House of Commons
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I congratulate the new Minister on his appointment, and call Alistair Carmichael.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister without Portfolio (Nigel Adams)
And I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on a magnificent display in Chorley over the last week. I think that if there were to be an election there, the majority would be in six figures following such a splendid occasion. Chorley turned out for it.
The Cabinet Office conducted a review of covid status certification, which found that its use would have a public health benefit, on the basis of evidence gathered from bodies such as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and from the events research programme. Analysis of the ERP conducted by Public Health England found that certification should reduce the likelihood of someone transmitting highly infectious amounts of virus to large numbers of attendees. The autumn and winter plan published this month set out the Government’s position, which is that we will keep mandatory certification in reserve in case it is required to help prevent unsustainable pressure on the NHS and to enable venues to remain open more safely.
Mr Carmichael
I welcome the Minister’s very full answer, and I welcome him to the Dispatch Box. It was always a pleasure to work with him in his previous role, and I hope it will be a pleasure to work with him in this one as well.
The Government have had no fewer than 13 different positions in relation to vaccine passports. They have said “yes” three times, “no” four times, and “maybe” or “we are having a review” six times. Rather than just asserting that the evidence is there, will the Minister commit himself to publishing it? If he is ever going to take his own Back Benchers with him, let alone the general public, the case will have to be made, and the Government have not made it yet—and, incidentally, are we going to get a vote before vaccine passports are introduced?
Nigel Adams
We have published brief summaries of the evidence in the autumn and winter plan, which is publicly available on gov.uk. As I said earlier, we are keeping vaccine certification in reserve in case it is required to help prevent pressure on the NHS. We hope that it will be unnecessary, but the responsible thing to do is prepare for all eventualities.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I welcome the new ministerial team, and look forward to working with them constructively in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I am sure that they share that enthusiasm ahead of any forthcoming appearances.
May I reiterate to my right hon. Friend—whom I congratulate on his appointment—that vaccine certification is useless now and will no doubt be useless then? We have fresh pairs of eyes in the Department, and fresh perspectives. Can we please just bin it now?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive tone! What I can say to him is that in the light of the growing voluntary uptake of certification and the latest data on the state of the epidemic, we do not expect mandatory certification to be needed from the end of September.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
In his evaluation, has the Minister looked at the experience of a number of European countries where this is happening and British holidaymakers and visitors are using the system without any detriment? Has he looked at the views of Scotland and Wales, which are introducing certificates? Can he assure the House of his view that in the event of its looking as though this may be necessary, it must be better to have vaccine passes than once again locking down the hospitality, entertainment and leisure industries, given the impact not only on customers but on hundreds of thousands of jobs?
Nigel Adams
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I can tell him that we do look at how the system is operated elsewhere. We work closely with the devolved Administrations, because there must be a four-nations approach to this. Incidentally, residents of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can demonstrate vaccination status via a letter that can be requested from the NHS.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Steve Barclay)
The national data strategy sets out a vision to transform the Government’s use of data. The declaration on government reform, published in June, further committed to data being central to decision making, and the new Central Digital and Data Office is implementing common data standards and data-sharing frameworks to underpin better use of data in policy making.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend brings a welcome clinical focus, and he is absolutely right on the importance of data and interoperability. He will know that the data strategy for health and social care—Data Saves Lives—along with the Health and Care Bill, which he mentioned, seeks to improve data sharing across the health system for the reasons that he rightly highlights.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
We know that one policy decision that the UK Government have taken, albeit an unsustainable and undemocratic one, is that Scotland should not have a say in its constitutional future. We also know that, for example, the UK Government are spending huge amounts of taxpayers’ money on research into public attitudes towards the Union. If the UK Government have taken the decision not to have a referendum, we know that it is because the polling suggests that support for independence is up. Why will the Minister not publish that polling information and be honest with the public?
Steve Barclay
I would have thought that, when talking about data, we would have been talking about the fiscal support that has been offered to Scotland, about the way in which the Scottish Government’s powers have not been used and about how we can get better delivery from the Scottish Government in areas such as education and drugs policy, where the data are absolutely chronic at the moment. I would hope that the Scottish Government will welcome the data strategy, as it will ensure that policy making is informed by good quality data and focused on good outcomes.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
This Government have taken practical measures to support veterans, including veterans rail cards, guaranteed interviews in the civil service for veteran applicants and national insurance holidays for those employing veterans. This year we have put in a cash boost to the armed forces charitable sector and NHS Operation Courage, showing that we are determined that this country be the best in the world in which to be a veteran.
Claire Coutinho
Recent events in Afghanistan are yet another reminder of veterans’ dedication and sacrifice, and I think the whole House will recognise the support that they need after serving their country. Will the Minister set out the steps he is taking to help veterans, particularly those who suffer from substance and alcohol misuse?
Leo Docherty
I agree entirely, and we must put on record our thanks to all those involved in the two decades of operational activity in Afghanistan. I thank my hon. Friend for the support she is giving to veterans in her constituency. We are putting an additional £5 million into armed forces charities, bringing that support to more than £25 million this year, and an additional £2.7 million into Operation Courage, bringing that total support to £20 million this year.[Official Report, 19 October 2021, Vol. 701, c. 3MC.] But this is about more than just money; it is about ensuring that veterans themselves are at the heart of that care, and in Op Courage, as peer support workers, they certainly are.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is about more than just money, as the Minister has just said, and that support is absolutely crucial for veterans all the time, but particularly at this moment as we come out of the pandemic. Research by the charity SSAFA has found that 77% of the veterans it works with felt that they were not fully prepared for civilian life. This is clearly an area in which we need to do more work, so can he set out precisely what the Ministry of Defence is doing in working with charities such as SSAFA to prepare veterans for civilian life?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the transition is critical, and we want to see a through-career preparation for leaving the armed forces. That is something that we are resolutely focused on in our veterans strategy, which I will be publishing later this year.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that veterans are disproportionately likely to be homeless? Will he undertake to work with the new Secretary of State for Housing to ensure that veterans have every opportunity to get service plots of land to bring forward schemes of their own, as has already been successfully demonstrated in Plymouth?
Leo Docherty
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for the work that he has done in this area. I think the notion of self-build will appeal to a great many veterans, and I hope that we can continue to work together to ensure that this is a central part of the veteran strategy later this year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I think the Veterans Minister for all that he does for our veterans. It is much appreciated. What steps have been taken to ensure that mental health support is available for veterans who have been further isolated during covid-19, who have suffered in silence, and who need available intervention and not just waiting lists?
Leo Docherty
We have tried to innovate during the covid pandemic by engaging online, but the bottom line is that, given the uptick, we are having to re-energise our engagement with veterans. That is why we are putting in this cash boost so that more people at the coalface can do this kind of supportive work.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Minister is aware that the Defence Committee has recently undertaken an enquiry into women in the armed forces. What assurances can he give me that the Government are specifically looking at the issues of female veterans?
Leo Docherty
I have been reading the Select Committee’s report with great interest. The MOD is compiling its formal response, and I give my hon. Friend my personal assurance that we take these issues seriously across a whole range of considerations, including uniform and sanitary product provision. We are determined to get this right. We have opened up every single role across the military to women, but that will not be sufficient unless there is a culture of support.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Constituents have contacted me recently, and I wrote to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs about one of them on 3 August and am still awaiting a reply. What steps is the Office for Veterans’ Affairs specifically taking to make sure that veterans facing obstacles to accessing services are fully and appropriately supported?
Leo Docherty
If the hon. Lady would like to raise that case with me personally after this session, I will pursue it with urgency.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Steve Barclay)
The civil service published its apprenticeship strategy on 29 April 2021, and in this strategy we focus not just on the numbers but on the quality of training on offer to ensure that Departments are better equipped to nurture talent in-house and to plug skill and capability gaps.
Andrew Jones
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. It is important to the Government that we build back better from the pandemic, which means opening up the civil service to fresh ideas, often through apprenticeships, and fresh skills. How will the new declaration on government reform achieve exactly that?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the declaration particularly focuses on new entry routes for professionals from outside Government, encourages new entrants with specific high-demand skills, particularly scientists, and develops a pipeline of secondments into and out of the civil service, very much addressing the point he rightly highlights.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
Mr Speaker, I add my congratulations about Chorley. I look forward to seeing your cameo appearance on “Coronation Street”, perhaps with Speaker Pelosi.
Following his appointment, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is now responsible for this policy. As I think the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) knows, in Northern Ireland there has been a requirement for photographic identification at polling stations since 2003, and it operates with ease and is a proven and effective way of tackling fraud. It has improved voter confidence in Northern Ireland, and everyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so.
Kirsten Oswald
According to the Electoral Reform Society, around 2.1 million people risk not being able to vote in a general election due to not having recognisable photo ID. The Government’s own data shows that significantly fewer people from black and minority ethnic communities are likely to have photo ID. Similarly, it is likely to be a disproportionate barrier for other minority and marginalised groups, including disabled people and homeless people.
The Paymaster General says his intention is to reduce voter fraud, but in 2019 there was just one conviction in the UK for voter impersonation. Does he not see that needlessly dampening participation in democratic processes by already excluded groups, and at significant cost to the taxpayer, will simply shut down the voices that we should most hear?
Michael Ellis
I am happy to offer the hon. Lady some reassurance. Ninety-eight per cent. of the electorate already own an accepted form of photographic identification, including 99% of black, Asian and minority ethnic electors and 99% of young electors aged 18 to 29. The Electoral Commission’s survey on this matter offers reassurance because the majority of the public say that a requirement to show identification when voting at polling stations would make them more confident, and 66% of people want more confidence in the security of the system. She really ought to read the 2015 Tower Hamlets election court judgment, where she will see the nature of the problem at hand.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I strongly support what the Paymaster General has said, and I welcome the team to their positions.
When I had responsibility for these matters, I visited and spoke to the electoral officials in Northern Ireland, which has had this system for 18 years and where it works perfectly well. People in Northern Ireland are perfectly capable of using it, and I have no doubt that it will be a great success when we roll it out in the rest of the United Kingdom. Frankly, these scare stories are more likely to depress voter turnout than the introduction of voter ID.
Michael Ellis
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, as usual. Any eligible voter who does not have one of the required forms of ID—and there are very few of them—would be able to apply for a free local voter card from their local authority. As he says, this has been working extremely well in Northern Ireland, which in fact has had an ID requirement since 1985—it is the photographic ID requirement it has had since 2003. So the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) is perpetuating scare stories here.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we detect more than a whiff of hypocrisy from Opposition parties, which oppose voter ID but would ask their own members to show ID to attend a meeting to discuss the issue itself?
Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I understand that the Labour party does make those requirements, not that I have attended Labour conferences of course. May I offer the further reassurance that a wide range of countries, including most European countries, require some form of ID? Canada, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Norway do. So I have to say that the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire ought to refrain from these repeated scare tactics, which may have a deleterious effect on voter turnout.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
European countries that do require voter ID often have national ID cards, and if that is the Government’s intention, they should be a little more straightforward about it.
My question to the Minister is specifically about the human rights aspects of this. The Elections Public Bill Committee has been warned that this policy may be in breach of human rights. It quizzed Gavin Millar QC, who said that there will
“inevitably be challenges to this as incompatible with the European convention on human rights”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 109, Q165.]
I draw the Minister’s attention to article 1, protocol 1. What legal advice have the Government had that makes them so sure that this policy is not in contravention of our human rights laws?
Michael Ellis
Of course we do not discuss legal advice, but what I can say is that people also have a human right not to have their votes stolen. In 2019, the Electoral Commission found nearly 600 allegations of electoral fraud. They had to be investigated by the police, and 142 of them were related to alleged voting offences. So this is a problem, and it needs to be dealt with. This was a Government manifesto commitment and we intend to follow through.
Cat Smith
My question was specifically about how this legislation is compatible with human rights laws, so may I invite the Minister to publish the legal advice his Government will have received in the Library of the House of Commons, so that all Members, especially those on the Bill Committee, which is currently sitting, can be confident that this legislation is not in breach of human rights law?
Michael Ellis
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her repeated question, but she well knows that successive Governments, from both sides of the House, do not publish legal advice, and there is a good reason for that. But she can be assured that this Government are very focused on protecting the human rights of all, and that includes those who have been subject to personation, where their votes have been taken by someone else. That is also a human right that we seek to protect, and we will continue to do so.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Some 90% of the public think that polling station voting is safe from fraud and abuse, and they are right to think that. Personation, which is the only problem the voter ID provisions of the Elections Bill are designed to address, resulted in a single conviction in 2016, 2017 and 2019, and zero convictions in 2018. Given that up to 3.5 million people may not have suitable ID and that the Government’s pilots confirmed that up to 324,000 people would be denied a vote in a Great Britain election, let me ask the simple question: why are this Government prepared to embark on voter suppression on an industrial scale?
Michael Ellis
I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman, because it is not just a question of convictions: attempts to commit crimes are also wrongs. We have to focus on reducing the criminality in this area. It is also about voters having confidence that they are not going to be subject to personation and confidence to go and vote because they know there is no interference in the voting system. Some 66%—two thirds and more—of those questioned said that they would like to see increased security around voting. In this day and age, that is increasingly important, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that, too.
Stewart Hosie
On the matter of confidence, the House of Commons Library has rather helpfully told us that half the public think there is inadequate regulation of political party spending and that only 14% think there is transparency around it. The Paymaster General knows perfectly well that there have been concerns about the influence of dark money in the UK electoral system for many years. Why could it be that this Government are planning to suppress the right of ordinary people to vote rather than tackle the real problem of dark money buying influence in the democratic process?
Michael Ellis
These bold assertions have no basis in evidence or reality and have a tendency to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman claims to seek to avoid, which is to suppress votes. He wishes to focus on a lack of regulation in respect of voting confidence. We seek—our manifesto commitment on this has been, and will continue to be, followed through on—to protect the voting system, and we do that in the same way as has happened in all the countries I have mentioned: by increasing confidence in the system.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
Public sector bodies and employers are responsible for the management of their respective workforces. The Government have made it clear to all employers, and I wish to do so again now—including to those in the public sector—that the use of threats to fire and rehire people to pressure workers during negotiations is unacceptable.
Kate Osborne
I thank the Paymaster General for his response, but given the increasing prevalence of outsourcing throughout the public sector, where we have seen the creation of a two-tier workforce and a race to the bottom on pay and conditions, does he agree that no company that is found to be using fire and rehire tactics against its workers should be awarded public contracts or be allowed to take over public services in future?
Michael Ellis
I challenge the premise of the hon. Lady’s question. The UK has the best employment rights in the world. This Government have banned the exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, and we introduced the national living wage in 2016 and the right to a day-one statement of rights for all workers in 2020. This Government—this party—are protecting the rights of workers and have established some of the best employment rights in the whole world.
Nevertheless, the point that the hon. Lady makes is recognised, and we have asked the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to look into the matter. We want to ensure that there is clearer guidance to help employers to explore all the options before they consider what one or two have been doing in respect of the fire and rehire policy. We are interested in maintaining and encouraging good employment relations. I cannot be clearer than what I have already said, which is that we think it is unacceptable to pressure workers in such a way during negotiations.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Paymaster General for his response, but during the pandemic I was contacted by many constituents in Vauxhall who were subject to this practice—constituents who had worked for many years for the likes of British Airways and British Gas; constituents whose lives were turned upside-down by the threat that they would lose their jobs. The Paymaster General said that he will put pressure on the organisations involved, but the pressure is not working, so will he give his full support to the private Member’s Bill that has its Second Reading on 22 October and would ban fire and rehire once and for all?
Michael Ellis
I am aware of the private Member’s Bill to which the hon. Lady referred. At this stage, I will say that the Government will respond to that Bill as it passes through Parliament. As I say, we have been clear that fire and rehire should not be used in the way the hon. Lady describes, or as a negotiating tactic, which is why we have asked ACAS to look carefully at the matter and to produce guidance. We will continue to keep the issue under review.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I have noticed the change in personnel on the Cabinet Office Front Bench and I would like to welcome all the Ministers to their place today. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s direction on fire and rehire, which is that he does not accept this bullying practice, but when will the Government take action on this? I accept the Minister’s response on ACAS, but this is just not good enough. If the Minister is committed to having good employment practices, what will he do to end this practice of fire and rehire? I reiterate that he can back the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), which will see the practice ended by this Parliament.
Michael Ellis
We are keeping the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) under review. I think the hon. Lady knows that, when it comes to protecting the rights of workers, this Government have been doing just that. I ask her to bear in mind the protected earnings for furloughed workers, the review into how employers can support victims of domestic violence in the workplace, and Jack’s law. There are myriad ways in which we have been protecting workers and their rights. We keep a laser-beam focus on that, and we will continue to do so.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
As we set out in our July command paper, the protocol is not meeting its core objectives as it stands; it is causing considerable disruption to lives and livelihoods. That is why we need to find a new balance through significant changes to the Northern Ireland protocol and we are working intensively to that end.
Ruth Jones
Given that both the US and the EU have expressed serious concerns and reservations about the current practical arrangement regarding the Northern Ireland protocol, is the Minister not concerned about this protocol that his Prime Minister negotiated as part of his Brexit plan? The deal may have been oven ready, but did someone forget to turn the gas on?
Michael Ellis
We have tried to operate the protocol in good faith, but the problems are significant and they are growing. The hon. Lady should be concerned about the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive noted that, from January to March, about 20% of all of the European Union’s checks were being conducted in respect of Northern Ireland, even though Northern Ireland’s population is just 0.5% of the EU as a whole. It is unacceptable, and those are the sort of problems on which she ought to focus.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Steve Barclay)
We are increasing opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises in a variety of ways, from transparently publishing contract pipelines to simplifying the bidding process. Those measures are working. The latest procurement figures show that £15.5 billion was paid to SMEs to help deliver public services. That is the highest since records began in 2013 and a £1.3 billion increase on the previous year.
Mike Wood
Dudley South has many fantastic firms doing innovative work, particularly in world-class advanced engineering, but, too often, the size of Government contracts mean that only a handful of multinationals are able to compete. Will my right hon. Friend do everything that he can to ensure that public procurement contracts are advertised in the smallest chunks possible so that Government and public services can take full advantage of the talents in our SMEs?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises a very legitimate point, and, in short, yes we will. To encourage the issue he highlights, we require public buyers to divide contracts into more accessible lots, or to explain why they cannot, so that tender requirements can be matched to smaller business specialisms. I know that he is a champion for Dudley South and that is exactly the sort of measure that will help businesses in his constituency.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
The Government remain committed to fully supporting the infected blood inquiry. The inquiry maintained pace throughout lockdown, I am pleased to say, and it is making good progress. The hearings restarted this week. The inquiry will continue to hear evidence about blood services and pharmaceutical companies until the end of this year. I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Lady because I know that she has been doing sterling work in this area, and I wish to commend her for that. Please allow me also to commend my predecessor as Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who also worked hard in this area.
Dame Diana Johnson
I welcome the Minister to his new post. May I also join him in thanking the previous Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for all that she did to ensure that the cause of those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal was at the heart of the work she carried out?
As the Paymaster General said, we are three years into the NHS infected blood inquiry, and at the start of the new review into compensation for those infected and affected. Will he say something, though, about what is happening to the bereaved partner payments that were announced in March, and about whether he is willing to look at the inconsistencies that still apply to bereaved partners and their families?
Michael Ellis
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her remarks, particularly about my predecessor. The previous Paymaster General announced in March this year changes to the four national financial support schemes to bring them into broader parity. That means increasing annual payments and lump sums where necessary to bring them up to the highest existing levels. The right hon. Lady knows better than anyone that there is an independent statutory inquiry, chaired by former High Court judge Sir Brian Langstaff. The issue of compensation is being looked at by Sir Robert Francis QC. I look forward to correspondence with her and hope to be able to go into more detail on the matter in due course.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How much compensation has been paid, and to how many families?
Michael Ellis
The matter is currently under consideration. Sir Robert Francis QC is conducting a compensation study, which will consider options for a framework of compensation when the inquiry reports. I can say this: the public consultation on the terms of reference for that study has concluded; the terms of reference were signed off by me in the last couple of days; and they will be published later today in a written ministerial statement.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
Our exit from the European Union has given us the freedom to conceive and implement rules that put UK businesses first. Only last week, the Government announced further reforms to reduce burdens on businesses, which I am sure the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and her party will welcome, to help unleash innovation and propel economic growth across the whole United Kingdom. The Government’s action to seize the opportunities of Brexit is already having an impact, as she well knows. The International Monetary Fund is expecting the United Kingdom to see the fastest GDP growth in the G7 this year—something about which the entire House can be proud.
Patricia Gibson
Back here on planet Earth, rather than a sea of opportunity we are drowning in Brexit despair, as the Scottish food and drink sector is sacrificed on the altar of this hard Tory Brexit, at a cost of £2 billion on pre-pandemic levels, with extensive trade barriers, extra red tape, labour shortages and damage to Brand Scotland. Industry figures are warning that they will not come close to making up the EU market losses. How do the UK Government plan to mitigate the damage that they have caused to Scotland’s economy?
Michael Ellis
Our exit from the European Union provides us with positives, although I know that the hon. Lady and her party wish to focus on negatives. The relentless negativity of the Scottish nationalists really is a wonder to behold. The fact of the matter is that the opportunity to think boldly about how we regulate gives us the freedom to conceive and implement rules that will put the United Kingdom—all constituent parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—first.
Joanna Cherry
A major export business in my constituency is in the process of relocating to an EU member state, taking with it scores of highly skilled jobs. As a result of Brexit, it has faced massive delays for shipments and EU member states preventing their public authorities from procuring from it. The rest of its export market has been killed off because of shocking delays by the UK’s Export Control Joint Unit. Despite numerous correspondences and meetings with Ministers, I have not been able to get those delays reduced. Minister, here is the evidence from my constituency of Edinburgh South West, in Scotland. The UK Government are strangling thriving businesses in Scotland. What should I tell my constituents?
Michael Ellis
What the hon. and learned Lady ought to tell her constituents is that we have, thanks to global Britain, established a new points-based immigration system on migration, and we are replacing the common agricultural policy. She can tell them that we are taking back control of our territorial waters. She can tell them that we have been striking bilateral trade agreements with 60 countries so far, with more on the way. She can tell them all those things and they will then no doubt be voting Conservative.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I apologise that this is a rather detailed question, but a few businesses in my constituency are having issues with specifics on rules of origin. Will my right hon. and learned Friend update the House as to the willingness of the EU to sit down and iron out these anomalies?
Michael Ellis
The trade and co-operation agreement provides for zero tariffs and zero-quota trade with the EU while also allowing us to regulate in a way that suits the UK economy and our businesses without being bound by EU rules. The trade and co-operation agreement includes appropriate rules of origin, as my hon. Friend mentions, to support tariff-free trade across all sectors.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Nigel Adams)
Levelling up is at the heart of the Government’s agenda. The landmark White Paper we will publish later this year will build on the actions we are already taking to improve livelihoods and opportunity across the UK. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be driving forward this agenda. I, and all my ministerial colleagues, look forward to working with him to deliver bold new policies that level up all parts of the UK.
Jacob Young
I welcome the new Minister to his place. The Government are already taking great steps to level up Teesside, including our new freeport—the UK’s largest—and locating the northern economic campus there. Will he update us on the progress of the new campus and join me in encouraging Teessiders to apply for these highly rewarding civil service jobs?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That part of the country is really on fire at the moment. It is fantastic that so much is happening on Teesside. There are some brilliant local Members of Parliament assisted by a fantastic Mayor as well. I am pleased to say that the Darlington economic campus is up and running. Almost all Treasury roles are now being advertised as available in Darlington, and we are recruiting exclusively for Darlington-based Treasury roles. These are great jobs working on issues that really matter to our country. I hope to see a range of people from north-east England, and beyond, take up these opportunities.
Alexander Stafford
The levelling-up fund is going to be vital for Rother Valley to increase our prosperity, and we have a bid outstanding at the moment for Maltby and Dinnington. Can the Minister confirm when we will hear back about the levelling-up fund bid, and tell us what other steps the Government are taking so that the whole of Rother Valley, not just Maltby and Dinnington, benefits from the Government’s levelling-up programme?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise Rother Valley’s bid in this regard. We are committed to levelling up across the whole of the UK. The idea is to ensure that no community is left behind. The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will invest in infrastructure to improve everyday local life and boost growth and jobs. All areas of the UK are able to access the fund, and Rother Valley is exactly the sort of area that it is designed to support. Applications for the first round of the levelling-up fund closed on 18 June, and we expect that investment decisions will be made for this funding round in the autumn.
Antony Higginbotham
Infrastructure and regenerating our town centres is a really important part of levelling up, but so too is education, skills and work. Will my right hon. Friend therefore confirm that ahead of the Budget and the spending review at the end of October, the Cabinet Office is working across Government with the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and others to make sure that we leave no stone unturned in levelling up across the country?
Nigel Adams
Absolutely. The whole team—the Minister for the Cabinet Office and all my ministerial colleagues—are well placed to do exactly that, working across all Departments. Levelling up is at the heart of the Government’s agenda. My hon. Friend will not have missed the renaming of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will lead on that work. We are committed to levelling up across the UK to ensure that literally no community is left behind. We will publish a landmark White Paper later this year.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
On 12 September, the world watched as 50,000 great north runners crossed the iconic Tyne bridge, whose peeling, faded, rusting and sad state exactly reflects the Government’s level of investment in the north-east. Just what is levelling up? How will the north-east know that we have been levelled?
Nigel Adams
I do not know why, but my application for the Great North Run seems to have been missed. Maybe next year we will have a crack at it. Levelling up is not a north-south thing, a one size fits all or just for some places; it is about disparities between and within regions. I talked about the north-east not two minutes ago. We are doing some incredible work in the north-east and looking to ensure that levelling up will benefit places that have seen economic decline and the loss of industry. That is exactly what it is meant to deliver.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the Minister will share my concern about the York Central site. We have a great opportunity to level up York and see it as an economic and jobs gateway for the north, but instead, with the development of so many luxury homes, there is a risk of it sucking down into becoming a commuter belt for London. Will he ensure that public land is used for public good and that there is greater investment in jobs in York Central?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady is right to raise the York Central site, which I know well. We must ensure that the local authority works with the Government so that that site comes into use. It has massive potential. I really hope that City of York Council gets its act together and works with us, because it could be a stunning opportunity for jobs and infrastructure in the city of York.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
In welcoming the new ministerial team to the Front Bench, may I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on Chorley becoming the epicentre of global parliamentary democracy?
Three of the 10 most deprived constituencies in England are in Birmingham, and 42% of children in Birmingham are growing up in poverty. However, rather than supporting hard-working families in Birmingham, the Government are hitting them with a £1,000 a year cut to universal credit and a national insurance tax rise. On top of that, they face soaring energy costs, increasing food costs, increasing childcare costs and increasing housing costs. The Government say that they want to level up, but is not the simple truth that the only thing that gets levelled up under the Tories is the cost of living?
Nigel Adams
I politely remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have invested £400 billion in supporting the country, its businesses and public services through the pandemic. He is right to raise Birmingham, which has seen quite a transformation in recent years. I also remind him of the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, the shared prosperity fund and the national skills fund. The Government are taking action on levelling up.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Steve Barclay)
I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), for his leadership of the Cabinet Office over the last two years and wish him well in his new role. I also thank my officials at the Treasury for all their support during my time as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I welcome the comments made by the Opposition Front-Bench team in respect of the new ministerial team and look forward to constructive engagement with them in the months ahead.
Mr Speaker, a theme this morning has been your recent G7 Speakers conference, and certainly for me, as someone born and bred in Lancashire, it is a particular honour to have the role of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Cabinet Office is the strategic headquarters for the Government, supporting the Prime Minister and the Cabinet in delivering for the British people. I look forward to working with colleagues to do so, supported by an excellent new ministerial team.
Dame Diana Johnson
I join in welcoming the right hon. Member to his new post.
Whereas the NHS infected blood scandal was the biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS, the covid pandemic has been the biggest public health disaster in a century. In March 2020, the chief scientific adviser said if the UK could keep covid deaths below 20,000 that would be a “good result”, and now of course there have been more than 135,000. If the covid public inquiry, which we understand will not start until next year, is to be a genuine attempt to look at the rights and wrongs of what happened, will frontline staff in the healthcare and social care sectors be involved in setting the terms of reference?
Steve Barclay
We have been clear that we will have an inquiry, and that will be next spring. Clearly, there will be consultations on shaping the leadership of that, its terms and how it will be conducted. The Prime Minister has been clear on his commitment to ensuring that we learn the lessons within the covid response not just in England, but across the United Kingdom. That applies in Wales, but in the other devolved Administrations as well. I think something we all share across the House is that the right lessons are drawn so that improvements can be made.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises a very good and practical issue about how such businesses benefit from the public spend. I would draw his attention to things such as the Contracts Finder, which is a free-to-use platform that publishes details of contracts above £10,000 and £25,000 exactly to enable businesses to have greater transparency on the sort of contracts that are available.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your chairing of the G7 Speakers conference and welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the team to their places.
The next pandemic or major disaster could happen tomorrow. We have to learn our lessons from this pandemic and be much better prepared for it happening again. The covid-19 national foresight group has been capturing these live lessons, and it has concluded that a “strong and persistent theme” has been the
“lack of strategy and shared plan”
in the Government’s response. Its recommendations have spent nine months gathering dust. Will the Minister commit to implementing its recommendations, and would he meet the group?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady is right that we need to ensure that we learn the lessons, and that point was made a moment ago. It is why within Government we have been looking more widely at our resilience, with things such as the civil contingencies secretariat and the investment recently in the situation centre to enable Government to respond in a more agile and quicker way to issues as they arise. I am always keen to hear from whichever groups have contributions to make, and either I or one of the team will follow up on the point she raised.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Minister for that, and I will be following it up with him.
The latest allegations about the Home Secretary’s secret meeting with British Airways, a billionaire Tory donor and the then Business Secretary, but with no official present, should concern us all. She is a serial offender for breaking the ministerial code previously. Will the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster hold an investigation into these allegations and actually start enforcing the code, or is it just there for show?
Steve Barclay
There is a clear process set out in the ministerial code. I am not aware that any ministerial colleague has breached that. Obviously, a due process is applied through PET—the propriety and ethics team—in the Cabinet Office where concerns have been raised, but to date there is no evidence to suggest that that is the case.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I reassure her that the Government are working to manage the impacts of gas price rises affecting the UK. We are confident in the security of supply this winter, and we are working with industry to address any potential risks in an appropriate way. Indeed, together with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I had a call earlier this morning with those chief executives involved in our supply chain, looking at some of these issues and at how we can work closely together.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Steve Barclay
As I recall from my recent time in the Treasury, the levelling-up fund is not a one-shot opportunity and there will be future iterations and bidding processes. The first round is applied, but there will be future rounds as part of that. Obviously, that will also be shaped by the forthcoming spending review that the Chancellor will lead.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
I think the right hon. Gentleman knows full well what is meant by British territorial waters, and I invite him to accept that it is this Government who do everything they need to do, and they will continue to protect our territorial waters.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I thank my right hon. Friend for what she does for veterans in her community, and I would be delighted to hold such a meeting.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Michael Ellis
I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the court’s judgement in the 2015 Tower Hamlets case, and he will find out exactly the nature of the problem that the Government are seeking to redress. We will redress other problems as and when they become necessary.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
May I commend the Government on their plans to move civil service jobs out of London? In welcoming my right hon. Friend to his position, may I invite him to visit Darlington and see the progress that has been made with the delivery of jobs in the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and other Departments, which is real evidence of our levelling-up agenda?
Steve Barclay
I always look forward to an opportunity to visit Darlington, and I share my hon. Friend’s passion for moving more jobs. When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, one key thing I did was seek to front-load our previous commitment to moving 22,000 jobs by 2030 and bring that forward. We now have a commitment for 15,000 of those jobs to be moved by 2024-25. It is not just the value of the jobs themselves that moves, with the welcome diversity that brings in the civil service; it also drives further jobs in the private market.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I have been contacted by bereaved constituents who have lost their loved ones to covid-19, and I would like to pay tribute to all those families in Liverpool, West Derby today in this Chamber. My constituents want answers, and they should not have had to battle with the Government at every stage to secure the covid-19 inquiry. In his new role, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster make a commitment, here and now, to prioritising the bereaved families, meeting Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice as a matter of urgency to discuss the terms of reference of the inquiry, and ensuring that the families get the truth and justice they deserve?
Michael Ellis
Every death from this virus is a tragedy, and our deepest sympathies are with everyone who has lost loved ones. The Government remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that the families of whom the hon. Gentleman has spoken have the scrutiny of the Government’s response to managing the pandemic that they deserve. The Prime Minister made it very clear in his statement to this House on 12 May that bereaved families and others will be consulted on the inquiry’s terms of reference before they are finalised. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me for more information, I will be happy to respond.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
In 2014, the no campaign warned that, if Scotland voted for independence, it would lead to higher energy prices, an end to freedom of movement and empty supermarket shelves. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us what the result of the 2014 independence referendum was?
Steve Barclay
In a session that has involved a new ministerial team looking forward, we see the SNP, as ever, constantly wanting to look backwards, yet when it comes to their own independence referendum, they seem to want to forget the past and the result of that vote. We have a plan for jobs that is working across the United Kingdom to get more people into work and upskill them. It is very appropriate, with the Business Secretary here, that we have a plan for jobs that is working, and that is what the Scottish Government and the SNP should be focused on.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Last week, a High Court judge refused the Cabinet Office permission to appeal against a first-tier tribunal decision that it should release information to me, under freedom of information legislation, in relation to the work it had been doing on opinion research in Scotland with regard to attitudes to the Union. Will the Cabinet Office now comply with that ruling and finally release the information that it has paid for with taxpayers’ money?
The Minister without Portfolio (Nigel Adams)
The Government regularly commission research in different parts of the UK to understand public attitudes and behaviours, to inform our campaigns and policies in development. The Scottish Government conduct similar research, for the same reasons. We will set out our response to the court’s decision in due course.
Gas Prices and Energy Suppliers
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on rising gas prices and the collapse of energy suppliers.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I came before the House on Monday to update colleagues on the action we are taking, and I appeared before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee yesterday to discuss the matter in greater depth. The Government have been clear that protecting consumers is our primary focus and shapes our entire approach to this issue. We will continue to protect consumers with the energy price cap.
The global gas situation has had an impact on some energy suppliers, and I have been in touch daily with Ofgem. As it set out yesterday, there are more than 50 suppliers in the domestic market, and we may, unfortunately, see more suppliers exit the market in the coming weeks. However, it is not unusual for energy suppliers to leave the market, for various reasons, particularly when wholesale global prices are rising. Ofgem and the Government have clear, well-rehearsed processes in place to make sure that all customers are supplied with energy.
Our approach will be informed by the following principles: protecting customers, especially vulnerable ones, from price spikes. The solution to this crisis will be found from the industry and the market, as is already happening, and I repeat that the Government will not be bailing out failed energy companies. We would like to see a competitive energy market that can deliver choice and lower prices. The energy price cap, which continues to protect millions of customers, will remain in place. Consumers come first, and that has always been the centrepiece of our approach.
Edward Miliband
On Monday, I said to the Secretary of State that he was being far too complacent about the situation we are facing. Events since have, unfortunately, borne that out: complacent about the crisis in the market; complacent about the impact on families; and complacent about the cost of living crisis. He pretended on Monday and again today that it was normal for a number of suppliers to go down each winter, but what we are dealing with is far from normal: 800,000 customers losing their suppliers yesterday alone and 1.5 million in the last six weeks. So will he now answer the question he has so far failed to answer: does he believe taxpayers’ money will be necessary to stabilise the market? If so, how will he ensure value for money and that we do not simply end up with greater concentration of the big six suppliers?
Next, I have a letter here that Ofgem wrote to the Secretary of State when he was the Energy Minister 18 months ago during covid, warning about
“systemic risk to the energy supply sector as a whole”.
It said the usual Ofgem mechanism, the supplier of last resort, may not be possible. It went on:
“The failure of medium and large suppliers would need to be handled via a special administration regime placing significant burden and costs on government.”
So will he answer the question of what planning was done for this eventuality following that letter? Surely the Government should be in a position now to know exactly what needs to be done where there is systemic risk to suppliers. Have they not left the country dangerously exposed, with them scrabbling around for solutions?
Finally, we are seven days from the cut to universal credit. This is the last time a Government Minister will be in the House explaining to millions of families why they are plunging them further into fuel poverty. Instead of warm words or platitudes, can the Secretary of State now tell the British people how he can possibly justify this attack on their living standards? Is it not the truth that there can be no defence of it, and that the only right, proper and fair thing to do is to cancel the cut?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Obviously, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues. We have not been complacent. The whole point about the supplier of last resort process, which was interrogated last year, is that it is an organised, well-established process that can allow existing strong companies to absorb customers and failure. [Interruption.] If he would desist from chuntering from a sedentary position, he might actually hear my answer.
I remember the letter last year. We interrogated, all through the covid process, the systems we had in place. During that period, the supplier of last resort was found to work. So far this year, it has been found to work, so I am not going to try to talk ourselves into exacerbating the crisis.
With regard to the special administration regime, that is something that is in place. Thankfully, we have not had to use that, but the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as many people in this House that it is there should the case arise.
