC’s failure to provide justification for the substantial policy change from using the SAGE advice, mentioned by the Minister, of at least 80% of care home staff needing a first vaccination in order to provide a minimum level of protection against Covid-19 to the requirement for them to have two doses or they will be banned from the workplace and stand to lose their job. Why this shift and what is the detailed evidence which led to such a major policy change?
Despite our deep concern about the health and safety of care home residents, no one doubts the impact that mandatory vaccination will have on care home staff in their jobs, the risks to the viability of care homes and the confusion that will reign, especially in small care homes coping with even worse staff shortages and recruitment problems than they currently have and trying to administer and monitor the trades- person, et cetera, visiting arrangements. The National Care Forum has been particularly vocal on that latter point. We just do not know the scale and extent of the risk in a sector that already has 100,000 unfilled posts.
These are dedicated staff who have been in the front line of care through the pandemic. We need to understand why there is vaccine hesitancy among the minority of staff and build and strengthen the excellent work that has been done with so many to allay fears and assuage concerns arising from cultural or personal health fears.
Can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that the 16-week grace period is used to intensify and ramp up the take-up campaign and ensure the targeting of regions and areas where there is relatively low take-up? Will it be extended if the impact assessment and implementation plan show that that is needed?
Paragraph 12 of the EM contains only five short points dealing with the serious staff shortages that the care sector will face, starting with the bald understatement that there will be
“the short-term cost of dealing with staff absences”.
Moreover, the EM goes back to the Care Act 2014 provision, which assumes that local authorities have a contingency plan to address workforce shortages and care provider closures. Given the Government’s sweeping council social care funding cuts for the past 10 years, we know just what state councils would be in if they tried to meet that contingency. Last week ADASS reported up to 250,000 vulnerable people across England languishing on social care waiting lists for care assessments or service reviews to check their physical and mental state. Will additional funding be made available to councils to meet the extra costs of staff shortages and turnover?
In conclusion, the House must be reassured that there will be a detailed, coherent, well-resourced and fully thought-through plan for moving forward and finding solutions for carrying and taking people with us—in the words of the Ministers—and addressing the major challenges that implementing the mandatory vaccination of care home staff will present. We must be reassured that the Secondary Legislation Committee’s rightful concerns have been fully addressed. For the record, its 10th report, published yesterday, stresses that, despite the welcome “further information and explanations” from the Government,
“we remain unclear about the justification for some of the policy choices underlying these Regulations and also the basis on which the department struck a balance between public health benefits and the impact on the rights of individuals.”
I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords and the Minister’s response, and I will wish to test the opinion of the House on this very important issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is an extremely tricky issue, and I find myself deeply conflicted. On the one hand, I strongly support the principle of mandatory vaccination of care home workers, for reasons I will explain. On the other hand, I think the Government have gone about it in entirely the wrong way. As so often in this pandemic, we are trying to reconcile forces that pull in entirely opposite directions—in this case, the public health need to safeguard some of our most vulnerable citizens, which in my view is overwhelming, pitched against the individual liberties of care home workers.
For me this is deeply personal. My mother is a long-term care home resident and in the first wave of the pandemic, when hospital patients were being transferred to the home without proper testing, there was a significant number of deaths. I need hardly say that this was deeply distressing for my whole family and, I know, many other families up and down the country.
Care homes have a duty of care to their residents, which in my view they are not fulfilling if they do not require care workers who perform close-contact and intimate tasks to be fully vaccinated, unless they have a medical exemption. In my view, anything else would be negligent. Let us never forget the human tragedy this cruel pandemic has wreaked in care homes. Some 20,000 care home residents died in the first wave, accounting for 44% of all excess deaths for that period in England and Wales. We surely owe it to all who died and their families to ensure that care home residents receive every possible protection at a time when cases are rising again with a far more transmissible variant. Today we learn from the latest ONS figures that care home deaths are on the rise too.
Months ago, Professor Chris Whitty expressed the view that front-line health and care workers have what he termed a “professional responsibility” to get vaccinated, to reduce the risk that Covid poses to patients and care home residents. It seems odd that the mandatory hepatitis vaccination for some front-line health workers is hardly, if ever, queried.
I regret that today we are not looking at both NHS and social care workers together. According to the evidence provided to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, published only yesterday, take-up of the first dose in the care home workforce stands at 85.6% but with significant variation, as the Minister set out.
It is clear from the two reports of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the debate in the other place on 13 July that this SI is deficient in many respects. The confusing data provided in the Explanatory Memorandum, the lack of an impact assessment—particularly on the workforce implications—and detailed operational guidance not being available until the end of the month are inexcusable. Frankly, I also found it peculiar that the regulations cover a range of tradespeople and other service providers who are unlikely to have close contact with residents. In reality, proper parliamentary scrutiny was pretty much impossible. I totally get that.
I have argued from the outset that far more support was needed to improve vaccine take-up rates among care workers. In early days, slow vaccine take-up was partly due to practical problems, such as vaccinators coming to homes with enough vaccine only for residents, staff being expected to travel to vaccination centres but not given time off or money to get there, and those staff not on duty when vaccinators came missing out. Despite all the efforts made locally to encourage staff to have the vaccine, crucially, the Government should take more proactive steps for carers to be paid for time spent on getting vaccinated, especially if they have to come in when they are not on shift and if they have to take time off because of any short-term reaction to the jab. These things are critically important to low-paid staff, some of whom are on zero-hours contracts.
GPs spending time in care homes talking to staff who are vaccine hesitant has proved highly effective. On top of this, I feel the Government should step in to help with the costs of redeployment and retraining for staff who still refuse to have the vaccine. Without seeing the operational guidance, we do not know whether this will happen.
It is with a heavy heart and after much thought that I am unable to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. I am sympathetic to its intent and broadly support the first three elements, but I cannot support the final element, which says that stronger supporting evidence for requiring staff to be vaccinated is required. The case is clear, and we need to see both more action and more support to ensure that more lives are not lost. However, we need to see the right action.
I plead with the Government, even at this late stage, to think again and to provide the help and support I have outlined above. I also feel that it sends out the wrong message to the public, who will not be following the minutiae of parliamentary procedures and impact assessments and the like. The message will simply be that we do not support the principle of mandatory vaccine for care workers other than those with the medical exemption, which I do, and strongly. This is the right policy but, sadly, the Government have gone about it in entirely the wrong way. It should also apply to NHS workers and it was wrong to exclude them. However, two wrongs emphatically do not make a right.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. Like her, I would not be in a position to be able to support the amendment to the Motion. I support this statutory instrument but, I have to say, with some reluctance—and it is not simply because of the procedural issues. It is a step we should take only in a health emergency. I will come back to that point before I conclude.
I am grateful to my noble friend, who explained the SI with his customary clarity, but we are especially grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose painstaking work has illustrated many of the issues, including those I want briefly to refer to. I am looking for my noble friend in responding to this debate to give one explanation and two sets of assurances.
The explanation is because I simply do not understand why care homes have been brought forward and legislated for in this way where other settings have not been. I cannot understand the difference between a care worker going into a domiciliary care setting with a vulnerable person and how that differs from a care worker in a residential care home. I cannot understand how the vaccination of a residential care worker is different from the vaccination of a healthcare worker in a geriatric ward in a hospital. Why are these things different? If the Government are going to move forward on this, they should have moved forward on all these settings together and should have had the clear argument presented rather than what appears to be a piecemeal argument. I hope that my noble friend will explain why the Government have proceeded in this piecemeal fashion with a further consultation to come, which may lead to different conclusions even at the margin for other settings and for care homes, which will create unnecessary confusion.
Secondly, I am looking for an assurance about support for the care home sector. My noble friend said that the statement of impact—which I found on the government website but of course not published alongside the legislation—says that the Government’s central estimate is 40,000 potential losses of staff. This is in a sector where Skills for Care reported 112,000 staff vacancies in the autumn of last year and where we know that there is a dependence on workers from overseas, some of whom have gone back home and not returned. The sector needs help. The impact statement says that recruitment on average costs £2,500, which is £100 million for the sector in consequence of this measure. That is before you begin to look for the other support it needs from the healthcare system, its general practice colleagues, and in dealing with the insurance sector and others. I hope my noble friend will be able to say that the Government will add significantly—at least that £100 million—to the infection control fund, which is £1.1 billion, and do so in close consultation with the care home sector to give it the support that it needs.
