Elections Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 16th September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 September 2021 - (16 Sep 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have some reminders. I encourage hon. Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. Please also do what you can to give one another and members of staff some space. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. We just have some private business before we start.
The Chair
Q
Before the first Member asks a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 12.15 pm. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves? Heather, would you like to go first?
Heather Harper: I am Heather Harper, chairman of Conservatives Abroad—the global network of Conservative members and supporters around the world.
The Chair
Thank you. George Cunningham, would you like to introduce yourself?
George Cunningham: Thank you very much. First of all, honourable Members, I am very happy to be with you today. I am the chair of Liberal Democrats Overseas, which is one of three local parties that are abroad, the others being LibDems in France and Liberal Democrats in Europe. I am the chair of Lib Dems Overseas; I have also been chair and vice-chair of Brussels and Europe Liberal Democrats, so I have covered geographically all the areas of the party outside the UK. I stood for Parliament in the 2015 UK general election while being disenfranchised because of the 15-year rule, so I was a candidate without a vote. It is very nice to be with you today.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Q
George Cunningham: It is important that we try to take as much of the pressure off the councils having to do this and try and automate things as much as possible. Effectively, using a purely postal system is denying thousands the ability to vote and in some countries, such as Indonesia and parts of Africa, there is no postal service worth talking about. The outcome is that British citizens living closest to the UK get a chance to vote, but it is denied in far-flung places. If you imagine the numbers in Australia, for instance, of British citizens, you are basically excluding almost a million over there out of the 5.5 million or so British citizens abroad.
The problem is accentuated further with the abolition of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and a possible shortening of the time period between the proroguing of Parliament and election day. There is also an issue—and this is personal experience—of prepaid envelopes. In some countries, local postal offices that do not really get the information do not accept them as prepaid. They just chuck them in the bin because they do not have local or national stamps on. So it might be best not to have them prepaid so that post offices see that the correct postage stamps have been put on for mailing.
As coming up with a secure system online voting does not seem yet to be on the cards, our embassies and consulates could get involved, as is the case with other countries. A few days could be saved if they were posted out by the embassy on the day the election was called, based on the register held there. Alternatively, ballot papers could be downloaded from the UK website, limited to those who have registered online via the gov.uk website, and then mailed back, because that cuts in half the amount of time for the stuff to come back.
Proxy votes are not adequate because we are talking about people who have been away for more than 15 years so they have lost a lot of friends, perhaps even through death. We have to do the best we can to speed up this whole process, and also to reduce the pressure on councils.
The Chair
Thank you. Heather, would you like to add anything?
Heather Harper: Only that, although I have been an expat for many years, I have not personally voted from overseas. However, having worked on these matters with so many of our overseas voters, I would say that I am very strongly supportive of the Bill in its current state because it addresses so many of the issues that have arisen from the complaints, in just some of the things that are addressed, and the difficulty in overseas voting. What is in the Bill is very streamlined and will increase overseas voters and make it much simpler and easier to vote—or register, rather.
Cat Smith
Q
George Cunningham: They are two separate issues. It is important to recognise that a lot of people living abroad are pensioners or teachers—they are all kinds of people from ordinary walks of life like ourselves. They are all equal in front of the law and in front of God, let us say. That is one issue. There is a separate issue concerning the financing aspects, which, of course, many of us consider to be very unsatisfactory, but I do not think it has affected things enormously. The fact that companies can donate and so many companies that are foreign are on the stock exchange and de facto foreign, and through their subsidiaries they can donate to the parties here: that is the critical issue that needs further addressing in a separate Bill. I think it should be disassociated from the Elections Bill.
The Chair
Heather, would you like to add anything to that?
Heather Harper: Yes, I would. Electoral law regarding donations to political parties is set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which already allows British citizens on the electoral roll to donate to any party. UK nationals living overseas are not foreigners, and they should not be conflated with foreign donations. I do not see any significant effect on donations. It may increase our membership, which is £25 a year—quite honestly that is hard enough to get most of the time. Conservatives Abroad is not an organisation that solicits large donations; our emphasis is on engagement. There is already a robust a legal framework in place that bans foreign donations—I do not see any significant increase there. What is important now is to increase the awareness of voter registration.
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
A big welcome to our two witnesses. George, it is lovely to see you again in person, and Heather it is very good to see you again. Is it the case that Anne is still unable to join us?
Chloe Smith
Q
Heather Harper: I think they should be treated exactly the same. One of our expatriates in France said,
“We want to be able to live our lives not as some kind of second-class citizens denied our right to participate in the democratic processes of our country, but as fully capable and fully recognised citizens of the UK.”
Minister, our British citizens have a long history of living and working overseas, starting with explorers, engineers, teachers, scientists, hospitality workers, sportspeople, financial services and health workers. Many of them return to our country with a new-found wealth of knowledge and experience that they gained overseas. They should be treated exactly the same as every British voter. We are one of the few democratic countries in the world that actually denies, and puts a time limit on, their citizens’ right to vote. In answer to your question: they should be treated equally.
Chloe Smith
Q
George Cunningham: First up, I have to say the Liberal Democrat party has long campaigned for the abolition of the 15-year rule and for establishing the institution of overseas constituencies, which we feel is the best way for people to have their voices heard. Perhaps we will come back to that. The commitment to both of these is featured in our 2017 and 2019 general election manifestos. We support the Bill’s aim to abolish the 15-year rule as an important first step for British citizens having equal rights, to be properly represented and to have their voices heard.
With that in mind, we have the unfortunate—from our perspective—situation of the referendum in 2016, which showed that a lot of people who had lost their vote were not able to participate in something that would fundamentally change their lives in Europe. That is the most prominent thing that has happened, but there are many other things that, if we had MPs representing overseas constituencies, are issues of concern to overseas voters regarding the UK. For instance, unfreezing pensions; in Australia, Canada and in many parts of Africa where, if there is not a reciprocal agreement, people’s pensions are not increased, meaning that they receive something like a quarter of the pension received by UK citizens here. This is an important campaigning issue. Another is NHS access. We have a member who is very sick at the moment, and it is not possible for him to access the NHS because he has not been living in the UK for a while. There are many issues there that are of great importance to us.
Our voice will be heard so much more. Many of those who will have been abroad for more than 15 years when the rule is, hopefully, abolished are of course pensioners, who are the most affected by these things, which have to be addressed. Those are some examples of issues that are of concern to UK citizens abroad in terms of the importance of treating everybody equally—all citizens being equal in front of the law.
Chloe Smith
Q
Heather Harper: I have many examples; I have just mentioned Christopher from Paris. My inbox is full of people from around the world who are so angry about their right to vote because they basically feel that they are not valued. I do have to say, though, that this is not a party political issue. This is about granting the right for all British citizens to register to vote, so I have to acknowledge the fact that Harry Shindler, of the Labour party, has been campaigning for his right to vote for the last 20 years. I have been working hard—with support, indeed, from Labour International—to represent all the people who have been disenfranchised. Harry, by the way, says,
“I fought for my country”—
he is 100 years old
—“and I feel that I have been fighting for my right to vote, why should I be denied that?”
The Bill will improve the House significantly. It will get people to actually register, and it will encourage people who have fallen off the register because of the difficulties that they have faced: they come up to the 15-year rule and think, “No, I can’t be bothered, because I am going to be disenfranchised,” or they face difficulties in having to annually re-register.
Minister, removing the 15-year rule and treating everybody equally removes the uncertainty about who can and who cannot vote. By making the registration last for three years, the process is less cumbersome and more people will be encouraged to engage with it. By introducing the prior residency criteria, the Bill is going to help, in particular, younger family members who have not previously been registered in the UK.
The Bill addresses so many of the issues that actually have stopped overseas British citizens from registering to vote. I hope that that goes some way to answering your question.
George Cunningham: Two things come to mind. One is Brexit and the impact that it has had on our citizens in the European Union. This is an ongoing issue that has not been resolved. They are very frustrated about the fact that many of them had no say, and then were left in the lurch in many respects. To give them the vote will perhaps push more of an interest within Parliament to protect their interests and see ways in which the situation they face can be alleviated.
It does depend on the country within the European Union and the reactions towards our citizens, and I am happy to say that many countries have tried to be as helpful as possible concerning our citizens, albeit in terms of residency rights that is a bit of an issue. There will be a voice for those who are in pain because their pensions have been frozen, and perhaps it would then become more of a political issue. Certainly in our party we would be encouraged to put some overseas issues into the manifesto for elections, and I think that would be very helpful to them. I actually see positive things.
Of course, if there are no overseas constituencies, it would be so much simpler to register. If a person has a British passport and is above the age limit, then surely they would be able to vote for a constituency, which has a geographical limitation. This would help, for instance, where a child has not been living in the UK—at the moment they continue to be disenfranchised, even if they are British citizens. This would overcome the problem.
The Chair
Before I bring Patrick Grady in, we have good news and bad news. The good news is that the technical fault is nearly resolved; the bad news is that we are not quite there yet. Minister and Cat Smith, would you be content to repeat your questions to Anne Wafer once she joins, if we have time?
Chloe Smith
I am happy to, as long as it does not take time away from colleagues.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Q
I was also interested in something you said in passing, George, about an overseas constituency. I wonder if either of the panellists have a view on that. At the moment, a vote goes towards wherever the voter last resided, and I can well understand the point that although someone maintains an affinity for their country and has citizenship of the UK, surely after a considerable passage of time the local issues in the constituency will have changed considerably. Not every single overseas voter will still be paying attention to the exact circumstances in the constituency in which they lived. Is there any merit in the concept—which exists in other parliamentary democracies—of a dedicated overseas constituency that is represented by an MP for the overseas?
The Chair
Before you answer, may I interrupt to say that our third witness, Anne Wafer, is now with us. Anne, would you introduce yourself to the Committee please?
Anne Wafer: I am sorry for the delay; my computer decided to update something at just the wrong moment and it is now running a bit slowly, so it may not be perfect. It has been fine—it was perfect for the test.
Anyway, I am from Labour International, the international section of the Labour party. I am the communications officer. We have about 3,000 members, who live all over the world. I live in Slovakia and am the secretary of the central and east European branch. I could answer the question that has just been asked. Is that okay? Can I carry on to that, or do you want to know more about me?
The Chair
No, that is a lovely introduction and we will leave it to the first two witnesses to answer that question first, and then you can come in, Anne. That will be fine. Heather, would you like to go first?
Heather Harper: I am not in favour at all of an overseas constituency. The home constituency is and always has been the fundamental building block of democracy. All Britons overseas hail from all parts of the country, and their insight into their home constituency should not be lost in any way. Nor should their voices be muffled by being aggregated into a few catch-all expat seats.
Boundary changes may have occurred and may still occur to those constituencies from which our members departed when they went out to the world to study or work, but it is the town or area that our members call home. I think that is fundamental.
An idea that some members of Conservatives Abroad have come up with is an expats office, akin to the one that has looked after British veterans’ affairs under various Governments. Such a ministry, office or agency would be able to serve as a focal point for communication to and from expats, enabling the Government to gain insights from our global Britons and to swiftly address all the concerns and queries raised by expats.
George Cunningham: On my side of course, as we say in our manifesto, we are for overseas constituencies. We look at France especially, but also at other countries, to see how well that system works. Specific issues that are of concern to our members and other British citizens abroad are specific to being abroad. For instance, say in Australia or in Canada, when it comes to frozen pensions, they want the Government to negotiate an arrangement with the Government of Canada and the Government of Australia—a reciprocal arrangement—so that they can upgrade their pensions to a proper level.
These are the kinds of areas—that is just one of them, but there are many other areas, for instance within the European Union—where people want to have a way to funnel their view. If you dissipate that voice across 650 constituencies, only a tiny number of people in each constituency voice that view within the totality of the work of the Member of Parliament.
We understand that maybe we cannot reach overseas constituencies yet; we understand that this Bill is a building block. That is why we support this Elections Bill when it comes to the overseas side—pretty much—but we would like to see overseas constituencies as a stage 2 in due course.
Anne Wafer: I left the UK in 1978. Before then, I was a student and then I lived in a few different places. The job I had before I left was a one-year contract, so I cannot actually remember where I was last registered to vote, and this could be a problem; it may be a place that I do not now have a lot of connection with. Obviously you cannot just choose a constituency at random. If there was the opportunity to pick one that you had some proven connection with, rather than the last one, I think that would suit us better.
Also, I wonder how we can find out. I am pretty sure that I was registered, but I do not have a clear memory of it, because in those days you did not have to register yourself. How do we find out where we were last registered and how do we prove it?
Moreover, I know that our members have been talking about having a constituency for overseas citizens, or would be interested in that, but I am not sure that now would be the time to include that. If this becomes law, as it probably will, potentially a lot more people will become interested in joining political parties and registering to vote, so for that reason perhaps an overseas constituency is a good idea. At the moment, we will probably just take this step, if we can. But we have certainly been considering it, and some of our members live in countries where that is allowed—where they do have overseas constituencies. So yes, we would look at that favourably.
The Chair
Only one member of the Committee has indicated that they wish to ask a question, so I now call Cat Smith, the Opposition spokesperson, and then the Minister to ask a couple of catch-up questions.
Cat Smith
Q
Anne Wafer: I am very pleased to meet you, Cat. The last constituency where I was registered to vote may well have been Lancaster, your constituency, because that is where I went to university, and I would be very happy with that.
On problems, I have been abroad for more than 15 years, so I do not have a vote. I notice that the Bill will extend the vote for parliamentary elections, but it does not mention referenda. I think that is an important omission, because it is a big bone of contention for our members that we could not vote in the EU referendum. I did see some news that said we could vote, but then the same day I saw another piece of news saying they had decided we could not.
Brexit has affected our right to free movement within Europe and our right to bring home any European-born family members, for example, which is going to be much more difficult. A lot of people would have liked to return with partners, family members and foreign-born children, and maybe elderly parents who need care and do not want to be left behind, but that is much more difficult now. We would very much like to have voted in that referendum, although it probably would not have made any difference to the result. However, there could be future referenda, perhaps to rejoin or for regional assemblies, or anything like that, so we would like referenda to be included.
There will be quite a lot of bureaucracy involved. I feel as though I have been swotting for an exam that I never attended the classes for, because I have stepped in fairly last minute and I have not paid particular attention to the Bill before. However, I do know what our members’ opinions are, because they have been campaigning for a long time for voting rights to be extended to people who have been abroad for more than 15 years. One of our best known members is Harry Shindler, who lives in Italy and turned 100 in July. He has been campaigning for the extension of voting rights for a long time, and I am sure that some of you have worked with him—Heather, I have seen a photograph of you with him. He is still a very active member at 100 years old.
We are very strongly for this part of the Bill, but there are other parts that we are not so happy about. There will be quite a lot of bureaucracy involved. We are used to that, because anyone who has lived abroad has had to fill in forms for British bureaucracy, or the bureaucracy of whatever country they live in, but hopefully registration will be made much simpler for everyone.
I notice that there is a section on accessibility. Accessibility at polling stations does not affect us directly, but it does affect our family members, so we think that should be a lot stronger.
Cat Smith
Q
Anne Wafer: That could be a concern, because the perception is that British people who live abroad are all wealthy and living in tax havens with lots of money. That is not necessarily true, certainly among our members. I have not studied that part of the Bill closely, but there does now seem to be a potential for wealthy people living abroad to be allowed to send huge amounts of money to their favoured political party. There needs to be some regulation of that. I cannot really say any more about it because I have not studied the details of exactly how that would work under the Bill, but yes, I would be concerned about that.
Cat Smith
Q
Anne Wafer: I do not know. I study genealogy, and there are electoral registers going way back to the 19th century, so I wonder why there are no records, because that is news to me. I assumed there would be. There would need to be some proof that you had that connection and lived in a particular part of Britain. I am getting my pension from Britain, so that should be sufficient proof, for example. It is not a very big one—I am getting a tiny pension—because I left quite early, but I am getting one, so there should be an alternative way of proving that you had that connection and had lived there.
There are a lot of measures in the Bill on voter fraud, but there does not seem to be much evidence that it actually happens. I am sure there are ways to prevent it without disenfranchising people, which has a bigger effect on the electoral result than small amounts of voter fraud. As people who live abroad, we have to jump through so many hoops to sign up to register and get proxy votes, and I do not think the potential for voter fraud is very high. Obviously there need to be some protections in place, but it should not be too difficult to prove that you have lived in a place. If you have a pension from Britain or had a job in Britain, there must be some record that you lived there.
There should be some flexibility in what records could be provided if no record can be found that you were on the voting register, because we do not want to be disenfranchised on that account. Although I have lived abroad for a long time, I still have a lot of connections. I lived in Ireland before I came here, but I visit my family every year when I can—of course, the pandemic has prevented that—and take a strong interest in politics.
The Chair
Thank you, Anne. We are running out of time, so I would just like to squeeze the Minister in.
Chloe Smith
Q
Anne Wafer: I did see that, but I was not quite sure how that would work in practice. I did see something—maybe not in this Bill—about how if you had left before you were old enough to register, then you could prove residence. Hopefully it is not just limited to that but is extended to everyone.
Chloe Smith
That’s right, Anne.
Anne Wafer: Can you assure me of that? It might have been a preliminary discussion—
Chloe Smith
Q
Anne Wafer: Does it cover oldies like me, though—the residency?
Chloe Smith
Absolutely, yes.
There are three questions I put to the witnesses previously. I will ask them swiftly. I asked, first, whether witnesses thought that British citizens overseas should be treated as equally as possible with British citizens in the UK. Secondly, I invite you to suggest what kinds of policy topic matter to overseas citizens. In other words, what are their interests in UK politics? For example, pensions are one interest, but there might be others. Thirdly, I wonder whether you have examples from your membership, your friends or your network of how people feel when they get, effectively, kicked off the register —disenfranchised, in the proper sense of the word.
Anne Wafer: Can you ask the first question again?
Chloe Smith
Of course. Should British citizens overseas be treated as equally as possible with those in the UK?
Anne Wafer: Yes, I think so, although even as members we are not treated completely inclusively. Of course, we cannot stand candidates in Britain, but other than that, in our party we are equal to any other constituency Labour party that is in Britain. We send delegates to conference and everything else, so I think as citizens that should be the case as well, because we still have an interest in our country and the regulations still affect us. Many of us are getting pensions, and some of us will want to return at some stage. I thought of returning, but I couldn’t afford it—it is too expensive there.
On policies, my members are interested in a huge range, not just ones that affect us directly. Climate change is a big one. That is a huge one for us. Reversing austerity—all the Tory cuts to all sorts of things; we want to reverse them. We have family members—for example, I have a sister who is disabled. My father is 97. I have nieces and nephews who are disabled. I have nieces and nephews with children and new babies. We are all concerned for everybody in Britain and that they have better lives.
As I say, climate change is a big one. One of our motions at conference will be on proportional representation, which a lot of our members think would be a good idea—changing the electoral system. Reform of the House of Lords is one we would be concerned with.
Chloe Smith
Those are great examples. Thank you so much—they are a bit broader than we might normally discuss. That is really helpful.
Anne Wafer: One would be the education system. We are very much against tuition fees for universities. We want to be rid of those. We are very concerned about what has happened to people during the pandemic, and we need the green new deal and regeneration of jobs, but those need to be green jobs because of the climate crisis.
Chloe Smith
Q
Anne Wafer: Most people are not happy about it. Some people get citizenship when they get voting rights in their own countries, where they live, so maybe they are less upset in that case. We can vote in local elections in the countries we live, or we used to be able to. I have not checked whether I still can since Brexit. But yes, we are not very happy about being kicked off the register for sure. We would like that changed. We finished on hearings on that one.
We are also not happy about—
The Chair
Thank you, Anne. Unfortunately, we have come to the end of our time. May I thank all the witnesses for their evidence this morning and the Members for their questions? We are now going to move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Maurice Mcleod gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Maurice Mcleod: Hi there. My name is Maurice Mcleod. I am the chief executive of Race on the Agenda, an anti-racism charity.
Chloe Smith
Q
Maurice Mcleod: Hello, thanks for having me. It is not a bad idea to make it free and allow local authorities to give out these passes. The problem is that it ignores what it feels like to be part of that group without any voter ID—part of that group that is reticent even to cast a vote.
Probably everyone in this room and everyone listening sees the value of voting and feels like it is an important part of their democratic rights and that they can affect things if they turn up and vote. When you are talking about people who often do not feel very connected, do not feel very engaged, do not feel very empowered within society, yes, you can say “This is only a small hurdle, you just need to apply to your council and they will give you a free voter ID,” but that is just another hurdle that gets in the way, though. It is just one more step away from them feeling that they can engage with our democratic process. So I think it is a good thing. If we are going to have voter IDs—I would strongly argue that we do not—at least give people access to getting them for free, sure. I just think that does not solve the problem.
Chloe Smith
Q
Maurice Mcleod: I absolutely agree with that. I would go further. I do not really understand why you are not automatically registered. I remember turning 18; you get your national insurance number because going out to work and paying your national insurance and your tax are important rites of passage. I do not know why we do not do the same with voting. You should not have to apply to register to vote; you should be automatically registered.
Cat Smith
Q
Maurice Mcleod: You are right that part of the problem is that this data is not always readily available. The data I have found—the Government’s own data—says that while 76% of white people hold a form of relevant photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport, when it comes to black people, about half do: 47% do not hold one of those forms of ID. There are 11 million people in Briton who hold no form of photo identification. That drastically discourages people from voting. You are adding an unnecessary extra burden on people who we want to turn out and vote.
Cat Smith
Q
Maurice Mcleod: You are very right to bring up the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. Of all of the communities that make up Briton, they are already among the groups that are most likely to be disenfranchised. You do not need to be a genius to work out that if you are moving around, and your residence is not set in one place, it makes it very hard to know who to engage with, and what needs to be done to get the ID that allows you to vote. It cannot be assumed that everyone has good links with their local authority and understands where they need to go.
Looking at other communities, you have to acknowledge that the slightly hostile way that we have dealt with migration means that there is nervousness among some communities, even with people who are perfectly legal and allowed to be here. Sometimes there is a nervousness about engaging with the authorities on anything other than something that is considered essential. Sadly, for a lot of people, voting is not something that they consider essential.
Cat Smith
Q
Maurice Mcleod: Without a doubt, I believe it will decrease participation. There is already a problem with getting people from minority communities to even register to vote. Now you have to register to vote, and you also need to find some form of voter ID to—as has been said—solve a problem that I am unsure anyone thinks exists. It is very hard to see the impact of this being anything other than voter suppression within those groups. There is certainly not any suggestion that this will increase voter turnout—I cannot see how you would even make that argument.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Q
“Diluting rights, denying racism, delegitimising protest, and diminishing voter turnout.”
You added:
“Anyone who doesn’t see a concerted campaign at work here simply isn’t looking.”
What is that concerted campaign?
Maurice Mcleod: We have had mention of what happened in America with voter suppression, the methods that some parts of the political machine have gone through and the fights to pull back the other way. I think that there is a concerted effort, first, to instil the idea that our voting system is not secure, that there is loads of fraud, that there are loads of people doing something dodgy and that people are cheating. As I have said, I do not really see much evidence of that. Our voting system is pretty trusted and robust. So first, there is this idea of bringing in a measure. When you bring in a measure in Parliament, people think, “Oh, there must be a reason that they’re doing this; it’s because there’s loads of fraud.” It undermines faith and trust in our democracy.
Secondly, as I have said, these measures also put an extra barrier in the way of groups that some parts of the political establishment may think will not turn out for them or are not particularly strong supporters of them. What some people behind this may be thinking is, “If those people do not turn up and vote, is that such a bad deal?” When I said a concerted effort, that is what I mean.
Paul Bristow
Q
Maurice Mcleod: If I said non-existent, that is not what I meant. I meant that it is very small. Yes, there have been issues in various places. To my mind, though, those issues would not be fixed by voter ID. The suggestion that there is a massive lack of faith in our electoral system just is not borne out in the polling. That is not the evidence of anyone that I have spoken to or any research that I have seen. People trust our electoral system, and that is a good thing. We should not do anything that undermines that.
Paul Bristow
Q
“wants to bring in Voter ID to tackle non-existent voter fraud.”
I suggest that you take a look at the evidence from Peter Golds, Lord Pickles and others yesterday; it may enlighten you.
In 2018, you argued that people should be able to vote online. You then dismissed one social media user’s comment about fraud by saying,
“Sure, I understand the security risks but they are no greater than the risks of postal voting or even voting in person.”
What are those risks of postal voting or voting in person?
Maurice Mcleod: I see what you have done there. I was arguing, and I still argue, that we should move to online voting eventually. We should have ways of allowing more people to vote in more easy ways that fit in with their lives, so that they do not have to take time off work and go to a polling station, a post box or wherever. That is what I was arguing for. When I said that there are no more risks with that than with other types of voting, I meant that there are hardly any risks with those other types of voting, and therefore there are no risks with online voting.
Paul Bristow
But that is not quite what you said. You said:
“Sure, I understand the security risks”.
The Chair
Order. Online voting is not in the Bill. He was entitled to respond, but we are going a little bit wider than we should. Do you have a small supplementary?
Paul Bristow
Q
“Voter ID will have a terrible impact on voter turnout.”
Why do you think that this impact has not been seen in any of the Cabinet Office trials, or indeed over many years in Northern Ireland?
Maurice Mcleod: That is valid. The Northern Ireland point is brought up a lot. I think I am right in saying—I could be wrong—that there is more of a tradition for carrying ID there than there is here. I could be wrong on that; I am not sure. I have not really looked into that too much.
Paul Bristow
No, I think you are wrong.
Maurice Mcleod: Am I wrong on that? Okay. It stands to reason that if you have a chunk of the population that does not have what you are being asked to have to turn up to vote, then you are going to lose voters among that demographic. I do not think that is really controversial. I am not sure how you would argue against that. You can argue that there is a bigger problem that needs to be fixed than I seem to think there is, but I do not see how you can argue that it is not going to dissuade people—it is not going to encourage more people to vote, is it?
The Chair
Order. I think we will move on. You have had quite a few questions. Patrick Grady is waiting to come in.
Patrick Grady
Q
“Voter fraud played a very small part, funnily enough, in Tower Hamlets.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 14, Q13.]
Thank you, Maurice; your contributions have been extremely helpful. You spoke a little bit about automatic voter registration. Could you say a little more about how you think that might work in practice and what impact it could have on turnout and participation, particularly among minority communities? Could you also say something about access to postal voting among minority communities and what impact that has? Does that help or hinder turnout, participation and engagement?
In Scotland, we have recently extended the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections to pretty much everyone with settled status, including EU nationals and people with settled refugee status. Are there any lessons that might be learned from that, particularly in terms of the message it might send to counteract some of what you have described as the hostile environment and how it might make it clear that everyone is welcome and everyone ought to participate in the democratic system?
Maurice Mcleod: I will try—sorry; I was not writing those down, but I will try to remember the questions.
The first was about how automatic registration could happen—I think that is what you said. I am not a techie, so there is no way I will be able to describe what the functions would be to make sure that happens, but, as I said, the same process that issues a national insurance number or the same process that says, “You are now this age and a British citizen, or whatever, therefore you can work and pay taxes” should also say, “Therefore you can now vote” and some information should be sent out with that. It might say, “Congratulations, you are 18”—you can argue whether the voting age should be younger, but it should be like a rite of passage—“You are now an adult in our society. You now have this right to have a say in how we are run as a country.” That would send a really strong message, rather than having to apply.
One of my fears about the Bill is that the people who will be most impacted by it and who really will be excluded from having a say are probably the people who are less able and probably less keen to talk about it. It is not something they are bothered about; they do not vote, so they do not vote. They are not going to be marching on Parliament demanding a vote that they do not use anyway. You end up arguing on people’s behalf.
I cannot remember the second part of your question.
Patrick Grady
Q
Picking up on what you said there, however, that relates to some of what was discussed yesterday. Is there something about civic education and awareness raising about the importance of participation in our democratic systems among minority communities that might also help to increase turnout and participation?
Maurice Mcleod: Absolutely. We should do loads more for all communities, not just minority communities. Learning how your country works, how you get involved in it and how you change things, if you feel that they need to changed, should be among the most important things that we are taught as we grow up in this society. Instead, it is seen as a bit of a fringe subject or people say, “Oh, let’s not talk about politics because it might get too political and then we might be accused of being one way or the other.” Instead, we should have a real love for democracy. We should instil the idea that you, as an individual, have a say in the country that you run. That is really important and I do not think we do anywhere near enough of that, so we should consider anything that increases knowledge among the public about how you change things—what’s a councillor; who’s an MP; what’s an Assembly Member; what do these things mean; who does what. Most of us do not know this stuff—most of us in this room might do—most people out there do not know this stuff. Anything that improves that would be great.
In terms of extending the mandate, I personally am of the opinion that anyone who is resident here should have a say in what goes on here. Anyone who lives and works in our society should have a say about what goes on here. I would extend that in ways that may be tricky to do, but I think prisoners should have a say—lots of people should have a say. In my opinion the mandate should be extended to all residents in this country.
You mentioned postal voting. I have not got any evidence of whether it has a particular impact on black and minority ethnic people, but I know that you have a longer window when you have a postal vote. We should give people the ability to go down and post their vote in the middle of night, or whenever they want to to fit in with their lives; we all live these piecemeal, sometimes slightly precarious, lives and we have responsibilities. You cannot always say, “Right, I am going to go down on a Thursday and queue up if I need to, and vote” because you might need to be at work or drop off your kids. Just allowing people to vote by post is massively beneficial.
The Chair
I have Tom Randall, followed by Fleur Anderson, Kate Hollern and Jerome Mayhew. If there is time at the end, I will bring Paul Bristow back in.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Q
Maurice Mcleod: No, it has not.
Tom Randall
Q
Maurice Mcleod: Absolutely. I am not claiming that this is based on any specific research that ROTA—that is my organisation—has done. There is an amount of research out there, I guess.
Tom Randall
Q
Maurice Mcleod: I would argue that it is all of us. If there is anything going wrong with our electoral system, we all suffer. We might end up with a Government who we do not want or a local authority that did not actually win the vote. We all suffer if there is voter fraud.
Tom Randall
Q
Maurice Mcleod: Yes, if we agree that it is a problem. I am afraid that I have not seen the evidence from Tower Hamlets, but I will take your word for it; I am sure you are right. Like I say, I am not sure whether it would have been solved by the measures that you are talking about bringing in, but if it is a problem, everyone suffers. I do not think just the residents or the voters in a particular area who might be disenfranchised suffer. We all suffer because our system does not work properly then.
Tom Randall
Q
Maurice Mcleod: Yes—sure, of course. Absolutely. But I would also like to know how prevalent this is. Is it a one-off situation in one place that needs to be dealt with in a particular way, or is it an endemic thing in our system? I am not really convinced that it is endemic in our system. I guess that is what I am saying.
Tom Randall
Q
Maurice Mcleod: Do you mean the voter ID measures?
Tom Randall
Yes.
Maurice Mcleod: If there are particular groups—the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community was mentioned earlier; those communities are particularly vulnerable to this—who, for one reason or another, are less likely to have the ID required, the impact will fall disproportionately on them. If a larger percentage of black Caribbean people do not have this ID, bringing in the measure will have a bigger impact on them.
Tom Randall
Q
Maurice Mcleod: No, I have not.
Patrick Grady
On a point of order, Ms Rees. Can I just confirm that witnesses have been invited to speak to this Committee on the basis of their experience and there is no requirement or expectation of any of the witnesses who appear today or who appeared yesterday to back up their evidence with primary source research evidence? We have not asked any other witness to detail the evidential base. We are entitled to ask questions and witnesses are entitled to respond on the basis of their experience. Can I confirm that, please?
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Grady. The witnesses have been invited to give evidence on the basis of their experience. They do not have to have any research as a back-up. We are very grateful that the witnesses have agreed to come along and give evidence.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Ms Rees. Is it not the purpose of this Committee to scrutinise any evidence that is given to us, regardless of whether it is backed up by data?
The Chair
Yes, it is perfectly proper to ask any questions you want, but I was just clarifying that it is not necessary for the witness to be backed up by research.
Chris Clarkson
But it is appropriate for us to push back if we do not agree?
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Q
But if the Bill does go ahead in this way and ID cards are expected, are there any other measures that could mitigate the potential for suppression? From your experience of working with the black community, what would need to be put in place that would make this less of a bad deal?
Maurice Mcleod: Thank you. As I was saying earlier, if we cannot move to a place where people are automatically registered and you get sent your photo ID that is relevant when you turn up and vote automatically, I would like to see a massive effort from all local authorities to actively seek out the people who do not have photo ID. Authorities must contact them and say, “Look, here’s a form, here’s how you apply for your free photo ID from the council.” It is not enough just to say, “Oh well, if people want it, it’s easy enough for them to go on this website or turn up at the town hall and ask for this stuff.” Yes, it is easy for us because we want those things, we want our vote and we see the value in it. So much more needs to be done.
It is bigger than just getting people voter ID cards: it is making our democracy transparent and making it easy to engage with your local authority, MP or Assembly member. It is making all those paths much clearer and simpler to use than they currently are. If you know how the system works, who to put pressure on and how to impact your world, you have a much better existence. If you are not that of sort of person, politics just happens to you. It is not something that you actively engage in. We should be doing everything in our power to encourage and show people where their power is, what they can do and what they can change. If you have a society that feels it cannot make changes or be engaged in the way that it should, people switch off or get distracted into things that do not benefit society at all. That is a bit wider than the question you asked, but we need to be proactive in reaching out to these communities. We can find them. We can work out who does not have a driving licence. We can work out where these people are, so let us do that and ensure that they have everything they need to be able to express their democratic rights.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Q
I have just checked the allegation of fraud made by the hon. Member for Peterborough and, in those cases, it was found that no offences were committed. Does the message that electoral fraud has happened in black and ethnic minority communities act to disfranchise those communities, which we are trying to reach?
Maurice Mcleod: Sadly, I think it does, whether deliberately or not. I think we should always lean towards things having been done in good faith, but if you say things like, “There is very serious electoral fraud, and it happens in areas where there are lots of black and Asian people,” it is not a massive leap in people’s minds to, “Okay; so black and Asian people are somehow doing electoral fraud. That is what we’re clamping down on. We’re stopping people doing something dodgy to our process.” That is exactly the sort of alienating message that ends up with people saying, “I’m not interested in any of that stuff. All that politics stuff has nothing to do with me.” Those sorts of narratives do play into that, I am afraid. I have forgotten the beginning part of your question, but I worry about the narrative of, “We need to solve this massive fraud problem that is happening in minority ethnic areas.” I will not say it is a dog whistle, but I think it has an impact on minority communities, certainly.
The Chair
I do not really want to go down the road of more points of order. The Committee is becoming quite agitated. If there is anything you would like to raise, perhaps it could be raised after the witnesses have left. Would the Committee be content with that? We are against the clock, and more Members would like to come in.
Paul Bristow
I am perfectly happy to raise my point afterwards, but it is worth noting that it has been implied that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and I were unreasonable in our questioning, and that it may be because the witness comes from an ethnic minority. It is perfectly legitimate to place on record that that is not the case. Our questions were perfectly in order. I find it insulting that the hon. Member for Blackburn would even suggest such a thing.
The Chair
Can we leave it there, please? Your comments are on the record now. We need to move on and take more questions, but your point is noted.
Kate Hollern
Q
Maurice Mcleod: That is very hard. You make a really good point. It is all very well saying that photo ID should be used, but if you are not supposed to reveal your face to a man who is not in your immediate family, that is really hard. Even if councils say, “We’ll make sure there are women, or people who know what should happen, at the polling station,” there is still that worry in your head, if you are that woman who is not that confident about whatever, and you need to go out and vote. There is still that concern—“Will I be treated properly? Do they know what my faith needs?”
If that is the route we go down, I would want to see a real effort, through mosques and any other faith groups that would be impacted, to bring those communities on board and show them, “This is how it will be. It will be completely safe. We totally get what you need to do to be observant.” It is another worry—one that I have not brought up so far. Not everyone can use their face as ID as freely as the rest of us.
Kate Hollern
Q
Maurice Mcleod: Sorry, I am not sure. Can you say that again?
Kate Hollern
Q
Maurice Mcleod: I do not, I am afraid. I am not from a constitutional background or a legal background, so that is not something I could comment on.
The Chair
We have to move on. I promised Jerome Mayhew that he could come in, so if we have time at the end, I will bring you and Paul Bristow back in, Ms Hollern. We are against the clock. Mr Mayhew?
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Q
Maurice Mcleod: Sorry, can you say that stat again? I may have got the stat jumbled at the time. Can you repeat that?
Jerome Mayhew
In your evidence earlier on today, you suggested that when you started to look at BAME voters, the incidence of availability of photo ID dropped to 47% to 50%. Is that your view?
Maurice Mcleod: Yes. I believe it is 48% of black people.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Maurice Mcleod: It is part of it. It is one of the things that gives me concern that this will have a particular impact on those communities, yes.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Maurice Mcleod: If it turned out that 99% or whatever you just said of BAME people do have relevant ID, that is quite reassuring indeed. There was lots of talk about this in the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities’ report; I would be interested in seeing a proper breakdown, because it is all very well saying, “Minority ethnic people have IDs”, but if that ignores Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people in particular, or particular groups who have much lower numbers of take-up, that would still be a concern. In fact, it would mean that those groups are even more marginalised, because they are a special case: their lack of the required ID is not being flagged up.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
“What percentage of the eligible population do not hold at least one form of photo ID currently under consideration for the voter ID requirement?”
and
“What is the level of ownership of the required photographic ID in groups with protected characteristics? specifically with reference to:
Race or ethnicity
Disability; and
Age.”
This was a very thorough and independent piece of research, and if that is the case—you can look at it on the gov.uk website, so it is publicly available—that would, as you say, provide you with a degree of reassurance.
Maurice Mcleod: I would feel slightly better. If everyone had a relevant form of photo ID, I would feel slightly better about this. It is like saying you need to bring your front door keys when you come along and vote. Most people have a front door key; it would still stop some people from voting.
Jerome Mayhew
I agree, and you made some very good points. Thank you very much.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted to the Committee to ask questions, and indeed for this morning’s session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witness for his evidence. The Committee will meet again here at 2 pm this afternoon to continue taking oral evidence. I invite the Government Whip to move the adjournment.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Rutley.)
Building Safety Bill (Fifth sitting)
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during Committee sittings, except for the water provided. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that the decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it that they wish to do so.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to see that we seem to be, if not sharing political attributes, at least sharing some new facial attributes. It is very good to see you in the Chair.
Before we begin to further scrutinise the Bill, I acknowledge and thank all those who have been involved in the legislative process so far, from the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who oversaw the prelegislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, to independent advisers, such as Dame Judith Hackitt, whose independent review formed the bedrock of the Bill. I also extend my thanks to those who sat in the Wilson and Boothroyd Rooms for being part of this Committee’s process, some of whom have already been involved in the development of the legislation and who have helped to make it as ambitious as it is in its scope.
I am sure that over the coming weeks we will work constructively together to achieve the same ends. The Bill takes forward the Government’s commitment to fundamental reform of the building safety system. It delivers on each of Dame Judith’s 53 recommendations detailed in her independent review of building regulations and fire safety, which was published in May 2018.
The independent review found a sector that needed significant reform, that was opaque and fundamentally lacked clear accountability for safety. It has understandably been a complex and extensive process to get to this point today, but for that I do not believe we should make any apology. The Government accepted all the independent review’s recommendations and published our “Building a Safer Future” consultation in June 2019. Nearly 900 responses were received from individuals, resident groups and representatives from the fire safety and built environment industry. The Government published our response to the consultation in April of last year.
Having considered stakeholder feedback, the Building Safety Bill was published in draft on 20 July 2020. Prelegislative scrutiny then followed, as I have indicated, with the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee publishing its final report on 24 November last year, which the Government considered carefully and gave our response to in July this year. I hope the Committee agrees that it has been a comprehensive process.
I welcome Graham Watts’s comment in evidence last week that there has not been “a more exemplary case” of the Government consulting with industry on policy matters. I trust that that will stand us in good stead as we scrutinise the Bill. I hope the Committee will agree that at the end of this process, the Bill will usher in a new age of safety for our built environment, and that at its heart it will ensure greater accountability and responsibility for fire and structural safety issues throughout the entire life cycle of buildings that fall within the scope of our new regime.
Clause 2 establishes the national Building Safety Regulator as a new operational arm within the Health and Safety Executive. The Committee will be aware that clause 1 acts as an overview of the Bill’s constituent parts and will be considered at the end of the process. The independent review of building regulations and fire safety recommended that the Government should make a series of important improvements to create a more effective regulatory and accountable framework for buildings.
At the centre of the Government’s strategy to implement those improvements is the setting up of the Building Safety Regulator, to bring national focus, drive and expertise to the delivery of the reforms. The Building Safety Regulator will implement a more stringent regulatory regime for high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings, oversee the safety and performance of all buildings, and promote the competence of professionals working on all buildings.
The key effect of clause 2 is to determine that the Building Safety Regulator should be delivered by the Health and Safety Executive. The Government believe that the identity of the Building Safety Regulator is critical to the success of the Bill, so we took independent advice on the matter. Following the independent review, the Government took independent advice from Dame Judith Hackitt on who should deliver the new Building Safety Regulator. Dame Judith suggested that the Health and Safety Executive would be best placed to deliver the Building Safety Regulator. That reflects four particular strengths of Health and Safety Executive delivery.
First, the Health and Safety Executive is an established regulator—it was established in 1975, as we all know—and has extensive experience in making robust and proportionate regulatory decisions, including in a construction industry context.
Secondly, Health and Safety Executive delivery offers the fastest and most efficient route to establishing the new regulator, and is therefore the quickest way to provide reassurance to residents about their safety.
Thirdly, we believe that the Health and Safety Executive’s expertise, reputation and knowledge will send a signal to industry that it will be properly held to account by a robust regulator, as offshore drilling was held accountable by the Health and Safety Executive after the Cullen inquiry in 1988.
Fourthly, the Health and Safety Executive combines being an independent regulator with extensive expertise in working with local government in order to deliver—I believe that that is a really important consideration.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee also took evidence on this issue as part of its prelegislative scrutiny. I am grateful to its Chair and members for highlighting that the
“evidence overwhelmingly supported the Building Safety Regulator being established within the HSE.”
It concluded:
“We welcome the location of the regulator within the Health and Safety Executive and agree that it has the experience and expertise to implement the new building safety regime.”
In the light of the strong external evidence that the Health and Safety Executive will deliver an effective Building Safety Regulator, I hope that this Committee will welcome its role.
Where possible within existing legal powers, the Health and Safety Executive is already focused on improving building safety and standards as a shadow regulator. The focus of its work is to develop and pilot key elements of the new regime, work with early industry adopters, and recruit the top team, including the first Chief Inspector of Buildings, Peter Baker. We heard evidence from him, and from Sarah Albon of the HSE, to very good effect last week.
It will be this Bill, however, that gives the Health and Safety Executive the tools and powers to deliver the independent review’s vision for an enhanced building regulatory system. Clause 2 introduces schedule 1, which makes a number of necessary amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, to support Building Safety Regulator delivery. Those provisions give the Health and Safety Executive a broad power to determine the right administrative arrangements to deliver its new building functions, and to set up committees to support those new functions.
The provisions ensure that up to four members of the Health and Safety Executive Board may be appointed due to their building safety, building standards or fire safety expertise. That will ensure that the Health and Safety Executive board will have the requisite expertise to effectively oversee the Building Safety Regulator. Schedule 1 creates important safeguards around the use of the Secretary of State’s existing power to direct the Health and Safety Executive. Under those provisions, a ministerial direction can never be issued in relation to the enforcement respect of a particular case.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, especially as it will be of much benefit to my constituents in Bolton North East. Can the Minister assure me that HSE will have the resources it requires to undertake this role?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I quite agree that the Bill will help his constituents, and those of all right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee and in the House. We want to ensure that HSE has the appropriate resources to do its work. I am sure that we will discuss that in greater detail as we proceed, but I can say that the finances available to HSE were increased by 10%—to some £14 million—for the course of the covid emergency. That is an example of the financial stimulus that we provided to HSE, and we will of course continue to support it in its new and important role.
Clause 2 and schedule 1 are vital to our wider reform, which the Building Safety Regulator within HSE will sit at the heart of. They provide the regulator with the necessary powers to effectively deliver a new regulatory regime, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, with your very colourful tie, Mr Dowd. It will be a pleasure to work with everybody in this room over the next few weeks, scrutinising and hopefully strengthening the Bill, which will alter the building safety landscape.
The Chair
Order. The Minister had a little bit of leeway to make a general speech to begin with, but this debate should be about clause 2 and schedule 1. May I exhort you to deal with the specifics of those provisions, please?
Mike Amesbury
I certainly will, Mr Dowd.
Giles Grover from End Our Cladding Scandal referred to the many complexities that make up the layers of the building safety scandal, from waking watch to inflated insurance premiums and the funding lottery created by the limited size and scope of the building safety fund. Do the many clauses and schedules of the Bill respond to that immediate crisis? Does clause 2 do that? The answer is no. This is the very Bill that the Minister with responsibility for building safety, Lord Greenhalgh, said was the appropriate vehicle for responding to the crisis. If there were a prize for being consistently inconsistent, this Minister would win hands down—top of the premier league.
Moving on to the fundamental details of clause 2, many witnesses, including the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, Matt Wrack, welcomed the new building regulator and spoke of the constructive working relationship with the Health and Safety Executive, reaffirming the Minister’s statement and the evidence from other witnesses about the appropriateness of HSE. Other witnesses, such as Martin Boyd from the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, spoke of the need to capture the residents’ voice, from the grassroots to the highest table of the new regulator, to help to establish and change that culture, and to improve the competence referred to in future clauses. Given the commitment highlighted in the previous social housing White Paper, for example, I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts about the residents’ voice.
The evidence from HSE management team seemed to indicate that they have the necessary resources to carry out the terms of reference of this new regulator.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this Bill does in fact make buildings safer, specifically because the Minister said in his opening remarks that HSE will now have the right expertise to oversee the regulator?
Mike Amesbury
I do hope so. Working together in Committee and across the Floor of the House, I hope we can contribute towards changing that landscape and making people and buildings safe. However, on resources, and this point was mentioned by—I know the Member has a Bolton seat, but do excuse me—
Mike Amesbury
It was Bolton South East, yes.
I know it is important to hon. Members that HSE is resourced appropriately, but given the evidence from the inspection regime, with the number of inspectors cut from around 1,400 in 2011 to 900 in 2019 and funding cut by over 30% by HSE, I am not filled with confidence. Will the Minister ensure for residents and leaseholders, let alone Members of Parliament, that the new regulator does indeed have the necessary resources?
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
While it was reassuring to hear that HSE has been assured by the Government that it will receive the resources it requires, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is imperative that local authorities are also given the resources they require to deliver this new building safety regime?
Mike Amesbury
I concur with that powerful point. Indeed, the Local Government Association made the same representations. Of course, local authorities have been somewhat hammered over the past decade in terms of resources and austerity. The hon. Lady makes a good point.
In conclusion, Labour welcomes the regulator overall, but we would of course go further and establish a building works agency to deal with the crisis here and now, building by building, with the principle of find, fund, fix and recover, and that the polluter pays. That is the immediate way forward.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, to participate in this Committee and to follow the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. His contribution was fascinating, and I want to pick up on one of his points about clause 2. I hear what he is saying about not necessarily dealing with the present, but clause 2 is also focused on the future. I am sure he will agree that we have to ensure that we do not see a repeat of what we have seen thus far. We have to ensure, as we heard in the evidence sessions, that the housing market and the industry is fit for the future and keeps people safe, and that we do not allow this race to the bottom to continue or put vulnerable people at the risk of individuals who seem to think it acceptable to create unsafe places to live. Clause 2 is part of the patchwork to do that.
My right hon. Friend the Minister talked about the importance of the Building Safety Regulator sitting within the Health and Safety Executive. I absolutely agree with him. He particularly mentioned the importance of collaboration. HSE has 45 years of experience in dealing with health and safety, and will now be focused on building safety too. That is the right approach. As the Building Safety Regulator is developed, we have to ensure that the right expertise is there, because it will have such a crucial role in the future of the housing market, probably for the next generation.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I agree that the Bill is better than what we had before. The hon. Gentleman talks about working for the future and future buildings. Is the system going to be resourced adequately to deal with both the future and the mistakes of the past? It was only through the Grenfell fire’s exposure of flammable cladding that the cladding was removed from the Paragon development in my constituency, which was built by the Berkeley Group 18 years ago. Two years after the cladding was removed, after a series of inspections, it was found that the structure of the building was fundamentally unsafe and the 800-odd students and 150 shared owners and leaseholders were given a week to leave. Should HSE and the Building Safety Regulator not be sufficiently resourced to find those buildings that are already occupied, by all sorts of different users for different purposes, to ensure that they are safe for future use, as well as being resourced to deal with the future?
Shaun Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East made a similar point about resourcing to the Minister. The Minister referred to a funding uplift, and I am hopeful. Obviously, I have no control over those levers, but I would be hopeful that part of the resource uplift would go into that. I do not disagree; the hon. Lady is absolutely right: if we are going to put in this regulator, it has to have the resource to do the job properly. We cannot have it cutting corners, because that only adds to the problems that many of her constituents have already had to deal with. It has to come with a commitment to ensure that the resources are there to adequately deal with the issue.
I am sure there will be debates on what that actually looks like and what the numbers are, but the hon. Lady and I can both agree that the fundamental, core principle is that the regulator needs to be resourced properly. The intervention on the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East was absolutely right. We can talk in high-level terms about how great it is to have a new regulator, but we have to make sure it can do the job day to day. That is the important part. The one thing I would raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister, while I have his ear in Committee, is that we have to ensure that the system works properly.
I broadly welcome clause 2. It is right that we have a regulator that draws on existing expertise. It is also right that, broadly speaking, the regulator has the ability to make the decisions unimpeded. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about not being able to bring about ministerial directions to overturn decisions of the regulator. That is the right move. Given what we have seen in this space to date, having an empowered regulator that can stick up for the most vulnerable is absolutely vital. Those lives that we have seen destroyed by incidents such as Grenfell—that cannot happen again. This plan ensures robustness.