With respect to universal credit, I will say what I said earlier in the week. That is a matter across Government in terms of budgetary responsibility. There will be a Budget at the end of October and there will be plenty of time to discuss that then.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I press the Business Secretary a little on the Government assumptions on pricing? In his evidence to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee yesterday, the head of Ofgem appeared to suggest that he expected these high prices to continue for some time. I accept that the Government do not have a crystal ball, but in making policy choices the Government must be making some assumptions about what they think is the most likely path for prices. Can the Business Secretary set those out for the House please?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have said repeatedly, I do not have a crystal ball, as my right hon. Friend has suggested, and I do not make predictions about the price but clearly, we prepare for every eventuality. The biggest help for consumers and customers at this current time is the energy price cap, which I have repeatedly stated is staying in place.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
This is not market failure; it is Government and regulator failure. Ofgem all along had the financial and hedging information to know which companies were at risk, so why are we now in crisis management phase?
The Tories promised us cheaper energy bills post Brexit, but right now electricity wholesale prices in the UK are the highest in the whole of Europe. Meanwhile, as gas prices increase, the Treasury gets extra VAT receipts and increased oil and gas revenues. Surely, there must be a redistribution of that increased Treasury income to help hard-pressed bill payers. At the moment, it is those bill payers who cover the additional cost of transferring customers to other energy suppliers. They cover the credit of customers with failed companies and then have to pay increased tariffs when transferred. The cap might stay but the cap does not stop energy bills going up, so why should bill payers pay even more money when the Treasury is getting increased revenue out of this? What is the additional estimated cost for bill payers?
A quarter of our electricity bills consist of levies, so as we move away from our reliance on fossil fuels, we need a fundamental shift in how that concession is paid for. That is something that the Treasury needs to address. It means ending the grid charging regime so that Scotland does not have the highest charges in Europe, and it means giving the go-ahead to pumped hydro storage in wave and tidal.
Finally, is the Secretary of State happy to sit by while the cost of living crisis is ongoing? Is he happy to plunge 500,000 extra people into fuel poverty, or will he fight the Treasury to end the universal credit cut and release extra money to help hard-pressed bill payers?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Clearly there was a lot in that question and statement. I will deal with a couple of issues, if I may.
With respect to universal credit and wider budgetary considerations, I have repeatedly said that they are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We will have ample opportunity to discuss these things in the House. With respect to the move away from fossil fuels, the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement: I think that we need a diverse supply of decarbonised sources of energy.
Finally, I dispute the idea that we are ill-prepared. We have the SOLR and SAR processes in place and we stress-tested them throughout the whole covid period, when I was in constant contact with the industry. I feel that so far we have managed to accommodate such supplier failure as we have seen with existing structures.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the cold weather payment scheme will remain in place?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Again, there are further budgetary issues, but I have always said that we are absolutely focused on customers, particularly the most vulnerable customers. The warm home discount is staying and we are looking to protect the most vulnerable customers, particularly prepaid customers, from the worst effects of the energy price spike.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
On Monday, the Secretary of State dismissed our lack of gas storage as “not…relevant”. It has clearly left us vulnerable, so will he now admit that the closure of the Rough storage facility was a mistake?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I do not think that it is relevant, because there is no way that any storage in the world will mitigate the effect of a quadrupling of the gas price in four months, as we have seen. The answer is actually getting more diverse sources of supply and electricity through non-carbon sources—through nuclear, on which I am still very unclear as to the Opposition’s view, and through other sources of decarbonised energy.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Why do we not reduce VAT on fuel as a temporary measure? We did it for the hospitality industry, which was badly affected by covid-19. Why do we not abolish VAT for consumers on fuel now?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is quite right: we did a whole range of interventions to alleviate the burden on consumers and on businesses. Those were fiscal interventions that the Chancellor pursued last year, and I am sure that he is looking at a range of things this year, but that is a matter for him to decide ahead of the Budget.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
What are the implications of the situation for the exploitation and extraction of gas within the UK continental shelf?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Member will know that, in 2020, 48% of our natural gas came from the UK continental shelf, so that is clearly a strong, sustainable source of gas to this country. However, I suggest to him that gas is a transition fuel: in our pursuit of net zero by 2050, we want to transition away from it. That is why we are developing carbon capture and hydrogen, as he knows very well.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Further to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) asked, surely the Conservative answer—I raised this the other day—is to reduce VAT on energy bills, as was pledged by those who supported Brexit in the EU referendum. I know that the Secretary of State will say that it is up to the Treasury to decide, but he is very persuasive. He is a tax-cutting Conservative—he believes in tax cuts—and I know that, if he went to see the Chancellor, he would ensure that we got a VAT cut on energy bills.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I see the Chancellor on a regular basis, as my right hon. Friend knows, and I am delighted to inform him that those conversations tend to be confidential.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The UK suffers from higher costs both for consumers and for our businesses and industries. Why then, to follow the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), is the UK’s storage capacity just 2% of annual demand versus an average of 25% in Europe? Is that part of the reason why we do not have energy price resilience?
Kwasi Kwarteng
A conference of EU Energy Ministers took place only yesterday to discuss that very problem. Mitigating a quadrupling of the gas price is not a function of storage—that is a complete red herring. One reason why we have less storage is that we have a greater diversity of energy supply, and that is a strength, not a weakness.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to focus on consumers and not to bail out energy firms that got things wrong or are too fragile. However, will he explain how he is dealing with customers currently on capped tariffs with suppliers that have gone bust? Is he encountering any resistance from the firms being asked to take on those customers, who may be arriving as a loss to the acquiring firm?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have said, we have a supplier of last resort process that has worked well in the past couple of years. It is not my job to state the terms on which customers are absorbed by other companies—
Kwasi Kwarteng
No, not ahead of the process. However, most of these prices are at or just below the price cap, and that is fundamentally what will protect consumers in this period.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
This Government are responsible for families facing a cost of living crisis due to the triple whammy of rising gas prices, looming tax rises, and cuts to universal credit. Will the Secretary of State finally acknowledge and accept that it is completely and utterly immoral to cut universal credit?
Kwasi Kwarteng
What I do acknowledge is that there has been a quadrupling of the gas price, and that we have an energy price cap that will protect customers from such spikes. Schemes such as the warm home discount will also protect the most vulnerable customers. That is what I acknowledge.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of this country’s structural dependency on gas, which was created by the last Labour Government’s sidelining of green technologies, such as nuclear and even hydrogen?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For example, the last Labour Government did absolutely nothing to drive nuclear power, which is a fundamental ingredient of security of energy supply.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The figure of £139 a year has been floated in the press as the increase in the energy price cap this year, but that refers only to the variable rate and does not take into account the changes in bills that people will face if they move from one tariff to another—often against their will in the current circumstances. Will the Secretary of State consider asking the regulator to direct energy suppliers to limit the price increase to any individual customer to a reasonable amount over the coming year?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have said, we have a supplier of last resort process, and it would be wrong of me here at the Dispatch Box to interfere in how it works. It has worked effectively over the past two years. As I have said repeatedly to the House, the energy price cap does give some succour, because consumers prices could be exorbitant without the cap. The price cap gives support, and we continue to support the warm home discount for the vulnerable end of the market.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Customers in Kettering and across the country will be worried that their gas and electricity could be cut off if their energy supplier goes bust. To put customers minds at rest, will the Secretary of State explain in straightforward understandable terms how the supplier of last resort process works?
Kwasi Kwarteng
What happens—and it is happening at the moment—is that there is a process of bidding for the customers of the exiting, failing companies, and the cost of absorbing those customers is taken on by the company that wins the bid and also by the industry at large; so the costs are mutualised, but generally it has been seen that there is always continuity of supply. That is a key element of the system.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State clearly believes that the invisible hand of the market will solve all this without his doing anything—but when he talks about customers, does he mean only domestic consumers, or will he ensure that supply continues to keep industry going and jobs secure? In that context, does he think it acceptable that Germany has some 90 days of gas storage while we have only nine days’ worth? Will he also commit himself to ensuring that there are adequate supplies under our control for the future by licensing new gasfields?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We protect domestic consumers in the way I have outlined, but it is fair for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the issue of industrial users of energy in business. He will know that we have schemes that which protect industrial users of energy: we have the energy industry incentive scheme, and yesterday we launched a new tranche of the industrial energy transformation fund with up to £220 million, which enables businesses to bid in for further support.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his tireless work over the last few weeks, not just on the gas price crisis but on the carbon dioxide shortage that followed. I also pay tribute to CF Fertilisers, which has come back online in Stockton, and to Ensus in Redcar for offering to help and come online too. For the benefit of people across Redcar and Cleveland, however, can the Secretary of State outline how we are supporting people and protecting them from these high prices?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. The carbon dioxide crisis—or question in hand—we dealt with immediately. I spoke to the CEO of CF Fertilisers twice, on Sunday and Monday, and we had a solution on Tuesday. I am very pleased that, as a consequence of that solution, the company has managed to get production up and running, and to get people back to work at its plant. My hon. Friend will know, after my many visits to Teesside speaking to Ben Houchen, that the Government are resolutely focused on helping his constituents to level up and get well-paid, secure jobs.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
These skyrocketing gas prices will have a devastating impact, not just on the public but on businesses, which will eventually have to pass those rises back on to the public. Does the Secretary of State understand that that double whammy for the public will see even more families being pushed into fuel poverty and consequently into food poverty as well? Apart from cutting universal credit very soon, making it even worse for many of these families, what is he doing? What is he doing to support them?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman will have seen reports that energy companies want the Government to lift the energy price cap. I have repeatedly resisted that. I have said explicitly, on the Floor of the House and in other places, that the price cap must stay, while also reaffirming our commitment to the warm home discount scheme and the winter fuel payment. We are absolutely focused on keeping consumer prices as low as possible in the energy market.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
We are all hearing about the number of businesses in this market that are going bust at the moment, but can my right hon. Friend assure me, and my constituents, that this is expected to be a short-term shock and we will come out of it with a robust market and plenty of diversity of supply?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend knows that competition is the key to this market. We had a world that was oligopolistic in this respect, but we have introduced the price cap, and there are plenty of small, nimble entrants driving innovation and a dynamic system. I am absolutely committed to a competitive market, and I am sure that after this process we will still have a vibrant and dynamic energy system.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Too many people nowadays have to watch every single penny, and have to worry about where all the money to pay the bills will come from. Will the Secretary of State have a look at the amount of time that it takes a supplier of last resort to provide people with an accurate forecast for their energy costs, and, if possible, try to reduce the period during which they experience that uncertainty?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would be very happy look at that, as the hon. Lady suggests. I have said many times, I am in contact with Mr Brearley, the chief executive officer of Ofgem, on practically a daily basis now, and this is something that I can raise with him at our next meeting.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I own shares in companies that invest in renewable energy. As the House will know, consumer energy bills are enhanced by climate change levy charges, which are used to support renewable energy producers. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that a large number of those renewable energy producers use special purpose vehicle companies to receive those subsidies, and that many of those SPVs are based offshore for tax purposes? Will he meet me to discuss how the Government are going to close that very clear tax loophole?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As my hon. Friend knows, I am always prepared to meet him at any time to discuss any matter he chooses to discuss with me.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Would the Minister still advise consumers to change their energy supplier, or would they just be better off changing their Government?
Kwasi Kwarteng
They had a chance to change their Government and, as I recall, that did not end so well for the Labour party, although maybe my memory fails me. We have a dynamic, vibrant and competitive market, and consumers should have a choice in order to keep their costs low.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Obviously these are disturbing times for our constituents and I welcome the actions that the Government are taking. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever happens in the markets, no one in Basildon and Thurrock need fear supply failure or sudden hikes in prices this winter?
Kwasi Kwarteng
No one in Basildon and Thurrock, or anywhere else in this country, need fear the eventuality that my hon. Friend describes. As I have said, the supplier of last resort process is absolutely focused on ensuring that customers have continuity of supply. That is a top priority.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Better insulation of homes is essential for cutting rising fuel bills and emissions. Does the Secretary of State agree that it was a mistake to cut the green homes grant earlier this year, and will he commit to reforming it and bringing it back?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have said a number of times, in this role and in my previous one, the green homes grant attempted to do three things. The first was to decarbonise public sector buildings, and that worked very effectively through Salix, the bank that disbursed those funds. The second element, which was disbursed by local authorities, has also worked very well. The third element is the one that we closed, and we want to get a renewed version of it.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
In the final days of the last Labour Government, the UK was near the bottom of the G20 league tables for green investment and renewable energy. I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Department’s achievements on offshore and floating wind energy. Can he confirm that his Department will continue to invest in this area, particularly close to my North Devon constituency and the Celtic sea?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Absolutely. My hon. Friend will know that we have some really exciting floating offshore wind projects in the Celtic sea that I am very pleased to see being developed. She is also right to observe that during the last Labour Government, we did absolutely nothing whatsoever to ensure security of energy supply or its diversity.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
An Erdington care worker with two children was close to tears when she said to me:
“I worked so hard throughout the covid crisis. Now I am facing my universal credit being cut, a tax increase and soaring energy bills. Jack, why are they going ahead with the cut to universal credit? Do they even begin to understand how difficult life is for people like me?”
Is she wrong?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The massive increase in energy prices is a global effect. I completely understand that people are facing issues this winter that were not foreseen maybe six months ago, but this Government have rigorously focused on protecting the most vulnerable customers in the energy market and we are absolutely focused on getting Britain back to work. That is why our unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the G7 at 4.7%. In France, it is 8%. We are creating jobs and we are keeping the economy going.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will know, I have been something of a doughty champion in North Norfolk for the offshore energy grid—[Interruption.] He is smiling; he knows what I am going to say next. Will he work at speed to ensure that the offshore network grid will be implemented as soon as possible to ensure that we stop the dereliction of the countryside with the offshore cable corridors?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Nobody in this House has been as consistent and as focused on this issue as my hon. Friend. He knows that, as Energy Minister, I commissioned the offshore transmission network review, on which we have accelerated work. I would be happy to speak to him and other colleagues about the review’s progress.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State describes small energy companies such as Green in Newcastle upon Tyne Central as “failures,” but he says nothing of his own failure in structuring, regulating and shaping the energy market. Will he confirm that large energy companies, such as Green, will not receive a penny of taxpayers’ money? What support will he offer to the employees of Green, apart from slashing universal credit?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I said, it has been a consistent feature over the past few years that energy companies have failed and left the market. We have a process to deal with that, the supplier of last resort. I categorically say to the House that we will not be giving any grants or subsidies to larger companies.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s market-led approach. The CBI has been clear in saying that Labour’s plans to renationalise our UK energy network would result in higher household bills. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it could also threaten UK energy supplies?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Any Labour plan to nationalise the industry would be a step back into the dark ages and would be a disaster for this country’s reputation as a hub of international capital and investment.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Rising energy prices will disproportionately affect people living in the north, where it is colder during the winter. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of regional disparities, and how will he mitigate against them?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady raises a fair point, and clearly the single most important determinant of gas prices is the weather. That is why we have schemes such as the warm home discount, and it is why we are focused on protecting the most vulnerable customers wherever they are in the UK.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Half a million more people are likely to fall into fuel poverty as a result of this gas crisis. With record increases in inflation, plans to cut universal credit that will hit 37% of Scottish families, supermarket shelves that grow emptier by the day and a regressive national insurance tax hike hitting those on the lowest pay hardest, what has gone so wrong as we face a winter of discontent? Why should anyone have confidence in this Government?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I will tell the hon. Lady why people should have confidence in this Government: we have a vaccine roll-out that is the envy of the world; we have got the economy back up and running; we have 4.7% unemployment, which is among the lowest in the G7; and we have navigated the storms of covid-19 pretty effectively.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
A number of my constituents were victims of the green deal mis-selling scandal and have been left saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt for a scheme they thought was publicly funded and Government backed. The scheme was supposed to lower their energy bills, but now, on top of having to repay that debt, their bills are set to skyrocket.
In supporting my constituent who discovered that she is a victim only when she recently tried to sell her home, I was informed that the Secretary of State has no obligation to investigate cases more than six years old. Many victims of this scam will not have been aware immediately, so will he explain what recourse exists for victims who come forward later?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We have been dealing with green deal cases on a case-by-case basis. I have not been informed of the specific details that the hon. Lady describes but, with my officials, I would be happy to meet her to discuss the particulars of this individual case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is almost a perfect storm: gas prices that have risen due to the maintenance projects that were rescheduled for 2021 because of the pandemic; lower-than-usual gas supply from Russia; and less liquefied natural gas reaching Europe because of increased deliveries to Asia. How can the Government assist when most of these factors are beyond our control? Is it realistic to hope that consumers will see a reduction in their bills within the next year?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman has given a pithy summary of the various causes of the energy price spike, one that is very realistic; it is a global phenomenon. What I have said repeatedly is that what the Government can do is ensure two things: that customers have continuity of supply, through the well-established SOLR process; and that we are resolutely focused on keeping the energy price cap, so that consumers—our constituents—are protected from those exorbitant price spikes.
Coronavirus: Education Setting Attendance and Support for Pupils
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the impact of coronavirus on attendance in education settings and support for pupils to catch-up on lost learning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
Mr Speaker, I am terribly grateful to you for granting this urgent question during my first week in the job. We would all like to thank school staff for their ongoing dedication to pupils at what has obviously been an extremely difficult time.
Regular school attendance is vital for children’s education, wellbeing and long-term development. I am pleased to report that attendance last week was higher than at the same time last year, with 91.9% of students attending and 99.9% of all state-funded schools open. We know that the impact of coronavirus has been felt strongly in schools. The evidence is clear that being out of education causes significant harm to attainment, life chances, mental health and physical health. Data from the autumn 2020 school census showed that 60% of pupils had some period when they did not attend school in circumstances relating to covid-19 during the autumn term. That represents 33 million days missed, and analysis shows that every day of education missed matters.
That is why this Government are rightly focused on reducing the disruption to education: we have put an end to the self-isolation of whole bubbles; under-18s no longer need to self-isolate after contact with a positive case; secondary pupils were tested on their return, to help limit transmission, and will continue to test this term; and just last week this Government announced the roll-out of vaccinations for all 12 to 15-year-olds. Our communications programme has promoted the importance of attendance and we continue to monitor the data closely.
We are also fully committed to helping pupils to catch up. Our £3 billion investment in recovery includes more than £950 million for schools to best support the most affected children. That will have a material impact in closing gaps that have emerged. We continue to work closely with local authorities and schools to help them re-engage pupils. The Government’s Supporting Families programme continues to work with families where attendance is a significant concern, and we are providing support to tackle mental health issues, which will improve attendance further. That includes £7 million for local authorities to deliver the wellbeing for education recovery programme, and £9.5 million to train senior mental health leads in up to 7,800 schools and colleges. We are also recruiting a team of expert attendance advisers to work with local authorities to help them improve their services and the consistency and quality of their attendance interventions.
The next stage includes a review of time spent in school and 16 to 19 education, and the impact that this could have on helping children and young people to catch up. To support and re-engage the most at-risk pupils, we are investing £45 million in the new safe and alternative provision taskforces, bringing together specialist support in schools and AP settings in serious violence hotspots. We are also joining up support by expanding the role of virtual school heads, which is a wonderful initiative, to cover all children, with a social worker to provide additional support on attendance and attainment for many of the most vulnerable pupils.
The impact of the pandemic has been significant, and this Government continue to act tirelessly to help our children recover their education and wellbeing, with the help of our excellent teaching profession.
Kate Green
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Although I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not in his place, I warmly congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I know he will agree with me that nothing is more important than our children’s futures. But during the pandemic the Government have treated children and young people as an afterthought, failing to take the action that teachers, parents, pupils and the Labour party have been calling for to keep children in school. Some 122,000 children were out of school last week. Yesterday, the chief medical officer warned that covid is spreading fastest among secondary-age pupils. When will the Government act to improve ventilation in schools, colleges and universities? Will the Minister explain the Government’s rationale on masks, which saw them required in schools in March but not now, when covid rates are more than 400 times higher?
We welcome the advice of the chief medical officers to roll out the vaccine to 12 to 15-year-olds, but already there are reports of pressure on school nursing services. Will the Minister guarantee that all first doses will have been administered by October half-term?
Shockingly, there are reports that some schools are experiencing anti-vaccination protests. What action is being taken to ensure that no school faces threats and intimidation?
In Education questions on 6 September, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), hinted that the Government may cease recommending twice-weekly home testing at the end of this month, even though covid continues to spread. Will the Minister reconfirm the plans on testing? How will he ensure that testing at home is carried out, after the drop-off we saw last year?
Even before the latest surge in absences, children had missed an average of 115 days of school. The Conservatives’ paltry recovery plan comes nowhere close to tackling what is needed. Labour’s plan commits to extending the school day to give time for breakfast clubs and new activities, small-group tutoring, expert mental health support, and training for our world-class school staff. Will the Minister commit today to matching Labour’s ambition?
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the urgent question and for her opening remarks. I am sure we will not always see eye-to-eye, but we both have a great concern for children in this country and I look forward to working with her on that score. Nevertheless, I do not want to take too many lectures from the Labour party on this subject. We all clearly remember how last year Labour consistently refused to say that schools were safe for children to go back.
The challenges that we currently face are obviously substantial, but great improvements have been made. At the end of the previous term, attendance in school was at 75%; as of Thursday last week, attendance was at 91.9%, with 99.9% of all schools open.[Official Report, 19 Octoberber 2021, Vol. 701, c. 4MC.] That is a tribute to the very hard work done by our health service and the very hard work that is currently being done in schools. I am sure the whole House pays tribute to that work.
Our Department has an absolute determination to be led by the best evidence, and that determination is shared across Government. Probably no one in the Government understands data and evidence bases better than my new boss, the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). When the evidence changes and the situation changes, so we change our policy.
The hon. Lady asked about face masks; at some stages in the pandemic we have had face masks in corridors, strict social distancing and bubbles, but the evidence now says that we can move away from that.[Official Report, 19 Octoberber 2021, Vol. 701, c. 4MC.] That is much to the good, because anyone who has ever worked in schools, as I have, will know that it is difficult to conduct proper education when children have their faces covered. I strongly welcome the fact that we have been able to make a change on that score.
Over the course of the pandemic, we have put £3 billion into helping schools and the education recovery. That includes £1.5 billion for evidence-based tutoring programmes that are going to help children, including the most vulnerable, to catch up. I am delighted to have discovered that £220 million is being spent so that vulnerable children can attend holiday activities and food programmes in all local authorities. We have £79 million to support those children who have been suffering with the worst mental health problems—mental health is a dreadful problem that I know many Members will have heard about in their constituency surgeries—and £17 million for mental health and wellbeing training in schools.
The hon. Lady rightly asked about the dreadful anti-vaccination protests we have seen. They are totally unacceptable. The level of intimidation of schools and teachers is abhorrent. I make it absolutely clear to any headteacher or teacher who is watching this that, contrary to some of the things they have been told, legal liability rests not with schools, but with the health service and those providing vaccinations. I thank schools very much for the spaces they have created and the consent forms they have provided, but they should rest assured that it is the health service that is providing these jabs and offering the support. Any school facing intimidation should let the Department know about it so that we can follow it up.
This is a difficult time for education, but things are getting better. They are getting better because of the actions that this Government have taken to roll out one of the best vaccine programmes in the world and to support children and their teachers in school.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I am pleased to see the Minister, my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, in his place.
As I understand it from our discussions with the chief medical officer at the Education Committee yesterday and from the Government, the key purpose of the vaccination programme is to keep our children in school. However, I have been sent a letter by parents about the Teddington School in Middlesex, run by Bourne Education Trust, that shows that all students will be sent home on Friday 24 September, after a day of vaccinations today. Therefore, despite Government guidance, there are examples of schools doing this, or of whole year groups being grounded at home or even closed down completely. Will my hon. Friend make sure that schools follow Government guidance to the letter and do not send children home? He should ring the headteachers himself to make sure that we keep our children learning. Will he also ensure that the catch-up fund reaches the poorest and most disadvantaged students, because we know that 44% of students receiving the pupil premium are being missed, and that there are huge regional disparities as well?
Alex Burghart
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and I look forward to working with him in his role as Chair of the Education Committee and as a venerable defender of the needs of children and of the voters who follow.
It is extremely important that schools follow departmental guidance. I am sure that my officials will have heard the example that my right hon. Friend has just given. The message is clear: the best place for children is in schools and there are very clear criteria that tell us when children should be there.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister rightly recognises the toll on the mental health of children in this country over the past year. In Waltham Forest, many schools dug deep and paid for external counselling services for the children and are now facing big gaps in their budgets. Having said how important it is that no school in this country should be out of pocket, will the Minister commit today to fully reimburse those schools for the cost of counselling over the past 18 months to help our children get through the pandemic?
Alex Burghart
I thank both the hon. Lady for her question and the school in her constituency for the work that it has done to look after its pupils; it sounds as though it has gone above and beyond. As I said in answer to the shadow Secretary of State a few moments ago, the Department has invested considerable amounts of money in supporting children’s mental health. There has been £79 million across the piece, and £17 million for training for mental health and wellbeing in schools. We are fully aware that this is one of the lasting consequences of the pandemic, and we will step in to support schools every inch of the way.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I find the irony of this urgent question being called by those on the Labour Front Bench somewhat mystifying, because they went missing throughout the pandemic, and there was silence on the issue of schools. It is not just me who thinks this. Let me quote:
“Labour’s silence on closing schools is completely ridiculous.”
That was Corbynista Owen Jones saying that, so it is not just we on the Conservative Benches who think it. The NEU—or the “not education union” as we should refer to it—continually wanting to shut schools, and Labour keeping silent despite the donations running into its party coffers tell us everything that we need to know. Can my hon. Friend confirm to me that, no matter what happens this winter, schools will be kept open, pupils will be learning face to face and, in that way, they will catch up exactly as they need to.
Alex Burghart
I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate question. He has first-hand experience of working in schools, and I look forward to leaning on his expertise while I am in this job. It is absolutely the Government’s intention to keep schools open. We are clear that schools are the right place for children. The cost of children not being in school is extremely serious, so it is very much our hope that schools will be open from this point on.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Erdington is one of England’s poorest constituencies, but it is rich in talent. I pay tribute to the headteachers, who do an outstanding job in the most difficult circumstances. In a survey I conducted of schools in my area, I found that 60% expect to set a deficit budget next financial year, and 100% said that they do not have sufficient support for their pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. Of the schools that applied for exceptional costs funding, 75% received funding amounting to less than half the costs. Is it not the simple reality that school spending by the Government is still lower than in 2009-10, and that after tearing up the catch-up recommendations made by their own adviser, they have allocated to schools a fifth of what was asked for? Is it not the simple truth that a whole generation of children and young people are growing up without the support that they deserve from their Government?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman is a doughty defender of pupils on his patch. The Government have already spent £3 billion on helping schools to get through the pandemic. As I have said, we have invested £1.5 billion in evidence-led programmes, and we have a high degree of confidence that they will help children to catch up some of the time that they have lost in school. Since the Prime Minister took over two and a half years ago, he has been clear about his ambition to return per pupil spending to what it was in 2010. Obviously there is also an imminent spending review, in which other things are being considered.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that keeping children in school and educational settings is an absolute priority? Does he agree that children with special educational needs and those on education, health and care plans should be given the bespoke support that they need to maximise attendance and thrive in the school environment—a shining example being Hoyle Nursery School in my constituency?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend is right that we have to help the most vulnerable children to overcome the problems of the pandemic. Children with special educational needs are very much on our radar. We have consistently prioritised children who attend specialist settings by providing additional uplifts in the 2020 catch-up premium and the 2021 recovery premium. Specialist settings will receive an uplift to deliver summer schools and will have the flexibility to deliver provision based on pupils’ needs. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns; for about eight years, I was the vice-chair of governors at a special school in west London, so I have seen the remarkable work that such schools can do to change children’s lives. We absolutely have our mind on this agenda.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
We know how important good ventilation is to protect staff and students from the spread of covid, and to keep schools safe and open. The Welsh Government are funding better ventilation in schools. Why are this Government not doing the same?
Alex Burghart
I am delighted to hear that the Welsh Government are improving ventilation in schools. The Government in Westminster are doing precisely the same. We have spent £25 million on installing CO2 monitors, with 300,000 monitors going out right now. We are starting with special schools and then rolling them out across the estate.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I recently met the impressive young people from Milton Keynes Youth Cabinet, who highlighted to me the difficulties with mental health that children suffered during the pandemic, and of course we discussed catch-up. It is great that the Department have announced the consultation on discipline and behaviour in schools. Does the Minister agree that discipline, behaviour and structure are key to good mental health, and to catching up on what we have lost over the last few months and years?
Alex Burghart
I could not agree more strongly. We need schools to be calm, well-ordered places of learning. These are the environments in which children flourish most. That is why, since 2010, this Government have prioritised behaviour.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place and look forward to him appearing in front of the Education Committee later in the autumn. I declare an interest in that I am the chair of governors of a primary school and a member of an academy trust board.
Disruption is still occurring because even vaccinated people and children can contract and transmit the infection. Headteachers and their staff, as the Minister has outlined, are continuing to work above and beyond but are struggling in many places to keep their schools going as they would want to. What more can he do to give schools the support they so desperately need so that they can effectively educate the children while also safeguarding those children and the staff? I am afraid that in many places the measures that he has outlined are proving to be far from adequate.
Alex Burghart
My heart stopped for a moment because I thought the hon. Gentleman said that he looked forward to my appearing in front of the Education Committee this afternoon, but the autumn is fine—probably. He raises a very important point, because obviously we do want to see children back in school. As he will have heard me say, we have substantial improvement on where we were at the end of last term. Ordinarily of a September, pre-pandemic, we would expect about 95% of children to be in school. Last Thursday, the figure was 91.9%. We are very keen to make up that gap and we are working tirelessly to do so. One of the things I have not mentioned is that the DFE has REACT—regional education and children’s teams—working across the country with local authorities, regional schools commissioners and schools themselves to clamp down on outbreaks where they take place and to help children to get back into school as quickly as possible.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is great to see my hon. Friend in his place at the Dispatch Box. I welcome the work this Government have done to make it a priority to keep schools open for face-to-face learning. In contrast, Labour equivocated over whether they were even safe to reopen. Does he agree that if Labour were in power, our schools would probably be closed for face-to-face learning and our children left behind?
Alex Burghart
I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful question. We have been very clear throughout that we wanted to get schools open as soon as it was safe to do so. We have done that. We have managed to increase attendance from 75% at the end of last term to 91.1% at the start of this term.[Official Report, 19 October 2021, Vol. 701, c. 4MC.] There is a lot further to go. However, it is the roll-out of our vaccination programme across the country, with the high uptake and the hard work of our health service, that has enabled us to get to this point. Children are better off in education and they are able to be in education because of the steps this Government have taken.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The roll-out of the national tutoring programme has been shambolic, as has been evidenced right across the country, including in my constituency. Will the Minister consider allocating the money to local authorities, which already have the relationships with local providers, in order to ensure that additional support for young people can be provided expediently?
Alex Burghart
I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s description of the national tutoring programme as such. It is based on the very best evidence, it has a very large sum of public money behind it, and we are highly confident that it is going to help children to recover and get back.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
It is indeed a great pleasure to see my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving him the chance to strut his stuff in his first week in the job. He will make a fine addition to the Department for Education.
May I press my hon. Friend on keeping children in school? I completely agree with him that that is the priority, so will he look again with a fresh set of eyes at routinely testing children who have no symptoms and are not ill? The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health thinks that routine testing of asymptomatic children should stop, because that is what is keeping them out of school, and I agree. Will he look at that, get rid of routine testing, test only children who have symptoms and send home only children who are unwell?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend is extremely learned in these matters. We have a testing programme in place to ensure that we limit the number of pupils in schools who have coronavirus. That was obviously the case as schools went back. I am sure that the relevant Minister will have heard his remarks.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Hull is one of the most disadvantaged parts of the country, and there will be no levelling up without catching up. Will the Minister commit to the necessary catching-up budget proposed by his adviser, Sir Kevan Collins?
Alex Burghart
As I have said a number of times, we have put in £3 billion, with £1.5 billion on tutoring for 6 million tutoring programmes—100 million hours of tutoring—and an additional 2 million tutoring programmes in 16 to 19 education.[Official Report, 19 October 2021, Vol. 701, c. 6MC.] That is evidence-based, and we have a high degree of confidence that it will help children recover and get over the worst of the pandemic. The right hon. Lady will have also heard me say that a spending review is coming up.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to his position; I am sure he will do an excellent job. He rightly points out that the vaccination programme for young people is a public health matter. However, what support is being given to schools, teachers, parents and young people to combat the anti-vaxxers who are obviously misleading people on the benefits of ensuring that young people are vaccinated and therefore safe to be in school?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. It is totally unacceptable that any teacher or headteacher is being placed under that pressure. The lies spread by certain groups are outrageous and have unquestionably made life uncomfortable for some people working in schools. I reiterate that schools following the guidelines are doing exactly the right thing. They are not legally liable for what happens. I understand that, so far, all participating schools are doing so in a highly professional manner.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As the Minister rightly acknowledged, the need for mental health support for young people has risen significantly during the pandemic, yet providers of that support such as the fantastic charity TADS in Barnsley are struggling to access funding. I acknowledge his commitment to funding, but how will he ensure that it gets to the frontline? What can he do to help charities such as the one that I represent?
Alex Burghart
I have heard of TADS on my travels—it is an excellent charity. If she would like to send the details to the Department, I am happy to look into that for her.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
We all know that the best place for young people is in school, learning in a classroom. Will my hon. Friend therefore confirm that when the Opposition next make a call for schools to close, he and the Secretary of State will do all they can to resist those siren calls and keep our kids in school?
Alex Burghart
Be in no doubt that we want children to be in school and learning in school. It is the best place for them to be for their education, their mental health and their futures. We will do all that we can to keep them where they are.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister has spoken about catch-up funding, and I got to see at first hand some of the great work being done at Denton Community College with its summer school over the summer holidays. However, no amount of summer schools will enable children to fully catch up on the work they have missed out on, so what more is he going to do to help the covid cohort properly catch up and be able to excel, as we would all hope they will be able to do?
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and it is very good to hear about what he saw going on in Denton in his constituency during the summer. The tutoring programme is at the very heart of our response in helping children catch up, in so far as it is possible to do so. We know from the very best international and national data that when children have one-to-one or one-to-two tuition, it can be revolutionary for their learning, and that is why this Department is channelling money and effort into it.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his thoroughly well deserved appointment.
Schools in Kettering are doing their very best, but are facing a very challenging time at the moment with some rapidly rising covid rates, especially in secondary settings. Could we have some specialised support and enhanced efforts from Public Health England and the Department to help them to get on top of this?
Alex Burghart
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his remarks. As I mentioned a moment ago, there are DFE REACT teams working around the country, and their role is to work with schools, local authorities and regional schools commissioners to tackle precisely this problem. I am sure that, if he were to get in touch with the Department, it would be able to fill him in more on what is happening in his area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Minister to his place, and I wish him well in his new role.
In Northern Ireland, the Education Minister has given schools funding grants for catch-up learning, which many high schools have taken advantage of. This has become even more necessary due to the coronavirus, which is the thrust of this urgent question. Does the Minister not agree that we cannot lose focus on the early years intervention for P3 classes with a reading age a full year behind, and how does he intend to stop that lag-behind following those children through their whole academic life?
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Since I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Northern Ireland Office, I have long believed there is a great deal we can learn from Northern Ireland in this place, and we often learn it from the hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely essential that we support early years, but also children at every stage in their education, to overcome the worst of this pandemic, and I have no doubt that that is what this Department will be doing in the months ahead.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. I commend his Department for its successful efforts to eliminate the barrier of digital exclusion by providing 1.3 million laptops and tablets to disadvantaged students during the pandemic. Can he confirm that that investment will continue for those pupils?
Alex Burghart
Yes, all of the 1.35 million laptops that my hon. Friend refers to are still in use and are still out in the community. It was a major offer that the Government made to children who were digitally disadvantaged and it came, as he will recall, with a wi-fi offer, which made sure they had the connectivity they needed. This was a very important initiative by the DFE, and we are sticking by it.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting Greenfield school in Newton Aycliffe in the Sedgefield constituency, and it was great to see so many children and teachers back where they belong. With the advent of being able to get vaccines for 12 to 15-year-olds, can I ask the Minister to make sure that both the parents and their children are getting the proper information about the validity of vaccines for both groups, not listening to the nonsense on some aspects of social media?
Alex Burghart
Absolutely. The best source of information on vaccines is, remains, and will always be the NHS. Hon. Members can rest assured that the Government are following the Gillick competencies, which have been in place since the mid-80s.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
This year Wales High School in Rother Valley is celebrating its 50th year, and it was a pleasure to join it in its celebrations a few weeks ago. Will my hon. Friend celebrate not only that great achievement, but people’s hard work in keeping the school open during the covid crisis, including putting in measures and guidelines that go above Government recommendations?
Alex Burghart
Absolutely, and I thank not only my hon. Friend’s school but all schools across the country that have gone above and beyond at this very difficult time. We have asked a great deal of our teachers and school leaders, and they have risen to the challenge.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in his place. Will he join me in congratulating schools across Wiltshire, and particularly in my constituency, on getting back to work so effectively and educating all their children once again? Now that 12 to 15-year-olds are eligible for the vaccine, does he agree it is important that all children, and their parents, get the proper information, so that they can make the right decision for themselves and their community?