Thirdly, and finally, the point of reassurance I am looking for is that I expected, having discussed this with Ministers, that this statutory instrument would be brought forward with a sunset clause. That is transparently something that should apply during the emergency. It would be reasonable if the Government had said, “This time next year, we should be deciding whether legislation of this kind should be renewed, and a sunset clause would enable that to happen.” I have no confidence that a review, as Regulation 7 says, means that if the review concluded that legislation in this form was not needed, it would not be retained. I am sorry, but I am afraid that from the parliamentary point of view, that is unacceptable. Therefore I am looking for my noble friend to make it absolutely clear that if Ministers conclude next year that the review says that this legislation is no longer needed, they will ensure that it is repealed.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I greatly welcome this debate and the tabling by my noble friend of her very relevant amendment. According to the Explanatory Note, the regulations provide that for,
“the purposes of preventing, detecting and controlling the spread of infection, registered persons … must secure that a person … does not enter the premises used by A unless B meets specific requirements”,
which are then set out. However, the list of requirements excludes the crucial requirement that is now the subject of a national debate: the wearing of masks. The regulations appear to put in place a non-statutory framework governing mask use, thereby relying on a voluntary approach under guidance notes. Guidance notes will not work. They will be widely ignored, perhaps even in care homes to some extent.
In anticipation of liberation day, there already has been widespread non-compliance in wider society. We are ignoring at our peril the experience of countries worldwide where the real benefit of mandatory masking under properly enforced regimes has been at the heart of policy, not only in care homes but in wider social interactions. Masking crucially helps to alert the public to the real dangers of the virus.
If, as I suspect, and for reasons that I understand, the Government remain torn, they should put the wider question of masking in its broader application to the House of Commons. Let MPs take that decision this week before the House rises. Let them face up to their responsibilities. They will have to listen to a divided public while arguing their case. The whole issue could then be decided on a free vote. It is not unprecedented. An informed decision on masking cannot be ducked and if the Government themselves are uneasy over the decision, Parliament, where I believe there is majority support, must take it.
Mandatory masking is absolutely crucial in the building of public confidence in the Government’s wider Covid relaxation strategy. I am convinced that the alternative is increased Covid hospitalisation as a more liberalised regime leads inevitably to disease spread, cancelled operations in the NHS, a lack of confidence in public protection leading to increased workplace absences, further damage to the high street with the possibility of renewed restrictions, public anger over government vacillation, further deterioration in the public finances and a prolonged epidemic.
The mask is a signal, an alarm bell and constant reminder. It acts as an amber light and is the only way in which one can signal to the public the danger of infection and the scale of personal risk—the risk from onward transmission to colleagues and friends, and the need to be constantly on the alert. The moment that one drops the requirement for a mask, the public will act defensively by withdrawing from public engagement, whether at the place of work or socially, or they will mistakenly conclude that the problem is past and life is returning to normal, which it is not. That is my fear.
Liberation day is potentially opening the door on a disaster and I cannot understand why those who oppose lockdown but who are calling for an early return to normality cannot support mandatory masking. It helps their case and would facilitate the early return for which they yearn. It secures a wider form of individual freedom. I say to the Government that they need to get real and take the lead. The public are looking to the Government to show the way. Either take a big decision to maintain masking or let the Commons take it on a free vote.
Do not get bogged down in misinterpretation of what constitutes liberty. Your liberty should not be at the cost of my liberty that dropping the guard in care homes will soon expose. If, as an individual citizen, I have to lock myself away and lose my freedom as a consequence of you securing your freedom, we then need arbitration. Care homes, offices, shops, public transport and, indeed, all public places are similarly at risk and threatened by this new approach. I plead with the Government, even at this late stage, for sanity in the policy that they are pursuing. Please do not make this grave mistake.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, whether or not noble Lords agree with the intent behind this statutory instrument, they ought to share my deep sense of outrage at how Parliament is being treated.
We have become inured to the cavalier way in which the Department of Health and Social Care uses secondary legislation to interfere with citizens’ lives but this instrument reaches a new low. For the first time since the Victorian era, vaccination will be mandated by law. I believe that it is wholly inappropriate to use unamendable secondary legislation to cross that line. It raises deep issues of civil liberties and human rights and should have been fully scrutinised in primary legislation. Furthermore, the department’s contempt for Parliament is demonstrated by the lack of accompanying operational detail or an impact assessment, as has been pointed out.
The department has doggedly resisted releasing full impact assessments on Covid instruments. Whenever possible, it has hidden behind the small print of Cabinet Office rules on impact assessments to claim that they are not required. The small print does not cover today’s statutory instrument so the department has instead resorted to—there is no easy way to say this—lying. The Explanatory Note and the Explanatory Memorandum state that a full impact assessment has been prepared and is available. The Minister in the other place admitted last week that it has not even been prepared. As we heard last night, a flimsy document called an impact statement appeared on the website, but this falls far short of an impact assessment, and an impact assessment published after Parliament has considered an instrument does nothing to contribute to parliamentary scrutiny.
The department has rightly drawn the condemnation of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House, which recommended in its eighth report on the instrument that this consideration be delayed until both the detailed impact assessment and operational guidance were available. Yesterday’s 10th report emphasised the many questions left unanswered. The department has cocked a snook at Parliament by ramming this instrument through now.
Allowing proper parliamentary debate in September would do nothing to delay the implementation of the policy. It already has a 16-week implementation gap built into it. The consultation showed that more people opposed the policy than supported it. UNISON does not support it. The Government cannot claim that they are acting in uncontroversial territory. I suspect that the real truth is that this policy would never survive the scrutiny that a fully informed debate would bring. It is also far from clear that the policy solution is the right one. As the Minister pointed out, 96% of residents of older-age care homes and 92% in working-age care homes have had a first vaccination dose, with the figures for staff being 86% and 83%, which is well in excess of the SAGE guidelines of 90% for residents and 80% for staff, so in aggregate there is no problem.
The Minister has said that only 65% of older-age care homes were meeting that guideline, falling to 44% in London, although he gave no figures for the two-thirds of care homes in that sector that cater for working-age adults. These limited data do not provide support for the intrusive rules in these regulations; rather, they speak to the need for more targeted interventions on a local basis and with smaller care homes to level them up to the very great achievements that have been made so far at national level.
None of this is explored, because we have no impact assessment, in particular in relation to care home staffing. Last night’s impact statement came up with a central estimate of a one-off cost of £100 million in respect of the recruitment of 40,000 staff who would be lost because of the instrument, but I do not think that that estimate will stand up to much scrutiny.
If some staff decide not to be vaccinated—as is entirely their right to do—they will be forced out of employment in the sector, but the Government have no evidence presented that there are people willing and able to come into the sector to replace that large number of people going out of it. There is no excess capacity in the market for care home staff, as many care home operators will testify. The impact of the loss of care home capacity is simply not addressed in the impact statement, along with a host of other consequential issues.
While I agree with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, I shall not be voting for it this evening, because it is a mere gesture and it does not defend the role of Parliament; but neither shall I vote for the Government.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will be supporting my noble friend’s amendment; I am very glad that she has put it before us. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and other noble Lords, I cannot help but feel that this regulation is not the way to deal with such an important and sensitive subject. Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Minister to allow it to be delayed until the autumn, when the full impact assessment and the guidelines are made available. This is not the way to treat Parliament.
This is a challenging issue, and I am very mindful of the opinion of Big Brother Watch, which I respect. It warned that mandatory vaccination is
“crossing … the Rubicon on medical choice, medical confidentiality and bodily autonomy …vital components of the right to privacy.”
Equally, I have been alarmed at the unwillingness of some staff to have the vaccination. In these uncertain times, I accept that action normally considered as unacceptably undermining our personal liberties may have to be taken in the wider interest.