Returning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, the resource has to be there and the regulator has to be allowed to do its job. I am hopeful, from the overtures that we have heard today, that that will happen.
I welcome clause 2. It is the right move. I think it ensures, in the longer term, the future of this market, and ensures that people looking to buy a home can live there safely, knowing that there is the oversight that they need and that we have an organisation in the Building Safety Regulator that draws on existing expertise but equally has independence. That is the key thing: the independence to do that job properly and ensure that those people are safe.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I listened very carefully to the comments from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale and to your point, Mr Dowd, about focusing on the proposed amendment. It is only natural that we want to look at wider issues. This is such an important Bill. There have been so many horrible incidents, and this affects lives, but the proposed amendment asks for the insertion of mitigation for building safety risks due to climate change—
The Chair
Order. That is clause 3, not clause 2. We will come back to that when we debate that issue. I call Ian Byrne.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Dowd. It is a splendid tie. I rise to emphasise that all of us on the HCLG Committee thought that the independent Building Safety Regulator was a fine idea, but over the last decade there have been 46% cuts to HSE and a third of officers have gone. There is a real worry about whether this will be resourced. I know people have spoken about that this morning, but we cannot emphasise it enough. Without an independent, well-resourced Building Safety Regulator, it all falls down.
I would like further commitments about where we are going, and what sums we are talking about. Will there be a complete recapitalisation of HSE to where it was pre-austerity, which we will then build on? It is so important that this is capitalised, and that the experience, officers and moneys are available to ensure that HSE can play a hugely important role in changing the culture. We all heard in the evidence sessions—and I have heard since 2019, sitting on the Select Committee—about how the culture in the building industry has created what we have talked about over the past two days. We heard some heart-rending evidence from so many people.
Shaun Bailey
The hon. Gentleman is very experienced in local government and an experienced member of the HCLG Committee. Does he not agree that it will be really important to ensure that the regulator has a culture of independence? I am sure he will agree that ensuring that the regulator is beholden to no one but itself will be the only way to ensure that it truly keeps people safe.
Ian Byrne
I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman. It is a very valid point, but as I said, this is about ensuring that the resources are there. The hon. Member for St Albans made a very good point about local government. There have been 68% cuts to Liverpool City Council. It has been hollowed out. The ability to check on buildings has been catastrophic at times. This comes back to funding. The intent and the money have to be there. Without them, I am afraid that we could be back to some of the situations that many of us have faced in our constituencies with some buildings.
Christopher Pincher
I congratulate all members of the Committee on their contributions on the clause. A number of Members, properly and understandably, raised funding, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West and Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby. We have made further funding available for the creation of the shadow regulator within HSE. We also, as I said earlier, made funding available to HSE during the covid emergency. We have also made commitments through the building safety levy to ensure that developers that have made mistakes in the past provide appropriate and proper restitution for the remediation of high-rise buildings. We will provide more information about that in due course. Certainly, the funding of HSE is, as always, subject to discussions with the Treasury in the spending review, and I am sure we will hear more about that—to the benefit of HSE—in due course.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale referred to Grenfell in his remarks, and he was right to do so because Grenfell was the wake-up call to the challenges that we face in a very complex development, ownership and safety terrain. That is why we must approach the Bill and the clause with care, to ensure that we address the complex situation of buildings, safety and ownership carefully, and that is what we will do throughout the course of the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman made two specific points to which I think I ought to respond. He asked about residents’ voices. Sarah Albon made clear in her evidence to the Committee last week that HSE is reaching out—to use that modern phrase—to stakeholders, including residents and dwellers of high-rise buildings, to ensure that their voices and concerns are heard. We have also committed to a new homes ombudsman. That is not the point of the clause, but it is something that we will debate later in our scrutiny of the Bill, giving the hon. Gentleman and other Members the opportunity to learn about the Government’s work to ensure that residents’ voices are heard. The hon. Gentleman also made the point about HSE funding, and I refer him to the comments that I have just made.
To conclude, we have heard the high regard in which HSE is held by all members of the Committee for its historical and, one might say, international reputation as a safety board of the highest regard. We believe that HSE provides the regulator with the necessary powers to effectively deliver the new regulatory regime. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3
The regulator: objectives and regulatory principles
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) mitigating building safety risks due to climate change, including—
(i) flood risk
(ii) coastal erosion, and
(iii) overheating of buildings.”
This amendment would mandate the building safety regulator to mitigate for risks to building safety due to climate change.
Mike Amesbury
Although there is much to welcome in elements of clause 3, there are two points on which I believe it important to expand what is currently set out. Amendment 11 seeks to expand the objective of the regulator to include another major threat to the safety of people in buildings, beyond fire and the threat of climate change. In 2019, the Climate Change Committee published a report on housing in which it stated:
“UK homes are not fit for the future.”
It found that
“efforts to adapt the housing stock for higher temperatures, flooding and water scarcity are falling far behind the increase in risk”
from the challenging climate emergency. We will face serious consequences if we do not act soon. Some of the biggest risks are the lack of protection from increasing floods and coastal erosion, and the overheating of buildings. There is also the danger of under-insulating buildings. Projections indicate that maximum summer temperatures could rise by 9° by the end of the century. Some 20% of homes overheat in the current climate. Modern high-rise flats are disproportionately at risk of overheating due to lack of protection from the sun and lack of ventilation in many cases. As a result, deaths caused by overheating could triple over the next 30 years if we do not reduce the risk. This is about people and about building safety beyond fire safety. At the other end of the spectrum, cold deaths are also predicted to remain high, but we could reduce them by better insulating homes.
It is not just high-rise flats that are at risk from the effects of climate change; 1.8 million people now live in areas at risk of flooding. That could double by 2080, but we are simply not seeing the resilience measures that we need to be built into the framework. In mentioning flooding, I am not talking about eighth-floor flats, yet there is a clearly a huge risk. Many constituencies and constituents regularly face the threat of flooding. This summer has seen huge flooding that has killed hundreds of people across western Europe. This is another example of how we must look beyond the narrow definition of the present risk and of building safety.
Last year, the chair of the Climate Change Committee’s Adaptation Committee, Baroness Brown, wrote to Dame Judith Hackitt as chair of the board overseeing the establishment of the Building Safety Regulator. In the letter, she stated:
“The current building safety works programme must be broadened beyond its current focus on fire safety to include the risk of addressing climate change.”
We are in a climate emergency. Amendment 11 would put that very commitment on the face of the regulator’s objectives. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment.
Siobhan Baillie
Thank you, Mr Dowd, and I apologise for my eagerness earlier; I take all opportunities to talk about the climate change emergency.
The Minister was clear in his opening remarks that the Building Safety Regulator is crucial to the success of the Bill and that the Government have consulted widely and listened to many experts in drafting the Bill we are considering today. In those discussions, he spoke to Dame Judith Hackitt and other respected building mega-brains. Given that the people who were able to inform us about the regulator’s function have not suggested that there should be a clause that refers specifically to climate change and talks about flood risk, coastal erosion and the overheating of buildings, I am confident that we do not need one, not only because we know that they are thinking deeply about how to make the Bill a complete success, but because the climate emergency is on everybody’s lips and mind, and every Government Department wants to tackle it.
Mark Logan
Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation does not need to refer to climate change, as the Government, across many pieces of legislation—both those in force and looking to the future—will consider the climate change issues that face the UK and the rest of the world?
Siobhan Baillie
My hon. Friend is right. We will address the climate emergency in many forms. I think the regulator will already be working on it, and I will come to that in a second.
Mike Amesbury
If the regulator and the Bill’s provisions genuinely address the climate emergency, why not add it to the objectives rather than making it an assumption?
Siobhan Baillie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I am somebody who does not think that we should add words for the sake of it, if the regulator is already doing the work. The explanatory notes describe the regulator’s core functions, stating that it will implement
“the new, more stringent regulatory regime for higher-risk buildings. This means being the building control authority in England in respect of building work on higher-risk buildings and overseeing and enforcing the new regime in occupation for higher-risk buildings. The Building Safety Regulator will work closely with, and take advice from, other regulators and relevant experts in making key decisions throughout the lifecycle of a building.”
We know from our constituencies that the Environment Agency, our local authorities and our parish councils are committing to looking very carefully at such issues—particularly, in my patch, those related to flooding. That work, and the work that the Government are already doing to combat flooding, will flow through. I am confident that the Bill as drafted achieves that.
Mike Amesbury
The hon. Lady referred to local authorities and other stakeholders giving due care and attention to flooding. In my constituency, given that new developments are still being built on flood plains, I do not think that is the case. I would again argue that, rather than making it an assumption that the regulator addresses the climate emergency, it should be added to the Bill.
Siobhan Baillie
Forgive me—I hear the point again, in a new form, but I still do not think that that is necessary. We have to rely on the expertise of the regulator and everybody who will be involved. We are so focused on building safety risk at the moment, and rightly so, given everything that has happened. I feel that the work is there.
I had my own mini-experience of coastal erosion growing up. It was not in Stroud, which is landlocked, save for the River Severn. I grew up in Yorkshire and went from Filey to Scarborough to school on a school bus. As we were going along, a hotel called Holbeck Hall fell very steadily into the sea. Many Members may know about it. It went on for many months. It was completely fascinating to school children, but even those many decades ago it was known about, thought through and seriously considered. Everybody was focused on it. Given the work that has been done in the Bill, I do not believe that, were a building in that state of peril, the regulator would not pick up on it and be able to help.
Ruth Cadbury
The hon. Lady feels confident that the regulator’s powers cover high-risk buildings and the risks to buildings from flooding, overheating and the other aspects of climate change that my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale covered, but the Bill as drafted defines a higher-risk building in clauses 58 to 62 and onwards as being residential buildings over 18 metres in height. That will exclude many buildings built on flood plains, and many flats, such as those in my constituency that get dangerously overheated—
The Chair
Order. Ms Cadbury, please sit down. I exhort Members to make interventions short and sharp. People have the opportunity to speak to the substantive issue if they wish. Please keep it short and sharp and to the point. I do apologise for being direct.
Siobhan Baillie
There will be many discussions over the course of the Committee about the definitions, but ultimately we believe in the regulator, in the work that is being done, and in people such as Dame Judith Hackitt and Baroness Brown, who have been mentioned. Those climate change considerations have already been factored in.
Ian Byrne
We need culture change, so why not put it in the Bill to direct the culture of the building industry, which for a long, long time has been wrong in placing profit over safety? Why not put that change in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale has asked for?
Siobhan Baillie
As I have already pointed out, I do not feel it is necessary to add that given the scope of the Bill, the work of the regulator and the work that has been done to get to this stage. We need to be really confident in the regulator so that it is not hamstrung and can use the expertise of local authorities, the Environment Agency and all the other bodies with which it is directed to work, to make sure that the building safety work is done. I implore the Committee to agree that there is absolutely no need for the amendment.
Shaun Bailey
In the light of your comments, Mr Dowd, I shall try to keep mine short and sweet.
I do not disagree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Weaver Vale said. My concern, as a constituency Member who had real flooding issues last year, is that planning is a real patchwork. That is one thing that we perhaps need to go further on. The hon. Gentleman talked about house building, and he will know as well as me that water companies, for example, are not statutory consultees on planning issues. I would like that to change, because it is ridiculous that water companies are just asked to join an estate up to the network, having played no part whatsoever in planning. That is an example of something that needs to change.
On flooding specifically, we go down a plethora of different avenues. Flood Re is meant to cover buildings at risk, and some house building standards are being amended right now. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the climate change issue; we know that temperatures are going up and that we all have a responsibility to tackle that. The environment that we are dealing with at the moment is complex and will require us to bring many strings together. Although I do not disagree with his intentions, my concern is about the mechanism for ensuring that that happens. I do not think that relying on the BSR should be our only avenue; we need a mechanism to ensure that this happens.
I have seen the impacts of flooding on my constituents, particularly in deprived urban areas, which are quite often overlooked. For the best part of 18 months, I have been making the case that there needs to be more of a realisation that it is not just nice shire areas that get flooding, but inner-city areas, too.
Mike Amesbury
In my own constituency, the Northwich area has been subject to flooding for the last two years. Undoubtedly, that is partially an impact of the climate emergency. In future, a high-rise buildings regulator could, through a planning gateway process, future-proof that and other environments.
Last week, I had the displeasure of visiting the Strand in Liverpool, near the waterfront. Work there was signed off by building control under a permitted development, and some secondary legislation has already been passed for that. The regulation for such buildings is minimal, to say the least. It is so important that this provision is added to the remit to future-proof and to respond to the climate emergency, including with the practical examples that the hon. Gentleman gave. Beyond this debate, I would like to sit with Ministers and have a conversation about the wording around this, because it is very important.
The Chair
Can I just be clear? People can speak for as much as they want with a substantive issue. Interventions should be pretty short, sharp and to the point.
Shaun Bailey
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale makes an interesting point, but I come back to my point about the environment we are dealing with from a legislative point of view. As an esteemed former member of Manchester City Council, he is much more experienced than me, and he understands the issues. We are crossing into the boundaries of planning reform as well. I do not disagree that that needs to be looked at in this space. However, while I do not disagree with and can subscribe to the amendment’s intentions, broadly speaking, I am concerned that doing it like will mean missing other opportunities for a much more comprehensive reform of this space to ensure that the issues that both the hon. Gentleman and I have experienced in our communities can be resolved.
Daisy Cooper
Given the rumours that the Government’s proposals for planning reforms have been dropped, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the content of the amendment? If he does not want to see it in the Bill, where does he imagine he would be able to put it over the course of the legislative agenda?
Shaun Bailey
The hon. Member is trying to tempt me into speculation on matters I have no control over, unfortunately. I could not possibly say, purely because I do not wish to speculate. To round up, I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Weaver Vale’s sentiment, but there is a better way that we can do it, outside the amendment.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
Elections Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 16th September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 September 2021 - (16 Sep 2021)
The Chair
Q
We will now hear oral evidence from Gavin Millar QC of Matrix Chambers. Thank you very much for joining us. Before we begin, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 2.45 pm. Would the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Gavin Millar: I am Gavin Millar. I am a QC at Matrix Chambers. I specialise in election law and have done for 35 years.
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I think it is Cat Smith’s turn to go first.
The Chair
Shall I bring in other members of the Committee? Patrick Grady, would you like to ask a question? [Interruption.] Oh, hang on.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Q
Gavin Millar: I am sorry—I am having trouble hearing.
Cat Smith
I will try repeating my question. Is there anything that you feel is missing from the legislation that would strengthen elections, or anything that is amendable that needs to be tightened up?
Gavin Millar: As the Committee probably knows, there is a widely held view that what we have at the moment is a complicated mass of disparate election law provisions in statutes that have been enacted over many years, often containing historical provisions that have just stayed in them down the decades. The mass of that legislative material is difficult and confusing for election administrators—lawyers, judges, candidates and agents.
Accordingly, there is a widely held view that the way to tackle election law now would be to sweep that current body of law aside and modernise it, applying appropriate consolidating provisions in the existing law, into a single, simpler set of statutory rules. The Law Commission said this a few years ago, I have said it and others have said it often. It is disappointing that, in approaching the legislation, the Government have chosen to introduce another rather ad hoc set of disparate provisions that are unrelated, rather than the whole amazing, simplifying rewrite that is required. I suppose that is the first point, in terms of where we are. There is a case—[Inaudible]—to tackle the urgent problems in the electoral system, but with the exception of part 6 of the Bill, which deals with information to be included with electronic material, nothing that it tackles could conceivably be regarded as an urgent problem of the sort that ought to take priority.
The Bill ignores the other most urgent problem in our system, which is the lack of an effective regulatory and enforcement regime to ensure that foreign money and dark money do not enter our political system through donations to political parties. I would say that that is now an election law issue, because in reality there is non-stop campaigning by political parties between the short and long election campaigns, which can be funded by large and inadequately regulated donations. There is the risk not only of money coming into the system that should not be there, but of the level playing field that we have always striven to achieve in our election law during the narrower periods of elections being lost in the intervening periods. It is disappointing that nothing in the legislation addresses those problems.
Cat Smith
Q
Gavin Millar: There is no doubt that once you have got into the process of regulating non-party expenditure in elections, some very difficult questions arise. Traditionally, those difficult questions have arisen in our system in relation to non-candidate expenditure in constituencies or local government wards—whatever it is—during the election campaign. Local campaigners, non-governmental organisations and so on and so forth can spend some money to campaign, but it is heavily capped. Of course, we are now into the territory where national campaigning is capped and regulated, and the current laws in relation to that are incredibly complicated, very difficult to follow and understand, and very difficult to apply, even for the courts.
I suppose the broad considerations are that we should, in a democracy, encourage and facilitate non-party campaigning of either form, but including national campaigns, to the extent that we can, if it does not unbalance the level playing field across the piece, because that contributes to the democratic process. There are a great many NGOs, charities and third-party campaigners that are not directly party political or campaigning on a range of issues, but may be campaigning on just one issue. It enhances our democracy to enable them to participate, which is going to cost money—they will have to spend money on that—provided that it does not cross the line of unbalancing a level playing field. It is a difficult balance to strike.
One of the features of the legislation that is very difficult is clause 25. It tackles third-party campaigning where it crosses a particular line, which is what is known in the legislation as a joint campaigning arrangement, where the third party or third parties can be shown, as a matter of fact, to have a plan or an arrangement to campaign together. That is an incredibly difficult concept. There have been a couple of cases where the courts have struggled with this, and I do not find the drafting in the Bill very easy, particularly clause 25.
It will be very difficult for campaigners, who might be caught by a suggestion that that is what they are doing, to know whether they are on the right or the wrong side of the line. If they are deemed to be on the wrong side of the line, and a court or a commission says that there is planned co-ordinated expenditure involving more than one non-party campaigner and a political party, that will dramatically reduce the amount that they will be able to spend. They will have to go through the whole process of declaring all the participants in that arrangement, and their available spend will be reduced accordingly. It may be that there are cases where it is justified in having that end result, but you should not have unclear law that leaves people in doubt as to what they can and cannot do and what is and is not a joint campaigning arrangement.
At the moment, that is very unclear in our law and has not been properly resolved by the courts. I would not suggest rushing into the provisions of clause 25. If that part of the Bill is going to go through Parliament, there should be very careful scrutiny of exactly what it is intended to catch and what it is not intended to catch, and of what the consequences are for third-party campaigners who engage in that sort joint campaigning with a political party. I am just not sure that that is there at the moment. That is the problem. Therefore it will tend to risk encouraging that active participation that I said was so important in a democracy.
Cat Smith
Q
Gavin Millar: Yes, I am concerned that this part of a strand in our law that is developing, which gives powers to Government and to the Executive to fill in gaps in legislation and take legally binding decisions outwith the legislation. It is very undesirable. It means that nobody knows in advance what the law is going to achieve and how it will work. It reduces parliamentary scrutiny.
Everything that is going to be there that will affect non-party campaigning should be in the primary legislation. It should be simple, clear and easy to understand, and it should be justified in terms of what it is trying to achieve in preventing the skewing of the level playing field. It should be absolutely clear what the consequences are for third-party campaigners, many of whom I advise at election time and in between elections. They are very confused by this. They find it very difficult to know what they can and cannot do, what crosses a particular line and what does not cross it, and what their maxima are for spending. You do not need to be a lawyer to realise that that is undesirable in a democracy, with an activity of such importance.
Chloe Smith
I have no further questions but I am very grateful to Mr Millar for giving his time.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Q
You expressed a concern a moment ago that the Minister, under clause 25, would have the ability to add to the list of categories. There is a rationale for that, which I hope we can agree on: as the sector develops, there will potentially be a need for the legislation to respond to growth in the sector, and it would be beneficial were the legislation able to satisfy that need. In those circumstances, is it not reasonable for the legislation to allow for an affirmative procedure in both Houses to give Parliament’s consent to the decision of the Minister? I am really challenging the rather bold assertion that it is the Minister who decides. It is not, is it? It is Parliament that will decide, and not just by the negative procedure; it is by the affirmative procedure in both Houses. Is that correct?
Gavin Millar: I concede that point. There is a form of parliamentary procedure that will enable scrutiny of how the power is being exercised. Members of the Committee and parliamentarians will know better than I do as a lawyer how effective that is likely to be. The main thing is to avoid unconstrained powers. The premise of your question was that there would be a legitimate concern that needed to be addressed through subordinate legislation and the Minister’s decision. That is fine, but the question is what sort of things we are talking about, and in what circumstances such a power will be exercised. I get very anxious about provisions—perhaps I am too old, or too old-fashioned, because they are a rather more contemporary thing—that are in very broad terms. When the primary legislation is enacted, it is difficult to anticipate for what purposes they will be used and what would be regarded as a justifiable change in the law, but I take the point that if it is the affirmative procedure there is parliamentary scrutiny.
Jerome Mayhew
I am very grateful. That is the only thing I wanted to clarify.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Q
Could you also say a little more on the value or otherwise of a more comprehensive effort to consolidate electoral law? We have a lot of Representation of the People Acts. This is not a representation of the people Bill; it has been called the Elections Bill. I do not know whether there is any legislative or theological difference between the titling of these different Bills and Acts, or the things that they have done over the years. Where do you see the merit in perhaps a stronger effort to consolidate the different pieces of legislation that govern the electoral framework?
Gavin Millar: In relation to the Electoral Commission, we need to start at the beginning, as it were. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, known in the trade as PPERA, created the Electoral Commission for the first time—it was the first time we had had one in this country—but [Inaudible] an Electoral Commission that does not actually have a role in administering, overseeing and running elections in real time, and that does not have powers to investigate conduct and outcomes, and still less overturn those outcomes. It is important to understand that other countries have equivalent entities with much stronger roles in each of those areas. We are starting from a pretty low base in terms of what the Electoral Commission has been created to do.
As far as I can see, there is no case here for any of the three main changes proposed in the legislation in relation to the Electoral Commission. First, there is the strategy and policy statement, which, as I understand it, is going to tell the regulator what it should and should not be doing. Secondly, the Electoral Commission’s willingness to do what it is told, and its success or otherwise in doing what it is told, will be overseen—one might cynically say “marked”—by the Speaker’s Committee. Thirdly, clause 15 takes away from the Electoral Commission the power to prosecute. I can see no case or justification for any of those measures.
An Electoral Commission should be independent of Government; it should be free from Government influence as a matter of principle, because of its role in a democracy. It should be rather akin to the police or the Crown Prosecution Service in that respect. Its decision making, and indeed its powers to investigate and act, should be framed and guided solely by the public interest and the merits of the evidence before it. Does this need to be investigated? To what extent does it need to be investigated? What has gone wrong? What needs to be done? It should be answerable to Parliament as a whole rather than to a single Committee or a small group of politicians. That seems to me a key and obvious point of principle.
My own view is that the Electoral Commission should have more powers and resources—hopefully under the codified and modernised statutory regime that I have suggested—rather than less, which is what seems to be the aim at the moment, particularly in relation to the removal of the power to prosecute. Why? Well, because it is the only player in the game. It is the only possible resource for dealing with breaches of election law, in its limited area, other than through criminal prosecution and civil litigation.
As far as the former is concerned, the police and prosecutors frankly do not have the resources or expertise to tackle offending under the RPA or PPERA, and I am absolutely certain that much goes uninvestigated and unprosecuted at the moment. That is extremely undesirable in our system. Civil litigation—by candidates, judicial review, election petitions and so on—is costly, cumbersome, time-consuming and very difficult to undertake. All those factors indicate that we need an empowered and funded Electoral Commission to tackle problems as they come up. They are experts and specialists; that is why they are there and should be there.
On the second point you asked about—I will try not to become boring, because I could wax lyrical about this for hours—as you probably know, essentially we have two strands to our election law. We have the Representation of the People Act 1983, which is the primary statute regulating three things: the exercise of the franchise, the conduct of elections and challenges to elections after the event. There are various problems with it, but the main one is that it is the most recent of a long succession of Acts with the same name in the 20th century, and indeed there were earlier equivalents going back into the 19th century. They have often been a political compromise in Parliament, simply enacted by way of consolidation with only minor amendments. What we have ended up with is really an awful lot of 19th-century provisions that have hardly changed in their wording.
On top of that, in that strand of the law—the actual regulation of the administration of elections—there have been many, many more pieces of primary and secondary legislation relating to those three areas of our law since 1983. They either come in statutory instruments or they go into amendments to the RPA, so you get these long lists of amended sections with ZA numbers after the primary number, and it becomes wholly unwieldy and unmanageable.
The Law Commission’s report, where it recommended this, alluded to a problem that surfaced in the 2010 general election. I am sure you all remember that there were queues at polling stations and people were unable to get in and vote when they closed at 10 pm. That is an unresolved issue in our election law. The Law Commission make the point that when Parliament had to correct that to make sure people queuing at that point could get in, 10 different pieces of legislation had to be amended to achieve that one single result. That is how bad it is.
In addition, the second strand is the PPERA strand, which came into play in 2000 with completely new and different areas of election law. In particular, as we know, it included the regulation of national campaign expenditure by political parties and third-party campaigners, as well as permissible donations. Again, accretions and additions to that legislation over the years have made it incredibly complicated.
So what is election law? Well, it is ill-defined, but essentially it is everything surrounding those two huge pieces of legislation and the case law they have thrown up. One of the advantages of consolidation would be to be clear about what needs to be regulated in elections. As I have said, it seems to me that the whole issue of campaigning between long and short campaign periods is now election law. That is just the reality of it in the modern world, just as we have accepted that what goes on on the internet is election law, which we never did before. Modernising and consolidating would give us a much broader definition of election law.
As you point out, in this Bill we have bits relating to each. We have bits relating to PPERA and bits relating to the RPA regime, and it is now simply called the Elections Bill, which is a sort of combination of two strands of our law, and it is a bit of a rag-bag really. I am not saying that some of the things are not desirable—clearly they are—but they are not urgent and they should not be given priority over this much more fundamental issue that needs to be resolved, which is a consolidated and complete electoral code.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Q
Gavin Millar: This strand of convention law—by which I mean, whether a piece of domestic legislation is incompatible with the provisions of the convention—does not work on an individual case-by-case basis. It works on the basis that if you have to look at compatibility in a court case, it is at the impact of the domestic rule of law—here, the voter ID provision—across the piece and the whole of the electoral system in the contracting party.
Is the impact of that legislative provision one that can be justified as being compatible with the convention? The convention—Strasbourg—has its own internal set of rules for saying what is and is not compatible. Very few rights are absolute, which is why you can have laws that prevent certain people—criminals and so on—from voting for a period, but to be compatible with the convention they have to be justifiable, in the sense of achieving a legitimate aim, one that is legitimate in that country for that political system and that voting system. It has to be a proportionate means of achieving that aim.
The question here—I accept that it would be assessed by the impact on individual groups of people, such as the Roma, whom you mentioned, but it would be much broader than that—is, if you try to justify what the Government are proposing to do across the electoral system as a whole, can it be justified as meeting a legitimate aim? Is there a problem that is so bad that it needs addressing in this system in this way? Is this a crude or a proportionate way of addressing it? The problem I have with clause 1 is that I cannot see the problem and, even if there is a problem, I cannot see that this is a targeted and proportionate way of addressing it, because it would just sweep out of the franchise somebody who did not happen to have a card or voter ID but was properly on the electoral register and entitled to vote when they turned up.
Why do I say that there is not a problem? You are all politicians, you have been elected and you know how this works, but you may not have looked at this from the point of view of an election lawyer, a criminal lawyer or someone looking at election fraud, which for my sins I have spent a lot of time doing for the past 20 years. The sort of fraud we are talking about here is called “personation” under the RPA. It is an electoral offence—it is impersonation, but misses off the “im” in the statutory historical categorisation. Personation is A turning up at the polling station pretending to be B, who is validly on the register.
It is not a problem of any great consequence in our system, and I speak from experience. Personation cases are almost non-existent. There are reasons why it is not a problem. First of all, it is extremely risky for anyone to try that. You are liable to be caught because somebody spots you and knows you are not that person. It is also ineffective because there is the alternative possibility that that person turns up and votes later, or indeed has already voted and is marked off the register when you try to impersonate them. If you are going to do it, you have to be absolutely certain that the person is dead or is not going to come and vote, and that you will not be found out that way. It is also hugely inefficient compared with other forms of fraud that have been perpetrated, particularly since postal voting on demand. You have to get a range of people, or yourself, to go around different polling stations at different times in the day, and all you get out of each criminal offence you commit is one vote. It is just not efficient or effective as a fraud, so it does not happen.
As I understand it, this came from the 2014 Tower Hamlets mayoral election. There were a whole range of election offences pleaded in that case and looked at by the court. One of them involved some personation at polling stations, but it was not the core problem. If that were the reason we had got to this point, this would be an example of a hard case making very bad law, and I would counsel against that. The fraud that exists in our system, or has existed since 2000, that everybody has read about and knows about, is a very different type of election fraud. One possibility is what is called roll-stuffing in Australia, where you put additional voters on the register who are not entitled to vote in a concerted fraud before the election, and then vote in their name. You normally apply for a postal vote for those non-existent voters at a particular address, and you pick up the postal vote papers and you vote.
There are various other postal vote frauds that were recounted in the cases that have been cited. That form of fraud has been made much more difficult by Parliament and by the administrators because of the cases over the past 20 years, and there are less cases even of that form of fraud, but it is not a form of fraud that would be addressed by this piece of legislation, so what is the problem? What is it achieving? Why is this a proportionate way of addressing it? I have no answers to any of those questions, and of course in a situation where, by common estimates, we have something like 17% of eligible voters not on the register, one wonders why our efforts are not being concentrated on voter registration measures—getting more people on to the register and facilitating them in voting—rather than making it more difficult for them to do it by imposing this requirement, which we have never had.
I appreciate that advocates of the Bill will say, “It is not a lot to do, to get a piece of photo ID or have a piece of photo ID and bring it along to the polling station,” but we need only look at the Windrush scandal to see how many poor people and ordinary people in our society have difficulties with that sort of thing, not to mention disabled people and other discriminated-against groups who do not want to engage with obtaining this sort of identification, for fear that it will open them up to other scrutiny and investigation of an unjustifiable kind. It is wrong on every count, really.
To answer the question, yes, there will inevitably be challenges to this as incompatible with the European convention on human rights if it is introduced, and it seems to me that there is a strong case for doing that. The impact would be considerable, by all accounts—although somewhat unquantifiable—but I just have not seen the evidence that you would be required to produce at a judicial review or at a case in Strasbourg to justify this as an appropriate state interference with the right to vote.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank our witness for his evidence.
Examination of Witness
Fazilet Hadi gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Fazilet Hadi: I am Fazilet Hadi, head of policy at Disability Rights UK. Just so you know, I am blind, although it should not affect anything today.
The Chair
We have until 3.30 pm for this panel. Minister, would you like to start with the first question?
Chloe Smith
Q
Fazilet Hadi: I will briefly give a bit of context before answering that question. Some 14 million people in the UK are disabled, or one in five of the population, so we are a very big group and very diverse. About 45% of older people and 19% of working-age adults have a disability. As you and colleagues will know, that can range from sensory impairment to learning disability, mental health and mobility issues, so we face a wide set of challenges.
There are some real challenges in voting, so it would be good to see rigorous standards applied and enforced by Government, because voting should not be a postcode lottery; it should be equal wherever we are in the country. A couple of issues in the Bill concern me, particularly photo identification and the provisions on equipment, which seem to be turning the clock back a little, particularly for blind and partially sighted voters.
Coming back to your question on standards, the standards start even before the electoral officers—for example, in the way that local authorities produce information on elections and whether reasonable adjustments need to be considered for electors who have disabilities. Even for those first letters, people should already be thinking, “Can this person read the letter? Do they need an easy-read, audio or electronic version?” I think it starts very early, and it then moves through all the stages of postal voting, through to the actual physical buildings in which elections are held, the devices we are given to enable us to vote independently, the height of the desks where we cast our vote and wheelchair accessibility. It is almost like walking through the customer journey from beginning to end, ensuring that reasonable adjustments are made at every point, because I am sure the Government want to ensure that those 14 million people have a voice in the same way as everyone else.
Chloe Smith
Q
As you rightly say, we all want to see disabled voters, or voters with any condition or extra accessibility need, able to take part fully. What do you think ought to be focused on in communicating the changes encapsulated in this Bill? How could that be done with your members, for example, or others?
Fazilet Hadi: The provisions on photo ID will need a lot of communication, but they should not be communicated in isolation. Going back to what I said before, if we take something out of context, it presupposes that the electorate get everything else and know all the other things that are in place, and disabled people may not know about the other adjustments that are available. On photo ID, that does pose particular issues, and when there were trials, my recollection from colleagues at Mencap is that it took quite a lot of education, face to face, as well as written information, to communicate to people with learning disabilities what the change meant.
There will be an education imperative for the whole public, of course, but for particular groups of disabled people, some of us maybe do not access information so easily—British Sign Language users, people who access through audio or braille, people who need easy read, and people whose literacy skills are low. There is quite a communication challenge in actually getting across that photo ID is required, and that has to start well in advance of it being required.
Chloe Smith
Q
May I draw on your experience of voting as a blind person—as a person with a visual impairment? I would guess that you have used the tactile voting device. Could you describe to the Committee what it has been like using that device? What are its drawbacks and advantages?
Fazilet Hadi: I have not actually used it. I have voted through the post, and I have voted with the assistance of the electoral staff—
Chloe Smith
I apologise for making an assumption.
Fazilet Hadi: Not at all. I should have tried the template. My understanding is that it does not allow completely independent voting. If people can imagine, it is like laying a template over a piece of paper. You would probably have to memorise what was on the paper, which could be tricky. I suppose you would not have complete confidence, because you cannot check back. I think it was a device of its time. As I understand it, a judicial review said that it did not allow a completely secret ballot.
What the device should be is not a straightforward issue, but I worry about the provision in the Bill taking away the wording of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which says that the device should be prescribed by the Government. Whatever the device is, and whatever its limitations—hopefully we can improve on the current device—it should be available without question and without any decision making being needed from local electoral staff. It should just be made available because the Government says that it should be. Under the Bill as it is framed at the moment, there is a danger with that kind of wording being removed and a much looser wording about reasonableness being inserted instead.
Chloe Smith
Q
Fazilet Hadi: In this particular instance, I am not sure whether the Act envisaged a tactile template, but I think the wording means that the Government can prescribe “it” and update what the “it” is in guidance. The thing is to get to the principle that it is set down and must be provided. That would be the way to do it, not saying exactly what the “it” is. Indeed, the “it” will change as digital technology changes, with things like 3D printing. I am not a great technologist, but I think that the Act can get across the mandatory nature of the equipment that must be used. For people across the country who are registered blind, any sense that you could go to a polling station in one local authority area and get one device, and go to another elsewhere and get another device, would be a retrograde step.
Chloe Smith
Q
Fazilet Hadi: No. I am not an expert on the Elections Bill, but it seems very much to put it down to the individual electoral officer to decide what is reasonable. I accept that we could be talking in a much wider sense about what is reasonable for any disabled person. As I said earlier, some people might need a slightly higher or lower table in the polling station, depending on whether they are standing up or in a wheelchair. Some people might need a fatter pen because they have dexterity issues, and some people might need some sort of tactile device. In that sense, it is good that the Act tries to cover a broader range of equipment. Nevertheless, I still think that the Government need to specify those types of equipment in guidance and standards. As I said, voters would expect that consistency across the piece. At the moment, the language needs hardening. If the Government’s intention is to make this mandatory, I do not think that that comes across.
Chloe Smith
It is very helpful that you close with the point that it must be specified through guidance, because that is indeed what the intention is. It is also what one of our witnesses yesterday agreed was where much of the work should be done.
Cat Smith
Q
You opened your remarks by describing how you felt that the legislation is turning back the clock, particularly for voters who are blind or partially sighted. If I understood correctly, that is because the 1983 Act wording would be rescinded and there would be much more flexibility for local authorities to have potentially quite different ways of supporting blind and partially sighted voters. That would create something of a postcode lottery. What would the challenges then be for voters with a disability or impairment who have perhaps moved house to a different local authority area and might then get a different level of service or a different system to facilitate their needs? Would that be an additional barrier to voting for disabled people?
Fazilet Hadi: I like the words in the Representation of the People Act 1983, “prescribed equipment”. Obviously, guidance can say at any point what that prescribed equipment is for. There might be prescribed equipment for people with other impairments. It is not just tactile devices; it could be adjustable tables or pens that people can grip.
The Government signed up to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which says that there must be full participation in political and public life for disabled people. It specifies that there must be materials, facilities and procedures that are fully accessible and appropriate. It specifies that there must be a secret ballot. It specifies that there must be assistance from whoever the disabled person chooses. The Human Rights Act 1998 talks about the right to vote and how we all need to have the ability to express our opinion through voting. The Equality Act 2010 puts a public sector equality duty on the Government and local government––any government––to think about what they are doing to promote the interests of, and make reasonable adjustments for, disabled people and others. We have all these laws and a stated intention that this Bill should make things better for participation by disabled people, but it cannot be better for the equipment to be different in different polling stations. For me as an elector, it is about not knowing exactly what I am entitled to, so that I can try to enforce it if I do not get it. Leaving arrangements to the 152 local authorities in England, and I do not know how many in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is totally unacceptable.
Cat Smith
Q
Fazilet Hadi: Huge concerns. If we think about who does not have a driving licence or a passport, who does not have a blue badge or a bus pass or a railcard, we are asking those people who have obviously found it unsurmountable for various reasons—those reasons could be cognitive, sensory, digital exclusion; all sorts of reasons—to apply for a card. We are asking the most disadvantaged people in our community, who have not got one of those other cards, to go and apply for a card. It just does not make any sense. These are the people who are least likely to apply for a card. If they could apply for cards and that was easy for them, they would have one of these other cards. I just feel the proposal is completely impracticable.
If we really want the people who are really struggling to vote to come and vote—the people who do not have any of these cards—you can imagine how many challenges that section of the community has, and applying for a voting card would not come anywhere near the top of their to-do list.
Patrick Grady
Q
“such equipment as it is reasonable…for the purposes of enabling or making it easier for, relevant persons”.
Relevant persons would include blind or partially sighted people, but also people with other disabilities or impairments or difficulties.
Is there any reason why you could not just have both? You could keep the specific provisions, perhaps updating them so we are not limiting this to one specific piece of advice, and making a bit of a tweak so that we talk more generally about equipment that might change over time with technology, but keep those provisions and add in the extra requirement for a wider group of voters who might have difficulty accessing the polling stations. Do you see any incompatibility with that approach?
Fazilet Hadi: No, there is no incompatibility. My main point would be that if there is prescribed equipment—that is not just for blind people; if there is prescribed equipment for wheelchair users or people with dexterity problems—let that be prescribed, so that we get consistency across the board, but let us have an additional provision about how all reasonable adjustments should be made, which is actually just repeating the duty in the Equality Act, because electoral officers are discharging a public function anyway. I do not mind that being repeated, but I do not think we should be confusing prescribing equipment for whichever impairment group needs it with the duty to make reasonable adjustments. They can live together quite harmoniously—I agree.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for giving evidence today. It is much appreciated.
Examination of Witness
Dr Alan Renwick gave evidence.
Cat Smith
On a point of order, Ms Rees. A motion to approve an instruction has been laid by the Government and will be heard on the Floor of the House on Monday, regarding expanding the Elections Bill to include electoral voting systems, specifically in terms of mayoralties within England and police and crime commissioners. Would it be in order to ask questions of Dr Renwick about electoral systems, given that they are not currently in the scope of the Bill?
The Chair
My understanding is that matter is not currently in the scope of the Bill. I am aware that the motion is on the Order Paper for Monday.
The Chair
If it is possible to have a supplementary programme motion, then that could be added, but that is not a matter for me. That is usually done through the usual channels.
The Chair
Q
Dr Renwick: I am Alan Renwick from the constitution unit at University College London and I lead our work on elections and referendums, and some of our recent work on the structure and functioning of the Union.
Cat Smith
Q
Dr Renwick: The principle for a good electoral commission is that it should be independent from the Government. The details of how that works in countries around the world depend a great deal on political culture; it is not just a matter of institutions. I would not attempt to draw a tight parallel between how things work in other countries and how things should work in this country. For example, some countries might have a procedure for appointing members of an electoral commission that might look quite political on the surface, but in practice, given the conventions in that country, it may be properly neutral and protect the commission’s independence. The key thing is how to ensure the independence of the Electoral Commission, alongside the appropriate accountability, in the context of the UK. I am afraid that the Bill’s proposals seem wholly contrary to the principle of independence of the commission.
Independence and accountability matter. It is absolutely right that there should be parliamentary accountability, and there is already a great deal of it. The Electoral Commission is, of course, accountable to the Speaker’s Committee; the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee scrutinises the commission’s work a great deal; and it is also accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. I do not think that there is a deficit of accountability of the commission at present.
As for independence, I think that it requires, quite simply, that Parliament lay out the remit of the Electoral Commission, and that must happen through primary legislation, so that Parliament can properly scrutinise and amend that remit. It is not a matter that is written in Government and subject to much more limited parliamentary scrutiny or opportunity for amendment. Parliament should lay down the remit for the commission, which should then get on with delivering that—subject to appropriate scrutiny, as already exists. The idea of having an additional strategy and policy statement written by Ministers, without the appropriate degree of scrutiny, flies in the face of the principle of independence, and therefore seems to be wholly inappropriate.
Cat Smith
Q
Dr Renwick: It could potentially create very great tensions. The proposal would clearly require a legislative consent motion in order to be compatible with the Sewel convention. The Counsel General—the Minister in the Welsh Government—has already indicated that he does not recommend that a legislative consent motion be passed on this matter, and I presume the Scottish Parliament will do the same.
This part of the Bill envisages that Ministers in the UK Government, subject to affirmative procedure, would be able to specify guidelines for devolved matters and that Scottish and Welsh Ministers would only be consulted—and, indeed, would only potentially be notified—in the case of amendments to the statement. That seems wholly contrary to the principles of devolution that have been established, and I cannot see any justification for it. The Sewel convention indicates that Westminster will normally not legislate in matters that have been devolved. There is nothing abnormal here, there is nothing unusual and nothing has changed since these matters were devolved to Scotland and Wales—those devolution changes did not take place very long ago—so it seems very problematic.
That also heightens an issue that already exists with the governance of the Electoral Commission: the commissioners themselves are all appointed on the recommendation of the House of Commons, and that on the recommendation of the Speaker’s Committee. The Speaker’s Committee has, in recent appointments of commissioners with responsibility for Scotland and Wales, either consulted the Presiding Officer or the Llywydd, or included a representative of those people in the committee responsible for shortlisting, but that has been entirely at its discretion.
There is a need to review the arrangements for governance of the Electoral Commission in light of the recent devolutions of electoral matters in those areas. The last serious review of this question, conducted by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2007, said at that time that the current governance arrangements were appropriate because those matters were not devolved. These matters have been devolved now, and therefore there is a need for a review.
My impression is that this point has not been thought about terribly much. I do not detect that either the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government have done much detailed thinking on this, but some consideration is needed of how to ensure that the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd are properly represented in these processes.
One final point I should make in this area is one that has been made by others: the fact that the Speaker’s Committee has a majority from a single party is simply indefensible against the principle of independence of electoral processes. That has never happened before—it did not happen when there were large majorities for Governments in the early 2000s; at that time there was no majority for that party in the Speaker’s Committee—but it has been allowed to happen now, which suggests that conventional constraints on the improper exercise of power are not working, to be honest. Legislative action is needed to ensure that there is never a single party majority on the Speaker’s Committee.
Chloe Smith
Q
Dr Renwick: I am not a lawyer, so I wondered when I looked at those words exactly what they meant, but if they mean what you have described them as meaning, they do not trouble me. It was always the intent of the PPERA legislation passed in 2000 that the Minister with responsibility for elections and the Minister with responsibility for local government should be members of the Speaker’s Committee, and if the change is simply intended to ensure that the Minister who has responsibility for elections can participate, but there are only two Ministers participating, then that change does not seem to me problematic.
Chloe Smith
Q
Dr Renwick: That is absolutely correct. I do not know what went wrong in this case. I cannot see an argument against the view that something has gone wrong in the current composition of the Speaker’s Committee; it is wrong that it has its current composition. If you look at the 2007 Committee on Standards in Public Life report, there is a quotation from evidence provided by the Speaker’s Committee saying that the convention has been applied and that the Speaker’s appointments will be made such that there is no single party majority. That convention was understood in 2007, and the CSPL at the time recommended that it should be formalised. This has not taken place. Somehow, things went awry at the start of the present Parliament, and I do not know what happened or what went wrong. However, given that it has gone wrong, legislative change is now needed to ensure that it does not go wrong again.
Chloe Smith
Q
Dr Renwick: I would suggest simply a stipulation that that power be exercised subject to the constraint that there shall never be a majority of MPs from any one party within the membership of the committee.
Chloe Smith
Q
Your points about the Sewel convention were interesting. I wanted to have your written evidence in front of us, as well as what you have just said. In your written evidence you say the proposed strategy and policy statement violates the Sewel convention. Your words just now were accurate in saying that the Sewel convention says that this House will not normally legislate for affairs that are devolved without consent. You have clarified in your words here today that it is the existence or otherwise of an LCM that would violate the Sewel convention. For absolute clarity, can you confirm that the strategy and policy statement does not, in its own right, violate the Sewel convention, but instead, the behaviour and procedure around it is where you direct those comments?
Dr Renwick: I intentionally changed my comments because what I wrote in my evidence was somewhat inaccurate. What I should have said was, if there is no legislative consent motion on this aspect of the Bill, then the inclusion of the strategy and policy statement as currently set out would violate the Sewel convention. It seems very likely that there will not be a legislative consent motion; that was the presumption I was making, but it was a presumption that I should not have made without clarification.
Chloe Smith
Q
Dr Renwick: Absolutely. The Welsh Minister in his legislative consent memorandum indicates that he is in conversation with you, which I am very glad to hear, and I hope you will take your normal constructive approach in seeking a solution to this issue.
Chloe Smith
Q
Dr Renwick: It would be subject to much less scrutiny than primary legislation and it would not be amendable. As far as possible in this area, the principle should be applied that the rules are made in a reasonably consensual cross-party manner. I realise that is very difficult and it is not guaranteed by the primary legislative process, but at least there is a process for proper scrutiny and discussion of the proposals in a cross-party forum. The procedures around the strategies, policies and statements that are indicated in the Bill do not enable that degree of scrutiny, which I think is simply not appropriate.
Chloe Smith
Q
Dr Renwick: There is the kind of detailed scrutiny that we are having today, for example, in which there is an opportunity for detailed discussion of the proposals to take place. Also, of course, part of what we are doing here today is bringing in the views of a variety of people from beyond Parliament as well. It is essential that the processes of accountability for the Electoral Commission should be both cross-party and non-party. Those two features are essential for ensuring that electoral integrity is maintained for the simple reason that, as a member of the Committee alluded to earlier this afternoon, however wonderful MPs are—I have great respect for MPs; I know some of you on the Committee and I genuinely think you are great people—you have a vested interest in these issues. We are talking about a body that regulates some of the activities of MPs. In that context, it is essential to ensure there is a process that brings in voices from outside Parliament, and the primary legislative process allows that to a much greater degree than does a simple affirmative resolution.
Chloe Smith
Q
Dr Renwick: Yes. The changes introduced in 2009 with the introduction of party members of the Electoral Commission was a desirable step in ensuring that all voices are properly represented in the governance of the Electoral Commission, and those structures are not changed. As I have indicated, in some respects the governance structures need to be changed, particularly regarding the composition of the Speaker’s Committee and the question of how we reflect the devolved arrangements, but yes, I agree that the arrangements you mentioned are not changed.
Chloe Smith
Thank you, Alan. As always, it is good to debate with you and really good to have your expertise.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Q
Dr Renwick: No, I was not. I would not expect to have been aware necessarily of all the consultations that might have taken place, but I do not recall being aware of the proposals before they were announced by the Minister in June. To be honest, that is problematic. I have expressed concerns about the substance of the proposals, but procedurally there is a difficulty here as well because of the point that I have already alluded to. With the best will in the world, and with full respect to you as MPs, the fact that you have a vested interest in this issue means that it is incumbent upon you to proceed with particular care when you are thinking about electoral matters generally, and particularly the governance of the Electoral Commission.
I think the procedure that ought to be followed in such a case is that there is an independent review before any recommendation such as those that have been introduced here are put forward. That was the case in 2000; the introduction of the Electoral Commission stemmed, if I remember correctly, from the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The changes in 2009, introducing, among other things, the partisan commissioners, reflected recommendations made in, if I remember correctly, the Eleventh Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. There has been no comparable process in this case. I do not think that that is an appropriate way to introduce significant changes in the governance of the Electoral Commission.
Brendan O'Hara
Q
Dr Renwick: I do not think it is for me to speculate on that to be honest. I regret that it has happened in this way. I have great respect for the Minister, and I hope that there may be scope for reconsideration of some of these aspects. For example, as you will all be aware, the CSPL published a report just two days after the Bill was published on the regulation of election finance, which of course is part of what the Bill covers. I would very much hope that the Government have been considering the recommendations made in that report, and might introduce amendments to take account of many of them. I thought it was an excellent report. I hope that there is scope to change elements of the Bill in order to reflect the views that have been heard since its publication, because I do think that steps up to that point were too hasty.
Brendan O'Hara
Q
Dr Renwick: The main point is that the governance of the Electoral Commission should stand up to proper scrutiny, and should be appropriately independent. Frankly, I am not sure whether it has much impact on public perceptions. I suspect that most people have higher priorities in mind. Certainly, the measures diminish the integrity of the electoral process, or will do if introduced, and that ought to be regretted. Quite what effect that has on public opinion as such, who knows?
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, thank you, Dr Renwick, for your evidence. It is much appreciated. The Committee will next meet at 9.25 am on Wednesday 22 September to begin clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(David Rutley.)
Health and Care Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 16th September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 September 2021 - (16 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are going to continue with schedule 2. I call Alex Norris to move amendment 34.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 34, in schedule 2, page 120, line 26, at end insert—
“(2C) The constitution must require integrated care boards, and any committee or sub-committee of the board, to meet in public and publish all papers and agendas at least 5 working days before each meeting is held.”