Alex Burghart
It sounds like Devizes is doing a cracking job in meeting the challenges of covid, and I say again to all parents, teachers and pupils who are looking for advice that the NHS is the place to go, and we are in safe hands when we take its advice.
Business of the House
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing Monday 18 October will include:
Monday 18 October—Second Reading of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill.
Tuesday 19 October—Motion under the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the renewal of temporary provisions, followed by Opposition day (7th allotted day—first part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 20 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Environment Bill.
Thursday 21 October—General debate on COP26 and limiting global temperature rises to 1.5° C, followed by a general debate on World Menopause Month. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 22 October—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 25 October will include: Monday 25 October—Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.
Mr Speaker, I wonder whether I might add a tribute to Mark Kelly. I am sure the House will want to join me in paying tribute to Mark for his 37-year service to the Government, which saw him spend 23 of those years providing outstanding service to the Government and this House as senior private secretary to the Government Chief Whip. He was really the man who made things happen in this place. Mark will shortly be moving away from London with his family. During his time in post he has been an exemplary provider of support and advice to successive Chief Whips, Leaders of the House, and countless Members from all parts of the House. As a loyal and skilful deputy to Sir Roy Stone, Mark’s parliamentary expertise and calm and friendly style has been an essential fixture of the parliamentary landscape. He will be greatly missed.
Mark has always been very proud of his Welsh heritage. He is a staunch Wrexham supporter and has been a mentor and guide to many civil servants, and others, who have had the privilege of working with him and learning from him. As he leaves his post we wish him and his family well, and send him the combined thanks of the House for his essential contribution to our constitution. I have a particular reason for regretting his departure, because he is being replaced by my outgoing private secretary and head of office, Robert Foot, who has been a terrific and steadfast worker and supporter of the business managers going back to 2007. We are very lucky to be surrounded by dedicated individuals such as Mark and Robert, who have dedicated their careers to supporting the work of this House in so many different ways. We are grateful to them all.
Mr Speaker
I would like to reiterate the loyal service that Mark Kelly has given to this House. I have to say that he will be missed. We thank him, we wish him well, and of course we wish Rob Foot well in his new place.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the business, and I join him in his fulsome tributes to Mark Kelly and Robert Foot. Congratulations to both of them on the new stages in their lives. We thank them, of course, for their loyal and dedicated public service.
I am very pleased to see a debate on COP26 after the recess. I have asked for that at previous business questions, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for that.
Today marks the 2,000th day of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s detention in Iran. A demonstration is taking place outside to raise awareness of her case, that of Anoosheh Ashoori, and those of countless others imprisoned there. When will the Government bring them home?
This week, the Government showed us again just how out of touch they are. Last week, I raised the soaring cost of living and I was told to use an Opposition day to debate it, so that is what we did. We raised energy prices, childcare, rents, taxes, fuel, rail fares and food prices, all of which are going up, before we even get to the empty shelves. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), questioned the Government on that and more, but still no answers.
Last week, the Leader of the House attempted to boast about his Government’s record on child poverty, but they are pushing 200,000 more children into poverty by cutting universal credit. It is not too late to cancel that cut, and it is certainly not something to boast about. The Prime Minister had no trouble being Scrooge last year, so it is no surprise that this cut comes 11 weeks before Christmas this year.
If the Leader of the House wishes to trade numbers, I can remind him that the last Labour Government took nearly 1 million children out of poverty. That is what good Governments do when they choose to prioritise what matters for our children. Instead, this Government are deliberately choosing to make working families bear the brunt of their failures.
The increase to the energy price cap means that from next month, half a million more families will be plunged into fuel poverty. I know that the Leader of the House will say that the current energy crisis is global. That is true, but it is also true that it has been made far worse by choices that this Government have made and continue to make. Ministers are not denying that people will face the impossible non-choice between heating and eating this winter. We already pay the highest energy bills in Europe—something the Prime Minister promised his Brexit deal would fix—but here we are, with bills set to get even bigger.
Just yesterday, over 800,000 customers saw their energy supplier go bust, but this morning the Business Secretary refused to admit the scale and severity of the crisis and the economic hardship facing working people. The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), when she was Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee back in 2019, warned of the fuel crisis we are now in. A Minister replied that
“the UK’s gas system is secure and well placed to respond effectively to unexpected changes in supply and demand”.
Well goodness me, Mr Speaker. I am not sure what the Government consider to be a “secure and well placed” system, but what we have is the opposite.
Government decisions over the last decade have undermined our energy security and resilience, with domestic gas storage capacity eradicated, new nuclear stalling, the Swansea bay tidal lagoon rejected, renewables subsidies scrapped, and no long-term reform of the broken energy market, which Ofgem warned the Government about just months ago. So I ask the Leader of the House: why did the Government choose to ignore those warnings?
Carbon emissions from buildings are now higher than in 2015. Some 14% of carbon emissions come from poorly insulated homes that are too expensive to heat, yet the Government cut £1 billion from the green homes grant before scrapping it altogether, they have a missing heat and buildings strategy, which has been delayed month after month—year after year, actually—and people up and down the country are forced to choose between overpriced heating and overpriced eating. Will the Leader of the House ask the new Housing Secretary to come to the Commons with a proper retrofit plan?
I would like to place on the record my thanks to the Leader of the House and the members of his office, some of whom are in the Under-Gallery, for being incredibly helpful to me and my team over the past few weeks. They have helped us solve a problem that I cannot describe at the moment, but I just wish to place that on the official record, because we are very grateful to him and his team for the trouble they have taken.
Although the Home Secretary finally appeared in the House this week, quite rightly, to update us on the incident in Salisbury and the further charging to come, we still have no update on the delayed Afghanistan resettlement scheme. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could ask the Home Secretary to come back after the recess and explain why there has been such an unacceptable delay, but really to present the scheme and implement it in full as soon as possible.
Before I close, I would like to congratulate Anika Tahrim, who was on your Speaker’s intern scheme, Mr Speaker, and was based in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and thank her for her hard work. Finally, I would like to thank all the staff in this place who have ensured our safe return after summer. I hope everyone gets to have a peaceful and productive conference season, and I look forward to seeing everyone in October.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady in giving thanks to the staff of the House, who have made sure our September return has gone so smoothly, as we head off for the conference recess. As I was saying about Mark Kelly, we are incredibly well served in this House by the teams who support us and make sure that we are able to get on with our key democratic responsibilities.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her thanks in relation to the work my office has done in helping her with a particularly knotty problem. I remind all Members of the House that if ever they are finding difficulties in getting answers from Departments, I view it as the role of the Leader of the House to try to facilitate answers as far as I possibly can. That applies to all Benches, Front and Back, and all parties.
On the Afghanistan resettlement scheme, the Government have committed to 5,000 this year and up to 20,000 in future years. The numbers that have been dealt with so far are very large—200,000 emails have come in—so this is, as everybody knows, a work in progress, but one that is very important.
As is seeking the release, on the 2000th day, of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I hope the hon. Lady is reassured to note that the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), raised the issue and said that it was quite inexcusable for Nazanin to still be detained by the Iranian authorities, as one of the first things she said as Foreign Secretary. I think it is extremely reassuring that the Government are publicly saying that this must happen, but there are limits to the power of the Government in enforcing rogue regimes into doing what we want. That has been the case for too long, but it is inexcusable that Nazanin is still held. The Government will push the Iranian authorities as far as we can.
Coming on to the litany of complaints about what the Government have been doing, I notice there was indeed an Opposition day. I am glad that my suggestions for Opposition days are being taken up by the Opposition. We could make this a formalised system and perhaps I could always choose Opposition day topics of debate. However, I noticed there was not an enormous number of speakers. There was more in length than there was in number, which is interesting in showing the enthusiasm that the Opposition had for debating this money, but let us go through the Government’s record.
There are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty than in 2010. In total, there are 700,000 fewer in absolute poverty than in 2010. In 2019-20, there was a 3% chance of children being in absolute poverty if both parents worked full time, which is why it is so important to ensure that work is available. Since 2010, we have seen 650,000 fewer children in workless households. We have also increased the universal credit work allowances, giving parents and disabled people an extra £630 a year in their take-home pay. Great steps have been taken in particular to help children: the £220 million holiday activities fund; the 30% increase to the healthy start vouchers, providing £4.25 a week to eligible parents with children under four; and more money being invested in breakfast clubs. So great steps are being taken and are being successful in reducing poverty, as the absolute numbers show.
The hon. Lady then went on about the energy issue. Well, we know that energy prices fluctuate; that is part of a market system. They are fluctuating across the world. We do have a robust energy system. We have a system that ensures that supplies continue. There is a certain irony, is there not, when half the time the socialists have wanted us to close everything down? They do not much like energy, because they think we should have hairshirt greenery, whereas the Government are in favour of technological greenery. What does that mean? It means economic growth, so what have we had? We have had 78% economic growth since 1990 with a 44% reduction in emissions. It is getting that balance right. People need to be able to afford to heat their homes, but we also need to green the environment and the economy, and that is what is being done. There has been £9 billion of taxpayers’ money to support the efficiency of our buildings, while creating hundreds of thousands of skilled green jobs. Over 70,000 green home grant vouchers, worth over £297 million, have already been issued.
This is a story of success and I am very grateful, although the hon. Lady does not raise it as I would like, for the amazing support we receive from her in highlighting how we have reduced child poverty, ensured there is an energy supply and ensured a greener economy. It is a success of this Government and I am delighted it has been recognised by the socialists.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I join others in praising Mark Kelly, who really does know where the bodies are buried.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the subject of World Animal Day? Unfortunately it falls on 4 October during the recess, but if we have a later debate it will give the House an opportunity to talk about animal welfare generally, cruelty to animals and the welfare of farmyard animals, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) so ably mentioned yesterday?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker,
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”.
I have done what my hon. Friend asks before he asked for it—before he rose to his feet—because on Monday 25 October there will be the Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which will be an opportunity for him to raise those important points. We also have the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which is in their lordships’ House and will come back to us in due course. The Government are very committed to following many of the policies that my hon. Friend has suggested.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I join in the tributes to Mark Kelly. When I was Chief Whip of our group and the representative of all the minority parties, Mark Kelly gave us nothing but kindness and great advice. I am sure that he will be sorely missed. I congratulate Rob Foot, who I know will be missed in the Office of the Leader of the House.
Here we are, barely back, and we are just about to take another break so that we can participate in the proceedings of voluntary organisations of which we just so happen to be a member. We will be taking a month off when the UK is facing an autumn of discontent and when hard-pressed families are facing one of the biggest assaults on their weekly income. As this House abandons its station to go to the conference hall and seaside resorts, there are universal credit cuts, energy prices going through the roof, a carbon dioxide crisis, driver shortages, farming chaos, fishing chaos, export prices, the ending of furlough and a Brexit killing a nation. This nonsense of a conference recess has surely run its course and must now come to an end.
We also face an environment crisis, but hey, we have the Prime Minister telling us all to grow up as he quotes Kermit the Frog. Maybe he should have got Kermit the Frog to negotiate a trade deal with the Americans while he was there—maybe we could even get Fozzie Bear to solve the energy crisis. How dare anybody even start to refer to them as a bunch of Muppets?
I know now that there is absolutely nothing that will encourage Conservative Members to take the safety of their colleagues seriously in this House. Their pathetic defiance in refusing to wear a face mask is almost like a pathological childishness. When we come back, will the Leader of the House agree to a meeting with all parties and your good self, Mr Speaker, so that we can agree a joint approach to safety in this workplace and so that at least we do not have the ridiculous spectacle of a House divided by face masks, where Conservative Members defiantly do not wear one but everybody on our side of the House does?
Lastly, may I wish you a good conference recess, Mr Speaker? I do not know whether there is a UK Speakers’ party in which you might be the Chair. I also want to say to the Leader of the House as he goes off that I just hope Sir Toffalot here will manage to find a face mask on his way to Manchester.
Mr Rees-Mogg
There was a Speakers conference: an enormously successful conference of the G7, which was held in your constituency of Chorley, Mr Speaker, and included very significant Speakers, including Nancy Pelosi from the United States. I think that the hon. Gentleman was intending to congratulate you on a successful conference there. Otherwise I am slightly puzzled by his geography, because I was unaware that Manchester was a seaside resort, but perhaps he knows something that I do not.
As is now becoming traditional, I thought that I would give the hon. Gentleman a date that I discovered from The Times this morning: it is the anniversary of the battle of Salamis in 480 BC, when the Athenians beat the Persians and Xerxes was defeated. I am sure that that will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman, although it is quite hard to see how it relates to Scottish independence.
As regards the question of wearing masks, I do not know whether you are a reader of tabloid newspapers, Mr Speaker, but a certain very senior figure in the socialist party was photographed travelling on a train without a face mask. I do wonder whether there is one rule when the cameras are on and everybody is under vision, and another when people are on railway trains not expecting to be snapped.
Mr Speaker
I presume the Leader of the House meant the Labour party. That aside, before I call Rehman Chishti, I want to thank all the staff who have worked hard and made this House safe. They are due to have a break and, as much as the SNP spokesperson might like to cut it, they deserve it and need it. I also offer a big thank you to my team, the security team and all those who came up to help ensure that we had a great Speakers’ G7 in Chorley. It involved solid business, with real resolutions coming out of it.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On that point, Mr Speaker, may I thank you for all that you have done to ensure that our House can operate? To you and your team, from all of us, thank you.
I am reluctant to raise this sensitive but important matter with the Leader of the House. Both of us are men of faith, and it is important to give credit where it is deserved. A certain event took place at Edgbaston cricket ground on Saturday 18 September when, as my right hon. Friend will know, Kent beat Somerset to be crowned champions of the T20 cricket competition. Will he join me in congratulating Kent on their well-deserved win against Somerset? Will he also allow a debate on the Floor of the House to support grassroots cricket across the country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Fortunately it was T20, and therefore my heart did not grieve too much, but I am of course delighted to congratulate Kent on their victory. My earnest hope and desire is that I shall live to see the day when Somerset win the county championship. We are one of the few counties never to do so in all our history, and I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in thinking that it would not be unreasonable to let Somerset do it at least once.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. I reiterate my appeal of last week to right hon. and hon. Members across the House to look at their calendars and check whether they want to submit an application to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate to commemorate a specific anniversary or campaign day, and that they do so well in advance. That helps the Committee to manage the business and gives notice to the Leader of the House that date-specific debate applications are in.
I truly and with all my heart wish that food banks did not need to exist, but they do, and therefore they need to be supported, as they are by communities across the whole country. However, food banks in my constituency and across the north-east are already struggling with demand. Can we have a statement on what the Government will do to support food banks given the anticipated huge spike in demand as we approach winter once the £20 universal credit uplift is withdrawn and fuel bills go up again?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point about the calendar, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take that to heart, because it does make the scheduling of business between the Backbench Business Committee and the Government easier and smoother.
The Government have done a great deal during the course of the pandemic and continue to do a great deal to support families in difficulty. The welfare system received an extra £8 billion in the financial year 2020-21. When schools were closed, over £450 million of supermarket vouchers were provided so that families could feed their children, and things of that kind are continuing. As I mentioned earlier, there is the 30% increase to Healthy Start vouchers and further money for breakfast clubs. The people who donate to food banks and act in a charitable way are to be commended, and the support is there through the welfare system to ensure that people have the money they need to feed their families.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 415 highlighting the serious concerns of thousands of Harlow residents about the Stort crossing proposals, which could have a devastating impact on the beautiful environment and wildlife of the Stort valley in Harlow?
[That this House understands concerns that the Stort crossing proposals will have on the beautiful environment of the Stort Valley in Harlow constituency; further understands the threat that those proposals pose to local wildlife and ecosystems; recognises the concerns on those proposals raised by hundreds of local residents; further recognises that the plans for that problematic development have been inherited from the previous Labour Council who agreed to the proposals in the 2020 Local Plan; notes that Harlow Conservative Councillors voted against the 2020 Local Plan; further notes the upcoming Planning Committee meetings of both East Herts Council and Harlow District Council at which this planning application will be considered; and calls on the Government to put pressure onto the developers to reassess those plans and go back to the drawing board.]
Unfortunately the problem was inherited following a decision made by a previous Labour council. Will my right hon. Friend praise the constructive “Save Our Stort” campaigners who, rather than block the M25 and harm commuters, have campaigned and demonstrated passionately to cherish a beautiful part of our town? We call upon the developers to go back to the drawing board on the proposals.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do of course praise my right hon. Friend’s constituents—they are some of the most civilised constituents in the country, and are brilliantly represented by my right hon. Friend, who always ensures that their concerns are highlighted—and I also compare them with what we must now call the hippie-crites: the people who have been blocking the M25, and who turn out not to be insulating their own homes while lying down in the road to inconvenience and cause danger to others. We know that a lady did not recover from a stroke as well as she would otherwise have done because of the delays caused, and of the risk caused to the police. I commend my right hon. Friend’s constituents for campaigning peacefully, respectfully and in a civilised manner. As he knows, planning decisions are a matter for the local council and are rightly made at a local level, but I am sure that what he has said in the House will be heard by the developer, who will want to maintain community support.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
We know that the Leader of the House is keen to see MPs return to the Chambers of Parliament; and, indeed, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority refused to fund appropriate maternity cover for me on the basis that people needed to be able to speak in the Chamber. In order to speak today, I have had to abandon my baby leave proxy vote—or else be reprimanded by the House authorities for speaking in the Chamber, which makes Parliament one of the few workplaces in the country where, when a new mother comes in for a “keep in touch” day, she is rebuked rather than supported.
I know that some in this place are not fans of mothers, in the “mother of all Parliaments”, but I am sure that the Leader of the House is not among them. Will he meet a cross-party delegation of MPs to discuss how we can ensure that everyone in this Parliament upholds the law on maternity cover and leave?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I say what a pleasure it is to see the hon. Lady in the Chamber, and may I congratulate her on the impeccable behaviour of her infant? Mine are of course perfect in every possible way, but I am not sure that they would have been quiet for the whole time during a parliamentary debate. I congratulate the hon. Lady most warmly; there is no greater joy than a new baby.
The rules provide for maternity and paternity leave, and for proxy voting for people who want to take that opportunity, but if people want to be present in the Chamber, they are of course welcome. I would be the last person to deter Members from coming in, but I do not want to put pressure on them to come in. I think it is for them to decide for themselves, as the hon. Lady has done, and I think that the rules as they are currently constructed are perfectly reasonable and entirely in line with the law.
We have to remember—this is very important—that Members of Parliament are office-holders; they are not employees. As office-holders, we have different rights and different privileges from employees because ours is a different role, and therefore employment law applies to us in a different way. We have, in fact, many more privileges than most employed people, not because of who we are individually, but because of our collective responsibility to represent the people of this nation.
As regards a meeting, I am always open to meeting all Members of the House: I think that that is the proper role of the Leader of the House.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
A constituent came to me recently, very distressed. Her young son was attacked at a community event about two years ago. The perpetrator was arrested and charged by the Crown Prosecution Service. He then reportedly failed to appear in court twice, was arrested a second time, and appeared in court for the third hearing. However, the Crown Prosecution Service erroneously, and wrongly, said that the case had been timed out—which it has admitted in writing was a mistake—and the perpetrator therefore got away with not being fully pursued. Because this was not publicly known, he went on to be selected as a candidate and subsequently elected to Crawley Borough Council in last May’s local elections. May we have a debate on why this perpetrator, Atif Nawaz, was able to do that, on why the victim was failed by the Crown Prosecution Service, and on the efficiency of the CPS?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We need to have brisker questions, otherwise we will not get through everybody.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am obviously not aware of the full details of that case, but I understand that the CPS has accepted that it made an error in the handling of the case and apologised to my hon. Friend’s constituent. I recognise, however, that an apology in these circumstances does not go very far. The CPS is ensuring that advocates in the south-east area receive training to prevent a similar error from happening again, but I would urge my hon. Friend to write to the Attorney General about this case if he has not already done so, as she oversees the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. Equally, I would be happy to take it up with the Attorney General on his behalf.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
A constituent contacted me again this week desperately worried about his only brother, aged just 19, and his brother’s fiancée, who is 22. Their lives are in immediate danger in Afghanistan. They are both on the run and living in hiding following Taliban threats. I have had more than 70 constituents get in touch on behalf of hundreds of terrified friends and family members in Afghanistan. We are clearly not going to get a statement for several weeks, so having acknowledged the importance of this, will the right hon. Gentleman urge his colleagues in the Home Office to use this time to set out the referral process and clear guidance about how those still in Afghanistan can access the resettlement scheme?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I said earlier, this is important, and it is worth reiterating what is being done. Under Operation Warm Welcome, we are ensuring that Afghans arriving in the UK are able to rebuild their lives, find work, pursue education and integrate. There is additional support, with extra funding for housing as well as immediate medical and mental health support. We have made it clear that all those who arrive through this safe and legal route will be granted indefinite leave to remain. I reiterate that more than 200,000 emails have come in, so the volume is very large, but we are committed to relocating an additional 5,000 vulnerable Afghans in the first year, with this potentially rising to 20,000. As I said to the shadow Leader of the House, if there are any specific cases to which the hon. Lady is not getting replies, she should please come via my office and we will do whatever we can to facilitate answers.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
All three of Derby’s MPs are supporting Derby’s bid to become the UK city of culture in 2025. Derbyshire’s industrial heritage as the home of the world’s first factory is well known. Formerly known as the Silk Mill, it will be reopening officially tomorrow as the Museum of Making. Derby is also home to the arts and culture, with a 52-week festival in 2023-24 providing an ideal opportunity to promote the city of culture programme. Does the Leader of the House agree that Derby’s history and future growth in industry, sport and the arts make it a true UK cultural landmark?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend and I were going to go to a nightclub once the ban was lifted, and I think that that would have been a true cultural landmark. Beyond that, I would say that I heartily encourage Derby’s bid to become the UK city of culture. It is a wonderful city, and its record in the arts and manufacturing is enormously impressive. This is, however, an independent process chaired by Sir Phil Redmond, who is assessing the initial bids. He will announce the long list of eight places very soon, and the winner will be announced in May 2022. I wish my hon. Friend good luck.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
My constituent Jack Barnett was furloughed by his former employer under the coronavirus job retention scheme between April and mid-September 2020, and was made redundant thereafter. Mr Barnett received CJRS payments in April, May and June, but with July, August and two weeks of September 2020 outstanding, he is still awaiting almost £3,000. Most recently, the employer advised that he was waiting for the funds from HMRC, although HMRC is unable to either confirm or deny this because of the general data protection regulation. This case in Angus cannot be the only such case in the UK, so can we have a statement from the Government on what recourse former employees can pursue to recover moneys owed through the CJRS?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The furlough scheme has been enormously helpful and one of the key things that has maintained employment in this country. In Scotland, it has protected more than 910,000 jobs. However, I would be happy to take up the case of Mr Barnett with HMRC and with other Ministers. I have always thought business questions were a good opportunity to raise constituency issues that have not been solved by other means, and I will try to get a proper answer for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Leader of the House rightly talks about greening the environment. This week, a company has put in an application for a solar farm around Gainsborough that would be the size of 4,000 football pitches. It says that this is a nationally significant infrastructure project, and therefore, under a law passed by the last Labour Government, no local planning is allowed at all. There is no say for West Lindsey District Council, the county council, myself or anybody else. Can we have a debate on this matter? I was going to ask about a levelling-up grant for Gainsborough, but perhaps we could have a bit more levelling up for local democracy too.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is obviously important that planning decisions are taken efficiently and that matters of national importance come to a national level. I have to say that 4,000 football pitches sounds like a very large area. I do not know very much about football, but I know that a football pitch is not an entirely small space. It cannot be that dissimilar to 4,000 cricket pitches. I note my right hon. Friend’s concern, and he is right to raise it in this House. The opportunity to discuss it will probably be best provided through an Adjournment debate to ensure that this specific issue can be raised and that a Minister of the Crown can be held to account.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Earlier this year, I sky-dived for Florence, a beautiful seven-year-old girl from Dukinfield who sadly has a life-limiting degenerative condition called GM1. This Sunday, I will be zip-wiring for her at the same place that the right hon. Gentleman visited in north Wales recently. Can we have a debate on GM1, and can I have some tips for Sunday?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I sincerely congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what he is doing. I think all of us in this House find the greatest pride when we campaign on issues such as these for people like Florence and try to help them when they have a terrible disease. I am probably not allowed to say this, but I wish him every success in his campaign to get a treatment for GM1 and to get the appropriate support from the Department of Health and Social Care. As regards going down a zip wire, it is enormously exciting. It really is the most exhilarating thing to do. I would say to him: just lie back and enjoy it. They run it extraordinarily well and it is very safe.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Last week, I had the privilege of meeting Thomas Gill and his parents. Thomas suffered major injuries requiring significant reconstructive surgery, and he and his parents and I would like to compliment his surgeons on their skills. The injuries were the result of Thomas being hit by a car driven by a young female driver who was under the influence of drink and drugs. The sentence handed down at the magistrates court was incomprehensibly lenient: a two-year driving ban and a fine of £439. Will the Leader of the House help me and Thomas to enable the Crown Prosecution Service, which chose not to proceed with one of the charges, to understand how it has let him down so badly, and tell us whether the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will help to prevent similar occurrences?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is a deeply troubling case, and I am sorry to learn of the injuries suffered by Thomas. I wish him well with his recovery. Charging decisions are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, and sentencing in individual cases is entirely a matter for our independent courts. The sentencing framework and sentencing guidelines apply equally to all offenders. I understand that the CPS is seeking a meeting with my hon. Friend’s constituent to explain the decision making in this case. I am able to reassure my hon. Friend that there are provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill currently before Parliament—which I note is being opposed by the Opposition—that will increase the maximum penalty from 14 years imprisonment to life for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. The Bill also creates a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, so the issue is being addressed in the Bill before the House.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for confirming that we will have the Second Reading of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill on Monday 18 October. Between now and then, will the Government reflect on the fact that the United Kingdom has today been added to the Civicus Monitor watchlist? Civicus has stated:
“Civic space is in decline in the UK, with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly repeatedly targeted”.
It also states that the
“Judicial Review and Courts Bill threatens fundamental rights and democratic checks and balances which aim to hold the government accountable”.
The other countries added to the watchlist today are Afghanistan, Belarus and Nicaragua. Surely we should be better than that.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That says more about this silly organisation than it does about Her Majesty’s Government. We have a wonderful tradition of freedom of speech, and it is protected in this House under article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which has provided us with freedom of speech since the reign of William and Mary. This is fundamental to our constitution.
Peaceful protest does not mean running in front of cars and risking the lives of police officers, meaning that people who need stroke treatment may be much more seriously debilitated than they would otherwise have been. It does not mean people saying we should insulate our homes while not insulating their own homes. They are frightful old humbugs causing trouble, distress and inconvenience, and nearly causing people to die. This depth of irresponsibility does not begin to be freedom of speech or expression, and I am afraid the organisation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is clearly very silly.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Can we have a debate in Government time on the progress that has been made in improving the probation service since it was brought back into public ownership? Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to admit that privatisation was a mistake?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is important that we have an effective probation service, and I was privileged to visit Birmingham prison recently and to speak to prisoners who are keen to get back on the straight and narrow when they leave prison. They need help and support to do that, and it should be provided as effectively and efficiently as possible, which is what this Government are trying to do.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Experts in the field estimate that the energy requirements of High Speed 2 trains will be five times that of conventional rail. Given that HS2 was sold to us as a green project, and given that the level of interest in the House is such that contributions to last week’s 90-minute Westminster Hall debate were limited to two or three minutes—many hon. and right hon. Members who wished to participate, including me, were not even called—can we have an extended debate on the impact of HS2 on Government energy policy and the level of annual subsidy with which this loss-making project will have to be supported, if it is ever built? Can we have that debate before 2041, when, my whistleblower at the very top of HS2 tells me, phase 1 will actually be able to carry passengers between London and Birmingham?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thought whistleblowing was more for steam engines than for fast, high-speed trains, but never mind.
Obviously, the energy needed to run a train that is 440 yards long—that is two furlongs, which is an extraordinary length for a train—and going at 225 mph is more than the energy required to run Ivor the Engine. That has to be built into this country’s overall energy plans, but the cost of energy to operate the HS2 network has been accounted for within the project’s overall business case. This energy will be procured on the open market at the right time to start operations and achieve value for money for the taxpayer.
Once operational, HS2 will be delivering significantly lower overall carbon journeys than other modes, offering journeys at roughly half the carbon impact of intercity rail per passenger mile. The delivery into service date for phase 1 of HS2 remains 2029 to 2033, so I am interested in my hon. Friend’s whistleblower and I will, of course, pass the whistle on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Having previously called two consecutive Opposition Members, I will now call a second Conservative Member.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on special educational needs provision for young people up to the age of 25? It is crucial that we ensure young people with SEN have the support they need at school and college to maximise their life chances and job opportunities. Will he therefore join me in supporting the establishment of SEN hubs throughout the country to provide bespoke commissioning services linking health, education, care and employment support in one location?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an issue about which many in this House will be concerned. Children and young people with special educational needs should be supported to prepare for adulthood, including employment, and local authorities must include provision in their local offer. The support needs to start early and should centre on the child or young person’s hopes, interests and needs. Through the special educational needs and disability review, we are committed to improving the SEND system to improve outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs and to focus on preparing them for later life and adulthood.
In terms of a debate, I see that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), is still here and he will have heard the appeal.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I take the Leader of the House back to the far off days of his childhood, watching his favourite shows “Thunderbirds”, “Captain Scarlet”, “Joe 90” and “Fireball XL5”. As Thunderbirds Day fast approaches, will he join me in paying tribute to the late Sylvia Anderson, television and film producer, writer, voice actress and costume designer, without whom these childhood-enhancing shows would never have made it to our television screens and whose immense contribution, in common with so many iconic women in the arts, is still largely unrecognised? In the presence of Sylvia’s daughter, Dee Anderson, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on putting matters right by recognising the contribution of women to our great creative industries?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, I apologise for thinking that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is here, as he is not. That was my mistake.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) is right to recognise Sylvia Anderson and the happiness that she brought to countless children through her work, which ought to be recognised. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but I would have thought an Adjournment debate to praise her work would be very well attended and would be enjoyed by children across the land.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We need to speed up a little, in both questions and answers, if we are to get everybody in, as I would like.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I know the Leader of the House is an avid reader of the Worksop Guardian, so he will have been astounded to find out that South Yorkshire police underspent their budget by £2 million. Does he agree that the Labour police and crime commissioner has no excuse not to reopen Dinnington police station, which was closed to save £14,000 a year? Can we have a debate in Government time to ensure that happens?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend knows that locally elected police and crime commissioners are responsible for their allocated budget. I am afraid that I am rather austere when it comes to public spending, and I think it is a good thing if people underspend rather than overspend, so I might not give him the most helpful answer. I would encourage him to campaign locally with the police and crime commissioner on the important issue of keeping police stations open.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, would support upholding the law, as I hope the Leader of the House does, particularly section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I remind the House that, at the height of the pandemic, 560 employees of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency centre in Swansea contracted covid and one sadly died because they were working on site, at management’s request, despite Government advice that people should work from home. Can we have a statement on the background to the dispute at the DVLA in Swansea, not just the backlog but the robust allegations that political interference by Transport Ministers led to the industrial dispute with members of the Public and Commercial Services Union being prolonged?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is important to recognise that some people had to go into work to do their job properly, for security reasons or to ensure the integrity of systems, and the DVLA was one of those organisations. We are now getting back to work and people are going back to their offices, which is a thoroughly good thing.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can we have an early debate on the role of the Committee on Standards in delivering natural justice for those against whom complaints are made? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, in its second report, at paragraph 53, the Committee decided that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) did not accept that he had breached the rules of the House and that this was treated as an aggravating factor? That is in complete contrast to the rules of the Sentencing Council, which say that pleading guilty can be a mitigating factor but that contesting a case cannot be regarded as an aggravating factor. Does that not show that natural justice seems to have been thrown to the wind by the Committee on Standards?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important point: people must be entitled, in all circumstances, to defend themselves, and it would be unfair to penalise somebody who believed they had acted in good faith for that belief. The assumption must very often be that Members do act in good faith. That is not to say that we do not make mistakes, but to defend oneself must be a natural right of Members of Parliament.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Leader of the House may be aware that last week a High Court judge refused the Cabinet Office leave to appeal against a first-tier tribunal decision that it should release information to me that I had requested under the Freedom of Information Act concerning public opinion research in Scotland. Sadly, earlier this morning the Cabinet Office’s Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) declined to confirm that the Department would comply with that ruling. May we have a debate in Government time on why the Cabinet Office is acting as a rogue Department within government and refusing to comply both with the law of the land and with the courts?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the guidance given to Ministers is that answers given in this House should be at least as full as those given to Freedom of Information requests. So he may wish to table a written question, because that ought to have exactly the same effect and would use the procedures of this House. However, Her Majesty’s Government obey the rule of law.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Tomorrow, is the grand reopening of the Salvatorian College, a Catholic academy for boys aged 11 to 16 in Wealdstone, in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the diocese, the Department, the staff, the governors and the children on achieving this tremendous new facility? Does he agree that it is good to have first-rate buildings for an excellent faith-based education?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I congratulate the Salvatorian College on its reopening and all those involved with it? It may not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I think there are huge advantages in Catholic education and it should be widely encouraged. Having good and suitable buildings is very important; there is the great line of Churchill’s that we all know so well that I will not repeat it.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Sue is a single mum and a former nurse. She wrote to me saying,
“The 20-pound a week Universal Credit uplift was a relief…but now it’s being taken away and I don’t know what to do… I can barely exist and I am terrified.”
My inbox is filled by accounts such as that. The papers tell me that the Leader of the House has just been paid £600,000 from share dividends. I ask him for a debate, so that he and the other Conservative Members can explain how they sleep at night knowing that they are robbing people such as Sue and plunging 800,000 more into poverty.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The answer I gave earlier was that we have reduced the number of people in absolute poverty by 700,000 since 2010. An extra £8 billion was provided for the welfare system during the pandemic. Other systems are still in place: there has been the increase in the living wage, and an increase in the tax allowance. All of these have combined to make people better off. That is fundamentally important. It is the right way for the Government to be going. The £20 a week extra on universal credit was a temporary measure during the height of the pandemic, and to pay for this would cost the equivalent of 13.5p on a gallon of a petrol. These things have to be paid for and there are limited resources.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
There are several contentious development proposals in my constituency, including the redevelopment of South Ken tube station and the sale by the Mayor of London of Notting Hill police station. Does my right hon. Friend agree that residents’ voices need to be heard in deciding how their local communities develop and that they need to be at the heart of the planning process? Will he contemplate a debate on this topic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We will be bringing forward the planning Bill and publishing a response to the White Paper consultation in due course. It is important that local people have a say in how planning takes place. It is amazing how few people take part in it now, under the current system. There are opportunities for them to do so, but they are not always taken. I would say to my hon. Friend that Kensington is extremely fortunate to have her as its representative, because she is always a voice for her constituents, and for their interests and thoughts on planning, and long may that remain so.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Leader of the House was very helpful in June when he passed my request for a focus on childhood cancer research to the Department of Health and Social Care. I am sure he knows that it is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, and perhaps he will encourage hon. Members to sign my early-day motion 428 on that topic.
[That this House acknowledges that September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month; notes that blood cancers are the most common cancers affecting children and young people and that acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), a type of leukaemia where cancerous cells build up in the bone marrow, is the most common cancer diagnosed in children, further notes that ALL is an acute leukaemia, which means it develops quickly and needs treatment straight away; recognises there are around 790 diagnoses of ALL in the UK each year, including over 500 in people aged under 25; welcomes signs that improvements in outcomes for children and young people with ALL have been driven by improvements in treatment related to clinical trials, including the use of CAR-T therapy, which has been effective in curing some patients with advanced cancers where other treatments have failed; expresses its appreciation for the work of groups such as the Teenage Cancer Trust and Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group who are working to provide and improve the care and treatment of young people with ALL, supporting them and their families through the aftermath of a diagnosis and the extended period of treatment, which may last for two or more years; and calls on the Government to provide additional funding and support for research into promising treatments, such as CAR-T therapy, and effective means of recognising the signs and symptoms of ALL and other childhood cancers to ensure early diagnosis, which plays such an important role in ensuring survival from these distressing diseases.]