In the end, I come down in favour of the principle of the regulations, but I am dismayed by the way in which the Government have handled them. We have already heard the criticism of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government have not produced either the operational guidance—even though they say it will be produced within a few days—or the impact assessment, which is required to be submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee for independent scrutiny and presented to Parliament. Why has this not been done? To expect us to agree to the incursion on personal liberty, in the way that these regulations provide for, is very bad indeed.
My guess is that the Government are very uncomfortable with what a proper RIA would say. Clearly, what has happened is that, once again, the poor old residential care sector has been picked upon and could be devastated as a result of these regulations. The Government are embarrassed by this, and therefore do not want Parliament to know the full facts. If the Minister says it is because officials have been working very hard and are not ready, I just do not believe it. His department has so much form in treating this House with contempt that I am afraid I cannot give it the benefit of the doubt on this. This is a deliberate attempt to hide from Parliament the consequences of a hugely important policy decision. It will not be forgotten. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I would like an assurance that this will last only for a minimum period of time.
I always work very well with the Registered Nursing Home Association, which says that, at the moment, it does not know how staff will react—how can it? It has been asked to respond to the current draft guidance, and it says that it is very light on, for instance, exactly how the regulator—the CQC—will regulate this regulation. There is an oral statement that the CQC will be proportionate but, as it asks, what does that mean when the requirement is that 100% of staff need to be vaccinated? It also says that the guidance is very light on the issue of what providers and local authorities, as commissioners, should do to support those services that are short of vaccinated staff. Will the Minister give us an assurance that this will be dealt with in the guidance that will be produced in a few days’ time?
The Care Provider Alliance is concerned about the overall impact of losing critical staff. It says that we currently have around 112,000 vacancies. If the Minister is right, and another 40,000 vacancies are added on top of that, how on earth will the sector cope with that? On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the inconsistencies, one must assume that those 40,000 people will find jobs, either in the NHS as care assistants, in the domiciliary care sector or in any of those sectors where they are not required to be vaccinated. How on earth can that be seen as a sensible policy?
I will finish on a completely different subject. I want to raise the case of Christian Scientists. In discussion with the late Lord Weatherill, as a Minister in 2000, I was able to agree a special provision in the Care Standards Act for Christian Scientists. At the time, I said from the Dispatch Box:
“the Government have no intention of preventing or discouraging people from being cared for in accordance with the principles and practices of the Church of Christ, Scientist.”—[Official Report, 28/3/00; col. 740.]
The issue today concerns the two homes that the Christian Scientists run in England. The Church believes that it should be permitted to claim a religious exemption from Covid-19 vaccination. Will the Minister confirm the assurances that I gave to the House from the Dispatch Box 21 years ago? Would his officials meet with the Church to discuss the details?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I have been calling for the vaccination of care home workers for months and months. I believe that, when we have had to have so many restrictions imposed upon us—on the number of people we could have in our own homes, where we could go and what we could do—it is entirely reasonable to say that those who care for the most vulnerable members of society should be obliged to be vaccinated. I think that that is reasonable. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, indicated that that was the line that she took.
However, I have been doing this for month after month after month, going back to the very beginning of this year, if not before. I regret infinitely the way in which there has been prevarication. It seems to me so obvious that, if this had been said at the beginning of the year, proper legislation could have been produced.
My noble friend Lady Noakes talked about the contempt with which Parliament has been treated. I do not think that anyone since Cromwell has treated Parliament with greater contempt, over a whole range of issues. We are a parliamentary democracy, and the Government are answerable and accountable to Parliament. We have been through an extraordinary series of emergencies, when it has been understandable that certain measures had to be taken, but there has been far too much retrospective legislation, far too much secondary legislation and far too many Henry VIII clauses. I beg the Government and my noble friend Lord Bethell—I am sorry that he is not here; he cannot be with us because he is in isolation. He has not treated your Lordships’ House with contempt—far from it—but there has been an arrogance that has not been attractive.
It is right that we proceed, but it would have been very much better to have primary rather than secondary legislation. Lessons should be learned. We have to come back—the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made this point in her speech—to the fact that a very large percentage of those who perished from Covid were in care homes. There were all sorts of factors such as the release of people from hospital to care homes. But the plain, blunt fact is that over one-third—probably 40%—of those who make up the frightening statistic of those who have died were in care homes. Those in care homes are, by very definition, not very mobile, particularly the elderly in care homes. They are fixed.
I first brought this to the attention of the House and Ministers because of a great friend of ours who had a mother who has since died. She was 99 when she died and she had a long life and a good life, until towards the end. Our friend used to say to us, “I have to dress up in all manner of accoutrements, I cannot hold my mother’s hand”—and she could not until just a week or two before she died—“and I cannot communicate with my deaf mother properly.” And yet, in the care home in which she was being well looked after, something like one-third of those looking after her most intimate needs were refusing to be vaccinated. That cannot be right.
Of course, I do not believe in compulsory vaccination regardless, but I do believe it is entirely reasonable to say that those in certain positions have an obligation to their vocation and those they are looking after to do so as safely as possible. We know the efficacy of vaccination; it is not perfect, but it gives a high degree of protection. It is therefore entirely reasonable that we ask those fulfilling those tasks to be vaccinated. But it could have been done in a much better way. The policy could and should have been announced at the beginning of the year because the facts have not changed. There would have been ample time then for primary legislation.
I will not, of course, support the amendment to the Motion moved very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, although I respect her very much. I shall vote for the Government; I will be voting with relief but, at the same time, with a heavy heart.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, on my election to the European Parliament more than 20 years ago, it became clear early on that the Commission—or the Executive—wielded great power. There were no business impact assessments, despite our enacting primary legislation. The Commission was not keen to change the status quo, but some of us were, and eventually it gave way—albeit reluctantly. But the battles continued, as it would never admit that it was wrong. As for us, the politicians, a little courage and fortitude to hold your ground is very difficult and it is so much easier just to give in. The EU sought more and more centralising powers and aimed to micromanage every element of our lives, so we left—quite literally. When the vaccine debacle blew up last year, it summed up why we had had to go. We wanted to take back control—well, most of us did, anyway.
I do not underestimate the challenges in making the most difficult decisions that Ministers have had to make. Initially, the British people wholeheartedly supported the actions that were taken. The vaccine was and is the silver bullet, and we all bought into it. However, in my view, the hand of the state is now riding roughshod over the will of the people, still controlling everything we do and how we are allowed to think. If you question, say, a lockdown or a mask, you are accused of wanting to “let rip”—not my words. If you publicly disagree, you are normally too stupid to understand, and if you actually demonstrate then obviously you are an anarchist, which the majority plainly are not. So when Ministers turn up to the Dispatch Box, hiding behind the 2020 emergency powers Act, without a full business impact assessment and wishing to broaden the scope without consultation, that is a step too far.
I am a great supporter of the vaccines but I will not support coercion or anyone being forced to have it to keep their job or feed their family. This debate is now moving away from public health and into the realms of state control. The goalposts move daily. The public and businesses have no idea what is happening next. Contradictions abound. “Ping-gate”, as it is called, is causing chaos. It was always advisory but the public were deliberately kept in the dark. Thousands of workers and children have been self-isolating who are fit and well—500,000 last week. Test and trace is all over the place while, in my view, forcibly testing school children with no symptoms has been an outrage.
And so to holidays. The Minister decides and announces that France is now in amber plus, despite the fact that the beta variant is in Réunion, which is 6,000 miles away. It is a bit like a new “foxtrot” variant emerging in the Falklands. Portugal went back to amber—naturally, post the Champions League—and the Balearics are where all the families go, so they are in amber too, but not if it is a pilot. At concerts in Liverpool three months ago, Royal Ascot, Wimbledon and Wembley there was no distancing and no masks and there have been no spikes so they were not dangerous.
This brings me to SAGE. Some 366 members sit on 10 working groups and committees, 18 of whom remain anonymous. I do not question their integrity but they are unelected, wielding powers that affect our freedoms, movement and association with people. It beats me how they would ever agree—but they do not, really, because different medics and scientists contradict their colleagues on mainstream media every day, normally those appearing to want to wallow in bad news. The behavioural commissions admitted that they had used scare tactics and propaganda to make the public comply—terrified, more like it.