This amendment mandates integrated care boards, and their sub-committees including “place based committees” to meet in public and publish all papers and agendas at least five working days before each meeting is held.
It is a pleasure to resume proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. This is a resumption of our discussion on schedule 2, which lays out the rules under which integrated care boards must meet. For all the talk of local flexibility, the reality is that the regulations are quite tight in schedule 2; the amendment seeks to tighten them a little more, but not disproportionately so.
The amendment asks for two things: first, that the boards meet in public, and, secondly, that they publish their papers five days in advance. To start with meeting in public, it has been mentioned on a number of occasions that the 42 different integrated care boards are in different states of development. There will be systems that are well advanced and model good behaviours of transparency and accountability, but we have to set regulations to ensure a minimum floor standard, and this is what the amendment does.
For a struggling system, the worst-case scenario, as we have said before, is that it can become a closed shop of leadership appointed centrally by NHS England and the leaders of the big acute trusts, because it is they who have the power and the resources. We cannot legislate to improve the culture of those systems—that is not what legislation does—but we can ensure proper oversight to try to minimise the risk, and meeting in public is a good way to do that. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as they say, and this will mean that the public have a good sense of what decisions are being taken in their interests.
A key part of that citizen oversight is to know what decisions are being taken and when. Including a provision in the constitution to publish papers with five working days’ notice seems a good way to do that. I would argue that that represents rather basic good governance, so it is a very low bar to clear. We have spoken before about wanting to allow integrated care boards to be able to vary to fit their local circumstances, but I cannot see under what circumstances it would be desirable or relevant to vary the publication of that information. I do not think there are any local circumstances that would call for that. The requirement would mean that members of the public, elected representatives and those who represent staff or anyone with a general interest would understand what is going to be decided and when, and would give them the opportunity to make representations so that the board members are making decisions in the full knowledge of the facts and the views of the broader system.
In the amendment, that requirement also applies to all committees or sub-committees. This matters, because we heard in the evidence sessions that it is almost inevitable that every system will want to establish sub-committees, both thematic—we heard from the system in Gloucestershire about its primary-care themed one, which I thought was a very desirable way to use a sub-committee—or, inevitably, given what we have said about the size of the footprints of some of the integrated care boards, place-based. It is important that the provision applies to those bodies too.
The question matters even more to the integrated care partnership and its status, and I hope the Minister will be able to address it. My reading of clause 20 and proposed new section 116ZA of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 states that this is a committee of the integrated care board and the local authority. I would argue that that remains an oddity, because the process was pitched to us on the idea that we have an integrated care board that will be the official NHS fund-holding body, but then we have the integrated care partnership that will provide the broader involvement on an equivalent basis, not as a sub-committee. I hope that point can be addressed, but nevertheless it will be important for that body that the public know what is being discussed and when. We will come back to clause 20, but the commitment from the Government that the meetings and papers should be public is a good thing.
Conceptually, the amendment lands the ICB and any sub-committees at about the level of an executive board of a council. That to me feels about right. The Minister may have reflections about circumstances where, by exception, the boards may need to meet in private for certain decisions, as local authorities would do. There are ways to do that for councils, so I do not think it is beyond our wit to do the same for these bodies, too. As a default, the basic principle of public meetings, with papers published five working days in advance, seems sound.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I offer my support to my hon. Friend and agree with everything he said. There may be a response from the Minister, although I do not know what he will say, but there is some discussion that perhaps the amendment is not necessary, as this already happens and the Bill refers to publishing—but that is not true. There are exemplar trusts and bodies across the country that have a culture of openness, but NHS boards are secretive and protected.
We have numerous examples of whistleblowing and good journalism uncovering the depths of NHS bureaucracy. Boards with which I have dealings, not just locally in Bristol, do a lot out of the public eye, and a culture of not liking scrutiny has evolved over a couple of decades, even though they should be really proud that people are taking an interest. We need to change that culture, and having a reference in the Bill would help.
Trade union colleagues have often come to me to complain about how they are blocked from getting key information about plans for changes. Changes are announced, and management often want to start TUPE discussions without really understanding what is behind the change. The use of freedom of information requests results in variations across the country in who responds and how they respond. That needs to stop.
The default should be to make things public unless there are reasons not to. I was a non-executive director back in the noughties, and was led by a chair who had come from local authorities—a Labour chair, but I do not think that matters. People who were used to chairing in local authorities found it quite peculiar that the NHS wanted to discuss matters in secret. As a board, we made it the case and culture that managers had to say if there was a really clear reason, and on several occasions we challenged why things were not done properly.
The new NHS is not commercial. The Government tell us that we are not quite getting rid of the purchaser-provider split, but we are moving away from competition as the driver of the health service. The confidentiality argument should be disappearing. I hope that the Minister accepts that the very highest standards now need to be set around openness and transparency and need actually to be enforced. All levels of the NHS and all these committees and sub-committees, however we end up organising them, have to be cognisant of the Nolan principles, which should drive all their work.
If a trust is finally forced by a tribunal to disclose information, it should have been provided earlier. There should be consequences. Where there is a bad culture, we need to change it. To reference my hobby-horse, there should be a business case to support every major decision. Later we will discuss my new clause 7, which comes from the pain I have experienced trying to unearth business cases, particularly in wholly owned companies and subsidiaries, to deliver facilities management. I have asked for business cases only to be told, “No, it is confidential.” There should be no need for it to be confidential at all. I do not understand how a business case can be confidential—at best, a few lines might be sensitive, but not a full business case.
That shows that NHS bodies who fear a change think they have something to hide. It is wholly wrong. If a change is proposed, the case for change should be published. We need to know why it is necessary. I would go further; I would publish all details of the tender process and the contract management. If anyone wants to do business with the NHS, which we welcome, they need to be open and transparent. It really is a test of the intention to change course and move to an integrated, collaborative model, because as we exit the market, we need to be make sure that the wellbeing of the public and the patient really comes first in commissioning. As I say, that culture needs to be changed.
To come back to my theme, ICBs need to be the bodies that the public recognise and understand as being where some sort of accountability resides. That means that nothing should be secret. Let us go further: the public has the right to question. That is what we come back to. There has to be a figurehead—ideally an elected figurehead —or non-executive directors who can be truly independent and challenge that secretive culture. I hope the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, and to the hon. Member for Bristol South for their amendment, and for their comments on it. As the shadow Minister set out, it would require ICBs and their subcommittees to meet in public, including place-based committees. To address one of his specific points, if I understood what he was saying, I think he does interpret it correctly: the ICP is a committee of the ICB, albeit a joint committee with a whole range of other organisations. I would expect the same principles to apply to it as to the ICB, and I will go through those in a second. The amendment would also require all papers and agendas relevant to those meetings to be published
“at least 5 working days before each meeting is held.”
We agree with the shadow Minister that it is right that ICBs involve the public in their decisions, and do so in a transparent and clear way. I hope that I can offer him some reassurances that the Bill already provides much of what he is asking for. Like a number of hon. Members, I served on a primary care trust board as a non-executive director, back in the days when I had more hair and it was not grey—although that might have been just a day ago, before reshuffle speculation—and I take the point that the hon. Member for Bristol South has made. We sought to be as transparent as possible, but there were occasions on which total openness to the public about consideration of certain items would not have been appropriate. I will come to those in a second.
In terms of what is already provided for, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 already places on such bodies a set of requirements to involve the public in meetings that is very similar to those in the amendment, and I suspect that Act was part of the genesis of the shadow Minister’s thinking. The Act requires meetings to be held in public, for the public to be made aware of the time and place of the meeting, and for the agenda to be published, alongside any reports or documents relevant to the agenda items. ICBs have already been included in the Act by the consequential amendments in schedule 4 to this Bill, and we may want to connect that loop up when we reach schedule 4, hopefully later today—I believe that is the intention. By using that legislation, we keep ICBs in line with the requirements placed on other public bodies, meaning that there is consistency across public bodies and they are held to the same standards.
I hope I can give some further reassurances that there are broad duties on integrated care boards to involve the public in the decision-making process, over and above those contained in the Act. Clause 19, which inserts proposed new section 14Z44 into the National Health Service Act 2006, places a duty on integrated care boards to involve and consult the public in the planning of commissioning arrangements, including in respect of any planned changes to those commissioning arrangements. This will ensure that the voices of residents —those who access care and support, as well as their carers—are properly embedded in ICB decision making.
Schedule 2 to this Bill, which concerns the constitutions of integrated care boards and which we will reach shortly, states that ICB constitutions must specify how the ICB plans to discharge its duty to involve and consult the public. Moreover, those constitutions must specify the arrangements that the ICB will make to ensure that there is transparency in its decision making, and NHS England will ensure that all proposed constitutions are appropriate and include the relevant provisions to meet those obligations. Under clause 13, which inserts proposed new section 14Z25 into the 2006 Act, NHS England will need to approve the constitution when making an establishment order, and proposed new section 14Z26 makes it clear that NHS England has the power to reject a proposed constitution if it does not meet the appropriate bar.
Turning to a few specific points made by the hon. Member for Bristol South, we are still clear that competition has a role to play in this space: it is about proportionality, and seeking to achieve a better and more proportionate balance in that respect. She rightly asked about the examples of circumstances whereby it might not be appropriate to be fully transparent. I was on a primary care trust board some years ago, and there were occasions when the board would discuss specific incidents or situations that could lead to the identification of an individual or a group of individuals. Clearly, such matters would be confidential. Similarly, matters that were due to be, or were, before the courts were discussed on occasions—again, we would expect that to be confidential.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. I completely agree that where we will see the worst practices across footprints, each and every one will be secretive and not invite scrutiny, so it is very important that we set arrangements to ensure that that cannot happen.
I am grateful for the clarification that the 1960 Act will apply, which assuages my first concern. On the second, relating to the notice of board papers, the Minister has essentially said that local footprints will have to set that element of the constitution themselves, but that the safeguards and schedules will mean that NHS England has to sign them off. In that sense, there cannot be wide divergence, because the centre would not permit it. I reiterate that there should be commonality. I cannot see why it would be seven days in one place and five days in another. I do not know how we could explain that, so I hope that in those conversations the Minister stresses the need for uniformity. Perhaps the guidance might include strong encouragement on that. On the basis of the agreement that we have in principle, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 43, in schedule 2, page 123, line 2, at end insert—
“(5) An integrated care board must apply all relevant collective agreements for staff pay, conditions and pensions.
(6) An integrated care board must ensure that all relevant collective agreements for staff pay, conditions and pensions are applied throughout the area for which it is responsible.
(7) Any integrated care board which wishes to employ anyone directly on an annual salary greater than £161,401 must receive approval from their integrated care partnership before confirming the appointment.”
This amendment puts into primary legislation the current practice that NHS bodies honour collective agreements over staff pay and conditions and gives the integrated care board a role in ensuring this remains the case.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I would like to say that it is a pleasure to see the Minister, although when I saw the headline that two Ministers from the Department had been promoted to the Cabinet, I had expected that he would be among them—alas, not on this occasion. I am sure it is only a matter of time. Of course, if the Minister and other Members on the Government side want to keep their phones on in case a call comes through, we will not be offended if they have to pop out for a couple of minutes. I hope the Minister’s rush of blood and damascene conversion to the perils of privatisation at the end of the sitting on Tuesday have not blotted his copybook too much.
I turn to amendment 43, which plays into several points that have come up in the evidence sessions, particularly the anxiety that was mentioned by Sarah Gorton of Unison in her evidence to the Committee last week. She said that she wanted to see in the legislation confirmation of assurances that have been given verbally and in guidance. She referred to conversations that she had had—I am not sure with whom, but I assume with officials in the Department. Those conversations were to the effect that there was
“no intention for any new parts of the system to undermine the collective arrangements”.––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 96, Q129.]
and that the “Agenda for Change” agreement would continue to apply across the board and, indeed, to ICB staff. That is an important matter to seek assurance on. Anyone who has been involved in “Agenda for Change” will know that years of hard, torturous work were involved in getting that agreed. Certainly, on this side, we know the value of the staff and their trade union representatives, and the importance that collective agreements have in bringing issues to the fore and ensuring a universality in treatment and a common understanding of the basis on which the employer and employee move forward.
Of course, whatever the collective agreements say, the staff would like to be offered increases that actually keep pace with the cost of living, rather than the real-terms cuts that we have seen in the last decade. However, as an overall framework for ensuring staff are treated fairly and consistently, it is certainly not something that we want to be chipped away at.
I will not try to persuade the Minister of the benefits of collective agreements across other sectors—it would be well outside the scope of the Bill—but it is worth pointing out that there is plenty of evidence from across the world showing that where workforces have negotiated terms and conditions within sectors and across whole industries, they tend to enjoy better terms and conditions and, crucially, better rates of workplace satisfaction and staff retention. As highlighted in the report recently published by the Health and Social Care Committee, the NHS faces an enormous challenge in retaining its workforce.
We do not want anything to undermine “Agenda for Change”. Sadly, though, we have seen attempts to do that in recent years, with the creation of wholly-owned subsidiary companies. I will not return to the argument about whether those are a good thing, because we have said that they are not, but let us examine for a moment why trusts sometimes seem eager to set these companies up.
There are, of course, huge financial pressures on trusts. I will not rehearse the arguments on that, but they are always looking at ways to reduce their costs, and potentially with these subcos to boost their income. The VAT advantages have been a big part of that, but one of the big concerns—cash-pressed trusts may see this as a big opportunity—is that the subcos potentially have the ability to move away from “Agenda for Change”. That is the heart of it; it is not that the trusts have a major objection to “Agenda for Change”, but moving away from it allows them to set their own terms and conditions, which is really a euphemism for saving money and cutting pay. We think that that kind of approach is a false economy and, ultimately, self-defeating.
There are other examples of where the private sector will step in. We saw the news this week that King’s College Hospital Foundation Trust will transfer staff at its urgent treatment centre in Denmark Hill to Greenbrook Healthcare under a three-year contract, starting in October. Of course, staff will expect TUPE to apply, but, as we know, it is not a panacea. It does not protect terms and conditions for ever more, so it is little wonder that the news of that change has led the workforce to raise concerns.
Unison’s written evidence sought clarification from the Minister that
“it’s not the intention that ICBs depart from Agenda for Change”,
which the Minister gave on Second Reading. The written evidence also states that
“UNISON would support amendments to ensure that ICBs will apply the relevant collective agreements for staff pay, conditions and pensions, and be responsible for ensuring that these are applied within the wider system. In addition, further reassurances should be sought that nothing in the Bill will compromise the assurances already given in the Employment Commitment, the terms of which should endure beyond the point of staff transfer.”
The evidence continues:
“Recently published guidance lists 10 ‘outcome-based people functions’”—
perhaps that phrase could be translated into plain English at some point—
“that ICSs will be expected to deliver from April 2022… In addition, the guidance suggests that the responsibility for engaging with trade unions will rest with the regional teams of NHS England / Improvement rather than with ICBs”.
That runs the risk of depriving unions of access to those who might be making strategic decisions in their area—or perhaps it just speaks to a larger truth about where power will lie in all this. We have covered those concerns in our amendment to some extent, but we would like reassurance from the Minister on some of the points we have raised about how this will all work in practice.
In particular, we need reassurance that the system will not undermine existing provider responsibilities on engaging with trade unions. As hon. Members will know, the vast majority of NHS staff will not be employed in commissioning bodies such as ICBs. The strong relationships with individual provider organisations should be a supplement to existing national and regional partnership forums. The concern is that the new kids on the block, the ICBs, will in some way disrupt those arrangements.
If, as we are told, the new ICSs—to use the correct terminology—will be system leaders themselves, it is not impossible that some of those leaders will want to set their own path in tweaking employment matters. We might see circumstances in which some agreement about staff mobility within ICSs comes to the fore, particularly for those whose duties cross organisational boundaries. In principle, that is no problem, as long as no ICB thinks that, as a result, it can move outside existing collective agreements. Our amendment would rule that out.
It is essential that ICBs have a positive role in all this and that they follow existing practice by referring to collective agreements. We would not want a re-emergence of what we saw some five years ago, with certain trusts trying to undermine collective terms and conditions. Those attempts failed, but we never know when that might re-emerge. We also believe that the ICB should honour national agreements for the staff it employs.
That should not need to be said—as we have heard, assurances have been given—but it needs to be made explicit in the Bill to give us the cast-iron lock that both we and Unison would like. We would certainly like some further assurances about whether the ICBs have the potential to circumvent or destabilise existing arrangements, should they seek to forge their own path at some point. We see this amendment as bolstering the commitment to “Agenda for Change”—I hope that the Minister will confirm that commitment when he responds —so that ICBs’ broad powers are not seen as an attempt to undermine or conflict with the hard-won terms and conditions that have been collectively agreed.
Turning to sub-paragraph (7) in the amendment, which relates to pay limits, hon. Members will have seen headlines in the paper, on Tuesday, I think, about the highest-paid NHS managers being “cleared out”; I think that was the term that was used. I am not quite sure what that means, other than redundancy. The story refers to a Government-inspired audit, which was—at least on Tuesday—going to be led by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who has since moved on to other matters. That is a shame, because he used to hold the same role as the Minister does now, and he would know exactly where to look if there were indeed examples of unnecessary management and bureaucracy in the NHS.
That news follows the headlines we saw last week about some ICB executives potentially receiving salaries of £270,000. Let us be clear what we are talking about here: that is the pay of 10 nurses. It seems that someone somewhere in Government is exercised about the number of managers in the NHS, but according to the King’s Fund, the actual figure is somewhere below 5%, and many of those managers hold dual clinical roles. If the Government think there is a problem here, I am not entirely clear what they think the scale of it is, or what the consequences would be if thousands of managers in the NHS were made redundant. I am sure that was not covered in the impact assessment, but we have the benefit of that now.
To be clear, the amendment is not about bashing managers at all. Every organisation needs managers if it is to be effective, and they play an important role in enabling clinicians to get on and do their jobs on the frontline. I am sure the Minister would not want to leave managers in the NHS with the impression that has unfortunately been left by some of the headlines this week, namely that there is no role for managers in the NHS. One could be forgiven for concluding that from Tuesday’s headlines. If the Government think layers of management, bureaucracy or management costs have got out of control, we can do something about it.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for his remarks on the amendment. I echo some of his comments, which we covered on Tuesday in Committee in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bristol South. Members on both sides of the Committee made clear our recognition of the value we place on those who work in the NHS, irrespective of whether they are managers, in clinical roles or in any other role. In our exchanges, we recognised the centrality of having good, high-calibre managers for what we all know is a huge system.
Amendment 43 would have two effects. First, it would require ICBs to apply to their staff all relevant collectively agreed terms on pay, conditions and pensions. Secondly, it introduces new rules for oversight of pay for the most senior ICB staff. The Government and the NHS remain committed to the principle of “Agenda for Change”. If it gives the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston further reassurance, I am happy to write to him, because this is a detailed point and I suspect he may wish to have something in black and white that sets out exactly our position on this. We recognise—he alluded to this—that there is a need for a degree of flexibility in some circumstances. He talked about people moving between roles, secondments and so on. I will turn to that in a moment before turning to the point about pay.
There is already a commitment in the ICS HR framework technical guidance that staff transferring into ICBs will transfer across on their current terms and conditions, in line with the “NHS Terms and Conditions of Service Handbook” requirements. The commitment states that NHS pension rights will be preserved, as the individual will continue to be employed within the NHS, ensuring that staff transferring into ICBs will benefit from that protection and will not see any change to their existing conditions. Furthermore, we would expect ICBs to use the nationally agreed pay and conditions framework for the overwhelming majority of the time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some flexibility, and he was right to do so. There may be circumstances in which an ICB needs flexibility to recruit staff, to attract staff with very unusual or valuable skills, or to reflect local circumstances and the availability of certain staff. Therefore, an ICB may need to vary the terms and conditions in order to make a post attractive if the marketplace is very competitive. Equally, the Bill provides valuable flexibility—for example, in order to allow ICBs to employ on secondment staff who have previously been employed by a foundation trust or local authority. Given the emphasis that the Bill places on systems working collectively and sharing staff, that is a useful flexibility. I would argue that such flexibilities are not unique, because NHS foundation trusts also have a degree of discretion in adopting such conditions, although they overwhelmingly choose to honour and keep the existing terms and conditions.
If I recall correctly, the hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the view on the involvement of unions and staff where there was divergence or flexibility. I would hope that where there was any divergence or a need for flexibility, that would be addressed collaboratively. Ideally, there should be consent from those working in the organisation as well.
I turn to the proposals for very senior managers. I believe that procedures are already in place to ensure that the most senior staff within the NHS are appointed with fair and equitable salaries, and proposals to pay very senior staff more than £150,000 a year must follow benchmarks or be subject to ministerial oversight. Ministerial oversight of salaries higher than £150,000 a year has been effective in managing the risk of salary escalations, and it provides for a national outlook across the public sector.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire, who is now the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I do not think there is any inconsistency in what my right hon. Friend envisaged with the review. That should not be interpreted as a criticism or an attack on hard-working staff, but given the amount of money that is spent in our NHS on salaries at all levels, it is right that from time to time the Government look at that, review it and reassure themselves that the appropriate balance is being struck between fair remuneration for the work that is being done and value for taxpayers. I do not think I would read any more than that into it; it is simply the Government and Treasury being responsible with public money.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will be aware that the Government are in the process of finalising the system for pay oversight that will apply to ICBs. Although the specifics may differ, the effect and intention will be the same: to afford ICBs a degree of agency and flexibility, so that we can continue to attract the most senior and experienced leaders, while also ensuring that we put adequate checks and balances in place to ensure that public money is well spent. Therefore, I would argue that the amendment is unnecessary. Once again, I gently encourage the hon. Gentleman to consider not pressing the amendment to a Division.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but I fear that I will disappoint him on this occasion. He mentioned the flexibilities that already exist, which we do not seek to change. I do not see anything in the amendment that would alter those. We have had a very clear commitment, and he has mentioned the guidance. Indeed, he may write to me—
Justin Madders
As he does regularly. I write to him regularly, too. He mentioned the importance of having this in black and white, and that is where we agree. We do need this in black and white, and the place for that to be is in the Bill, so we will press the amendment to a Division. I understand what he has said about ministerial oversight of ICB salaries, but if these bodies are to be locally run and accountable, we think the amendment would be entirely consistent with that aim.
Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
Karin Smyth
I beg to move amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 124, line 14, at end insert—
“(7) An integrated care board may enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility and receive the income related to that agreement.
(8) An integrated care board may enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any proposed Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility.”
This amendment would enable integrated care boards to participate in existing and future LIFT schemes and to receive the income that would come to the local area from the local investment in such schemes.
I assure the Minister that this as a probing amendment, and I will not seek to divide the Committee, but it is an important issue. The local infrastructure finance trust transformed the primary and community based services in large parts of the country, and certainly in Bristol, over the noughties. In my constituency, there is a very large general practice community base, as well as South Bristol Community Hospital with the long-campaigned for urgent care centre and several rehabilitation and prevention beds used by the community trust out-patients. However, they have all hit problems in the last decade and have not really fulfilled their potential within the system, largely because many of them came on stream at the time of the Lansley Act and the abolition of primary care trusts.
The management of estates generally is something I have spent a lot of time unravelling. There is nobody locally spearheading them, really understanding the different, sometimes complicated, relationships within them and making them fulfil their potential, in terms of both delivering services locally and the financial model. There has been a lot of buck-passing locally about who is responsible for developing those things, and that is particularly true of my local community hospital.
My concern is that the wording in the Bill around “externally financed development agreements” is the same as was applied to clinical commissioning groups after the Lansley Act. The Bill also does not deal with NHS Property Services or community health partnerships, which are outwith the Bill. I wonder how these local ICBs are going to manage capital and estates development with the inherited part of that architecture. We will come later to the management of capital to develop the estate.
My concern is around how we get capital investment into primary and community care. In our evidence session, we asked the new chief executive how she saw this happening. I appreciate that we talked about large hospitals, even though we do not seem to know what a hospital is these days, but my point was really about community services. Ms Pritchard said that development would happen through
“the existing capital allocation processes… Rather than just going to each individual organisation to then make their own decisions about how they spend it, it would now go through the ICB, so there is a process that allows consideration in the round of how the system spends that money most effectively on behalf of its entire population.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 21, Q25.]
We will have some discussions around further clauses about the treatment of capital, but they do not really allow for the principles around the Local Improvement Finance Trust and primary care to develop. How do we get this investment into primary and community care? What is the Government’s view on the LIFT model?
Justin Madders
Particularly in light of the changes that have been made with covid, one thing that has cropped up locally is that a lot of GP practices—they are basically converted houses—simply are not designed with the ventilation or space to ensure there is a safe distance between people. That points to the importance of this issue and the need for clarity on how we get these estates into a state that is fit to deal with covid.
Karin Smyth
I agree, and we will probably all have examples through the primary care networks of practices that were not in old houses but that had perhaps had a LIFT scheme or another new development. In my constituency, the Bridge View Medical practice was able to have a flow through the building and move patients downstairs because it had a large, fairly new building. The pandemic has shown that in an emergency we need to make sure that the community-based estate is brought together in some way. Actually, that applies not just to the health service, but to ex-local authority or even Ministry of Defence or other Government Department estates. The place-based aspect of the Bill should be encouraging people to do that locally. Because estates are not part of it, they will struggle to deliver on the service intent of the Bill.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on amendment 17 and the insight that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South brings from her long period of working in the NHS. What is at the crux of this point is quite important. We have spoken quite a lot about integrated care and revenue, but the capital component is as important, so I am glad we have the opportunity to discuss it.
I have great affection for the Bulwell Riverside facility in my community, which co-locates two GP surgeries, community services and pharmacy services with local authority neighbourhood services, the local library and youth services. Pre-covid, I and the local councillors would be there every week for an event. Every year, my annual jobs fair is there—it is today, but we are not inside because of covid, so it is out in the marketplace. If any of my constituents are watching, we are there until 2.30 pm.
That joint service centre has driven a culture of integration and collaboration, exactly in the spirit of everything we have been discussing on the Bill. It is a very practical example of integration in practice. It was funded on the LIFT model because, at that point, more than a decade ago, that was the way to get money into the system. The logical consequences on the ground of the legislative direction that we are told is intended here will be more need for this sort of joint service centre model. We need to give that proper consideration.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, this element is one of the few bits of the 2012 Act that is not being removed to take us back to pre-2012 status. Then, primary care trusts could enter into these arrangements locally, whereas their successors, clinical commissioning groups, could not and, at the moment, the successor ICBs cannot either. The amendment would remedy that.
Why is that provision not being added back in? It looks a bit like a wheeze. Originally, PCTs would have had a 40% stake in the arrangements and would have benefited exactly as my hon. Friend said. Now, that stake is owned by community health partnerships. Who owns 100% of community health partnerships? That is the Department of Health and Social Care. It is not that nobody benefits from these arrangements—it is that the Department does, rather than local communities. We are told this Bill is about localisation and devolving resources and powers to local communities, so why on earth is this bit not going back in? It is definitely a point of interest, particularly with existing LIFT models.
On LIFT models, it may be that the Government do not think that they are in vogue now or that they are the right model. I would be interested to hear what other methods the Minister might prefer.
How to get capital back into the system is a significant point. The NHS backlog is now £17 billion, as the bill for austerity becomes due, so we will have to address it by one means or another. If that is not to be done through this system, I am keen to hear from the Minister how it is to be addressed.
Edward Argar
It is right that we discuss this point today, because while the focus of the media is often on the 40 new hospitals being built—a very clear and understandable definition; I am sure any reasonable person could recognise a new hospital—we do not talk as often as we should in this place about primary care. It is often neglected in discussions, debates and headlines. It is right that we are talking about it today.
On the shadow Minister’s point about CHPs and similar, the Department exists to further the health of the population and to support local communities. There is a wonderful synergy in those objectives and outcomes.
I will turn to the substance of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol South who, on this as on many things, knows of what she speaks, with her depth of experience in this space—I always tread slightly warily when responding to her challenges. As she alluded to, the amendment would allow an integrated care board to enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility, and to receive the income from that agreement.
We believe that the amendment is unnecessary, as the ability to enter into an externally funded development agreement is already covered by provisions in paragraph 20 of schedule 2. The provisions allow an ICB, which would take the local view of estates and other health matters,
“to enter into externally financed development agreements”
if the agreements are
“certified as such in writing by the Secretary of State.”
Such certification will be considered if
“the purpose or main purpose of the agreement is the provision of services or facilities in connection with the exercise by an ICB of any of its functions, and…a person proposes to make a loan to, or provide any other form of finance for, another party in connection with the agreement.”
We are clear that the wording of the provision would encompass a development agreement entered into with a LIFT company. If included separately in the Bill, as the amendment proposes, there is a risk that the interpretation of paragraph 20 of schedule 2 is that the Bill’s intention is to restrict the use of externally financed development agreements to those that involve taking a shareholding in LIFT companies, which is just one type of project company model that could be used to access private finance. That is why we believe that the amendment introduces a degree of ambiguity that is not currently there.
On the broader points raised by the hon. Lady about who has responsibility for the primary care estate and for investing in and upgrading it, she will be aware that it is a complex picture because of the nature of some GP surgeries—some own their own buildings, others will be in a health hub. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds—we remain ministerial colleagues in the same Department for the moment, but who knows what the future may bring—has done a huge amount of work with primary care to look at those challenges.
The hon. Member for Bristol South talked about hubs, or integration. One of the models being looked at—all the credit must go to my hon. Friend for this work—is the so-called Cavell centres that hon. Members will have read about, which are about looking at how we could have health hubs in town centres, bringing together a whole range of services. They are at an early stage of development, but it would be remiss of me to pass over that point without paying tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in that space.
On LIFTS more broadly, we are not envisaging any changes to existing LIFT company arrangements. They can still be used for the purposes for which they were originally set up. The hon. Lady has kindly indicated that she does not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that I have given her some clarity, particularly on why we think the provisions in paragraph 20 of schedule 2 will cover and continue to allow the arrangements to which she alluded.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, which I will read and understand carefully. We would still like our dividend back; it is an important principle of localism and, dare I say, accountability. We promised people that that is what they were getting. I will continue to pursue the matter in this place, but I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and, as I said, I will not seek to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
The schedule details essential information about how we expect statutory ICBs to function and about the essential criteria that ICB constitutions must fulfil. It sets out that ICB membership must, at a minimum, include a chair, a chief executive, representatives from local NHS trusts and foundation trusts, primary medical service providers and local authorities, known as “ordinary members”.
The chair must be appointed by NHS England and approved by the Secretary of State. The constitution must not provide for anyone other than NHS England to remove the chair from office. The power for NHS England to remove the chair from office must be subject to the Secretary of State’s approval. The chief executive must be appointed by the chair and approved by NHS England.
The ordinary members of the ICB must, at a minimum, include one member jointly nominated by NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts that, as I have alluded to, require services in the area; one member jointly nominated by persons who provide primary medical services within that area; and one member jointly nominated by the local authorities within the ICB area.
Justin Madders
We will not divide the Committee on the schedule but as we have batted quite a lot of this about for a couple of days, it is worth reiterating some of our concerns in relation to how ICBs will actually work in practice.
Taking the Committee through the schedule, in paragraph 4 we have concerns about the chair having to be approved by the Secretary of State and, indeed, under paragraph 5 the chair can be removed by the Secretary of State, which could create tensions and speaks to the reality of how much autonomy these bodies will have. Paragraph 6(2) states:
“constitution must provide that a person is eligible to become or remain the chief executive only if the person is an employee of the integrated care board.”
That stands to reason, but the interim guidance on ICBs for the position of chief executive says that they must be employed or seconded to the ICB. Indeed, the chief finance officer, the director of nursing and the medical director can all be employed or seconded to the ICB, according to that guidance. We think that potentially represents a conflict of interest. It needs clarification, because what is in the Bill does not necessarily sit well with what is in the interim guidance. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify that.
Paragraph 7(1)(a) of the schedule talks about the constitution specifying who should be appointed as ordinary members. Again, the interim guidance helps in providing a list of suggestions regarding ordinary members. It is worth pointing out that, when we totted up all the people the guidance says are the minimum requirement for a board, it comes to 10 people. Although the Bill may say three, the reality is that the guidance says many more. Again, that speaks to the amendment that we tabled on Tuesday about the numbers on the board. The idea that the Bill is permissive is slightly betrayed by the detailed guidance. It depends on what is meant by “permissive”.
One particular mystery is in paragraph 7(3), which says:
“The constitution must set out the process for nominating the ordinary members”.
We know that ICBs will be able to set their own constitutions, approved by NHS England, but how the particular individuals on the boards will emerge still feels rather opaque. Of course, we hope that such things can be done by consensus and agreement. No doubt in the majority of cases they will be, but given the size of some of the areas it will be very difficult sometimes to get a geographical spread that represents the whole area and the various interest groups that constitute an ICB. Of course, diversity may also struggle to be accommodated within that. Such things are all fine and good in the Bill and in the guidance, but I think delivery on the ground will be slightly more difficult to achieve.
Paragraph 8 talks about qualification and tenure for membership of the board. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on whether there is an optimal period of membership of a board. I think I saw two years somewhere in the guidance. I may be mistaken on that, but that seems a little short to me. I wonder whether he has a particular view on that. Paragraph 9 talks about constitutions being required to comply with any regulations that may come forward. Of course, the Bill has a lot of such clauses, where regulations will be produced in due course. I know this is slightly out of his control, but the Bill may not come back to us until much later in the year, if at all this year, depending on how the other place views it. That may mean that we are really down to the wire in terms of any enabling regulations that are needed under the Bill.
Paragraph 10 deals with the terms and conditions—a point that we discussed this morning. Paragraph 14 is quite interesting, because it talks about variation of the constitution, and how that should be done in consultation with NHS England. Indeed, NHS England will retain its own power to vary the constitution. It is important to put on the record that if such steps are taken to change the constitution, it is really important to involve stakeholders, the public, patients and workforce representatives. I hope that the Minister can fill me in on some of the details.
Edward Argar
I will try to address each of the shadow Minister’s points one by one, perhaps not in an entirely fluent way.
The hon. Gentleman asked about what he perceived to be an inconsistency between interim guidance and what is proposed in terms of secondees in similar employment. Actually, under paragraph 18(4) of schedule 2, the legislation allows for secondments to continue for those employed as chief executives. It specifies particular organisations, such as secondments from trusts, other parts of the NHS, such as NHS England, or indeed from the civil service. Given that specification, I do not believe that there is an inconsistency.
The hon. Gentleman touched on interim guidance and how that fits with what the Bill will look like once it is, as I hope, enacted. I would gently remind him that it is interim guidance—the key word being “interim”—to allow the continued evolution of ICSs at the moment, without pre-judging what the House may or may not do in terms of making them statutory. That guidance is there to allow them to continue on their path without having to sit and wait for the deliberations of the House on something that they are empowered to do and are already doing. I do not necessarily see the opacity to which the hon. Gentleman alludes but he may disagree.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about geography and the number of local authorities and other organisations involved. I suspect that he has got in mind his own particular geography of Cheshire and Merseyside and the size of the ICS there. That goes to the heart of why we are being permissive: we are setting out a minimum level, and therefore there is nothing to stop an ICS of that size, if it so chose, at ICB level to have a broader range of people sitting on it and a larger number. Each organisation will be able to judge what it thinks is the appropriate number of people to sit on its board to reflect the need for effective decision-making and effective local and organisational representation to reflect the broad geography of its remit.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the optimal length of service on a board. I have to say in my experience, and I suspect in his from his days in local government, one sees a multitude of approaches in different public bodies. Some tenures are for two years or three years, or two years with a renewal presumed for another two years. I am not sure that there is a clear one size fits all, but there should be principles underpinning it, namely that one does not have someone who joins and never leaves the board, and one has to have the ability to refresh the board to bring in new skills. From my experience of sitting on various boards, including charity boards as a trustee or as a non-executive director, effective organisations need to conduct regular skills audits of their boards, to ask what has changed and what the organisation is lacking in the modern world. As time goes by, one needs different skills and different mixes of people. I would expect ICBs and ICPs to continue to look at what is needed to be at their most effective.
I hope that I have broadly addressed the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s points. The other points were those that he has quite rightly come back to, and which we debated at length when we considered his other amendments and those tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol South. On that basis, I encourage members of the Committee to support the schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 14
People for whom integrated care boards have responsibility
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause requires NHS England to publish rules setting out which people each ICB is responsible for. We intend to recreate as closely as possible the arrangements that currently exist for clinical commissioning groups. However, CCG responsibility is based on a model of GP membership that will no longer exist under the new ICB arrangements.
The clause places a duty on NHS England to publish rules determining the responsibility of each ICB, subject to certain exceptions that may be created by secondary legislation. This is intended to replicate the ability to make exceptions to the responsibilities of CCGs by regulations in section 3(1D) of the National Health Service Act 2006. As with the existing regulations, the new regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure of the House, which I hope offers some reassurance to the Opposition Front Bench in respect of the regulation-making powers. Therefore, there would continue to be strong parliamentary oversight of regulations under the clause.
Proposed new section 14Z31 ensures that no one slips through any gaps. The rules set by NHS England must ensure that everyone who accesses primary medical services, as well as anyone who is not registered with a GP but is resident in England, is allocated to a group of people for which an ICB is responsible. In practice, we expect NHS England’s rules to be framed in such a way that ICBs will be associated with certain GP practices, and responsible for patients registered with those specified GP practices. They will also be responsible for people who are not registered but are resident in the ICB geographical footprint.
Taking that approach is intended to ensure universality of coverage and to minimise the disruption of transitioning from CCGs to ICBs. The clause also provides a power to replace the duty on NHS England to publish rules dealing with ICB responsibility, with an alternative approach based simply on residency. If it is considered appropriate in the future, those new arrangements would mean that ICBs were responsible for those who usually reside within their specified geographical footprint. Regulations would be required in order to change that approach.
The clause provides the necessary certainty about which ICB is responsible for which people. Without it, there could be significant confusion about ICB responsibilities, difficulty in calculating financial allocations to ICBs based on those they are responsible for and uncertainty for providers about which people they are contracted to provide services to. The clause seeks to provide fluent continuity with the arrangements under CCGs, and explicitly does not allow people to fall through gaps. Ultimately, everyone will be the responsibility of an ICB and will be able to access care when they need it. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I will make some comments on clause 14. I think the Minister has anticipated to some extent what I might say. I may well drift into clause 15 as well, but I promise the Committee that I will not repeat those comments in the discussion on clause 15. There is clearly an overlap here. It really is about the issue that the Minister referred to: who is entitled to what within the comprehensive NHS? For some, this is a formality, repeating the language used before and the principles on which the NHS was founded. For others, every word change and new clause that appears in the legislation is an attempt to restrict access and allow an opening for cuts to services to be made in a time of immense financial pressure. We want, and I think the Minister has opened the door to this, to ensure that that is not what the Bill is about.
To be fair, there is a history of commissioners trying on occasions to restrict access. There was the Croydon list of some 20 years ago. Primary care trusts set out lists of services and said that the treatments had little or no value and should not be provided on the NHS. Of course, that led to huge debates between trusts and medical practitioners. It could be argued that people were defending their own particular practices and specialties, or they could be said to be champions of the NHS. Patients looked at it from both perspectives, but for the patients who relied on those services it was a very real debate and a very real source of anxiety.
A more recent argument on this came from the various attempts to apply NHS charges to certain people who it was argued were not eligible for free treatment. There is a very sinister echo of the phrase “no access to benefits”. The long-held consensus appeared to be under threat—the principle that emergency NHS care is open to all. When American tourists come over here and have to seek emergency treatment they are pleasantly surprised, and somewhat bemused, that they do not have to produce a credit card at the point of use. This is where the arguments begin to arise.
If a patient is moved from an emergency bed for elective care, they can be charged if they are ineligible for free NHS care. The usual test is whether they are ordinarily resident in the country. On principle, if someone qualifies for NHS treatment, they can get it anywhere in the country, while on holiday. Most of us have taken our breaks this year somewhere in this country. We do not have to go back to our own local A&E to get treatment. We could, in theory, get our elective operations anywhere in the country, should we wish. Pre-Lansley this did not matter as much, because it was always payment by results. Ambulances crossing borders may occasionally result in a cross-organisational internal charge. Maybe we will see an end to that kind of bureaucracy.
The other argument that emerged during the Lansley period was around who the responsible commissioner within a particular area or population was. That market approach required tying people to a GP practice. The GP register has been a central base from which decisions were made. Did that really affect things on the ground? It certainly caused a lot of debate. It would be helpful if the Minister provided clarity.
The issue of access is important, and clause 14 sets it out in subsections (1), (2)(a) and (2)(b) of proposed new section 14Z31 of the National Health Service Act 2006. According to the NHS, access is universal, but depending on their immigration status within the UK, a person may be charged for accessing certain services. However, certain services are free to everyone: treatment given in an A&E department, though this does not include further treatment following admission to hospital; treatment for certain infectious diseases, but for HIV/AIDS only the first diagnosis and counselling that follow are free; compulsory psychiatric treatment; and family planning services, but this does not include termination of pregnancy or infertility treatments. People ordinarily resident in the UK or who have an exemption from charging will not be charged for NHS treatment. I could go into what ordinarily resident means, but I will not detain the Committee by going through all of that. However, it is fairly clear that it can be a British citizen or someone naturalised or settled in the UK, usually known as having indefinite leave to remain.
The Bill does not cover any of this, but there is a point about it not necessarily being the same person paying for and receiving the treatment. There are questions about those seeking asylum and those who might be denied care because there are questions about where they live. There was the image of a paramedic stepping out of an ambulance and asking someone suffering a cardiac arrest whether they had some kind of identification to prove that they were ordinarily resident. The images are not common ones, but they raise concerns. When the 2012 Act was debated, these issues were discussed at great length. I do not think the fears that were expressed at the time have manifested themselves. Does the Minister believe that using “usually resident” is better than “ordinarily resident”? I also wonder whether under proposed new section 14Z31, the NHS will publish rules as referred to. Could we have clarification on that?
Edward Argar
I will respond very briefly. The shadow Minister raises two key bundles of points. I hope that I can reassure him that the approach adopted here is far from restricting access. It is designed to ensure that everyone has an ICB covering them, ensuring universality of coverage. Similarly, the clause does not alter in any way the ability of anyone to access emergency care when they need it, nor those ordinarily resident in the UK to use the NHS as they do.
The second bundle of points he made related to charging regulations and those who are eligible to be charged under current regulations. While he highlighted a number of points, I genuinely believe that the charging regulations in place are appropriately and reasonably framed and strike the right balance in ensuring that people can access NHS care, while rightly making a contribution to the services they are accessing—obviously with certain things exempt from charging for public health and other reasons. I do believe they strike the appropriate balance. There is nothing in what we are proposing today that fundamentally changes people’s ability to access healthcare, nor indeed changes those charging regulations. On that basis, I commend clause 14 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maggie Throup.)
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Eighth sitting)
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
My partner works at the University of Hull on the degree apprenticeship programme.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My wife works at a higher education firm.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I am an honorary fellow at Birkbeck.
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 3, line 27, after “providers” insert “and their constituent institutions”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 2 to 26.
Government new clause 1—Duties of constituent institutions.
Michelle Donelan
Government amendments 1 to 26 and new clause 1 concern the position of certain colleges of universities such as the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham. The amendments will ensure that, in these collegiate universities, colleges are subject to the new strengthened freedom of speech and academic freedom duties in the same way as the registered higher education providers themselves. The amendments will restore a legislative position similar to the one in place before August 2019, when constituent colleges of collegiate universities in England were directly responsible for meeting the duties set out in section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure freedom of speech for their students, speakers, members and visiting speakers.
The Bill sets out new and strengthened duties; in particular, it introduces direct routes for individuals to seek redress when they believe they have suffered loss as a result of a breach of the duties, so it is vital that action can be taken directly against the body that is responsible, including when that is a college. As the types of college in scope of the amendments may enjoy a large degree of legal independence from their parent provider, it is possible that, without these amendments, a registered provider could demonstrate that they have met their duty in new section A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to take steps that are reasonably practicable for it to take to secure freedom of speech, but a college could still act in such a way as to restrict someone’s lawful freedom of speech.
My officials have held discussions with some of the main institutions that will be affected by the amendments, in particular the Universities of Cambridge and of Durham, and they have indicated that they would welcome the amendments. They do not think that they will result in a burdensome change in practice for their colleges, since in general their colleges have continued to maintain the codes of practice relating to the freedom of speech duties that they were subject to until 2019.
The wording used for the definition of “constituent institution” in new clause 1, in proposed new section A3A(4) of the 2017 Act, reflects the wording that applies to those bodies subject to the Prevent duty and the coverage of the complaints scheme operated by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. A college that is required to comply with the Prevent duty will, therefore, also be subject to the freedom of speech duties, which is clearly sensible, and the coverage of the higher education complaints schemes will be consistent.
In addition, amendment 3 makes it clear that student unions at approved fee cap providers that are subject to the new duties in clause 2 do not include student unions at colleges. Colleges fund their junior and middle common rooms and, to that extent, can exert a lot of control over their activities. Those groups do not own or occupy their own premises or run the booking the systems, so imposing a freedom of speech duty on them seems to be unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. We do not believe that including them in the provision is necessary, as the freedom of speech duties on the colleges will apply to the activities of their student unions. I hope it is clear that the amendments are necessary for the Bill to work as intended, to ensure that all key bodies in our universities play their part in securing freedom of speech on campus, and to ensure that where they do not, those who suffer detriment can seek redress from whomever is responsible, whether that is a university or one of its colleges or student unions.
Matt Western
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. Overall, I have to say that I am really delighted—I think all the Opposition Members are—that the Minister has listened intently to what we have been calling for in our speeches on Second Reading, in Committee and during the witness sessions. We have been calling for clarity. It was clear that the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 made a similar mistake by omitting the likes of Oxbridge colleges and constituent institutions.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am sorry to be sarky, but this is therefore the second time in major legislation that the Department for Education has discovered that it does not understand the structure of higher education in this country. Does my hon. Friend find that a bit worrying?
Matt Western
The lack of corporate knowledge or rock of collective experience that legislation should be based on is really surprising. I would have thought that such errors would be corrected and noted, and always and forever be related to anything in the higher education realm. I would have also thought that there were many in this place—there may be more of them on the Government Benches—who have been to the likes of Oxbridge or Durham and who would be more familiar with them. I do not mean that lightly; I think it is factually true. Personally, I did not attend them, so I am not so familiar with how those institutions work in terms of their governance. It is a simple point, but the error should not have been repeated.
On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), forcefully made the point that numerous collegiate institutions affiliated to a central university would be outside the scope of the legislation in its current form. It is easy to think about existing Oxbridge-type institutions, but what about future-proofing the higher education sector and the changes that may affect affiliate and collegiate associations between higher education providers? That important point was picked up by Members on both sides of the House, and rightly so. It is good to see the Minister taking the feedback on board, and I hope that we will see some further evidence of that arising from yesterday’s sittings.
I have a small point to raise in relation to amendment 3 and an apparent exemption. The Minister spoke about the MCRs and JCRs at the likes of Oxford, but I do not know why they should be exempt. Any groups associated with a university or a higher education provider, whatever its size or shape, should be covered. If the legislation is honest in its intent, why should any be excluded from it? What justification could there be for preventing a student body at an Oxbridge college from being covered by the Bill?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not in fact troubling? The JCR system is operational at only a few universities, so a few universities will end up being exempt, or have student bodies that are exempt, while the vast majority will not. There is clear inequity there. Will it not prompt other bodies to be unnecessarily created, or reconfirm the unfair and often undeserved privileged status that some so-called elite universities have in this country?
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for his well made point. It could indeed reinforce those existing privileges, or lead to a complete breakdown of the SU structures and change to institutional structures too, with disaffiliations and so on. We must be careful about the message that that sends out.
John McDonnell
I can understand why some organisations or bodies that associate with universities—the Bullingdon club, or whatever—are excluded, but what is the rationale for the exclusion of JCRs?
Matt Western
I thank my right hon. Friend for posing that question. It is question that I think we Opposition Members would like to hear the Minister give a more explicit answer. It was not clear to me in her remarks, and it seems that it was not clear to my right hon. Friend either. It seems a bizarre exemption that they should not be covered.
Think of the outrage of the former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), when Magdalen College middle common room—not that I am familiar with that establishment or its make-up—did something shocking by taking down a picture of the Queen. Were it the Lucian Freud version, I could perhaps understand it. The MRC members chose to do that, and it was their expression of free speech. Had they done something of greater significance though, it would not come under the remit of the Bill. I hope the Minister will address that important point.
Overall, I am pleased that the Government have been listening and have proposed this change to the legislation, because it is important. However, I ask the Minister to specifically, explicitly address why it is that middle and junior common rooms should be excluded.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I very much welcome this amendment and addition to the Bill. Perhaps colleagues will permit me a moment of reflection on a personal experience that makes me feel so strongly about this.
In 2016, I was invited to speak at an Oxbridge college. I will not name it, because I think that the situation is somewhat embarrassing for it. I was asked, as chair of the all-party parliamentary pro-life group, to speak to Oxford Students for Life. As I began speaking to around 100 people in a room of a similar size to this one, with large glass windows at the back, an official rushed in and said “This meeting must stop. You are causing offence to students in the social room on the other side of the quad.” The chair of Oxford Students for Life said “But they can’t hear us,” and the official replied, “Well, I have been told that I must stop the meeting.” In the end, we came to a resolution whereby, if all the curtains were closed on those large ceiling-to-floor windows, the students in the social club would allow us to carry on. The whole situation was just ridiculous.
Michelle Donelan
We did indeed listen to the sector and Members after the Bill was first published, and we identified a gap. These technical amendments will close that gap, which could otherwise have meant that some individual colleges would not be in scope. Since the Bill introduces new routes of redress for individuals who believe that their lawful freedom of speech or academic freedom has been improperly restricted, it is vital that the right institutions are held responsible.
To reiterate the points that I made in my opening speech, colleges fund their junior and middle common rooms. To that extent, they can assert a lot of control over their activities. Such groups do not own or occupy their own premises or run the room-booking systems, so imposing the freedom of speech duties on them seems quite unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. The amendments are necessary to ensure that the new duties apply to all appropriate bodies on campus and that the routes of redress in the Bill are available for all who need them.