I think there is a bit of a logjam in correspondence, so I wonder whether he would also help me by giving his colleagues a nudge and by facilitating a debate on childhood cancer research in Government time. These children and families really need to know that this research is an absolute priority, one that the Government understand.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, of course I will provide a nudge if any specific correspondence is outstanding. I think it would break all possible convention if a Minister encouraged Members to sign an early-day motion, but may I say that I think the hon. Lady’s early-day motion sounds extremely worthy, if that is a good enough hint for her? As for a debate on childhood cancer research and awareness, I think that is very important, but I suggest it is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Knife crime is a problem in Northamptonshire and it is not being helped by lenient sentencing. Ministry of Justice data show that last year in Northamptonshire there were 39 cases where an offender was convicted or cautioned for a second time or more over the possession of a knife or offensive weapon. In 20 cases the culprit was given an immediate jail sentence, but in 15 cases the repeat offender was not sent straight to prison. The Leader of the House will know that the law says that adults already convicted of the crime should face a minimum six-month jail term under the “two strikes and you are out” system brought in six years ago. Across the country, one third of repeat knife possession cases did not result in an immediate jail sentence. May we have an urgent statement from the MOJ about the courts issuing the sentences that the law demands?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The punishment must fit the crime, and the Government are taking urgent action to tackle knife crime and keep people safe, in addition to hiring 20,000 additional police officers. We are spending £40 million this financial year to tackle drugs supply and county lines, building on the successful results of our £25 million county lines programme, and £130.5 million to tackle serious violence and homicide this financial year, including funding for targeted police interventions and the introduction of serious violence reduction orders, which will make it easier for officers to stop and search those convicted of a knife crime. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General can apply for unduly lenient sentences to be increased. So there are things in place, but it is fundamental to our constitution that Parliament passes the law, which the judges must then implement as we have passed it.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I was really pleased that in the Queen’s Speech the Government announced that they were going to make the armed forces covenant statutory and that they were going to introduce a covenant for the police as well. Between 9 March 2020 and 7 May 2021, 1,561 NHS and social care workers died from covid-19, on the frontline of the pandemic. May we have a debate, in Government time, about why we need to have a covenant for the NHS and social care workers, to ensure that they are protected just as we want to make sure that the armed forces and the police are protected?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Lady always raises points of great importance in this House, and the work done by people on the frontline during covid was of fundamental importance. I think that this is initially a subject for a Backbench Business debate to raise this issue and whether covenants may be appropriate in other areas beyond the armed forces and the police, but I will certainly take it up with the Department concerned.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Since a fire at the Bilsdale mast on 13 August, many of my constituents have been left without access to terrestrial TV services. Many of my constituents have contacted me about this issue and especially about the impact it has had on elderly loved ones who rely on these services for company. With no concrete date by which these services will be restored, will my right hon .Friend find time for a debate on the Bilsdale mast fire and the impact it has had on communities, such as mine in the north-east?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) raised with me last week. I understand that my hon. Friends attended a meeting with the Minister responsible at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Arqiva, which is responsible for the mast. The point that my hon. Friend made is spot on: terrestrial television channels such as ITV are important in the lives of many people, especially the elderly and vulnerable, who are often alone for extended periods and find such channels an important form of comfort and company. As I understand it, the Bilsdale mast is in a particularly remote location, which has provided certain challenges, but I hear that a temporary mast may be constructed before 8 October, so I think some good news is in the pipeline.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Today is Loss and Damage Awareness Day. For COP26 to be counted as a success, rich nations must commit to a fund of at least $100 billion for developing countries to adapt to the climate crisis. The Government have announced that they will contribute $2.3 billion to the fund—except that money is to be taken from the slashed foreign aid budget. Is robbing Peter to pay Paul the way that the UK, as the host of COP26, should lead by example? Will the Leader of the House ask the COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) to come to the Chamber to explain the position?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That $2.3 billion is not an amount of money to be sniffed at. There is a limited budget for funds, so it is right that that money comes from the overseas development budget because that is what it is.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has committed to four targets for COP26 in Glasgow this year: first, to secure global net zero by mid-century and keep the 2.7 °F target within reach; secondly, to adapt to protect communities and natural habitats; thirdly, to mobilise finance—developed countries must make good on their promise to mobilise at least $100 billion in climate finance by 2020; and fourthly, to work together to deliver and finalise the Paris rulebook, which comprises the detailed rules that make the Paris agreement operational, and accelerate action to tackle the climate crisis through collaboration among Governments, businesses and civil society. The Government’s policy is very much in line with what the hon. Lady asks for.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I have previously raised in the House my concerns and those of my constituents about the decision by Warrington Borough Council to borrow £1.6 billion to invest in business around the UK. One of those businesses is a domestic energy supplier, Together Energy. The total exposure for taxpayers in Warrington is £41 million, and we are seeing what is happening in the energy sector. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on the decisions that councils are taking, so that we can have absolutely clear transparency? Does he agree that action of this type is absolutely irresponsible?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We must have shorter questions.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a point of concern. When I served on the Treasury Committee some years ago, I tried to encourage its then Chairman, my noble Friend Lord Tyrie, to hold an inquiry into the borrowing by councils of money for speculative investments, which is obviously a risk. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that on 28 July the Government published plans to strengthen the capital framework to prevent councils from taking on excessive risk. That must be the right thing to do.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Two weeks ago today, I attended Mr Speaker’s state apartments to meet members of the Climate Assembly who a year ago produced an excellent report on climate change and the actions we need to take. The assembly was a great example of how to bring people together to discuss such important issues. The Government have said that they plan to set out their wider public engagement strategy “shortly”, but the clock is ticking and time is running out, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on the Government’s strategy? I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling a general debate on the issue when we return after the recess.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady has, in a way, answered her own question, because there will be a debate on this important issue. I have just set out the four targets for COP26, and there will be questions to the President-elect of COP26 on 20 October, shortly after the House has returned from recess.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
On Monday, an unauthorised Travellers’ camp was set up on Torr Top car park in the centre of New Mills, blocking the car park, including the disabled bays, for all other users. This has caused concern, particularly among local businesses on the high street that are worried about the impact of the loss of the car park on their customers and footfall. May we have a debate on the laws relating to trespass and look at whether we need to give the police more powers so that they can take action on such cases in future?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities in a way that facilitates their traditional nomadic way of life. However, we are equally clear that we will not tolerate law-breaking and are determined to ensure that police have the powers they need to support and serve their communities. I will take up my hon. Friend’s concerns with the Home Secretary, because it is important that the law should apply equally to all.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
In a debate yesterday, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said as an aside that Northern Ireland would no longer be subject to the EU state aid regime and that changes to the Northern Ireland protocol had been sought to ensure that would happen. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement on proposed changes to the Northern Ireland protocol and the process that the Government will undertake to attempt to make them?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right to raise the Northern Ireland protocol, which is a matter of discussion between Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union. It is clearly not working properly at the moment, and we cannot allow our country to be divided by the actions of the European Union and their interpretation of the agreement that we came to. Last week, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Frost made a statement to their lordships that was reported in this House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, so these things are being brought to the attention of the House and will, I am sure, be brought to the House’s attention in future.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will have seen the chaos caused on the M25 this week by Insulate Britain. I am pleased that a number of protesters have been arrested and that an injunction has been served. My concern is that they might simply go to another strategically important road somewhere else in the country. Will my right hon. Friend find Government time for us to debate how the law may need to change so that we can instantly and robustly deal with and move on these troublemakers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. A lot of these people are being exposed as the most ridiculous humbugs. I think it is The Sun that has discovered that they pretend to want insulation but do not insulate not only the houses that they live in but the houses that they let out to other people. One of them stormed off some television programme in a great huff when it was revealed that he was a frightful old humbug. We should know these people for what they are: silly, dangerous and hippie-crites.
I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is under consideration in the Lords, contains proportionate measures to enable the police to deal better with disruptive protests. By putting public nuisance on a statutory footing, as recommended by the independent Law Commission, it will increase the powers available to the police for dealing with protests of that sort. Proper, peaceful protest and freedom of speech are fundamental, but causing risk to life and liberty is not.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the York Medical Group, which enabled me to spend last Friday with the group to see the capacity challenges that our GPs face. On our return from recess, may we have a statement on the crisis faced by primary care and its inability to cope with the demand it has to deal with?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, we should have a clear statement that people ought to be able to get face-to-face appointments. This is fundamental and really important. I have had complaints from my own constituents, one of whose cases was reported in detail in The Telegraph because they almost died because of the inability to get a face-to-face appointment. Another of my constituents was told off and told to go to A&E instead of going to her GP. It is not satisfactory. GP appointments need to go back to being face-to-face and the Government have been clear on that. I urge GPs to reopen their surgeries and see people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Leader of the House consider providing time for a debate on the need to uplift the child-benefit threshold to allow single-parent working families to ask for the increase needed to address inflation? Gas prices in Northern Ireland have jumped by 30% due to the Northern Ireland protocol, among other issues, and further rises are upcoming. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is right and proper for the House to consider an uplift to the threshold in line with inflation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a rare occasion when I do not see eye-to-eye with the hon. Gentleman. As always, I am grateful for his diligent attendance in the House and representation of his constituents. The Government’s approach charges the high-income child benefit charge on those who are on higher incomes, while leaving the majority of child-benefit claimants unaffected. This ensures that everyone makes a fair contribution while those with the lowest incomes continue to be supported. The Government are committed to managing the public finances in a disciplined and responsible way by targeting support where it is most needed. The £50,000 threshold affects only a small minority of those with comparatively high incomes. The Government believe that the current threshold for the high-income child benefit charge remains the best option. As always, it is of course about a balance, in these difficult financial times, between the support the Government can provide with taxpayers’ money and the need to ensure that we live within our means.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I am very concerned about a British citizen, Michael Brian Smith, who continues to be detained in the United Arab Emirates despite having received a pardon and having subsequently completed his original sentence, particularly as his health is deteriorating as a result of AIDS and kidney cancer. May I ask that the UK Government do all they can, including making further urgent representations to the relevant UAE authorities, to help secure his release soon on humanitarian grounds? I fear that time is running out for Mr Smith and it would be tragic if he were to die in prison in the UAE. Can we have a debate more widely in Government time on human rights in the UAE?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I cannot promise the debate, though I may guide the hon. Lady towards an Adjournment debate in relation to Mr Smith. I will take up the case that she has brought to my attention with the Foreign Office immediately after this session.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Leader of the House for the Business statement.
We come now to the Backbench Business debates, the first of which is on Baby Loss Awareness Week. As colleagues will see, the two debates are well subscribed. I hope that they will bear that in mind when considering how long they will speak for.
Backbench Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baby Loss Awareness Week
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of Baby Loss Awareness Week.
Ahead of Baby Loss Awareness Week 2021, which falls in recess this year, between 9 and 15 October, it was important to bring this debate to the House to highlight the fantastic strides that are being made in this area, to underline where more needs to be achieved, and for Members to reflect not only on their own personal experiences, but on those of our constituents.
Considering that one in 14 babies dies before, during or soon after birth, Baby Loss Awareness Week continues to be an essential focal point for bereaved families. I thank hon. and right hon. Members across the House—those who are here today and those who are unable to be here—for their solid and unwavering support for this most difficult of issues. I am grateful to those who have spared the time to speak and I pay particular thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling this consideration to return to the Chamber, illustrating to bereaved families across the country how important their experiences are to representatives in this place.
On the run-up to this debate, I have been struck by the number of colleagues from all parts of the House who have spoken to me privately about their losses. Many are still simply unable to speak in public about their own experience, as it is still too difficult, even after many years.
As co-chair of the all-party group on baby loss, I have received wonderful support from: my co-chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who has utilised his knowledge and expertise to advance the cause; the many bereavement charities; and Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), who, as Minister, totally comprehended the issues and championed much progress in this area.
In that vein, I warmly welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), to her place and look forward to continuing the excellent work already begun. In addition, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) would have been here to speak had he not been promoted to the Health and Social Care Front-Bench team. He was marshalling the Balsall Common Fun Run and, on his behalf, I pay tribute to the Lily Mae Foundation for organising nearly 1,000 runners.
Last year was my first such experience in this role. I told the story of my loss—the diagnosis of severe spina bifida at the 20-week scan, and the choice, which is actually no choice at all, to terminate. I talked about the termination itself, the delivery, the cuddles and the kisses for my tiny daughter, Lily, and, finally, letting her go—you never really let them go, though, do you? I talked about how difficult it was to leave the hospital without my baby, about how it physically aches, and about how a part of my heart and soul had been left behind.
I wish to put on record my thanks again to the wonderful bereavement midwifery team at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro. The kindness and compassion that they showed us in our darkest hours will never be forgotten. My work in this place, on this very subject, has given me a focus to channel my energy, but I will not lie that it is difficult at times. My grieving is now done quietly at home in stolen moments with her photograph—
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an amazing achievement for her to bring this debate today and that she will get cross-party support from all of us?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
If the hon. Lady wants to take a break, we can take another speaker and come back to her if that is what she would like.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your words and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for intervening.
Today, I wish to extend my sincere condolences to anyone who has experienced the loss of a baby. To anyone to whom this has happened, despite what they may see, I say that the sun will shine again. It does not feel like it now, but one day it just does. For me, the dark clouds of shock, anger, guilt and dreadful, dreadful sadness do eventually dissipate—
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend for her courage in coming to this place to share her views. I know that she is speaking for so many people who have such a tough time, whether through miscarriage or stillbirth. This was her terrible experience of a child who was not going to make it, but all of us here have her back. We all agree with her, and there are so many people here who would like nothing more than to see much more done in that critical period of maternity. All our thanks go to her for her bravery today.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention and kind words.
I entered Parliament and suddenly had the opportunity to speak with many people who had experienced the loss of a baby. Unlike me, many have no idea why their baby had died. As well as prevention of baby loss, which I will come to later, my focus in this place is on the care for bereaved families. The all-party group was instrumental in the creation of the Government-backed national bereavement care pathway, which seeks to improve the quality and consistency of bereavement care received by parents in NHS trusts in England after pregnancy or baby loss.
There are different experiences from place to place. While the Department of Health and Social Care strongly urges the trusts to take part in the pathway, mandating it and its nine standards would lead to greater time, funding and resources being made available to healthcare professionals to deliver this. Poor bereavement care, from the moment of diagnosis and the breaking of bad news, exacerbates the profound pain felt by parents. Although approaches to bereavement care in the UK have greatly improved in recent years, inconsistency still remains, often resulting in a postcode lottery for parents.
As of last month, all NHS trusts in England have either expressed interest in, or formally committed to, implementing the pathway within their hospitals and their services. Trusts require additional funding, however, to fully implement the standards, especially to ensure that every hospital has an appropriate bereavement suite, specialist staff and training.
As I mentioned earlier, the care that we received in Cornwall on the weekend that we lost Lily was second to none. However, while I was able to access bereavement counselling through my work, my husband has never been offered anything. It is my opinion that supporting partners and the wider family are not being looked after in the way that we would hope. Because the mother births the child, dads and supporting partners often feel the need to be “strong”—to be there for them. People often ask how mum is, but may not ask how dad is. That is not healthy. What about the wider family? Grandparents are grieving for their lost grandchild and wondering how best to support. Siblings are wondering what has happened.
My daughter was only four when we lost Lily. She knew I was pregnant and we tried to explain what had happened in an age-appropriate way. She seemed to accept this as children do and did not mention it again—until a couple of weeks ago. Completely out of the blue and without warning, she said, “Mummy, when I was four, you were going to have a baby but then didn’t.” Crikey! Wham! What do you do? On the hoof, I needed to explain calmly to my now almost seven-year-old what had happened. I do not know whether I explained it in the right way, but she knows now that, if there are questions, we are always here. I do not want it to be a spectre on her childhood to wonder what happened to her mystery sister. It reminded me that a child’s mind can often make up what they do not know, and we need to make sure that siblings and the wider bereaved family are cared for long after the event.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for her bravery in speaking about such a personal and intimate matter. She speaks about partners and the wider family. There has never been a more important point about ensuring that both affected parents are able to take leave. Does she support my Miscarriage Leave Bill, which will ensure that both parents can take paid leave during this traumatic time?
Cherilyn Mackrory
The hon. Member and I have spoken about this issue. Since that conversation, I have taken her Bill to the Employment Minister, so I hope that we will hear more about it later in the year.
Despite our making good progress, more needs to be done if the Government’s ambition to halve baby deaths by 2025 is to be met. If the current trajectory of reducing stillbirths is maintained, England may be off meeting that 2025 ambition. The Health and Social Care Committee report noted:
“The improvements in rates of stillbirths and neonatal deaths are good but are not shared equally among all women and babies. Babies from minority ethnic or socioeconomically deprived backgrounds continue to be at significantly greater risk of perinatal death than their white or less deprived peers.”
Babies should not be at higher risk simply because of their parents’ postcode, ethnicity or income. I will let my APPG co-chair and Chair of the Select Committee speak to the findings of the report. However, it appears that health inequalities in maternity outcomes have been known about for more than 70 years, yet there are still no evidence-based interventions taking place to reduce the risks.
Continuity of carer could significantly improve outcomes for women from ethnic minorities and those living in deprived areas. Way back in 2010, the Marmot review proposed a strategy to address the social determinants of health through six policy objectives, with the highest priority objective being to give every child the best start in life. Marmot noted that in utero environments affect adult health. Maternal health—including stress, diet, drug and alcohol abuse, and tobacco use during pregnancy—has a significant influence on foetal and early brain development. Midwives have a key role in promoting public health. Individual needs and concerns can be better addressed when midwives know the woman and her family, and continuity of carer is a key enabler of that. This public health work is of most benefit to vulnerable and at-risk families, who may require more time and tailored resources. Additional work is required to address the needs of these groups, because they are simply more at risk.
As well as improving clinical outcomes for mothers and babies, continuity of carer models can also result in cost savings compared with traditional models of care, because there are fewer premature babies, so fewer neonatal cot days are required; the incremental cost per pre-term child surviving to 18 years compared with a term survivor is estimated at nearly £23,000, and most of the additional costs are likely to occur in the early years of a child’s life; there are fewer obstetric interventions, with women 10% less likely to have an instrumental birth; and there are fewer epidurals and so on.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member share a concern that has been raised with me by midwives—that the term “continuity of carer” has been misinterpreted by some trusts, with multiple midwives seeing people in their early appointments to increase the chance that that person will see the same midwife in hospital?
Cherilyn Mackrory
Although it would be fantastic to have just one midwife, continuity of carer is actually more likely to mean two midwives or a very small team of midwives. The idea is that the patient can trust that small team, open up to them more and work with them for their own health and the health of their baby.
A continuity of carer model can assist with outside issues affecting a pregnancy, including by picking up on signs of domestic abuse. Sands, the bereavement charity, is calling for an additional Government-funded confidential inquiry into tackling inequalities in this area. Confidential inquiries have been crucial in driving down maternal and perinatal death rates in some groups. These in-depth reviews of all case notes conclude within a finite period and with solid recommendations. Previous confidential inquiries—for example, into term stillbirths and deaths in labour—have transformed our understanding of the changes needed to make care safer, and have contributed significantly to reducing deaths in some groups.
The additional risks faced by women from black and minority ethnic groups have been exacerbated by covid, and this highlights the urgent need to improve equity in maternity. The UK Obstetric Surveillance System study found that more than half of pregnant women admitted to hospital during the pandemic with a covid infection in pregnancy were from an ethnic background.
In June 2020, the chief midwifery officer, Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, wrote to all NHS midwifery services highlighting the impact of covid-19, and the additional risks faced by women and babies from ethnic minorities. The letter called on the services to take four specific actions to minimise this additional risk: increase support of at-risk pregnant women, including by ensuring that clinicians have a lower threshold to review, admit and consider women from ethnic backgrounds; reach out and reassure women from ethnic backgrounds, with tailored communications; ensure that hospitals discuss vitamin supplements and nutrition in pregnancy, particularly vitamin D; and ensure that all providers record on maternity information systems the ethnicity of every woman, as well as other risk factors, such as living in a deprived postcode area, co-morbidities and so on.
The national maternity review’s 2016 report “Better Births” highlighted the increased risk of twins and multiple births. Tamba—now known as the Twins Trust—and the National Childbirth Trust told the report that there needs to be greater recognition of high-risk groups, such as those who have multiple births. Some 10% to 15% of such babies have an unexpected admission to a neonatal unit. The Multiple Births Foundation has said that risks and complications associated with multiple births are still poorly understood by the public and are underestimated by professionals. Multiple births have gone up and the mortality rate is higher among people who have those pregnancies. Again, more research is needed to understand better the risks posed by multiple births. Owing to the increase in fertility treatment and the increased maternal age, twins and multiple births are on the increase, so we must do better to ensure better outcomes.
I again thank colleagues who are here today, and those who have worked so hard in this sector to ensure that babies and their families have the very best outcomes. There is a lot of work still to do. I look forward to my engagement with the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who I know will share our passion and use her vast experience to advance these causes.
We approach this year’s Baby Loss Awareness Week with events being held around the country and reflection in our hearts. The annual wave of light gives those of us who have suffered a loss the opportunity to light a candle in memory of our babies at the same time. It is a powerful signal, with thousands of people sharing messages and photos of their candles, showing just how many families are suffering with their own grief. This issue matters to every single Member of Parliament; it affects us all.
Let us use this opportunity to speak openly about our children, and to ensure that fewer and fewer families have to suffer this experience in the future. I am proud to lead a debate in this place that shows Parliament and parliamentarians at their very best. This important issue rises above party divisions, and, as we have seen today, the compassion of Members towards one another shines through.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I did not expect to be called to speak so early in the debate; thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I again thank my friend, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for her bravery and for sharing her experience on the Floor of the House. It matters to the people at home to know that we politicians are also human beings, and that we also feel grief and loss.
Whether a pregnancy was planned or a surprise, that moment of seeing two lines on a pregnancy test stick will stay with many parents for a lifetime. Equally, for many who are trying to conceive, a faint one line or “not pregnant” will stay with them also, each and every time they receive it. Pregnancy can be a joyous, happy celebration for many. Perhaps that is why we often choose not to speak of the sadness and heartbreak when a pregnancy loss happens. Tragically, one in four pregnancies will end in miscarriage. The experience of miscarriage, along with the grief and loss associated with the miscarriage or stillbirth, will resonate for one too many parents. Every pregnancy loss is different, and there is no right or wrong way to feel about it. Sadly, many patients feel stigma. They feel a sense of shame or a failure that they could not conceive or, even when they can, that the pregnancy does not result in a happy birth.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech that resonates with so many of us who have suffered baby loss. Will she commend, with me, the campaign run by my constituent Louise Caldwell? She is campaigning for a dedicated miscarriage unit after having to give birth to her child who was sadly lost, not in a miscarriage way, and suffering real compounded trauma from having to be in the maternity wing of the hospital while other parents were celebrating and she was bereaved and her whole family were devastated? Will she also congratulate the Scottish Government on taking forward an initiative to have dedicated miscarriage wings?
Angela Crawley
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very valid point. I commend Louise for her bravery and for making sure that the Scottish Government will adopt a new policy to prevent people in future from having to undergo that experience of happiness in among the sadness at that very tragic moment.
Many partners will blame themselves and often feel helpless in this situation. Thanks to the work of my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), only last year bereavement legislation was introduced that entitles parents who lose a baby after 24 weeks to two weeks’ paid bereavement leave. However, there is currently no provision in place for parents who lose a baby before 24 weeks. Too many parents—mothers, fathers, partners and any parents who are facing this tragic incident—are forced to take sick leave or unpaid leave. Understandably, many do not wish to disclose these private and intimate details to their employer, especially in the early stages of pregnancy.
Grief is not an illness. In and of itself, it is a process that parents must go through. There is simply no timeline for grief. Every parent, regardless of whether the loss happens after 24 weeks or before, should be given the time to grieve that loss without a financial penalty. That is why I have introduced a private Member’s Bill that would allow parents who experience a miscarriage before 24 weeks to seek a minimum of three days’ paid leave. Some companies have already gone further, offering leave for seven to 14 days—an example that I hope many more employers will replicate and that I absolutely welcome. This compassion and recognition of the loss and the grief that comes with a miscarriage, whether in policy or in statute, would allow parents to approach their employer and seek a legal right to paid leave.
This traumatic life event will inevitably affect both parents differently. There is a cost associated with such a loss, as many parents opt to take unpaid or sick leave, so there is already a financial penalty for people up and down the country. Often an employer has no idea what the nature of their employee’s sickness is, or the ramifications for their business. Therefore, having a policy on this issue, or the right to take paid leave in statute, should not add any further burden to them. Rather, it would allow the conversation to take place where both employee and employer can understand the situation and hopefully seek to support their employee in the best way that they can. Many parents have spoken of feeling isolated and alone, without the opportunity to share their loss with colleagues for fear of the shame and stigma that have been associated with such a loss. Introducing a minimum of three days’ paid leave would not only give parents a chance to grieve and process their loss but show everyone that miscarriage is no one’s fault and help to break that stigma.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
It really is an honour to follow two such extremely powerful and persuasive speeches. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for her courage in bringing Lily’s story to this House. It is actually a rather wonderful thing that she is giving such meaning to Lily’s life by talking about what happened so openly. The grief that she expressed so eloquently is shared by 1,700 families in our country every single year, so she is speaking for a lot of families up and down the country. Her words will resonate, so I thank her. It was not easy to do. But like many families who are bereaved, she has taken the decision to relive that grief over and over again to try to stop that tragedy being repeated, and I think we all salute her courage in doing so.
My hon. Friend said something that resonated particularly with me when she talked about the grief of fathers. I cannot claim to have experienced anything like the grief that she and her husband have experienced, but my father did, because my sister Sarah died when she was just six months old. I was there at the time. I was only two so I had no memory of it. During my father’s entire life—he died eight years ago—my mother used to tell us never to mention Sarah because he found it so hard. That reflects the comment of the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) that there is no timeline for grief.
Angela Crawley
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe, as I do, that fathers, like mothers and like any parent, have the right to have a grieving process and should have the right to paid leave in order to do so?
Jeremy Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me a moment to recover. She makes a very powerful argument. Without committing to supporting her proposal, I would hope that all employers would listen to her speech and offer that leave voluntarily on compassionate grounds, because that is the responsible and kind thing to do.
I want, in my brief comments, to talk about another group of people less often talked about who also feel this grief—the doctors, nurses and midwives responsible for a child’s care. Some people have used the phrase “second victim” to describe the agonising sadness people feel when they are responsible for a child’s care and that child dies. When I was Health Secretary, many times I asked people working in hospitals what the biggest tragedy and professional shock they had ever had was, and they would often say that it related to the death of a child. Even more acute is when that death was caused by an error. Those doctors, nurses, midwives and frontline professionals, who go into their profession with the highest and noblest of motives, have to live with the fact that perhaps because of an ordinary human mistake—the kind of mistake that all of us can make—something really terrible happened.
We as politicians, and those in nearly every other profession, make mistakes the whole time—a media appearance goes wrong, a speech goes down badly, we lose an election, or whatever it is—but the consequence is not someone dying. Frontline health professionals have the courage to go into a profession where they are taking that risk every day. When those tragedies happen, those frontline professionals want nothing more than to be completely open, transparent and honest about what happened so that we can learn from the mistake and put in place processes and systems so that it never happens again. But, in truth, we make it practically impossible for them to do that. They are terrified about losing their job, about the Care Quality Commission, about being struck off the medical or nursing register, about the reputation of their unit, about the reputation of their hospital, and about lawyers, who get involved very quickly.
When I was Health Secretary—I do not think this has changed even now—every week I signed off a multimillion-pound payment to a family whose child was disabled for life because of medical error that the NHS accepted. Most weeks it happened twice. Overall, the cost of that compensation for medical error in the NHS is £2.4 billion a year. Just under half of that relates to maternity. We have got to the obscene situation where we pay more in compensation to families when something has gone wrong than on the entire cost of every doctor and every nurse working in maternity units up and down the country. Why is that? It is because of a simple problem that the Health and Social Care Committee—I am delighted to see members of the Committee in their places on both sides of the House—is urgently asking the Government to address.
If, because of a mistake, a child is born disabled, the parents quite understandably want financial support to deal with the unexpected costs that the family will face for the whole of that child’s life. However, under the law, the only way to get that compensation is if a court agrees that there was clinical negligence. Quite understandably, parents will fight to get that compensation and, also understandably, the doctors, nurses and midwives become defensive if they are accused of clinical negligence. It does not have to be that way. We need a system where people are entitled to compensation as soon as it is accepted that a mistake was made without the necessity to prove clinical negligence.
The country with the highest safety standards and the lowest number of baby deaths in Europe is Sweden, which has about half our level of baby deaths. In Sweden, compensation is given more quickly just on the basis of a mistake being made, with the result not that they pay more but that they pay massively less, because they have half the number of tragedies that we have. Surely those of us who are passionate about patient safety will support that, and those who are—as we all are—worried about baby deaths will support that. Even people in the Treasury should understand that the way to reduce the obscene compensation bill is to make it easier for families in those terrible situations to claim compensation. If we had the same maternity safety levels as Sweden, 1,000 more babies would survive every single year. Just think of the heartache and the transformation in the lives of families up and down the country were we to do that.
I turn briefly to the other recommendations in the Select Committee’s report, published in July. One of the most important recommendations relates to staffing. When it comes to medical error, if there are not enough staff on a ward, the likelihood of mistakes will self-evidently be higher. Eight out of 10 midwives say that there are not enough midwives on their shifts, and Health Education England—the Government’s own body—says that there is a shortage of just over 1,900 midwives across the system. NHS Providers thinks that there is a shortage of about 500 doctors in maternity units and the Royal College of Anaesthetists says that there is a shortage across the system of about 1,000 anaesthetists. The cost of putting that right is between £200 million and £350 million a year. That is a significant amount. The Government deserve credit for already agreeing to put in £95 million a year, but that additional cost is as nothing compared to the £2.4 billion that we are paying in compensation every year. I hope that the Government will agree to put right that staffing shortfall. They have said this week that they are considering that.
Training is another vital issue. It is so important for doctors, nurses and midwives to have the time to learn from things that go wrong and to improve systems, but they can do that only if there is protected time for training in their busy schedules. I commend Baby Lifeline for the fantastic, proven training that it does, which has saved many lives. It is led by the inspirational Judy Ledger, who was inspired to do what she does by her tragedies. The report also talks about more screening and health inequalities, both of which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth.
I finish with two brief points. First, it would be wrong to say that this is an NHS problem. It is a tragedy that happens in all countries all over the world, and this year the World Health Organisation has made maternal and newborn loss the theme of World Patient Safety Day. The WHO says that, every day across the world, 7,000 babies die and the majority of those deaths are preventable.
Finally, we should remember the tremendous progress that has been made. In the last decade, the number of neonatal deaths is down by 25% and the number of stillbirths is down 30%. I commend Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent and Matthew Jolly in NHS England, who are leading the maternity safety transformation programme, and the many doctors, nurses and midwives who are supporting them. I also commend charities such as Sands and the Lullaby Trust as well as many others. Most of all, I commend the families who have campaigned through thick and thin, including James Titcombe, remembering his son Joshua; Derek Richford, remembering his grandson Harry; Carl Hendrickson, remembering his son Chester and his wife Nittaya; and Richard Stanton and Rhiannon Davies, remembering their daughter Kate. There are many others. Five babies die every single day. This is our moment to put it right.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in the debate and to follow the incredibly moving and personal contributions of so many hon. Members. I thank in particular the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for her bravery and strength. By speaking out and helping to remove the stigma around these conversations, she will have helped thousands of families in all our constituencies. That is Lily’s legacy.
I have previously spoken in this place about the loss that I felt not having a child because of infertility. There was the pain that I felt whenever I saw a woman pushing a pram, the guilt of jealousy at every celebratory pregnancy announcement on social media, and my declining every baby shower invite I received. There was the shame of knowing that my body had failed me, but I also know how incredibly privileged I am because I did get my happy ending.
My husband and I always knew that the road to pregnancy would be difficult. After a miracle round of privately funded IVF—we were denied NHS funding because I was a stepmum—we were delighted to be pregnant with our first child. I was, hand on heart, absolutely ecstatic about the prospect of motherhood. I always knew that I was desperate to be a mother and, despite our difficulties, I loved every moment of being pregnant. However, as is often the case, life was more than ready to cause chaos.
When my son arrived two weeks early after an emergency caesarean, he stopped breathing. My beautiful child, my longed-for child, was whisked away to a neonatal intensive care unit where he spent two weeks fighting for survival while my husband and I were utterly beside ourselves with anxiety. Both of us were completely broken at the thought of losing our little one. I know that feeling is shared by so many parents across the country. Indeed, it is a common interest shared by members of the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies, of which I am a proud vice-chair. I encourage colleagues speaking in the debate to sign up. We are a small group led by my friend the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), with a focused interest in how to support parents of babies who pass away or who are born premature or sick.
With that in mind, I must thank the many charities who support families such as ours who have been campaigning to change things for the better for many years. Bliss and the Baby Loss Awareness Week Alliance are just two of the fantastic groups doing brilliant work. I am grateful for their support in preparing for the debate.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s speech. Will she join me in congratulating baby loss charity Forever Stars, based in Nottinghamshire, which successfully fundraised to provide improved facilities to support bereaved parents at both Nottingham’s hospitals, supports families with emotional support and practical advice and information, and this summer opened a remembrance garden at Highfields park?
Alex Davies-Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend’s local charity on its fantastic work.
Research from Bliss suggests that every year more than 100,000 babies in this country are born needing neonatal care. Many of them will be like mine and will spend many weeks—even months—in neonatal care. As we all know, some will sadly never go home at all. Shockingly, the statistics are particularly bad for women who live in deprived areas: such cases have an 80% higher risk of stillbirth and neonatal death compared with women living in the least deprived areas. That is a devastating figure, made worse by not having significantly reduced between 2016 and 2018. We should be making progress, but instead, parents are still faced with little support when going through what can only be described as one of the most difficult experiences that a human can ever face.
Of course, we all recognise that, sadly, the coronavirus pandemic has only made this situation even bleaker for bereaved parents. Neonatal units across the country have been impacted, and pandemic restrictions that see parents and babies even more separated than usual are still in place, sadly, in many units. Indeed, Bliss’s recent report from May this year showed that only 30% of NHS trusts that took part in its study were allowing full access for both parents to ensure they could be with their baby together whenever they wanted, sometimes in the final moments of their short lives. The picture has slightly improved since then, in that only about 10% of neonatal units now do not offer parents full access. But some parents are still routinely locked out of their baby’s care, and for those who do not make it, the current system is utterly failing them.
I would like to say that the situation is better for those whose babies do survive, but, sadly, that is not the case either. When my own child was fighting for his life, I was still recovering from an emergency C-section, and I really had to rely on my husband in every way possible. This was only possible because my husband had a flexible employer, who allowed him to pool his annual leave to secure more paid time off work. It should not be this way. While I was pleased to see the Government recently announce plans to introduce neonatal leave that will cover up to 12 weeks when a baby is receiving neonatal care, this policy simply does not go far enough. The changes are unlikely to come into force until 2023 at the earliest, leaving about 300,000 families with babies who will be spending time in neonatal care alone in the next three years forgotten about once again.
I will say, however, that I raise these points not to be political—I know that is a rarity in this place—but instead because these barriers are ones that really do impact people across the country. We are all here today to raise awareness of baby loss, and awareness is important, but what is more important is action. While I recognise that health is an issue devolved to our Welsh Labour Government, it is fair to say that the UK Government need to lead the way in introducing a statutory leave entitlement for those impacted by premature births, infant loss and infertility.
To conclude, I urge the Minister to work with her colleagues across Government Departments and the devolved nations to take bold action to support future generations and tomorrow’s parents. I look forward to hearing from her an update on what steps the Government are taking to support parents across the UK who experience the unimaginable loss of losing their baby.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I thank my dear friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for having the bravery we have seen here today, but also for how, throughout her time in this place, she has fought and campaigned very bravely for those who have experienced the loss that she has experienced. I think we see this place at its very best when we come together, put politics aside and discuss the issues that are so important and affect so many thousands of families across our country. I also pay tribute to the former Minister for patient safety, suicide prevention and mental health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), who has certainly put campaigning for women’s health at the front of her Government’s priorities.
I, too, have experienced baby loss, and I remember it as if it was yesterday. It was my first pregnancy with my husband and, sadly, at eight weeks it did not continue. It is something that stays with me even today; this is the first time I have actually spoken about it publicly. However, I was very fortunate in that, within five months, I was pregnant again and I had my rainbow baby. Until Mrs Johnson, the Prime Minister’s wife, used that term I had never heard of a rainbow baby, but it is a fantastic term because it is about the positiveness that can come after the dreadful experience of losing a baby. My rainbow baby is now 17 years of age, in her last year of school and about to begin her life adventure.
It was not until I had my miscarriage that I realised that one in four pregnancies can be lost in this country, usually early—before 12 weeks. More than this, estimates from St Mary’s Hospital in Paddington in my constituency suggest that there are about a quarter of a million miscarriages every year in the UK, and about 11,000 emergency admissions for ectopic pregnancies, which always, sadly, result in pregnancy loss.
I think the theme of wellbeing for the forthcoming Baby Loss Awareness Week this year is so important. On this, I am very proud to highlight the work of the brilliant maternity wards at St Mary’s Hospital, which were the first in London to receive an outstanding rating from the Care Quality Commission. I invite the Minister to join me on a future visit to see their work at first hand, with, I hope, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth.
I note that patients from St Mary’s, which is part of the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, have been taking part in a new study showing that one in six women experience long-term post-traumatic stress following baby loss.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on having a rainbow baby, as I do myself. We know that the road to pregnancy is not always smooth, and the numbers she has just highlighted show how frequently this happens. Is it not now time that we reviewed the cruel requirement for three miscarriages or baby losses before medical intervention is offered to families?
Nickie Aiken
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I think it is clear from the debate today that there needs to be more support for women and their partners when they experience miscarriage. I will never forget, when I became pregnant with my daughter, how terrified I was of going for the 12-week scan, because my first experience had been one of baby loss and I had been told at that scan that the baby was not viable. I think I would have benefited from some counselling and some support when I was going for that scan for the second baby.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Lady for the very powerful speech is making. I appreciate the very personal nature of what she is sharing, and it brings so much to this House that everyone is doing that. Would she join me in commending local organisations, such as Held In Our Hearts in my Livingston constituency, which has been operating for 40 years, that provide support with counselling services for those who have experienced baby loss, and does she agree that they are absolutely vital in supporting those who have suffered such loss?