So here we are, 18 months down the line. Ministers and politicians cannot continue to hide behind the science, advisers, focus groups and opinion polls. It is about being accountable, transparent and bold. Can you imagine a Thatcher Government or the likes of my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke and my noble friends Lord Tebbit, Lord Lamont, Lord Lilley and Lord Forsyth, or many others in this House, not rigorously challenging the advice?
In conclusion, no one gave any Government the authority to take away the civil rights that we earned over centuries. We fought and died for them. No Government can demand respect; they have to earn it. We, the people, will take back control. We will get back to normal. So it behoves the Minister, along with his colleagues, to make sure that that happens. It gives me no pleasure to speak out against my own Government but, in my view, to remain silent today would have been remiss of me.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I preface my remarks by noting that I have had two vaccinations, which I got at the earliest opportunity. I recommend that everyone who possibly can do the same.
What we have in these small but extraordinarily significant regulations is a collision between the Government’s social care policy—the one we were told was “clear” and “prepared” two years ago, but which, we have learned this afternoon, is not expected to be available until the autumn—and their Covid policies. These are two areas of the greatest government failure—two areas of confused, confusing, contradictory and clearly disastrous policies, which, when put together in these regulations, produce what could be a disaster as well as a severe procedural tangle. The likely outcome of this policy is a dangerous diminution of care provision for some of the most vulnerable in our society, and great stress, worry and possibly loss of employment for those—mostly low-paid, too often insecurely employed, mostly women, many from minoritised communities—who care for them.
As is all too often the case, I regret that the regret amendment, which I support and which the Green group will back, is only that and not stronger. In this, I may be in rare agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Nearly two years ago, the first vote I took part in in your Lordships’ House—in that strange, archaic procedure of trooping down long corridors, attaching myself to another Peer to check I was heading in the right direction—was on a regret amendment. That Peer, a Lib Dem, kindly explained that it was a vote but it would not change anything, to my considerable disappointment.
We talk a lot about affirmative and negative instruments and wrestle with the Government about converting the latter to the former. But really, if we are not prepared to actually stop something that is as clearly wrong and chaotically mismanaged as this, should we not think about what is askew with our constitutional arrangements —those antique, accidentally accreted structures, which we have managed to demonstrate, through the Covid-19 pandemic, can be quickly modernised when there is the will?
I am sure many noble Lords will have received, as I did, a briefing from Neil Russell, chairman of PJ Care Ltd. I do not know Mr Russell, but I know a cri de coeur when I read one, and that is what his briefing was. He calculates, believably, with figures that broadly reflect the scant information we have from the Government, that 5% of staff may, as a result of this, leave the sector—75,000 staff in a sector that already has 100,000 vacancies. There is clearly a risk that some homes will be able to poach workers from those that cannot keep them.
We have a disastrously financialised care home sector—something that the Financial Times, among other unlikely media outlets, has increasingly been highlighting—with a significant degree of ownership concentrated in the hands of hedge funds that have, on their classic model, loaded them with debt while shipping out massive profits of 12% to 16%, usually off to tax havens. However, that situation could be even further worsened by this measure, with large chains being able to ship staff around while smaller, independent family businesses and the few remaining homes run for public good not profit do not have that option.
Workers in this sector have made their views clear. The UNISON briefing says this measure is
“counterproductive, risks serious staff shortages and could drive the problem underground.”
I am not suggesting doing nothing. I note the article titled “Excess mortality for care home residents during the first 23 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in England” in the BMC Medicine journal. Up to 7 August 2020, there were, tragically, nearly 30,000 excess deaths in all care homes: 65% of those were confirmed or suspected Covid-19.
To protect the residents of care homes—as the Government so comprehensively failed to do last year exactly when Germany was applying strict testing and quarantine requirements for residents returning to or entering homes, meaning far fewer deaths—is obviously crucial. But the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine study, to which other noble Lords referred, emphasises
“the importance of COVID-19 vaccination remaining voluntary.”
It says:
“Feeling pressurised had damaging effects, eroding trust and negatively affecting relationships at work, and often exacerbated COVID-19 vaccination concerns and hardened stances on declining vaccination.”
That is not surprising. It is human to think that if you are being forced to do something, there is a reason why that force is necessary.
Many, presented with the evidence and given time to think it over, are likely to come on board—the right way for any medical procedure to be given—with full informed genuine consent. UNISON presents a half-page list of useful voluntary measures that could and should be undertaken. I particularly highlight the need to remove any financial disincentives.
I started with my personal experiences. After both doses, I felt pretty rotten for three or four days and less than perky for a few more. I say that not as a discouragement, but as an honest account. That is the kind of honesty we need to build trust and confidence. It is obviously vastly preferable to catching Covid or passing it on to others, but I am lucky; I have a job where I can mostly work sitting down or, if I suddenly need to bail out of the day, I can. For a low-paid care worker, one struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table and knowing vulnerable people depend on them, those luxuries are not available. We need to make sure people who work in care homes can choose to have these vaccinations, and are not forced into them.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to Future Planet Capital, a sustainable investment firm that has a stake in Vaccitech, the start-up that licensed the intellectual property and original R&D relating to what is known as the AstraZeneca vaccine, of which I have received two doses. I begin by congratulating the Minister for running the marathon of this past year or so, managing the demands of the pandemic tirelessly and responding swiftly to requests, certainly from me, for information or action. For example, I remember us speaking at one point early in the pandemic about the need to restrict inbound travel from Italy. He and his colleagues at the Foreign Office ultimately took the necessary action.
I recognise the reasons behind this measure, given the high number of fatalities and infections that have taken place in care homes and facilities over the course of the pandemic and the need to ensure that those in them are protected. It is a step in the right direction proactively to seek to ensure that safeguards are in place, given that, last year, we found that the speed of events could, at times, truly overwhelm us and the system. To this end, I echo the Minister’s tribute to staff in the social care system who have tirelessly sacrificed to protect those in their care.
My main point is that, while seeking to vaccinate those working in care homes may make sense in the short term, I would love to see a more systemic approach by the Government to make our health and social care system more resilient generally, rather than reacting to events after the horse has bolted. By doing so, we would be able not only to address the problems we face in our social care system and its funding, but to deal with the long waiting lists we face and ultimately make our economy and society less of a hostage to whatever crisis next turns up to fill our hospitals with patients.
Hospitals and care homes are particularly vulnerable within our wider system right now, because they concentrate a lot of vulnerable people and thus make it easy for the virus to reach them, relatively speaking. Of course, defending them helps, but I would love to see more thinking in government to tackle root causes, such as whether we should be concentrating so many vulnerable people in one place at all and whether more diagnosis, care and treatment could be done at home, remotely, in the community or in smaller facilities. If they have to be in larger units, bubbles could be created within them, so the truly vulnerable are separated from the others. Only in that way, I believe, will we truly eliminate the likelihood of future lockdowns.
However, today we are talking not about this more holistic or comprehensive approach to preventing infection, but about the measure before us. I support it in principle, but the challenge is in the transition. Those who work in care homes today did not sign up to compulsory vaccination when they applied and accepted their job offers, so there is an ethical issue about what we do about those who choose, rightly or wrongly, to object for their own ethical and other reasons. If this were another job, for example in certain units in the Army where vaccination is the expected behaviour upon receiving an offer, this would not be an issue, but we now face having to impose it retrospectively on current workers. More thought needs to be put into how we deal with this dilemma. For example, could the Minister consult the care sector to explore what roles people who have been a front-line carer could play, which would not require vaccination, either remotely or on site, but separated from vulnerable service users? Could steps not be taken to separate different groups of patients in care homes based on the latest clinical science? This would at least reduce the risk of discrimination and the perception of rules being changed arbitrarily and after the event, rather than in a planned way.