Matt Western
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Essentially, what the Bill saying is that the colleges can exert pressure on their middle and junior common rooms and somehow influence behaviour and how free speech is permitted and managed within those forums. It is a delegation to the colleges to do that. But what the rest of the Bill is saying is that all other student unions, bodies, clubs and affiliates are responsible to the university and have to comply. Are we saying that there will essentially be a two-tier system for how the legislation will work?
Michelle Donelan
What we are saying is that the junior and middle common rooms are very different from student unions, and we have to ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance—a point made by the hon. Gentleman when we debated the last amendment on bureaucratic burden.
To conclude, colleges have a vital role in the protection of freedom of speech.
Michelle Donelan
I really am going to conclude now, as we must move on. Colleges have a vital role in the protection of freedom of speech, which is a fundamental value for all of society, but especially in our world-leading higher education providers, as I am sure hon. Members agree.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 1, page 3, line 28, after “education” insert—
“and in the conduct of research”
This amendment would ensure that higher education providers must promote the importance of academic freedom in the conduct of academic research as well as teaching.
This is another example of a small detail that we wish to amend. As we said throughout yesterday’s proceedings, we want to keep to a minimum any damage that the legislation might cause to our institutions, the viability of student unions and, indeed, the entire sector. The amendment equates protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom, not just for teaching, but for the conduct of research as well.
The point that we want to stress and to have reflected in the Bill is that all too often, observers of the higher education sector think purely about education in the form of instruction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown said. Teaching can be instruction, of course, but in the realm of higher education institutions in particular, there is differentiation when it comes to research.
Research is so important; it is the fundamental differentiator in institutions’ success and reputations. The amendment would add the words
“and in the conduct of research”
because research is important not just to society but to the development of our understanding of humanity and more. Dr Ahmed said that academics should be allowed to pursue
“lines of research that they think might be fruitful”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 13, Q22.]
That is why we want to ensure that, as we heard in evidence, research is at the core of the sector. It needs to be included where possible, to remind everyone of just how central it is to the debate.
Emma Hardy
This discussion follows on quite well from debate on amendment 59, tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton, in that it seeks to close a loophole for masters and PhD students. That is what amendment 44 is intended to resolve. Our discussion about academic freedom and freedom of speech applied to those involved in teaching. The amendment nips off that loophole so that the provisions can apply to masters and PhD students.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. In response to a point by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the detransitioning of research at the University of Bath, Professor Whittle said in evidence that
“had Bath addressed it properly, they could have done more to say, ‘This needs sorting and this does before we will consider it.’”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 41, Q75.]
The amendment would incorporate innovative research under the academic freedom duty, and that would push the likes of the University of Bath towards further exploring how such research proposals could be encouraged. It is a very simple amendment, but we hope that, in the spirit of how we have tried to co-operate, the Government will accept it.
Michelle Donelan
This amendment seeks to extend the duty of higher education providers to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom so that it specifically applies in the conduct of research, as well as in the provision of higher education more generally. The duty set out in proposed new section A3 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, created by clause 1 of the Bill, is a new one. It requires a provider to promote the importance of free speech within the law and academic freedom throughout its provision of higher education. This is a general duty that intends to drive a positive tone on campuses across the country, promoting a culture in which everyone on campus can express their lawful views, and in which academics feel safe to question and test received wisdoms and put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions.
Emma Hardy
The amendment is specifically meant to address cases in which an individual is sometimes a student and sometimes a teacher. As a PhD researcher their activity falls under academic freedom, but as a student it falls under freedom of speech. An individual can hold two different roles at two different times depending on what they are doing, and that problem is what we were trying to resolve with this amendment.
Michelle Donelan
I think that the next part of my comments will address the hon. Member’s concerns. A key element of this duty is to promote academic freedom for academic staff. It is widely understood and set out in international case law that academics should expect that their academic freedom is protected for any research they seek to undertake, as well as in the design and delivery of their teaching and wider comments or writings that they issue. The duty to promote the importance of academic freedom in the provision of higher education will therefore cover research undertaken in that context, noting the high-level nature of the duty. However, I have listened to hon. Members today, and while this will be made clear in the guidance, I shall commit to take this issue away and see whether further clarity would be of assistance.
Matt Western
I have heard what the Minister has to say. I take her at her word and look forward to having further conversations and discussions on this issue. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 33, in clause 1, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘academic freedom’ do not extend to any statement that amounts to the denial of genocide.”—(Matt Western.)
This amendment ensures that the objective of securing freedom of speech and academic freedom do not cover those who make statements that amount to a denial of genocide.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Emma Hardy
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after the first “the” insert “sole”.
This amendment, with Amendment 84, relates to use of the premises of a registered student union, stating that they can be provided and will not be denied on the basis of the grounds referred to in subsection (4).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 84, in clause 2, page 4, leave out lines 6 and 7.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 83.
Emma Hardy
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Cummins. The amendments were linked to other amendments, but unfortunately they were not tabled in time, so I will try to make as much sense of this as I possibly can.
The amendments are a reaction to the written evidence we received from the Free Churches Group of England and Wales. For those who are not familiar with it, it is a group of academics and it includes the Baptist Union of Great Britain, Churches in Communities International, the Methodist Church and various other Christian groups that work together in higher education. I do not know whether I should declare an interest, but as a Christian Methodist I think very highly of this group and take very seriously its written evidence and its concerns about the Bill.
The group’s written evidence addresses the question of premises and where people are able to debate free speech. We have said many times that we all support free speech; we all accept that people have different views and that those views can be heard in different places. The amendments seek to address the issue of premises, and I would summarise them as being about respect. While we can hold a different view, sometimes we need to think very carefully about the place in which we choose to express it.
I will quote directly from the group’s evidence:
“One problem is that it is not clear which groups might claim use of premises under what circumstances under this clause. Even the Government is unclear whether it will mean universities are required to provide premises for holocaust deniers. What seems equally unclear is whether the clause means that groups opposed to views or activities a space is designated for will be allowed to enter that space to express their views. Arguably not to allow such access would be to deny those wishing entry use of premises, and freedom to speak there, on the basis of their views, beliefs etc. Thus the Bill may be taken to provide for a group opposed to religion to enter an Islamic prayer room to exercise their freedom to speak their views on religion, or, indeed to enter a room booked by, say, a Christian Union or a Jewish Society for similar reasons. Does the Bill provide for holocaust deniers to have entry to a room booked by the Jewish society, or can holocaust deniers be denied entry on the basis of their beliefs?”
The written evidence from the Free Churches Group of higher education institutions does not say that people should not be allowed to express such opinions or to be given space to express them, but it does say that thought needs to be given to the need for respect for the place in which those opinions are expressed.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has mentioned the idea of consulting people when permission is sought to hold an event. For example, we would not expect an event that denies the existence of God to be held in a Christian Union building, out of respect.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Obviously, I sympathise with the hon. Lady’s sentiment because there is a need for privacy in different circumstances—she talked about churches and mosques and so on. However, the Bill does not confer on anyone the right to demand the opportunity to speak when and where they want. Perhaps it is being cast in that way by some—I do not think by her, but by others outside this place—but it does not give that right to anyone. We are talking about invitation and privacy, are we not? Those things pertain, regardless.
John McDonnell
That is an interesting point. I have been in situations where an individual has joined an organisation as an agent provocateur and has undertaken activities in the name of the organisation deliberately to bring about bad odour and destroy its reputation. I do not see any protections in this Bill against someone joining the Muslim society, or whatever, within the organisation, then demanding that an invitation be put out to a fascist, and then the organisation getting caught. It is very difficult to prove that there was some form of vexatious participation. I remember—this is partly related —when the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) joined the Labour party to infiltrate it and bring bad odour. It happens. I congratulated him on it as a tactic eventually. These things do happen, and my worry is that there is no defence against that in this Bill.
Emma Hardy
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point: there is not that protection. I again refer hon. Members to the written evidence. This is not written evidence from some small organisation that does nothing; it is the Free Churches Group of England and Wales. It is a group of higher education institutions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am thinking not about invitations to external speakers but about students—students’ unions, where there are students of opposing views. The Bill says:
“the use of any premises occupied by the students’ union is not denied to any individual or body on grounds specified in subsection (4)”—
belief and so on. We need to be clear—perhaps the Minister can come back and clarify this on the record, which would help—that when we say “any premises”, we do not mean that the students’ union cannot decide which rooms are used. It is not that someone has the right to say, “I want to meet in the Christian prayer room,” or, “I want to meet in the Muslim prayer room to talk about things that would be inappropriate for those spaces.” Students’ unions must have the right to say, “Yes, we give you a free speech platform, but we decide where within our premises we do that.” Or sometimes they might say, “Not those premises, but we have other premises down the road that you can meet in.” The phrase “any premises” gives that indication. Often, chaplaincies use university premises.
Emma Hardy
That is exactly right. I refer again to the written evidence, which says:
“We are concerned about the drafting of Points (3) and (4) in section A1 of the Bill, repeated later in connection with Students’ Unions. These clauses have to do with the provision or denial of premises and appear to prohibit both the making and the denial of such provision on the basis of ‘ideas, beliefs or views.’…Our advice is that these clauses are ripe for a variety of interpretations or misinterpretations, with unhelpful unintended consequences possible and even likely.”
The Free Churches Group goes on to say:
“Clause 3 (a) as explicated by clause 4 is similar to Section 43 of the Education (No.2) Act 1986, but in a new context.”
That is the point it is making. The submission continues:
“The clause says use of premises cannot be denied on the basis of ideas, beliefs etc. It has, as far as we know, led to no problems so far and that may continue to be the case. However, inserting it into this Bill, with its strengthened requirements, lack of clarity, and temperature-raising highlighting of a very few cases as justification for the Bill, may affect its previously benign record.”
I accept that I was rushed in putting together these amendments—the Clerks were very helpful—and this might not be the exact wording that the Minister wishes to use, but the question of premises and when something can be allowed or not needs to be addressed. We need that reassurance. As I say, these amendments are meant to be not about denying opposition or other people’s point of view, but about just having some respect about where they are held.
That goes back to the point made so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington about some events needing to be done in consultation with other groups and people within the student union body and the higher education system to ensure that such things do not happen.
I do not believe for one moment that any hon. Member in Committee would think it acceptable to hold an anti-Islamic debate in an Islamic prayer room and I do not believe for a moment that the Minister or the Government intended that when drafting the Bill. I am saying, with the helpful intervention of my right hon. Friend, that people could join those groups, they could invite someone to be provocative and they could insist on the debate taking place in particular premises, which would cause incredible upset for many people.
John McDonnell
I fear to tread into this, but there are schisms within individual organisations. Anyone who has had any dealings in recent years with the gurdwaras in this country knows that we have had real issues, as we have had in the Christian religion. There have been disputes, debates and so on within different groups in a particular religion, some denying premises to individual groups and that becoming a matter of contest. We are treading into some extremely dangerous territory, if we are not careful. We could be dragged into disputes that result, eventually, in claims in court.
Emma Hardy
Absolutely. I state again, referring to the written evidence of the Free Church Group, that it
“affirms the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom.”
I would not wish this to be interpreted in any way as the group being against free speech—it is not. It is saying that, for the purposes of the Bill, we need to have a look at the question of premises and whether some premises, or some individual rooms within premises, should be in some cases denied to certain groups, out of respect for what those premises are meant to be used for.
When the Minister replies, I hope that she takes the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, although it is perhaps not perfectly drafted, as I have explained. However, we need to resolve that problem, because we should be mindful of the fact that people have different beliefs and opinions, and we have to show tolerance and respect at all times. All of us in this debate on free speech have said that we want to encourage a climate in which ideas are challenged, but that they should be challenged in a respectful way.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for the amendments, the clarity with which she presented them and the debate that they provoked—if I may use “provoked”. When we start to delve into this, it is interesting just how far-reaching the unintended consequences become. As has been examined, that is not just between external groups or about mischievousness between one group and another—whether religious or whatever—but about infiltration of groups, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned. Factions within different societies or groups might have challenges or issues of power, leading to problems on campus. Many will have views that are sacrosanct, for example, on the denial of the holocaust, and we have to respect that some places on campus should also be sacrosanct.
That can be reduced to a simple point: there is a time and a place for vigorous debate, and universities are good places for that, but we have to provide protections. That is what we have been seeking to do throughout, to ensure that individuals have protections and, here, to protect against an anti-religious group who might want to occupy a prayer room, for example. That is a conflict of duties, which would skew the balance too far in favour of freedom of speech, without referencing any of the competing freedoms to which Danny Stone referred in his evidence.
Emma Hardy
Referring again to the written evidence, the Free Churches Group is asking for urgent clarification and redrafting of this clause. It says:
“Whether the clause means no premises can be provided on the basis of beliefs etc is unclear and needs clarifying. If it does, the consequences for prayer rooms, chapels, chaplaincies, kitchens designed with sensitivity to religious beliefs, amongst other facilities, could be dire.”
That is the point that my hon. Friend makes. The problems with the way in which the Bill is drafted mean it is open to vexatious and disrespectful abuse.
Matt Western
I agree. Whether it is, for example, an Islamic or Christian prayer room, or a space for the Jewish Society, we have to be very careful about the implications. I concur with what my hon. Friend just said.
John McDonnell
The word “any” is key. To give one other concrete example, I have a large Muslim community in my constituency and an Ahmadiyya Muslim community. The majority Muslim community do not recognise Ahmadiyyas as Muslims. The word “any” means that we could have a situation where one group is insisting on using a particular room, invited by an individual, which then offends others. There is then a situation of conflict and even litigation.
The word “any” has to come out. It is a provocation for the future, if we are not careful. This is a simple amendment to ensure that we forestall a potential problem in the future.
Matt Western
My right hon. Friend is right: this is yet another example of how things are well managed by students’ unions up and down the country. They see challenges day in, day out, week in, week out. They manage the various, sometimes conflicting, interests of different groups.
My right hon. Friend has given a simple example of an Islamic prayer room and how that can play out between the Ahmadiyya and other Muslim groups. I urge the Minister to take on board our points and make the changes set out in the amendments. The word “any” is problematic and the Government would do well to remove it.
Michelle Donelan
The amendments would narrow the application of the freedom of speech duty in proposed new section A4 on students’ unions so that it only applies, as regards premises, to the “sole” use of those premises and does not apply to the terms of the use of those premises.
Proposed new section A4(1) in clause 2 requires students’ unions to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure lawful freedom of speech. Proposed new sections A4(3) and A4(4) set out how this duty will work in relation to the use of the premises. The students’ union must take “reasonably practicable” steps so as not to deny the use of their premises because of
“the ideas, beliefs or views”
of an individual body when inviting speakers. That was an excellent point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
A key part of the Bill is the emphasis on “reasonably practicable” steps. On the point that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown made, if a range of rooms was available and some rooms were not suitable, for example because of religious beliefs, it would be “reasonably practicable” not to choose certain rooms. However, I have heard the concerns raised in the debate and the evidence that has been provided, so I will commit to take this important point away.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my hon. Friend for her encouraging words. Could she reflect on whether the code of practice is a vehicle that could be used to respect freedom of religion or belief in this context?
Michelle Donelan
An important aspect of the Bill is that it does not place freedom of speech above other duties, such as freedom of religion. It is down to the university or students’ union to balance those competing duties and make a reasonable assessment. We think that freedom of speech duties should apply to the terms of use of premises. It would not be right if a students’ union decided, for example, to charge one group more for room hire than another group. In any event, proposed new section A4(3) is clear that the freedom of speech duties include the stated provision on premises, so the exact wording of the amendment would not be likely to have any effect in practice. However, I am happy to reconsider how we could make it clearer in the Bill.
Emma Hardy
On the basis of the Minister’s promise to go away and have a look to ensure that we can offer the clarity and reassurance needed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 34, in clause 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
“(4B) The objective under subsection (2) does not apply to any person or body that—
(a) has made any statement in public that amounts to the denial of genocide; or
(b) intends to make any statement that amounts to the denial of genocide within the premises of the students’ union or to any members of the students’ union.”.—(Matt Western.)
This amendment ensures that the duty on students’ unions to secure freedom of speech within the law does not cover those who make statements that amount to a denial of genocide.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Other student bodies—
“After section A4 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (inserted by section 2) insert—
‘A4A Application of students’ union provisions to other student bodies
(1) In this Part, where a provision applies to a students’ union, it should also be taken to apply to any other student body.
(2) For the purposes of this section “other student body” means—
(a) any Junior Common Room or Middle Common Room of a constituent institution; and
(b) any club or society made up of students at a higher education institution, whether or not the club or society is affiliated to the students’ union.’”
This amendment would expand the definition of a student body to include any Junior Common room or Middle Common room of a constituent institution or any club or society at a higher education institution, regardless of whether student union affiliation requirements have been complied with.
Matt Western
I rise to speak to new clause 4. Our points on the new clause amplify the points that we made not half an hour ago, about the importance of how the Bill is applied to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 and the need to include the junior and middle common rooms of a constituent institution. As we have said many times, there is a wide diversity of student bodies out there, on all sorts of different campuses and institutions. We have to make sure that the expansion of free speech duties that are being placed on student unions extend to other relevant bodies as well.
The scale of the sector in this country means there is a very complex mix of student bodies, many with very different relationships from those that we may be more familiar with from our personal experiences or from those we work with in our constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown raised this issue during the evidence sessions, putting the point that some of the public debate has been about debating societies—the Oxford Union, the Cambridge Union, Durham and so on—and other informal societies. He asked whether we were right in that, because they have no funding relationship with the university and they would not be covered by the legislation. He asked whether that defeated the point.
That question was put to the only lawyer we heard from who is currently working in legal practice, Smita Jamdar at Shakespeare Martineau. Her response was very clear. She said:
“Absolutely. It only applies to universities and student unions as defined, so it would not apply to the Oxford Union or the Cambridge equivalent.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 56, Q107.]
That response comes from a lawyer who is very experienced and knowledgeable in the sector. It exposes an anomaly and a clear difference across the sector. She went on to say:
“As for informal societies, again, you would have to look at exactly what the grouping was and whether it was even an entity you could define in any way, shape or form—it might just be the individuals within it. What might happen in those situations is that the dispute among the group about what they wanted to do would become escalated up to the university and again resource would have to be spent on trying to resolve what was essentially a dispute between a small group of students over a single event.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 56, Q107.]
Smita Jamdar is the only practising lawyer we heard from.
That underlines just how complicated it is going to become, particularly given the different organisations and bodies that may relate to universities and higher education providers but are not necessarily covered by the Bill. That is why the extension to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 is important. The amendment would have the effect of explicitly including all student bodies in the duties to uphold freedom of speech, but it would have a dual effect. It would prevent student bodies from explicitly deciding to not affiliate with a student union, simply to escape the duties. That is really important. I have, as do my colleagues, a real concern that this will see a lot of bodies or groups disaffiliating from student unions. Ultimately, the viability of that student union will then be called into question.
Emma Hardy
I want to keep making one point. When we are talking about student unions and organisations, we are not just talking about Oxford and Cambridge; we are talking about all the small universities and colleges as well. It seems fairly ludicrous to me that every aspect of the Bill would apply to the very small higher education provision at Hull College, but would not apply to the junior common room. That does not seem equitable or fair.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To that we can add all sorts of institutions—Warwickshire College Group in my constituency and many others up and down the country. That is the concern. We have this absolutely bizarre situation where we will have a two-tier system operating. For some reason, those groups that are viewed by many as being more privileged and, some would say, elite—though I would not necessarily describe them as such—are somehow being protected and insulated from the legislation in a way that others are not. It seems to be an extraordinary contradiction of the legislation when they are perhaps in need of this legislation more than, or as much as, others.
That was the first point in terms of the dual effect: preventing student bodies from explicitly deciding not to affiliate. That is a real concern about the future of student union bodies. The second point was the effect of including outside student bodies, such as JCRs and MCRs. I mentioned the point about removing the picture of the Queen from Magdalen College in Oxford. JCRs and MCRs are just as lively forums as any affiliated student union. I therefore struggle as to why the Minister would not wish to support this proposal. All we are seeking is consistency and a level playing field. There should be one rule for all, not one rule for some.
Sir John Hayes
I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about trade union. Like many in the Committee, I imagine, I served as an officer of the students union when I was at Nottingham. My son was the faith and belief officer at Newcastle University students’ union last year. We understand the significance of student unions, but they must be subject to the same democratic accountability that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington championed a moment ago. The provisions of the Bill in respect of freedom must apply liberally—I hesitate to use that word except pejoratively, but I will—in that way. I am concerned that student unions should not be elevated to a status that prevents them from being subject to the same expectations and disciplines in democratic terms that the right hon. Gentleman is championing.
Matt Western
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not seeking for them to be elevated in any way. I just believe there should be direct relevancy to the MCRs and JCRs as well. I want to add that groups that may be beyond the thoughts of the Committee, but that do exist, should also be covered—groups that may be more familiar to certain members of this Government, such as the Bullingdon club or the Piers Gaveston society. If societies affiliated with student unions are subject to the new duties, why should other student groups not be subject to those same duties?
John McDonnell
There is an absurdity at the heart of this legislation as a result of all of this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton—[Hon. Members: “ Kemptown!”] Of course, it is. A wonderful racecourse. In practical terms, the absurdity is that if I want to ensure an organisation is outside the ambit of this legislation, I simply name it “junior” or “common room”. That cannot be right. There is an absurdity here somewhere. It is the point that was made earlier. I have only just grasped how easily that can be done. There have been a number of times in the past when organisations have not wanted to have a full light thrown on their real role and activities. We have seen that. That is exactly what is going to happen here. We are either all in or all out with these institutions; otherwise the legislation becomes unworkable.
Matt Western
My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is an absurdity and, as I keep saying, an inconsistency. All legislation should be fair and consistent, and the public and, in this case, organisations will see it as disadvantageous or favouring some rather than others. That is really problematic for the sector, and it is one of the unintended consequences that the legislation will lead to. As my right hon. Friend says, we will see what, as I said a moment ago, I fear is a disaffiliation. I see groups being spawned on university campuses that are outside the student union—they will have the moniker “JCR”, or whatever it may be—that will seek to circumvent any responsibilities under the legislation.
Emma Hardy
Some organisations, and some student organisations, will have the ability, resources and staff power to work out how to disaffiliate, and that will happen, but many will not. It comes back to equity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington put it perfectly, we are either all in or all out. Liverpool Hope University, which is one of the smaller universities in Liverpool, has only three full-time members of staff at its student union. It simply does not have the same resources as many other organisations to put to working out how to circumnavigate the loophole that the Minister seems intent on leaving in the Bill. Again, we have this system of inequality and unfairness in the legislation as it is written at the moment.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is right: there is an issue about how this will work across diverse organisations in the sector. It is problematic because it means that yet again there is one rule for some and another rule for others. When we are discussing, debating and writing legislation, we cannot allow that difference to be compounded in it. It seems absolutely wrong.
I listened with real interest to the conversation that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and his counterpart the hon. Member for North West Durham had about some of the issues that they face on a local campus regarding certain organisations. My right hon. Friend cited particular problems with some of the Chinese-based societies and how they might be acting. This is nothing specific about China—it includes other groups as well—but to amplify that point, if we are not careful such groups will ensure that they are extracted from the remit of the legislation so that they are able to act freely and beyond this law. I urge the Government to take on board this very straightforward, sensible, consistent and pragmatic new clause and include it in the legislation. It is really important, and I am sure that we will hear more from my colleagues.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The reason the new clause is important is that it would include all bodies that students might interact with in their role as students, to ensure that the promotion of freedom of speech happens. I will come on to rebut some points that I think the Minister incorrectly made about JCRs, but I first want to talk about the chilling effect. We have heard a lot about it, but if we are to believe what we hear about the chilling effect, it is because a culture has set in—particularly in the student body—in which it is allowed to run rife.
As we know, large parts of student activity are not necessarily in the classroom or lecture theatre; in fact, many students complain that they do not have enough lecture and seminar time. That is a regular complaint of students nowadays because fees are so high. We could have an interesting argument around what the purpose of university is—whether it is instruction, or to enable students to have a wider experience of intellectual endeavour—but I will put that to one side.
However, if the effect is to exclude a swathe of student life and to allow that chilling effect to continue to circulate, the whole point of the student part of the Bill is defeated. The education part or university part? Okay, that is fine. But with the student part, what will still happen, of course, is that students will still be afraid to speak up in lecture theatres, because in the non-regulated part of their student experience they will still not have the culture of free speech and they will be shunned if they do speak up. They will not speak up and feel like they can have their own views, because in one part of their life the chilling effect is not because of formal institutions, but partly because of informal cultures. And if we are not tackling those cultures in all aspects, then we will not deal with this issue. That is why, for example, this measure should extend to JCRs and MCRs.
Earlier, the Minister said that JCRs do not run their own booking systems. That is not correct for all JCRs. St Mary’s College at Durham University runs its own booking system for its JCR. When a student wants to make a booking, they go on to the JCR website and fill in a JCR form, and the JCR allocates a booking. With some of the Oxford colleges, students have to go into the Oxford system, for the whole university, and I have just found that out after 10 minutes of Google research into how the booking systems work. I am sure that a fuller analysis would show that the picture is more complicated, which is why we need to include JCRs and similar facilities explicitly in this measure, so that it is clear.
David Simmonds
It may be that there is a degree of misunderstanding. When I was a student at a college that had a structure with a JCR, MCR and senior common room, the president of the JCR was someone who would become a future Labour Member for Corby.
David Simmonds
He was a very good man, and is a good friend of mine. However, a key point about that organisation is that it is not autonomous. So although the JCR has its own bar, the JCR, the MCR and the SCR—the three academic components of the college—are all supervised by, and under the control of, the college’s governing body. So they are not autonomous.
Therefore, although it is the case that a student could book a room, rent a tennis court or something like that, if it is in the ownership of that JCR, the college—as a constituent part of a university—supervises and controls the JCR’s activities. So the JCR is directly accountable, as a part of the college and a part of the university, and it is not autonomous in its own right.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Neither are student unions. The Education Act 1994, which I am probably the only Member of Parliament to bang on about, because most MPs will talk about previous Education Acts, requires universities to supervise all student unions, just as they would JCRs. It requires universities to ensure that the finances of student unions are conducted fairly and to oversee the policy of the student unions, so that the universities fulfil their duties under other Education Acts, such as ensuring freedom of speech. So what the hon. Gentleman just said is the case with all student unions.
However, this Bill sees fit to mention student unions specifically, even though they are regulated—in terms of their policies, their funding, their use and their terms regarding discrimination—by the university and by the Charity Commission.
Emma Hardy
On the point about the regulation of student unions, it is worth pointing out that one of the criticisms of the Bill is that it introduces new and varied ways of regulating student unions, which, as we know, are also regulated by the Charity Commission. So some of the issues that we will seek to address as we get further through the Bill are about exactly which layer of regulation student unions are meant to follow first, because, as the Bill is drafted, the situation seems to be incredibly confusing.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
That is quite right. One of the problems with the Bill, as my hon. Friend suggests, would be where there was an activity run by a student union, and someone felt that something had been denied and wanted to seek redress. But the student union is funded by the university, which most student unions are now—most do not rely on commercial income for the bulk of their income, because of the changing nature of students. The money is not gathered from bars that make a big profit. Gone are the days of NUS Services Ltd being the biggest beer purchaser in the country. My uncle, who used to be the director of Whitbread, used to love going to the NUSSL conferences and flogging cheap beer. Those days are just gone. The students union gets money and it uses the facilities of the university, but despite that we will now have a situation where someone could complain to the student union and complain to the university. That is very confusing, but it is not quite the point of this new clause, so I must redirect back to that.
David Simmonds
Without wishing to labour the point, I think the Minister is absolutely correct in the position she has taken. The junior common room is a component part of the college, so all its complaints processes and its supervision are inherent in its nature as a component part of the college. There is not a requirement to bring it within the purview of the legislation in the same way as there is for a student union, which is a separate institution with its own governance. It is already covered by its very nature.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
That may be, but the Minister said that JCRs do not have control of their own bookings, their own policies or their own finances, and that is not quite true, if we compare them with student unions. I do take the hon. Gentleman’s point that junior common rooms are not automatically registered with the Charities Commission, for example, but I am not sure that, legally, there is anything preventing them from registering. That would be an interesting legal point.
Each junior common room, again, is slightly separate. We had a quasi-junior common room system set up at Lancaster University when that was created, to model the Oxford system, but it was significantly different, because the system of Lancaster University was different and was based in halls and housing, much of which is now run by private institutions based at the university campus because of the private finance initiative systems and so on that we have in many universities. Again, for those junior common rooms that are now often in private student halls because they had a residential-based junior common room system, how is it regulated? They are on campus, but they are private blocks now, run by private service providers. It would be clearer if we included everyone.
Emma Hardy
This debate highlights the wildly differing amount of resource that many of these different student unions and organisations have. It seems ludicrous that we would not directly include a JCR or MCR, with the resources and finances it has, but we probably will include, as I have mentioned before, my beloved Hull College higher education institution. It comes down to an issue of fairness. I respect the point the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner makes, but if we are going to directly regulate one form of student activity within organisations, why not simply regulate and direct them all?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I will move away from the JCR, where we will maybe not seek agreement. I must admit I am not as au fait with the Oxford-Cambridge-Durham JCR system as maybe I should be, because I am a child of 1960s-based universities—quite literally; I went to a crèche in one—but there were, and are, equivalent JCRs run in different forms that do not follow the Oxford and Cambridge form, which therefore might not be included in this.
I come on to what I would call not a JCR, but a student space—student facilities provided alongside accommodation. Accommodation, even when it is on university campuses, which for the larger part it is not, is mostly run by private providers. The university will recommend that provider; it might even have a contract with that provider to provide a certain number of student halls. The facilities for those students—sometimes including the bar, and often including meeting spaces and recreational activities—are all provided by that private provider. Bookings are done by that private provider. The private provider might well organise a student committee of the residents to help to run that and facilitate it—in a way that is similar, I guess, to how a JCR committee would run those facilities. But they are not a student union; they are not a JCR in the Oxford-Cambridge sense. They are running a common room for students who live in those halls, but they would not be regulated by this provision, and the danger is that those spaces more and more often are being used to invite speakers, because students are self-organising, and of course people will go through all this stuff again—the ridiculousness of having to close curtains or shut down meetings which would seem totally legitimate. From a student point of view, they are using a student space that is designed only for their educational use.
Emma Hardy
Listening carefully, as I am, to my hon. Friend leads me to think, which I had not done before, about purpose-built student accommodation and the common spaces there. When I shadowed this brief, we had huge issues about students paying rent for things that they could not use, and that deepened my understanding that purpose-built student halls of residence are often provided by private providers. The question is whether this Bill would apply to their common room space as well. I would seek clarity from the—[Interruption.] The Whip just shouted something over to me that I missed. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the matter when she comes to make her remarks.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
It might well be that the Minister can—[Interruption.] I am not sure that I am allowed to ask the Whip to speak, but he was muttering something under his breath that I did not quite hear. Let us say that we had another amendment, with slightly different wording, which was specific to, for example, student halls, places that are focused on students, places that the university authorises for students to be exclusively at—like student halls but also other student clubs. For example, I have known universities that, rather than having a student union-run bar, will make an arrangement with a commercial bar provider to provide a student-specific bar with student-specific meeting rooms. It might well be that an amendment that just ensures that the duty is extended to commercial providers would be better than this amendment. I am open to that, but we need something; otherwise there is a real danger, particularly with universities moving more and more to commercial partnerships.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I give way to John—my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.
John McDonnell
I have never known him to be so affectionate. [Interruption.] I can’t help myself. The complexities of this are amazing. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and I are both ex-Birkbeck. If someone joins the Birkbeck student union, they are then a member of the junior common room at the School of Oriental and African Studies and therefore have access to the SOAS junior common room bar, and can book it for meetings, invite speakers and so on. Again, I am not sure of the status or the independence of the student union at Birkbeck, or the status of the relationship with the SOAS junior common room, and therefore of the line of accountability for control of the premises. Unless the Bill is all-encompassing, it will introduce myriad problems.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We had the equivalent discussion with regard to academics; we talked about what would happen with a visiting academic. Yes, they would be protected in their own institution, but they would not necessarily be protected as a visitor, so that is why we put forward amendments. We have the same issues about, in effect, visiting students. This applies particularly to London. London University, as a federal university, will have overlapping student unions. Unfortunately, we have seen the demise of the University of London union, which is a great shame for the University of London. I think that, bizarrely, was done for political purposes. I am convinced that the last few presidents and leaders of the University of London union were too-left-wing rabble-rousers. It was fed up with it, and fed up with the London Student newspaper being too much of a pain, and it shut it down, so that is an example. Would this Bill prevent the shutting down of the University of London union, which was shut down in my—
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Michael Tomlinson)
On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I wonder about the relevance of this. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for having interrupted him earlier by muttering from a sedentary position, which I do not do now; I rise to make it perfectly clear. Is this at all relevant to the amendment or clause?
The Chair
I am sure that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown heard that point of order, and that he will bring his remarks, which will be directed at the amendment, to a conclusion.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The point here is other student bodies. It is about when they are not directly a student union, which is what we are debating now. Our amendment would extend to all student bodies, whether or not they are directly part of the institution. That is why it is relevant to this clause. It seeks to cover an exclusively student body––not a general pub down the road––that has a relation just with students from that institution or from other institutions and that should also have some of these basic duties. If it does not have them, there is a real danger of loopholes here.
I will move on from talking about the type of provider, but there are other areas where this is relevant and important, such as non-affiliated societies. According to the lawyer we heard in evidence, the Bill would extend to the day-to-day activities of each individual society. I can understand saying to the student union, “You must allow the society to meet.” That is fine. This is about allowing societies to do that. But our understanding is that that society must fulfil the principles of the Bill. That would mean that there were two different legal frameworks for a non-affiliated society that was for all other purposes a student society in that university, and for an affiliated society.
If we go back to the essence of the chilling effect with an external speaker, a student does not necessarily know whether it is an affiliated or non-affiliated society. When an event is cancelled or a speaker is no-platformed or whatever we are worried about happening––again, I am not sure that the Bill is necessary, but these are the accusations and evidence that we heard––the danger is that the chilling effect still happens. The speaker is cancelled, the event is postponed, the society is shut down and students say, “I cannot talk about those things,” even though it might have happened in a non-affiliated space. It is important to extend that duty to all exclusively student bodies.
Emma Hardy
I hope that the Minister is listening, because we are trying to be as helpful as possible. Affiliated societies tend to rely on the assurance offered by being affiliated directly to the student union, and are therefore less likely to have huge sources of their own income. Non-affiliated student societies tend to have external financial support, from other countries or organisations. It comes down to equity and fairness, which is the point my hon. Friend is making about non-affiliated organisations with external support. I cannot see how the Bill would be relevant to them if they are not part of the student union, even though as my right hon. Friend––my hon. Friend rather––keeps saying, they are comprised almost entirely of students.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Exactly. We know that a number of these non-affiliated societies already exist. There is a particularly large network of Chinese student unions or Chinese student societies that receive large amounts of funding from the Chinese Communist party. Of course, their role is to be beacons of a chilling effect around campuses. They will have a property on the edge of the campus that might not be affiliated to the campus but will be open exclusively to students at that institution, and that institution will often advertise that society as the place for students to go. There are a number of ways around this. Again, I am not saying that the wording of the new clause is perfect, but we could say that the institutions would have to make it clear that such societies are not to be recommended unless they fulfil the general duties in the guidelines. We could say that institutions cannot recommend organisations that have not fulfilled the basic guidelines. That would include housing providers, but it would also mean that Chinese student societies that do not fulfil the duty could not be recommended as places for students to go locally. All of these are options that I urge the Minister to look at; otherwise, we have inequality, and there needs to be some balance.
Emma Hardy
As my hon. Friend keeps saying, we accept that the wording of the new clause might not be perfect, but I hope the Minister will go away and have a look at it. With regards to purpose-built student accommodation and the relationship that its providers have with some universities, it could be a condition of that relationship that they follow the procedures and guidelines in the Bill. I hope the Minister will not just dismiss our many points on this issue, because we are talking about whether we want a fair and equitable system that applies to every student in all the higher education institutions in the country. That is ultimately what the amendment is designed to achieve.
The Chair
Before I call Lloyd Russell-Moyle again, although we want as wide and inclusive a debate as possible, I ask Members to ensure that interventions are interventions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
This is a significant new clause, and it is the only new clause relating to this matter. As people will know, I am particularly passionate about student unions and student representation, so I hope the Committee will forgive me for my detail and enthusiasm in this area.
There is another way that this issue could be dealt with by the Minister, if she does not want to accept the new clause but will accept something else. That would be to say that, although there is a general duty on student unions to ensure that all who wish to have access can do so, it does not regulate the detailed workings of student societies. In my view, that would be preferable. However, I am not sure it would necessarily fulfil the desires of some of the Members on the Government side. For example, it would mean that the UN women’s society at Oxford, which disinvited Amber Rudd and got the wrath of the national papers, would still be entitled to do that. We have to make a choice: either we want to allow societies to be bloody rude—I think it is extremely rude to invite someone and then disinvite them, and I have no truck with that—
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am terribly sorry. I did try to reconsider my language. It was a very rude thing to do. “Bloody” should be used only in the sense of the blood that runs through our veins, and nothing else.
It is very rude to invite someone and then disinvite them, and I do not condone anyone who does that, but we have to have equity. We either have to have all societies able to invite and disinvite people, and to be as rude as they want, or we have to say that it is not acceptable in an academic space because it creates a chilling effect, and then we have to say that no society can do that. We cannot have a two-tier system whereby we say, “If you happen to have affiliated to a student union or institution, you get it, but if you set up shop outside and everyone thinks that you’re that society, it is acceptable.” There lies the real danger, but there are options here.
Finally, I want to touch on the role of such unions as the Oxford Union, the Cambridge Union and the Durham Union. They have been real bastions of free speech, and I do not suspect that they would have any problems with the duties covering them, too. We all know that often they have been the ones that have continued to say, “We want all different people to come, debate and talk.” But we cannot create a law based on the long-standing position of the Oxford, Cambridge and Durham unions—to name the most famous but not necessarily best student debating societies in the country—because they have had an historical foundation, whereas almost every other debating union and society in our country is regulated because it forms an affiliated part of an institution. I do not think it is fair that a few ancient universities get different privileges from the newer universities. That is a dangerous division.
We need to ask whether a debating club made up exclusively of students is regulated or not. The Minister needs to make a decision. I hope that she will say that she has accepted the point. She may not agree with the detailed wording, but I hope she says that she will go away and make sure that the provision applies to either all student societies or none, and either all student spaces or none. That should also cover the commercial sector—bodies with whom an institution may have commercial relationships.
Michelle Donelan
Any transgression of freedom of speech and academic freedom goes against the fundamental principles of the higher education sector in England. It is therefore essential that our universities are places where freedom of speech can thrive for all staff, students and visiting speakers, so they can contribute to a culture of open and robust intellectual debate. Student unions provide support and services to their members and their universities. It is therefore appropriate and essential that the legislative framework is extended to cover student unions directly.
The extension of the duties imposed only on higher education providers will ensure that freedom of speech is protected to the fullest extent. This will ensure our universities can continue their long and proud history of being a place where views may be freely expressed and debated. Clause 2 will provide the legislative framework to extend these important duties to student unions at approved fee cap providers—a category of registered higher education providers. It will insert two new provisions into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Proposed new section A4 provides that student unions will be required to take reasonably practicable steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for their members and staff; for students, members and the staff of the provider; and for visiting speakers.
Michelle Donelan
Opposition Members have spoken at great length on this clause, so I will give way only once.
Emma Hardy
Thank you. I want clarification about non-affiliated student societies—student societies that are not directly affiliated to the student unions.
Michelle Donelan
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come on to student societies.
In deciding what is reasonably practicable, student unions must have particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech. This will allow those involved in all aspects of university life to contribute to a culture of open and robust intellectual debate, without fear of repercussion. Those are new duties, providing new protections and ensuring coverage across campus. Proposed new section A5 will require student unions to maintain a code of practice, which will act as an aid for compliance with the new duty in proposed new section A4.
The code of practice must set out the procedures to be followed when organising meetings and activities, as well as the conduct required in connection with them. That is in addition to the criteria for making decisions about student union support and funding, and who can use premises. The clause sets out the new duties on student unions that are vital for ensuring that freedom of speech is protected to the fullest extent within higher education in England. It is therefore an important and necessary part of this Bill.
New clause 4 would extend the duties on student unions at approved fee cap providers so that they also apply to junior and middle common rooms at colleges and student societies. Taking student bodies at constituent colleges first, the colleges fund their junior and middle common rooms and can exert a high level of control over their activities. We do not believe that imposing the duty on junior and middle common rooms would be appropriate, as they are autonomous, as has been said. Freedom of speech duties would be unnecessary and bureaucratic if applied to junior and middle common rooms. A point was made about booking systems, but even given that junior and common rooms may book rooms, those rooms are owned by colleges and the JCRs have no actual control over them. Given that, we do not believe that including them is necessary as the freedom of speech duties on the colleges will apply to the activities of their student unions. It is important to note that student unions at constituent colleges are not classified as student unions under the Education Act 1994. In addition, the administrative burden on providers to give the Office for Students details of the student unions of their constituent colleges in addition to their own student unions, with the OfS then under a duty to maintain a list of them, monitor their compliance with their duties and deal with them in regulatory terms, as well as under the complaints scheme, would be resource intensive and disproportionate. That point has been made many times by Opposition Members in relation to other issues that have been raised today.
As for student clubs and societies, if they are affiliated to the student union, they will be covered by the student union’s code of practice. If they are not affiliated, they will still be subject to their provider’s code of practice, a point that I think has been missed in today’s debate. For similar reasons to those I have already set out in relation to JCRs and MCRs, we therefore do not think it would be appropriate to extend the duties to cover those clubs and societies directly. I hope that this clarifies the points made, and that we can agree not to accept new clause 4 and to move forward with the rest of the Bill.
Matt Western
The debate on these particular points has been really healthy and robust, and my Labour colleagues’ contributions have been extremely important—I particularly note those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. What we have been saying for the last hour or hour and a half is that all we are seeking is consistency in this Bill, and that we cannot afford to have a two-tier higher education system. The words “iniquitous” and “unfair” have been used, but the problem is that either we recognise there is a need for coverage for all bodies and all groups that are exclusively student, as was rightly said, or there is not. The Minister has just said that it would be unnecessary and bureaucratic for this provision to be applied to middle and junior common rooms. We would say that it is unnecessary and bureaucratic for all institutions, irrespective of what they are or their heritage and history, and particularly for the smaller organisations that we keep speaking up for. As is well understood by many of us in this room, the whole higher education sector is incredibly diverse. Many smaller bodies—further education colleges and so on—will not be geared up to sustain these changes.
Emma Hardy
Maybe the Minister cannot provide the evidence for this, or maybe I am making a mistake, but I do not understand how non-affiliated student societies that are privately funded will be covered under the Bill as it is written.
Matt Western
That is my real concern, which I was just about to come on to. There is real fear about these well-funded bodies; I mentioned the Chinese groups specifically because that point was raised by both sides, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and by, I think, the hon. Member for North West Durham. There is increasing evidence that these groups are seeking to influence our campuses from beyond, and that those groups will not be affiliated to those institutions.
The Chair
May I just remind the hon. Member that we are summing up here, rather than making a brand new speech, because time is pressing.
Matt Western
Mrs Cummins, I am sorry if it was not clear that I was trying to sum up the points that were put so well by my colleagues. The Minister has said that these non-affiliated groups would be covered by these duties, but it is not clear to me or to my colleagues how that will be the case.
Michelle Donelan
To clarify, if a non-affiliated group were having an event on a university campus, it would of course be covered under the university’s code of practice.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister for her intervention. I do not mean to try her patience; the points we are trying to make are simply an attempt to explore absolutely all eventualities. We have talked about PBSA—purpose-built student accommodation—and the increasing amount of private sector premises on campus and elsewhere that are being used by universities. I can speak from local experience. In Leamington, we have private accommodation that is being used by the student union.
Sir John Hayes
I am going to be careful what I say, because I have other responsibilities in the House on a different Committee, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about external organisations that includes consideration of the Confucius Institutes, which are now located on campuses across the country. Perhaps he might use this opportunity—or perhaps I might use it through him—to ask the Minister to look at that matter again. These are highly questionable, in terms of what they do, where they are located, how they are funded and who is behind them.
Matt Western
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for illustrating and articulating the point that I was alluding to, but was not being specific about. I am sure the Minister will have listened to the important point he makes.
I understand the Minister’s point about these groups being covered on campuses, on premises that the university may control, but how would that apply to, for instance, the private properties in Leamington that are used by Warwick University?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The Minister said in her useful intervention that if it is a university property, it will be regulated, but we are talking about private property that the university does not run but just directs students to. The university has a big signpost saying, “This is our accommodation,” but as soon as students step over the threshold, the university has no regulatory role, no delivery role—no anything role. What is provided in that property is student space, meeting rooms and accommodation. That is the nub of what we are trying to get to.
Matt Western
It is exactly that. I will not spin the wheels and repeat exactly what my hon. Friend has said, but perhaps the Minister would like to respond.
Michelle Donelan
I appreciate the point that hon. Members are trying to make, but I think it is time to step back and reflect on the consequences of what they are arguing. They are effectively arguing that if a group of students were in their homes, or if they organised an event in a pub, we would have to regulate that. We have to be reasonable about what we are asking universities to regulate and what is in their control.
Matt Western
That is the issue, perhaps in part, with the Bill. The Government are trying impose, top down, a series of responsibilities and duties on universities to oversee and implement this legislation. The points we are making are about how many loopholes there are and how groups, particularly well-funded groups and private societies, will disaffiliate from the union and seek other premises in which to practise this sort of speech.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Quite clearly, some parts of an institution come through a university—its student union, properly affiliated to it; student bodies; its faculty—but this provision also includes individual students, and when those individuals come together, they are not representing the university. It is not top down. All the Government are trying to do is to ensure that anything that comes down through the institution is covered, whereas things that essentially come from groups of students getting together in a non-formal setting are different. I can see the difference, and I am sure that the shadow team could also reflect on the clear difference between those two things.
Matt Western
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. My colleague wants to make a short related point, and I will respond to both together.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
This is the nub of the contradiction. That is why some of us suggested that the Minister could, to be consistent, remove student societies from the regulation. If students come together and organise a club that just happens to affiliate to the student union—even if they are totally autonomous and there is no role for the institution—the Bill regulates them. If they decide not to affiliate to the institution, but do everything else the same, the Bill does not regulate them. All I am saying is that it needs either to regulate them or to say that it regulates the student union but does not go down further to regulate the constituent parts—for example, a speech at the student Conservative club should not require monitoring by the office of diktats.
Matt Western
It is about affiliation, or the decision of groups to disaffiliate from the student union, as well as how private property will come into play. We have simply said that it should be all or none. We cannot have a two-tier system for this regulation.
The new clause is very simple and straightforward. It is pragmatic and would bring about sensible changes and protections, which is what I thought the Government were trying to do. At the end of the day, without such changes the whole legislation is exposed for what it is and will not deliver the protections that the Government believe they are going to introduce.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Tomlinson.)
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Seventh sitting)
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before I call Sir John Hayes, I think everyone would wish to join me in congratulating the Minister on having her responsibilities extended to further areas, including being able to attend the Cabinet. Many congratulations.
Clause 1
Duties of registered higher education providers
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 1, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
“(11) The governing body of a registered Higher Education Provider must present to the OfS, at least once a quarter, a report detailing the steps their organisation has undertaken to fulfil its positive duties under subsection (2).”
You anticipated my opening remarks, Sir Christopher, although of course your seniority in all we do permits that and makes it entirely agreeable to me, so I echo your sentiments about the Minister. We are delighted to have her with us today, and she will be delighted with the amendment in my name.
The amendment is entirely in tune with the purposes of the Bill. We have had a useful debate so far during our scrutiny, and I have been reminded of Dickens:
“An idea, like a ghost, must be spoken to a little before it will explain itself.”
The ideas that have been spoken to a little during our deliberations have affirmed in the minds not only of the members of the Committee, but more widely, the significance of free speech and, in particular, the importance in higher education of open discussion and debate as a means to explore new ideas—to explore and discover, one might say.
We have also established that the argument that this is not a problem—that, in the words of Professor Biggar, who was also one of our witnesses,
“Concern about threats to free speech…in universities is sometimes dismissed as a manufactured distraction”—
does not stand up to close scrutiny. He and other witnesses made it clear that, in his words,
“There is empirical evidence that freedom to speak and research of significant minorities of university students and teachers in the UK are being inhibited.”
He went on to write:
“For every individual who finds himself censored, ostracised, made ill, or bulldozed, there are hundreds of others who look on aghast and resolve to keep their mouths shut, lest they attract trouble.”
We could have a debate—though I do not think that it would be helpful to do so this morning, and I am not sure you would permit it anyway, Sir Christopher—about the true extent of that problem, but clearly there is a problem to be addressed. The Minister and the Government have recognised that—thus the Bill.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman said that we will not discuss this, but is not one of the main arguments put by people who support the Bill that self-censoring is going on? In a lot of the evidence that we have taken so far, everyone has said that they cannot actually say what the scale of the issue is. If we are to use that as a central plank of the reason why the legislation is needed, is it not important for someone to come up with the evidence to support it?
Sir John Hayes
I will take that as a helpful remark in support of my amendment, for reasons that I will explain in a second. I have spent a great deal of time with the right hon. Gentleman in discourse of all kinds. In fact, I sometimes think that I spend more time with him than I do with my family, given the Committees that we serve on together, and the onerous nature of the business. We both take that seriously, and we feel that it is a worthwhile thing to do. I always listen to him carefully, because he is a former Minister and a distinguished Member of this House. The point that he is making is that, in order to gauge and to respond to the real extent, we need information. My amendment provides the mechanism by which that information can be brought forward.
In my amendment, I argue simply that universities should provide evidence quarterly, at least, of how they are coping with and responding to the legal demands that the Bill, which I presume will become an Act, enshrines. This is about really getting to the root of the problem and the root of the solutions to the problem.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I understand the motivation behind the amendment. However, resources are not endless. The Office for Students has many other duties and responsibilities. This amendment gives preference and priority to quarterly reporting on this issue above all others.