Nickie Aiken
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and she is absolutely right. We are blessed in this country with having so many outstanding charities and organisations that support women and their partners when they are experiencing baby loss.
The Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust study has revealed some incredible findings. For example, after one month following a pregnancy loss, nearly a third of women suffer post-traumatic stress, while nearly one in four experiences moderate to severe anxiety and one in ten has moderate to severe depression. These women are going through such pain, and it is clear that they need more support. The scale is truly astonishing. Here I think due consideration should be paid not just to the women, but to the bereaved families. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), this does affect the fathers involved. I remember, from my own experience, my husband going through such loss.
When I was researching for this debate, I reached out to an outstanding woman called Jane Scott, who is the senior bereavement midwife at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. She is here today I believe—I think in the Gallery above me—with her colleague Lauren Petrie. Midwives up and down this country do amazing work, but Jane in particular gave me powerful testimony before this debate. She explained that, before 2013, there was little or no provision in the labour ward she worked on at St Mary’s for parents who had experienced the death of a baby. Due to her tenacity, and to her basically battling the NHS trust, she was able to secure specialist services for bereaved parents. She told me that at the time she was battling,
“parental complaints were rife…Babies were going missing, funerals were going ahead without the parent’s knowledge, communication was poor which added longevity to the grieving process for parents…There was no provision for psychological support/counselling for parents.”
I was completely shocked when I read that, because to lose a baby, no matter how early in the pregnancy, and not to be able to have a funeral, is absolutely unacceptable.
With Jane’s hard work, and her setting up of bereavement services at St Mary’s, complaints from parents dropped by 90%. She said that the ward became almost unrecognisable, and much more of a positive place to be. Jane is a member of the all-party group on baby loss, and she continues to campaign to highlight the importance of understanding the effects of baby loss. She has now set up the national Bereavement Midwife Forum, which compares services, exchanges best practice, and provides support for midwives. There are now 250 members of the Bereavement Midwife Forum across the UK, and I pay tribute to Jane Scott and her fellow midwives for the outstanding work they provide.
From speaking to Jane, and others, I know that the Bereavement Midwife Forum firmly believes in, and is calling for, consideration for there to be one full-time bereavement midwife for every 3,000 deliveries in each trust. That is a reasonable request, and I would welcome any support that the Minister can provide to ensure that NHS trusts consider it. The forum is also calling for a standardisation of trauma counselling for bereavement midwives and bereaved parents. We must also ensure that there are band 8 regional bereavement midwives to oversee such services in each trust. Those are all sensible measures.
I wish to ensure that there is more support for midwives, particularly those who experience the dreadful death of a baby when looking after a mother—I cannot imagine how it must feel to be in that profession and experience that, and to work with a mother and a father who are going through such trauma. We must do more to support midwives, and doctors, who have that dreadful experience. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth for securing this debate. I am in awe of her. I also again pay tribute to all those midwives and doctors who work tirelessly day in, day out. To anyone who has experienced the bereavement of a lost baby I say this: you are not alone.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). She spoke about her own personal experience and her rainbow baby. I do not think the term existed when I was born, but I am my mum’s rainbow baby, and it was lovely to hear my hon. Friend’s speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) on her powerful and courageous speech, and on all the work she has been doing since she was elected.
Baby Loss Awareness Week gives us all an opportunity to think about families that have suffered that tragedy and what can be done to help. We have heard a number of very moving stories in this debate, and I cannot begin to imagine how painful that experience must be for bereaved parents. I appreciate how difficult it is for people to be open in public about the loss of a baby or a pregnancy. According to the Baby Loss Awareness Week alliance, one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage, and 14 babies are stillborn or die shortly after birth every day. One of the most powerful things to help those who have experienced that loss is to do everything possible to stop the same thing from happening to other parents.
My constituency of High Peak is home to some inspiring and hardworking maternity teams and bereavement organisations, and I wish in particular to talk about one organisation, and about my constituent, Ciara Curran, who asked me to share her story. Ciara lost her baby daughter Sinead 11 years ago in April 2010 due to pre-term pre-labour rupture of the membranes, also known as PPROM. That condition is when the waters break before 37 weeks of pregnancy, and it puts mother and baby at risk of infection. After such a devastating loss, Ciara went on to set up an organisation called Little Heartbeats to help women who have lost a baby to PPROM, and to ensure that pregnant mothers receive the best possible care if diagnosed with that condition.
Little Heartbeats has worked with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to produce clinical guidelines and patient information leaflets to help prevent the loss of babies from PPROM. It has also launched studies into the impact of PPROM, as well as possible treatments such as stem cell patches. In recognition of the work done by Ciara and her team, Little Heartbeats received the Butterfly Award for best support organisation in 2017, and it was shortlisted for The Sun’s NHS Who Cares Wins health awards this year. It is amazing to see someone who has dealt with such loss respond with tremendous courage and compassion.
However, we still need greater awareness and a clearer understanding of PPROM, helping us to better identify and treat it. I sincerely hope that the Health and Social Care Committee will look into how the condition can be better managed, and learn from the stories of women such as Ciara who have lost babies to PPROM. I have written to the Chair of that Committee, who is in his place today, on that point. He gave a remarkably powerful speech, and I sincerely hope the Minister listened carefully to it.
We need to make improvements to antenatal and maternity care more widely. That is why I am campaigning for an improved maternity unit and antenatal clinic for Tameside General Hospital, which serves my constituents in places such as Glossop, Hadfield, Charlesworth, Gamesley and Tintwistle. The Charlesworth building at Tameside Hospital houses the current maternity unit and antenatal clinic. Originally built in 1971, it has poor insulation and problems with overheating that affect sensitive clinical equipment, including incubators for new-born babies, and impact on the wellbeing of patients and staff alike. Capital investment is badly needed to improve the comfort of patients and staff by improving insulation and providing new welfare stations and waiting areas. That will also deliver better care for mothers and babies by ensuring that clinical equipment is not overworked. I very much hope that Ministers will carefully consider Tameside Hospital’s bid for that crucial project as part of the health infrastructure plan, which alongside the planned new urgent care centre at Tameside, the proposed emergency care campus at Stepping Hill Hospital, and the long-planned new health centre for Buxton, would make a significant difference to healthcare provision locally.
I thank all the doctors, nurses, midwives, researchers, and organisers who do so much to address this challenge. Ultimately, the NHS cannot deliver world-class care without the dedication and perseverance of its amazing staff. They deserve our thanks, but they also need our support. The Royal College of Midwives has said that maternity services are experiencing a shortage of 2,000 midwives. In a 2020 survey, seven out of 10 midwives said that they were considering leaving the profession. The pandemic has put huge amounts of pressure on NHS staff, and it is vital that midwifery benefits from the Government’s £36 billion package of support for the health and social care system. It is also important that bereaved parents can get specific support and better access to counselling. The Baby Loss Awareness Week alliance carried out a 2019 survey, revealing that 60% of parents who have experienced baby loss said that they needed specialist psychological support but could not get it with the NHS. We need to improve access to counselling and invest more in prenatal nurses, giving them the right training to help parents who experience baby loss. If we are going to meet the Government’s national maternity safety ambition to see baby deaths fall by 50% by 2025, then action is clearly needed.
Olivia Blake
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting counselling, which is such an important issue. Does he accept that the quadrupled risk of suicide among people who experience miscarriage should be taken into consideration in suicide prevention work?
Robert Largan
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for her intervention, and I absolutely take that point. That definitely needs to be taken fully into consideration.
The House has been grappling with lots of lots of big, difficult issues these past months. We often have heated debates, and I am sure that we will have many more, for the foreseeable future. But there are times, like this, when parliamentarians can come together to try to find solutions to our shared challenges. Let us work together to help those who are going through the darkest of times and give them hope that things will get better.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I will admit to being in two minds about speaking in this important debate. As a biological male, I cannot, of course, get pregnant. What do I know, really? Can I feel it? Do I have a right to be here? Do my experiences carry any legitimacy against the amazing stories that we have heard today? Of course the answer is yes, but there is a conflict. This is difficult territory for all of us, but not least for men. We need to destigmatise this conundrum. The fact that something is difficult does not mean that we should not do it or talk about it, so I really hope that I hold it together for the next five minutes or so.
For me, baby loss is about many things. It is about bereavement at the loss of any child, big or small. It is about the devastation that is left behind. It is about the hopes that are dashed, and the misery. It is about love. It is about the agony of miscarriage, however that child is conceived. It is about those trying for children—those who desperately want children. And it is about those going through in vitro fertilisation or intrauterine insemination, with the physical and emotional nightmare that that brings; people mortgage their house and their hopes, take out loans and bankrupt themselves, against the mirage of science. It is great when it works, but the agony of infertility is very real for so many people. This debate is also about those who might never have children and those who do not have children.
Back in April 2018, my young niece succumbed to a very serious illness. It was not long before her second birthday, and she would have been five today. I have not spoken about that publicly, and I do not really want to do so now, but I can tell the House that bereavement at the loss of a child is devastating, and I was not the parent. Grief works in so many ways; it is so difficult. Aside from the inherent loss of a beautiful and innocent child, it is about what is left behind. It is about birthdays, Christmases, the friends and boyfriends that never materialise, grandchildren and children, and it is also about the parents who grieve—and it lasts forever. Politically, this is actually very easy to deal with: we need to throw the kitchen sink at it. I note that the Minister is in her place. Money should be no object when it comes to this kind of thing.
My niece died just across the river in the fantastic Evelina Hospital. It is a brilliant facility, and I commend the staff who work there. What an amazing machine. It is so state of the art that it looks like a spaceship, and the people are just brilliant. I thank them and all the staff across the country doing that very difficult job. However, we must invest in more of these facilities. We have to give all our children the best possible care. It is only money, at the end of the day. There can be no greater prize than bringing a child into the world, or saving a life, or prolonging life, so let us give all our children the best possible chance.
We need to talk about this issue, as we are now, however difficult that might be. Of course, baby loss is also about losing a baby through miscarriage. These are not just embryos; they are people. They are lives. They are the embodiment of hopes and dreams for so many people. They are actually little versions of ourselves. Yes, nature can have a way of taking its own decisions, and that is fine, but miscarriage is devastating for all parents, grandparents, families and so many people who have direct involvement in it. I can only imagine the horror. My heart goes out in particular to women who have to give birth to a baby that once had a heartbeat. I cannot imagine how difficult that must be. We need to empathise and sympathise and just be there, to love and to feel for them.
For women who cannot get pregnant and who do not get pregnant, it is about the pain, the loss, the endless cycle of hope each month, and the devastation as her period starts all over again. This is tricky, tricky stuff. It is also about the sister who churns out children like rounds from a machine gun with complete impunity—with no effort at all. Perhaps even worse, it is about the sanctimonious friend or sister-in-law who can do the same. It is about the doubt and the worry. It is about the compounded misery, month on month. Again, our hearts must go out to the people who are so badly affected. It is about the hours crouched over toilets in cubicles, with negative pregnancy tests, bereft at yet again coming on. The list goes on, and it is real and it is happening today in this country to so many of us.
It is also about the agony of putting on a brave face afterwards. It is about going back into the world—going back into the office—as if nothing has happened. It is tough stuff. Then there are the tests, the invasion, the prodding, the poking and the examinations for those who want to find out why they cannot conceive—being on a slab, feeling like a total failure.
And what about men? Well, here we go. I was that man in the day, doing unnatural things in cubicles in clinics across London. I was that man carrying precious cargo on the tube in odd-shaped containers. I could deal with the alcohol bans for three months at a time, although that was difficult, but the loss of caffeine was really tough.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for having the courage to tell his story. I, too, have been through the experience of IVF. Does he agree that one of the worst things about going through that battle of fertility is people innocently asking, “When are you and your partner going to start a family? When are you going to have children? You don’t want to leave it too late.” A risk in all this is the lack of awareness that infertility is very common.
James Sunderland
I thank my good friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. You often do not want to say anything, but you feel as though you should. You ask why you have not got children, and why others are having children and you are not. There is the expectation of one’s grandparents. It is a difficult business.
On one occasion, I was eating a piece of white toast in the kitchen and this mad, deranged woman grabbed it from me and said, “Don’t.” On another occasion, I was on exercises with my regiment, with the whole unit on parade—I was there with the brigadier on a big visit—and my phone rang. It was my wife, and she said, “Come home, honey; I’m ovulating.” Those words would put the fear of God into any man. But the worst thing of all is the Brazil nuts, chopped up with breakfast—absolutely horrible things. To this day, I have post-traumatic stress disorder from that.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for his absolute and utter honesty. Having gone through these kinds of experiences, I know the desperation of wanting to have children and then the absolute terror, as a women and a partner, when you are going through pregnancy, about whether you are going to be able to hear a heartbeat, feel that movement and know that everything is all right. Does he agree that the best thing we can do is to talk about this issue openly—I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for bringing it to the House—because that is the way we will all get through it together?
James Sunderland
I thank my good friend from Grimsby. I could not agree more. There is not much I can really add to that; she is absolutely right. From personal experience, seeing the heartbeat on the screen is worth all the effort and I would commend everyone just to keep going because dreams do come true.
Very briefly, as time is marching on, for couples going through IVF, please have respect for what they are doing. They are mortgaging themselves. It is about the money. It is about the anxiety—endless cycles in many cases. It is also about the heavy drugs, the mood swings, the overestimation of the ovaries and the injections in the stomach. It is pretty grim. So feel. Please support and be there for your friends and family who are going through it. There is devastation when it goes wrong and it does go wrong. Spare a thought for the heartache, for the hopes, the preparations, the fears and the tests. It rests, ultimately, on a drop of urine. It is absolutely brutal.
Having debated the horrible reality of baby loss today, what can we do? I am going to rattle through this very quickly. We need to support our loved ones, as I have said. As men or partners, we need to hug, to hold, to reassure and to listen.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
I thank all hon. Members for their courageous speeches. The point my hon. Friend is raising, and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) is raising, is that this does not just affect women. We are not just the ones who go through the grief, bereavement and pain. Men do too and we need to talk more about that. Both men and women suffer bereavement through baby loss.
James Sunderland
Absolutely—I thank my hon. Friend. This is about two people. It takes two to tango. People go through this collectively as a couple, but also individually. We should recognise the fact that it is difficult for both parties, whoever they might be.
As I said earlier, we need to invest in hospitals an awful lot more: in better baby units, better midwives and consultants who read their notes. We need to make sure that we take some risks politically on this issue and spend more money. As I said, it is only money. Employers, please get a grip. If you have a woman in your employ going through IVF, please just empathise and sympathise. Give her some space.
Before I finish, I want to stick my neck out on a couple of very personal issues—please forgive me. For those who want to have children, go for it is my advice. Stay strong and keep going. My humble advice is not to leave it too late: you cannot turn the clock back and careers are, ultimately, not that important. For those considering IVF, just go for it. It does work. It is successful and it is getting better all the time. For those who might need extra support, I commend the organisation Foresight, otherwise known as the Association for the Promotion of Preconceptual Care, which is absolutely fantastic. Finally, for those for whom it does not work and suffer the loss of never conceiving, we can never do enough for you. In this place, as politicians, we will keep focusing on this very important issue. Please keep lobbying us, too. These are life and death issues that are ultimately more important than anything else.
Lastly, and most importantly of all, please do spare a thought for those poor men eating Brazil nuts for breakfast.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
What an honour it is to follow my good friend, the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). I pay tribute to him for his openness and honesty today. I think we need more of that in this House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for securing the debate and bravely sharing again her story about Lily, and for her tireless work on the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss. Sometimes we end up in these things, but it is what we make of them that counts. In her speech, and in her answers to interventions, it was clear that she really knows her stuff. So I commend her. I also thank my constituents who wrote to me last year after my contribution to the debate and this year asking me to be here today.
This is an opportunity for us to talk about our shared humanity and our shared stories right across the whole Chamber. It is something that affects us all. I have always found that being open in discussing a sensitive subject is a good thing. It encourages others to open up and talk about things. However, as I was preparing for the debate today, I knew why I do not talk about these things sometimes. There is a real physical reaction to bringing those memories back to the forefront of your mind. Your eyes prick with tears, it becomes difficult to swallow and you wonder if you are going to be able to get the words out and speak. We have seen, in contributions across the Chamber, that we are all in that position. Even as I was writing my speech today and writing notes, I could feel that physical reaction to things that happened a long, long time ago.
As I was looking up statistics, as we do in this place, I realised that I am a statistic on a piece of paper—quite an awkward thing to be sometimes. I want to focus my comments on the mental health side of baby loss. On stillbirth and mental health, Tommy’s, a great charity and resource, has stated that women who have suffered stillbirth or neonatal death are more likely to have anxiety and depression afterwards. One study in the US of 800 women showed that women who had stillbirth were twice as likely to have depression, compared with those who had live births. That effect had actually increased when they were studied again two years later, showing that stillbirth has a long-term effect on mental health. Another study of 609 women who had experienced stillbirth or neonatal death showed that women who had loss were four times more likely to have depression and seven times more likely to have post-traumatic stress disorder. In my speech last year, I talked about flashbacks. They catch you by surprise and come at the most unexpected times. Something will trigger one, bringing those physical sensations right to the forefront.
I wanted to talk a little about my story. I have schoolfriends who had to give birth to babies who no longer had a heartbeat and, on the anniversary each year, watch the photos go up on Facebook. It is wonderful that they are able to celebrate—that is probably the wrong word—to recognise that child and that their friends share that with them, even though it is very difficult to look at those photos. I had a very good schoolfriend who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, at 20 weeks found out in a scan that the amniotic fluid was disappearing and that her baby was being crushed slowly in the womb. She had to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy because the baby would never have survived. Because she was such a good friend, I lived that with her.
Last year, I talked about the three miscarriages I had in a row. Life was wonderful and fine and we managed to have our first child. I am one of those people who is very lucky in that I am incredibly fertile—I am sure my husband wishes I was not quite so fertile—and we were able to fall pregnant very easily. I talked about the fact that we had contracted a horrible SARS-like illness back in 2003 and that, in the following year, I had three back-to-back miscarriages. I think it says something about my character that I was so driven to have another baby that I would have a miscarriage and then two weeks later in the cycle I would ovulate and fall pregnant. That happened three times in a row, so I suffered the loss of a baby and then was pregnant again two weeks later. That happened three times. When we fell pregnant with our second child—he was my rainbow baby—I had been pregnant for 18 months. I think there were a lot of missed opportunities to pick up on the fact that I was having mental health problems, both perinatal and postnatal. Towards the latter stages of my pregnancy with him, I was absolutely desperate to give birth. I almost could not cope with being pregnant any more. It was very difficult looking after a toddler as well.
After I gave birth the second time, the same thing happened to me as the first time: I had retained placenta, I haemorrhaged and I had to be returned to hospital to have blood transfusions and IV antibiotics. The first time, I had my baby with me; the second time I didn’t have my baby with me, because I couldn’t—I just had to get better, and I needed to leave him to be looked after by my mum. As many in this House know, my second baby is on the autism spectrum.
Nickie Aiken
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important to understand the mental health issues that can surround pregnancies and can occur soon after birth? We need a better understanding of that.
Angela Richardson
I could not agree more. By the time I had got to my third baby, they realised that they needed to do more to make sure that postnatally I was in a much better position. In the debate last year, I talked about one of the babies I lost, in the second trimester; I asked for a test to be done, but the hospital did not do it. They just sent the foetus to the incinerator, and they had to apologise for it. I was left wondering for a long time what I had done wrong.
With my son, who is on the autism spectrum, I had post-natal depression and I did not take him to hospital with me. I spent years feeling guilty, because that is what happens to us as mums: we feel guilty for everything and we spend years making things up to our children. That is one of the things that I think we really need to address in looking after the mental health of mums, because it impacts not just on our children, but on their siblings, on our husbands and on family members who are not even in the same country as us.
Lia Nici
I commend my hon. Friend for talking so openly about her experiences. We talk about statistics and about how one in four pregnancies do not end in the way that we would like, but when we talk and when we look at items in the media, there is constant pressure on women—specifically women, although there is pressure on men as well. We are expected to be superwomen, we are expected to be super-mums and we are expected to be perfect, when actually we are all fallible human beings and we all need help.
We need to make sure that we talk about it. When I told friends that I had lost babies, I was shocked that it had affected virtually everybody—I would be surprised if it is not well over 90% of people who have experienced this. We need to talk openly with each other, make sure that we look after parents as well as children, before pregnancy but also after pregnancy, and make sure that it is not something that is shameful. Quite often, women will not talk about trying for babies, because they are worried about what their employer will do or say and it is a very private thing anyway.
It is also about the time afterwards. This is probably the one taboo left that we really do not talk about, because we feel like failures. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to continue to fight for this and make sure that people do not feel that they are a failure when things do not always go right?
Angela Richardson
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for giving me a bit of time to compose myself. I agree with her.
My hon. Friend commented about our having to be superwomen and have everything together. I did not get the help that I needed because I spent so long trying to be tough. It was months and months after I had given birth to my second baby before I even went to see a doctor, but I know that the midwife who was visiting me after I had given birth was concerned because she had been with me after my first delivery as well. I think she knew that I was not quite right. That is what I mean about missed opportunities: there were lots of points where people could have picked things up and I would not have got to quite the state that I was in.
What I want to do is encourage people who are watching today. Sands is a wonderful stillbirth and neonatal death charity. Its website has such a host of information that people can use to get the support that they need.
Last year, I said to those who have suffered baby loss: please be patient with yourself and be kind to yourself. It is really hard to do—if you are driven, like I am, with the relentless desire to have a family, it is really difficult to stop. I was given very good advice to give my body and mind time to rest and recover, and I did not listen. I say to anybody out there who is listening today: please listen to my story. I hope that it will give you some insight and some food for thought.
I thank everybody who has participated today. I do hope that the Minister will take away those thoughts and comments about how we can better support women and their families with mental health.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I have very much appreciated being able to listen to this debate and hear very moving speeches from Members on both sides of the House. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for her leadership on the issue, and to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), for his work. I join him in commending the work that has taken place in recent years to improve maternity services and reduce baby loss in our NHS, but I note his comparison with Sweden, the fact that we could do so much better, and the need for changes to services and to the culture of how we support babies and mothers in the NHS.
I was born in the old Westminster Hospital, which looked over the Houses of Parliament, so it could be said that my path was set. My children were born in Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, looking over Wormwood Scrubs prison; I hope that their path is not set, but my wife and I have done a lot of work in prisons. In the context of this debate, I would like to draw attention to yesterday’s report on the very tragic and scandalous events at HMP Bronzefield in 2019.
A young woman, a girl aged 18, was left alone in her prison cell to give birth. The baby died, and nobody found out until the next day that the woman had given birth. There have been a series of reports on and investigations of the tragedy; they conclude that a litany of mistakes were made, with a confusion of services and staff. There was obviously no malice anywhere along the line, but there was a lot of misunderstanding and dysfunction in the system.
I wonder—it would be good to get an indication of the Minister’s views on this—whether it is appropriate for pregnant women to be in prison at all. In recent decades, there has been a significant reduction in the incarceration of women, and indeed of pregnant women. That is very positive, but we still have women’s prisons, although their numbers are reducing. I remember going many years ago to the women and babies unit at HMP Holloway, which was actually a very impressive and wonderful place. That prison has now closed because we do not lock up so many women.
Nickie Aiken
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the report. Does he agree that questions have to be asked about why an 18-year-old who was on remand and pregnant should be in prison?
Danny Kruger
That is the point that I am making: there is a big question about the incarceration of women and the appropriate punishment for women, but I think that it is absolutely the right question for us to consider. I know that in their sentencing, judges take into account whether women are pregnant, but I suspect that something went wrong in this case. From what I read, it sounds as if the girl was very troubled; in my uninformed view, she should not have been in prison at all for the time that she was pregnant.
Given the sophistication of modern electronic tagging, which is increasing all the time—the Government are investing significantly in it, and I commend them for that—I wonder whether consideration should be given to changing the rules around the incarceration of pregnant women.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted once again to participate in the baby loss awareness debate, which has become such an important feature of the parliamentary calendar. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) and all those who have shared their experiences today. We have come a long way since I secured my first debate on the issue of stillbirth in 2016. In those few short years, this Parliament has, in so many ways, matured into one in which stillbirth and baby loss, as in the rest of society, has gone from being barely mentioned save for in hushed tones to something that, on a yearly basis at least, has a light shined upon it—shining a light on the worst thing that can happen.
To move from the joy and anticipation of expectation to the depths of utter despair and unspeakable grief, often in no more than a few moments, has far-reaching and devastating consequences. Only last night I was speaking to a colleague about how my baby Kenneth was lost on the very day he was due to be born. This healthy 8 lb 5 oz baby died because three nurses, one midwife and two consultants did not investigate the inexplicable pain I was suffering, and no one considered that I may have had pre-eclampsia, which did not only kill my baby but almost killed me.
After seven years of fighting for an official explanation, which was never given even though lawyers were reluctantly involved, I, my husband and my wider family were left to pick up the pieces with no proper closure or explanation. When that process was ongoing, I was afraid of it coming to an end because I did not know what I was going to do after—seeking the answers was keeping me going. What was I to do at the end of this with all this pain? What about the sense of betrayal—that was how it felt—by the very people who were supposed to be looking after me and my baby after five years of fertility treatment? How could I fill the gaping hole of grief that was left?
The only answer, of course, is to keep talking and campaigning for the other women, couples and families who go through this terrible experience, so that they know that they are not alone. I remember when my baby died how people I knew would cross the street because they were so terrified of saying the wrong thing, and I do not blame them for that, because in their position I may well have done exactly the same. The kind of grief that follows an event that defies nature—burying your own child—is compounded by the isolation, and debates in this House on this issue have reached out to those who believe they are alone, giving them the encouragement that they too can share and talk about their pain.
That is why I remember how emotional it was when we finally passed the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018—a groundbreaking piece of legislation under which parents who lose a child up to the age of 18 or through stillbirth have two weeks’ paid leave enshrined in law. I remember at the time feeling like the Act did not go far enough, but I was also mindful of how carefully we all handled it; like a piece of crystal, terrified that it would break on the hard-headed reality of Treasury spending decisions. We all protected it like the precious thing it was.
The 2018 Act is hugely significant because it established an important principle. For the very first time the law recognised the magnitude of the loss of a child and provided a small bit of breathing space—a moment or two to try to find your feet again when your world has been turned upside down. The fact that the Act included stillbirth was really important too. It is because of that Act that we are now allowed to call for more to be done around loss and bereavement when a child is involved. It provided a vital starting point upon which all other work in this area will be built.
Baby loss can happen to anyone, but we know that health inequalities matter too, so we must ensure that addressing baby loss takes place in the context of an all-inclusive plan that reaches out to all women, whatever their background. For example, pre-eclampsia leads to 1,000 stillborn babies each year. Women who suffer pre-eclampsia have a fourfold risk of heart failure later in life. Studies have shown that women with pre-eclampsia are twice as likely to develop heart disease and twice as likely to have a stroke or die from a cardiovascular incident. Who is monitoring these women in the longer term? What work is being done to mitigate the risks? Where is the long-term follow-up? We need to do more because wellbeing—this year’s theme for baby loss remembrance—matters. We need to think about wellbeing not just when someone is going through the traumatic experience of baby loss, but during the aftermath in the years that follow.
Fourteen babies die every day through stillbirth—5,110 babies have died since our last debate. I express my thanks to everyone who participated in this debate today. It is always a little cathartic, and it is important for those Members who have experienced the rawness of baby loss to share their views with the House and with those listening outside the Chamber. Baby Loss Awareness Week has a particular poignancy for me because it culminates in Baby Loss Awareness Day on 15 October, which is the same day that my baby was stillborn in 2009. He would have been 12 years old this year, and it is hard to believe that so many years have passed. I think of him as the beautiful baby that he was, and I imagine him as the curious little boy that he would have been now.
In conclusion, this baby loss awareness debate is not only for all the little Kenneths out there who did not get the chance to live their lives and fulfil their potential, but for all the babies yet to be born. We must continue to campaign for them and for better maternal health and neonatal care.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
There is nothing that fills me with more pride than having the honour of following all the incredible speeches that have been made from both sides of the House today. There are so many things that divide us in this place, but is it not wonderful that this is not one of them? I thank everyone who has spoken today for their courage.
This annual debate is about having voices heard, and all who have spoken today have said incredibly moving things, but I want to pay tribute to a few people. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for moving this debate. In you, Lily lives on, and she will always continue to do so.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) did Kenneth proud, and I know that 15 October will prove incredibly difficult for you, as I am sure it does every single year, but you hold him in your heart and we hold him in all our hearts. We will be thinking of him on that day. In bringing your passion to this debate, you are ensuring that the other mothers, fathers and partners who go through this do not feel alone.
The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), with his honesty, reminded us that grief is a lifelong process. The honesty in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) truly highlighted that the journey to parenthood can be fraught with challenges. It is often not easy to admit some of our dark thoughts about other people’s happiness or about the failures we may see in ourselves if we feel that we do not fall into the social construct that society has created for women.
I am going to answer the rhetorical question that the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) posed about the validity of his being here and speaking today: yes, you should be speaking. It is important to represent everybody who has gone through the same lived experiences, and you brought them to the Floor of the House.
Turning to the hon. Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson)—my goodness—the guilt surrounding parenthood is so rife, and we must be kinder to each other in society. There is nothing worse than sitting in an NCT group full of people who delivered their wonderful babies in a water bath when you went through a crash C-section and feel like a failure, crying into your cake as you wonder what is wrong with your body that meant that you could not give birth in a bath with some whale music. What you highlighted today shows us the importance of understanding that the journey through the birth process does not end once you have given birth. We have to look after each other and keep an eye on people’s mental health.
It is so important that we talk about stigma. I know about this from my work as a doctor in the emergency department over the last 16 years. I have seen countless parents come into that department. I have seen a mother, bleeding, pleading with me to tell her whether she is losing her baby, and I have known the heartbreak of performing the examination and either confirming her very worst fears or sometimes, even worse, saying, “I do not know—and I am really sorry, but it is Friday afternoon and you will have to wait for your scan on Monday morning to find out.” I see mothers who ask, “Did I eat the wrong cheese? Did I exercise too much? Should I have given up work and just stayed at home? Have I done this, doctor, have I done this?” No, you have not.
I say to every mother who is watching the debate today and asking herself if she has done something wrong, “You have not done anything wrong. Your baby was loved; your baby was wanted; you did everything right.” It is so important that we support mothers on this journey—mothers who are living with the guilt, living with the stigma, wondering if people are thinking to themselves, “Well, she clearly did not read the rules properly. We seem to have managed just fine.” To every mother who worries about that, I say, “You are not alone.” I thank all the charities that are out there doing such incredible work to eradicate the stigma, but there is still so much more to do.
To all the partners—supportive partners—who are told not to share their emotions, and told that their emotions are not as valid because they were not carrying the child, I say, “That is rubbish.” They are told not to acknowledge their grief, and are encouraged just to go back to work. It is a case of “Stiff upper lip—these things happen.” I say to them, “You are entitled to grieve. You are entitled to feel every single emotion that is due to you, because these are your emotions and that is your right.” Everyone does it differently: there is no one-size-fits-all model. We have to understand, and our health services have to be built to have a capacity that understands the nature of grief and understands that it is different for everyone. However, when we are doing this together here today, we are already going some way towards breaking down that stigma, and we are breaking it down every year when we have this debate.
It has been an incredibly difficult 18 months, and people’s experiences of baby loss during this time have been incredibly heartbreaking. During the pandemic there has been reduced access to face-to-face appointments, and when appointments have taken place in person, partners have been excluded, leaving women to receive the very worst of news on their own. Expectant fathers pace the car park, wondering when they will be allowed in to hear that very worst of news. Women are often forced to take decisions alone. I want to thank the NHS staff who have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic, and have had to go above and beyond when visitors were not allowed into hospitals following a loss. However, I also want to highlight the important fact that there are babies that are lost when the loss could have been avoided. In the House we discuss many cases in which loss cannot be avoided, but this is not one of them.
That leads me on to the importance of inequalities in this debate. It is the saddest fact of all that where a family live and how socioeconomically well off they are can determine the likelihood of their baby’s surviving or not. Black and ethnic minority women are more likely to deliver by emergency caesarean section and less likely to have pain relief during labour, and receive fewer home visits from midwives. Stillbirth rates for black babies, including black British babies, were over twice those for white babies, while neonatal death rates were 45% higher. Black women are still four times more likely than white women to die in pregnancy or childbirth in the UK. With an ongoing inquiry into systemic racism in NHS maternity services, we must ensure that action is taken to eradicate these gross disparities. We need change now: women cannot and should not wait any longer. It is not acceptable, and these families deserve better. Many of us will have heard stories of women who were told that they needed an extra scan between the 20-week scan and giving birth, but professionals were concerned that because they were Muslim they might want to sex-select, and they were therefore denied the scan. That is atrocious. Preventable deaths have occurred because of such practices, and they must be eradicated.
Research published last week found persistent inequalities for ethnic minority women accessing mental health care after giving birth. It found that 98% of women were willing to be treated for their mental health, but one third had not received any treatment. including talking therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy or counselling. About one third of the women surveyed felt that
“receiving treatment for emotional or mental problems carries social stigma.”
We have to understand, in our multicultural society, that everyone deals differently with mental health matters, particularly in relation to having children. We must have services that are able to handle the differences in our communities.
The major treatment stigma-related barriers to accessing services were found to be women’s concerns that they might be seen as “a bad parent”; not wanting mental health problems to be on medical records; concern that their children might be taken into care; and concern that they might be seen as “weak”. Those are the voices that we need to recognise today. We are in a place of privilege. We can stand here and talk about our experiences, people can learn from them, and we can feel that we are doing our bit to deal with our grief, but what about all those thousands of women’s voices across the country that are not heard? Today we are speaking for all of them as well.
Post-natal depression or anxiety in black, Asian and ethnic minority mothers is 13% higher than in white mothers. A 2011 study found that black women are the group least likely to initiate treatment for post-natal mental illness, and the least likely to receive follow-up treatment. We must do better, we can do better, and I truly believe that there is a collective will across the House to do better.
Let me ask a few questions of the Minister, whom I welcome to her place. Will bereavement support after the loss of a baby be standardised to avoid the postcode lottery that too many families experience? No one should have to lose three babies to receive miscarriage support; what are the Government doing to ensure that people have the support they need when they need it, not after miscarriages? Has data begun to be collected on miscarriage, stillbirth and pre-term rates, and if not, will the Government commit themselves to that? What is the current progress on the women’s health strategy, and who from the Government will be taking this forward following the reshuffle?
By talking about these issues so openly and honestly, we work to remove the stigma surrounding them. The pandemic has undoubtedly brought additional barriers that make the experience of losing a baby even more isolating, but it is stigma and the lack of understanding that can make people feel most alone. I will finish, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) did, by saying to anyone watching today: you are not alone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank all Members of the House who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), is right to say that this is an issue that unites us all and puts politics aside. The loss of a baby is never easy to discuss, whether it is the loss of your own baby or a baby known to you, or the experience of a constituent, it is a hugely emotional and sensitive area, and time is often not the great healer it is made out to be. This debate has raised some difficult but important issues.
I also thank the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss: my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who spoke extremely bravely about her experience of losing baby Lily; and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who also helped to secure this debate. The response and strength of feeling shows how many lives have been affected and touched by this issue. There have been so many moving contributions, and I cannot name them all, but they included those from the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who talked about baby Kenneth.
This is the sixth year that a debate has been held to mark Baby Loss Awareness Week, and I am honoured to take part as the new Minister for primary care and patient safety and to work with all hon. and right hon. Members across the House to make a difference in an area as vital and important as maternal and neonatal safety. It is perhaps fitting that the debate is happening so soon after I have taken on this role, as it has sharply focused my mind on the huge amount of work there is to do in improving the outcomes for families and babies.
The Government’s maternity ambition is to halve the 2010 rates of stillbirth, neonatal and maternal deaths and brain injuries in babies occurring during or soon after birth by 2025. The ambition also includes reducing the rate of pre-term births from 8% to 6%, and we are making progress on that. Since 2010, there has been a reduction of 25% in stillbirth rates and a 29% reduction in neonatal mortality rates for babies born after 24 weeks gestation. There is, however, progress to be made on reducing maternal mortality rates, brain injury rates and pre-term birth rates, because progress has been slower than any of us would have hoped. There are pilot schemes in place, however, including those introduced under the brain injury reduction programme, which saw £9.4 million-worth of investment during the spending review last year going towards reducing the incidence of birth-related brain injuries. The pilots will produce cutting-edge training and expert guidance, and I hope to report back to the House on their impact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth raised some incredibly important points, and I want to touch on a few of them. Financial investment can of course make a difference in improving maternity services. NHS England announced earlier this year an additional £95 million of recurrent funding for maternity services to support the recruitment of 1,200 midwives and 100 consultant obstetricians and the implementation of the actions arising from the Ockenden report. NHS England and NHS Improvement are also providing an additional £52 million to fast-track a long-term plan commitment for all women to be able to access their maternity notes and information via a smartphone or other device by 2024.