Ultimately, we have to accept that we are still fighting this pandemic and that emergency measures like these are needed, but we also need to remember that we are in a democracy and that you cannot unvaccinate someone, so, unlike other measures, this cannot be temporary or reversible. We have to give more thought to what we do to look after those who object to being vaccinated, even if we may disagree with them, rather than casting them and their concerns aside, even if for the very worthy cause of keeping service users healthy, protected and alive. It is a very slippery slope, changing the terms of someone’s job such that they suddenly find themselves forced to do something against their conscience. Let us hope that this and future Governments will do this only very rarely and ensure that they have thought through the implications for everyone, including workers, carefully in the future.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there have been some excellent speeches in this debate. I speak the day after the rather misnamed “freedom day” was used by the Prime Minister to herald a “show your papers” society. No doubt the threat of domestic passports—a policy that the Minister for Vaccines has regularly described as discriminatory—is just a ploy to nudge or blackmail young people to get vaccinated or be denied access to nightclubs and public life.
Today I am here to speak against another illiberal measure: mandated vaccines for care workers. That message is, “Get vaccinated or you will be denied access to your job”. Have the Government abandoned using the usual democratic means of persuasion—convincing citizens of the merits of policies—and resorted instead to a lazier, coercive approach, bypassing Parliament while they are at it?
The Government claim that they have tried extensive communications programmes to try to persuade care workers to get jabbed, but how hard have they tried? I think the UNISON suggestions were very helpful. We have heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Bennett, about some other ways we can have targeted persuasion, peer-to-peer reassurance initiatives and so on. I just do not believe that we have tried hard enough.
We all understand that vaccine hesitancy among care workers is a moral dilemma. Ideally, those who work with vulnerable people should not put them in danger, and it would be better if they were immunised. As my mother lived in a care home and my aunt is still a resident, I am sensitive to the idea that, in certain protective environments, following health and safety rules is key to the job. If care workers who have intimate contact with our loved ones refused to wear PPE, for example, we might think them negligent, so I can see both sides. Can the Minister concede that this is an ethical minefield? This legislation is a blunt instrument that does not take into account any nuance at all.
Ministers say that the policy is based on consultation, and they claim that they have listened to the experiences and concerns of providers and people living and working in care homes, but have they really listened? A majority of the consultation respondents did not support mandated vaccines, and 62% of care home residents themselves are unsupportive of the proposal.
The consultation is credited with the extraordinary decision to broaden the scope to include, with limited exemptions, everyone who enters a care home, regardless of their role. Can the Minister explain whether the driver who regularly delivers food should be sacked too? What about the hairdressers and the arts and crafts teachers who went into my mum’s home and who service homes? Will they be banned? Will there be bouncers at the door? Will homes have fewer services?
Then there are the unintended consequences. A recent study by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine was very clear that the Covid-19 vaccine should remain voluntary for care workers or it would risk negatively affecting relationships at work, hardening stances against the vaccine and undermining the trust in all vaccines and the process of policy-making.
Let me be clear: I am an enthusiastic supporter of vaccination. The 18th-century Edward Jenner is one of my personal heroes. Specifically, Covid vaccines are proof that humanity can deploy scientific ingenuity in managing and overcoming deadly challenges. I have no time for the anti-big-pharma tropes or the rejection of pharmacological interventions—nature does not know best. But I also believe in freedom, specifically freedom of choice and conscience, and surely it is dangerous and regressive to weaponise medical interventions as the price of freedom. Ever since trade unions and radicals forced the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts in 1886, the voluntary principle of opting out has worked well. At the very least, overturning that principle in law should require far more scrutiny than a rushed-through statutory instrument given only 90 minutes of debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for forcing us to at least have this debate, but this is not the way it should be done.
The Government insisted that this was necessary, however, to protect vulnerable residents. That might be more convincing if so many vulnerable people had not died of Covid in care homes due to government policies that were not debated. All right, that was an emergency but more recently the welfare of the many of the same vulnerable residents has been jeopardised by draconian restrictions on visits from families. I commend to all noble Lords Midsummer Milestones, a briefing paper from John’s Campaign and supporters of Rights for Residents, to get a visceral sense of the horrors inflicted on those in care homes by the mandatory 14-day isolation rules. The protective ring around care homes really does ring hollow and now the everyday heroes of care homes, who worked their guts out during the pandemic, feel victimised. I have received droves of emails from front-line staff who say that they feel like third-class citizens.
Finally, and ironically, this policy could make care homes less safe in the future. We have already heard that if only 5% of staff refuse the vaccine and are sacked, that will mean tens of thousands of workers leaving a sector that already has severe staff shortages. Does the Minister think homes should operate with dangerously low staffing levels or close down? Many professionals believe that mandated vaccine policy will see them close altogether, with a loss of 50,000 beds. Does the Minister realise that that would mean residents ending up in hospitals, increasing pressure on the NHS? Oh, the irony.
This SI is not serious policy. I will abstain because regret is not strong enough for how I feel. The issue requires proper, nuanced, moral argument in this House—the vulnerable deserve it.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Adult Social Care. Many have spoken from the heart, including my noble friend Lady Tyler, about the principles of ensuring that those who need to be cared for by the care sector are kept safe. From these Benches we unequivocally support that principle but we argue that this SI itself is flawed, as demonstrated by the eighth and 10th reports of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. These echo the concerns of cross-party MPs in their debate on this SI last week.
First, it is important to say that a year ago the shockingly high death toll in care homes was because neither residents nor staff were protected by our Government. In the early days, patients with Covid were discharged from hospital into homes. Worse, staff could not get access to proper PPE. I do not take the view of our Prime Minister—as reported by Dominic Cummings—that anyone over 80 is going to die soon anyway. For too many, Covid is a very nasty disease, as he well knows. Shame on him for dismissing the lives of anyone over 80.
I turn to the regulation itself. There is still no impact assessment. The statement of impact, hurriedly published yesterday, does not answer the questions raised in the Commons debate last week and does not provide the evidence for its assertions. Further, it is not clear exactly where the boundaries of the Minister’s powers lie in the regulation and what ability there is, therefore, for mission creep and Henry VIII powers.
One example is the nature of the evidence required for vaccination status. It might be an app. It might be an NHS letter. There is no evidence yet for your Lordships’ House to understand how secure this process would be. Nor are the duties under law of the registered person in a care home or a care company stated. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out that it was not certain
“whether that would provide a sufficient defence to a registered person if they needed to contest a sanction for non-compliance.”
The real concern from the evidence given by Ministers and their officials is the actual size of the problem they are trying to solve. SAGE has said that the target for staff vaccinations should be around 80% and, in his opening speech, the Minister said that we are so nearly there with the vaccinations and then quoted the data to confirm that, despite localised variations. The 10th secondary legislation report says:
“It became evident that the DHSC are trying to target this legislation on particular groups of people”.
It is not explained in the Explanatory Memorandum, perhaps because it is those people in deprived areas, younger staff and ethnic minorities.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wei, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and others that, for months, the care sector and unions have been working with vaccine-hesitant staff. Back in January, a GP in Newcastle was reported as saying that the single most effective tool to overcome vaccine hesitancy was getting local doctors who staff know to listen to their concerns and answer them. Care providers confirm that this technique is highly effective and, frankly, it is probably why the SAGE targets and more are achievable. Why are the Government not backing this route, which would appear to overturn staff hesitancy more than any other technique, and certainly more than coercion?
There is a long litany on the lack of legislative compliance, commented on by many noble Lords, in addition to the lack of the vital impact assessment. The sector has faced a perfect workforce storm in the last 18 months. Brexit has resulted in large numbers of EU staff leaving the UK. Now, as restrictions are lifted, staff are being wooed by those able to pay premium salaries in hospitality and, in rural areas, agriculture. Social care providers say that there are already over 120,000 vacancies. They know that they will have to sack those who refuse vaccinations and will find it even harder to recruit from an ever decreasing pool. All the Government say is that it will cost the sector £100 million—much better to work with the sector to do this voluntarily.
To workforce issues, we must add the lack of detail in the Explanatory Memorandum about how this proposed system would work. Nor do the SI or the EM have key definitions, again leaving your Lordships’ House in the dark. I add to the comments of others about the inconsistencies of targeting just this sector and not others in the NHS. So, care assistants, plumbers and hairdressers must be vaccinated if they are going into care homes, but not GPs and other doctors—that is extraordinary.