The OfS’s remit is incredibly wide: it is meant to ensure that students have a high-quality education. In terms of the past year, and the number of online lessons that students have had and the difficulties with the quality of their education, this amendment would have meant the Office for Students devoting more time to looking at freedom of speech than at those other issues. On the question of resourcing, is this amendment practical?
Sir John Hayes
Of course, in the amendment I do not specify the character of the report. I assume it will not be a thesis. I am not expecting disproportionate resource to be allocated to the provision of this quarterly report. In my mind, it would be a summary of the steps that had been taken to meet the positive duties. Frankly, I would not have thought that that was a very bureaucratic exercise, if the universities are doing the job.
The hon. Lady is right that it would be onerous if they were not doing the job and were struggling to comprehend or respond to those duties, because they would presumably be having to find explanations to legitimise why they had not done what they ought to have done. If they are doing the job as the Bill instructs them, a short summary to explain that would not be difficult to deliver.
Emma Hardy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being generous and allowing me to come back. The point is not just that it is onerous and that it involves quarterly reporting, but that it is a question of priority and statement. Under the amendment, the OfS would be saying, “We will give priority to looking at the Bill above all our other duties, because we will have to have quarterly reports,” as opposed to the annual reports they have for most other duties. After the difficult year that students have had, saying that this should be given to the Office for Students every quarter as their main priority is not the message that the Office for Students should be sending to their students.
Sir John Hayes
With respect to the hon. Lady, the amendment is very simple, as she will see detailed in the papers before us. It simply adds to clause 1, line 36, a requirement that the governing body
“present to the OfS, at least once a quarter, a report detailing the steps their organisation has undertaken to fulfil its positive duties under subsection (2).”It does not say that all else in the university must be brought to a halt, or that this is the overweening or overwhelming priority of the university.
Universities have many statutory duties, as other bodies do. It is not uncommon for legislation to require bodies to report on their statutory obligations, so this is not in any way unprecedented or irregular. I agree with the hon. Lady that universities will have many priorities, and some of those will be fundamental to their purpose.
Good teaching and learning and good-quality research are at the very heart of the business of the university, but we have said repeatedly in this Committee, and it has been emphasised by Members across the Committee, that free speech, the free exchange of ideas and the formulation of innovative thinking are central—critical—to good higher education. If we think it is vital, and the Government must do, or they would not have brought the Bill forward in the first place, and if we think there is a problem, which again the Government must do, or else there would be no need for further requirements of this kind, then why on earth would we not want to hear from the frontline—in the spirit of the intervention made by the right hon. Member for North Durham—what the university was doing, which would, by its nature, reveal the character and extent of the problems we have discussed?
The spirit that has emerged across the Committee—the point was well made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—is that we are trying to make this legislation as effective as it can be. That must involve communication between universities and the new body that is being established to ensure that the legislation has its effect. My amendment quite simply does that. I do not think it is in any way unhelpful to the Government’s intention. I do not think that any university that is ready and willing to do its job will resent it. I do not think that it necessarily involves great bureaucracy, although I take the point of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle that if it were to, we would need to review that. If a university said, “We cannot do this, because we have produced 10 pages, but the person who fulfils the new role wants a thesis or a book,” it would clearly have to be looked again. However, I am thinking a summary describing what the university is doing to meet its positive duties, as the amendment suggests.
I cannot see a reason in the world why, when the Minister rises to respond, no doubt preceded by the Opposition spokesman giving the amendment a warm welcome, she would not—I do not want to put words in her mouth, particularly given her new, elevated status—say, “John, we should have thought of this ourselves.” When she does, needless to say, I will immediately say it was simply a probing amendment intended to be helpful and supportive. In that spirit, I will leave further discussion to wiser heads than mine.
Mr Jones
I add my congratulations to the Minister on her promotion, although she tells me she does not receive any more remuneration for her extra work. We should possibly be arguing that she should join a trade union to argue for more, but I wish her well in her new role.
I look back nostalgically to a day when I knew where the Conservative party stood. It was the party of deregulation and cutting red tape, and at any Conservative party conference, attacking the monster of red tape that was strangling business and our public institutions would get a huge cheer. I find the world we live in today rather confusing because we have a Government who, in this Bill, seem to be intervening very clearly in universities and bringing in more regulation. The amendment from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings adds more burdensome red tape for our academic institutions. It makes me wonder where the planets are aligning in the modern Conservative party, because the amendment would be onerous for academic institutions.
The problem is that this is a one-size-fits-all approach for all academic institutions, but we know they range hugely, from large universities to some very small further education colleges, whose capacity to take on this burden even annually would be limited, let alone quarterly. The party that used to pride itself on setting organisations free seems to want to restrain them, which is strange.
Emma Hardy
I am so pleased my right hon. Friend mentioned that, because when we think about higher education institutions we tend to think about those in the Russell Group such as Oxford or Cambridge, and not Hull College’s further education department, which has only a few hundred students and yet would be bound by everything in the Bill.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are many such institutions up and down the country. The Minister now has responsibility for the FE sector, which—this always annoys me—is treated as the poor relation in education by Governments. When we were in government, we did not do enough in that sector, but we know from my own constituency and others that many people would not get access to life chances and qualifications if it did not exist. More importantly, the colleges are community-based and have a good reputation as providers. Anything that adds to their burden is wrong.
Another problem is that there is no detail on what will be in the report. We would surely have to have a standardised, meaningful report. Somebody will have to come up with a matrix or form for it to be equal across all institutions. It will be pretty meaningless if it is left to institutions to decide.
Sir John Hayes
That is sensible. One reason why I tabled the amendment was to ensure a degree of consistency across universities. because everyone has to produce the report, and all universities will be expected to behave consistently. The right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is a good one, and a straightforward means of achieving that consistency could be provided by the new office.
Mr Jones
It could but, again, there is a problem because that detail is not in the amendment. There is a difference between a huge academic institution and a small FE college, and I do not know how we get one standard format to deal with that.
There is another issue, which was mentioned in the evidence. The amendment says:
“a report detailing the steps their organisation has undertaken to fulfil its positive duties under subsection (2)”.
That is about freedom of information. It comes back to the problem with this legislation and what we define as freedom of speech. Not only would we need a form or standardised format across all the institutions, but we would need to try and get a definition of what that freedom of speech is. We struggled with that with all the witnesses. It is a bit like motherhood and apple pie: we are all in favour of freedom of speech, but trying to define it is very difficult, especially if we want to ensure that all institutions promote the same thing, because there might be very different interpretations of what the duties would be, and I can see practical difficulties in that.
The right hon. Gentleman, who I have great affection for and have worked closely with, said that the Government must think there is a problem. Well, that is the problem with the entire piece of legislation—it is legislation looking for a problem, rather than solving an existing problem. The onus it will put on universities and the higher education sector is impractical.
Also, what is the sanction if, for example, an institution does not submit its report? What happens if it does not do something? We need criteria in the reporting that says, “You have to do X, Y and Z to meet this threshold” or whatever it is we are trying to achieve. Again, what is the sanction? What happens if an institution says, “I am just not bothering to do this”, or, “I do not have time”? Some might take a principled stand and say, “We are not going to do it.” What is the sanction and where does it say in the Bill, “You have to do it”? So there is a problem there. Are we suggesting that funding or other things should be withdrawn?
That comes back to my big concern about the Bill. I have said it before and I will say it again: it is a very un-Conservative approach to this sector, for the state to interfere directly in organisations that should have the ability to self-govern. What they want to achieve is ensuring that young people have a fulfilling and rich academic education, as we all do. It comes back to the issue of where the legislation lies; as well-intentioned as it may be, there are huge problems with it. It would be not only burdensome, but practically impossible to implement.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister, although, having sat in the shadow Cabinet, I am not completely sure that she will enjoy sitting in the full Cabinet. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that he did not want to put words in the Minister’s mouth and then went on to put words in my mouth. I want to be absolutely clear, on every occasion, that I think the Bill is an unwarranted intervention. It is completely unnecessary and on the edge of being crackers. However, we will try to make the best of a bad job.
I understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from: there has to be a line of accountability. It should be public, open and transparent, and doing the reports is one way. However, my problem is that it is heavy on regulation. I thought that there was a rule in the Government: one regulation in, one regulation out. I look forward to hearing which regulation is coming out to accommodate this going in.
I have worked in local government, both elected and as a civil servant. We know what will happen to this requirement if it is on a quarterly basis. It will either be a simple checklist and that is it—almost meaningless—or it will become a burden that some institutions will fail to fulfil effectively. Therefore, I think it is best left to the annual reports undertaken by the universities and colleges, rather than quarterly reports.
Sir John Hayes
I take careful note of the point made about regulating bureaucracy. However, the risk of not doing it this way is that the new office and, in particular, the individual will become more intrusive. The mission of that office and individual will be to ensure that the Act, as it will then be, is being implemented, and no doubt that inquiries, questions, complaints and all kinds of things will be made to that office. Contrary to his suggestion, I believe that my amendment would simplify the system, in a curious kind of way. It may well leave universities in a rather better place than they would otherwise be.
John McDonnell
The problem is that it will either simplify it to the extent that it becomes meaningless—just a tick-box exercise—or it will become a voluminous burden placed on colleges, when some do not have the resources to respond in that way. I offer this suggestion in the spirit of compromise: it would be best left to the Office for Students, along with the new director, which is already charged with the overview of the operation of the legislation. It would be best for them to consult with the relevant authorities and the colleges themselves, and in due course come back with an appropriate procedure. I would not want to fetter their discretion with an amendment like this at this stage.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I add my personal congratulations to the Minister on her expanded responsibilities. After yesterday’s sitting, I hope that she will have a lot of time to apply to the guidance that we discussed, in addition to all her new responsibilities. I am sure she will, and that she will have many more staff to support her. I wish her well.
I understand where the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is coming from with the amendment. As we have heard throughout our proceedings, this piece of legislation is not only burdensome—and, we argue, not necessary—but has not been fully thought through. It seems to have been rushed. The 90-odd—whatever number—amendments we may be up to now seem to suggest that there is a lot wrong with the Bill.
My concern, as has been articulated by my right hon. Friends the Members for North Durham and for Hayes and Harlington and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, is about the additional work that the Bill will lead to for students, student unions and universities, as was well said. I think back to the days of 2010 and what might be described as the Cameron Government, and there was a great blaze of “We are going to rip up legislation”, or, “We are going to reduce all the red tape and burden on business and organisations”, and yet here we are with a Government who seem to be acting in quite the reverse way. They seem to be putting more and more constraints on businesses and the public sector.
Mr Jones
I remember those days with affection, because at least we knew where the Tory party was. The Tories said that they would have a “bonfire of red tape”. Now, not only do we have an Administration for which that is smouldering embers, but we have the Government putting fuel on to that fire, rather than putting it out.
Matt Western
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I am just not sure where this reporting will end. Will we end up with universities having to report about whether people are tweeting from a particular political persuasion, or the political leanings and make-up of those on the governing board, and so on? I think that is an alarming direction to be going in.
Emma Hardy
As we recall, the previous Secretary of State for Education wrote two letters to the OfS. In both those letters, he demanded that it reduce the amount of regulation given to universities, so I am not sure how the amendment stands with the directions of the now previous Secretary of State.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is right, and her experience is appreciated and valued. I think we have a problem, in that the OfS is a bit of a misnomer. I am not entirely sure that its interests are aimed at students, or whether its responsibilities are more towards the institutions or, increasingly, about being an office for Government, as opposed to an Office for Students.
Do we have reporting on the number of incidents of violence against women? Do we have reporting data on mental health incidents and issues? There are so many important and pressing issues among our student communities across the country, but those are not being listened to by the OfS. I would have thought that, given it is a few years since its inception and it has a new chair, surely those are the sorts of issues that its chair would want to get into—to understand what is of concern to the student body, as opposed to what is of concern to the Government.
With the idea of having the report—we have debated what it might look like—I think back to the days of my previous role in business and, in a subsidiary organisation, of the reporting that would go to head office. How should it look, or was it just something we knew would just sit on a shelf and never really get looked at? It helped those in head office that they had those reports.
The crucial thing, I would say, is that with any move by the OfS, it has to look at systems of standardising the data that comes in on the areas that I have been discussing—mental health, violence against women, accommodation and so on—before it starts to introduce the burdens. As was said in the Government’s own impact assessment, the costs will already be something like £48 million over 10 years—the burden of this legislation, even before we get into quarterly submissions as well. At a time when universities and higher education institutions are under huge pressure, that is an unnecessary additional request.
Sir John Hayes
This has been a useful discussion. We have to be clear about what the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom within the Office for Students will do. Will he be driven by queries and complaints, which is perfectly possible? Is he there to monitor, to have a proactive monitoring role? Will he be a mentor and guide, and advise? Indications so far are that guidance will be issued and be sufficient to ensure the consistency I called for earlier, but to streamline the process rather than to complicate it, having a bottom-up rather than top-down approach—in other words, asking the universities themselves to make it clear how they will interpret and enact the duty—would seem to be a simpler process than many of the other things that I have described?
Matt Western
That could be the case—I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The concern overall is about the number of reports. It could well be that guidance can assist in the delivery of that, but we will see. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned, the criteria and what leads to sanction are important to establish.
Finally, we have to be careful about the number of demands on the universities, and we have to be consistent about how frequently we want those reports to be provided. Looking at the other amendments in which we ask for reporting from universities or from the OfS, there is some inconsistency—amendment 73 tabled by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and our amendments 54 and 79. We have to have consistency. It would have much more weight if there were an annual report, which everyone knew they were working towards. With the introduction of the REF and the TEF—the research and teaching excellence frameworks—and so on, there are huge demands on the institutions.
Dr Greg Walker of MillionPlus made it absolutely clear—he was one of many to be quite outspoken—in saying that the Bill should
“avoid adding unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on universities which would risk diverting resources away from the frontline education of students.”
That is what the university institutions, and the NUS and the student unions want as well. That is not to defer, delay or prevaricate about understanding the need for reporting. Let us ensure that the reporting that is required, or requested, by the OfS is consistent and useable, as opposed to being about the sorts of issues that many on the Opposition Benches have suggested.
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
Thank you, Sir Christopher, and thank you for your kind words and those of other Committee members.
The amendment seeks to require providers to report quarterly to the Office for Students on how they are meeting their freedom of speech duties. The duties in the Bill, including those relating to the OfS, sit alongside duties already set out in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
The OfS regulates higher education through a register of higher education providers. It imposes initial and ongoing conditions of registration on providers, and monitors and enforces their compliance. There are already clear requirements for registered providers to give information to the OfS. Under the existing registration conditions, providers must provide the OfS with such information as it may require for the purposes of performing its functions. Providers must also take steps to co-operate with reasonable requests made by the OfS in its monitoring or investigation work. That may include providing explanations or making documents available.
The information requirements form part of a mandatory registration condition under section 8 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, and have been implemented by the OfS via registration condition F3. There are also mandatory registration conditions relating to governance, which ensure that providers have the necessary governing documents and management systems in place to comply with their registration conditions, including those concerning freedom of speech.
In addition to those existing requirements, clause 5 of the Bill will provide for new mandatory registration conditions relating to freedom of speech. The creation of the role of director for freedom of speech and academic freedom under clause 8 will mean that there is an ongoing focus on this area.
In light of that, I hope that the Committee shares my concern that the amendment would create an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on higher education providers. I will, however, reflect on the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and other members of the Committee. Nevertheless, I believe that there are already sufficient powers in existing legislation to enable the OfS to request information and to monitor and enforce providers’ duties effectively.
Matt Western
I hope that the Minister will agree with me—with us, perhaps. The evidence that the Free Speech Union provided included a whole list of what it described as “incidents”. It recorded a plethora of them, but they were clearly very diverse. How those might be categorised into some sort of report would be extremely difficult. Also, something we picked up from the vice-president of the NUS was how she believed that this reporting, this burden, and much of the legislation, will have the reverse effect, impacting on so many of the smaller institutions. That reverse chilling effect might lead to less free speech on our campuses, whatever shape and size they might be.
Michelle Donelan
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the reverse effect. A key part of the legislation is that it will place a duty on providers to promote free speech. If the opposite were happening, they would contravene the Bill and the director would step in.
Another concern with the amendment is that it would be out of kilter with the approach taken to other registration conditions. As Opposition Members have said, so many things could be asked of the OfS on reporting and our providers. There is a balance to strike. I remind Members that, a year ago, the Government made a commitment to reduce bureaucracy for our higher education providers. A further information requirement, in addition to what is already in place, would increase bureaucracy and the burden on providers. I am not convinced that there is a clear need.
I trust that the Committee will agree that we do not wish to impose a further burden and that the amendment is not necessary. However, I will continue to reflect on the points made in the debate.
Sir John Hayes
I do not agree with the Minister on this. The risk is that the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be driven, as I implied earlier, by queries and complaints. The Minister emphasised in her response the investigative role of that individual. That risks inconsistency, rather than consistency. The amendment I tabled might be imperfect in its detail—I am always prepared to concede that point, because Government have at their disposal all sorts of clever people who can draw up amendments far more carefully than I can—but I think that creating openness and a degree of consistency and transparency in the process is important.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I am listening to what my right hon. Friend said, and I heard what the Minister said, but is not the mischief that my right hon. Friend is seeking to address the fact that in universities, challenges to freedom of speech are so widespread—so entrenched, in many cases—that there needs to be real impetus to engender change? That is what this positive obligation would impose, so that we do not see again—as in the King’s study—that 25% of students, or half a million people, say that they feel inhibited from speaking freely. If, over time, there are much healthier reports, the frequency of the report that he has suggested could perhaps be reduced, but initially we need this energy and impetus urgently.
Sir John Hayes
Yes, I did not emphasise that point in my opening remarks, or just now, so it is important to say how serious we are about this, and to send that signal to universities; my hon. Friend is right. However, from the Government’s point of view, my suggestion would create more clarity about the role of the new director. It is important that during the passage of the legislation, we learn a bit more about how his office will work within the Office for Students. At the very least, I hope that the Minister will agree to be clearer about that, because we do not quite know how proactive or reactive that individual will be. As the legislation progresses, universities deserve that clarity, as do Members of this House and parliamentarians in the other place.
Matt Western
I actually agree. What is the new role? What is the remit of the director of free speech and academic freedom? It is not clear just how powerful that individual will be, what size the department will be, and how far-reaching those powers will be. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is extremely well made and very important. One of the Opposition’s amendments relates to how that person should be appointed and what reporting back there should be from them and that department. The key thing will be to appoint that person in the light of a set of criteria that set out the intention for that role.
Sir John Hayes
I will, but shall I answer that intervention first. I do not want to build up a catalogue of interventions; I will not know which one to deal with in which order.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is right; creating some structure around that role is important. I suppose that, in part, is what the amendment does: try to create more certainty. There is a balance between the proactive and the reactive. There is the balance between what is expected of universities, and what they feed into the process, and what is fed to them from the centre. This is a complex matter, because it is new territory for universities and for Government. It will be important to create more understanding of the role, as he suggests. I give way to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.
John McDonnell
I think we are getting there. The spirit of the matter that the right hon. Gentleman is laying before us is right. However, for some of us, there is anxiety about quarterly reports and their onerous nature; they will become like Soviet tractor production records if we are not careful. That is why amendment 79, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, refers to an annual report. In that way it becomes manageable. That is all we are suggesting; we agree with the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion.
Sir John Hayes
I had always assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was fonder of five-year plans than me.
John McDonnell
We need to have a discussion about the different tendencies of socialism, because actually Stalin—no, we had better not go there.
Sir John Hayes
I tell you what: I will make the right hon. Gentleman an offer. I think we should have lunch or dinner.
Sir John Hayes
I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will wrap up, because I know the Minister want to make progress. Did he want to intervene? Was it about Marxist-Leninism?
Matt Western
Not entirely, but on the point about tractor production—this is serious—if we think about the number of students arriving on campus this autumn, if there was some understanding or plan, that might have been more helpful than the slight chaos that many universities will face as a result of the A-level results.
Sir John Hayes
I start with the assumption that we will have to engender some good will towards the process, because the aim is for universities to be co-operative. I certainly would not want to make this an attack on the sector—that is not how I see it—but it is a requirement on the sector. Not all obligations are by their nature antagonistic. My aim in proposing the amendment is to say to universities, “Look, describe what you are doing and how you are doing it, pertinently, briefly and coherently.”
It may well be that once the new director is in place, he finds some other means—not this quarterly report—of eliciting this information from universities, but my purpose in putting the amendment forward was to create greater certainty and clarity in the minds of universities and those who are profoundly concerned about free speech and its absence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and I are, and, moreover, to send a signal about how serious the duties are. I re-emphasise that all the witness statements we received said that the Bill was significant, and many regarded it as essential.
Matt Western
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham about criteria and sanction? We have to be very careful, because there are real concerns that an appointment could be political and that, if we do not have the criteria clearly established and laid out, where there are those in the OFS who are incredibly political, and who have certain institutions in their crosshairs, they will be gunning for those institutions.
Sir John Hayes
Yes, that is a fair point. Obligations necessitate some kind of sanction when people fail to meet them, do they not? That will also need to emerge in the course of our deliberations, either here, at a later stage, or in the other place. Maybe it will come in the guidance that we are promised from the new director.
The right hon. Member for North Durham was, as I was, a Minister in many Government Departments over a considerable time. Most of the people I dealt with in all those Departments would say to me—I would not be surprised if he found the same—“If you are clear about what you expect of us, we will build our plans around those expectations. If we know what we are obliged to do, we will develop a business plan to do it.” It is not always about what a Minister demands. It is about how clear they are about those demands. That is what I found with the various agencies and organisations I worked with as a Minister in different spheres of Government.
I hear what the Minister says. She has been very generous in saying she will reflect on the point. I respect that and thank her. I think we will return to this matter of being absolutely certain about what universities will do next, the signal that is sent to them and the role of the new director. I have no doubt that that will continue to be debated before the Bill becomes an Act. I hear what the Minister says. I was probing, as she knows. I am grateful for the way she has dealt with the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 1, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
“(e) the procedures to be adopted for consulting by ballot staff and students of the provider in making decision about whether to allow the use of premises, and on what terms, for events.”.
This amendment would provide the governing body with a democratic procedure for inviting or withholding invitations to speakers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 76, in clause 1, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) The provider must have particular regard to the result of a consultative ballot of its staff and students in making decisions about whether to allow the use of premises and on what terms.”.
This amendment would provide the governing body with a democratic procedure for inviting or withholding invitations to speakers.
Amendment 74, in clause 1, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
“(6) The Code of Practice shall include procedures to be followed to ensure the right of peaceful protest by staff, students and other interested parties.
(7) The Code of Practice shall include procedures for consulting recognised staff unions and student unions on amendments to the code of practice.”.
This amendment would ensure that university authorities set out procedures to facilitate peaceful protest on campus, and to engage with campus stakeholders on amendments to the code.
Matt Western
I will address these amendments in turn. While I appreciate the three of them being grouped together, the essence of the amendments is about ensuring the retention of democracy within our institutions, whether that be among staff, students or the entire body. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, who inputted the content of these amendments and is keen to speak to them.
It was interesting to hear from Danny Stone from the Antisemitism Policy Trust, who referenced the Manchester principles, which he worked hard on back in the day. Under those principles, an event was first advertised, in order to allow students to object if they thought it necessary. That is important. Amendments 75 and 76 echo the sentiment of the Manchester principles. We also heard in the evidence sessions from Professor Jonathan Grant from King’s College London about the work that KCL and other institutions have done. He said,
“What we did at King’s was work with our student union in developing a joint statement modelled on the Chicago principles and signed by both the president of the student union and the president of King’s College London. On the back of that, we developed a committee that reviewed all so-called high-risk events. That committee was made up of equal numbers of university staff, academics and professional staff, and students. It made recommendations to the senior vice-principal for operations and, potentially, to the principal. In my mind, creating a sort of co-production and co-creation process around managing those events was deeply beneficial because”,
as Professor Layzell had said,
“both sides started having conversations about the boundaries of what is and is not acceptable. Both groups then owned the process and the mitigations thereafter.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 123, Q268.]
The approach of KCL, University College London and many other institutions has been to establish these sorts of co-production and co-operative processes to ensure the rights to free speech are heard, but within an understanding and responsibility to the Equality Act 2010. That shows changes could have been put in place across the sector if the Government had consulted and engaged more openly with the sector, and looked at the likes of KCL, UCL and others to see best practice, what can be done, and what could be developed.
In response to the comments made by Professor Grant, Professor Layzell said that Universities UK would absolutely support that approach, and that what Professor Grant was saying was right. This can be achieved and it could have been achieved. That underlines the belief right across the sector that this legislation is unnecessary. Their process and these amendments seek to ensure the inclusion of all voices and all relevant parties interested in free speech on campus, and to achieve the cultural effect the Government are trying to achieve. We believe that, through a democratic process and through the engagement of all parties, that could have been, and could still be, achieved. As many have said, the legislation is a real sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut.
I turn to amendment 74 on the countervailing right to peaceful protest by staff, students and other interested parties. We seem to be losing some sort of perspective on how important protest is. In the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, there is a move by the Government to suppress freedom of speech and people’s right to protest on whatever it may be, whether they be on the right, the left or anywhere in between. People have different views, and they should be allowed to express them. Protest is just one simple form of freedom of speech. I am sure, Sir Christopher, that you will appreciate that. Back in your days as a student, you would have wanted to exercise that right just as much as anyone else.
Emma Hardy
One of the contradictions that I find with the Bill is that it gives the right to freedom of speech anywhere at any time within a university; however, under the Government’s new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, they wish to ban protest in Parliament Square. It seems slightly muddled.
Matt Western
We could be slightly cynical. I would not personally suggest this, but some might suggest that it is about freedom of speech as long as your speech is the sort of speech that the Government want to hear, as opposed to a genuine desire to have freedom of speech. You have to look at the legislation in the context of not just the PCSC Bill but what is going on with our museums. Sir Charles Dunstone, who I thought was once upon a time a Conservative donor, has resigned from the Royal Museums Greenwich because of the interference coming from the Government.
That echoes the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that there is meddling, interference, and an authoritarian chill going on from No. 10. I do not necessarily believe that the Minister thinks or behaves like that, but an incredibly centralising force is coming through from the Government. Trevor Phillips, in his evidence, said:
“In common law there is a right to protest in this country. I would have gladly seen something in this legislation that referred to that, but the truth is that we do have that right.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 7 September 2021; c. 26, Q50.]
We have that right presently, but it is being challenged by the Government. We need to remind ourselves how important freedom of speech is, and how important protest is to it.
Professor Whittle, who I had heard of and read about, gave quite moving evidence. He said:
“I have organised protests outside events myself but that has never been to close down the conversation. It has been to express an alternative point of view—to say, ‘Here are many voices who disagree with the voice inside.’”
It is really important that wherever we may be coming from we have the opportunity to protest and to put across our point of view, exercising our freedom of speech. He added:
“My main concern about the Bill is that it will provide an additional chilling effect overall, not to speakers but to potential protesters. It will result in people who want to express an alternative viewpoint, who are not speakers and do not have that opportunity to participate in the event…having no way of expressing that without appearing to challenge somebody’s right to free speech.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 7 September 2021; c. 38, Q71.]
That was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, who said to him:
“So you would want to see amendments to the Bill that gave students the right to continue to protest, and not therefore fall under the guidance of the Bill.”
He replied:
“Absolutely. Legitimate protest within universities is an absolute must.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 7 September 2021; c. 44, Q81.]
What would universities be without protest? What would they be without true free speech? Amendment 74 serves to provide that protection of protest—a physical manifestation of freedom of speech and academic freedom.
John McDonnell
Picking up from where my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington left off, for absolute clarity, this section deals with the code of practice, which is one of the most significant elements of the Bill. That is why we need to be more explicit about the range of factors it takes into account.
I am trying to envisage how this legislation will be implemented. We need to look at the most difficult scenarios, not the easiest ones where we have laws that would prevent certain speakers from being hosted at universities because of the nature of the organisations they are associated with or the views they express. My anxieties are about the cases that are not clear cut but that can have a real impact on a community. The best way of dealing with that is to ensure that there is a process of engagement with the communities involved––the students and staff and so on. To democratise that as much as possible, I have suggested in one amendment a balloting procedure, but it does not have to be that; it could be other forms of consultation.
Full involvement is the best way of resolving those difficult issues that are not absolutely clear cut, because that way people are brought along. In addition, we need to establish a process whereby people can engage in expressing a view against a decision with which they disagree. That could be about preventing a speaker from coming on––Sir Christopher, you have had that experience in the past, although I am not sure about the level of riotous behaviour––or allowing a speaker with whom people fundamentally disagree. We have to engage and enable that process to take place or it will spill out in other forms.
The other day, someone explained to me what an arc of narrative is, so I am going to try an arc of narrative. If I start with a story that seems completely unrelated, I promise that we will get there in the end. It is a serious matter drawn from my experience in my own community 40 years ago. A young Asian man was racially murdered in Southall. I live in Hayes, literally half an hour down the road. Community concern was expressed about the lack of policing and the investigation. It was a contentious issue in the community that got national coverage. Then far right groups seized on it.
Hon. Members will remember that in the late 1970s, we had the National Front in its worst forms, and it decided to march through Southall. I had not been elected to any position at that time so I was not heavily engaged, but in my view as a community activist and local resident, the lack of community engagement meant that the authorities did not fully understand the scale of anxiety, insecurity and anger in the local community. The march took place and there was a riot. The interesting thing was that it was not just a riot of protesters: the police lost control, so it was a police riot, too. A young man called Blair Peach was killed. We went on a commemorative walk the following week. It was an appalling story that took place in the heart of our local community.
The lesson to learn from that was to ask whether the community, liaising with the police and all the other authorities, should have allowed that march to go through. The unrest, the violence that took place and the complete lack of control from all angles was almost inevitable. We learned from that, so now judgments are made about whether a particular provocative act, such as a march or something like it, is allowed to take place in certain communities.
What the police have found—I resent what is happening in the new police Bill, which is going through Parliament, because I think it is inappropriate and unnecessary—is that if an action was thought to be provocative in that way, there would be widespread consultation in the community. The police would make a judgment, working with the local authority, local councillors, community groups and others, about whether that march should be allowed to go ahead. We are working on that in my local community now. My worry is that if we do not have in this Bill some process and procedure of engagement with all interested parties, including the students and the staff, the enforcement of the legislation could become heavy-handed and provoke a unintended reaction. We need to think that through.
Some Members have been here longer than me and have dealt with these things for longer than I have, but when considering legislation, is it not always best to take the worst scenario and to legislate for that? That does not undermine the process overall, but it builds in safeguards. The amendment, which is not provocative in any way, would build in the safeguard of ensuring, first, that we had a consultative procedure with staff and students; perhaps elements in the local community will want to engage, as well. Building in a consultative procedure that would enable the university authorities to make a wiser decision. They might completely ignore the consultations, and that is their right, but they should at least have regard to them.
Secondly, I want to go a bit further because I am fundamentally a democrat, despite allegations of Stalinism from certain sides. I fundamentally believe that the best form of consultation is a ballot. People do not necessarily have to abide by it, but a ballot does test the strength of feeling and balance of judgment of the participants—the staff and the students themselves.
Let us consider a belt-and-braces approach. A consultation should be undertaken, and it might include a ballot, depending on what amendment we consider appropriate. We know that, even though views have been listened to, the decision may not suit some people and they might still be anxious or angry about it, so we need to build in the ability and the right for people to protest as well. That is a pragmatic way to deal with issues that are as contentious as this. If we do not build in such procedures, what do we get? We get late 1970s Southall, where people are angry and say, “No one has listened to us. They have allowed this to happen.” People pour on to the streets, the police overreact, and a young man is killed.
I do not want to exaggerate the situation. I am just saying let us at least build into the legislation the possibility that these things might go wrong or go awry. Sometimes things will go awry anyway, but at least we would know we had done our best to undermine the chances of the legislation resulting in unforeseen events that damage the protection of freedom of speech and academic freedom, rather than enhance it.
That is why we tabled the amendments. There might be drafting issues that the Minister and the Committee might like to look at, but that is the spirit in which the amendments were tabled. I cannot see why anyone would disagree with it. The Bill is completely inappropriate and unnecessary, and it will cause more problems than it tackles, but at least let us try to minimise one potential problem, by a democratic process that we are trying to enhance as we sit in Committee today. That is the narrative arc. Thank you, Sir Christopher, for having patience with me. I nearly got there in the end, but perhaps not completely.
Matt Western
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and for how he has articulated his argument. I remember the Blair Peach death and the events that led to it. I mentioned the Red Lion Square disorders during our evidence sessions. At the time, I did not recall that it involved a student from the University of Warwick, who was also killed while protesting against the rise of the fascist National Front. He was the first person to be killed in a protest for 55 years.
When I asked Professor Kaufmann about this, he said that the Bill
“is not really a public order Bill”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 90, Q183.]
I appreciate that it is not a public order Bill, but there are serious consequences, and we have talked about unintended consequences throughout. The kind of behaviours that can result from the lack of engagement and consultation, as my right hon. Friend described, could be very disturbing.
John McDonnell
That is my point. In legislation such as this, it is important to ensure that we identify the unintended consequences. That is what the amendments are all about. As I said, the best way of overcoming them is through maximum involvement and engagement with all those who are implicated in or affected by the Bill’s provisions.
We had a commemoration for Blair Peach only 18 months ago. I was with his widow. We had another commemoration, only a couple of months ago, because, as happens in some of our local communities, someone had stolen the plaque—but, never mind, it came back eventually. That reminded me of how, on contentious issues like this, where there is a distinction to be made between what someone says or does that is clearly illegal and what someone says or does that is just unacceptable—and dangerous in certain communities—there must be some mechanism by which judgment is made by the authorities involved. One of the best ways of informing that decision is through consultation, engagement, and, for me, a bit of democratic decision making too. That is all that the amendments do.
Sir John Hayes
The right hon. Gentleman is making a case about events. Public events, of course, include speakers, meetings, and so on. I presume that he is not extending that to the area of academic enquiry. There could not be such a debate about a research project or a piece of academic work, because, on that basis, he would be trying to democratise scientific thinking. I assume that he is speaking about one particular aspect of the Bill.
John McDonnell
That is a good point. I am trying to look pragmatically at what is happening on the ground, what would happen in practice, and the problems that could cause. This is almost certainly uniquely about specific events that will take place. They are the ones that are the most difficult, where we can see that protests can get out of hand if we do not accommodate for them.
Protests can also be provoked if we do not allow voices to be heard in some part of the process of decision making. It is a valid point to make. I am trying to look practically at how this legislation will roll out. The last thing we want is to be returning in a few years’ time with some form of event on our hands that provoked that scale of anger and protest because people did not have the right to have their say or participate in the decision making process.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend reminds me that one of the first acts of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in 2010 when she became Home Secretary was to ban a march of the English Defence League in Bradford, not because she was a dangerous person undermining free speech, but because only nine years earlier, we had devastating race riots in Bradford that left a long scar on the community. I do not say that because I think there is a danger that the English Defence League will march through university campuses—although I do not rule it out. Because it was a public space, the Secretary of State had the ability in that instance to make a ruling that, even though what the English Defence League was marching about was legal in that it was not directly inciting hatred—many people say that it was doing so indirectly—there was a public order issue that she was concerned about. We need the ability in the code of practice for universities to look at that balance of ensuring public order and safety on their campuses.
Emma Hardy
I refer the Committee again to Sunder Katwala’s evidence. He said:
“I feel that an event at a student union, ‘No blacks in the England team—keep our team white,’ does not seem to be the kind of event that we want to protect, and yet that is lawful but reprehensible speech, which we want to stigmatise, even though it is free speech within the law.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 130, Q213.]
Unless we build some protection—some ability to consult—into the law, such events could take place. As our right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, they would be likely to lead to confrontation.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I agree. I am sure that the Minister will point to clause 1 and proposed new section A2(2) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which provides that universities must create a code of practice that considers the conduct required of people speaking at the university. She may say that that is sufficient, but given that the Bill provides for a code of practice, it is a perfect time to consider how it is drawn up. It is not the Opposition saying that there should be a code of practice or that there should be limits on how people behave in public meetings or even in academic practice; the Government have included the provision. The Government are saying that universities must have a system to determine and delineate.
However, we have heard that what management thinks is acceptable is often very different from what the academic community and students find acceptable. Management might be motivated by thinking about good PR and what looks good in their recruitment, whereas academics might consider what is important for academic rigour, creating new debate and so on. The amendments are important because they propose including students and staff in the discussion about and creation of the code, and therefore the voting to approve it. Without including them, there is a danger that the code of conduct will be written up and created by universities and do everything that some people do not want it to do.
John McDonnell
The point of including in amendment 74 a consultation process on amendments is that things change over time. There are bound to be amendments to the code over time, so is not it better to ensure that a consultation process is built into the drafting? We talked in previous sittings about how attitudes to LGBT issues have changed. That sort of thing has to be reflected in any codes in future. That is just a pragmatic approach to how we develop.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Amendment 75 allows for consultation on the uses of premises, and would ensure the issue was covered by the code. As he mentions, amendment 74 is about future amendments to the code.
The Education Act 1994, introduced by a Conservative Government, regulated how student unions affiliate and who can affiliate with them, and created a democratic element to that. The Act requires a certain threshold of student turnout, and regular student polling to ensure that student unions do not affiliate with organisations that the student body might no longer feel it appropriate to affiliate with. That is why, up and down the country, student unions must have regular ballots on whether they should continue to affiliate with the National Union of Students. Some student unions—very few—choose not to affiliate with it. Southampton was one in my day, although it might have affiliated since; I cannot keep up with these things. Those requirements are quite right.
The procedures introduced by the Bill, particularly about a code of conduct that will regulate who can speak on campus and how, need to have that democratic aim. I would be more than happy if the Minister said, “This isn’t quite the wording. We want to incorporate some of the wording from the 1994 Act, as there are some parallels.” That would be great. However, there needs to be an appreciation of how students and staff will be balloted on both the use of premises and, more broadly, on the creation of the code of conduct and any amendment of it. Otherwise, there is real danger that the code will be written for a university’s public relations purposes, rather than to ensure a university’s academic rigour.
Fiona Bruce
I have listened to the debate, and I am troubled by amendments 75 and 76. I believe I heard the the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington say that the best form of consultation is ballot. I would normally construe that to mean a secret ballot. I am happy to be corrected if I misinterpreted his words. The whole aim of the Bill is to promote and secure freedom of speech—to open up dialogue at universities. We could end up with the almost bizarre situation in which people could vote in a secret ballot for what witnesses described as the monoculture, or even vote a certain way because of prejudice against a particular speaker, without having to give any reason why. I strongly believe that if the decision is made not to allow a speaker, or not allow the use of premises, those making that decision should publicly justify it; that goes to the heart of the Bill.
Michelle Donelan
I will try to be brief and not take interventions, given the time. Amendment 74 seeks to ensure that university authorities set out procedures to facilitate peaceful protest on campus and to engage with campus stakeholders on amendments to the code of practice. Amendments 75 and 76 would require the governing body to have a democratic procedure for decisions taken on use of their premises, and a provider would have to have particular regard to that procedure.
Proposed new section A2 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 will require registered higher education providers to maintain a code of practice, as they are already required to under section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Providers will, of course, need to revisit their existing codes after Royal Assent to ensure that they are fit for purpose and comply with the new duties of the Bill.
To help providers to update their codes, the Office for Students will in due course issue comprehensive guidance about what should be included in a code of practice. As well as setting out the provider’s values relating to freedom of speech and how those values uphold freedom of speech, the code of practice must set out the procedures to be followed when organising meetings and activities, as well as the conduct required in connection with them, and the criteria for decision making on the use of premises. This will ensure that individuals on campus are aware of the ways in which freedom of speech and academic freedom are effectively secured by the provider, and will provide guidance on how individuals can go about exercising their freedom of speech.
Although we encourage providers to work with their university community to ensure these values are upheld in a transparent way, we do not think there is a need to consult on subsequent changes to the code, as would be required under amendment 74. As for the right to peaceful protest, which is also covered by amendment 74, this is a fundamental tool of civic expression. It is in itself an aspect of freedom of speech, and so it is protected by the Bill. For example, if there is a protest against an academic because they have said something controversial but lawful, providers will need to decide what they can do that is reasonably practical to ensure that that academic can speak freely, but without limiting the peaceful protest surrounding them. Proposed new section A2(3) allows providers to include in their code such other matters as they think appropriate. That could include provision on the right to protest as a key part of freedom of speech.
Turning to amendments 75 and 76, it is intended that the code of practice should facilitate the discharge of the freedom of speech duty. A provider could choose to include a procedure for a ballot to assist with selecting speakers in the first place, but to insist on one would be overly bureaucratic. More significantly, one of the aims of the Bill is to secure the freedom of speech of everybody on campus, including those with minority viewpoints. It would not, therefore, be right to mandate a process that would give the majority a right that might act as an effective veto over decision making on events and, in effect, the free speech of minorities.
I hope that Members are reassured that nothing in this Bill restricts the right to protest, and that the requirements for the content of a provider’s code of practice are appropriate as drafted.
Matt Western
I do not have any points to add. I simply wish to push all three amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Building Safety Bill (Sixth sitting)
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that it is only in order to debate the specific group of amendments or clauses before the Committee. It is not in order to have a general debate on the Bill as per Second Reading or Third Reading.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Davies; it is a great pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship.
After that brief hiatus, I am pleased to return to consideration of the Opposition’s amendment 11. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale and his colleagues for raising the important issue of climate change and the role of the new Building Safety Regulator. Because of the issues that we have with the amendment, I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept it, but I appreciate the opportunity that it affords us to set out the regulator’s new role in this area and the wider action that the Government are taking. I will focus on three areas of concern: the existing powers that the regulator will be able to utilise; the levers available elsewhere in Government; and the confusion that the amendment would, I am sure unintentionally, cause.
I can assure the Committee that the objectives of the Building Safety Regulator and its functions already give the regulator the remit it needs to focus on ensuring that our building regulatory regime takes the appropriate steps to mitigate the effects of climate change. The existing statutory objective around securing safety would cover safety issues resulting from climate change, including risks of overheating. I also draw the Committee’s attention to the regulator’s objective to improve the standard of buildings. Standards are defined broadly by clause 29, which we shall come to in due course.
Standards will include all the matters that can be dealt with by the building regulations. Section 1 to the Building Act 1984 ensures that building regulations can cover sustainable development, the protection or enhancement of the environment, and furthering the conservation of fuel and power. Paragraph 8(5A) of schedule 1 to the Building Act also allows for building regulations to cover flood resistance and flood resilience.
The Building Safety Regulator will be under a duty, under clause 5, to keep the safety and standards of buildings under review, including safety issues relating to the building, such as overheating or flooding. The regulator will be able to recommend to Ministers or to industry changes needed to buildings and building standards to mitigate those issues. Therefore, the regulator will already have an important remit to provide independent advice to Ministers and industry on ensuring that building standards are appropriate and mitigate the effects of climate change.
It is also important that the role of the Building Safety Regulator is seen alongside action that the Government are already taking to ensure that building standards are improved to tackle the challenge of climate change and ensure that homes are built more energy-efficiently and in a way that is better for our environment, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud and for West Bromwich West alluded to. The Government’s new future homes standard will mean that from 2025 homes built to that standard will produce at least 75% fewer CO2 emissions compared with those built to current standards. To pave the way to 2025, we are making changes now to part L of the approved documents to ensure that new buildings, both domestic and non-domestic, produce meaningfully fewer CO2 emissions.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that clause 5 already deals with the issues set out in the amendment and that it is better to allow the Building Safety Regulator to lead on this work on building safety?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will come to later in my remarks. We want to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator has a clear remit and that its responsibilities are not confused or occluded by too much unnecessary verbiage.
The future homes standard will mean that homes in this country are fit for the future, better for the environment and affordable for consumers to heat, with low-carbon heating and very high fabric standards. We will be introducing a future building standard that will ensure that buildings that we use every day—cafés, shops, cinemas—will also be better built to ensure that they are more energy-efficient and produce fewer CO2 emissions.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for assuring us that the building regulations will be amended to take account of climate change. He mentioned addressing the issue of the heating of buildings in the future being low carbon. Many of the flats built in the last 20 years in my constituency suffer from the opposite problem and are impossible to cool. Will the building regulations also take into account the cooling of residential accommodation and buildings for other uses to ensure that they stay within a reasonable temperature for human use?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for introducing that matter. She will know that we look frequently at issues such as the heating and overheating of properties, the sizes of windows and ventilation. These are matters for building regulation, but they are not specifically matters for this Bill or for the Building Safety Regulator.
The Committee should also consider the risk involved in giving the Building Safety Regulator an explicit objective focused on coastal erosion and flooding. That approach risks confusing the role of the regulator by giving it an objective to tackle issues where other Government bodies have been given the lead. The Building Safety Regulator does not have the levers that other Government bodies and agencies have to deliver that objective.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with the interventions he is taking. He has made a good point about the Building Safety Regulator not necessarily having the levers, but does he agree that it will be imperative for the BSR to ensure that it engages proactively with all the different Government stakeholders that do have the levers to pull, to ensure that, irrespective of the limitations it may have as a stand-alone organisation, it can still achieve the broader objective that this amendment seeks to articulate?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, we want the Building Safety Regulator to consult with its peers across the sector, including with other Government agencies. As we work our way through the Bill, my hon. Friend will see that that is an objective.
The location of buildings is primarily an issue for the planning system. The Building Safety Regulator will have responsibility for the construction materials and the design, construction and occupation of buildings. My Department is responsible for planning, and I take that responsibility very seriously, hence our consultation on a planning reform Bill—
Christopher Pincher
The Committee will see the bones of it—the hon. Member for Weaver Vale may be about to ask me about that—very soon.
Mike Amesbury
For the sake clarity on gateway 1, what responsibilities will the Building Safety Regulator have in that journey?
Christopher Pincher
We want the Building Safety Regulator to have responsibilities with respect to gateway 1, and that will become clear to the hon. Gentleman as we address further clauses. I beg him to have patience, and he will see that there is a clear responsibility and involvement of the BSR.
We work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on planning issues around flooding. However, the Building Safety Regulator is not designed to replicate or oversee the planning system. The planning system already ensures that the risks outlined in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment are considered in the decision-making process. Specifically, the national planning policy framework sets out that development plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change and the risk of overheating from rising temperatures.
Tackling flooding and coastal erosion are also critical issues, as the hon. Gentleman rightly acknowledges. The Environment Agency supervises and works with other organisations to manage the risk of flooding and coastal erosion in England. It also directly manages flood risk from main rivers, the sea and reservoirs. It would therefore not be right for the Building Safety Regulator to replicate that important role. Tackling flooding and erosion is a priority for DEFRA and the EA, and the Government are investing £5.2 billion to build 2,000 new flood defences across the country over the next six years. That investment will better protect 336,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the action the Government are taking to mitigate the effects of climate change. That includes—as part of clause 3—creating a new Building Safety Regulator that will provide independent advice to Ministers on how building standards need to change to effectively mitigate climate change. I do not believe, however, that the amendment would have the effect that the hon. Gentleman wishes. It would confuse the role of the Building Safety Regulator, giving it an objective that would be hard to deliver when other bodies lead on crucial elements and are actually responsible for that objective. It would give the Building Safety Regulator responsibility without power, and I do not think that that is a sensible way to build agencies and undertake good governance.
The Building Safety Regulator will have the best chance of success with two clear objectives around the safety and standards of buildings, on which it has clear levers to deliver. In the light of those points and of the reassurances that I have provided, I hope that the Committee will recognise that the powers and objectives that we have set out for the Building Safety Regulator are sufficient to undertake the law as required, with respect to climate change. Other Government agencies, such as the Environment Agency, are also undertaking that important work. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mike Amesbury
I am not going to force the matter to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(6) In this Part, ‘safety’ means risk of harm arising from the location, construction or operation of buildings which may injure the health and wellbeing of the individual.”
This amendment defines safety within this part of the Bill.
Mike Amesbury
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. For many of us in this room our homes have been a place of sanctuary and safety, but for far too many that has not been the case. We have remained in our homes to protect the NHS and save lives, but too many have been housed in cramped, damp, poorly designed and shoddily constructed homes. Their immediate environment has been polluted by the air they breathe, and they have lacked space, whether communal or recreational. We have an opportunity to apply the lessons of the pandemic, which we are all familiar with, particularly our constituents, to create safe and healthy homes and communities.
By broadening the definition of safety in this part of the Bill, the amendment provides an opportunity to speak about risks beyond high-rise buildings and fire, and would address housing health and safety issues the Bill’s title claims to address. The Town and Country Planning Association’s written evidence points out that health risks and harms such as air pollution, overheating and noise pollution, as well as more indirect issues, such as poor accessibility or walkability, insecurity, lack of access to green space and cramped living conditions, are not covered by the Bill but undermine people’s wellbeing and health and ultimately their safety. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider the amendment.
Shaun Bailey
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Again, I find myself being slightly repetitive. I do not disagree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. On this point, he and I will probably find a lot of common ground. However, the amendment strays slightly into the planning space—I almost get the impression that the hon. Gentleman is perhaps trying to tease the Minister to give us a sneak peak of what might be in the planning Bill in the Queen’s Speech. Our local planning authorities should consider these matters when they determine planning, and I know from the local councils I deal with that they do. They do have conversations when they look at the design of a particular development. They consider what impact it will have, whether there will be space to live, and whether people will feel they can live there meaningfully.
Ruth Cadbury
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s belief that the amendment strays into planning, but it talks about the
“risk of harm arising from the location, construction or operation of buildings which may injure the health and wellbeing of the individual.”
Where, particularly in the construction or operation of buildings, are the planning issues? If a building is operating unsafely or the construction is unsafe, irrespective of the height or what the building is used for, the lack of safety is not a planning issue, but a construction issue.