Money is not the only solution, however. One key way to improve outcomes is to look at what has gone wrong in the past, and the perinatal mortality review tool is important in that regard. The Health Departments in England, Wales and Scotland collectively fund the perinatal mortality review tool so that the deaths of all babies between 22 weeks gestation and four weeks old are reviewed to provide answers to bereaved parents about how their baby died and so that the NHS can learn lessons and improve care. All bereaved parents now have the option to be involved in a high-quality review of the death of their baby and, according to the last perinatal mortality review tool annual report last year, 84% of review cases in England, 86% of cases in Wales and 87% of cases in Scotland included parents in their final reports. It is by learning from parents and listening to their concerns that we will ultimately improve services for families and save lives.
The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth raised the issue of tackling inequalities in perinatal outcomes for women from black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups. There are huge disparities in outcome across different communities. Earlier this month, NHS England and NHS Improvement published an equity and equality strategy, supported by a £6.8 million investment, to address the causes of inequalities in health outcomes, experience and access. It provides guidance for local maternity systems and focuses on black, Asian and minority ethnic groups, who currently experience poor maternal health outcomes. This is a priority area for me, and I take the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth about the importance of continuity of care.
In helping to support bereaved families following the tragic loss of a baby, I am delighted to hear that we have now reached the milestone of every NHS trust in England having expressed an interest with Sands in joining the national bereavement care pathway programme, and 65% of trusts are now members. We will continue to take a cross-Government approach to assessing what more needs to be done to support bereaved families.
I will discuss with my ministerial colleagues the point raised by the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), in particular, on leave for those who have experienced a miscarriage before 24 weeks.
Important points have been made about mandating a pathway and funding to ensure that every hospital has an appropriate bereavement suite and specialist staff and training. I will feed back to the House on our progress on that, as I recognise that we need to move swiftly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, like many other hon. Members, commented on mental health support for bereaved fathers, parents, families and siblings. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey about the impact that the loss of baby Sarah had on his whole family. Losing a baby can have a massive impact on the whole family, and this Government are committed to expanding and transforming mental health services in England so that people, including those affected by the loss of a baby, get the help and support they need. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) could not have been more eloquent about the experience of not getting it right.
We have a long-term commitment that a further 24,000 women will be able to access specialist perinatal mental healthcare by 2023, building on the additional 30,000 women who can access such services this year.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Does my hon. Friend agree that, along with all the things she is talking about, we need a joined-up set of start of life services, such as the Government are already working so hard to implement in their “Best start for life” work? If we could provide continuity of care and wraparound support for families, so many of the health disparities and terrible outcomes would be avoided.
Maria Caulfield
My right hon. Friend is right that there has to be a whole family, cross-departmental approach, which I hope we can take forward.
The partners of expectant new mothers also face the stigma that many hon. Members have mentioned this afternoon, and I hope we can improve the situation by offering a range of help, such as peer support, behavioural couples therapy sessions and other family and parental interventions. I will focus on that.
This year, unlike in our previous debates on Baby Loss Awareness Week, we have to consider covid. This year, more than most, has been particularly difficult for those facing the loss of a baby. The covid pandemic means measures have been put in place to protect healthcare workers, patients and the general public, and it has been particularly difficult for those who have suffered baby loss during this period.
Specifically on preventing maternal death and morbidity due to covid, recent findings from a national perinatal study show that of 742 women admitted to hospital since vaccination data has been collected, four had received a single vaccine dose and none had received both doses. This means that more than 99% of pregnant women admitted to hospital with symptomatic covid-19 are unvaccinated, and one message I want to get across today is that it is hugely important that mothers and their families are vaccinated to improve their safety.
Sarah Owen
We have been pushing the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to make sure that pregnant women are a priority group. Will the Minister give a commitment today that pregnant women will be a priority group in any booster programme?
Maria Caulfield
I take the hon. Lady’s point. There was a lot of misinformation earlier in the year that made pregnant women reluctant to come forward, and there is a lot of work we can do to improve that communication.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I wish to raise a specific point about covid that I learned of from an obstetric consultant: the number of preemie births dramatically dropped during covid because women were at home. It was a doctor from Reading who told me this. He had to be dispatched somewhere else in the NHS because his services in dealing with premature babies were no longer needed as the number had dropped so greatly because women were at home. Will that form part of the strategy, to make sure that in terms of baby loss we are looking after women throughout their pregnancies?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. We need to be guided by clinical evidence and practice, and we will look back and reflect on some of the lessons that can be learned from the period of covid.
Many hon. Members mentioned the staff who look after women and families who have lost a baby. It is incredibly important that we support those staff, because the impact is huge. May I put on the record my thanks to every one of those maternity staff who look after women and families, because the toll on them is sometimes greatly underestimated? It is assumed that because they go into that speciality they can cope with this, but it is extremely difficult for them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), may I too welcome Jane Scott and her colleague, one of the midwives from St Mary’s Hospital, who have set up the UK National Bereavement Midwife Forum? I would be delighted to visit them and learn from their experience, because we are committed to supporting staff and making sure that they are able to undertake the special work that they do.
In conclusion, there are multiple and complex issues associated with baby loss and we need to do more not only to support families through such a difficult experience, but to reduce the numbers of people experiencing baby loss in the first place. Crucially, as I said in my opening remarks, we have made some good progress on our national maternity safety plans. We have seen a 25% reduction in the stillbirth rate since 2010 and a 29% reduction in the neonatal mortality rate for babies over 24 weeks’ gestation. That means hundreds more mothers and families are going home with a live and healthy baby each year, but, as this debate has ably demonstrated, there is still much more to be done. I hope to return to the Chamber next year during Baby Loss Awareness Week to be able to show the further progress we have made on this important issue.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today for the support that we have given to one other and for the timely interventions. I will not go through all the speeches because I have only a short time to sum up, but I would like to extend my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and accept her invitation to meet the team at St Mary’s Hospital in Paddington. I give special thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) for his candid testimony, which is both personal and full of bags of experience. I could not be more grateful for being able to co-chair the all-party group with him. With our new Minister on the Front Bench, this all-party group can continue to do great things and I very much hope we will be able to do so.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who religiously attends the all-party group and carries baby Kenneth in her heart. She spoke powerfully about the isolation of grief, and I can completely relate to that. I hope that events such as today’s debate bust that stigma and that people start talking to each other. Year after year, this is the toughest debate in Parliament to participate in, but it is oh so very important.
Pregnancy and baby loss has often been seen as a women’s issue, and it is a very powerful women’s issue—we have heard about the mental health side of things and we need to not let women down on that. More than that, however, it is a family issue and a community issue. We need to be looking out for each other and to make sure that families are looking out for each other, and that we all talk about these things. You name the children, you talk about that baby; it is not something that should be shied away from because we do not know what to say. Anything we say will be the right thing to say simply because we are talking about it.
I conclude by thanking all colleagues once again for their powerful testimony, and I look forward to continuing the very important work of the all-party group.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
This has been a very moving and, indeed, important debate not just because of the subject matter itself but because it reflects the progress that we have made as a modern legislature, in that the matters we now deal with in this House, on the Floor of this Chamber, truly reflect the concerns and experiences of all the people we represent.
I hardly need to put the Question, but I am obliged to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Baby Loss Awareness Week.
Human Rights: Kashmir
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House notes with grave concern the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers, following the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A from the Indian Constitution in August 2019; further notes the United Nations reports of 14 June 2018 and 8 July 2019 on human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir; and calls on the Government to work with the United Nations, Commonwealth and wider international community to help ensure that international law is upheld and human rights are protected throughout India, Kashmir and Pakistan.
It is an honour to lead this debate on human rights in Kashmir, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir. I extend my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and I applied for this debate back in March 2020, I wonder whether we might have reached a record for the time between something being approved and being debated. None the less, I am grateful that we can now debate an issue that is so important to many of our constituents.
The partition of India into India and Pakistan in 1947 and the cavalier manner in which the governance of Kashmiris was determined without them has led to 74 years of unrest, dozens of UN resolutions, and violence across the line of control and within Indian-administered Kashmir, or IAK, and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, or PAK.
Since I was elected chair of the APPG back in November 2018, its focus has been on the promotion of human rights in all parts of Kashmir. This followed the first ever report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on human rights in Kashmir in July 2018. The report documented human rights abuses in both IAK and PAK, and concentrated in particular on the period between 2016 and 2018, following the unprecedented protests and violence that erupted after the killing of Burhan Wani, the leader of Hizbul Mujahideen, by Indian security forces in 2016—[Interruption.] I do hope that my voice will last till the end of my speech!
The abuses that the United Nations reported in the then Jammu and Kashmir state of Indian-administered Kashmir, and what it noted as the “root causes” that were fuelling local dissent, included the reported killings of civilians by off-duty police and army personnel with impunity; the failure to independently investigate and prosecute widespread reports of sexual violence committed by security services personnel; people reported disappeared with impunity; the detention of thousands of people, including children, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978, which, for the uninitiated, allowed the state to take a person into preventive detention without trial for up to two years; the obstruction of access to justice, through not just the 1979 Act but the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act 1990, which gives security personnel powers to investigate and arrest without warrants, as well as protecting those personnel under law; and, finally, the obstruction of access to basic medical care for civilians.
The UN report concluded:
“In responding to demonstrations that started in July 2016, Indian security forces used excessive force that led to unlawful killings and a very high number of injuries...Civil society estimates are that 130 to 145 civilians were killed by security forces between mid-July 2016 and end of March 2018, and 16 to 20 civilians killed by armed groups in the same period. One of most dangerous weapons used against protesters during the unrest in 2016 was the pellet-firing shotgun, which is a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun that fires metal pellets.”
For PAK, the UN reported that
“the human rights violations in this area are of a different calibre or magnitude and of a more structural nature.”
For example, it identified that the Pakistan Government had control over the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and of Gilgit Baltistan. It identified that the interim constitution of AJK prevents anyone criticising AJK’s accession to Pakistan in contravention of international standards on the rights to freedom of expression, opinion, assembly and association.
Local people in Gilgit Baltistan have been forcibly displaced to make way for the China-Pakistan economic corridor.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Unfortunately, that pattern of abuse will be all too familiar not only to our constituents of Kashmiri heritage, but to those from the Punjab, where similar abuses are taking place. In Kashmir, in particular, it is a matter not only of enormous abuse of human rights but, given the security situation, of international concern because of the tensions. Should the international community not therefore intervene to try to resolve this issue?
Debbie Abrahams
We cannot say—this has been said on too many occasions—that this is just a bilateral issue. I will come to that point in a moment.
The last point that was raised is around the discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities. The UN report also noted that the number of armed groups that have been operating across IAK and which were also held responsible for human rights abuses, including kidnappings, killings and sexual violence. The report stated that, despite the Pakistan Government’s denial,
“experts believe that Pakistan’s military continues to support their operations across the Line of Control in Indian-Administered Kashmir.”
The human rights high commissioner made a series of recommendations to both the Indian and Pakistani Governments, and the primary one that covers both is that the rule of law and international human rights must be upheld. Both of these countries are signatories to the universal declaration and they must be upheld.
Specifically, the high commissioner recommended that India repeal the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 and ensure that the 1978 public safety Act was compliant with international law. It was recommended that Pakistan amend the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, bringing it in line with international human rights standards and safeguards as well as amend the interim constitution of AJK and other legislation that limits the rights of freedom of expression and opinion.
Let us fast forward to July 2019 when a second UN report was published. This was meant to be a progress report, but the high commissioner expressed real concerns that very little progress had been made. It noted that the political and military tensions between them, particularly as a result of the Pulwama attack in February, was having an impact on the human rights of Kashmiris on both sides of the line of control.
On 5 August 2019, as Members will know, after the Bharatiya Janata party’s general election win in India, Prime Minister Modi announced the revocation of article 370 in India’s constitution. The effect was to remove the special status afforded to Jammu and Kashmir since partition. A Bill was rapidly approved by both Houses of Parliament, splitting the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two federal territories, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, with direct rule from Delhi. The revocation of article 370 was also extended to article 35A, which removes the rights of indigenous Kashmiris, and has the potential to alter the distinct demographic character of IAK—a direct contravention of the 2007 UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this debate to the House. This week, Narendra Modi will be addressing the United Nations General Assembly. Does she agree that it is high time that Narendra Modi is challenged on the breaking of the UN conventions and on the reports of human rights abuses in Kashmir?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that whenever and wherever there are human rights abuses—in whichever country, including our own—we should hold that country to account. That still needs to happen.
Accompanying the changes to India’s constitution, the Indian Government sent tens of thousands of Indian troops to the Kashmir valley, imposed a strict curfew and blocked all communications. In addition, initially hundreds and then thousands of people, including politicians, were detained. The National Federation of Indian Women claims that 13,000 teenage boys, some as young as 14, were imprisoned for up to 45 days, far away from their families.
During the weeks and months that followed, it was difficult to get accurate information about what was happening in IAK. There was an imposed media blackout and the Indian Government refused to allow independent observers to IAK, other than through those carefully choreographed visits. Despite that, there were reports of food and medicines shortages, and ongoing communication issues, especially for non-business purposes. Concerns were also being raised about the restrictions on access to essential healthcare as a result of the lockdown measures. Children’s education was severely disrupted, with parents afraid to let their children out of their sight. Although some of those detained have been released, thousands still remain in prison. In some cases, their families do not know where they are. On top of this, there are very concerning allegations of torture.
It is in this context that in early 2020 the all-party parliamentary Kashmir group decided that a delegation should try to visit IAK and PAK as early as possible in that year. The Kashmiri diaspora in the UK had raised concerns about family members still in Kashmir, and this is still a real concern for our constituents. Unfortunately, the Indian Government did not respond to the APPG’s request to visit. However, through the Pakistani high commissioner in London, to whom I express my sincere thanks, the Pakistani Government agreed to allow the APPG unfettered access to PAK in February 2020. We said who we wanted to meet and where we wanted to go, and that was followed.
During our delegation’s visit, we met Prime Minister Khan and Foreign Minister Qureshi in Islamabad, the Prime Minister and President of Azad Kashmir in Muzaffarabad, and the Pakistan parliamentary committee on Kashmir. We used those meetings to ask pointed questions—and they were pointed—about the reports in the UN human rights report. At the time of our visit, Prime Minister Khan had just brokered a peace deal with Afghanistan, and that was his focus. He said, “This will allow us a bit more freedom also to look at what is happening on the east of our border.” If only we had known then what we know now.
It is fair to say that the pressure that Pakistan now faces along the Durand line has significantly escalated since our visit. As I said last month when we were recalled, the international community must step up and offer support to Pakistan and other third countries as this new wave of Afghan refugees migrates across the border. I sincerely hope, given that Pakistan has been such a strong advocate for human rights in IAK, that when it is engaging with the Taliban, it also speaks about the human rights of all Afghanis.
As much as the APPG delegates enjoyed meeting parliamentarians, I think we would probably say that we were particularly moved by our visit to a refugee camp in Gulpur, where we heard at first hand about the experience of people who had fled from IAK. The visit to the line of control at Chakoti, where we were briefed by the Pakistan military, made us acutely aware of the tensions at the border, and we were shown video footage of civilians apparently being shot at by the Indian military.
I found the briefings from the British high commission and the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan particularly revealing. UNMOGIP confirmed an extensive military presence in Srinagar and especially in IAK, with armed forces personnel every 30 metres or so contributing to the feelings of harassment and being under siege reported by civilians in IAK—and this was pre-covid. With the advent of the covid pandemic, civic society stakeholders reported a double lockdown with further detentions of large numbers of young IAK men in the spring of 2020, when we were all grappling with our first experience of lockdown. The use of other legislation, including the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Order and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act were further examples of infringements by the Indian Government of international and human rights law.
The attack on human rights organisations such as Amnesty International India is another area of grave concern.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I met members of Amnesty just earlier today, and they spoke about their concerns and their inability to do the vital work that they do in supporting human rights around the world because their offices and operations have been shut down by the Indian Government. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to condemn that and support Amnesty to be able to do its very vital work?
Debbie Abrahams
Indeed. The APPG met Amnesty last autumn once we heard about that. If anybody is not familiar with it, please google what has happened; it is quite disturbing.
Amnesty International’s 2020 annual report cites how covid has been used by some countries to quell peaceful dissent, including in IAK and PAK. In IAK, journalists and human rights defenders were questioned for allegedly anti-national activities. The Indian police attacked or summoned 18 journalists for their reporting, and the offices of the Kashmir Times were sealed when its editor sued the Government after their shutdown of internet and telephone services in the region. In PAK last July, doctors peacefully protesting about the lack of security in the region were arrested.
In addition to the human rights issues, the stakeholders whom the APPG met or interviewed raised concern at the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, and, latterly, India and China—all nuclear powers, making Kashmir a very significant security concern in the world.
The APPG discussed a number of recommendations for the international community, the Indian and Pakistani Governments, the British Government, and the APPG itself. The ones that we drafted in relation to the Government are as follows, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could respond to them: to provide Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office funding to support track 2 diplomacy measures in Kashmir, as well as practical support for Kashmiri refugees; to offer support via the Commonwealth to facilitate crisis talks and peacebuilding in Kashmir; to make the commitment to and delivery of human rights explicit in all UK trade deals, including with India and Pakistan; and to make an annual statement to the House—it is about four years since the last debate on Kashmir on the Floor of the House—on the Government’s contribution to conflict resolution and peacebuilding in Kashmir. Fundamentally, Kashmir must be at the heart of a trilateral peacebuilding process with India and Pakistan.
The APPG has members of Kashmiri, Pakistani, Indian and other heritages. We are passionate about human rights for all our brothers and sisters, at home and abroad. I have tried to be even-handed and to base my remarks on evidence. This is not pro or anti any country; it is definitely pro human rights. The plight of Kashmir is barely in our country’s consciousness, let alone in our media’s. I hope the media who are listening to this debate will notice the passion that we all bring to this subject, and I hope that this debate will change things.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to hon. Members that a great many people wish to catch my eye and that we do not have very much time left this afternoon, so we have to begin with an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches of four minutes, which is likely to reduce soon.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The dispute over Jammu and Kashmir is clearly one for India and Pakistan to resolve. That has been the position of successive UK Governments of different political stripes and it is the right one. We should also keep in mind that the whole of Kashmir acceded to India when the country gained its independence in 1947, even if part of the area was subsequently seized and occupied by Pakistan.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) raised a number of cases related to the part of Kashmir that is administered by India. As India is a democracy where religious minorities have full constitutional protections and one that places great value on respect for the rule of law, its courts and institutions are well capable of properly investigating alleged human rights abuses. It is right that they do so. In a previous debate in the House, the Minister responding for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office welcomed assurances from the Indian Government that their army was committed to compliance with the law and that disciplinary action would be taken in accordance with the law when necessary.
We should welcome the successful conduct of local elections in October 2019, in which more than 3 million voters in Jammu and Kashmir took part, including minorities such as Valmikis who were enfranchised for the first time. Further elections took place in December last year, despite covid adversity.
We must also recognise the suffering caused in Jammu and Kashmir as a result of terrorism and fundamentalism. An infamous example occurred in January 1990, when 65,000 Hindus were expelled from the Kashmir valley by Islamist jihadists, whose slogan was “Die, convert or leave”. In 1947, a quarter of a million Pandits lived in the Kashmir valley, but few remain after systematic attempts by extremists to force out people who question Pakistan’s involvement in the region. Today’s terrorist groups continue to threaten the security of people in Kashmir. They include Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, which the Indian Government believe all have clear links with Pakistan. There is evidence of arms and equipment from the Pakistan military finding their way into terrorist hands. In June last year, Indian border security forces shot down a China-made drone flying in from the Pakistan side containing armaments.
I appreciate that the repeal of article 370 has provoked controversy, but it has been accompanied by a concerted push to improve prosperity and economic opportunity for people living in the region. Extensive investment is under way to improve water supplies, roads, bridges, technology, agriculture, tourism and industrial development. Rules that denied certain property rights to women who married men from other parts of India have been scrapped because article 370 has gone and better protection for minorities such as the Paharis has also been introduced.
Last but not least, we must welcome the efforts by the Indian Government to grapple with the covid crisis, which has seen testing and vaccination rates in Jammu and Kashmir among the best in the country. While no doubt this issue will divide the House as it has in the past, I hope that we can all agree on the importance of all sides engaging positively together to build a better, brighter and more stable future for all the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [R]
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for setting out the issues at the heart of the debate. The truth is, the Kashmir struggle has gone on a long while, spanning many decades, and tens and thousands of people have died. Many hon. Members will be familiar with the history, so I will concentrate on what happened just two years ago.
On 4 August 2019, phone lines in Kashmir went dead and internet connections were cut. A day later, 7 million people were locked in their homes in a strict and brutal military curfew. Almost 10,000 people, from young people to former politicians, were arrested and indefinitely detained. Some are still in detention. A day later, a Bill was passed in the Indian Parliament stripping Kashmir of its autonomy and special status. It was stripped of its statehood and identity, to be governed directly by New Delhi.
In the last two years, human rights groups have documented the everyday reality of that governance for Kashmiris: mass arrests and raids, torture, the suppression of free assembly, the crushing of the Kashmiri press, the decimation of the local economy, the crippling of the education system, the incarceration of thousands of people, the conversion of hotels and guesthouses into detention centres and the gagging of Kashmiri civil society. Censorship has been institutionalized and journalism has been criminalised.
Until recently, Kashmir had the longest internet shutdown ever imposed by a democracy. The curfew and communication siege also meant no access to doctors or hospitals, no work, no businesses, no schools and no contact with loved ones lasting for many months. We experienced the covid lockdown here, except that ours was without a military curfew and without a communication siege, and still it brought our world to its knees, testing our endurance and sanity. Think of Kashmir and what people have to put up with under a dense military deployment and surrounded by a maze of barbed wire on their street. Imagine soldiers breaking into your home. It is incomparable suffering.
Only a few weeks ago, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed concern over “grave violations” in Kashmir, urging the Indian Government to end the use of shotgun pellets against children. Yes, that’s right—the use of shotgun pellets on children. But the use of these pellets is not new in Indian-administered Kashmir. In 2016, there was a report that more than 1,100 people were partially blinded in what was considered by some to be the world’s first mass blindings. There were reports that some victims were children, some as young as 19 months old.
On top of this is the domicile law, which opened the floodgates to land grabs by allowing Indians from the other parts of India to reside in Kashmir. That means that the state subject certificates of Kashmiris are legally void, unless they are used as evidence for their application to the Indian Government for domiciled status in their own country. Those whose applications are rejected could be denied residency in their own country and deported. Kashmiris are facing a cultural erasure.
Let me be clear: we are not against India—it is a beautiful country—but that does not mean that we should not hold the Indian Government, and particularly this BJP Government, to account for their abusive behaviour. We in this Parliament talk about girls’ rights in Afghanistan, but what about girls’ rights in Indian-occupied Kashmir? They just as much have rights as well.
India most allow the UN observers free and unfettered access to visit Kashmir and assess the situation. I know some Members will stand up and say none of what I have said is correct. In that case, I would say: why doesn’t the Indian Government allow in outside independent observers?
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. The situation in Kashmir is of so much importance to people right across the United Kingdom. Of course, this is no different in Keighley, which is home to many British Pakistani Kashmiris, many of whom have loved ones in the region. I must take this opportunity to thank all of my constituents who have contacted me—be it through face-to-face meetings, on social media, through letter or email—expressing their deep concern about the abhorrent human rights issues that are happening in Kashmir. I hear their concerns, which is why at the beginning of this year I took the opportunity to speak on this very topic, expressing my ongoing concerns to Government Ministers in this place.
Kashmir has been living under heavy lockdown restrictions since August 2019, following the special status of Jammu and Kashmir being revoked by India. We should be clear about what this actually means: no foreign journalists being allowed into Jammu and Kashmir by the Indian Government; and thousands of people being arrested without any due cause and facing harassment and imprisonment—lawyers, small business owners, journalists, students and, of course, human rights activists. Phone lines have been blocked and internet access taken away. Although some communication has been restored, it is still very patchy and heavily controlled by the Government. Education has been severely disrupted. Legal reforms have been made so that residents’ property rights can be revoked. Properties have been destroyed and innocent people are losing their lives.
Yesterday, I received a letter from the High Commissioner of Pakistan in which His Excellency wished to bring me up to speed on the continuing violations of human rights and human dignity perpetrated by India in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. It is reported that 3,431 cases of war crimes have been perpetrated by the Indian forces in this disputed territory. I have been informed that more than 1,000 houses have been destroyed since special status was revoked. All that, quite rightly, is causing a huge amount of concern for many of my constituents across Keighley. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), who cannot be here today, shares my concerns.
There are reports of brutalism of Kashmiri society being made possible through draconian laws, the sole aim of which is to perpetrate the occupation and facilitate violence with impunity. As elected politicians in the United Kingdom, we cannot decide on domestic policy in another country, but we can use our influence to ensure that this terrible situation is investigated, and that our Government use their weight and influence to put on pressure to seek a solution.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case; this will give him a little more time in a moment. Does he agree that we need to say to those people in India, and indeed in Pakistan, who would prefer us not to debate these matters, that we have no choice because so many of our constituents have friends and family in the area, and perhaps even their own homes there?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are here to represent our constituents, who have loved ones in Kashmir and are deeply concerned about the horrific situation that is continuing.
The UK’s fundamental values are freedom and democracy. That applies not only to the situation in Kashmir, but right across the world, and of course we are seeing a terrible situation in China with the Uyghur Muslims. I would like UN human rights officials to get access to both sides of the lines of control to find out the facts. India and Pakistan are both long-standing friends of our country and that is strengthened by large Indian and Pakistani communities across the UK. But a solution to the situation in Kashmir must be sought. After all, both countries are nuclear powers. The solution must be sought at speed.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Let me set this out clearly. For more than 70 years, the sons and daughters of Kashmir have been subjected to persecution, oppression and injustice in the most brutal manner. For more than 70 years, they have been butchered, maimed and killed at the hands of an occupying Indian military, operating under the draconian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. For more than 70 years, they have had their rights eroded, their freedoms stripped away and their self-determination denied. But what we saw two years ago, with the right-wing Modi Government unilaterally revoking articles 370 and 35A of the constitution, in direct contravention of United Nations resolutions and of international law, and a war crime under the fourth Geneva convention, is the biggest assault that we have seen on the right to self-determination for Kashmiris and a clear attempt by the right-wing Modi Government to quash the Kashmiri cause.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that, after decades of oppression and the denial of human rights and of self-determination, the illegal revocation of articles 370 and 35A by the Government of India not only breaches international law, but is a deliberate attempt to quash the Kashmiri people? Furthermore, it is deeply disturbing that the United Nations Security Council meeting shortly after those revocations could not even agree a statement of condemnation.
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a critical juncture for the future of Kashmir. Today’s debate, sadly, will be another debate where we list a raft of grave human rights abuses that are taking place in Indian-occupied Kashmir. It will be another debate where we call for action against those perpetrating these grave crimes, and demand that numerous UN resolutions finally be upheld, only to be told by Ministers that this is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. Madam Deputy Speaker, human rights are never a bilateral issue. The right to self-determination is never a bilateral issue. The right of a people to determine their own destiny is never a bilateral issue. It is always an international issue. What message do we in this House send to the Kashmiris? Does a Kashmiri child not feel the same pain as any other child? Does a Kashmiri child not bleed in the same way as any other child? Is a Kashmiri child’s life not worth the same as any other child’s?
We raise these issues time and again, but Kashmiris are still subjected to appalling human rights abuses at the hands of a brutal occupying military force. If the UK and the rest of the international community continue to remain silent and continue to refuse to uphold UN resolutions, and the right-wing Modi Government continue to actively ignore them to unilaterally quash the Kashmiri struggle, what is the point of us talking here? And what is the point of the United Nations when it cannot even enforce and implement its own resolutions? We have to start asking these very serious questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) makes the fine point that soon after the revocation of articles 370 and 35A, the United Nations Security Council met and could not even agree a statement of condemnation. That is shameful.
We are at a critical point that will decide the future of Kashmir forever. Just talking about Kashmir will no longer suffice, because while we talk and debate, innocent Kashmiri men, women and children continue to be cut down in the streets, and their right to self-determination is eroded further by the day. Instead, we must start demanding and forcing real action by our Government and the international community.
As a proud British Kashmiri, I cannot do justice to this debate in four minutes; those who have seen me in this Chamber know that I have spoken in, instigated and led debates time and again. But my final comment, as a proud British Kashmiri, will be this, and let me be absolutely crystal clear about it. The Kashmiris are not begging the international community. The Kashmiris do not bow before the international community. The Kashmiris around the world unite to demand our birth right to self-determination and to determine our own destiny.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I will endeavour not to be so passionate as the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). I declare my interest as the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for India and, I believe, the last serving Member of this House to visit Srinagar and interact with the people of Jammu and Kashmir directly.
I begin with the simple premise that in 1947, the late Maharaja ceded the entirety of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir to India, so the illegal occupation by Pakistan of part of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir should cease, its military operation should go home, the line of control should be removed, and all the terrorist bases that exist on the Pakistani line of control should be ceased and dismantled.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman please tell me who it was that went to the United Nations to ask for a resolution on the plebiscite for Kashmir?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree that all the United Nations resolutions that date back from 1947 should be implemented, the first being that the illegal occupation by Pakistan of Jammu and Kashmir should cease. When that is done, we can talk about the other United Nations resolutions.
Before the abrogation of article 370, the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir existed under different laws from the rest of India. It is important that we look—particularly those opposed to the abrogation of article 370—at the civil liberties that have been restored to the citizens as a result of the abrogation. India has changed its constitution over the years, as a developing country with a progressive view, but of course the laws in Jammu and Kashmir were frozen because of article 370, which was always envisaged as a temporary measure. What happened? I think we should review this, because all those who complain about civil rights should remember what happened.
Under the law, prior to the abrogation of article 370, Kashmiri women were not entitled to ownership of property. If they married someone from out of the state, they lost their property rights. How is that acceptable? Indian women are protected against domestic violence under a comprehensive Act of the Indian Parliament. Until the abrogation of article 370, no such protection was provided to women in Kashmir. Under Indian law, Muslim women are protected against the triple talaq—a man saying, “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you” and that is the end of it, with no protection for women. Of course, now that article 370 has been abrogated, they now have that protection. Under Indian law, it is illegal for children under the age of 14 to be married. Prior to the abrogation of article 370, children under the age of 14 could be married. Under article 35A, the Hindu Kashmiri Pandit population was expelled at the point of a gun by Islamist forces. Now, they have the potential to return. Equally, local government has been restored to Jammu Kashmir under the revocation of article 370.
Kashmir Valley is a beautiful place to see. There is the opportunity for tourism, culture, trade, hydro-electric power and many other aspects. However, it has been tainted by multiple mass exoduses, terrorist attacks, killings, child marriages and forced conversions by radical Islamist terrorists. We should remember that while the Kashmir Valley may be predominantly Muslim, Jammu is predominantly Hindu and Ladakh predominantly Buddhist. The fact is that the historically persecuted religious minorities—Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, women and children—have, unfortunately, suffered in the valley.
The heavy military presence in civilian settlements is definitely a threat to a democratic ethos, but just imagine—we saw what happened in Afghanistan—if the troops were withdrawn and the protections were not there. The plight of Jammu Kashmir would be the same as Afghanistan, with Islamist forces coming in and eliminating democracy in the area. It is only the Indian army and the sound footing of the Indian military and democracy that has stopped the region of Jammu and Kashmir from resembling Taliban-occupied Afghanistan. It only makes sense for them to do so because the region is legally and rightfully an integral part of the Republic of India. The world must come to that, and colleagues must recognise that reality.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for ensuring that this debate has been granted time in the Chamber, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for the excellent way she opened, in such an even-handed manner, the debate on human rights abuses in Kashmir.
I came to have an interest in the situation in Kashmir when I was visited by a small delegation of British Kashmiri constituents at my surgery in Stockport Labour club several years ago. I have a very small minority ethnic community in my constituency, and of that small minority ethnic community the Kashmiri population is a fragment. However, I was taken by the passion and commitment of my Kashmiri community to their cause and concerns; a very similar kind of passion to that we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). That led me to look a bit further into the situation in Kashmir, and quite frankly I was shocked by what I found out. Many of the issues have already been raised in this debate; I will not repeat them, because they are already on the record and time is short.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the reports of crackdowns on freedoms of expression in Kashmir should concern us all across the House? One thing that would help to bring light, not heat, to these debates is making sure that everybody can be heard freely, especially those on the ground, and that Kashmiris can speak their mind about what is happening, because we know that at the moment that is not happening.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The most basic and fundamental human rights, which each and every one of us in the House and each and every one of our constituents enjoys and takes for granted, are denied to too many people living in Kashmir. That is wrong. As parliamentarians, as democrats and as believers in human rights, we should call out and condemn those abuses, not just in Kashmir but wherever they occur across the world.
I am particularly concerned about this seven-decade injustice because the most basic and most fundamental human right, from which all other rights derive, is people’s right to choose by whom they are governed and how they are governed. That is the crux of it. That is the right that the people of Kashmir have been denied.
I will make no particular biased remarks about who should govern the Kashmiris. I do not care whether it is India, Pakistan or the Kashmiri people themselves—that is for the people of Kashmir to decide. That is what they have been denied, and it is what they have been promised in a United Nations resolution.
I implore the Minister, who is new in post and whom I welcome to her position in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to do all she can to use what influence the United Kingdom has to bring all interested parties to the table from the United Nations, the Commonwealth, India, Pakistan and—most importantly of all—Kashmir itself, to start talks and try to find a successful resolution.
What is clear from all the reports that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth outlined is that two wrongs do not make a right. The fact of the matter is that there are people on both sides of the line of control whose human rights, to some extent or another, are being affected and withdrawn. We should ensure that their rights are protected and upheld and that their most basic and fundamental human right—to decide by whom they are governed and how they are governed—is finally put to the people. That is why I am proud to stand here today as the chair of Labour Friends of Kashmir.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I congratulate the chair of the all-party parliamentary Kashmir group, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), on her work. I am grateful for the opportunity to be one of her vice-chairs.
In the limited time available, I want to focus on one specific issue: the alleged use of cluster munitions by India along the line of control. I received a letter from the high commission for Pakistan on 21 May 2020, which explains:
“India struck the habitation of civilians along LoC on 30th July 2019, with cluster bombs;
9 villages were hit in the District Neelum of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, namely: Jabri; Chilliana; Rajgan; Pahallan; Patti Jageer; Nausadda; Nauseri; Garhi Dupatta; & Qaiser Kot”.
Seventeen cluster bombs—I will come back to this point—were used by the Indian army. Three of them exploded, resulting in 18 casualties—four people killed and 14 injured—while the remaining 14 bombs were defused. The high commission writes:
“On 5th August 2019, Military attaches from 5 countries, including the UK, were taken to the site. Delegation also interacted with victims of cluster bombs;
Evidence collected…has been preserved”.
I have received a rather upsetting dossier from Pakistan and have written to the Government with the allegations and with the dossier. In particular, the dossier shows the remnants of what appear to be cluster munitions having been used.
If the British Government had one of our military attachés on site, it is extremely important that we should know whether cluster munitions were used. If India did not use cluster munitions, then a great nation such as India should not stand accused, but if it did use cluster munitions, I would consider that a crime against humanity, and I will explain why.
I was a Royal Air Force officer 25 years ago, and I will never forget watching cluster bombs being dropped. I invite Members to consider two aircraft coming through at 450 knots and 300 feet, each dropping a pair of weapons which, when they come off the aircraft, spin fast and throw about 174 bomblets. They will scatter across an area 1,000 feet by 500 feet per pair, and not all of them will explode. That area will be covered with fire, smoke, shrapnel and death—a very effective weapon against columns of tanks and mixed infantry in the Soviet era, perhaps, but a totally unacceptable weapon to use against civilians and villages. I consider it a crime against humanity that such a thing should have been used. The Government replied that they were
“aware of reports of the use of cluster munitions”
but otherwise there was a degree, if I may say, of equivocation.
As India develops and emerges and becomes an ever-greater power, I am aware of the importance to the whole world that it turns towards the maritime, liberal, market democracies, such as us, the United States and the countries of the trans-Pacific partnership, and becomes a country that promotes peace and prosperity, not towards China or Russia or authoritarianism. However, around one in six of my constituents is a British Kashmiri, and some people will have property in Kashmir like others have property in France. When a man shows me an image of his house on the line of control burning because it has been shelled and tells me that his family were in that house not long before, what is going to happen if British people and their children get killed and maimed because they happen to be in their homes on the line of control when India uses cluster bombs? The situation must be established and dealt with, and the Government have a duty.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I start by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this important debate on human rights in Kashmir. As a Bradford MP, I am proud to represent a city with such close links to Kashmir. I share many of my constituents’ deep concerns for the situation unfolding in the region. We need a solution that protects the human rights of the Kashmiri people and establishes the democratic right of self-determination. I strongly believe that this Government have not done enough and must redouble their efforts and take a more active role in securing a safe and peaceful future for Kashmir. The issue is of international concern and demands an international solution.
The United Kingdom must stand firmly against human rights abuses wherever they occur in the world and must be vocal in support for those suffering from such abuses. It is our humanity that unites us, and human rights abuses should not and cannot be ignored. That means that we need more than just words of reassurance. With so many allegations of serious human rights, this is not just some faraway foreign policy, because an abuse of human rights is an abuse of humanity. An abuse of human rights anywhere is an abuse to human rights everywhere. It is what binds us, and it must not be what divides us.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and many colleagues for so clearly setting out the case. Does she share the frustration and, frankly, the anger of my constituents that not only has this issue remained unresolved for so long, but it seems to be deteriorating? Justice and peace seem further away than ever, and Government action seems so limited and slow.