I end by returning to the fundamental issue of whether there is a need for this SI. One of the largest care organisations, Four Seasons Health Care, challenges the Minister’s assertions that care homes are not safe at the moment. In its evidence, it said:
“Since March 5th 2021 we have had 2 covid deaths, during which time 955 residents have passed away. Covid therefore accounts for 0.2% of all our deaths in the past 18 weeks.”
Can the Minister provide the nationwide data on deaths in care homes over the last four months? I believe it matches these figures, so is this SI necessary? The Government admit that SAGE’s target was met, but have said there should be even more vaccinations. Other than the Minister, every speaker tonight has raised problems with these regulations, from all sides of the House. From these Benches, we say that the litany of minor and major issues means that the instrument should not be brought into effect, so we will support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler.
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their considered questions and huge interest in the instrument laid before us today. Tragically, there have been more than 30,000 deaths recorded among care home residents during this pandemic. We have a duty to do all we can to prevent further suffering. Testing,PPE and infection prevention can go only so far in the mitigation of risk. Ensuring very high levels of vaccination for people living and working in care homes is an essential public health intervention for a serious vaccine-preventable disease.
To answer my noble friend Lord Lansley, the residential care workers covered by these regulations are handling the most vulnerable and elderly in priority list 1, which is why we started with them. Forthcoming consultations will address those who work with priority lists 2 to 4 and, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we may ultimately consult on extending further into the rest of the health and social care workforce. My noble friend Lord Lansley asked about resources. Our focus has been on ensuring that the social care sector has the resources it needs to respond to the pandemic. On 27 June, we announced a further £251 million of adult social care Covid-19 support, through an extension of the infection control and testing fund.
I say to my noble friend Lady Foster, who spoke with such passion on individual choice, that it is worth bearing in mind that many people are not afforded much, if any, choice in who cares for them. We have heard from people with lived experience of care. They want to know that the person who cares for them is vaccinated. I am not instinctively a supporter of mandatory measures. I note my noble friend’s philosophical points on this with great interest. I am even less keen to impose obligations on those people just at the time when the rest of society is opening up around them. But the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, put it very well. She made a strong case, with moving personal testimony, that it is right that we protect the most vulnerable, even if it would take us further than we would normally go. We simply cannot be in a position where those most in need of care and the highest level of protection from the threat of Covid face a lottery of risk depending on the level of vaccine uptake by those working in their care. My noble friend Lord Cormack has spoken on this on several occasions extremely movingly.
It is not our intention to compel anyone to take the vaccine against their will. We can, and should, make it an essential criterion for working in care homes—to make it an explicit duty of care, providing peace of mind to colleagues, residents and all who visit. Barchester, a large care home provider with over 16,000 staff, already requires staff to be vaccinated. The evidence there gives us real cause to be hopeful, showing that, having taken the time and effort to engage with employees, understand their concerns and encourage them to take up the vaccine, only 0.5% of staff left the workforce. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, that there have been huge efforts to drive vaccination take-up among care home staff in recent months already. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others who have spoken on this point, I would welcome the opportunity to update noble Lords on these efforts, in detail, at a suitable briefing.
We have heard the arguments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that social care teams need support. That is exactly why vaccination teams have visited care homes to offer vaccinations to both residents and staff, with actions at the national, regional and local level to improve access and address concerns. To answer the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, on guidance, I reassure the House that we recognise the need to introduce these changes with the utmost care and sensitivity. To the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we are working with representatives from the sector to produce detailed operational guidance to support implementation. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is right that the implementation is complex, so we will also be working with Skills for Care, the charity focused on workforce development, to ensure that guidance and best practice are available to support providers and local authorities. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that the wearing of masks in a care home setting is properly governed by regulations. I reassure him that the guidelines are rigorously enforced.
I will address the heartfelt, tough and, if I may say, challenging remarks of noble Lords on the impact statement. I reassure noble Lords that this Minister, this department and this Government fully respect Parliament, and the scrutiny and challenge brought by Parliament and this House. We have published an impact statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there is no question of us trying to hide that. But it is very complex. I hope the House will appreciate that there is an enormous amount about this pandemic that is unprecedented. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, put it well. We cannot be sure how staff will react to this unprecedented measure. That is what drives the financial model, but how do we know how many will leave the sector or take a lateral move to a non-sensitive role?
Much about the vaccine has confounded expectation. Who would have thought a year ago that the take up of the vaccine among the elderly would be in the mid-90% range, or that the take-up among the young would be incredibly encouraging? As I said, one major care home provider has already brought in such a measure and saw a drop-off of less than 1%. That is why the drafting of the impact assessment has been such a struggle. There is no question of hiding or of misleading the House. We are working with partners to generate the most credible calculations possible. We will publish the impact assessment as soon as possible and we are using this time to hammer out the best estimate we can.
To the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, I say that it is right that we start with care homes, where residents and staff are the top priority, and we intend to consult further on the rest of health and social care. It is also right to acknowledge the important role of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in considering the regulations. I acknowledge fulsomely the vital role of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in scrutinising the legislation and holding the Government to account. We are particularly grateful to the committee for giving us the opportunity to explain the policy in further detail in an evidence session last week.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords for their contributions on this very important SI. Of course, I join in the tributes to social care staff across the sector during the pandemic. As I said in moving the amendment, my focus is on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s rightful concerns about the inadequacy of the legislation and the Government’s failure to produce the essential guidance needed or the full impact assessment of the risks to the future of many care homes from the huge disruption that will take place. It is not an SI that is pandemic-restricted, a temporary measure; instead it is permanent legislation, which makes the quality of the SI even more important and reinforces the inadequacy of the legislation we have before us today on such an important issue for care homes, their staff and residents.
My noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, sought an assurance from the Minister that the measures will be temporary and time-limited, but we did not get that assurance. Once again we have an SI that seeks to extend unspecified government powers in legislation without justifying why those powers are needed. In other words, this is, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says,
“guidance exceeding its ancillary function and taking on the role of legislation”.
Noble Lords raised many points and I fear there is just not time now to respond to them. Overall, this SI remains an incoherent, muddled and confused piece of legislation and further last-minute information and reassurances from the Government have not made it any clearer or dealt with the key issues that need to be addressed. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is a shame that Statements are not read out in your Lordships’ House now. I know that it saves time and it can feel a bit odd when all a Minister does is read out another Minister’s Statement word for word, but it helps to understand why certain questions are being raised in the debate that follows. If it is the intention to continue in this way, perhaps we could consider having just a precis of the main points prior to the comments and questions.
The issue before us today is a Statement on the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past—but this past is closely bound to the present and the future, which has always made the process of moving forward to a peaceful future more challenging. The euphemistically called Troubles saw over 3,500 people killed and tens of thousands injured. As a former Northern Ireland Office Minister with responsibility for victims and survivors, I met so many, including veterans, from across communities, who still carry the physical and psychological scars of that time. Beyond that, the pain of so many and the impact on local communities reached into more areas of life than I had previously anticipated. I listened and heard what they had to say, and it has to be said that, at times, those conversations about the way ahead and the future were difficult and challenging for all of us—but no progress is ever made without understanding the other side.
In Prime Minister’s Questions last week, the Prime Minister said that the plans before the House and those before us today would allow Northern Ireland to
“draw a line under the troubles”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/21; col. 365.]
We cannot live in the past, but the phrase “draw a line under”, referring to something so vast as that period in Northern Ireland’s history—and that of Great Britain —implies a lack of understanding.
Alongside the Statement, the Government’s Command Paper wisely states:
“The best outcomes for Northern Ireland have been achieved when we have collectively taken bold steps.”
However, the difficult truth for the Government is that there is no collective support for these proposals. The Government have failed to undertake the meaningful and genuine engagement and discussions in order to build collective support. There is no strength or wisdom to be found in the Government unilaterally announcing a policy or process that seems to have no support beyond 10 Downing Street.
These plans have been resolutely rejected by victims and survivors in Northern Ireland and Great Britain and across the political spectrum by all five parties in Northern Ireland. Today Stormont was recalled urgently to debate the proposals. The Motion before the Assembly stated that
“victims and survivors should have a full, material and central role and input into the content and design of structures to address the legacy of the past”
and called on the Assembly to reject the Government’s proposals
“for a statute of limitations”.