Shaun Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I see her point, but I maintain the point that I made: we are slightly straying here. I see what she says, because if a building is fundamentally unsafe, of course the new Building Safety Regulator would need to intervene. I question whether we need the amendment to say that, though. I am concerned that perhaps these conversations are happening before time. Broadly speaking, although I agree with the sentiments behind the amendment, I just think that operationally—
Mike Amesbury
We are all in agreement—including, very importantly, many of the witnesses who gave evidence—that the regulator sits correctly in the Health and Safety Executive. Health and safety are paramount under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. When I think about how buildings are constructed, including some buildings that we are all very familiar with—thousands of buildings up and down the country—I see that the impact on our constituents, residents and leaseholders’ mental health is tremendous. That is because of the built environment. The interplay between health, homes and communities is crystal clear.
The Chair
Order. Interventions should be brief. The hon. Gentleman seems to be reverting back to a speech. Can I ask him to get to the punch of his intervention?
Shaun Bailey
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. One point that I would make, now that I have been able to gather my notes, is that clause 5 kind of addresses the issue. It says:
“The regulator must keep under review—
(a) the safety of people in or about buildings in relation to risks as regards buildings, and
(b) the standard of buildings.”
To pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made, the Bill already does that.
On the points that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale articulated very well on wellbeing and the need for homes that are placed so that people can live and thrive, from my experience those conversations are had at the planning stage and the determination stage. On the safety element, again I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth. She is right that the regulator needs to look at that. From my reading of the Bill, clause 5 address that. Although the sentiments behind the amendment are absolutely right, clause 5 half deals with that, and we have a planning process that deals with the other half. From that perspective, we are already doing this within the structures in which we are already operating. Again, I agree with the sentiments, but operationally there are ways in which we are already doing it.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I have been struck by the outbreak of cross-party consensus on the content of this and the previous amendment. The dispute is about where it sits. If Government Members do not wish to see it in the Bill and we do not yet have a planning Bill to look at, I wonder whether the Minister might be able to provide some assurances that he would be willing to consider setting up an alternative mechanism that would be in between planning and housing, to look at precisely these kinds of issues that come up, as a form of horizon scanning.
On a slightly different note, which is slightly tangential to the amendment, we took evidence in our hearings, particularly from the Fire Brigades Union, on the need for a mechanism to do horizon scanning. I wonder whether that might be the place to take up these kinds of issues, and whether the Minister might be willing to provide assurances that he would consider such a proposal.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I do not think I was articulate enough when discussing the previous amendment, when we talked about the process of adding amendments. I feel strongly that legislation needs to be functional and clear, and that it should be implemented as swiftly and simply as possible. It has to be understood by lay people, even if they are reading it in a rush, as we have seen with the amazing witnesses who have come forward, having become building experts because they have had to look into issues in their own buildings.
I fear that giving the regulator a role and an objective to prevent the injury of the health and wellbeing of an individual is a recipe for challenge and confusion, even though it may be well meaning.
Mike Amesbury
I will keep my intervention brief; you, Mr Davies, are seasoned in keeping them as such. The regulator is what it says on the tin: it is a health and safety executive, covering health and wellbeing and certainly safety. I actually disagree with the point that the hon. Member is making, quite eloquently and powerfully.
Siobhan Baillie
I will come to that intervention shortly, but I was just about to say that a quick google of the definition of the word “wellbeing” is quite telling. The top result notes that it is
“a state of being comfortable, healthy or happy.”
As Members know, one man or woman’s happiness and comfort is another man or woman’s woe. A quick search of “wellbeing” hashtags across Instagram is even more illuminating as to what makes people healthy, happy, and feeling that the “wellbeing” box is ticked. My overarching view is that we do not want to be too prescriptive to the regulator.
Shaun Bailey
I relayed this point to my right hon. Friend the Minister earlier. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that the regulator should not be siloed in its approach to building safety? While I agree with the point that she is articulating about the broad definition of welfare, does she agree that it is going to be important to ensure that the regulator is looping in with different agencies and organisations, so that it can take a holistic approach to its objectives?
Siobhan Baillie
I absolutely agree with that point.
As I said regarding an earlier amendment, the definition of the requirements and the core functions as set out to the Building Safety Regulator will require it to go out to a range of different agencies. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale made a point about the Health and Safety Executive. I am a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. The Health and Safety Executive is world-leading in many ways, and is going in and out of businesses looking at, for example, issues surrounding covid. It is very much people-focused, and I believe that giving the regulator the absolute ability to determine safety is important. I do not think that the amendment is necessary; I think it could end up creating more confusion and issues, particularly surrounding what health and wellbeing means to individuals. As such, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Cadbury
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies. The Minister has said that this Bill will bring in a new era for building safety, but will it? I agree that it is better than nothing—it is definitely an improvement on the legislative framework that we have had until now—but I am concerned about all of the gaps where people are working in, living in and occupying the many buildings that are outwith the scope of the Bill as currently drafted. That is why amendment 10, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale, needs to be in the Bill. As many witnesses have told us, the safety of a building depends on a range of factors, including its location and what it is used for. If a tower block is located underneath the arrival path of an airport, for instance, that is a safety issue as well as a planning issue. As we will see in later clauses, so many occupants and so many types of buildings are excluded from this Bill. It is called the Building Safety Bill and, in my view, a building safety Bill should be about making all buildings safe.
It is not clear whether the Bill will protect students in student accommodation. We all remember when fire ripped up the sides of The Cube in Bolton, so are student residences protected? Are care home residents covered by the scope of this Bill; will they be protected if a fire rips through their building or up its sides? Of course, care home residents are, almost by definition, among the least mobile in our communities, perhaps superseded only by occupants of hospital beds. They cannot move quickly in the case of a fire, and my understanding is that they are excluded from the scope of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West that I should not be led down the path of discussing the planning Bill, for two reasons: first, that feast is yet to be enjoyed by the Committee and other Members of the House; and secondly, Mr Davies, I am sure that you would quickly draw me back to the path of procedural righteousness. However, I can say that in terms of the design of buildings, their space requirements, the infrastructure and the built environment that is there to support them, there are means to ensure that the wellbeing of residents is supported and enhanced. We will, I am sure, say more about that specifically when the planning Bill comes before us.
The hon. Member for St Albans raised the question of the Building Safety Regulator or some other body having responsibility for horizon scanning. I can assure her that the Committee will see when we get to clause 5 that the Building Safety Regulator does have a responsibility to horizon scan. I will say more about that in a moment. She also asked whether I would consider another body or agency to do the work of identifying and enhancing wellbeing. I am always happy to receive proposals, but they have to be sensible, coherent and worked through, and of course they also have to pass the test of Her Majesty’s Treasury, which is generally called upon to pay for these things. However, if she makes a proposition, I will look at it.
I am grateful to Opposition Members for raising the Building Safety Regulator’s statutory objective focused on securing people’s safety, and for ensuring that the Committee has had an opportunity to debate the meaning of safety in that context, but I cannot accept the amendment. It is unnecessary.
The existing objectives of the Building Safety Regulator are broad enough to cover the key aspects of wellbeing and safety. Further, the proposed change could have the unintended effect of undermining the focus of the Building Safety Regulator on preventing another tragedy like Grenfell—a goal I am sure the whole Committee shares.
On wellbeing, I draw the Committee’s attention to the regulator’s objective to improve the standard of buildings. This is a broad objective and it sits alongside a crucial new oversight function which we will consider in greater detail when we reach clause 5, as I said to the hon. Member for St Albans. The oversight role means that the Building Safety Regulator will monitor the safety and standards of buildings and make recommendations to Ministers and to industry on changes to building standards.
Building standards are defined broadly in the Bill and would include building regulations. Section 1 of the Building Act 1984 allows building regulations to address “welfare and convenience” as well as health and safety, so the Building Safety Regulator can already consider issues such as access, damp—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale—and heating, which affect welfare and go beyond simple physical safety.
I further reassure the Committee that the Building Safety Regulator’s objective on safety already covers all types of risks to safety that flow from the building, whether they relate to its location, construction or management. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary to ensure that the regulator’s objectives cover building standards relevant to wellbeing, and safety issues resulting from a whole range of matters linked to the building are already properly covered. The amendment could also have unfortunate unintended consequences by seeking to redefine safety to include wellbeing.
Setting up a new Building Safety Regulator within the Health and Safety Executive is critical for delivering the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review and for taking the action necessary to prevent a tragedy like Grenfell Tower from ever happening again. The Government believe that Parliament should give the new Building Safety Regulator a clear objective on safety. The Government consulted on including a statutory objective focused on safety, and it received overwhelming support, including from the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government and stakeholders. The amendment would add a definition of safety to the regulator’s statutory objective and other clauses in part 2 of the Bill that is broader than the word’s meaning in everyday language.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud googled “wellbeing” and gave us its meaning. She also mentioned its meaning on Instagram. I am not on Instagram, but I am prepared to believe my hon. Friend’s confirmation of the broad meaning of the word. The amendment expands the definition of “safety” to a degree to which I do not think we can accept.
Our assessment is that introducing the concept of wellbeing into the safety objective of the Building Safety Regulator’s function to facilitate safety in high-risk buildings makes the provisions less clear. The Building Safety Regulator should have a clear priority to secure physical safety and take the actions necessary to prevent another tragedy like Grenfell, and we are concerned that broadening the focus to include wellbeing would risk undermining the clarity of the statutory objective and dilute the regulator’s clarity of mission.
It would also risk confusion, because the regulator’s objective in clause 3 and its broad function in clause 4 to facilitate safety in high-risk buildings would define safety with wellbeing, while other critical provisions of the Bill, such as those in part 4, would not. That would make the Bill less coherent. It would make the regulator’s role less clear if it were to seek to fulfil its safety objective and role under clause 4 while implementing a part 4 regime looking at safety in a different way. If the Building Safety Regulator’s role were unclear, that would make its challenge even harder and could risk the development of a new system that is less proportionate and adds unnecessary costs and inconvenience for leaseholders and residents. The Government do not want to confuse or extend the Building Safety Regulator’s role at the risk of imposing extra costs and extra works on residents and leaseholders. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will agree to withdraw amendment 10.
Turning to clause 3, legislation to create arm’s length bodies typically provides for a small number of clear objectives for the new body to give clarity on its purpose and mission—hence our concern about amendments 11 and 10. Such legislation often provides guidance on the principles to follow when regulating. The Government believe that it would be valuable for Parliament to set the new Building Safety Regulator clear objectives so that it knows what it is aiming to achieve in undertaking its functions and the principles under which it will deliver its operational work.
The clause proposes two crucial objectives for the new regulator. As I and other hon. Members have said, we must learn the lessons of the Grenfell fire and the independent review on safety that followed it. Our reformed building safety regime needs to ensure that residents are safe, and feel safe, in their homes. The first objective, therefore, is that the Building Safety Regulator must exercise its functions in a way that secures the safety of people in and about buildings in relation to the risks arising from those buildings. That objective covers the safety of people either in a building or in the immediate vicinity of a building who could, for example, be struck by falling masonry. We consulted on including a statutory safety objective, and there was overwhelming support.
The Building Safety Regulator’s second objective is about improving building standards. The regulator’s role will not be limited to safety; it will, as I indicated, become the Government’s key independent adviser on setting building standards. The regulator will improve competence levels and accountability in the building control sector by leading the creation of a unified professional and regulatory structure for building control. The regulator will work with industry to drive up the competence of those working on buildings.
Mike Amesbury
I have a very brief point about risk aversion. The advice note proves to be contentious. What conversations has the Minister had with the shadow regulator about EWS1? What is the progress?
Christopher Pincher
The conversations we have had about EWS1 relate specifically to the users—the lending sector—that use the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors EWS1 form, which of course is not a Government form, to determine whether a building requires external wall system works or remediation. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have had very good conversations with the lending sector and the risk sector, which recognise that the use of EWS1 has got out of proportion, and that it really should not be used in the way it has been used on a very large number of buildings. I do not think that issue is specific to the clause at hand, so I will say that and leave it there.
These building functions are the functions given to the regulator under this Bill, the Building Act 1984 and regulations made under the two pieces of legislation. The building functions cover an additional Health and Safety Executive function, which future regulations define as building functions and certain related functions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The building functions can also be added to by regulation. For example, regulations under planning regulation making the Health and Safety Executive a statutory consultee at planning gateway 1—that answers one of the Committee members’ questions—could be added to the building functions.
This clause ensures that the Building Safety Regulator will focus on resident safety and improving building standards, while acting in a targeted and proportionate way, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Duty to facilitate building safety: higher-risk buildings
Christopher Pincher
I beg to move Government amendment 6, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
“(aa) owners of residential units in such buildings,”
This amendment provides that owners of residential units are “relevant persons” for the purposes of subsection (1) of the clause (duty to provide assistance etc).
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss amendment 6, which is a minor and technical amendment that will ensure clause 4 works as intended.
Clause 4 places a duty on the Building Safety Regulator to assist and encourage those responsible for the safe construction and management of high-rise residential and other in scope buildings, as well as residents, to secure the safety of people in or around those buildings. The intention of clause 4 is to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator proactively engages with those with duties around the safety of high-rise residential and other buildings in scope, to encourage them to do the right thing.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the list of classes of “relevant persons” that the Building Safety Regulator should encourage is complete. The current list of “relevant persons” includes residents. However, the key duties on residents of high-rise residential buildings at clause 95 of the Bill also apply to owners of residential units, even if they are not resident at the time.
Amendment 6 adds owners of residential units to the list of “relevant persons”, bringing this clause into line with the approach to residents’ duties elsewhere in the Bill. The effect of this amendment is that the Building Safety Regulator will be under a duty to assist and encourage owners of residential units in higher-risk buildings to do the right thing, for example through guidance and communications.
I turn now to clause 4. At the heart of our proposals to transform the building safety environment is the implementation of a more stringent regulatory regime for high-rise residential and other in scope buildings. This new regime will be implemented and enforced by the Building Safety Regulator. The details of the new regulatory regime for high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings will be set out when the Committee deliberates over parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, so I will not detain the Committee on those matters now. These create powerful enforcement tools for the Building Safety Regulator to hold duty holders to account.
However, a good regulator does not rely on enforcing breaches in the law after they have occurred. A good regulator proactively supports and encourages those it regulates to comply. This principle is reflected in the regulator’s code, which highlights that:
“Regulators should provide advice and guidance that is focused on assisting those they regulate to understand and meet their responsibilities.”
To ensure that this best practice approach to regulation is taken by the Building Safety Regulator when regulating the safety of high-rise residential and other in scope buildings, clause 4 places a specific statutory duty on the Building Safety Regulator to take this approach.
Clause 4 places a duty on the Building Safety Regulator to assist and encourage those responsible for the safe construction and management of high-rise residential and other in scope buildings, as well as residents, to secure the safety of people in or around those buildings. It will require the regulator to take proactive steps to enhance the safety of people in high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings. The regulator could fulfil this duty by developing and publishing best-practice guidance, setting up information services to advise duty holders, or running workshops for those responsible for developing and managing such buildings. The regulator could also test materials aimed at residents of such buildings with a residents panel, to help ensure that its communications are well targeted, effective, digestible and understandable. The shadow Building Safety Regulator is already liaising closely with stakeholders and will be releasing a series of guidance documents over the next 18 months to help duty holders understand what is needed of them in order to meet their new duties.
Once the regime is in place, the Building Safety Regulator will encourage, but ultimately will be able to force, duty holders to do the right thing in a proportionate way. Requiring the regulator to take proactive steps to encourage the construction and management of safe high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings is a vital part of creating the culture change we need, to which Committee members have referred. I commend this short clause, and the short amendment to it, to the Committee.
Ruth Cadbury
We do not have an issue with the amendment, because it seems logical to bring leaseholders within the scope of the clause so that it is consistent with other references to leaseholders elsewhere in the Bill, but I will take this opportunity to probe the definition of “resident”. The Minister talks about high-rise—another definition that we will talk about later—residential and other in-scope buildings. Who is a resident? I understand that resident leaseholders, assured shorthold tenants who are leaseholders, and social rent tenants are all obviously residents, but what about residential licensees in other forms of tenancy; guardians; students in student accommodation, particularly if that is their sole home; residents of care homes, for some of whom that is their only home; hotel guests; hospital patients; people renting holiday lets? Those are just the ones I can think of, off the top of my head. Is one a resident if one puts one’s head to sleep overnight in a building, or is there only a limited form of occupancy status in order to fall into scope of the Bill?
Shaun Bailey
I will be brief, because I think this clause and the amendment to it are relatively straightforward. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth makes an interesting point. I will explain my understanding of how that will work—forgive my ignorance if I get this wrong. For some of the scenarios that she highlighted, such as student accommodation and holiday lets, I imagine that a structure will be in place so that someone above that will manage the building that falls in scope of the clause, but we would also hope that within that there would be a responsible landlord, whoever that might be, who has that relationship and can articulate those messages. I do not disagree with her scepticism about those groups engaging in the way that we would expect them to.
Shaun Bailey
Absolutely, and the hon. Lady made a really interesting point that allows us to think about how that would operate. We talk quite abstractly about things, and the clause in particular sounds very nice, but when we consider the detail of its operational function, we realise that a lot of people caught by the provision will have someone above them in the ownership chain. How can we ensure that those obligations are met?
Broadly speaking, I agree with the clause. It is absolutely right to ensure proactive engagement between the regulator and the relevant persons. As my right hon. Friend the Minister touched on in his contribution, the regulator should not be there just to slam down when things go wrong; it should be proactive in ensuring that things are done correctly in the first place. I will listen very intently to his response to the hon. Lady’s interesting points. From an operational perspective, it is important to remember that there will be people between those relevant persons, and that the regulator, as it carries out its engagement practices under the clause, will encourage best practice from those people as well.
Daisy Cooper
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I always welcome the idea of regulators having proactive powers, and it is good to see that the regulator can provide proactive assistance and encouragement, but how can a regulator provide assistance and encouragement to absent freeholders? That point was raised by the National Housing Federation in evidence. An idea that I mooted then was that it might be possible for a regulator to favour pursuing remediation if a freeholder repeatedly fails to respond to requests. Has the Minister reflected on that suggestion, and does he think that the clause, as it stands, would give the regulator enough powers to deal with the situation of absent freeholders in particular?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. With respect to the question from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, we have been careful to define in-scope buildings. In-scope buildings are those over 18 metres or seven storeys that contain two or more dwelling places. Other in-scope buildings include, for example, care homes and hospitals that meet the criteria. We have also been careful to draft the clause in such a way that we are confident that student accommodation, for example, as well as the other examples that she gave, are properly covered.
On the suggestion from the hon. Member for St Albans, I am clear that we want the regulator to have the responsibility to encourage, to nudge and to cajole, but ultimately, as I said in my remarks, to enforce good and best practice. I will certainly consider both what she said and the oral evidence from witnesses, but I will certainly not make any commitments until we have thought through how those things can work effectively and what the possible unintended consequences may be. We want the Building Safety Regulator to have a clear and proportionate role that does not have unintended and unforeseen negative consequences for residents. That is quite a broad definition of “residents”, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth outlined.
I thank the Committee for its consideration of the clause. In summary, I remind the Committee that the clause places a duty on the regulator to assist and encourage those responsible for the safe construction and management of high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings, as well as residents, to secure the safety of people in or around those buildings. That duty is a vital part of creating the cultural change that we need and that we will see. Amendment 6 is a minor and technical amendment that corrects an omission in the list of “relevant persons” so that we have a fuller and more complete list. I hope that, having heard those final remarks, the Committee will agree both to our technical amendment and to the clause.
Government amendment 6 agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Duty to keep safety and standard of buildings under review
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review recommended the establishment of a new system oversight structure, which should include oversight of the performance of the built environment. In our public consultation, the Government sought views on what statutory objectives are needed to guide the regulator’s broader regulatory remit, which included promoting building safety and the safety of people in and around buildings.
To meet that objective, we proposed that the Building Safety Regulator should have a function to oversee the building safety system. That would include activities such as monitoring and driving improved performance across the building safety and wider regulatory system; advising on and preparing proposals for changes to building regulations, as needed; overseeing the development of appropriate technical guidance, either preparing guidance directly for approval by the Secretary of State or validating and quality assuring technical guidance for the construction industry; advising industry and Government on research into new or emerging risks; and working with other regulators and enforcement bodies to achieve safety and other outcomes for buildings.
Clause 5 gives effect to that function and places a legal duty on the Building Safety Regulator to keep the safety and standards of buildings under review. As proposed in our consultation, the Building Safety Regulator will work with the construction industry, any interested parties such as the British Standards Institute, technical experts and committees to make recommendations to Government on changes to guidance and regulations. It will also work with industry to identify and share best practice, to drive cultural change and improve standards.
The regulator will review standards and collect data from building control bodies and other information sources such as residents panels, research and any other forms of sector intelligence from other national regulators or enforcement bodies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud suggested. That information will be used to analyse current and emerging risks to building safety and performance.
An important element of the oversight structure is the new building advisory committee, which will be established in the Building Safety Regulator to provide expert advice. The Building Safety Regulator will work with its building advisory committee to review the safety of buildings constructed using specific methods or materials following incidents of structural failure. Following the review, if the Building Safety Regulator considers that an amendment to building regulations is needed, it will make that recommendation to the Secretary of State following a public consultation.
We will discuss the building advisory committee in more detail when we consider clause 9, but overall these activities, taken together, will be an important function of the regulator. They will enable the regulator to review and monitor the safety and standards of buildings, and propose changes when they are needed. This function is an important one and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
Clause 5 gives building safety regulators the flexibility to monitor the safety of buildings and the standard of builders, thereby allowing the building advisory committee, which the Minister referred to, and essentially the regulator to respond quickly to emerging systematic failures in the industry, which certainly has not been the case in the past, with external wall systems and cladding systems for example, rather than there just being a drip-drip of evidence. We therefore welcome the clause and it will certainly add transparency to the system.
I have one question for the Minister. Beyond the consultation with residents that he mentioned and a recommendation to the Secretary of State, what engagement will there be with parliamentarians?
Shaun Bailey
I, too, welcome the clause. I think it is representative of the broad intention in the Bill for there to be collaboration, because collaboration will be a really important part of this story as we move forward. I know how it complements the building advisory committee, which we will talk about more broadly later.
It is really positive that there will be this ongoing review. That is absolutely what is needed and it is right that it will be done in a way that brings together all of the stakeholders who are qualified to review the safety of buildings and review these regulations, and ensure—this is a point I touched on in an earlier contribution—that with the pace of change as we move forward, we ensure that the homes we build in the future are indeed safe and indeed places that people can live in without fear.
We heard in the evidence sessions—it was a point made by all the witnesses we spoke to—about the importance of collaboration, conversation and talking. To echo some of the comments by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, it will be important to ensure that within the building advisory committee there is breadth of expertise. That is the one point that I will press on my right hon. Friend the Minister. As this process continues, we need to ensure that there is a true breadth of expertise, from fire specialists, surveyors, members of local authorities and, to some degree, parliamentarians too, as well as from residents, to ensure that we bring in the full range of the landscape and ensure that the Bill is as comprehensive as it can be, because there is a real opportunity here to do something that I do not think we do very often, which is to review these landscapes regularly and ensure that they meet the needs of the people who know this situation through their lived experience.
This is a really positive clause that will provide real opportunities, so I wholeheartedly support it. However, as with many measures in the Bill, we must ensure that when it comes to the operation of this measure, it works.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West for making it clear that we want the Building Safety Regulator to have a wide ambit, and the opportunity to consult with a variety of players and reflect upon their advice.
I hope that the hon. Member for St Albans sees the opportunity that this measure provides to the regulator to horizon-scan and consult, and reflect upon information received, and thereby give the Secretary of State, or indeed the sector, sensible advice.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked a question—possibly a leading one—about what the engagement and involvement of Parliament will be. That rather reflects an amendment that I think the hon. Member for St Albans tabled today about parliamentary consultation, and it may have some bearing on clause 7, which we will come to eventually.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Weaver Vale that Parliament has a variety of means—as you know more than many of our colleagues, Mr Davies—to ensure that the Executive is held to account, that questions can be asked and that answers will be given. I am sure that Parliament, if it feels that it does not have a way, will find a way of engaging effectively with the Building Safety Regulator.
This is an important clause, which everyone can and should support. It places a legal duty on the regulator to keep the safety and standard of buildings under review. It will enable the regulator to review and monitor the safety and standard of those buildings, and to propose changes to the appropriate authorities when needed. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Facilitating improvement in competence of industry and building inspectors
Christopher Pincher
Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review identified that competence needed to improve across the built environment sector. It challenged the industry to show leadership and take responsibility for raising competence. The Building Safety Regulator will play a key role in supporting the industry to raise its competence levels. One of the regulator’s core functions will be to assist and encourage those in the built environment industry and the building control profession to drive improvements in competence.
For industry, the regulator is expected to do this by working with the industry competence committee to oversee and support the industry’s work to raise competence. The regulator will set the strategic direction of the committee, to ensure that its work supports the regulator’s plans and priorities and the needs of the sector. It will also carry out importantThe regulator, with advice from the committee, may propose changes to building regulations and/or regulations under part 4 of the Bill to the Secretary of State on industry competence matters. The regulator’s role will also be to increase building safety by improving compliance with building regulations and raising standards in the building control profession.
Through the clause, the regulator can demonstrate leadership of the profession, developing a strategy to increase the competence of registered building inspectors. Exactly how that will be done is a matter for the regulator, but it might produce advice or guidance, or identify areas where it can develop training to upskill registered building inspectors. It may also convene working groups or advisory committees, or commission research and analysis to further inform areas for improving competence.
The provisions will help position the Building Safety Regulator at the heart of industry and the building control profession.
Siobhan Baillie
I was struck by the evidence from the industry experts we heard over the past week or so in their desire to improve and to see improvements, and in their recognition of the fact that Governments of all colours had not brought about a Bill such as this, which is very welcome. Yes, things can be improved, but we will be debating changes as we go along. Does the Minister agree that the regulator may be pushing at an open door when seeking to improve the clause?
Christopher Pincher
I, too, heard the evidence provided to the Committee by a range of experts and industry players. In Parliament and beyond, we have heard from the development sector. If there is an open door, I trust that the Building Safety Regulator will make sure that it stays wide open, and should it ever close, I trust that the regulator will play a role in pushing it back open. It is important that the regulator monitors emerging risks or gaps in competence, surveys the landscape, as we have already identified and agreed, and considers carefully whether further action is warranted or appropriate. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that the regulator works with the sector and the industry and, where appropriate, takes action to make sure that the competence that we require across the sector is complied with.
The clause creates a key and influential role for the regulator to help drive up collective standards. We believe that it is an important clause as we embed the regulator in the Health and Safety Executive and define its role and responsibilities. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
Throughout our evidence sessions, we heard a consistent call to improve the culture referred to by hon. Members today in inspections of the built environment. From the Fire Brigades Union to the Local Government Association and the evidence emerging from the Grenfell inquiry, it is clear that a step change is needed in that culture, so clause 6 is welcome.
Concerns have been highlighted, however, about the choice-based competitive environment for inspectors of buildings below the threshold of 18 metres. The LGA recently spoke to me about that, as did Matt Wrack from the FBU. We could still have a situation, which has led to a number of safety concerns and shoddily built buildings, where a developer appoints someone as a building inspector for what is not, seemingly, an at-risk building according to the current definition, who inappropriately gives sign-off to something that should never have been signed off. I seek the Minister’s assurance that that will be reviewed and tackled.
Shaun Bailey
I welcome the aims of the clause, in combination with other clauses. It is right that the regulator is able to review competences. As we heard in the evidence sessions, the one thing we are trying to fight here is the race to the bottom in standards and in how people behave in the industry more broadly.
On the point that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale made, we heard interesting evidence about building inspectors and what they are doing. I found that interesting because my training and background is as a lawyer, and we were always taught that, irrespective of the client that instructed us, we still had an ultimate responsibility for the administration of justice. It was slightly concerning to hear that evidence, because it felt at times that there was not that overarching responsibility. I am hopeful that we can perhaps re-embed that through clause 6.
Irrespective of the debate that we might have about building inspectors and how they operate, and whether the local authority model or the private model works, there is a broader discussion here about where the fiduciary duty will go. Hopefully, clause 6, in establishing that review—that committee—and allowing the BSR to do that can start those discussions again and really look the industry in the eye and say, “What are you doing?” As I say, the evidence we heard was, at times, quite shocking. I am hopeful that clause 6, combined with other clauses, will enable us to have that broad-brush conversation and to review the industry, in order to ensure we have something that works for the safety of residents living in these developments and a gloves-off discussion about how that operates. I welcome this clause, Mr Davies, and it has my full support.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The National Fire Chiefs Council talked about the need for building control independence. We know that things have gone wrong in the past and that there is scope for that to happen in the future with the private sector being involved, as highlighted in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report. In its written evidence, the NFCC wrote:
“While there is ample evidence that private sector participation in building control can bring efficiencies, if not implemented correctly such a delegation of regulatory mandate can come with significant unintended consequences.”
I do not believe it is intended to have those consequences but that is what has been said. It continued:
“A 2018 report by the World Bank found private sector participation in construction regulation in 93 out of 190 economies. The report concluded that, for such an arrangement to work as intended, the public sector should regulate private third-party professionals and firms and reported that in 76% of economies that make use of third-party inspectors, regulations explicitly require the independence of third-party inspectors; they should have no financial interests in the project and should not be related to the investor or builder.
The report concluded that private sector participation should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards that favour the public interest over private profits.”
That is the nub of this. The evidence goes on:
“We believe that the change to remove the ability for clients to choose their own regulator, is necessary to apply to the whole of the built environment.”
And that point was made by the World Bank.
I ask the Minister to consider these points.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration. The point of this clause and of the Building Safety Regulator in it is to drive up competence standards across the building control sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West said. We want to see that happen and we believe it can happen. Taken as a whole, we believe that that is exactly what the Bill will achieve. Dame Judith Hackitt was right to recognise some of the problems that the building control system faces, spread as it is, in particular the lack of a level playing field between the different statutory and non-statutory processes, which can lead to a degree of complexity in the system.
As a result of the Bill and its clauses, not just clause 6, we believe we address that problem. We have worked with the whole building control sector to draw up these proposals, both public and private, which have widespread support. I call on the Committee to support the clause in order to help the position of the Building Safety Regulator, and to put that regulator at the heart of the industry and the building control profession competence, to be a key influencer and driver for better competence, regulation and standards. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Proposals and consultation relating to regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I should, by way of preamble, say that this is a rather technical clause. It sets out to specific Departments how regulations will be made in respect of parts 2 and 4. Schedule 5 inserts the equivalent provision into the Building Act 1984. These procedures therefore apply to all regulations relating to building regulation in England and the new regulatory regime in occupation.
Mike Amesbury
We welcome the provisions in this clause—certainly the extensive consultations. I note that the residents’ panel is mentioned. I have a couple of questions. Who will the residents’ panel be made up of? Will it be genuinely representative, with a broad field of representatives?
On the discretionary nature of the consultation, whether it is about the Secretary of State or recommendations from the regulator to the Secretary of State, the clause refers to relevant Departments and Parliament, and it would be good to see something firmed up there. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on those matters.
The Chair
I urge the Minister not to focus too extensively on residents’ panels, as that issue comes up in clause 11.
Daisy Cooper
I want to pick up on clause 7(4)(b), which says that the Secretary of State must consult other persons as he or she “considers appropriate.”
The evidence the Committee received was divided. Those in the industry praised the Government for their extensive consultation, with the draft Bill being improved as a result. We also heard pleas and cries of anguish from residents and the Fire Brigades Union, who said that for many decades they have been shouting into the wilderness, hoping that someone would listen. Might the Minister reflect on that? Although it may be appropriate for the Secretary of State to choose who he or she wishes to consult, there may be others who also need to be consulted and who need to be heard. I hope that is reflected in the clause or elsewhere as the Bill continues its passage.
Christopher Pincher
I will not dwell overmuch on the residents’ panel, because you are quite right, Mr Davies, we address the panel in clause 11. Suffice to say that, be it relevant Government Departments or the members and composition of residents’ and other panels, we do not want to be prescriptive in the Bill.
We have to recognise that as time passes compositions of groups or committees may become redundant and—I will use this word again later on in my remarks—they may even ossify. It is right that the Secretary of State should have the flexibility, like the Building Safety Regulator, to react to and reflect on the scenarios of the future, whatever they may be, which is why we want the clause to retain its flexibility. The key objective of the clause is to ensure that the view of the expert, independent Building Safety Regulator, with all of the inputs that the regulator may collect, is provided and is always taken, before the regulations reach Parliament. Therefore, there is always an appropriate level of consultation before regulations are made by Ministers.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Duty to establish system for giving of building safety information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Clause 8 relates to the establishment and operation of a voluntary occurrence reporting system about building safety.
The Government recognise the success of voluntary occurrence reporting systems in improving the safety of industry the world over, including in the UK built environment. We agree with recommendation 1.4 (c) of the independent review, which asks that such a system be in existence under the new building safety regime. The clause contributes to its implementation.
The clause requires the Building Safety Regulator to make arrangements for a person to establish and operate a voluntary occurrence reporting system about building safety. Under the system, structural or fire-safety related information that is seen by the reporter as an actual or potential risk to building or life safety will be reported through an online portal. We expect the person operating the system to then receive, anonymise, analyse and publish those reports online. In doing so, the system will allow important lessons learned to be shared across industry, prompting stakeholders to proactively identify and resolve issues before they escalate. To give an example, if a contractor were to report safety issues with a fire door, that intelligence could be shared across industry, allowing others to identify and resolve any issue at their own sites. The person working on the incident can report it through the voluntary occurrence reporting system, where it is then analysed and published by the person operating that system.
I stress that the objective of voluntary reporting is the prevention of accidents and incidents, not to attribute blame or liability, or for it to be used as a tool for enforcement. It is about surfacing issues as quickly and transparently as possible. To ensure that that happens, the system will be operated by a person other than the Building Safety Regulator. Voluntary occurrence reporting will ensure that occurrences not serious enough to be captured by the mandatory occurrence reporting system are still reported, recorded and shared. Those two reporting systems, along with whistleblowing, will complement one another to instil a safety-conscious, just culture in industry. By voluntarily reporting an issue, important details and lessons learned are shared with industry. This release of intelligence will increase industry awareness of issues and enable workers to better identify and resolve them should they occur elsewhere, averting dangers that may otherwise have gone unnoticed.
Ruth Cadbury
This sounds like a very sensible proposal. I am only surprised that it does not already exist in the construction industry—but, then, so many of us are ceasing to be surprised given the sheer mess that has been going on. Under the proposals in the Bill, will the reporting be made public such that users, leaseholders and residents of a building are aware of the reports, in case the building owners do not themselves make the residents or leaseholders aware?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We want information to be as transparent and as available as possible. That is one reason for it going through a filter—for it to be properly analysed and assessed before it might be reported on. Whistleblowing is a tried and tested—almost traditionally British—way of doing things when it comes to surfacing unpalatable matters in business, as well as in the public sector. We want to find as many effective means as possible of identifying issues and raising them quickly so that they can be addressed, creating an airline-industry approach to issues, in which we are looking not to blame or point the finger but simply to identify and almost—I use this word advisedly—celebrate errors and issues, so that when people identify an issue it is second nature for them to raise it so it can be fixed as rapidly as possible.
Christopher Pincher
I will give way once more to the hon. Lady, and then I should probably make a bit of progress.
Ruth Cadbury
I recognise that. Let us say that a building owner recognises and realises, for instance, that the Pincher Weaver fire door is not safe—for the record, this is an imaginary scenario; there is no such thing as the Pincher Weaver fire door. If residents in another building realise or suspect that the fire doors in their block may be the Pincher Weaver ones, but their building owners or managers do not highlight this, will they have ways of finding out that the Pincher Weaver fire door that appears to be in their block is dangerous, and that they need to highlight it? That is why I am asking whether this information will be in the public domain.
Christopher Pincher
We will work closely with the Building Safety Regulator to ensure that such information is properly identified, assessed and made public. It may be that the Pincher-Weaver fire door—I have never seen one, but I look forward to accruing the royalties if one exists—is assessed such that there is not a problem with it. Clearly we do not want information to be made public as if the voluntary occurrence reporting system is Twitter, but I will make it my business to ensure that it is as properly public as possible within the usual constraints.
Mike Amesbury
This system is a welcome and essential step, and was recommended, as the Minister said, by the independent review. My only question is, how will it be closely monitored? To take one example—it is not from this country—residents in Florida spoke about the concrete system and evidence of cracks and creaking. The proposed system would pick that up, so that is a welcome step forward, but we must closely monitor it going forward.
Shaun Bailey
I will keep my comments brief. Like other hon. Members, I support the clause. The key thing for me is that the Building Safety Regulator will sit within the HSE, which already has structures and competences to deal with these issues, particularly in terms of whistleblowing and sharing information. I completely agree with the sentiment that information must be accessible so people can make informed decisions off the back of it, and that it is used in the right way to mitigate and head off any issues that may present.
The underlying structures developed through the Bill enable the clause to be operationally sound. We have the competence and experience to enable the systems to be put in place. We need to see what those systems will look like. I hope that they will be robust and can be used as envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Minister. The sharing of information and the ability to access it are at the core of these issues, and will be vital to ensuring that the delivery of the clause’s aspirations is sound.
Christopher Pincher
I thank the Committee for its consideration of the clause. The Government want to ensure that information that is relevant to concerns is properly captured, properly assessed and properly communicated. We also want to ensure that there is an effective monitoring regime for such a voluntary occurrence reporting system, and we will work closely with the Building Safety Regulator to enable that monitoring system to be put in place. I do not want to prescribe in Committee how the system will work; it will be for the regulator, in consultation with the Department and other experts, to define how that should be done most effectively.
As I am sure the Committee understands, in driving a culture change towards more transparency, we must be careful about how this information is used. We would not want an unintended consequence to develop whereby people at the coalface are disinclined to report something because the reporting becomes so very public that they may think it will become a big issue for them. We must therefore keep the reporting in proportion. We also have to make sure it is appropriately shared so that those who need to know do know and can take action or can check their own systems to make sure that they are also somehow not inoperative. I have used too many double negatives, so I shall stop there and commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Building Advisory Committee
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I will speak first to clause 9. The independent review recommended that the Government should create a new structure to validate and assure guidance, oversee the performance of the built environment sector and provide expert advice. The Bill makes provision for the creation of a new building advisory committee to implement that recommendation.
The clause requires the Building Safety Regulator to use its powers under new subsection 11A(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to set up and maintain the new building advisory committee. The committee will provide independent expert advice on matters across the built environment and support the regulator in its role to keep the safety and standard of buildings under review, as we discussed on clause 5. It will also validate and assure technical guidance, such as approved documents, to ensure the guidance is fit for purpose. It will not advise on industry competence, which is the responsibility of the committee on industry competence, as the name implies. We will come to that committee and its functions in clause 10.
The Building Safety Regulator will appoint technical experts with a wide range of knowledge, skills and experience from across the built environment to provide it with advice. It may be helpful if I provide a short example of how the provision of advice may work. In carrying out its functions, the Building Safety Regulator may identify an emerging issue relating to buildings in part B of the guidance to the building regulations. That issue may need consideration and potentially some form of action. In assessing the issue, the Building Safety Regulator would ask the building advisory committee for advice on the matter. The building advisory committee would then consider the issue and provide the Building Safety Regulator with advice. The regulator can then assess that and use it to help make a recommendation for change, which could, for example, include amendments to guidance on part B of the building regulations.
The committee will also advise on other work that the Building Safety Regulator may from time to time ask it to carry out in support of the regulator’s functions. Clause 9(3) abolishes the Building Regulations Advisory Committee for England, which was established under section 14 of the Building Act 1984. The Government’s intent is that the building advisory committee will build on the work done previously by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee by having a wider remit with the strategic oversight to advise the Building Safety Regulatoron matters across the entire built environment.
The building advisory committee will be resourced by a range of independent and impartial members with a wide purview of the construction process, with technical knowledge and with demonstrable independence. The clause will play an important part in ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator has access to the support and expert advice required to enable it to deliver its crucial work.
I now turn to clause 10. The Government are committed to supporting the built environment industry to improve its competence, as the Committee has begun to hear. Dame Judith’s independent review challenged industry to show leadership and take responsibility for raising competence. It identified the need for a shift both in culture and in mindset. It found that the landscape for ensuring competence was fragmented and inconsistent—different disciplines have various routes for assessing competence, and they are not always clear or consistent. For culture change to be meaningful and lasting, the change needs to be led by industry, as only then will change be embedded in the industry’s culture.
Industry has been leading work to develop proposals for a competence oversight system. Those include an industry-led committee within the Building Safety Regulator to oversee improvements in competence and to ensure consistency across the industry. To implement that, clause 10(1) requires the Building Safety Regulator to establish the industry competence committee, to which I alluded earlier, and to provide support as necessary. Subsection (2) sets out the mandatory functions of the industry competence committee. Those include monitoring industry competence and facilitating its improvement, advising the Building Safety Regulator and others, providing guidance, and carrying out analysis and research on industry competence. Examples of how that will work in practice could include the committee convening stakeholders to enhance competence, providing a forum for industry to work collaboratively to monitor, refresh and review competence frameworks, and to drive competence more widely; or carrying out research and analysis to assess the effectiveness of the competence schemes operated in various sectors, and to see whether there are gaps that need to be addressed.
Under clause 10, the Building Safety Regulator may also set up sub-committees to consider specific issues or areas of interest, as it sees necessary. The clause will be instrumental in helping to drive up standards across the entire industry.
I now turn to clause 11. The independent review highlighted the importance of residents having a powerful voice, and the need to rebuild residents’ trust. To that end, the Bill includes major provisions in part 4 to give residents of high-rise residential buildings a much stronger voice in the safety of the buildings in which they live. The Government, however, believe that the voice of residents also needs to be heard by the Building Safety Regulator as it develops policies and systems that affect the lives and safety of residents of high-rise residential buildings.
Clause 11 is a vital step to ensuring that residents are able to have their voices heard and to influence policy at the national level. It mandates that the Building Safety Regulator must establish a residents’ panel. It is crucial that the residents’ panel brings the lived experience of residents into the heart of the regulator. That message came through quite clearly in the witness session evidence we heard in the last two sittings.
The Bill therefore requires that the residents’ panel must contain actual residents of high-rise residential buildings. The panel may also include organisations that support and represent residents, and owners of flats in high-rise residential buildings who may not live there at the time. The Building Safety Regulator will be able to seek the advice and support of the residents’ panel on a wide range of issues.
Shaun Bailey
I am sure we all agree that the inclusion of residents’ panels is absolutely vital. Does the Minister agree that the panels should be composed of the broadest possible range of residents? That would ensure that we do not have very small groups of residents who are not necessarily representative of the broader spectrum of those affected.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I entirely agree. We want to be as broad and as inclusive as possible. We also want to ensure that residents and the groups to which they belong—expert groups and support groups—all have the opportunity to be represented on such a panel so that it is really broad and inclusive, and can provide sensible and coherent advice to the Building Safety Regulator.
The Health and Safety Executive recognises the importance of resident engagement—as we heard in Sarah Albon’s evidence a week ago today—and the challenge involved in ensuring a diverse membership that secures resident confidence, which is the point my hon. Friend just made. The Health and Safety Executive has already brought together a group, including residents, to plan for and advise on the setting up of the residents’ panel. Building on that, the Health and Safety Executive intends to bring together a residents’ panel on an interim basis ahead of legislation, so that it can benefit from residents’ advice on its shadow Building Safety Regulator work.
The Government believe it crucial that residents have a voice in the work of the Building Safety Regulator, and that the Building Safety Regulator is able to call on the insight and expertise of residents and their associated groups. The residents’ panel is an important step to ensuring that strong resident voice. In our consideration of clause 20, we will turn to further provision for wider resident engagement by the Building Safety Regulator. Having a residents’ panel in place will make certain that residents are able to contribute to key policy changes made by the Building Safety Regulator that relate to them and their homes. That will also empower the regulator to call on the expertise of the panel for insight and support wherever it deems that necessary.
I may have been a little premature in claiming that clause 11 was my final gambit in this particular outing, because I have to speak to clause 12. The Government believe that it is vital that the work of the Building Safety Regulator is supported by strong input from technical experts and residents, and that the regulator works closely with industry to support improved competence. We have just discussed clauses creating three committees that are intended to support those objectives: the building advisory committee, the committee on industry competence, and the residents’ panel.
Given the importance of engagement in those areas, it is right that the Bill does not rely simply on the Building Safety Regulator’s general power to set up committees. Instead, we have placed those committees in the Bill, giving an opportunity for them to be debated. However, placing the detail of a regulator’s committee structure in the Bill, as opposed to the committees themselves, carries considerable risks. We want the Bill to embed and last. Over a period of time, the committees could become ossified, to use the word I used previously. Their membership might become out of date. Their purposes might no longer be focused on the key building regulatory issues of the day.
In other words, we might end up with the right committees for the early 2020s, but the wrong committees to support the Building Safety Regulator to deliver expertly, sensitively and effectively in the early 2030s. By that point, the scope of the high-rise regime might be different, as might the types of people affected by the high-risk regime. Industry might have tackled the competence issues identified in the independent review, and be ready to fully take the lead on competence, with more responsibility.
The strong advice from the Health and Safety Executive, as an experienced and expert independent regulator, is that the Bill should include some flexibility to adapt the Building Safety Regulator’s committee structure over time. The names remain in the Bill, but the structure allows the regulator some flexibility. Clause 12 allows the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to amend or repeal the provisions setting up the three statutory committees by regulations.
It is not unusual for Ministers to be involved in setting the strategic direction for a regulatory body. The Health and Safety Executive already works to a plan agreed by Ministers under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The 1974 Act, like the Building Safety Bill, gives the Health and Safety Executive a formal ability to propose changes to Ministers that would require regulations. HSE has more than 40 years’ experience delivering as an independent regulator, while advising Ministers on matters that could require changes made through regulations.
The power in clause 12 is a particularly important regulation-making power. It is crucial that the power is always used to adapt and improve the building safety framework. Therefore, the Bill provides substantial safeguards for its use.
Under Clause 7, no regulations can be brought forward unless they are proposed by the independent regulator or the independent regulator’s expert advice has been taken. There must also be appropriate consultation on proposed changes. Any regulations brought forward by the Secretary of State must then be approved by both Houses using the affirmative procedure, which will ensure that Parliament maintains oversight over the committee structure.
These substantial safeguards ensure that clause 12 will be used only as intended, to provide flexibility so that the Building Safety Regulator can learn from experience, ensure that the way in which it engages stakeholders reflects regulatory best practice, and improve, and for other purposes. The approach reflects more than 40 years of Health and Safety Executive experience. Since 1974, HSE has witnessed major changes in the profile of British industry. When it was formed, we had a significant steel industry and coal industry. Things have of course changed since then, as has the governance of industry, and we must recognise that the challenges that face high-rise residential dwellers at this time may also change, and the Building Safety Regulator must have the flexibility to accommodate those.
The committees on which the Health and Safety Executive can now call represent a rich mix of advisory and stakeholder-led bodies, each geared to the needs of the respective industries. Clause 12 creates an important flexibility to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator can refresh and improve the way in which it engages stakeholders, always reflecting best regulatory practice. Any material changes must receive the active support of both Houses of Parliament.
I believe that all these clauses, taken together, represent a very significant step forward in expert engagement with the Building Safety Regulator, and give proper facilities and flexibility for it within the usual and proper safeguards of Parliament. I commend them to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
Again, we broadly accept and welcome clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12. On clause 9, my main question to the Minister is about the panel of the building advisory committee. Who makes up that committee? What checks and balances will ensure that those in the industry responsible for this mess—the toxic landscape of the building safety scandal—do not have a chair at the top table, so to speak? I seek clarity on that point. On the interrelation between the residents’ voice, which we will come to when we debate later clauses, and the building advisory panel, it may be that some residents are experts in the building and construction industry.
On clause 10, which relates to industry competence, I was struck by the evidence of a broad array of stakeholders, who spoke about the cultural shift to professionalise the industry. I was particularly struck by the comments from Justin Bates, who was right to argue that it is difficult to legislate for a cultural shift; it will take time—a generation. The leadership, the drive, the regulation and, importantly, the accountability will prove to be a nudge factor, so I again welcome those aspects of the Bill.
Clause 11 speaks of the residents’ voice, which is a good thing. Grenfell United has been an incredibly strong advocate of the legacy of that tragedy. That is essential. If we look at the ITV and ITN work of Dan Hewitt, we see that there are big issues relating to the residents’ voice in the social sector and the private sector, so that is a welcome development. I ask the Minister, if it is possible today—it may not be—to expand on who will make up that residents’ panel. Will it truly be grassroots to the top table of all sectors? I take the point of the hon. Member for West Bromwich West that there could be some who are experts in the field. There are also training issues that would help to bring that voice to life.
The one concern that I have about clause 12—I think the Minister has answered this—is that a large amount of power is being given to the Secretary of State in relation to the nature of these committees, regardless of political persuasion in the future. Sometimes there could be a conflict of interest—there could be conflicting personalities. The Minister seemed to suggest that checks and balances would be hardwired into the system, in terms of accountability, in both Houses of Parliament.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his, I think, warm welcome of these clauses and proposals. He asked me a number of questions. With respect to clause 9, he asked who would form the building advisory committee. That committee will be appointed by the Building Safety Regulator itself. It will be formed of independent and impartial players, so it will not be a group of hand-picked ministerial appointments.
Christopher Pincher
Indeed: the Opposition are there to quiz, question and probe. The responsibilities that the Secretary of State has with regard to the composition of the committees, the Building Safety Regulator, and HSE in general differ in no way from the existing responsibilities that Ministers have, so we are not trying to create a new beast. What we do want to do, of course, is to make sure that Parliament has appropriate oversight. That is why, as I said in my remarks, any changes to the structure of committees will be made through the affirmative procedure, so both Houses will be able to have their say on any material changes to the committees we have identified and put on the face of the Bill.
In conclusion, I thank the Committee for its consideration of these clauses. I think they are very important clauses for the Building Safety Regulator to have at its disposal, so I am grateful, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Local Authorities and Fire and Rescue Authorities: Assistance Etc To Regulator
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
First, let me speak to clause 13, the first clause in this grouping. Dame Judith’s independent review recommended that the Health and Safety Executive, local authority building control, and fire and rescue authorities work together to deliver the new regulatory regime for high-rise residential buildings. This clause will support that independent review vision, enabling the Building Safety Regulator to secure support from local authorities and fire and rescue authorities when regulating high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings.