Judith Cummins
I absolutely agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue.
The unilateral revocation of article 370 of the Indian constitution, which granted special status to Kashmir, was an outrageous act which has undermined long-term efforts towards peace in the region. Following that revocation, in February last year, I visited Kashmir as part of a cross-party delegation of the Kashmir all-party parliamentary group to see for myself what was going on in the region. We had wanted to travel to India as well, but our chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, was famously denied entry and promptly deported, so we visited Kashmir and Pakistan, where we were granted unfettered access. We met many people, including the then President of Kashmir, Mr Masood Khan, and visited the line of control. I also visited the Gulpur refugee camp to hear directly from displaced people. There I saw at first hand the direct impact of the situation on those people—ordinary people, who told me of the injustices and abuses that they had endured. They wanted nothing more than for their children and loved ones to grow up safely.
The continuing injustices experienced by the people of Kashmir are unacceptable. They face oppression, threats of violence and imprisonment, and rape is routinely used as a weapon of war. The human rights that are considered a certainty in this country are still beyond the grasp of the ordinary people of Kashmir. I condemn these injustices, and I will continue to press the Government, and international partners, for action until the human rights that we enjoy are restored for the people of Kashmir, and until dignity and justice are secured for those people.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I am an officer of the Kashmir all-party parliamentary group, and, along with the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the chair, went to Kashmir. This was within two or three months of my election, and I thought it important to go to Kashmir and the line of control, and to ask people in Kashmir about their everyday experiences of being in this appalling situation. I visited the refugee camp to which the hon. Member for Bradford South referred, and we saw the injuries and obtained at first hand testimony from people who had been victims of torture. We are not getting this information from newspaper articles; it is first-hand evidence from people to whom we spoke, and who had been treated in the most appalling manner.
We could all engage in a lengthy historical analysis of the geopolitical issues affecting Kashmir, but this debate is entitled “Human Rights in Kashmir”, and the 2018 United Nations report on the situation of human rights in Kashmir is my starting point. Paragraph 22 states:
“There remains an urgent need to address past and ongoing human rights violations”—
it is not India or Pakistan that is saying this; it is the United Nations—
“and to deliver justice for all people in Kashmir who have been suffering seven decades of conflict.”
How on earth could anyone disagree with that?
The United Nations should have it as its central mission to support a peace process that will give justice to the people of Kashmir, and in my view that is about self-determination—about the right of people to choose how they want to be governed. We can go back to revolutions from 1947 onwards, and place on them any historical interpretation that we choose, but the basic, underlying principle is that the people of Kashmir should have the right to decide their own futures. How is it possible that we can ever advance an argument to suggest that the freedoms that we enjoy in this country should not be enjoyed elsewhere? How can we possibly put forward an argument that skirts around the issue, and say that we can tolerate clear human rights abuses, whether for political reasons or for any other reason?
I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). I think that the United Nations needs to step up to the plate, at the very least. I think that it has let this region down. Resolutions are tabled for a reason. If they are not enforced—if they are not enacted—what is the point of them? If the United Nations cannot enforce or enact its own resolutions, why should we trust it in the future in respect of these issues?
I am proud to represent thousands of constituents of Kashmiri heritage. Before my election I was a councillor in Bury for a long time. I did not know about this issue. I have learned from my friends; I have learned from people on the ground; I have learned and learned and learned about the human rights abuses that happen on a daily basis. I am a lawyer, and I have heard at first hand of people being detained without trial for two years and, the day before the two years are up, they get detained for another two years. It is absolutely appalling. Rape, torture and mass killings are not being investigated. The Indian Army treats Kashmiris in any way it chooses with impunity, and we as an international community tolerate that. Can we look ourselves in the mirror if we continue to do that?
The realistic outcome is that the United Kingdom Government cannot act alone. We can, however, use our influence in the United Nations and other international bodies to support all those who wish to be part of the movement to protect universal human rights and the rule of law and to give justice to the Kashmiri people, which the United Nations says should be our central mission. We must do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I would like to make sure that everyone who wishes to catch my eye has an opportunity to speak. Therefore, after the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to three minutes—[Interruption.] There is no point in people sighing. The debate must finish at 5 o’clock and the only way to get everyone in is to reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I want to begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for arranging this important debate today. Our country has a proud history of standing up for human rights globally, but the Government seem to be burying their head in the sand when it comes to Kashmir. The Foreign Office’s 80-page long 2020 human rights and democracy report does not even mention Kashmir once. Is that because there were no human rights violations in the region in the last year? No. As we have heard today, all the evidence suggests otherwise. The charity Human Rights Watch’s 2020 human rights report paints a very different picture. For example, it found that the Indian security forces have continued to use shotguns firing metal pellets to disperse crowds, despite the indiscriminate and life-changing injuries they inflict. I raised the Indian Government’s use of these pellet guns in the House more than four years ago, and still things have not changed.
Throughout my time in this place, I have raised the plight of Kashmiris many times. In 2017, I spoke of the shocking human rights abuses going on there and called on the Government to use their diplomatic powers and membership of the UN Security Council to secure lasting peace in the region. However, four years later peace seems as far away as ever, and Kashmiris are still being denied their basic human rights.
It has been over two years since the Indian Government of Narendra Modi revoked article 370, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of their autonomy. In that time, we have seen countless examples of brutal actions by the security forces to quash the democratic freedoms of Kashmiris; the reality is that we simply do not know the scale of the human rights abuses in Kashmir. Why? Because ever since the revocation of article 370 in 2019 the Indian Government have tightly controlled the circulation of information in the region. Opposition politicians, foreign diplomats and international journalists have been barred from entering. Local journalists have been routinely harassed and threatened by security forces, and internet access has been tightly restricted.
Over the last 18 months, we have all experienced lockdowns and limitations on where we can go and who we can see, but just imagine having to go through all that without a phone or internet services. That has been the grim reality for millions of Kashmiris since 2019. Services were blocked altogether for months, and even when basic 2G broadband was restored in some areas in 2020, social media websites and communication platforms were blocked. Many Kashmiris living in my constituency of Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough went months without being able to speak to loved ones in Kashmir due to the blackout. Only in February this year has 4G been restored throughout the region.
Sadly, stories such as these are far from uncommon. Given the ban on foreign journalists, we rely on local reporters for information on the situation in the region. The global community must stand by them against attacks on their human rights. Two years on from the revocation of article 370, Kashmiris’ human rights continue to be abused. The international community must come together to put an end to these injustices. Diplomats and UN officials must be able to enter the region and fully assess the human rights situation. For too long, the UK Government have ignored the plight of Kashmiris, and now is the time for us to play our part in building lasting peace for all those whose lives and livelihoods depend on it.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this important debate.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) rightly said that awareness of this issue is not widespread in this country, but lots of people and Kashmiri human rights organisations in my city and in communities across the country are working hard to spread awareness. This debate is, in part, down to them and their hard work. I thank Friends of Kashmir in Peterborough, Abdul Choudhuri, Mohammad Choudhary, Ghafarat Shahid, Mohammad Ikram and Mohammad Yousaf for all their work in highlighting this issue.
What happens in Kashmir matters in Peterborough, not just because we have a 20,000 Kashmiri diaspora population in my city but because if we care about human rights, we care about Kashmir. I suggest that all hon. Members care about human rights and, if they do, they should reflect on the murder, torture, rape and all the other atrocities happening in Indian-occupied Kashmir. My hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who cannot be here today, care deeply about these issues, too.
In another world, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, and it is incumbent on British Muslims to be aware that this Government and all hon. Members in the Chamber today care about atrocities and human rights abuses carried out against their fellow Muslims across the world. I ask the Minister to think about it carefully. Just as we care about injustice against the Rohingya and the Uyghur, we also care about injustice against the Kashmiris.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman mentions persecution against many peoples, and there is anti-Christian violence in Kashmir, too. Christians have their churches burned and there is forced conversion of Christians by brutal force, physical and sexual violence, rape and murder. Christians need equality in Kashmir, too.
Paul Bristow
The hon. Gentleman must have read my mind, because I was going to come on to that next. Just as we care about atrocities against the Rohingya and the Uyghur and about persecuted Christians around the world, we must make sure that we stand up for persecuted Muslim communities, too.
I completely reject the argument that, somehow, to care about human rights in Kashmir is anti-Indian. India is the seventh largest country in the world by land area and it has the second largest population, at 1.2 billion. India’s list of economic and other achievements is impressive, but the ongoing human rights situation in Kashmir does not benefit India at all. If India wants to take its place as one of the great world powers, surely the human rights abuses in Kashmir hold it back and make people feel differently about India.
I stand with the hundreds of millions of Indians across the world and with the Indian diaspora in this country who care about human rights. This is not just a Muslim issue. Ordinary people in this country care about human rights, and that includes our Indian diaspora population.
This is a bilateral issue for India and Pakistan, and we face our own territorial arguments on the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. We will never negotiate the sovereignty of Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands without consulting the Gibraltarians or the Falkland islanders themselves. We say that self-determination for these people is important, and if it is good enough for the people of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, it is good enough for the people of Kashmir.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I thank the all-party group and its brilliant chair for bringing us a brilliant and balanced debate today, but without the brilliant persistence of the Kashmiri diaspora in this country we would not be here today. If the abuses happening in Kashmir were happening here and I were watching from afar, I would hope that I had the resilience and persistence that British Kashmiris have shown.
I want to raise some specific cases of the thousands of Kashmiris detained without charge, an issue that has already been raised by some hon. Members. I want to draw attention to two particular cases, the first being that of Syed Ali Shah Geelani, a man regarded as one of the top leaders in Kashmir. Mr Geelani dedicated most of his life to spearheading the resistance movement, pushing for a movement that worked to educate people and mobilising them to organise a peaceful struggle. Mr Geelani had spent the last 11 years under house arrest and, sadly, he passed away at the age of 92. His last wishes were to be buried at the martyrs’ graveyard in Srinagar, but he was denied this opportunity. His family reported that the police raided their family home in the middle of the night, thrashing family members in the process and dragged his body from his home.
The second case is that of Ashraf Sehrai, another man who dedicated his life to the Kashmiri cause and suffered as a result. Mr Sehrai, a 77-year-old man, was in “preventive detention”—for which read “without charge”—since July 2020, with his family unable to see him for five months as meetings were barred, perhaps because of covid-19. Mr Sehrai had complained of poor health and a lack of medical treatment while in prison. He sadly passed away, alone in hospital, from respiratory distress and was only granted a quick burial in the middle of the night. These acts of brute force and the treatment of political prisoners leave one more scar on the memories of the Kashmiri people.
As always when an international conflict is happening, I ask myself: where are the women? Where are the women of Kashmir, who have been carrying the heaviest burden in the ongoing three-decade conflict? Not surprisingly, although it is still dismaying, the reporting and information collated about abuse against Kashmiri women is slim at best. When my office was looking into this, we came across some amazing young women graffiti artists in Srinagar who are using their voices bravely, against huge threat and opposition, to fight against the patriarchy—go on girls!—and against the human rights abuses happening to their families. If a young girl with so much to lose by speaking out against the human rights abuses in Kashmir can find a way, why are we not speaking with such passionately strong voices, with the power that the British Government have?
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
This debate, for me, is about our ideals as a nation—the values we hold of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and how we propel them on to the world stage. It is also about the Kashmiri people. They did not ask for people to pick a side between India and Pakistan, but what they do ask of the UK, as a global force for good, is that we stand true to our values. We have one of the largest diplomatic networks of any country and a history that embeds us in Kashmir, and we have an obligation to use both of those things to make a difference. Indian-administered Kashmir, Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Aksai Chin are three areas controlled by three very big players, all armed with nuclear weapons. If there is any reason to try to fix this issue, that is it, because individual people and families are paying the price for that contest.
As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, in August 2019 India revoked article 370 of its constitution. That article provided for significant autonomy. If we had done something like that in this country, it would be like ripping up the entire devolution settlement. No one in this House would stay silent on that. We have a significant diaspora across this country who care. There are those who say we should not take an interest and should not debate and discuss in this House, but I certainly will not ever stop speaking up for my constituents, and there are thousands of them who care deeply about this issue. Human rights concern us all: they are not negotiable and they do not change based on location; they unite us here and around the world. We must stand tall and stand firm.
In the few seconds I have remaining, I want to make a point about communications in Kashmir, because that is what my constituents care most about. They have family members and friends in Kashmir whom they were unable to speak to for months. If we can make one plea to the Indian Government, it is that they should never again not allow our constituents to speak to the friends and family they care so deeply about.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I begin by paying tribute to Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who passed away on 1 September. He dedicated his life to Kashmir and the freedom of Kashmiris. I deplore the actions of the Indian Government in not allowing a proper funeral to take place and his burial without the funeral happening.
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention the undignified way in which Syed Ali Shah Geelani was buried. Does he share my concern that Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s family continue to be persecuted at the hands of the Indian Government?
Tahir Ali
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point.
In south Asia, the long-drawn-out dispute over the state of Jammu and Kashmir remains a hanging fireball between two hostile nuclear neighbours, India and Pakistan. It has brought human misery in the form of wars and human rights violations, and continues to threaten regional and global peace. My role is not to take sides, such as being pro-Pakistan or anti-India; I believe that as a Kashmiri it is my duty to highlight the abuses and human rights violation to this House.
Even after seven decades, the people of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir are waiting for their right of self-determination, as promised by the United Nations. Notwithstanding more than 25 UN resolutions calling for solutions to the dispute, India is reluctant to grant Kashmiris their right to self-determination. The Scottish people were rightly afforded a referendum to express their desire for independence, and the UK had a referendum on remaining in or leaving the EU. Kashmiris are not begging for their freedom, and nor will they beg; it is their birthright and, eventually, it will be achieved.
The Indian occupation of Kashmir is not something that can be or should be left to India and Pakistan. Let me be absolutely clear: this is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan; the international community needs to take responsibility. The British Government have a responsibility: this is another example of the mess left by the British Government in 1947. We cannot turn our backs to the people of Kashmir and say it is absolutely nothing to do with us. This is an issue of international significance on which the UK should take a leading role, given its historical involvement in the situation.
In February of 2020, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is well known for her activism and support for the Kashmiri people, was denied entry to India and essentially deported without any suitable explanation given by the Indian Government. In essence, entry was denied because of her high-profile work supporting the self-determination of the Kashmiri people. British parliamentarians, Indian politicians sympathetic to the Kashmiris and international observers are all denied access to Indian-occupied Kashmir.
Earlier this month, China’s ambassador to the UK was prevented from entering Parliament to attend a meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on China. The initiative came about because of protests by the Speaker and Lord Speaker in response to China imposing travel bans on five MPs and two peers. I ask, with the same justification, that measures be taken against the Indian high commissioner, who is still allowed on the parliamentary estate. It seems that we are prepared to take action against China but not India. This is clearly a case of double standards, and it is why I demand that the Indian high commissioner be barred from the parliamentary estate, pending an end to the military occupation of Kashmir.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The wind-ups will begin no later than 4.38 pm.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this Backbench Business debate.
As a son of Kashmir, with parental heritage from Kashmir, I should have been really happy that my hon. Friends had secured this debate, but when I looked at what we would achieve, I was not at all pleased. The reason I am not pleased is this: we are here for this debate on a Thursday afternoon for a couple of hours; we have just three minutes to speak because of the time that is available; and then there is the interest that is being shown on this very issue by other parliamentarians. I am not pleased because, today, there is no Whip. When there is no Whip, there is no vote. When there is no vote, we have a discussion between ourselves. The discussion has no real meaning in our proceedings. When we get up to speak on important issues such as this, it is important for us that we actually have a purposeful debate. We need to put a vote before the Government to show the strength of feeling from all of parts of this House and to show what the issue of Kashmir means to us.
I intervened on the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and asked him who took the issue of Kashmir to the United Nations. It was Pandit Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister. He did so because he knew that when Maharaja Hari Singh had to abdicate from the post, he had not acceded to either one of the countries. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) might laugh, but that is accurate.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him. Does he not accept that the Kashmiri Pandits, in any type of vote or plebiscite, should have the right to be considered as part of Kashmir and, therefore, those refugees who live in Jammu and the rest of the world should also have that right? Who then determines who would participate in a plebiscite?
Mr Mahmood
The plebiscite would be determined by the United Nations. Every Kashmiri, whether a Pandit, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian member of the heritage of Kashmir, has a right to vote in that plebiscite. Every Kashmiri of any religion, faith or creed is a Kashmiri by nature. It is important for all of us to recognise that, which is why I wanted to make that point. That is why it was important to keep article 370 and 35A, because that is what the United Nations had pushed for. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned tourism in his speech. Fantastic! Can I go to Kashmir as a person of Kashmiri heritage? My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth tried but was not allowed.
Following the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), I think all of us should apply to the Indian High Commission for a visa to go to Kashmir. When all of us do not get a visa to do that, we should then put forward a motion to Mr Speaker and to the Lord Speaker to ensure that the Indian high commissioner is not allowed in this place at all. This is about people who continue to be subjugated by an armed force—more than half a million armoured people—in their land. Those forces subjugate the rights of women, using rape as a form of collective torture. That is not acceptable in any form of society and we should not accede to that.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
After the events of the last century, by now we should all know what a fascist party of Government looks like, speaks like and acts like. By extension, we should also know what illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing looks like. However, despite knowing this, we fail in our duty to act. Knowing the BJP’s projected journey towards genocide, we are not doing what we should do. Members should not just take it from me. Genocide Watch exists
“to predict, prevent, stop, and punish genocide”,
and its “ten stages of genocide” model has been used by the US State Department and the UN. Genocide Watch has said that all 10 stages of the genocidal process in Jammu and Kashmir are far advanced while Kashmir is under military rule. Yet still, despite all the cautions and the signs, our Government maintain a bilateral position in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, while they apply Magnitsky-style sanctions against China and make a determination of genocide in relation to Uyghur Muslims.
Why the double standards? Is it not the case that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere? Why do we apply a different standard to our friends and trading partners than to our foes? Is it not easier to be critical of our foes, but bolder and braver to be critical of our friends? It is common knowledge that Kashmir is deemed the unfinished business of partition. The question on the minds of millions of Kashmiris worldwide and in the region is simply this: how will the butcher of Gujarat settle this unfinished business of partition? If the assessment made by Genocide Watch and others is anything to go by, we can draw the conclusions.
There are those who ask, “Why Kashmir? Why should we care?” To them, I say that aside from the barefaced violations of international human rights and our colonial legacy, the answer is that Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir is the world’s largest militarised zone, and India and Pakistan are two nuclear-armed states that will be on the brink of war if India continues its war-mongering. That should be enough to keep everyone up at night. The list of serious human rights violations by security forces in Kashmir—and the deliberate erosion of civil liberties by the ideological bed buddy of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the BJP Government—is endless.
While Pakistan made a gesture towards peace by safely returning an Indian fighter pilot in 2019, the BJP has been accused of alleged torture and the custodial killing of the leader Mohammad Ashraf Khan, and the kidnapping, desecration and forced burial of Syed Ali Geelani’s body against his final wishes. Make no mistake: India is setting the stage for Kashmir, and it is not for a Bollywood blockbuster. The BJP’s journey towards enacting genocide in Jammu and Kashmir must be stopped. While the people of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir look to the world to act, will this Government make urgent representations?
I will not stop speaking: not until every mother in Kashmir is reunited with her son, until every woman in Kashmir is free from the threat of being raped by Indian forces—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have to move on. I call Barry Gardiner.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
At this critical time in the region, with the US and UK withdrawal from Afghanistan, it is right that people understand the connections between democracy, pluralism and human rights, and the equally strong connections between fundamentalism, terrorism, insurgency and the loss of human rights.
Over the years, Pakistan has harboured Taliban leaders, and the ISI—their security service—has provided other forms of support to them and to other terrorist organisations. As Secretary of State Blinken said in a recent congressional hearing, Pakistan has “harboured” members of the Taliban, including the Haqqanis.
Mr Mahmood
Are we talking about the Kashmiri people or about Pakistan? This debate is about the Kashmiri people and the abuse of their human rights.
Barry Gardiner
Indeed, it is. I will try to ensure that the connections are apparent.
Of course, it is no coincidence that the last hideout of Osama bin Laden was in Abbottabad, scarcely a mile away from—and, some would say, under the protective shield of—the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul. Abbottabad is just 20 miles as the crow flies from Muzaffarabad, the capital city of Azad Kashmir. As a constitutional entity—constitutional self-determination has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne)—the so-called Azad Kashmir, which is better known to the world as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, is not just strange, but unique. It has been given the trappings of a country, with a President, Prime Minister and even a legislative assembly, but it is neither a country with its own sovereignty nor a province with its own clearly-defined devolved authority from the national Government.
Under section 56 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim constitution of 1974, the Pakistan Government can dismiss any elected Government in AJK, irrespective of the support they might have in the legislative assembly. Strangely enough for an entity that purports to be a country, the constitution bars anyone from public office and prohibits them from participating in politics unless they publicly support the principle of Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. Imagine that: a country all of whose politicians can be politicians only if they say they do not want to be a country. It will therefore come as no surprise to colleagues when I say that the major civil and police administrators’ positions in AJK are held by Pakistani civil and military officers. It may also come as no surprise to them to find that the putative country has no representation in the Parliament of Pakistan. The territory’s local representatives are excluded not just from the Pakistan Parliament but from even those Pakistani bodies that negotiate intra-provincial resource allocation and federal taxes. So much for “No taxation without representation”.
Bob Blackman
Is it not worse than that, because the minority religions are also excluded from that Government?
Barry Gardiner
Indeed; I was about to come on to that.
That there is no taxation without representation is not a principle observed in AJK. It is not a country; it is not a province; it is not a state: it is a satrapy. Were I not a British MP conscious of the fact that much of this mess is a legacy of our colonial past in the region, I might almost describe it as a prize of war—but then, of course, that is precisely what Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is. It was gained by the illegal invasion by Pakistan troops in 1947.
Stringent blasphemy laws mean that many religious groups face the death penalty if they are even accused of denigrating the Prophet. Sadly, the infamous case of Asia Bibi is not unique. The rights of women are governed by the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 penal provisions, which prevent women from exercising their marriage choices. The South Asia Terrorism Portal records that of the 42 identified terrorist training camps located in Pakistan, 21 were located in Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Those camps belong to three main terrorist groups: Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hizbul Mujahideen. One of the key areas around which the camps are located is Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
According to Human Rights Watch, the Pakistani Government repress democratic freedoms, muzzle the press and practise routine torture within Azad Jammu and Kashmir. According to the world press freedom index prepared by Reporters Without Borders, Pakistan ranks 145th out of the world’s countries, below India. The 2019 Foreign and Commonwealth Office report, “Human Rights and Democracy”, noted that the human rights situation continues to worsen and pointed out that freedom of expression—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am sorry, Barry—we have to leave it there because of the time pressure.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this debate and I am grateful to the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir for its work.
I want to make three very quick points, but the bottom line is this: if this Government are serious about the rules-based order—you never know, they might be—then it is time for them to step up the fight for justice for Kashmir. There are three ways in which this can be done. First, we must say what we mean and mean what we say. All of us will have seen in Hansard that there is now a new trope, cliché, turn of phrase or diplomatic nicety: “We are aware of human rights concerns.” Well, firing pellets indiscriminately at children is not a concern: it is an abuse. Detaining thousands of people without trial for up to two years, including former chief Ministers, is not a concern: it is an abuse. Detaining people without trial for years on end, as we have heard today, is not a concern: it is an abuse. Beatings and torture: that is not a concern; it is an abuse. Troops who shoot dead labourers without trial or suspicion: that is not a concern; it is an outrage, and we should be angry in this House. Abuse after abuse; outrage after outrage; offence after offence: it is about time we started telling the truth in this House about what is going on in Kashmir.
Secondly, the Government can make it clear to both India and Pakistan that there will be no trade deals unless human rights are observed. We know that the prize for an India-UK deal is significant, at up to $15 billion over the next nine years. That is quite a treasure, but are we seriously saying here, in this House, that for $15 billion we will look the other way on human rights abuses? The world of trade is built on trust, and we cannot trust countries that break their agreements, break international agreements and perpetrate the human rights abuses we see in Kashmir.
Finally, how can we pretend that this is a bilateral issue? This is no longer a bilateral issue. The changing of the facts on the ground broke the Simla agreement. Human rights is always a multilateral issue. There have been nearly 300 international conflicts since 1945 and nearly 200 of them were settled through international brokering—think of Holbrooke in Yugoslavia and President Carter in Israel and Egypt. We need a trilateral solution.
The economies of the new silk road will be two and a half times the size of the Atlantic by 2050. Our interest and our duty is in getting involved and delivering justice for Kashmir now.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The human rights situation in Indian-administered Kashmir has long been a cause of international concern. Spanning 73 years, the Kashmir conflict is the longest unresolved dispute on the UN’s agenda. In June 2018, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report that focused on allegations of serious human rights violations, notably excessive use of force by Indian security forces that led to civilian casualties; arbitrary detention; and impunity for human rights violations. It made a wide range of recommendations, including an independent investigation into allegations of human rights violations in the region. However, not only have the recommendations not been implemented but the situation facing Kashmiris has become even more dire, and it has worsened during the pandemic. With increased military deployment and a communications blackout, the people of Kashmir face an uncertain and bleak future.
The concerns point towards a wider problem in India. The rise of populism has resulted in a lack of checks and balances, a power-hungry Executive and a crackdown on dissent. The suffocation of minority rights and a lack of freedom of expression is illustrated in the ongoing farmers’ protests and the persecution of minorities, including Christians and Dalits. The closure of reputable human rights organisation Amnesty International’s operations in India also paints a depressing picture.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Surely it is time for India to join the Pakistani and Kashmiri people in meaningful dialogue to sort out this issue. They could take all the money they are spending on weapons and nuclear weapons and spend it on poverty in their countries and let the Kashmiris decide their own future.
Afzal Khan
I agree wholeheartedly. The whole of south Asia is suffering as a result of how these two big countries are behaving and the money they are spending on arms. China, Pakistan and India are nuclear powers, so they are putting the safety of the whole world at risk. The sooner they get around the table, the better.
The concerns point towards a wider problem in India. Discrimination has become embedded in law, with the Disturbed Areas Act in Gujarat used as a tool to discriminate against Muslims. Protests in Indian-administered Kashmir are also prohibited. Kashmir is the only state in India where a crowd control gun is used that has caused more than 700 Kashmiris, including infants, to go blind. The list of issues is long. As the all-party human rights group puts it, India is a “diminishing democracy”.
The Government like to talk about the close relationship and friendship between the UK and India, but true friendship requires honesty and accountability. Successive UK Governments have adopted the position that it is for India and Pakistan to resolve Kashmir’s future and that the UK should not interfere in or mediate the process. However, we must go beyond that and recognise the role that Britain has played in the Kashmir conflict. Its roots lie in the countries’ shared colonial past, which facilitated the violent partition process between India and Pakistan and left the fate of Kashmiris undecided.
So will the Minister meet me, Kashmiri groups and members of the diaspora to hear their concerns at first hand? This week, the UN General Assembly also met. Will the Minister also outline whether the issue of Kashmir was on the agenda, and what steps are being taken to ensure that the UN resolutions are upheld? The reality is that the Indian Government have utter contempt for international law and human rights—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry, but we will have to leave it there, Afzal.
I am grateful to Debbie Abrahams for offering to give up her wind-up in order that the last speaker, Zarah Sultana, will have the full three minutes.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
Today’s debate on rights abuses in Kashmir is one close to my heart. It is very personal for me. In the 1960s, my grandfather came to the west midlands to work in the foundries, having left his home in Kashmir. I still have family in the region, and that is what makes what is happening in Kashmir all the more painful.
It is now more than two years since the BJP Modi Government unilaterally revoked articles 370 and 35A of the constitution, robbing Indian-occupied Kashmir of autonomy, reflective of its status as an occupied territory, violating UN resolution 47 and initiating a brutal lockdown. This has intensified human rights violations in the region, with widespread reports of torture, rape, extrajudicial execution and illegal detention. In what is now the largest military occupation in the world, the internet connection was cut off, and political leaders, activists and journalists were arrested.
In 2020, following its reports of widespread state abuses, human rights organisation Amnesty International faced reprisals from the Modi Government and was forced to halt its operations in the region. These repressive actions have been mirrored in how the Indian Government have cracked down on the largest protests in world history, led by tens of thousands of farmers; in how they have unlawfully detained British Sikhs in India, such as Jagtar Singh Johal; and in how they attempted to have three British Sikhs from the west midlands extradited, only for Westminster magistrates court yesterday to rule that there was not evidence to justify it. I send my solidarity to the families of these men, who have faced months of agonising uncertainty and fear, and to the Sikh community in Coventry and across the UK.
Human rights abuses in Kashmir are not simply some issue of foreign policy of which Britain can wash its hands of responsibility, nor are they a bilateral issue for India and Pakistan to resolve. This House has a special responsibility for the plight of the Kashmiri people. In 1947, as the colonial power, the British Government oversaw partition of the Indian subcontinent and rejected calls for Kashmiri independence. That decision laid the groundwork for the oppression we see in Kashmir today. But far from standing up to the Indian Government for their violations of human rights and international law, this Conservative Government would rather cosy up to Prime Minister Modi, and would rather refuse to speak out and, once again, demonstrate moral cowardice that shames this House.
Britain has a special responsibility to the Kashmiri people, and it is long past time that we spoke up for their inalienable rights and pursued diplomatic channels to secure UN resolution 47, securing their right to self-determination.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Apologies to Jim Shannon, who has been here throughout, but, sadly, we have run out of time. Wind-ups—I call Hannah Bardell.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do my very best, in the limited time I have, to pay tribute to and to sum up the many incredible, impassionate speeches we have heard today across the House. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, and the hon. Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who applied for this debate and secured it.
I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), who was, as many of us are, really disappointed that we are not voting on this issue today. But we hope that the people of Kashmir, those who have relatives there and those, as many do, with Kashmiri backgrounds and heritage hear the calls from across the Benches for the UK Government to do more to secure their human rights. As we have heard from hon. Members, the human rights situation in Kashmir is utterly horrific. It is one of the most militarised zones in the world, yet garners little media attention or, indeed, action and attention from this Government relative to the severity of the situation, not least because of the censorship, suppression and abuse of journalists, as we have heard, and human rights defenders and activists—something that should worry us all.
As was said earlier, Amnesty International has had its operations shut down by the Indian Government, and India’s abuses of power in the region are incredibly worrying. That is having a devastating impact on daily life, and on the rights and freedoms of people in Kashmir. SNP Members call for India’s Government to respect the administrative autonomy of Kashmir, and to respect human and constitutional rights in the region, including, as many have said, the right to a safe and legal vote on self-determination. That is crucial. We also call on this Government to do more to hold India to account over its human rights abuses, and to assist the people of Kashmir. As many Members have said with incredible passion, the Government should not and cannot in the name of Members of this House put trade deals before human rights.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth spoke about the casual dismissing of the people of Kashmir during the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, and many Members spoke about the legacy of imperial Britain in that area, and about the duty and responsibility that this Government and this House have to do all we can to ensure the human rights of those in Kashmir. She highlighted how vital it is to engage with the people of any nation, but particularly Kashmir. The UN report found that the human rights of Kashmiris were being routinely violated and the 2019 report showed that, sadly, not very much had changed.
I have huge affection for the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and do a great amount of work with her. Indeed, we went on a trip together to Pakistan a number of years ago, where these issues were discussed robustly. She spoke about the brutal military lockdown and blackout, the abhorrent treatment of Kashmiris, and of how during lockdown, when so many people were desperate to reach out to families, Kashmir had the largest internet shutdown of any democratic Government. She also spoke about the recent concerns raised by the UN about grave human rights abuses.
The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) raised the roof when he spoke about the butchering of Kashmiris by Indian forces. I could not help but be deeply moved by what he, and many Labour Members, spoke about. He spoke passionately and powerfully on behalf of his people, and said that the right to basic human rights and self-determination is never a bilateral issue; it is always an international issue. I could not agree more. He also robustly challenged the role of the United Nations, which he called on, as do we, to do much more. He spoke as a proud British Kashmiri, and said that he and his people do not bow down, but that they demand human rights and the right to self-determination, as they should.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) is a former air force officer. He spoke about the potential use of cluster munitions by the Indian Government and said that, if that was the case, he considered it a crime against humanity. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) spoke of the profound impact on her Kashmiri constituents who could not contact family during the blackout—many other Members also spoke about that. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who always speaks so passionately, asked where the women were and spoke about the precious little attention that she felt women are getting in Kashmir. Many hon. Members have spoken about brutal human rights violations, particularly of women and girls, and about the sexual violence that we so often see in conflicts. The hon. Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) spoke about the UK’s diplomatic influence and why that should be used to help Kashmir. I could not agree with him more. It beggars belief that his Government are not using more power and influence.
Mohammad Yasin
Does the hon. Lady agree that the UK can and should play a greater role? We must stand up, given the roots of our responsibility and our shared colonial past, for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. We must do more, and we should help the Kashmiri people on both sides of the Line of Control.
Hannah Bardell
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad he got that point on the record. I will conclude by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), whose family came to the UK to work and live. As a result, she is in this House and able to speak so passionately. Are we not at our best when we are agreeing and working together on these issues? I know she will continue to champion them. The Government must listen to Members of the House and do more to help the people of Kashmir. Human rights abuses, wherever they happen, should concern us all. I hope we will hear something of substance from the Minister today, as there is clearly cross-party effort and feeling on this important matter.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and the Backbench Business Committee, for the opportunity to have this important debate. I also thank all Members on both sides of the House who made such passionate and eloquent contributions, and I welcome the Minister to her place and congratulate her on her appointment.
The conflict in Jammu and Kashmir has been going on for 72 years; it is the world’s longest unresolved conflict. It dates back to 1947, and it is defined by a long and tragic history of political and military conflict. In that year, the British state was, as the departing colonial power, a signatory to the instrument of accession, which gave Kashmir a high degree of autonomy—
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that really important point. Many of my constituents in Luton South say that the UK has a vital role to play in this international issue, and that it should not just be left as a bilateral issue. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Stephen Kinnock
Absolutely. It is not just about an historical responsibility; it is also about the fact that we have so many ties that bind us now, in 2021, so there is an opportunity to work with our friends and partners in India and Pakistan, and with the Kashmiri people, to find a peaceful solution.
At the same time, in 1947, India was granted control over Kashmir’s foreign affairs, defence and communications. Since then, we have seen countless UN resolutions, plus many other diplomatic interventions, each attempting to resolve the Kashmir conflict. Perhaps the most significant was the Simla agreement, which was concluded following the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. The Labour party strongly supports the conclusions of the Simla agreement, in particular its conclusion that issues involving India, Pakistan and Kashmir should be negotiated between the parties and that no state should deploy force or act unilaterally.
Stephen Kinnock
I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I am going to run out of time.
Stephen Kinnock
If my hon. Friend can make his intervention extremely short, I will give way.
Imran Hussain
I thank my hon. Friend; it is on a very important point. Does he agree that the Simla agreement, as important as it is, does not take precedence over United Nations resolutions?
Stephen Kinnock
I think it is important to see Simla and the UN resolutions as a framework for peace. What is very important in all those resolutions is that the agreements and peace negotiations have to be between all the parties. That is the key point about not taking unilateral action, which I will come to.
The Labour party does not interfere with the internal affairs of other nations, but we do seek to uphold what we see as universal values; namely, respect for the rule of law, support for democracy and the promotion of universal rights and freedoms. Where we see those principles being violated, we will comment, and we will urge other Governments to take action and change course.
Fifty years after Simla, we recognise that the situation on the ground is deeply troubling. By some accounts, as many as 95,000 people have been killed in the last 30 years alone, and Kashmir is recognised as the most heavily militarised place in the world. It is deeply distressing that Kashmir has become a political football in a sordid game of great power competition between India, China and Pakistan. What a dangerous game that is, given that each of those nations holds nuclear capabilities.
Stephen Kinnock
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I am going to have to push on.
On 5 August 2019, the Indian Government’s Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act unilaterally revoked article 370 and replaced the autonomous state of Jammu and Kashmir with two new union territories governed directly by New Delhi: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. What followed was an Indian army-imposed lockdown in Jammu and Kashmir, lasting until February 2021, in tandem with a communications blackout. The lockdown and the internet ban had a far-reaching impact on every aspect of life for the Kashmiri people; education, health services and media freedom were all undermined. The Indian Government maintain that their decision to unilaterally revoke article 370 is an internal matter, claiming that such actions do not interfere with the boundaries of the territory or the line of control, and citing security concerns based on attacks by what New Delhi believes to be Pakistan-backed militant groups. Indeed, we all recall with great sadness the tragic suicide-bomb attack on 14 February 2019, which targeted Indian soldiers in Kashmir.
However, the Labour Party recognises that those who are opposed to the revocation of article 370, and the subsequent lockdown, are understandably angered by what they see as a unilateral act of aggression on the part of the Indian Government. There can be no doubt that that unilateral action was counterproductive in terms of trying to achieve a peaceful and just long-term settlement. Furthermore, in line with Labour’s commitments to universal rights and the rule of law, we urge the Indian Government to consider carefully the impact on the individual rights and freedoms of innocent Kashmiri citizens when taking such significant action.