I do not need to tell the Minister—I am sure he is very much aware of it—that the Motion was unanimously supported and passed without a vote. It is quite an achievement for the Government to unite every Northern Ireland political party. In addition, the Irish Government are also opposed to this approach.
As well as those in Northern Ireland, there is great concern here in Great Britain. Even today, as the families of the victims and survivors of the Birmingham bombing petitioned Downing Street, they have still not had any communication from the Government about what this means for them. What we need today from the Government is some clarity, honesty and humility—clarity and honesty that this is not the way forward that victims were promised. Only last year, the Government promised to legislate on the Stormont House agreement through the New Decade, New Approach deal. Instead of progress on Stormont House, the proposal rides roughshod over it.
Can the Minister say something about how Operation Kenova fits into the Government’s plans? I give the example of Tom Oliver, who was abducted and murdered by the IRA in 1991 at the age of 43. As part of Operation Kenova, his family reported yesterday that new DNA evidence gave them “fresh hope” for the investigation. They have illustrated this as “a prime example” of why cases should not be closed. Does the Statement mean that the Government intend to shut down all live cases regardless of their status? Have they sought legal advice to ensure that this is compliant with the duty to provide effective investigations under Article 2 of the ECHR?
I think everybody in your Lordships’ House today knows how difficult this is. But we also know it is possible to make progress when some dismiss it as impossible. That is where the humility comes in. We do not want the Government to squander an opportunity to seriously address very real, genuine concerns about the legacy of the past, through a failure of effective engagement. I put it to the Minister, with a genuine commitment to co-operation, would it not be better to pause, listen and work with others to consider all options—including other options—for moving forward?
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, about not hearing the original Statement; it does make for a slightly peculiar debate, even remotely, as I am this evening. It is also regrettable that such an important issue is being discussed so late in the day.
It is now 18 months since renewed hope was given to the people of Northern Ireland through New Decade, New Approach in January last year. That was an approach agreed by the previous Conservative Government, the Irish Government and had broad support across the communities and parties of Northern Ireland. Last week’s Statement represents a dramatic and deeply unwelcome move away from the Stormont House agreement, with its approach of peace and reconciliation, towards a blanket amnesty that does not distinguish between those who broke the law and those who upheld it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, almost uniquely, last week’s Statement in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland succeeded in uniting all five of Northern Ireland’s parties against these proposals.
These proposals are insulting to the victims and their families, across all communities and backgrounds, who have already waited so long to see justice and to be able to have closure. It would be interesting to know whether the Government can give a single example of when such an approach has ever succeeded in promoting a move towards genuine reconciliation. It is hard not to conclude that these proposals owe more to pressures from within the Conservative Party and certain elements of the media than to a genuine desire to deal with the legacy of the past and seek lasting peace and reconciliation.
The approach now adopted by the Government has introduced equivalence between all veterans, the vast majority of whom served the community with honour and respect for the rule of law, and terrorists, who deliberately sought to cause death. Justice and equality before the law are essential elements of trust in the law, which is a vital element of a path to reconciliation and moving on from the legacy of the troubled past.
Given the strength of opposition to these proposals in Northern Ireland, can the Minister say whether it remains the Government’s intention to impose this approach over the heads of Northern Ireland political parties and victims’ groups? Does he not fear that these proposals risk being seen as having no legitimacy and no credibility? Can he clarify their impact on inquests and ongoing investigations and prosecutions? Can he say whether the Government’s proposals apply only to Troubles-related deaths or to any other crime committed by members of proscribed terrorist organisations between 1968 and 1998? If an investigation concludes that an individual’s death was caused by a member of a proscribed organisation or a member of the security services, will the option to pursue the individual responsible via a civil claim also be closed off?
As Sir Jeffrey Donaldson MP put it so powerfully in the House of Commons last week:
“I want to take the path to reconciliation, but I cannot believe that the path to reconciliation is made easier when we sacrifice justice. The victims have to be at the centre of this, and I would urge the Secretary of State, in taking forward his proposals, to listen to their voices. This must be a victim-centred process; it cannot be at their expense.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/21; col. 396.]
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Suttie, for their comments and questions. I also particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her sensitive words about the victims, because of course they remain very much in our minds.
I echo the thoughts of both noble Baronesses about the way the House has to be at the moment and my inability to read out the Statement. I have echoed similar words before—I think it was on the Ballymurphy Statement—when I agreed with the comments made that it is often better to have the Statement read out, because it provides a sensitive and suitable base from which to discuss challenging issues.
As the Secretary of State set out last week in the other place, while Northern Ireland today is undoubtedly a fantastic place to live in, work in and visit, the unresolved legacy of the Troubles remains and casts a long shadow. We bear in mind that Northern Ireland is celebrating its centenary year; noble Lords may see that I am wearing the badge. However, the legacy continues to impact and permeate society in Northern Ireland, both for those who were directly involved and affected and those who were not but live with the trauma of previous generations.
It is now a painful reality that the focus on criminal investigations is increasingly unlikely to deliver successful criminal justice outcomes. More than two-thirds of Troubles-related deaths occurred more than 40 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for the courts to provide families with the answers that they seek. Time is not on our side. If we do not act now, we will condemn current and, importantly, future generations to ongoing division and prevent the reconciliation needed for Northern Ireland to move forward.
That is why—to give a little bit of background—the Secretary of State published the Command Paper, which sets out, very briefly, the three key measures: the new independent body that would focus on the recovery and provision of information; a package of measures that includes a major oral history initiative, consistent with what was included in the Stormont House agreement; and, as has been mentioned, a statute of limitations to apply equally to all Troubles-related instances.
I want to try and address some of the questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, stated that there had been no engagement and particularly that there was no collective support. Okay, I note what she says. However, I point out to her that there was 18 months of preparation for this Statement, and we have indulged in a lot of engagement, particularly in recent months, with a range of groups. Part of the point of this Statement is that these proposals are leading to an intense and short period of engagement with all groups within Northern Ireland, including victims’ groups, to see how we can find a way forward. That is the honesty and the clarity for which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was looking. We should be open about that.
Operation Kenova has proved to be valuable in terms of drawing out information about the Troubles, which we are looking to build on by drawing out reconciliation and bringing out historical information that we hope will provide some comfort to victims, should they wish this. However, part of the reason we have brought forward these proposals is that Operation Kenova has led to no prosecutions, and that is a sad fact.
The noble Baroness raised the issue about Tom Oliver. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on a matter under criminal investigation, but the Government are clear that a continued focus on criminal justice outcomes will deliver neither justice nor information to the vast majority of families. That is why obtaining information, as I said earlier, which we know is so important to many victims and survivors, is the cornerstone of the proposals that the UK Government have put forward. We want to deliver tangible outcomes for as many families as we possibly can.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made great play—and I understand why—about why we are bringing forward these proposals and cannot find an agreement. We are determined to drive progress and deliver legislation on this issue, but we are consulting first. This paper sets out our proposals and, as I said earlier, it will be an intensive and time-limited period of engagement. There are many different perspectives on this difficult issue, which we recognise, but we must all work together to find a way forward that works for Northern Ireland, which comes back to a point the noble Baroness made. These issues are sensitive; they will require courage and, importantly, they will include collaboration.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
We come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be kept short.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, I have spent many, many hours in meetings with victims and survivors of the Troubles and was also heavily involved in the Stormont House negotiations in 2014. My noble friend will be aware that all previous attempts by successive Governments to deal with legacy have foundered because of lack of consensus in Northern Ireland. None the less, is it not the case that for any proposals to succeed, they will require significant support from across the community? Can he therefore assure the House that legitimate points and concerns raised during this short and intensive consultation will be fully and properly considered?