As shadow Building Safety Regulator, the Health and Safety Executive is developing an operational model in which key regulatory decisions on high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings are taken through a multidisciplinary team approach. Those teams will bring together the right specialists to take critical regulatory decisions on high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings, and will typically include staff from local authorities and fire and rescue services. That approach reflects the fact that fire and rescue services have expert fire protection teams, experienced in regulating fire safety issues through the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Local authority building control teams contain crucial expertise in inspecting and enforcing against building regulations requirements under the Building Act 1984.
Taking that multidisciplinary team approach has three advantages. First, drawing on the expertise in local regulators will be more efficient and effective than a national regulator employing and training all inspectors nationally. Secondly, this approach will avoid the best inspectors in local authorities and in fire and rescue authorities moving to the national inspectorate. Retaining expertise at the local level is critical to ensuring that the full range of buildings are properly regulated locally. Thirdly, the teams will support co-operation and co-ordination. That is crucial when the Building Safety Regulator, local authorities and fire and rescue authorities are all likely to have legal responsibilities in relation to a high-rise residential building. Under its general powers in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Building Safety Regulator will also be able to secure expertise from the private sector, where appropriate, to support the work of the multi-disciplinary team.
The clause sets out the process by which the Building Safety Regulator can secure support from local authorities and fire and rescue authorities, and gives local authorities and fire and rescue authorities the legal powers to provide support. The Government want support to be typically provided through co-operation and agreement. That approach respects the fact that local authorities and fire and rescue authorities are subject to local democratic accountability. The new regulator is also committed to a co-operative approach.
Ruth Cadbury
It is welcome that elements of local authority building control are being taken out of the competitive relationship in which they find themselves. I think that the head of building control who came to the Committee said that this is the only regulatory regime where there is competition between regulators—between the public and the private sector. Has the Minister done an impact assessment that shows that the fire authorities and local authority building control currently have the capacity to do the work that the Bill requires for buildings over 18 metres?
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady will know that we have spent a considerable amount of public money as a result of our efforts to recruit more experts and more fire and risk assessors over the past 18 months. We have recruited, and are training, a considerable number of experts to ensure that the resources are sufficient for buildings over a certain height to be properly assessed and, therefore, to be effectively remediated. I am confident that we have done, and will continue to do, the work to support the sector.
The hon. Lady was also right to say that it is sensible that we develop a co-operative rather than a competitive approach. That is what we are trying to do, because it is crucial that when the Building Safety Regulator and local authorities work together they do so sensibly and coherently. As I said, the Government want that support to be typically provided through co-operation and agreement, and the new regulator is committed to a co-operative approach.
The Chief Inspector of Buildings chairs the joint regulators group, which brings together the Local Government Association, the National Fire Chiefs Council and local authority building control. Schedule 3 provides for legal duties for co-operation between the Building Safety Regulator and local authorities and fire and rescue services respectively.
In most cases, the Building Safety Regulator will request support under this clause, and local authorities and fire and rescue authorities will respond positively to such a request. Where an authority has a genuine reason not to provide support on a specific occasion, such as when it needs to focus on a serious public safety risk elsewhere, the Building Safety Regulator would seek to accommodate that.
However, it is essential that this new regulatory regime works to secure the safety of residents of high-rise residential buildings, so there must be a backstop enabling the Building Safety Regulator to get the support it needs if all attempts at persuasion are insufficient. Therefore, the clause includes a power to direct local authorities and fire and rescue authorities to provide support. The power to direct is intended to be used only as a last resort—I must stress that to the Committee—so there are significant safeguards to ensure that it is not used lightly.
The power to direct can be used only following a written request from the Building Safety Regulator. The authority must have the opportunity to give reasons why it should not be required to provide assistance, and the Building Safety Regulator must consider any reasons given by the authority not to provide support. Crucially, the Secretary of State has to give consent to any direction.
Finally, I want to reassure the Committee that we will turn to funding arrangements when we consider clause 15. The Government intend that local authorities and fire and rescue authorities will be properly funded for their work in supporting the Building Safety Regulator. Clause 13 is crucial to ensuring that the regulator can call on the expertise it needs to regulate high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings.
On clause 14, the Government intend that the Bill should enable the Building Safety Regulator to work closely with other regulatory experts, bringing together the right specialists to regulate high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings. We have just considered clause 13, and we may consider it a little more in a moment, with other members of the Committee contributing. As I have said, it enables the Building Safety Regulator to secure support from local authorities and fire and rescue services.
The Crown application of the new regime, as set out in clause 141, is, in summary, a more stringent regulatory regime in occupation for high-rise residential buildings and will apply to buildings owned or managed by the Crown, with appropriate modifications. Where the Building Safety Regulator is regulating high-rise residential buildings owned or managed by the Crown, it is appropriate that the Building Safety Regulator can call on the support of inspectors authorised to enforce the fire safety order specifically for these Crown premises. Therefore, clause 15 allows the Building Safety Regulator to request support from inspectors in the Crown premises fire safety inspectorate and to give those inspectors the appropriate legal powers to provide support. So, they are covered, too.
We expect those requested to support the work of the Building Safety Regulator to form part of a multidisciplinary team looking at crucial regulatory decisions, such as assessing the safety case for a high-rise residential building. The clause is intended to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator can bring together the right experts when regulating Crown premises, as opposed to other premises, and is an important addition to the Bill with regard to the work of the Building Safety Regulator and its regime of oversight of buildings owned or managed by the Crown, of which there are a lot.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for his thorough explanation of each of clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16. Importantly, witnesses welcomed the clauses—I refer to the Local Government Association, the Chief Fire Officers Association and the Fire Brigades Union.
Some concern was expressed about the potential for a two-tier system. It is right that the landscape for those classed as “at risk”—with the definition being for those in buildings 18 metres and above—is co-operative. The concern expressed in Committee, however, is that a competitive environment still exists for those in buildings below 18 metres—the choice-based system. I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
The Bill also refers to the Secretary of State giving appropriate funds to local authorities or fire and rescue services—I think that is in clause 16, but I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. What assurances can he give to put that on a firm footing? As he said, it is vital to making the provisions work that local authorities, and indeed partners such as fire and rescue services, are adequately resourced to carry them out.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his support for these clauses and for pointing out the support that has been expressed for them by witnesses and other stakeholders. I think, again, that we can agree that these are important mechanisms of ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator is effectively resourced to do its work.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the consideration of buildings below 18 metres. He will know that the scope of the Bill is focused primarily on buildings that are taller than 18 metres or seven storeys and have more than two dwelling places. We have taken that decision based on advice and guidance, and because we want to focus our efforts and the efforts of the Building Safety Regulator on those buildings that are most at risk. That is not to say that in years to come the role and scope of the Building Safety Regulator cannot and will not change—I have outlined that in my previous remarks—but we are focused here on the safety from fire or structural risk of buildings primarily over that height and with those characteristics.
The hon. Gentleman also asks about resourcing. Resourcing is always a matter for the spending review and discussions between Departments and the Treasury. We want to make it clear that we believe one of the financing mechanisms for this important work is through Government grant—that is why I have said so to the Committee, and I will continue to say so through the course of the debate on the Bill—but we also want to make sure that the regulator is able to charge sensible fees to ensure that fire and rescue services and local government are able to obtain sensible remuneration for the efforts that they employ, working with the Building Safety Regulator.
We believe that these four clauses are important contributors to the role of a strong, efficient and effective Building Safety Regulator, calling on the services that it needs to do the work that we are setting out for it in the Bill. I commend the clauses to the committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Strategic plan
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
It is my intention to speak to all four clauses in this grouping. I will speak first to clause 17. The new Building Safety Regulator will deliver critical functions concerning the safety of people in and around buildings. With the regulator set to play such a central role in making buildings safer, the Government understand that residents, the public and Parliament—Members of this House and the other place—will expect a high degree of transparency in how the regulator delivers its functions, what its priorities are and how to judge whether it is performing well. To that end, we believe it is appropriate that, to ensure transparency and public confidence, the clause requires the Building Safety Regulator to put in place a published strategic plan setting out how it will deliver its critical building functions.
Mike Amesbury
We support clause 17 on establishing the strategic plans, clause 18 on potential revisions and review, clause 19 on the annual report, and clause 20. My only question is about the journey of the plan. How do we ensure that, beyond the once-a-year publication, there is a check—almost a health MOT—particularly for residents and the residents’ voice that the Minister referred to?
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. We will work closely with the regulator to make sure that it has in its strategic plan a sensible plan to engage with a wide variety of residents. The fact that it has to report publicly on that plan ought to focus its mind on making sure that the engagement, the checkpoints along the way and the journey of the plan, as he puts it, is undertaken. Parliament will be able to effectively scrutinise the process.
I am sure that if there are problems with the strategic plan—if the Building Safety Regulator appears not to be properly engaged, or if constituents of individual Members of Parliament believe that their voices are not being heard—we will have an opportunity to debate it in this House. I am confident that the approach we have taken is sensible and proportionate in developing a strategic plan for the Building Safety Regulator that engages a whole variety of stakeholders and residents, ensuring that their voices can be heard and that the plan commands their support, as well as ours.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
Health and Care Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 16th September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 September 2021 - (16 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 15, page 13, line 22, at end insert—
“(ba) medical services other than primary medical services (for primary medical services, see Part 4),”.
This amendment makes it clear that integrated boards have a duty to commission secondary medical services (replicating the current position for clinical commissioning groups). Although secondary medical services would appear to fall within new section 3(1)(f) and (g), in the existing legislation they are mentioned specifically so the amendment would continue that approach.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. Government amendments 12 and 13 are both technical amendments that clarify the commissioning responsibilities of integrated care boards. Clause 15 introduces proposed new section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which places a duty on integrated care boards to commission a range of non-primary health services. The duty to arrange for the provision of primary care is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.
In the Bill as introduced, there was no specific reference to medical services. Instead, non-primary medical services were considered to be covered by the broad provisions of new section 3(1)(f) and (g), and primary medical services were dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. Similarly, there was no specific reference to ophthalmic services. Instead, non-primary ophthalmic services were considered to be covered by the broad provisions of new section 3(1)(f) and (g), and primary ophthalmic services were dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.
However, the equivalent duties for clinical commissioning groups specifically reference these medical services and ophthalmic services, so the removal of an express reference to non-primary medical services and ophthalmic services generated some concern, which I hope to reassure the Committee is misplaced. There is no change of policy in this area, but to avoid any potential confusion these amendments put beyond doubt the fact that integrated care boards are responsible for these services, and replicate the current language.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We will not oppose the amendments or, indeed, clause 15. I think it is important, as the Minister said, to make it very clear that the relevant provision in clause 15, proposed new section 3(1), on ICBs providing services that they consider necessary, does not mean that they can unilaterally withdraw services. That is the concern that has been raised, and I think it is important that it is on the record that that is not what is intended.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I seek some clarification. With demand for palliative care set to soar because of our ageing population, I would be very grateful for any assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister can give that the reference in clause 15, in line 30 on page 13, to “after-care” includes palliative care and end-of-life care services.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, I also ask our hon. Friend the Minister to clarify this matter. As we all know, the voluntary sector is hugely important for palliative care. So many people at the end of life want to go home. We also know, in relation to discharge from hospital, that we need to get people into the right place, with the right care, so it is hugely important that we do everything we can to support that sector and to relate it to end-of-life care and palliative care.
From a personal and local perspective, I will also say, on the care that is provided, that my constituency has an excellent hospice—St Ann’s hospice. It is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, and lots of events are taking place. The hospice relies on funding from donations from local people and the wider public. It does an enormous amount of work.
If we are to provide the personalised care that we want to achieve, and if we are to enable people to be at home and to be cared for in different settings at the end of their life, it is really important that we consider this matter in relation to the Bill, so I welcome this change to clause 15.
Edward Argar
A number of the points raised by hon. Members, while touching on the amendments, will be addressed substantively in the clause stand part debate that is just about to take place. I do not think that there is anything further to add on the amendments.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment made: 13, in clause 15, page 13, line 24, at end insert—
“(ca) ophthalmic services other than primary ophthalmic services (for primary ophthalmic services, see Part 6),”.—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment makes it clear that integrated boards have a duty to commission secondary ophthalmic services (replicating the current position for clinical commissioning groups). Although secondary ophthalmic services would appear to fall within new section 3(1)(f) and (g), in the existing legislation they are mentioned specifically so the amendment would continue that approach.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
In opening the debate on this clause, I highlight the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Cheadle. I suspect that, in my winding-up speech, I may be responding to further questions on this. They are absolutely right to highlight the amazing work that is done by hospices and various charities and organisations in providing end-of-life and palliative care. When I come to my conclusions, I hope to be able to offer further reassurances to my hon. Friends, who I know take a very close interest in this area, and, quite rightly, have championed it in the Committee today.
Clause 15 substitutes a new section 3 into the National Health Service Act 2006, which replaces the clinical commissioning group equivalent with one that requires integrated care boards to commission hospital and other health services for those persons for whom the ICB is responsible. The clause lists those things that the ICB must arrange for the provision of, which includes, but is not limited to, hospital accommodation, nursing and ambulance services, dental services, diagnosis, care, treatment and aftercare of people suffering illness, injury or disability. In proposed new section 3A, the clause also provides a power for ICBs to arrange for other services or facilities that they consider appropriate to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of people for whom they are responsible.
The clause makes it clear that the duty on an ICB to arrange services does not apply if NHS England has a duty to arrange for their provision. The clause gives ICBs a clear purpose, without which it would not be obvious which bodies in the system are responsible for commissioning which parts of the comprehensive health service that we all want to see.
I should note that ICBs will not be the sole commissioner in the system. As I have just alluded to, NHS England will remain a commissioner for some services best commissioned nationally, such as specialised services. The clause also allows us to very clearly divide responsibilities between NHS England and ICBs. Between NHS England and the ICBs, the NHS will continue to commission a comprehensive health service free at the point of delivery for all who need it. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I rise to support the comments that were made earlier. I had indicated to the Minister that I would raise the issue about stating very clearly that the terms “care” and “after-care” in proposed new section 3(1)(f) include palliative care and services at the end of life. We have had a 36% rise in the number of people dying at home during the pandemic. That may be a result of choice, but, as someone who has supported someone at the end of their life at home, it is only possible through end-of-life services, including GP services and the Marie Curie overnight nurse. I do worry desperately about the percentage of people who are dying at home. It will be a huge issue for these organisations in the future to manage that positively. The Minister’s assurance that palliative care and end-of-life services are very much the responsibility of these boards would be most welcome.
Edward Argar
I will respond only briefly, because the only outstanding point that the hon. Lady rightly made was about paragraph (f). My understanding is that palliative care services and similar, as she has alluded to, would be captured under that paragraph. She is right, as are other Members, to highlight just how important those services are as continuing care or aftercare for patients. I give her the reassurance that my understanding of paragraph (f) is that it would encompass the services to which she has alluded.
Karin Smyth
Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Commissioning primary care services etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in schedule 3, page 126, line 28, leave out “person” and insert
“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.
This amendment would prevent an integrated care board from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.
Amendment 29, page 126, line 32, leave out “person” and insert
“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.
This amendment would prevent NHS England from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Clause 17 stand part.
Edward Argar
With your permission, Ms Elliott, I will first turn to clause 16 and schedule 3, and then discuss amendments 28 and 29, before concluding with clause 17.
Clause 16 gives effect to schedule 3, which makes provision for integrated care boards to take on responsibility for primary care services. The schedule allows for the conferral of functions relating to the commissioning of primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services on ICBs and contains related amendments. NHS England is currently responsible for arranging these services, but in future, once ICBs are fully established and ready to take on these functions, we intend for ICBs to hold the majority of them. This approach will ensure that decisions about services are made closer to the patient and in line with local population needs.
The schedule introduces a number of provisions to enable the transfer of these functions. The schedule includes equivalent provisions relating to primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services. That is to ensure flexibility, as it allows the different services to be conferred on ICBs over a period of time if that is deemed the most effective and efficient approach. The Bill is designed for the future, and we want to work with the system to support it to move at the right pace and offer patients the best care at all times.
The schedule provides for regulations to define which services should be regarded as primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services for the purposes of the Bill. The services that are classed as primary care services may vary over time and so these powers allow the Secretary of State to react to any such changes. The powers restate similar powers that are currently found in the National Health Service Act 2006. This provision places a duty on ICBs to provide primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services for those people for whom the ICB is responsible and allows ICBs to enter into the necessary arrangements in order to do so. To date, NHS England has always been responsible for dental and ophthalmic services, but the commissioning of primary medical services has been successfully delegated to clinical commissioning groups for some time. These provisions will ensure that primary care continues to be at the centre of delivering joined-up care to local communities—many members of the Committee have highlighted that—in partnership with wider health and care services in the area.
The schedule requires each ICB and NHS England to publish any information that may be prescribed in regulations concerning the provision of primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services. To ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place once these responsibilities are transferred, NHS England will have powers to direct ICBs as to how they should exercise their primary medical, dental and ophthalmic care functions.
In addition to primary care services, the Secretary of State will have powers to require NHS England to exercise pharmaceutical services, which can, in turn, be delegated to the integrated care boards. NHS pharmaceutical services are generally not directly commissioned, and the schedule continues to allow for that consistent approach to be followed.
The schedule makes provision for the necessary technical and consequential amendments to reflect the new provisions within it relating to primary care services. It is crucial for establishing ICBs as the key commissioners for the NHS in England in the future.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate amendments 28 and 29. I will address what I read into them at this stage and if I have misrepresented them, I will of course seek at the end, as appropriate, to address any misapprehensions I may have set out. I fear that the amendments would prevent an ICB from entering or renewing a contract with some private and third-sector organisations for the provision of primary medical services. Although the explanatory note for the amendment says this will
“prevent an integrated care board from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract”,
I have been advised that it would actually go much further than that limited objective, as limited companies can currently also hold general medical services and personal medical services contracts. The amendment would bar some of those companies from doing so, which would have a potentially devastating effect on primary care at a moment when the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, is working flat out to build capacity in primary care.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I wish to speak to amendments 28 and 29, and will also briefly address a couple of brief points relating to the clause.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response—it is handy to know in advance the likely arguments against the amendments. I referred to the amendments late on Tuesday afternoon, with regard to private company involvement in integrated care boards. We are heartened to hear what the Minister said about that and look forward to having those conversations. My original notes said that the amendments go a little further and might be a little rich for the Committee’s blood, and that may well be the case, but they are nevertheless important.
As I said the other day, the vast majority—around 70% —of GP services are provided on the general medical services contracting model, between local and national commissioners and a GP or GPs and their practice. A little more than a quarter of services are on the personal medical services terms, which allow greater local flexibility, although I understand that the intention is to phase them out. There is a small but growing number of APMSs, which we are debating. APMSs allow bespoke contracting with private companies, with no obligation for a GP behind them. The Minister mentioned their being time-limited as an asset; I am not sure that that is necessarily true. Of course, there has to be flexibility for commissioners to meet need, but my argument is that this is being misused and is operating as a loophole for private companies to enter the market and cream off profits in a way that I do not think is generally the direction that service users in the NHS want. Colleagues should not think that, because the model currently provides just over 2.5% of contracts, this is in some way small beer. The largest provider of GP services in this country is wholly owned by a US megacorporation and has 500,000 patients on its books. I do not think that is what our constituents want from their national health service in England, and I do not think that is what they expect it to look like either.
Therefore, it is reasonable to use the Bill to try to do something about it, because this will be the model. It will grow at pace unless it is checked, and there are many reasons to tackle the issue. It is not just because I find the model distasteful, which I do. First, such contracts are poor value for money. For a registered patient, the mean payment to an APMS provider is 11% greater than that to a GMS provider. Of course, the Minister made the argument on Tuesday that such practices often serve the hardest cohorts, so perhaps that could account for the difference, but that is not the case either. When patients are weighted according to need, the mean payment is actually 16% greater on APMS contracts—it gets worse. If we read that across the entire patient list across the country, it would be the equivalent of £1.5 billion. That is the risk, if this grows to be the dominant model. Such contracts also provide less satisfactory care, with a 2017 survey of nearly 1 million patients finding that APMS services generated lower levels of satisfaction.
Finally, the contracts are easier to walk away from. Within the NHS, we already know that when it stops working for private providers corporately, they are willing to just walk away from contracts and hand them straight back. I strongly say to the Minister that such arrangements are a distortion of the health service’s founding principles. They are costly, they are of lesser quality and they are less reliable.
Amendment 28 is designed to stop integrated care boards entering or renewing such contacts, and amendment 29 would do the same for NHS England. I fear that the Minister may have slightly catastrophised the impact of that, because if this was accepted today, there would be GP services that could no longer operate tomorrow. For a start, the Bill has an awful long way to go, and I gently say that if there is anxiety about health organisations working in advance and presupposing that this will become law at some point and will be operational in April, I am afraid that the Government started that a very long time ago and have already started to fill places in shadow. I do not think there should be any anxiety about getting prepared in this way, so that there would not be a cliff edge.
I am willing to take the argument that perhaps there is a better and more elegant way of drafting this, and I would happily accept an amendment in lieu, but what I cannot accept is nothing at all. Again, the Minister’s point on Tuesday was very good, because sometimes there will need to be a way to provide flexibility for very bespoke services. I think the example he used was services for street homeless people. Of course, that might be a very different model from that of the GPs on my estate. I would accept that as a principle, but the corporation that has the biggest patient list, at 500,000, is a bricks-and-mortar primary care service in my community. That is not a use of flexibility; it is using that as a loophole.
I do not think that can be right, and I do not think the answer can be that the provision needs to exist and therefore we must open this space for that sort of distortion. We are either saying, “There needs to be flexibility, and here is the best way of having a flexible system. Don’t worry—we’ll make sure it is not misused,” or we are saying that we are happy with such organisations entering the market. The Government need to say which one is their preference.
I will make a point about primary care networks before I move on to clause stand part. Obviously, primary care networks are not in the Bill, but I put quite a lot of stock in them. I think that, locally, they will be a very important unit of organisation of care services in our community. I want them to work, and I am playing an active role in the primary care network in my constituency. I think they have real potential. However, who will lead them if we lose our GP practices to those who do not have an interest in our community? The model will become much more distant and uninterested, based on finances rather than the local population. I believe that would be a very, very bad thing indeed. As I say, the amendments may not offer the best way to close that loophole, but I have not heard a better one, or indeed a desire to close it, so I wish to press the amendments to a Division.
Finally, a couple of quick points on schedule 3, which we do not intend to press to a Division. We have had quite a lot of discussion—the Minister touched on this in the previous stand part debate—about the arrangement of integrated care systems, such as they exist. At the moment, we know that NHS England holds certain responsibilities, the regional teams hold certain responsibilities and CCGs hold certain responsibilities at a local level. It is possible, after these reforms, that CCGs will be replaced by ICBs and the previous arrangements and responsibilities will remain unchanged, with NHS England nationally doing the same things, the regional teams doing the same things and ICBs picking up the responsibilities of their predecessors. I suspect, however, that that is not the intention, so I want to press the Minister a little bit on that.
The explanatory notes, on page 59, paragraph 286, state that the functions relating to medical, dental and ophthalmic primary care sit with NHS England, but that
“The intention is that Integrated Care Boards will hold the majority of these functions…in the future.”
Will the Minister expand on that? Does a “majority” mean two out of the three in a different area? Does he intend—again, we touched on this the other day—that this should all be devolved to the 42 ICBs at the same time, or will there be a sense of when each system is ready to pick up those important services? If so, what criteria will that be based on?
Finally, in case we do not come back to this topic—I do not expect the Minister to have an exhaustive list to hand—what is the thinking on other NHS England national and regional functions? Are they likely to be devolved to ICBs? Can he give an example of what sorts of things might be retained? He mentioned that we would want to retain specialist commissioning at a national level. The final question is this: is it ICB by default unless there is a very good reason why it cannot and therefore it has to be done at a national level, or is it at a national level unless it is proven that ICBs are competent to take it on? The answer may be a bit of a mixed economy, but if that is the case, I am keen to know what criteria he will use, or the Secretary of State will use, to make those decisions.
Karin Smyth
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, who made an excellent case for amendments 28 and 29. While on a primary care trust board, I commissioned APMS contracts under a previous magnificent Government—I am not saying this one’s not magnificent, but—because they offered flexibility. Then, as now, they were a sign of a failure of the system and the model of primary care contracting to deliver, particularly in areas of high deprivation. To provide flexibility in Bristol, for example, we had an 8 am to 8 pm service in the city centre to allow better access for people in the city centre, partly to drive down demand on emergency care services, which is a circle that we just keep on going round. Whether they worked or not is a bit of moot point, but it is a model and it is clear that something is needed—I would certainly concede that—so I understand the Government’s difficulty here with having something that is flexible.
I was slightly concerned when the Minister said that the APMS model would be developed further. I wonder if he wants to come back on that. We have to accept that they are problematic at the moment and we would like to see them go because of that. They are now being used as a back door, a very unfortunate one, for large private companies to start hoovering up general practices, which is, yet again, a sign of failure as to why they cannot survive in their environment. If they are going to be developed further, that is something we would like to hear more about. If not now, perhaps the Minister responsible could come back to us on that. Patients are always surprised when they find out that their GP is a private contractor. I accept that this is a difficult area to be completely black and white on. We are certainly in favour of flexibility in developing services in areas of high demand where, for reasons around capital or the type of contract, a GP might enter into partnerships. We know that the workforce is changing rapidly and the model of partnerships is not as attractive and is not recruiting people into the service. It is—not to overuse the word—a crisis.
I am sure we have all been contacted by various bodies representing GPs in our own constituencies. They are fearful not just about the current pressures, but the future attractiveness of primary care. We are not going to get into the future model of the contract today, but I always pity the poor Minister who has to negotiate the contract.
Karin Smyth
It is not a negotiation that anyone looks forward to with relish, but we need to take a good, strong look at the model now. This policy is not the route, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has described perfectly why it is not. It is of deep concern. These large organisations are not part of the local community. It is completely against the thrust of this Bill, which is about place-based, locally accountable systems. The Government would be wise to take his advice and perhaps come back with something else. We seek assurance that this policy is not being developed further, because that would be of even greater concern.
Edward Argar
I can reassure the hon. Member for Bristol South. I fear she misheard me when I was saying that we were encouraging primary care commissioners to go further in developing primary care provision—that was not necessarily this model. Forgive me if I was unclear on that, and I hope that gives her a little reassurance on that point.
To address a number of the other points that the shadow Minister primarily made, I suspect his fears are not borne out in reality. I suspect he will none the less, as we cannot accept his amendment, press it to a vote to highlight the issue, and that is his prerogative. I come back to the point that flexibility in this space is hugely important. The examples given by the hon. Member for Bristol South about the challenges in primary care provision are a good argument for why we need this flexibility. We know that some practices, which are GPs’ private businesses contracted to the NHS, on occasion will collapse or a partner will retire and a surgery will cease to operate, especially if no one wishes to take it over. Therefore it is important that these flexibilities are available to commissioners to ensure GP practice coverage.
Karin Smyth
Just to be clear—my apologies for mishearing the Minister previously—such closures are a sign of failure. The answer is to negotiate the contract better and to modernise a clear contract, not to use this vehicle. That was my very clear point.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but it would be a sign of failure not to build flexibility for all eventualities into the arrangements we have at the disposal of commissioners and into what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds is trying to do to build resilience into the system. I very much hope that she will continue to do so, or will ascend in the next few hours to something else. That is why flexibility is at the heart of this measure and why we cannot support the amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
I will try to address a couple of points that the hon. Gentleman made. We envisage PCNs continuing to play a hugely important role locally in the provision of primary care services. My GP is actively involved in the local PCN in Leicestershire. I know, whenever I speak to him, just how much it has done, particularly in the past 18 months, to build resilience into the system and make sure it works. I know the value of those PCNs more broadly in, for want of a better way of putting it, more normal times.
The final thing the hon. Gentleman asked about was the delegation of currently nationally commissioned functions down to ICBs. The short answer is that he was right in his supposition that this is not a binary, one-size-fits-all measure. The reality is that NHS England will be looking at which ICBs and ICS areas are sufficiently developed that they can take on additional commissioning responsibilities. If he and I sat down, we would probably have a fair sense of which ones were already well advanced. It may be some where there is a mayoralty and there is already a significant amount of devolution in one or two areas. It may be others. We heard from Dame Gill Morgan in Gloucestershire, who clearly has a highly developed ICS in that area. I would be reticent about setting a black-and-white thing on meeting some criteria. There is a degree of subjectivity, which is why we will be reliant on the expert advice of our colleagues in NHS England, and they will make these decisions in the appropriate way.
I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance on the broader clauses and schedule stand part. I fear I have not persuaded him in respect of his amendments, but it was worth a try.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Conferral of primary care functions on integrated care boards etc
Amendment proposed: 28, in schedule 3, page 126, line 28, leave out “person” and insert
“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.—(Alex Norris.)
This amendment would prevent an integrated care board from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.
Edward Argar
Clause 18 amends section 12ZA of the NHS Act 2006, which currently relates to commissioning arrangements by the board and the CCG. Elsewhere in the Bill, this has been updated to refer to newly merged NHS England and ICBs instead. The purpose of the clause is to allow those arrangements to be efficient and work smoothly so that ultimately patients are provided with the best service.
In essence, the clause would allow NHS England and integrated care boards to choose to enter more flexible arrangements with providers of NHS services, allowing flexibility for providers to tailor services to best meet the health needs of the population. For example, the management of long-term conditions such as diabetes can have complex care pathways. An integrated care board, through its commissioning arrangements, could allow a local trust to determine the range of services that will meet these needs in the local area. This includes the trust subcontracting services to other providers where they are best placed to provide some of those services.
The flexibilities provided by this clause will add to the ability of commissioners and providers to work together, using each other’s expertise to get the best outcomes for the entire system. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to clause 19, to which 15 amendments have been tabled. Although amendments 77 to 79, 4, 56, and 80 to 82 have not been selected for debate as no member of the Committee has signed them, if any Member wants to move those amendments, would they please indicate?
Clause 19
General Functions
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 19, page 16, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) make arrangements to ensure that patients can access services within maximum waiting times in accordance with their rights in the NHS Constitution.”
This amendment places a duty on each integrated care board, in the exercise of its functions, to meet maximum waiting time standards.
The amendment would insert in clause 19 a new requirement on integrated care boards, in addition to the many requirements set out in the clause, to ensure that patients could access services within the maximum waiting times as set out in the NHS constitution. I expect the Minister will tell us that those requirements are already set out in the constitution and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary, but if the answer is that that is an effective tool for ensuring compliance, by any account it has failed.
In every aspect of performance, the NHS has gone backwards in recent years and there can be no doubting the strength of connection between that going backwards and the decade of austerity that the NHS has endured. It is more than five years since the 18-week standard has been met, and that has led to the record waiting lists we see now. In case there is any doubt about this, let me put it on the record that waiting lists were already at record levels before the pandemic, and despite all the fanfare from the Prime Minister following the national insurance rise, we still do not have a guarantee that they will go down during this Parliament.
Let us not forget why the last Labour Government introduced the standards. Years of underfunding under the 1979 to 1997 Conservative Government led us to a dark place. People were waiting months—sometimes years—to access treatment, and that was rightly identified as a priority to fix by the last Labour Government, who wanted to let record investment into the NHS, but also wanted to ensure that that investment was targeted and effective so that the NHS could be judged on its performance. As a result, the targets were introduced.
Targets and funding combined proved to be effective, which is why, by the time the Labour party left office, the NHS had record satisfaction levels and waiting times that today’s Secretary of State can only dream of. Little wonder the rhetoric in recent months has increasingly been that of scepticism about the benefit of such targets, culminating in the Secretary of State’s words at the weekend that the targets are, in fact, “nonsense”. Well, I think we can see what is going on. Targets have got hopelessly out of reach and there is no real plan for to how to change that, so the Government seek to undermine and ultimately change—or remove altogether—the targets, so that poor performance is disguised or played down.
That does a disservice to the patients who are waiting months—in some cases, sadly, years—for the treatment that they are entitled to. Most of those people will be in significant pain. All will be unable to live their lives to the extent that they would like. Some may be unable to work or undertake other physical activities. We do not need to go through the full list; we can all understand the impact that waiting for treatment can have on individuals. In many cases, their lives are effectively put on hold. They deserve better. The amendment would make it clear that their rights as patients under the constitution meant something and that the ICBs should be expected to focus on delivering those standards.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for tabling the amendment and giving us the opportunity to debate it. Of course we understand the importance of reducing waiting times. The Government are committed to increasing activity, tackling backlogs and ensuring that patients can access timely healthcare, backed up by the record investment announced by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—indeed, some might agree, to a degree copying what the Labour Government did in putting up national insurance.
For instance, to tackle backlogs and drive up activity, the Government are providing £2 billion of elective recovery funding, which is double our previous commitment, and we are working to encourage innovation to help patients to get the care they need. In his remarks, the shadow Minister highlighted funding. I would point out to him the fact that, despite inheriting a note saying “Sorry, there is no more money,” we have continued to increase spending on the NHS.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s vain attempt to persuade me to withdraw the amendment, although he rather missed the central thrust of its purpose, which is, of course, to point out that this is not just about funding; it is about focusing that funding. That is why the targets were introduced in the first place.
We believe it is important that ICBs are also given that focus; we could call it an incentive or a prioritisation. They should be keen to be seen to be delivering that. This is such an important part of the NHS—how are we to judge each ICB’s performance if we do not know how they are performing on waiting lists? This is an important area. We think the general tone and the rhetoric from the Government are that waiting targets are not of significance, so this is an opportunity for them to put right some of the stories that go around in respect of that by supporting the amendment. We will press the amendment to a vote in any case because we believe that this is an important matter, and it should be put on the record.
Karin Smyth
I will not repeat my comments of the other day with respect to an amendment that suddenly disappeared from the amendment paper without my noticing. The point I was making was that targets do drive behaviour, and we learnt something in that magnificent drive down from the Conservative Government’s target of 18 months to wait on a list, which seemed acceptable to them at the time. The wait is beyond that now for many services, which seems acceptable to the Government now, although it is completely unacceptable to everyone in my constituency.
We must consider the managerial and clinical effort involved in focusing on those waiting lists, which, as I have said previously, is about making contact with all those patients, assessing their condition and seeing how it has ordinarily deteriorated once on the waiting list. Sadly, many people have died while on those waiting lists. That effort is huge, and it will require focus.
The Government are asking us all to pay a bit more towards the health service, and most of us are conscious of the fact that that is needed. We can debate how it is being done, but we should know what it will get us. We should absolutely be clear to our constituents—given that they have suffered so much, particularly during the pandemic—that the previous standards were not acceptable, and were not being met, and that it is completely unacceptable to ask people to pay more without their having any idea of what that will bring, or indeed of the Government’s intent with regard to how long they think it is acceptable for people to be on a waiting list.
It is also hugely onerous on the clinical managerial staff to manage these waiting lists in the way that they are, which is hugely inefficient. This is a really bad sign of the flow through the system; we have bottlenecks throughout. It will come back to haunt the Government and whoever is speaking on their behalf at this time—I have no doubt about that. I say that with sorrow because it is miserable all round. The Government would be wise to make some kind of assessment of what they think is an acceptable time to wait for various treatments, so that would be clear to people. Supporting our amendment would give some indication of good faith, at the very least.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend has described the amendment very well, and it would be good to know the Government’s intentions in respect of waiting lists, because we consider the rhetoric a distraction and a nuisance. It is politically convenient for them to have such headlines. We want to put the amendment to the vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
On a point of order, Ms Elliott. I apologise for interrupting the flow of the sitting, but it will not have escaped your notice that my amendments 55 and 54 to clause 20 are coming up soon. As luck would have it, the debate will coincide precisely with the time at which I am due in Westminster Hall to discuss the progress of the Government’s implementation of the recommendations of the Timpson review. It is very difficult for me to avoid being present in Westminster Hall. As luck would further have it, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd is happy to move the amendments on my behalf, as well as speak to them. I hope that is acceptable, and I apologise for having to absent myself for a short period in order to fulfil my duties in another part of the House.
The Chair
That is absolutely fine. I thank the hon. Member for advising the Committee of that.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 19, page 17, line 4, at end insert
“through working with innovation and life sciences ecosystems, facilitated by Academic Health Science Networks, to ensure patients and the public have timely access to transformative innovation.”
This amendment would mandate Trusts to work with AHSNs to promote innovation in health services.
Innovation has allowed us to conquer certain diseases and come up with better and more effective treatments for others. It is integral to societal progress and is a major source of inspiration, new opportunities and, indeed, new financial burdens for the NHS. Most importantly, it means improved outcomes for patients. Innovation needs to reach patients if we are to get the full benefit of the many incredibly talented people who make up our academic and research community.
Academic health science networks have an informal role in the NHS, and there is no obligation on any CCG to work with them to ensure that new, innovative medicines are available. There are 15 academic health science networks across England, which were established by NHS England in 2013 to spread innovation at pace and scale, improving health and generating economic growth. Each network has a distinct geography, covering a specific population in each region—it almost sounds like an integrated care system, but there are not quite as many. They are the only bodies that connect to the NHS and the academic organisations, and are catalysts that create the right conditions to facilitate change across health and social care communities with a clear focus, as we believe should be the case, on improving outcomes for patients. We think they are uniquely placed to underline and spread innovation at pace and scale, driving the adoption and spread of innovative ideas and technologies across large populations, but their effectiveness rests on their ability to bring people, resources and organisations together quickly, delivering benefits that could not be achieved if they operated in isolation.
Everything those bodies do is driven by two imperatives: improving health and generating economic growth in our regions. They are the only partnership bodies that bring together all partners across a regional hub economy to improve the health of local communities. They have a remit from NHS England to occupy what is effectively a unique space outside the usual NHS service contracts and performance management structures, enabling them to collaborate to foster important solutions.
Those bodies use local knowledge to harness the influence of partners to drive change and integrate research within health improvements. They are interested in seeing healthcare businesses thrive and grow, creating jobs, bringing investment and seeing the system improve. They have a different focus, but they share the following priorities: promoting economic growth; fostering opportunities for industry to work effectively with the NHS; diffusing innovation; creating the right environment; and supporting collaboration across boundaries to adopt and spread innovation at pace and scale. They improve patient safety by using knowledge, expertise and networks to bring together patients, healthcare staff and partners to determine priorities and to develop and implement solutions. They optimise medicine use—[Interruption.] Perhaps I have predicted what the Minister was about to say?
Edward Argar
I am envying the shadow Minister’s breath control as he runs through his list.
Justin Madders
I am merely trying to ensure we make good progress today.
Those bodies ensure medication is used to maximum benefit, including safety and making efficient use of NHS resources. They improve quality and reduce variation by spreading best practice—we often talk about the variation among outcomes across different parts of the country. They put research into practice, collaborate on national programmes, and have a unified focus on various initiatives, including the NHS innovation accelerator and patient safety collaborative programme.
The amendment would bake in that good work, some of which I have outlined, by including those bodies within the scope of proposed new section 14Z39 of the National Health Service Act 2006 regarding innovation.
Karin Smyth
I rise to support my hon. Friend. We have rightly criticised much of what has happened in the last few years, but we should also remember that some amazing partnerships and networks have developed, including in my area—Bristol, north Somerset and south Gloucestershire—with the universities and others in both primary and secondary care, bringing together clinicians, researchers and so on. They stumbled initially as things were difficult at the beginning, but they have come together very well. They are well regarded—variable but well regarded—and are a useful source of innovation coming together, so I fully echo my hon. Friend’s comments.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for facilitating the debate on this matter, and, as I said, I admire his ability at pace and fluently to rattle through a long list of examples.
As the shadow minister said, the amendment relates to the role of ICBs and ICPs in relation to innovation. First, I want to reassure the Committee that I share his view on the vital importance of research to the NHS and the UK more widely. We are committed to being a research superpower and fully support research and innovation in the NHS and the public being given timely access to transformative medicines and treatments resulting from that innovation.
The example we would all use at the moment is vaccine development. That is a phenomenal example, and it is at the forefront of many of our minds. That is why we have replicated the research duty on CCGs for ICBs to continue a system that has been working well. We are fully supportive of research and ensuring that effective health, public health and social care services are delivered, but we cannot support the amendment.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. The Opposition would not want to be accused of being over-prescriptive—that is certainly not what we intend. I appreciate what the Minister said about not wanting to limit the role of ICBs and he made a good point about the vaccine roll-out being a pertinent example of how innovation can be of huge benefit. That may be at the forefront of his mind because there is now a vacancy in the Department in the role of Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment; the Minister may be looking to add to his already extensive portfolio.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 19, page 17, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—
“(a) support the conduct of research on matters relevant to the health and care system,
(b) work with universities and other research settings to support the development of the health research workforce and careers, and
(c) promote the use in the health and care system of evidence obtained from research.”
This amendment would require Integrated Care Boards to work with universities to support research in their local health and care systems.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in clause 19, page 17, line 13, after “1F(1)”, insert “and work with universities and colleges”.
This amendment would require Integrated Care Boards to work with universities and other education providers to promote education and training in their local health and care systems.
Chris Skidmore
The amendments would place a legal duty on integrated care boards to support and promote the use and development of research in their local health and care systems. The existing legislation talks about the health system; this is the Health and Care Bill, so it makes sense that the duty to promote research should also promote research in care settings.
Importantly, amendment 7 would promote and support the conduct of research alongside universities, which drive research outputs and innovation in healthcare. We would all agree that that has been highlighted throughout the pandemic: if it was not for our universities, we would not have all received a vaccine, in respect of which the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of research and innovation.
In the specific context of the Bill, it is important to require ICBs to engage with universities and other research settings on the development of the healthcare research workforce. ICBs will have a vital role in ensuring that we have sufficient numbers in not only the health workforce but the healthcare academic workforce, which is key to overall healthcare workforce sustainability. That is particularly important for the development of the clinical academic workforce. Clinical academics work in higher education institutions, conducting cutting-edge research and educating the future workforce while also providing clinical expertise to health and social care services. Because they remain clinically active, their research is grounded in clinical practice and questions that matter to services and patients.
Data from the Medical Schools Council staffing survey shows that although the total number of NHS medical consultants and GPs has risen by 40% over the past 15 years, the numbers of clinical academic have simply not kept up to pace—in fact, they have decreased, from 7.5% to 4.2% of the workforce. The proportion of clinical academic GPs has remained stable, but at just 0.4% of the GP workforce. Furthermore, less than 0.1% of the workforce in nursing, midwifery and the allied health professions are clinical academics. Increasing clinical academic capacity is essential to advancing evidence-informed practice and innovation in healthcare in the future. The point here is that expansion of the healthcare programme of student numbers on the UK Government’s intended scale also requires an expansion of the number of healthcare academic staff.
The 2019 academic staffing centres of the Council of Deans of Health identify challenges for universities in recruiting staff and an ageing academic workforce in healthcare subjects. In England, 36% of academic staff are over the age of 50, and 9% are over the age of 60. That suggests that the academic workforce is significantly older than the healthcare workforce as a whole. It suggests that, within the next 15 years, almost half of the academic staff will be at or near retiring age, with many already likely to have retired. Without significant renewal of the academic healthcare workforce, not enough staff will be left to keep up with the number of students.
It is key that senior leaders in both the higher education and the healthcare sectors cultivate a culture of support for clinical academics. ICBs, health and social care providers and universities need to work in partnership to support clinical academics and clinical staff interested in secondments or joint appointments to universities. There should be opportunities for clinical staff to obtain experience and skills in teaching and also in research.
Amendment 7 ensures that ICBs remember their responsibilities to research, to local research priorities and to developing a local clinical academic research workforce, and universities are vitally involved in that important work. I think I am the only Member of this House who has been both a Health Minister and a Universities Minister twice. When I went into the Department of Health and Social Care, we were talking about integration between healthcare settings and social care settings. We have a similar problem with integration when it comes to looking at the medical workforce and ensuring that the education settings and the healthcare settings also integrate better together.
Amendment 8 returns to this point. It would require integrated health and care boards to work with universities to promote education and training in their local health and care systems. Universities are committed to co-creating healthcare services through working with practice partners, further education colleges and other stakeholders to plan and deliver the future workforce. I know that, when we come to clause 33, we will be talking about workforce planning at length, but this amendment would help to enable us to plan in advance to mitigate some of the problems that come with workforce planning for the future.
Universities are rooted in their local and regional communities and focus on improving healthcare outcomes and driving up economic and social wellbeing through providing programmes to meet skills gaps in those local areas. This is highlighted through the work of the universities during the pandemic, including the University of the West of England in my own locality hosting a Nightingale hospital, and the deployment of thousands of healthcare and medical students and some academic staff within clinical practice to expand the NHS workforce at the height of the pandemic. We all want to pay tribute to those medical students who, with no extra salary, gave up their time to volunteer to help staff on some of those covid wards at the time.
In England, universities currently sit on local workforce action boards and on sustainability and transformation partnerships to ensure that education is central to local healthcare planning. The amendment ensures that universities and colleges continue to be actively engaged by ICBs to plan and deliver on local workforce needs and priorities to ensure a sustainable workforce. This should take place alongside continued work with Health Education England.
Healthcare programmes are holistic and necessarily constituted of theory and practice components. For example, a registered nursing programme consists of 4,600 hours of education across three years—2,300 hours of academic learning and 2,300 hours of theory learning. Universities and their practice placement partners need to be involved in national and local workforce planning to ensure that there is adequate placement capacity in the system. As I saw when I was a Health Minister, placement capacity has long been recognised as a constraint to sector growth. Even if the hospitals wanted to expand, they did not have the placements to be able to deliver on the demand that was there.
ICBs must be involved in developing placement capacity and innovation and work with partners to increase placement opportunities outside the NHS, including in private healthcare, the third sector, social care, research and teaching, and international exchange. ICBs also need to work with education providers to think about developing education placements to support digital innovation and online and blended delivery, particularly considering the learning we have from the pandemic. That will help to support higher education institutions to manage the continued challenges posed by placement capacity problems, considering health service pressures.
Requiring ICBs to work with universities and colleges is also key to ensuring the success of healthcare apprenticeships and new technical qualifications such as T-levels. Universities work in close collaboration with local employers to develop and deliver healthcare apprenticeships. They are also committed to ensuring smooth articulation between further education and higher education, and universities are working with colleges to ensure that the healthcare T-levels and the new higher technical qualifications are rolled out successfully.
The amendment would ensure that the planning of future workforce numbers and sufficient placement capacity for all learner routes must be developed in partnership with education providers. That is crucial.
Alex Norris
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his amendments and the case he made for them. I hope that he remembers with fondness his visit to the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University when he was Universities Minister. He will have seen then the significant role that they play in our community, and I think they provide a good model for some of the things that we are talking about. I hope the Minister will address the points about clinical academics in particular. They were very well made, and I thought the right hon. Member for Kingswood also provided the basis for what will be a really interesting discussion on clause 33.
What attracts me to amendment 7 is that it is really important to send a signal to the leaders of integrated care boards that we want research to be central to their mission, as NHS Providers said in its evidence, and that we do not see them solely as administrators of health and care spending on a day-to-day basis, who every winter have to engage in collective crisis management to keep the lights on. We have much broader horizons in mind for them. If this is about new and enhanced models of more integrated care, we have to harness the expertise of academia. Hopefully, if this was effective and worked as a two-way process, with academics learning from inside the system and the systems learning from best practice from around the different footprints, that would be really powerful.
That relates neatly to the point about inequalities, from the beginning of our line-by-line consideration. The argument in favour of making that a priority was not about some sort of quixotic search for solutions or saying that something must be done, so let us just do something; rather, it is about taking evidence-based, high-quality interventions that work and putting them to work elsewhere. The sort of insights that amendment 7 proposes would certainly do that.
When I read amendment 8, my first instinct was, “I wish I had tabled it,” because I think it is great. We want to foster a culture where we invest in and develop our people. That is true whatever someone’s role is in the health and care service. Of course, that is really important in the NHS, and we all have a clear picture of what that looks like, but it is even more important in social care. We undervalue the role of social care in so many aspects, obviously and most tangibly in pay and conditions, but we also do not invest in people. Imagine how much more attractive a career in care would become if someone’s training prospects went beyond the limited ones offered by whoever their employer happens to be and instead a wealth of other opportunities and courses backed by top higher education providers in their community was opened up.
My family’s life was transformed by the impact that night school had on my mum’s skills. She progressed from being an unqualified person working in childcare and turned that from a job into a career. That was completely transformative, not just for her life but for mine and my sister’s. How terrific would that sort of picture be for people entering the care profession. It would be a wonderful thing. So there is a lot to go at here, and I am very interested in hearing the Minister’s views on how we can try to foster that culture, if not through amendments 7 and 8.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the agenda raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood in his amendments 7 and 8 and the need for integrated care systems to ensure that NHS organisations for which they are responsible conduct and resource clinical research.
I think all would agree that the UK life sciences sector is world-leading. That was evidenced during the pandemic by the way in which early PCR testing was brought forward for covid, by the recovery trial and by vaccine development and so on. In this country, however, the location of existing activity is all too often limited. We have world-renowned centres of excellence, often associated with teaching hospitals. I would do nothing to weaken that. The Government’s levelling-up agenda needs to extend involvement in such activity across the country. But at the same time, it can strengthen what Britain has to offer to patients and the world as a whole, bringing economic benefit to the country as well as to the NHS through increased income.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood for tabling his amendments and allowing us to have this debate. As has been mentioned, he was both my distinguished predecessor in this role and a very distinguished Minister for universities and research.
Amendments 7 and 8 relate to requiring ICBs to work together with higher education institutions and to their research duty. With the consent of the Committee, and with yours, Ms Elliott, I will start with amendment 8 and revert to amendment 7. Amendment 8 would alter the statutory duty placed on ICBs to promote education and training when exercising their functions to assist the Secretary of State and Health Education England in the discharge of their statutory duties. The Government believe that integrated care boards should promote education and training for people who are employed or considering becoming employed in the provision of NHS services, and that is what proposed new section 14Z41 of the National Health Service Act 2006, in clause 19, achieves that. This provision mirrors the duty currently imposed on clinical commissioning groups. In discharging the duty, ICBs will invariably work with higher education institutions as well as other educational providers as they consider appropriate.