Secondly, does my noble friend agree with me that without the contribution and sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross and the Armed Forces, there would have been no peace process in Northern Ireland and no 1998 agreement? Will he, therefore, picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, assure me and the House that this Conservative and Unionist Government will never accept any equivalence between those who upheld the rule of law in Northern Ireland and those terrorists who sought to destroy it?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
On the last point, my noble friend is right that there is no moral equivalence between veterans and service personnel who defended the rule of law and those who sought to destroy it, particularly from terrorist organisations. On the way forward, and slightly repeating what I said earlier, we will enter an intensive but brief period to engage with all parts of the community, including victims’ groups, to allow them to discuss and consider their proposals. On my noble friend’s point about the RUC and the Armed Forces, they have served with bravery, professionalism and distinction but, it must be said, with some exceptions.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, people talk about moving on, but it feels that many families of victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland are being asked to move aside, which is unacceptable and intolerable. Their rightful desire for justice, already tempered by concessions to terrorists such as release from prison after two years, on-the-runs’ letters and royal pardons secretly delivered, has been sacrificed. The latest step from the Government has been greeted with a mixture of anger and disbelief. The Government talk about not making an equivalence between terrorists and members of the Armed Forces and the police, but these proposals are in grave danger of breaching that principle. I have great respect for the Minister and know that he cares deeply for Northern Ireland. Why are the Government setting aside the unanimous political consensus in Northern Ireland and, more perplexingly, the unanimous views of victims of the terrorists?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I, in return, very much respect the huge amount of experience and knowledge that the noble Lord has from his continuing time in Northern Ireland. The UK Government understand, fully appreciate and are very sympathetic to the immense difficulty for some families of accepting any prospect of a shift from criminal justice outcomes. However, this approach offers the best chance of giving more families some sense of justice through acknowledgement, accountability and restorative means, rather than a focus on retributive justice, by looking at reconciliation and how we can deliver for victims in order to end the cycle of investigations.
Lord Mandelson (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it must be right in principle that every family bereaved in the conflict should have access to an effective investigation and meaningful process of justice, regardless of the perpetrator. This, rightly, has guided every Government since the Good Friday agreement. However, in practice, we must be honest with ourselves that effective, conclusive investigations in the numbers demanded is simply not possible. The likelihood of prosecution is remote and therefore the original perpetrators, for all practical purposes, are being shielded by the rule of law, not living in fear of it. Therefore, it is reasonable to weigh alternative approaches. We should consider the Government’s proposals on their merits, however painful it is—and I acknowledge that it is painful—for victims’ families to accept a statute of limitations.
However, there is a suspicion that the Government might be half-hearted about a system of information retrieval if it is introduced, and that the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag when he talked of drawing a line under the so-called Troubles the other day. Does the Minister accept that if any new body is created to retrieve information and confront people with the truth, it must be genuinely independent and powerful—fearless and fearlessly led? If not, it would be much worse than useless; it would be an insult to, and a betrayal of, every bereaved family in Northern Ireland. Do the Government accept this?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed, and again, I appreciate the knowledge and huge experience that the noble Lord has from his time in Northern Ireland and when he was in government throughout all those years. I reassure him that we indeed wish to set up a fully independent body to look at this. It is very important that it is fully independent, and the issues relating to that independence will be laid out, as we will see over the coming weeks. Again, we are consulting and we would like to hear from all parties on this. However, the noble Lord will also know—I appreciate his helpful remarks—that Northern Ireland has already seen difficult but necessary measures put in place that have in the past put aside normal criminal justice processes for the cause of peace and reconciliation. He will know that this includes the early release of prisoners, restricting prison sentences to just two years, even for the most heinous Troubles offences, and concluding the process of secretly decommissioning paramilitary weapons. Therefore I believe he is right that we are in a position where we need once again to explore alternative proposals.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, may I begin by endorsing the powerful response to the Statement from my noble friend Lady Suttie? If you look in the body of the Statement, you see that these issues are described as being “complex and sensitive”. Given that all political parties in Northern Ireland have united in their opposition, how can the Government possibly expect that they can implement these proposals? What price devolution of power if they attempt to do so?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am afraid I do not accept the rather negative views from the noble Lord. That may be the case, and I am not complacent about the views that have been expressed so far. However, I say again that these are genuine proposals that we have put on the table which we wish to talk about to all parts of the community. Our hope is that in discussions and in listening to what they think, we will be able to find a way forward. I say to the noble Lord, who has not put forward any alternative proposals himself, that there is nothing else on the table and we need to look at alternative means, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt.
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is now some three years since I led a debate in your Lordships’ House to call for legislation to end the unfair and unreasonable pursuit of veteran soldiers arising from their actions during the Troubles, the vast majority of which were firmly within the law. I therefore welcome the statement of intent that puts forward a statute of limitations to end all investigations that might lead to prosecutions in a continued but sadly vain attempt to seek the truth through the criminal justice system, as the collapse of recent trials has shown. However, I am sure that the Minister agrees that no one is above the law, so I press the question of whether, in the event of new and compelling evidence becoming available, the Government intend to insert a clause in the proposed legislation to cover that eventuality. If not, why not?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am sure that the noble Lord will be part of the proposals that we have put forward and that we will engage with him. I am not able to give an answer to him at the moment. He is right that nobody is above the law. I appreciate his general welcome for these proposals and I recognise, as he also will, that these measures are intended to bring greater certainty for all communities, including veterans and the families of victims. Our proposals—again, they are proposals—will move the focus away from this endless cycle of investigations into the past and on to a future based around reconciliation and delivering answers for all victims.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister understand the dangers of an amnesty—let us call it what it really is—playing into the hands of Sinn Féin/IRA’s long-term war strategy of rewriting history to establish moral equivalence between legitimate soldiers and police, who donned the uniform and in the vast majority of cases served with restraint and honour, and the terrorist, whose sole aim was to murder, bomb and destroy lives? Does he accept that this moral equivalence is exactly what these proposals are bringing about?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I would like to correct the noble Baroness: this is not an amnesty, and we never said that it was or would be an amnesty; it is a statute of limitation. There is a difference, which is that there will be no pardons. However, we must be clear that, with the passage of time, the number of convictions flowing from any investigative process is likely to be extremely low, as I said earlier. If our focus is criminal justice, we will fail almost every family.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is an equivalence in the pain that all victims feel. I do not see how the Government are going to move forward unless there is a drastic change in their proposals. Do the Government have any further plans to consult the community and to amend their proposals so that there is some element of acceptance for what is, at the moment, a unanimous view against the Government’s idea?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I find the noble Lord’s comments quite helpful, because they allow me to say again that this is a consultative process and that we will be listening to views expressed. As I said earlier, for some, what we are proposing may—and will—be very difficult to accept. We recognise that these issues are highly complex, sensitive and steeped in—how shall I put it?—a dark history, and therefore will be, as they have been for decades, hard to address. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s point about the pain of all victims.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, a previous Conservative Government negotiated the Stormont House agreement, upon which many parties in Northern Ireland agree. They also, jointly with the Irish Government, commissioned New Decade, New Approach in January last year, which saw the restoration of institutions, and which contained a commitment to implement the Stormont House agreement. However, both of those elements have now been ditched and binned by this Conservative Government. So I ask the Minister: do the Government, having signed up to previous agreements and ditched them, now have any credibility, when all five political parties in Northern Ireland, along with the Irish Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly and victims, have opposed this latest Statement containing proposals because it violates and undermines the position of victims and survivors? We must always remember that reconciliation—a truly reconciled society—requires justice and accountability.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I note the comments made by the noble Baroness about the Stormont House agreement. As I think I said earlier, we continue to adhere to the principles of the agreement. I think we should be positive rather than negative in looking at these proposals and at the details within the Command Paper. I am sure that the noble Baroness, with her experience of Northern Ireland, has already gone through it with a fine-tooth comb, but I encourage her and all others involved in this process to look carefully at what we are proposing, to engage with our process intensively and to help us find an alternative way forward in this very difficult matter.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, in the other place, the Minister was content to use the quote from the excellent report by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and Denis Bradley published back in 2009. But what have the Government done to consider, even in part, that report, which went to enormous lengths to address precisely what the Government are still talking about today, 12 years later?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness brings to light the problems that we have all been facing over decades in Northern Ireland; and here we are, with the Government looking at, and working extremely hard to find, a way forward. I took note of the Secretary of State’s comments at the end of the Statement. We are at a point where we must find a way forward, having the victims in mind. We must also look at a process of reconciliation and not look to find routes that are simply not going to lead to any prosecutions.