At this point, the Department does not think that it necessary to mandate specific details of how ICBs should discharge that duty under proposed new section 14Z41, particularly as NHS England will have a power to issue guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions, which should serve to clarify the system. The draft guidance published by NHS England and NHS Improvement in August 2021 states that the delivery of ICBs’ responsibilities will include working with educational institutions to develop the local future workforce across the health and care system. We believe that that guidance sends a strong signal to the system of the importance of the issue, reinforcing the statutory duty that ICBs will be under to promote education and training. Furthermore, it is worth noting in that context that ICBs will not be the only place in the system where engagement with higher education institutions will be taken forward.
HEE works extremely closely with higher education institutions and other education providers both nationally and through non-statutory regional people boards, jointly with NHS England, to ensure that the education and health systems are producing the right number of people with the right skills for our NHS. For example, Health Education England has already offered to support ICBs through the provision of workforce development support.
I will now turn to amendment 7, before wrapping both amendments together. I start by reassuring my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate that the Government remain fully committed to supporting research as part of our NHS. Currently, clinical commissioning groups are under a duty to promote research; the Bill places the same duty on integrated care boards. That duty is discharged in a variety of ways—for example, with some CCGs having research strategies or research offices, providing details on how people can participate in research locally, or being partners in research organisations. Rather than being direct funders or directly conducting research themselves, the role of integrated care boards is to facilitate and enable research.
A duty to promote research gives greater flexibility for integrated care boards to determine how best and most effectively to engage with and encourage research in their local system. For example, NHS Liverpool CCG is the host organisation for the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast, while NHS Norfolk and Waveney CCG has a dedicated primary and community care research office, which works with a range of stakeholders, including academics, to develop and support the delivery of healthcare research across the area.
The amendment would modify the research duty on integrated care boards by replacing a requirement to promote research on relevant health service matters with one to “support the conduct” of that research. It also contains an additional requirement for ICBs to work with universities and other research settings to support the development of the health research workforce and careers.
We believe that there would be relatively little practical impact from changing the duty to one of supporting the conduct of research, and that there would be the potential to cause some confusion to staff moving from CCGs to ICBs as to what was expected of them. On the question of developing the health research workforce and careers by working with universities and other research settings, there is a risk in highlighting universities in particular, as that might imply an exclusion of other education facilities, although I know that that is not the intent. Furthermore, I have already highlighted the effectiveness of the proposed education and training duty, which includes the research workforce. Finally, the duty in relation to promoting the use of evidence and research is already part of the existing ICB duties.
I hope that, given those reassurances, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will not feel that he has to press his amendments to a vote. I look forward to continuing to speak with him as proceedings on the Bill continue, to ensure that when it becomes law, we end up with something that accurately reflects what we need in order to carry on being a powerhouse of innovation and research.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the Minister for his considered comments on these amendments. They are probing amendments, and I do not intend to press them to a vote. I hope, however, that the Department will consider not only the discussion that we have had in Committee today, but a letter that was sent to the Minister’s office on 14 September from Universities UK, the Medical Schools Council and the Council of Deans of Health, which have all signalled their support for a form of words in an amendment that recognises the potential difficulties about placement planning and the opportunities represented by putting measures in the Bill about ICBs demonstrating integrated working.
I have been in Bill Committees before—I am now legislating to take out a lot of what I legislated for 10 years ago, when I was dealing with what became the Health and Social Care Act 2012. These Bills do not come around very often, so we have a fantastic opportunity, as the oral evidence sessions demonstrated, and I fully appreciate it. I have removed and re-tabled one of my amendments, to clause 33, as a result of the feedback from the oral evidence sessions.
There is a tension about how prescriptive we should be when the very culture of the Bill is about locally led practice and delivery and ensuring that we give health service managers and clinicians the opportunity to decide what is best for their local areas, so I do appreciate that prescription here may be unnecessary, but I felt it was important that I raised this as an opportunity to make a change in the Bill.
When it comes to clause stand part, I would like to speak more generally on clause 19 about the value of research, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd has spoken about. I think we have an opportunity—it is one that I do not want to miss—when it comes to embedding research within the future of the NHS. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 19, page 25, line 37, at end insert—
“14Z58A Power of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to obtain information
(1) The Domestic Abuse Commissioner may require an integrated care board to provide the Domestic Abuse Commissioner with information.
(2) The information must be provided in such form, and at such time or within such period, as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner may require.”
This amendment places a requirement on Integrated Care Boards to share information with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner at their request.
This is the first of a couple of amendments relating to domestic abuse. I hope it is not necessary, but it is my best avenue for establishing a point. I am really hoping for a one-word answer from the Minister—in my experience, a one-word answer is better than a two-word answer—and I hope that we can make quick progress with the amendment.
In England and Wales, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created the post of Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who is in the vanguard of holding to account authorities and agencies to ensure that their process and plans promote our national attempts to tackle domestic abuse. Currently, the post is filled by the excellent Nicole Jacobs. She has the power to obtain information from public bodies such as the local police, the local council and the Care Quality Commission, so that she can express her views as to whether those organisations are acting in line with well-evidenced best practice in the decisions that they take. That is an important way in which we can be assured that public policy decisions on the ground from day to day reflect the national consensus on what we are trying to achieve.
Currently, NHS bodies are in scope of the commissioner’s powers, and I want to clarify that ICBs and any relevant sub-committee would also be in scope. The composition of the boards will not matter, and there will be no shielding behind commercial confidentiality. The body will sit consistently with other, similar bodies, and the commissioner will be able to get the information she needs to do the job that we have asked of her.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I share his view that it is crucial that integrated care boards co-operate with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I think I speak for the whole Committee when I say that we agree that the health and social care system has a crucial role in preventing and tackling domestic abuse, and in supporting victims who experience this horrendous crime. Indeed, before the last reshuffle, when I moved from Justice to Health, I was one of the Ministers working with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), on the genesis of what is now the Domestic Abuse Act. Therefore, we wholeheartedly welcome the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s role in the Act.
The commissioner has a vital role to play in monitoring the response to domestic abuse, sharing best practice and challenging bodies, including in health and social care, to go further and to do more. The commissioner will require information, support and co-operation from integrated care boards as well as a range of other public bodies. That is why the Domestic Abuse Act contains a duty to co-operate with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and we have made it clear that that will apply to integrated care boards and their component parts. It will also apply to requests for information from the commissioner. That is a little more than one word, but I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for Nottingham North that there is already such provision, as there should be. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
More broadly, the Department for Health and Social Care will be taking steps to ensure that integrated care boards also have the right guidance and support to ensure that they fulfil their duties in relation to domestic abuse, as well as violence against women and girls, and sexual violence more broadly. We will be following the Government’s recent violence against women and girls strategy by engaging with current ICSs, the wider sector and the commissioner, so that we identify best practice and share that guidance across the system to ensure that all parts of the system play their part.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer and clarification. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
This clause inserts 31 new sections into the NHS Act 2006. It is the cornerstone of the integrated care board provisions, as it sets out the functions and duties that ICBs are required by legislation to fulfil. Clause 19 contains a number of provisions and duties in respect of ICBs. Given the importance of these provisions in the Bill, I will take Members through them, if they will forgive me, in a little detail.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for that herculean effort in listing all the powers and responsibilities of ICBs. For a permissive Bill, the fact that it sets out 12 duties suggests that the pendulum has swung a little bit further than the Minister was perhaps prepared to admit on Tuesday. Of course, the number would have been even higher had our amendment been accepted, but there we go; a dozen is still an impressive amount. However, it is really about what that means in practice.
The Minister referred to the duty whereby ICBs are required to promote awareness of the NHS constitution. In the context of the debate that we have just had on NHS waiting lists, it strikes me as similar to the scene—it might be familiar to many Members—at the end of each “Bullseye” episode, when the speedboat that the unlucky contestant had not succeeded in getting was brought out, so as to say, “Look what you could have won!” In this case, it is, “Look what the NHS constitution says about waiting times. By the way, we are not delivering on that for you.” That is the nub of some of the duties—how will they be enforced in practice? The Minister referred to mechanisms for NHS England intervention, although we would have liked that to be further strengthened with specific reference to waiting lists.
I note that in proposed new section 14Z59(4), NHS England has retained the ability to terminate the appointment of an ICB chief executive, but also to direct the chair of the board as to which individual to appoint as their replacement and on what terms. That is quite a strong power. The way I read that, if NHS England decides to get rid of someone, it, and it alone, will decide who will replace them. That really goes against the spirit of what we have been discussing for the last couple of days. Would the Minister be able to allay my fears in that respect, or at least put into context the circumstances in which that clause might operate?
I was interested to hear what the Minister said about proposed new section 14Z47 and ICBs’ ability to offer grants and loans on whatever terms they see fit. It now seems that the “B” in ICB stands for bank, or possibly building society. Obviously, at the moment these bodies do not exist in law and so have no capital resources to draw on to create such grants or loans, but of course that will change in due course. Again, will the Minister advise the Committee in what kind of situations that might be a possibility?
Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the powers and responsibilities in proposed new section 14Z52, on health and wellbeing boards’ comments about forward plans. Like much of this, it is a process-driven, tick-box exercise where people have to “take regard” and explain why they are not doing something that everyone else has asked them to do. A whole lot of this raises the question: in a disagreement, what are the levers to get proper accountability and change that the whole of the system, apart from the ICB, wants to see?
Chris Skidmore
Although I entirely support clause 19 as an essential ingredient of the Bill that will provide certainty and legal confidence to ICBs, I wish to draw the Minister’s attention again to the duty to promote research. The past year has demonstrated the increased engagement, across all healthcare settings, in research and those activities relating to the pandemic.
Research demonstrates the enormous benefits not only to patients, but to organisations that see improved outcomes, lower mortality rates and increased confidence in care as a result of being research-led organisations. It also shows the staggering gross value added that is produced within the NHS—£2.7 billion in 2018-19, through the National Institute for Health Research clinical research network that supports clinical research activities. For every patient recruited on to a commercial trial between 2016 and 2018, the NHS in England received more than £9,000. When a drug is replaced by a new one—a trial drug—there is another saving of nearly £6,000.
Research not only improves lives; we know it saves lives. I am a passionate advocate for expanding our research and development capacity across society if we are to succeed as global Britain. That is one reason we have that cross-Government target of raising the amount spent on R&D, both public and private, to 2.4% of GDP by 2027.
I want to come back to this idea of the duty to promote research. I recall serving on the Bill Committee for what became the Health and Social Care Act 2012, when the duty to promote research was first written into legislation, with the duty on CCGs. That has now been transferred across in the text for ICBs, in proposed new sections 14Z39 and 14Z40 to the National Health Service Act 2006.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd mentioned, the duty to promote may not be strong enough. I do not have an amendment to hand, but I wanted to raise this point more generally so that the Minister and his Bill team might give it some consideration. Given that ICSs are established as the strategic system leaders for the NHS and partner organisations to deliver integrated care and take that whole-systems approach, research will have to be a core element of ICSs’ regional plans if we are to maximise the strengths of the NHS, our world-leading science capability and the opportunities I have spoken about.
I therefore urge the Government to consider whether there might be an opportunity to change the duty to promote into a duty to conduct and resource clinical research during the passage of the Bill. It is important to stress that a duty to promote has to be accompanied by the necessary infrastructure: staffing levels, research capability, digital resources, access to services, efficient trial approval processes, the ability to reliably recruit patients, guidance and dedicated staff time for research. The whole idea of “promotion” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. There might be an opportunity for us to be more detailed in creating a duty to conduct and resource clinical research.
Such a duty—this has been raised with me—would present the opportunity that research brings to highlight clinical inequalities within the NHS. We need to be able to measure research activity; we cannot manage or even promote research activity unless we are able to measure it effectively. With that comes the whole question of clinical auditing—making sure that there is an effective auditing process in place to ensure that research-led activities are able to be effectively measured and therefore effectively managed. I am sure that that will be raised in the other place during the passage of the Bill. I act as a canary in the coalmine to provide the Minister with due warning that I am sure these debates will come up during the passage of the Bill in the other place.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
I have some questions for the Minister about the cross-border joint committees. I would, of course, be happy if he could answer them this afternoon, but he if wishes to have a period of further consideration I would be content for him to write to the Committee with the answers.
Clause 19 sets down the prescribed functions of an integrated care board that can be exercised jointly with the local health board in Wales. This is to be the responsibility of joint committees. The clause replaces the regulations in the National Health Service Act 2006, which provide that any prescribed functions of a clinical commissioning group can be exercised jointly with local health boards. The immediate questions for me are quite obvious—the who, what, why and how sort of questions—and I have not seen any details on this matter as yet, although I might have missed something.
As to my questions to the Minister, first, the why is quite clear: people from Wales access specialist services in England, as I am sure the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd would point out if I did not. People from border areas, but also from the far north-west of Wales where I live, access services in Manchester and are very glad to do so. Indeed, people from England access services in Wales as well, although that is less remarked on. Cross-border traffic is usually couched in terms of dependency from Wales, but it might interest the Committee to know that in 2019, 13,500 people from Wales accessed GP services in England, while at the same time, 21,000 people from England accessed GP services in Wales. That might, of course, be something to do with the free prescriptions provided by the Labour Government in Wales—I could not possibly comment.
To be clear, as a Plaid Cymru Member and a nationalist, I think co-operation is not just desirable but essential to ensure that fair and effective cross-border arrangements are in place. There will, no doubt, be opportunities to compare and contrast and to learn from each other. As I said, however, I would like the Minister to address some of my questions. This is not an exhaustive list.
First, to what degree have the Welsh Government played a part in drawing up the arrangements for joint committees? I am sure there have been discussions. For example, how will the membership of joint committees be decided? There has been a good deal of concern in debates in this Committee about private providers having seats on ICBs, as we have already heard. Pertinently to this matter, the private sector has a lesser role in the provision of health and social care in Wales. We are not talking about identical services here. The private sector might have a greater prominence on the other side of the border. Has it been agreed with the Welsh Government that private providers are to have seats on joint committees or not? If so, what safeguards will be in place to prevent the conflicts of interest that were referred to on Tuesday?
What structures will be in place to ensure that there is national Welsh consistency in decision making between the joint committees along the border? Will there be a national framework, although perhaps that is the responsibility of the Welsh Government rather than the Government here in Westminster, for coming to agreements on the delivery of services, or will it be up to the local joint committees, with the danger of a postcode lottery? As I said, I think this might be a matter for the Welsh Government rather than the Government here in Westminster. It has been agreed, I hope, so I would like to know what was agreed.
Lastly, in respect of the detailed points, to whom will the joint committees be accountable: to their respective ICBs or health boards, to the Government, or to the ICB on one side and the Welsh Government on the other? How will that be done? Indeed, when consultation—wide consultation, I hope—is undertaken, will it happen across the border as well? Will Welsh patients be able to have their say? There are more questions that I will pursue, and more will surely arise as the joint committees begin their work. I hope the Minister appreciates that these matters need further explanation.
Finally, I have three broader points. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether there have been discussions on these points and what has been decided about the services provided over the border. First, I am worried about divergence in health policy between Wales and England. There is a wellbeing approach to health in Wales, as I said in the debates on Tuesday. Might any difficulties arise from that? There might be some difference between what is available in Wales and what is available over the border.
Secondly—this is a particularly important matter where I live—has there been any discussion on whether services provided from England into Wales are consistent with the Welsh language requirements of the Welsh health service? I think there is a problem here, and some services provided into Wales from England are really aware of this. I think of the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital in Gobowen, which has Welsh-language services for people coming in from Wales. The hospital is just outside Oswestry, not far from the border. That is an issue to be examined, and perhaps to be answered by the Minister today or in a letter.
Lastly—this is more of a point in law, or possibly a philosophical point—can ICBs, which are ultimately the responsibility of the Government here in Westminster, be accountable to the Welsh Government, who have their power devolved from London? To put it more directly, can the Welsh Government peck up the pecking order towards bodies over in England? That has been a real question for services provided from outside Wales by Government bodies or agencies. Over many years, there has been quite a debate about bilingualism in the services provided into Wales by the Department for Work and Pensions. Again, that might not be a problem, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on this issue and on the other questions that I have raised.
Edward Argar
I am grateful, as ever, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood for his comments. I hope I can reassure him that the issues he raised, and the issues that he has aired in the Committee today, will continue to be reflected on carefully by officials and Ministers during the passage of the Bill.
I will try to address the specific points raised by the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Arfon. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston touched on the appointment of chief executives and the termination of appointments. That power is broadly akin to the current power that CCGs have, and we are simply moving across the power that NHS England has over CCGs to reflect the new environment of integrated care boards.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the clarification from the Minister, but does that not expose our fear that, really, ICBs are just bigger CCGs?
Edward Argar
No, because at the heart of ICBs is an enhanced integration and partnership-working model, which will be a significant step forward to facilitate improved patient care in our constituencies and localities.
The power to make loans is analogous to the power that exists for CCGs.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston touched on forward plans and health and wellbeing boards. The ICB will have an obligation to consult the health and wellbeing board, including in respect of whether it takes into account the latest joint health and wellbeing strategy and provides the HWB with a copy of its plan.
On Wales, I fear that I may have to write to the hon. Member for Arfon with some of the answers, but I shall try to give some now so that he has at least something today. We are seeking not to make a policy change or anything like that but to carry the existing situation for CCGs across into the new arrangement. We have been consulting and working closely with the Welsh Government. I suspect that, as we heard from the witnesses, some in the Welsh Government may suggest that we should consult more closely, while others will say the consultation is adequate. I believe I have a good relationship with the Health Minister in the Welsh Government—I spoke to her only yesterday about a number of aspects of the Bill—and at official level conversations are constantly ongoing.
The hon. Member for Arfon touched on joint committees, which will involve ICBs and their Welsh equivalents. We would not expect private providers to serve on them because they will in effect exercise an ICB function. On Tuesday, I made it clear to the Committee that it is not our intention that private providers should serve on ICBs, so they should not serve on joint committees either. We will have further discussions with the Opposition Front-Bench team and others as to whether we can find a way to make that clearer in the legislation.
Finally, accountability remains essentially unchanged. The NHS in Wales is accountable to the Welsh Government and ICBs will be accountable to NHS England and, therefore, to the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Arfon touched on the challenge of divergence or disparity of provision. I suspect that, in a sense, it comes baked into a devolution settlement that when power is devolved down there is sometimes a divergence of approach or there are different services. That is in the nature of any devolution settlement where specific services or functions are devolved. For example, as we have seen in our exiting from coronavirus regulations, the devolved Administrations have the right, under the settlement, to pursue the approach that they deem to be most effective.
I hope that I have addressed a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Arfon. I see my officials frantically scribbling down his other questions; we will endeavour to check Hansard and write to him with anything we have missed.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Integrated care partnerships and strategies
Dr James Davies
I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 20, page 29, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) When appointing members to the integrated care partnership, the integrated care partnership must pay particular attention to the range of services used by children and young people aged 0-25.”
This amendment would require integrated care partnerships to consider representation from the full spectrum of services used by babies, children and young people, including education settings.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 54, in clause 20, page 29, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) include specific consideration of how it will meet the needs of children and young people aged 0-25.”
This amendment would require an integrated care partnership to specifically consider the needs of babies, children and young people when developing its strategy.
Dr Davies
I move the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury.
These probing amendments would require integrated care partnerships to involve in their joint committee the key partners—including schools and colleges—responsible for meeting the needs of babies, children and young people. The intention is to understand how we can best ensure that children’s needs are given equal priority at ICS level. The Bill provides a genuine opportunity to reduce child health inequalities and improve children’s health outcomes, which is all the more pressing following many children’s severe adverse experiences over the past 18 months.
The Government’s drive towards integrated services and greater collaboration, both within and beyond the health and care system, is very much to be welcomed, but if ICSs are to achieve their aims of improving population health and reducing inequalities, they must give equal weight to the needs of children when they plan and commission services. Why? Because children are a distinct population with their own workforce, infrastructure, developmental needs and legislation. Children’s health is affected by a complex ecosystem of factors, with many interrelated systems encircling the child. Their health is determined not only by primary and secondary health services, but by their nursery or school, children’s social care teams, the local authority SEND workforce, school nursing, health visitors and many other partners.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eddisbury for tabling the amendments and to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd for stepping in to give the Committee a chance to discuss them. I agree completely with what he said about the Bill being a real opportunity on child health in this country and I hope that we can take it.
We should be saddened by what Barnardo’s said in its written evidence:
“Children growing up in England…face some of the worst health outcomes in Europe”—
particularly those growing up in poverty. That is really saddening, not least because even prior to the pandemic, according to Action for Children, over 4 million children were living in poverty, including a staggering, breathtakingly sad 46% of children in black and minority ethnic groups. We must seek to do better. These things should stop us in our tracks, given the wealth that we as a country have, the technologies we have, the schooling we have and the assets we have, yet we cannot give our young people, particularly the poorest children, the best start in life. That is really sad.
The only enhancement that I would make to the amendments is that, rather than making them about ages nought to 25, I would extend the range to include the six months prior to birth, because we know how important those services are. I hope, in that spirit, that we may hear some enthusiasm from the Minister and his Government about implementing all the recommendations of the Leadsom review. I know that it will be hard, because it will involve acknowledging some dreadful decisions over the past decade, such as the reduction in Sure Start but, nevertheless, that report has real potential to be the bedrock for a return to something much closer to proper early intervention in this country. We might not have the saddening and completely avoidable outcomes that we have, so I hope that we hear some good news from the Minister on that.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member—I cannot pronounce that—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, on whose behalf my hon. Friend for Vale of Clwyd spoke. I also wish to put on the record my gratitude to Lord Farmer and his team for the work that they have been doing in this space. I have had the pleasure of meeting them, and—to reassure the shadow Minister—I have already met once, or possibly twice, with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) to discuss her review. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds has also worked with her on it, and we continue to work together to try to find ways to move that forward.
I hope that all Members agree that the creation of integrated care boards and ICPs represents a significant opportunity to support and improve the planning and provision of services to make sure that they are more joined up and better meet the needs of infants, children and young people. We acknowledge that these amendments understandably intend to ensure that the needs of children and young people aged 0 to 25 are represented on the ICP and are considered by the ICP when developing its strategy. While we entirely agree with the intentions behind the amendments, we come back to the point that we wish to provide local areas with the flexibility to determine what will work best for their systems, their priorities and how they develop their plans and membership. Overly prescriptive approaches in the Bill would risk making it harder for systems to design the approaches that will work best in their area.
Turning to amendment 54, we would not want ICPs to create plans for children disconnected from the wider healthcare system. We know that the very best systems consider how their health systems are meeting everyone’s need, including where there are transitions between different stages of life. However, I do hope that I can provide some further comfort for my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd. We are working on bespoke guidance for babies, children and young people, which will set out clearly how ICBs and ICPs are obliged to deliver for them. This will cover the importance of the ICB forward plan and the ICP strategy and how they can set clear objectives for babies, children and young people. The Department is working closely on the drafting of this guidance with NHS England, the Department for Education and, indeed the relevant Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford)—I presume that she is still the relevant Minister as we speak. We will also be working with all stakeholders, including the National Children’s Bureau, in the coming months. I suspect that this is a theme and an issue that we will return to at various points both in Committee and indeed in the further passage of this legislation.
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd on this matter. I entirely understand where he is coming from, but ask that, on this occasion, he does not press his amendment—or the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury—to a vote.
Dr Davies
I thank the Minister for that response. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury is particularly keen that these matters are covered within statutory guidance, but, with the leave of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 20, page 31, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must make regulations which set out the procedure to be followed should an integrated care partnership believe that an integrated care board has failed in its duty under this section.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to establish a procedure for the resolution of any dispute between an integrated care partnership and an integrated care board concerning the implementation of a strategy produced by the integrated care partnership.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 83, in clause 20, page 31, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) Where—
(a) in exercising its functions a responsible local authority or integrated care board diverges from an assessment or strategy mentioned in subsection (1), or
(b) in exercising any functions in arranging for the provision of health services in relation to the area of a responsible local authority NHS England diverges from an assessment or strategy mentioned in subsection (2),
that local authority, that integrated care board or (as the case may be) NHS England must—
(a) (i) within 30 days, make a public statement of its divergence from the assessment or strategy, and
(ii) within 60 days, publish its reasons for the divergence, together with any supporting evidence.”
Justin Madders
I will talk briefly about amendment 83 which has been grouped with amendment 47.
Amendment 47 focuses on the whole discussion that we have had, and that we will continue to have, around integrated partnerships and what they will be able to do to deliver for their communities. I do not know if “Marmotisation” is a word; if it is, this could be seen as the first step towards that, but we will see how it works in practice. We must be clear, however, that this is a first step. The names of the partners being bandied about shows that this Bill is about the integration of not just health and social care but the whole wider public sector and other partners, and shows, too, that health issues permeate almost every walk of life. This certainly does not, as evidenced by the Prime Minister’s comments last week, constitute a solution to the integration of health and social care.
Putting that aside, there is an opportunity here to do something different. However, for all the froth and grand statements about partnership working we fear we may be looking at giant CCGs with less GP involvement—we have made this point a number of times so I will not labour it. What we are presented with is a reorganisation of the NHS, not a panacea for integration. We have tried a couple of times already to elicit from the Minister what is missing from the Bill in terms of the integration that the Prime Minister believes necessitates a White Paper. I think the Minister might struggle sometimes to understand what exactly is going on in the Prime Minister’s head in relation to this—or indeed anything else that is going on in his head—but we await his response on that with interest.
I would like to make some general points on the relationship between the NHS and local authorities, because that is important. The Bill acknowledges that greater interaction is needed, but the big question is whether it actually delivers that solution. If there is to be a genuine generational shift from thinking of the NHS as dealing with sickness to contributing to overall wellbeing, that will be welcome, although if our amendment on patient outcomes had been accepted that would have been a better start. There have been some discussions around SDPs and ICSs in the Bill, and that gives us hope that there might be something here we can work with.
The need to bring services together and integrate is blindingly obvious, but it is also very hard to do as the following example demonstrates. A patient with a long-term condition such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and with both healthcare and social care needs, has an acute episode and is admitted to hospital and is then discharged back into their home, which unfortunately suffers from a chronic damp problem—something many Members will know about from their constituency casework. The housing provider—a local authority, perhaps, or an arm’s length management organisation or registered social landlord—is doing its best, but it does not have enough resources to get to the root of the problem, so there is a liaison meeting where this case is discussed between the NHS and local councillors. The councillor for the area where the individual is located asks the chief executive of the trust whether it would be a good idea for some of the health budget to be invested in social housing so that people such as this individual would not be readmitted for a problem that is essentially caused by the property they are living in. The chief executive responds by asking why they would throw money away on something like that, even though a more holistic view shows that would be of benefit for everyone in the long run.
That illustrates why we need to work harder on integration, and it is not an isolated incident. As any councillor who has been in post for any number of years will know—if the Minister and I totted up between us how many years we have served, it would probably be quite a lot—sometimes it is difficult to have the level of interaction with the NHS that we would like. As an aside, I might add that children in care meetings or care around the child meetings are incredibly important, but often the GP does not attend because they have many other priorities.
We have talked about this many times, but the vaccine roll-out has been an exemplar of how local government and the NHS can work together. That was a specific task at the time of the national crisis. It is clearly more difficult to repeat that kind of synergy on a day-to-day basis, but it does show what can be done.
In Wales, the Government have a far-reaching strategy around the wellbeing of future generations. They have made a big leap, moving the NHS away from market thinking and focusing on the way it delivers its service to the public. Both Scotland and Wales have accepted the need for that approach, and their integrated joint boards, joint integration boards, health boards and local authorities have all been talking about integration for some time. Of course, they have the sense to make their health boards coterminous with local authority areas. That would have been a very wise move. We have already had some chat about devolved involvement and I am sure that we will return to that.
Alex Norris
Amendment 83 builds on my hon. Friend’s argument about creating some balance between the integrated care partnership and the integrated care board, so I will not repeat it. I simply underscore the fact that the ICPs have the money, power and accountability at the moment, but there is a risk that they become a closed shop and not bodies about integration at all.
We are told that integrated care partnerships will be the way in which the broader health and care family and the community will come together as they lead and play a pivotal role. We need a safeguard in the Bill to ensure what we would do if the relationship breaks down. The amendment is a version of what Sir Robert Francis from Healthwatch said about one possible way in an evidence session. I am not prescriptive about this, but I am keen to hear what the Minister might suggest to give us comfort on this. If the ICPs are to function as promised, their plans ought to have some sort of status, so that if the integrated care board chooses to diverge, it must make a public statement that it is going to within 30 days and then publish its reasons with evidence within 60 days.
There is an equivalent provision in NHS England for responsibilities held at a national level. If nothing else, this is basic accountability. It does not restrict any activity, so there is no risk in it. Even if a partnership does not like the decision made or value the reasons given, it cannot remove the chair of the board. Although the constitution has already prevented that, at least we will know what has happened, so the safeguard is quite modest. There is a blizzard of different ways to do it, but I hope that we can have some comfort on ensuring a balance between the partnership and the board, if not at this stage, then by the time we come back on Report.
Karin Smyth
Will the Minister share with us what he thinks the difference is between ICPs and health and wellbeing boards?
Edward Argar
I will confine my comments to amendments 47 and 83, because we will address the wider themes when we have the clause stand part debate.
Amendments 47 and 83 stand in the names of Opposition Members. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, has asked a number of questions, which I will try to address before turning to the substance of those amendments. I am not personally aware of any analytical piece about the impact and effectiveness of health and wellbeing boards, but anecdotally from my background in local Government before I came to this place—and, indeed, as a Member—I certainly see the value that they bring to their communities through their work. The shadow Minister is perhaps being a little inadvertently unfair to the legal profession in suggesting that the phrase “have regard to” is weasel words, because my understanding is that “have regard to” is a well-known, much-used legal phrase in drafting, and it carries with it an obligation to do exactly what it says: to have regard, and to show that.
Finally, the hon. Member has pressed me again, and I fear I will give him the same answer—he and I have done this before—as I have given the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, in various delegated legislation Committees over the past year relating to our exit from the EU. I think the Prime Minister has been entirely clear in what he has set out: this legislation lays important foundations for the closer integration of local authority and NHS-provided care, on which we will of course build, because we are an ambitious Government with a clear agenda to further improve our health and care systems.
With those points made, I will turn to the detail of the amendments, which address the relationship between ICPs and ICBs—as certain Opposition Members have touched on—and address divergence from health and wellbeing board and ICB assessments and strategies. Amendment 47 would require the Secretary of State to establish a procedure to resolve any disputes between the ICP and the ICB, while amendment 83 would add an additional requirement on NHS England, integrated care boards, and local authorities to make a public statement and publish their reasons when they deviate from the integrated care strategy prepared by the proposed integrated care partnership, and the joint strategic needs assessment and joint local health and wellbeing strategies prepared by health and wellbeing boards.
I do appreciate the concern—the genuine concern, I think—from Opposition Members about the need to ensure that ICPs and local authorities are genuinely closely aligned to both the ICP and the health and wellbeing board plans. We do intend for these assessments and strategies to be a central part of the decision making of these bodies: that is why, as I say, we are introducing a duty for those bodies to have regard to them. However, we do not think the additional conditions suggested by these amendments are necessary, as we believe there are already means in place to avoid such disputes. First, the ICB will be a required part of the ICP. It will be intimately involved in pulling together the integrated care strategy, so it should be fully signed up to the elements of the plan that fall within its area of responsibility, as it will be partly drafting that plan. As a result, we consider the likelihood of disputes in that context to be low.
Secondly, there are already duties on both ICBs and local authorities to have regard to the strategy in discharging their functions. The duty to have regard means that to diverge from the plan, they must be able to reasonably explain and justify why they have done so. If they cannot, they would be open to challenge, and in the case of an ICB, they could be open to direct intervention from NHS England for having failed to discharge their functions to have due regard properly. Thirdly, we would also expect that both health and wellbeing boards and ICPs would consider how their strategies and assessments are applied in the system, and would want to keep progress under regular review. Those committees themselves provide an appropriate framework for regularly assessing and considering how to address any divergence.
We are also concerned that it would be difficult to rigidly determine if and when NHS England, an integrated care board, or a local authority had diverged from these strategies and assessments in the exercise of their functions, especially if plans were high-level and strategic. By creating this specific requirement and setting a specified timeframe, I fear we would risk creating a great deal of bureaucracy as these bodies attempt to determine if, when, and to what extent they may have diverged. Instead, we believe it is more appropriate to leave it to ICPs working with the ICB and local authorities to develop and design mechanisms to review progress locally.
As a further safeguard, NHS England has the general power to issue guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions, which could be used to set out how an ICB should consider the integrated care strategy, joint strategic needs assessment and joint health and wellbeing strategy in exercising its functions. Guidance may also suggest ways of resolving any issues that arise in the ICB in the exercise of these functions. We would expect NHS England to consider doing so, if that was necessary.
Justin Madders
The Minister has made some interesting points. I will have to come back on the reference to “weasel words”. I was a lawyer for a number of years, and when it comes to their use, I think that lawyers are probably second only to Members of Parliament in being able to use them.
There were many occasions when we were negotiating and drafting documents. Once, I wanted something to happen and another person said, “Well, we don’t want to actually make that an absolute commitment, but we intend to do it.” We always ended up with the compromise of reasonable endeavours. Best endeavours was another one. Often that led to one side being slightly disappointed, but that was usually the point of compromise. But that, I would suggest, is actually going further than what is in the current legislation, which is to “have regard”. That really is the nub of this, because we do not think that is enough to give the ICPs the teeth that they need and the strength and leverage that they might need if they are to be truly effective.
The Minister said that if there was a divergence, he would expect an ICB to put forward reasonable explanations as to why it was not going to follow a particular strategy. But that would then lead to the conclusion that if it was not able to do that, it was acting unreasonably, which of course could give rise to judicial review. That, I am sure, is a road that the Minister does not want ICBs and ICPs to go down. I do not think that would be in anyone’s interest, so we are actually, once again, trying to help the Minister out by coming up with a solution that avoids litigation and dispute and gives us confidence that we will not see a repeat of the lack of genuine engagement that we have seen in some areas in the past, but will see a real force, in legislation, to encourage the wider public sector to have real influence on the modelling of health policies and strategies in the future. Therefore we will—with your permission, Ms Elliott —press amendment 47 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
The clause introduces the integrated care partnership known as an ICP, as a joint committee of the integrated care board and local authorities in its geography. It gives the partnership its core function of preparing the integrated care strategy. The ICP was developed with the Local Government Association and NHS partners in recognition of the fact that the system has been calling for two different and important types of integration: integration within and across the NHS to deliver healthcare services within a defined locality, and integration between the NHS and local government and wider partners.
The ICP is intended to bring together health, social care and public health to develop a strategy to address the needs of the area also covered by the integrated care board. If the ICP wants to go further, it can also involve representatives from the wider system where appropriate, such as voluntary and community groups, and social care or housing providers. That will be up to the ICP, and we will welcome locally driven innovation to reflect local circumstances.
When preparing the strategy, the integrated care partnership must take into account the NHS mandate, any guidance from the Secretary of State and any relevant local joint strategic needs assessment. The ICP must also involve the local Healthwatch, as well people who live and work in the area. The strategy will need to look at how local authorities and NHS bodies can work together using arrangements under section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Local authorities, integrated care boards and NHS England, when providing services in the area, must have regard to the relevant integrated care strategy when exercising their functions, as well as, more locally, any joint strategic needs assessment or joint local health and wellbeing strategies. This will enable more joined-up planning and provision, both within the NHS and in local authorities. As a result, we would expect to see more integration of the services people receive, more efficient and effective commissioning, and closer working between local authorities and the local NHS.
The clause makes it a legal requirement for all ICBs and local authorities to establish an ICP for their area. These partnerships will promote and facilitate integration across health and care throughout England, thereby contributing to delivering on the ambitious aims put forward in the Bill to further integrate health and care systems.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee as I have already said most of what I wanted to say. The Minister just talked about the ambitious aims to achieve integration. Obviously, they were not that ambitious; if they had been, we would not need another White Paper.
Justin Madders
We can never be too ambitious, can we? I will be interested to see those working practices. As hon. Members can probably gather, we are somewhat sceptical that the ICPs will really be the transformative and influential bodies that we want them to be. I will keep a close eye on what kind of partners end up on them. If we started involving every potential body in the Cheshire and Merseyside one, we would probably need to hire out Anfield to fit everyone in. It might be more entertaining than the football fare on there—we could have a Division on that. We will probably revisit this in future days, weeks and months. We will not oppose the clause but we wish to put on the record where we think its shortcomings are.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
NHS England’s financial responsibilities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause provides for a number of financial responsibilities of NHS England and provides powers for the Secretary of State to direct NHS England in relation to those responsibilities. Clause 22 provides the ability to amend the provision in clause 21 that imposes a duty on NHS England to ensure that its expenditure, together with that of integrated care boards, does not exceed the sums received in a year.
On clause 21, proposed new section 223C of the National Health Service Act 2006 places a duty on NHS England to ensure that in each financial year, the expenditure of NHS England and integrated care boards does not exceed the aggregate amount received by them. It should be noted that that is in the context of the historic settlement for the NHS reached in 2018, which will see its budget rise by £33.9 billion by 2023-24. Proposed new section 223CA simply replicates a provision in the 2006 Act, which enables the Secretary of State to specify the banking facilities that NHS England may use.
Proposed new section 233D of the 2006 Act enables the Secretary of State to give directions to NHS England concerning resource use. Any directions given by the Secretary of State under that proposed new section must be published and laid before Parliament. Proposed new section 223E empowers the Secretary of State to direct that the capital and revenue resource used by NHS England and ICBs for specified matters does not exceed a limit set.
Clause 22 could be commenced at a later date than clause 21. It would expand the duty on NHS England to ensure its own expenditure, as well as that of ICBs and English NHS trusts and foundation trusts, did not exceed the sums received by those bodies in a year. The clause is essential to ensure that achieving financial balance is inclusive of the finance of NHS trusts and foundation trusts. It recognises that NHS England must be mindful of the need to ensure that public money is spent as effectively as possible and in the best interests of the public we serve. However, we recognise that the NHS is moving out of an unprecedented period, so we will not commence the clause until it is ready. The provisions will help to ensure that there is clear accountability for public spending and that the NHS lives within its means.
Justin Madders
I will talk briefly about clauses 21 and 22, although with your indulgence, Ms Elliott, I will step over into clauses 23 and 24, because we cannot really look at these points without having some regard to those clauses. I promise I will not repeat the same points when we get to them.
We know that ICBs and NHS trusts will have spending limits, and that in theory they cannot go into deficit in any year, but the combined deficits of trusts before the pandemic was several billion pounds. Foundation trusts are in a slightly different position. Monitor is going—clause 26, which I suspect we will not get to today, goes into that, and it reads quite brutally in isolation—so it needs to be clear in the Bill how performance management and financial oversight will work in its absence. We still have questions about that, particularly how accountability will work with those new systems.
We see in these clauses a basic tension that NHS England will apply totals to systems, but individuals within the systems all have their own duties and responsibilities. We might think it is the ICB plus all the providers that deliver the services required, which are paid for by the ICB, but I am not sure that is how it will work in practice.
If I am correct, an integrated system is not defined in the Bill, so how do we control something that does not exist in law? Where accountability lies is very vague. The terminology used in proposed new section 233M, which is where the Bill tries to constrain aggregate financial spending each year, is:
“Each integrated care board and its partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts”.
That suggests some kind of joint responsibility, but where community health services are provided by Virgin Care, that does not appear within that wording. GPs and their spend are considered outside, even though they are commissioned by the ICBs, so how do their costs fit into this system? There have to be some answers on that.
Karin Smyth
I echo my hon. Friend’s words. The Minister is going to have to go back to the drawing board on this, although I can see what the clauses are trying to do. Financial directors I have spoken to commend the idea of working together under some sort of shared control. We have had controls before, but clauses 21 to 24 —I may be straying beyond my knowledge of the writing of Bills and financial movements—come under the heading, “Integrated care system: financial controls”, and the entire section is about controlling ICBs and NHS trusts.
We have not had a system defined. We know that control totals are difficult and that autonomous trusts have regulatory rules. We would be here all weekend if we started to talk about foundation trust controls, and what those trusts can and cannot do with their budget. Clauses 21 to 24 test out the definitions of roles and responsibilities, and the tensions throughout the Bill over trying to apply a systems view to disparate organisations with different duties and responsibilities. The Minister has been trying valiantly to say that there is clear accountability through NHS England, but all of us here as Members of Parliament, and as I keep repeating, understand what local accountability is in a system and this is not it.
We do not know what an ICS is, and we have all agreed that that might be okay—we are kind of in favour of permissiveness—but what divides the Committee and, I suspect, people farther afield is that the Government view is that permissiveness is okay, and it is up to the NHS England regions and the Secretary of State. We would like to impose some greater local accountability earlier.
The terminology in proposed new section 223M, on page 34 of the Bill, is clear, and refers to:
“Each integrated care board and its partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts”.
That part of the Bill deals with aggregated spending on revenue and capital. I do not want to overload people’s brains at this time of the evening, but the Bill really is a mess in respect of capital. Our buildings are crumbling and the backlog is huge. We have talked about NHS properties in community health partnerships. The architecture still exists, but it is not clear how that system works. I think poor old Sir Robert Naylor’s edicts and pieces of wisdom are just propping open doors in offices in the Department of Health and Social Care, because they are certainly not being developed and they are not being developed in the Bill.
Will a trust finance director have to seek permission from the ICB to spend their capital, or even to know what it is? If that is the case, it makes a nonsense of the good financial management of some very large institutions. We would all like a bit of financial rigour in the system, but I am not sure the Bill allows us to have any. It is as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said: for community services, we have the Virgin Cares, but even a community interest company would sit outwith the NHS trust definition. Such companies are regulated by the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies, which is separate from some of this. The regulation for some of these bodies is problematic, and GPs are obviously outside it, even if ICBs start to commission them.
The aim is to allow NHS England to control aggregate spending, but to do that there has to be some direction. Lo and behold, on page 35 of the Bill there are more direction powers for NHS England. We have alluded to the fact that provider expenditure gets divvied up, and some ICBs also commission specialist services; there will have to be some NHS England-defined calculation of how on earth all that fits together. Someone somewhere will need a very large spreadsheet and will have to try to balance the flows of money around the system.
I have asked a lot people, including experts, whether anybody starts to understand financial flows. That is obviously important because we are talking about our taxes and we need to know how they are being spent, who is spending them and who is moving the money between each of these organisations. What about when these bodies cross different boundaries? Will the Minister say whether the trust or the foundation trust gets to argue about which part of its base is allocated to which ICB and vice versa? I am certainly glad—I often am—that I do not live in London and am not trying to work that out for some of the large teaching hospitals that cross many boundaries. There used to be a role for strategic health authorities to try to match what providers said was in their accounts with what commissioners said they thought they had given them. I do not think they matched that often, and the structure in the Bill is much more complicated than that. How it will work in practice matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has already asked some of the questions. This issue is very complex and involves big sums of money, and ultimately it is about patient care, so who is going to hold it all together? Where is the collective leadership and who will be the top people in these ICSs? The advert for the ICS chairs has gone out, and the pay is £50,000 to £80,000 for three days a week. The requirement on those people is clear; let us see how many of them are not already well known to NHS England. That is deeply problematic, if they are going to work—and we all agree that we would quite like them to work.
In the new system, can commissioners and providers both be blamed for the same things? As my hon. Friend said, can they be put into special measures? Where are the levers? What is going to happen, other than NHS England commissioning expensive consultants to say to people, “You know what? It’s looking a bit complicated and some of you haven’t got the right bits of money in the right places,” and trying to bash some heads together? All that will be done behind closed doors.
When we get down to the money, permissiveness becomes a bit of a work of fiction. This part of the Bill needs to be looked at again, between its leaving this place and arriving in the other place, to get a bit more sense into it. As we all know, the guidance is going out there. This has been worked on by NHS England, so it could come back in fitter form. As I said to the witness from Oxfordshire last week, joint work and integration often fall apart ultimately because of the money. Any local authority financial director, any foundation trust financial director, any good hospital financial director and any community interest financial director will be looking, quite rightly, at their own bottom line at the end of the day, as that is their job.
It is entirely up to NHS England how it navigates this. It looks like clever financial leverage work, and I really do not think that it will work and it all needs to be looked at again. I return to my theme that this is why we need somebody independent and highly skilled working on behalf of the local community to make the ICS work, and not to have it, as a result, an NHS England outpost deciding how it moves money around the system. We need to understand the financial flows, and ensure that they work much better than is laid out in the clauses.
Edward Argar
I will be relatively brief because I am conscious of the fact that we have agreed to get through quite a few more clauses today, although I will try to address the points that hon. Members have made. One of the key issues at the heart of what I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, was saying is around what happens if an ICB or a foundation trust spends beyond its limit. How does that work? What is the process? I am pleased that this brings some welcome clarity, rather than the fragmentation we sometimes see in accounting cashflow, following the cash processes at the moment.
First and foremost, local systems will be informed of their resource envelope at the start of the year and will be required to agree a plan that matches, or is within, that envelope. Therefore, all will start the year with a plan that sets out what is being delivered and how much funding they will receive to deliver those services. However, if overspends emerge within year, that should initially be resolved within the system by the individual organisation either finding offsetting savings or securing savings elsewhere within that system envelope. Through the financial duties imposed by the Bill, the system is encouraged to be collectively responsible for managing its funding envelope, moving away from what we often see at the moment, which is fragmentation in understanding how the money flows, and each organisation considering itself to a degree in isolation.
If the overspend cannot be managed within the system, NHS England and NHS Improvement can use the powers in the Bill to hold the system to account through mechanisms such as the system oversight framework and providing support via the recovery support programme, as well as more informal support from the local region. Additionally, individual trusts or FTs that are not working collaboratively within the system can be held to account using the provider licence and enforcement options available for breaches. Finally, of course, in extremis the Department of Health and Social Care can provide cash support to NHS trusts and FTs to ensure that services continue to be delivered.
The second concomitant part of the shadow Minister’s question was what action NHS England or the ICB can take in response to financial difficulties. Financial performance will be monitored by both of them, and in the first instance any difficulties will be resolved locally. However, as I have set out, tougher mechanisms or sanctions can be imposed on trusts that are not meeting their reporting and financial accounting obligations under the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Financial responsibilities of integrated care boards and their partners
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 23, page 35, line 14, at end insert—
“(5) NHS England must publish guidance on the means by which an integrated care board, NHS trust or NHS foundation trust which believes its capital resource limit or revenue resource limit risks compromising patient safety may object to the limit set.”
This amendment would introduce an objection mechanism when an Integrated Care Board, Trust or Foundation Trust believes its capital resource limit or revenue resource limit risks compromising patient safety.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 24 stand part.
Justin Madders
With this amendment, we are probably having another bash at the debate we have just had to some extent, but we are also making an important point about patient safety.
Edward Argar
Clause 23 provides for NHS England to set overall system financial objectives for ICBs, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, which must operate with a view to achieving these objectives. This includes the ability to set limits on local capital resource use and local revenue resource use for ICBs, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.
Clause 23 removes the sections in the National Health Service Act 2006 relating to financial duties of CCGs and replaces them with new sections setting out the financial responsibilities of ICBs and their partners. Improving population health requires the breaking down of silos. Traditional financial control focused on individual providers and organisations artificially creates barriers and fragmentation that get in the way of high-quality care.
The new approach will help to break down those barriers by enabling NHS England to set joint system financial objectives for ICBs and partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, which must operate with a view to achieving these objectives. This includes the ability to set limits on local capital resource use and local revenue resource use for ICBs, and for partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. NHS England can also give directions to ICBs, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts on resource apportionment.
I turn to amendment 53, tabled by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I am grateful to him for tabling it as it gives us an opportunity to air a number of issues. It would require NHS England to produce guidance to set out a process whereby ICBs, NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts could object to their capital and revenue resource limits. Although I understand the motivation behind the amendment, which is about ensuring that the NHS has sufficient funds to deliver services safely, I do not believe that it is needed. The ability for NHS England to set system limits is important to enable systems to effectively plan their services and it enables NHS England to meet its obligation on delivering system balance and its broader obligation to taxpayers.
The decision to allocate revenue funding to systems is based on a weighted capitation formula, which produces a target allocation or “fair share” for each area, based on a complex assessment of factors such as demography, morbidity, deprivation and the unavoidable cost of providing services in different areas, meaning that systems will get funding linked to their individual needs. NHS trusts and foundation trusts will be represented on ICBs, so they will play a role in deciding how resources will be allocated within the system. They can raise concerns about proposals, including with regard to patient safety, as part of the decision-making process, although we do not consider that these clauses would put patient safety at risk. Capital allocations already include a funding element to address emergency or patient safety needs, based on planning information from systems. The funding element is intended to be used to address any issues that could arise, including in the context of patient safety.
Furthermore, clause 24 futureproofs the ICB financial duties provisions. It provides for some of the provisions in clause 23 to be replaced and is designed to be commenced at a later date. Once ICBs and their partner trusts are deemed ready to take on greater financial accountability, clause 24 can be used to replace clause 23 with a new joint expenditure limit duty on the ICB and its partner trusts. At a time when it is considered appropriate, the clause will require ICBs and their partner NHS trusts and foundation trusts to exercise their functions in a way that ensures their expenditure when taken together does not exceed their income. The intended effect is that each local area is mutually invested in achieving financial control at a system level, meaning that public funds can be spent in a more sustainable, joined-up and effective way. This should enable a nimbler approach to expenditure where needs across the system can be addressed more flexibly and holistically.
Should unexpected needs for funding arise, there is another safeguard in place to allow NHS services to continue operating safely, as the Department can issue cash to NHS trusts and foundation trusts. For example, if emergency support is needed to address patient safety issues, trusts can apply for additional cash funding to safeguard delivery of care. It is for those reasons that I invite the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to withdraw his amendment. I commend clauses 23 and 24 to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I do not know whether it is too late on a Thursday afternoon, but I did feel like I had wandered into an episode of “Yes Minister” there. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I will read the transcript of what the Minister has said with some care over the next few days. I am not entirely clear that he has addressed the central points that were made, but we will no doubt return to this at some point anyway. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jo Churchill.)