I also make clear that the Labour party will always speak up vociferously in defence of the human rights of the people of Kashmir. On that note, we recognise the hardship faced by those living in Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir, where the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Elections Act 2020 clearly contravened universal freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly. In a letter to the Muslim Council of Britain on 8 May, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, made it clear that all sides must play their part in ending the conflict. He wrote:
“Our position on Kashmir has not changed. We support and recognise previous UN resolutions on the rights of the Kashmiri people but maintain that if we are to find a lasting settlement…that can only be achieved”
by
“India and Pakistan working together, with the people of Kashmir”.
It is with that in mind that I have the following questions for the Minister.
First, since taking up her new role, has she yet sought to impress on her Indian and Pakistani counterparts the need for a plan to demilitarise the larger Kashmiri region? On that note, has she met yet with the high commissioner for India? Did she make clear the need for the Indian Government to uphold human rights in Jammu and Kashmir?
Secondly, what meetings has the Minister had with human rights organisations about the situation in Jammu and Kashmir? Does she give support to the work of the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir, which seeks to address the human rights situation?
Thirdly, do the Government have any plans to send a delegation to Jammu and Kashmir to assess the human rights situation and to report back to Parliament? Her predecessor said that the Government were looking to do that once the pandemic allowed.
Finally, will the UK Government commit to doing all they can to support and work with representatives from India, Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir, including all five regions, to deliver justice, peace and resolution to that terrible conflict? I welcome her again to her place, and I look forward to hearing her answers.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Amanda Milling)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, and the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate. I am grateful to Members across the House for their insightful, passionate and very personal contributions. The sheer number of speakers we have had is incredible. It shows how much interest there is in Kashmir. I will try, as far as possible, to cover some of the points that have been raised, but time is pretty limited. I also thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth for giving up her time so that Back Benchers and I could have a bit more time.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Indo-Pacific region is a priority for the UK, as global Britain tilts towards growth opportunities of the future. Our integrated review provides a strategic framework for us to deliver our ambitions. We are working with our partners in the region to strengthen mutual prosperity and support regional stability. The UK Government also committed in the integrated review to be a force for good in the world, and to drive global efforts to increase people’s freedoms, security, and living standards. As a force for good, we promote open societies, the rule of law and respect for human rights and media freedoms.
Jim Shannon
I commend the Minister and look forward to working with her. The citizens of Kashmir are denied access to local civilian courts to prosecute security forces for their involvement in human rights abuses. It would not happen in the United Kingdom; it should not happen in Kashmir. What can she do to make it right?
Amanda Milling
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; no debate, particularly on human rights, would be the same without his comments. I am sorry that he did not get to make a speech this afternoon. I will come on to specific points about human rights in Kashmir shortly.
We fund and promote girls’ education and humanitarian responses in places in need around the world. India and Pakistan are long-standing and important friends of the UK. We have significant links, particularly through the diaspora communities on both continents; hon. Members across the House have mentioned the communities in their constituencies. We are lucky to have approximately 1.6 million British citizens of Indian heritage living here in the UK, and a similar number with Pakistani heritage.
We have a strong and growing relationship with India. In May, our Prime Ministers launched the 2030 road map for India-UK future relations. The road map sets out our joint vision to re-energise trade and investment and the technological links between our people, improving their lives and livelihoods. It demonstrates our commitment to enhance regional defence and security co-operation across the Indo-Pacific region and highlights how we bring our strength to bear to advance clean energy and health.
Through the ambitious road map, we have elevated the India-UK relationship to a comprehensive strategic partnership. In June, at the G7 summit, our Prime Ministers highlighted our countries’ shared belief in the importance of human rights, freedom of expression and the rule of law.
Amanda Milling
I am afraid that I will struggle for time, but if I get time I will come back to my hon. Friend.
I assure hon. Members that the India-UK relationship allows for candid exchanges on important issues, including human rights. The number of Members who participated in the debate demonstrates that Kashmir is a top issue that is close to the heart of so many hon. Members and their constituents; many have ties to the area, including friends and relatives living on both sides of the line of control.
The Government take the situation in Kashmir very seriously, but it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political solution, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or to act as a mediator.
Amanda Milling
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
The position has remained the same across successive British Governments. It would be for India and Pakistan to agree if they desired external mediation from any third parties. We welcomed the renewal in February of the ceasefire along the line of control and we encourage both sides to find lasting diplomatic solutions to maintain regional stability.
Amanda Milling
I simply do not have time: I have two and a half minutes.
We recognise that there are human rights concerns both in India-administered Kashmir and in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights documented some of those concerns in reports in 2018 and 2019; UN special rapporteurs set out others in letters sent to the Government of India earlier this year.
Hon. Members have rightly raised a number of concerns today. We encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards, and we have raised our concerns with the Governments of India and Pakistan. Any allegation of human rights violations or abuses must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
Several hon. Members rose—
Amanda Milling
I want to make a couple of points, but I might come back to hon. Members if I have time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) made a point about the diplomatic network. We regularly raise our concerns about human rights and about the situation in Kashmir at a senior level within the Governments of Pakistan and India. This is done at ministerial level and through officials from our high commissions in Islamabad and New Delhi. Officials from the British high commission in Islamabad visited Pakistan-administered Kashmir earlier this year. Their counterparts in New Delhi are discussing the possibility of their own visit to India-administered Kashmir and are in regular touch with contacts there.
Let me make a couple of points about some other issues that have been raised. We voiced our concern when the Indian Government introduced restrictions on assembly and communications in India-administered Kashmir in August 2019, and we are pleased that the vast majority have since been relaxed. We welcomed reports that many of those who were detained have been released, but we understand that a number of political detainees remain. We call on the Government of India to ensure that they are released as soon as possible.
Let me be clear: freedom of expression and media are essential qualities of a functioning democracy. Just as with India, ties between our people underpin our strong relationship with Pakistan. We continue to urge the Government of Pakistan to guarantee the rights of all citizens as laid down in the constitution of Pakistan and in accordance with international standards—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am afraid that we have to leave it there. I thank everybody who took part in the debate.
Business Without Debate
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Independent Expert Panel Recommendations for Sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I know that the Leader of the Opposition wishes to move his amendment, and I understand that that would be contested. This constitutes an objection, and I am therefore not able to put the main Question, so the objection is taken.
Environmental Audit Committee (Virtual Participation)
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker
I wish everybody a fruitful conference recess. I thank all the staff, from cleaners to Clerks, from the security to MPs’ teams, for their hard work during this three-week sitting.
Horse Racing
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate at what is a critical time for the British horse racing industry. Racing is a sport that means so much to me, not only because I love riding out, but because I have seen the positive impact of horse racing on communities across my West Suffolk constituency and across the country. I am grateful for all the support I have received from racing over the years, and I want to put that on the record. I am also grateful that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has fielded not one but two Ministers for this important debate, which shows how seriously the Government take this vital industry.
Racing is the sport of kings, and it reaches all parts and is loved across the land. In fact, racing is the second biggest sport in the UK on any measure—by attendance, by revenue, by employment. Only football surpasses racing on the numbers, but not by grace or beauty. In 2019, before the curse of covid struck, over 5 million people attended racecourses in Great Britain, and experienced the thrill of the turf. From flat cap to top hat, Chepstow to Cheltenham, and Perth to Pontefract, people are working, riding and enjoying racing and all that the sport brings.
Racing is also one of the biggest employers in Britain. The breadth of skill and craft is extraordinary. Think of farriers, vets, stud staff, feed suppliers, saddlers, sales companies, bookmakers, transportation, equine schools, breeders, owners, trainers, jockeys; racing employs directly or indirectly around 80,000 people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman participating from the Back Benches—it is always better on the Back Benches. He is right that racing attracts people across the whole United Kingdom. It is also a major contributor to the economy in Northern Ireland. We all know that racing is important in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in Ireland, and this is not just about the jobs. When it comes to the benefits of this wonderful sport, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the implications of gambling should not be overlooked?
Matt Hancock
I do, and I will come on to that point, because it is at the nub of how we ensure that we have a flourishing industry while taking into account the impact of gambling-related harm, which the hon. Gentleman knows is a matter close to my heart. However, it is possible to have policy that leads to a flourishing horse racing industry and the sport doing well that is symbiotic with that. That is what we need to achieve, and I have some suggestions for how we get there.
Newmarket, of course, is the centre of flat racing not just in this country but in the world, and is home to more than 3,500 horses in training. The number of horses in training there grew by 10% before the pandemic, despite falling numbers across the UK. One in three local jobs in Newmarket is related to racing, and 28% of all flat-race or dual-purpose horses in training under licence in the country are trained there. In fact, the success of the racing industry is providing jobs and improving livelihoods throughout West Suffolk, and I know from other Members who have significant parts of the racing industry in their constituencies—my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who represents the Cheltenham racecourse, is present—that the livelihoods and the jobs, as well as the joy, that come from the sport are paramount.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Let me first draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is important to allow racecourses to recover from the pandemic, and that any talk of vaccine passports would hit the sport very hard indeed?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend has made his point very clearly. Thanks to the vaccine, we have been able to reopen racing after more than a year in which there were no crowds—and for 11 weeks in 2020, it was closed altogether. It is thanks to the vaccine that the crowds are back, and long may they remain so. I will avoid the particular issue of the passports question; I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about it, and perhaps it can be the subject of the next Adjournment debate.
Let me pick up the economic point that my hon. Friend has raised. Nationally, aside from its contribution of about £4 billion a year to the UK economy, racing as an industry has acted as a bridgehead for significant trade with and investment in the UK. I really want to land this point. Examples include massive investment in business, property and universities by investors who come to the UK because of our racing. As we work to build an outward-looking, international, free-trading global Britain, that investment is vital. In this mission, soft power is incredibly important, and when it comes to soft power, there is little more powerful than horse racing. Through the sport’s historic connection to what could be described as our oldest and most important soft power asset, the monarchy, countries and investors around the world are eager to see and invest in horse racing here in the UK. Our horses compete around the world, are watched on television around the world, and are loved around the world. For instance, Royal Ascot and the Grand National are broadcast to nearly 600 million people in 200 countries annually. We must safeguard and cherish this national treasure. We must not allow horse racing to fall behind in Britain.
Like many industries, racing has been hit significantly by the pandemic. We know that the lockdowns saved lives, and that without them we would have suffered much more, but we also know—and I know—that forcing businesses to close had a significant impact on our economy and on many industries. As I said earlier, in 2020 racing was closed for more than 10 weeks. Thanks to the vaccine, it has been able to reopen, but it is estimated that it lost between £400 and £450 million in revenues. I pay tribute to the Minister’s Department, to the policy officials, to Mark Hicks, the private secretary—he was my private secretary, and an excellent one at that—and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for implementing one of the most generous and successful support packages in the world. From speaking to my constituents, I know that without the furlough scheme and the £21 million of funding in the sport winter survival package, the racing industry, and all the jobs of those who work in racing, would have been wiped sideways.
In spite of that great work, however, we still have a significant problem as we come out of the pandemic. Prize money—which is the lifeblood of the industry, enabling owners to generate a return on their investment—has fallen by 20% from 2019 levels. Sales of horses have fallen by over 20%, and more than 60% of major breeding operations are reporting declines in turnover. If we do not take action now, we will be overtaken by countries around the world as the global hub of racing, and we must not let that happen.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate for his constituency. Is it not the case that much of the prize money comes from the betting industry, and that that is an important part of the ecosystem? Although we may need to deal with problem gambling, we should recognise that for many gambling is an innocent source of pleasure. He also mentioned the effect of the lockdown. Would it not be much better for the industry to have vaccine passes rather than another lockdown, which would be disastrous?
Matt Hancock
I certainly do not want to see another lockdown, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not, because he was unenthusiastic about the ones that we had in the past. I do not want to get into the vaccine passport issue, but I agree strongly with what he said at the start, which is that we must tackle problem gambling. I bow to no one in my desire to tackle problem gambling, which I addressed when I was in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. At the same time, however, many people enjoy a flutter, and a day at the races is an enjoyable experience that is enhanced for many people by gambling in a completely responsible and controlled way. The symbiosis between horse racing and gambling is important, and I would argue that gambling—especially gambling in person at a racecourse—is a much safer proposition than some of the modern electronic and online offers.
I want to come back to the point about the risk, because we are at a moment of peril—
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, and I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. He will be aware of the recent increase in the number of drone pilots that have been spotted at horse race meetings. This practice creates opportunities to bet via the black market during live races. Indeed, recent reports have suggested that the amount betted online via the black market has doubled in recent years to £2.6 billion. This is a practice that the horse racing authorities are working to address. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Government to assist them in trying to stamp out the use of drones at horse race meetings?
Matt Hancock
Yes I will, and I can see the Ministers discussing exactly that question right now on the Front Bench. This is another issue that needs to be resolved. It is another loophole in how the sport operates.
Races are put on to allow people to bet on them—they are not only put on for that reason, but it is one of them—and it is therefore important that some of the funding should come back from the gambling to the racing, without which we could not have the gambling in the first place. It is a symbiotic relationship, and that is why there is a place for the Government in ensuring that it is all arranged properly. The problem at the moment is that while gambling revenues have increased during the pandemic, particularly from online gambling, the amount that is going into horse-racing is not sustainable. The risk is that horse racing will increasingly move overseas and that we will lose all these great benefits. That is why we must act.
This is not just about the statistics. This is real. The decisions of only a few significant investors to relocate their investment to other jurisdictions would significantly and permanently damage British racing’s leadership position. We have seen countries around the world, including Ireland, France and Australia, stepping up to back their racing industries more, and if we do not follow suit we will be overtaken as the home of racing. We must not let this happen. Just recently, Shadwell, a major multi-million pound racing and breeding operation, announced that it would be undertaking a review of its activities, with operations in the UK, Ireland and the USA to contract. The extent of any contraction in the UK would have serious implications for jobs, for the economy and, I believe, for our place in the world. This is not just about statistics. It is real. There is an urgency for action, and I know the new Minister is a man of action and ready to act.
In this country, we are in the fortunate position that our recovery is the strongest in the G7. I come not to ask for public funds—although I do not rule that out for the future—but to ask for policy, to ensure that racing gets its fair share from the industries it supports, notably through fixing loopholes in the horse race betting levy. So the Government have a decision to make: step up, save the horse racing industry and reap the rewards of prosperity, jobs, prestige and trade, or step back and lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. Racing is of course part-funded by the levy, which represents the value of horse racing to the gambling industry. The levy provides for the infrastructure of racing and, in part, for the prize money that attracts investors who are crucial to the sport. We must ensure that the levy meets the costs of the racing industry in providing a competitive, compelling betting product from which the bookies benefit. It is failing to do that now. At the time of the last review in 2017, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport confirmed that the levy would be reviewed by 2024, but earlier if necessary, in order to be
“responsive to future changes in the market”
and to ensure that the yield is meeting the levy’s statutory purposes.
It is clear that the levy’s yield has never met the level of costs envisaged in 2017. There will be an estimated £160 million shortfall in industry revenues between now and 2024. Given the pandemic, an early review is required to ensure the levy is providing an appropriate return both to meet its statutory objectives and to support an internationally competitive British racing industry.
Two changes are needed, and this is what I am asking for. First, the levy should be based on a percentage of turnover, not a percentage of profit. This would result in less volatile yields and remove unhealthy perverse incentives in the sport.
Secondly, and most urgently, the levy should apply to all horse racing globally that is bet on by British customers. Betting customers in Britain can safely enjoy and benefit from horse racing in a wide variety of countries, and British participants often compete in these international events, driving interest and UK betting turnover. However, British racing does not receive a return from betting activity on these races.
An extension of the levy to cover racing overseas would see the levy apply to all thoroughbred races held worldwide, rather than solely races run in Great Britain. This is how it works elsewhere, such as in France and Ireland. This second reform can be quickly and easily enacted and would generate around £20 million annually for British racing. Closing this overseas levy loophole is fair, right, good economics and based on historical and international precedent.
I close by inviting the Under-Secretaries of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), to Newmarket to see racing in action, from behind the scenes and from the grandstand, so they can see for themselves the huge value of this remarkable sport. I invite them to meet the British Horseracing Authority so that we can work together on the detailed evidence and proposals that have been developed.
I pay tribute to the Government for their support for racing throughout the pandemic. I know the Minister has heard this heartfelt plea on behalf of a sport that so many love, and I will not be letting this drop, so I look forward very much to working with him to ensure British racing can thrive in the years ahead.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
I thank the hon. Members who have joined this evening’s Adjournment debate.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) for securing and initiating this debate and, indeed, for advocating on behalf of his local industry with such passion and evident tenacity, which I look forward to experiencing again. I am informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), that not only is he willing to accept that invitation to Newmarket but he has already scheduled a trip to Newmarket next week, when he will be meeting members of the horse racing fraternity and, I hope, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk. Diary permitting, I would be delighted to follow in his footsteps at a later time.
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the vital contribution of racing to the economy not just in his constituency, where Newmarket and its supporting infrastructure is such a significant employer, but throughout the United Kingdom. As he rightly says, horse racing is the second largest sport in the UK by attendance, employment and annual revenue. According to its governing body, the British Horseracing Authority, racing is worth over £4 billion per annum to the economy in direct, indirect and associated expenditure, much of which is focused on rural areas.
More than 20,000 people are directly employed across 59 licensed racecourses, hundreds of training yards and thousands of breeding operations. As my right hon. Friend said, tens of thousands of additional jobs are supported in the wider rural economy through the supply chain and all the sectors he outlined during his excellent speech. I also agree entirely with the points he made about horse racing’s contribution to the UK’s soft power. Clearly, people from around the world come to the UK to participate and watch our fantastic horse racing meets, and to invest here in stud farms and horse racing yards directly as well. So racing significantly adds to the UK’s international prestige and our global leadership in this industry is something we should cherish and certainly be preserving.
The horse-race betting levy, the topic of my right hon. Friend’s speech, was of course introduced more than 50 years ago, in the 1960s, when the betting industry was somewhat deregulated and placing bets away from racecourses was permitted. At the time, there were fears that people would leave the racecourses and bet on the high street, and the levy was introduced to try to mitigate that risk. Thankfully, over those past 50 or 60 years racing has proved enduringly popular, despite the concerns articulated back in the 1960s. Nothing better illustrates its enduring popularity than the vibrancy of its recovery as we have returned to normal after covid and restrictions on flagship meetings were removed. I understand that attendance at the recent Qatar Goodwood festival this year was close to the figures in 2019, which is fantastic news. Racing was the first sport to return, behind closed doors, after the first national lockdown—I wonder whether my right hon. Friend’s hand may have been behind that move, in some way, in June last year. I am pleased that horse racing has continued without interruption since then. The fact that it has been able to return so swiftly is thanks in no small part to the British Horseracing Authority to incorporate covid measures into the already meticulous protocols.
John Spellar
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. He referred to the outdated view that the interests of bookmakers on the high street, regulated and onshore, were somehow in conflict with those of the racecourses. Should we not, as the right hon. Member for West Suffolk indicated, actually see them in a symbiotic relationship, as part of the same ecosystem, supporting each other?
Chris Philp
I was referring to the fears articulated during the 1960s, which of course have subsequently proven not to have come to pass, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The horse racing levy is a direct expression of the symbiosis that he refers to: the support that that two industries give one another. The one would certainly be weaker without the other, so I entirely agree with what he just said.
I also wish to reflect on the support that has been provided to racing during the pandemic, which my right hon. Friend referred to. Of course, horse racing has benefited from the economy-wide support that all businesses have received—the rates relief and the support on jobs, through things such as the furlough scheme, which have been provided by the taxpayer. In addition, the horse racing industry, by way of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and The Racing Foundation has also received £28 million in terms of cash flow and hardship support, and £20 million of levy funds were aimed at supporting racecourses, with £8 million from the foundation supporting individuals in the sector. So the sector has received substantial support not only generally, but specifically. Since then, the HBLB has agreed to make additional contributions to prize money until the end of December, which will help to mitigate the lower amounts made available by courses due to covid—this partly addresses the concern that my right hon. Friend raised a little earlier.
As my right hon. Friend said, racecourses are also accessing support through the sports survival package, organised by the sport Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire, where a £21.5 million loan has been made to the HBLB to enable it to provide extra. The HBLB has earmarked £15 million of that to be distributed via prize money this year, 2021, keeping a further £6.5 million in reserve for 2022. Of course, it has not been a one-way street, because horse racing has given back. It has donated £2.6 million to NHS charities from betting on the grand national, and a great deal of voluntary work has been done as well. I pay tribute to the horse racing industry’s contribution to our country during this time of crisis.
Given that time is pressing, let me address directly some of the requests my right hon. Friend made in his excellent speech. On a review of the horserace betting levy, it was of course reviewed relatively recently in 2017, when my right hon. Friend was a Minister in the Department, albeit not directly responsible for this policy area. In that review, the Government fixed the levy at 10% of bookmakers’ gross profits, to avoid annual negotiations, and based the levy on gross gambling yield—in effect, the gross profit—rather than turnover, so that there was a certain amount of risk-sharing between the gambling industry and the horse racing industry. One could conceive of circumstances in which, for some reason—unexpected events—the gambling yield might go down. That would clearly affect both parts of the sector, which are symbiotic, rather than falling wholly on the shoulders of the gambling industry, which is why the levy was originally constructed in that way.
A review is due to take place in three years’ time, in 2024. I am of course willing to listen to detailed representations if there is a case for looking at it again sooner. I think that the measures that I have set out addressed the issues in respect of covid, but if there are particular reasons why a review ought to be considered sooner, I would be happy to look at detailed representations from either my right hon. Friend or the industry, and I would consider them carefully. Having been appointed only a week ago, almost to the hour, I do not want to race to make any commitments in this policy area, but I will of course listen carefully.
Mr Laurence Robertson
I welcome the Minister to his new role. On the wider gambling review, will he confirm that it will remain the Government’s policy to ensure that it is evidence-based and evidence-led?
Chris Philp
I like to think that all the Government’s policy making is evidence-led and evidence-based. The review will be conducted in a thoughtful way, with full engagement and consultation with Members who have an interest, some of whom I see in the Chamber, as well as with the industry and other stakeholders.
It is worth saying that the 2017 reforms exceeded expectations and doubled the amount of levy collected, up to £95 million in 2018. Even during the difficult year we had last year—the year running to March 2021—the levy still collected £80 million, which was substantially in excess of the amount collected before the reforms. The levy has not only exceeded expectations but proved remarkably resilient even during the difficult circumstances of the past year.
My right hon. Friend raised an interesting question about international horse racing. It is worth recalling that the original rationale for the construction of the levy as it is dates back to those 1960s concerns, which it turns out were largely unfounded, that high street betting would in some way detract from on-course betting. The levy was therefore constructed in relation to UK-based horse racing because people were worried about horse racing on UK courses. There is, then, a rationale for why the levy has developed in the way it has. To make the change my right hon. Friend proposed would be outside the originally constructed purpose. We are, though, always willing—and as a new Minister, I am particularly willing—to listen and to consider new evidence as it arises. I would be happy to study any detailed submissions that make the case advanced by my right hon. Friend and give them careful consideration, because this is a Government who listen and who consider evidence, as alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) a few moments ago.
I can see that the hour of the final Adjournment prior to the conference recess is almost upon us, so let me conclude by saying how strongly this Government support the horse racing industry and everything that it does: the jobs that it creates; and the addition that it makes to our national prestige. We will always engage constructively and in detail on topics such as this in a way that it is not really possible to do in a half-hour debate, but there is a lot of detail that I am sure we can discuss later. It serves our national interests and the interests of all our constituents to have a vibrant and successful horse racing industry. My colleagues and I look forward to working with Members across the House to ensure that that remains case for many, many decades to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robin Walker
In 2021-22, Tameside council also received an annual school condition allocation of £1.3 million to address condition issues at its schools and, over the past five years, it has received £9.1 million in total.
[Official Report, 21 September 2021, Vol. 701, c. 94WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Schools, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct wording should have been:
Mr Robin Walker
In 2021-22, Tameside council also received an annual school condition allocation of £1.3 million to address condition issues at its schools and, over the past six years, it has received £9.1 million in total.
Building Safety Bill (Ninth sitting)
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
May I remind the Committee to switch electronic devices to silent and to email speaking notes to our Hansard colleagues at hansardnotes@parliament.uk? We begin today’s session with clause 36.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)
It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I welcome the Committee back to this final line-by-line scrutiny session before we go into recess again.
The Government are committed to ensuring that there is a stringent regulatory framework to enable the design and construction of better and high-quality homes while providing industry with the clarity and certainty that it needs. Dame Judith’s review found that unnecessary delays in the system must be minimised, and we wholeheartedly agree with that finding. The gateways and building control system have been designed to ensure appropriate consideration of building regulations compliance, including building safety, throughout design and construction.
Applicants in England are encouraged to work with the Building Safety Regulator to ensure that decisions are reached in good time or extensions are agreed, and the Building Safety Regulator will make decisions on a variety of matters relating to building control. They include deciding whether to approve or reject the following types of applications: gateway 2 building control applications, change control applications, gateway 3 applications and certain refurbishment applications. To provide industry with certainty for project and financial planning, the Building Safety Regulator will have prescribed periods in which to decide such applications.
Where further time is required—there may be occasions when that is necessary—extensions can be agreed between the regulator and the applicant. However, it is necessary to have an alternative route through which an applicant can get a decision on their application if the Building Safety Regulator has not issued a decision within the required timeframe and an extension has not been agreed, and clause 36 provides the legal basis for the Secretary of State, or a person appointed to act on their behalf, to make a decision on applications in England in such circumstances. We envisage that there will be very few applications that follow this path each year. Like applications decided by the Building Safety Regulator, there will be no set timeframe in which applicants can expect such a decision.
In Wales, failure by the building control authority to decide on an application relating to a higher-risk building will similarly allow the applicant to apply to the Welsh Ministers, or a person appointed by them, for a decision on the application. This is a means by which decisions can be expedited, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
This is a really important clause. My right hon. Friend was rather succinct in his comments, but he touched on the balancing of the environment with the Bill. As we talked about in our previous deliberations earlier this week, we want to ensure that we can still have the environment in place in order to continue to build, because we still need to build homes and ensure that there is an adequate process in place. The important part of the clause, which links to other clauses that we have debated so far, is about ensuring that there is an adequate process in place to ensure that there are no delays and that we have adequate building taking place in an expedient manner.
We also need to ensure that those who want to play according to the rules, as I discussed on Tuesday, know how to do that and can ultimately have their matters determined in an expedient manner. I am sure my right hon. Friend will touch on that in his remarks when he responds later, but I want to ensure that in the clause we maintain the balance between a proper determination to ensure safety for leaseholders and residents and an expedient manner to determine applications, which will be important.
I will not talk about the impact in Wales. I commented on that during our previous deliberations, but I fully support the clause, which strikes the right balance in the underlying tensions in the Bill. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend’s comments in due course.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the Opposition for what appears to be their support for this fairly uncontentious and important clause. I am also obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West for his contribution. He is right to say that we want to ensure that building can progress expeditiously and safely. That is why we have put in place sensible review points—the gateways and the hard stops that they provide for. It is also why we have included this clause in the Bill to ensure that where there are occasions—we do not envisage many—when the Building Safety Regulator has failed to issue a decision and no extension to the timeframe has been granted, there is a means by which the applicant can move to get a decision.
We have not specified a timeframe by which the Secretary of State or the person or body appointed by the Secretary of State will be obliged to make a decision because we anticipate that in those very few circumstances a decision might not have been made because of the complexity of the arrangements. That then allows the Secretary of State or the appointed body time and space to come to a conclusion.
Christopher Pincher
And on the word “conclusion” I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Shaun Bailey
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He said that there would not be specific timeframes in the Bill, but can he assure me that there will be ongoing monitoring? The one thing that the clause seeks to achieve is an expedient process, which previous clauses have done as well. Will he touch on how monitoring of the process will be implemented to ensure the aims of the clause are enacted?
Christopher Pincher
I am happy to do that. My hon. Friend pre-empts what I was going to say. In secondary legislation we will specify what we believe to be proportionate timescales in which the Building Safety Regulator will have to come to a decision on applications before them. That will place proper focus on the Building Safety Regulator and ensure that applicants get the focus and engagement that they deserve. We will ask the regulator to provide data, and the regulator will report on the number of applications that it receives and the outcome of each application, including the timeframe of each decision and whether extensions were agreed.
Over time, a body of information and evidence will be developed, which, apart from the secondary legislation statutory timeframes for adjudication that we will set, will enable the sector to see the average timeframes and outlier timeframes that the adjudications take and be able to make its decisions accordingly with respect to appeals to the Secretary of State or to the Secretary of State’s appointed appeals body.
We think that in practice the clause and its provisions will be used infrequently, but it is an important backstop, which is why we have included it. It provides, as I say, a legal basis for the Secretary of State, or a person appointed on their behalf, to make a decision on applications in England in such circumstances, and in Wales for Welsh Ministers to do similarly. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Compliance and stop notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Dame Judith’s review found that the existing building safety enforcement regime is not fit for purpose. That is partly explained by the absence of powers for building control authorities to immediately halt dangerous or non-compliant work. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening enforcement powers for regulators to act against non-compliant building work. Clause 37 takes forward the review’s recommendation and provides more effective powers for building control authorities to ensure compliance with building regulations.
Compliance and stop notices are designed to tackle all forms of non-compliance with building regulations during the design and build stage of all buildings, irrespective of their risk level or intended use. Compliance notices will be available where there is, or is likely to be, a contravention of building regulations. Stop notices are intended to be used where a compliance notice is contravened, or where building regulations are likely to be contravened in such a way as to cause serious harm to people in or around the building.
Christopher Pincher
Not wishing to break my batting average, I will of course give way.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. It has to be welcome that we are strengthening the powers of the regulator and local authorities. As the Minister rightly says, these are vital tools for building control authorities, and there is currently no power available to stop non-compliant building work being continued or completed, which is clearly a concern. I am very keen that we do something about that. It is very important that it is tackled.
Will the Minister clarify, first, how the powers will change the bad behaviour that we have seen across the industry? We know that most people in the industry are responsible, but for those who are not, what will we do? How will this change that behaviour? Secondly, what enforcement powers will the Building Safety Regulator have for gateway 2 following on from this?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend. On the new powers changing bad behaviour, what we want through the entirety of the Bill is to effect culture change. The clause on its own will not achieve that, but it is part of the cumulative weight of the Bill, which will over time effect culture change. We envision that the additional tools that we are providing to the Building Safety Regulator, and the statutory powers that will be provided, will contribute significantly to that culture change. Safety cases, more regulation of the building control sector, and the gateway assessments and the hard stops involved in them will all play their part in driving that culture change.
We also envision an escalating set of powers for the Building Safety Regulator, and as we move through the late 30-something and early 40-something clauses, I think I will be able to provide further illumination to the Committee on what those enhanced powers will be. Additionally, it will be an offence to start certain building work in higher-risk buildings without building control approval, and stop notices could be used to stop work that is being carried out without approval. We believe—I think this goes some way towards addressing my hon. Friend’s point—that these are critical tools for building control authorities, because as he says, there is currently no power available to stop non-compliant building work from being continued or completed.
Mike Amesbury
I should have said earlier, Mr Efford, that it is yet again a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
We welcome the increased regulation—the compliance and stop notices recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt in the independent review—but I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will these powers given to the regulator apply to buildings that are 11 to 18 metres tall, and will compliant products be kitemarked for ease of inspection to ensure that they are compliant, or not?
Shaun Bailey
I should also have said in my previous contribution that it is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair today, Mr Efford, and I thank you for your indulgence during our previous deliberations. You are being very generous with your time in the Chair.
I have a few questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister as well, dovetailing with what the hon. Member for Weaver Vale just said. The one concern I have is about individuals who purchase their property pre-completion of construction—because that does happen in these settings too—and what protections we can devise for that. I have seen it happen before: people have put down a deposit or spent significant amounts of money on legal and transactional fees to get to a particular point. I heard what my right hon. Friend said, and I agree that we are talking about extreme cases of individuals who are flouting the rules or not following them, but my concern is that as we embed new sets of regulations, issues often become apparent quite commonly and quite quickly. I am sure that those of us who have been Members much longer than I have will have seen the array of issues that arise when new legislation comes into effect during its initial implementation.
My question to my right hon. Friend the Minister is whether he is open to a broader discussion about what we can do to avoid potential blockages in transactions as an unintended consequence of this. What we see is that people who are trying to let or purchase properties are left in limbo, with a back and forth for months on end, while stop notices are issued and remediation is done. Clause 37 seeks to ensure that remediation is taken, and, more importantly, that work in the initial process is compliant in the first place and we do not reach a situation where stop notices have to be issued.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend that clause 37 takes forward the important recommendations in the review to ensure that building control authorities are issuing compliance and stop notices in relation to the contravention of building regulations. Does he agree that the clause will also strengthen the powers for the regulator and local authorities?
Shaun Bailey
To answer my hon. Friend’s question, we need to go back to what Dame Judith Hackitt said. She found a fundamental flaw in the regulatory framework. Effectively, it was giving unscrupulous developers almost a free pass at times. It was not fit for purpose. I believe that clause 37 will achieve the aims that my hon. Friend has articulated.
I suppose this comes back to the point that the Bill is a balancing act. My central concern is about the vulnerable leaseholders at the heart of this—the people we expect to live in these developments. There are always two sides to the coin. We need to ensure that these leaseholders are not stung at the outset by developers who are not following the rules in the first place. I am trying to impress on my right hon. Friend the Minister that we need to ensure that those processes are in place and that they work with bodies. This comes back to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby articulated in our previous deliberations around resourcing and funding, and ensuring that our local authorities, building control authorities and the regulatory framework have the expertise. We are not just trying to pigeonhole things into one particular resource package.
I notice the reference to the appeals process in clause 37. I am sure colleagues have read it in as much depth as I have. It talks extensively about the appeals process. That requires our court system to be functioning in a way that allows the process to be as expedient as possible. I do apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister; he has got a shopping list of asks from me on one clause. He probably thought it would be a little less demanding than this. I ask him to ensure that there are ongoing discussions between his Department and the Ministry of Justice about ensuring that this is implemented in an expedient way.
We need to ensure that there are stop notices for those that have put thousands of pounds into a development they are waiting for. I have constituents in similar situations who have written to me who are left out in the cold because a developer issued a stop notice that goes back and forth for months, because they have reserves of money where they can fight and fight, or it is backlogged in the courts for months. We know of the issues with backlogs in the courts in other areas. I will not test your indulgence, Mr Efford, by going down that route. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister continued that dialogue with his colleagues across Government to ensure that the clause does not have unintended consequences that I am sure he does not want to see.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
As my hon. Friend has said, I think it is very important that when these rules are contravened action is taken and that that action is appropriate. I note from the clause that, as well as a criminal offence, there is a maximum penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment. One of my concerns has always been that there are other people in this chain—be that secretaries, directors, managers and so on. I notice that we will come to that when we consider clause 39. Does he agree that putting that criminal offence in there and being clear about what is happening when that is contravened strengthens the clause even further?
Shaun Bailey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Dame Judith Hackitt’s review highlighted a shameful system. Putting in place a criminal offence shows that we will not and should not tolerate this shoddy behaviour any more, and nor should those individuals who have had to suffer the highest cost as a result of it. He is right in what he says in the spirit of his intervention. He listed the plethora of individuals who would be caught by this and I do not disagree that they should. People should not be able to hide behind the corporate veil and dodge liability. He is right that, in drafting the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Minister and his team have ensured that it is all-encapsulating. What we do not want to see—perhaps I am being optimistic, but I hope not—is individuals being able to dodge this.
Mike Amesbury
On a point of order, Mr Efford. For clarity, are we talking to clause 37 or clause 38, which is about offences?
The Chair
I am grateful for the point of order, but as far as I am concerned, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West is in order. He seems to be speaking to sections of the clause. I think you can take it as read, because I have not interrupted him, that he is in order.
Shaun Bailey
I am talking to clause 37. To help the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, I am responding to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. He asked a specific point about the categories of people caught by clause 37, so I am just expanding on that and explaining why it is right for those individuals. I am saying, just as my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out in his opening comments—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale agrees with me—exactly why those individuals should be caught by the clause.
I was in the process of winding up my comments prior to that point of order. I fully support the clause, which brings out issues that my right hon. Friend the Minister needs to address. I do not want it to result in unintended consequences and I hope that he can give me a reassurance, to take back to leaseholders who have been caught out and, more broadly, to the industry, that there will be no delays. The clause is an important development in stop notices. It will enable our regulatory framework to act quickly to prevent serious situations from occurring and, I hope, prevent other scenarios from causing issues down the line. I want to be sure of that, so I press my right hon. Friend for a guarantee that he will do whatever he can to ensure that the process operates expediently and that it will have no unintended consequences.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be back before you so quickly this week, Mr Efford. I will be brief. I want to expand on the issue of the need for culture change. Hon. Members have already raised this and the Minister himself has said that the clause is part of the cumulative weight of the Bill to achieve a culture change. That is crucial. Not only is Dame Judith correct in her assessment and desire to see change, which has led to clause 37. The lay public would be genuinely shocked, if they had no experience of these worlds, to learn that there is currently no power available to prevent non-compliant building from creating these issues.
I welcome clause 37 and I am glad that the Government are addressing the issue. bringing matters forward. However, to really achieve culture change, there need to be prosecutions. We know that we are far off that at the moment. What discussions has the Minister had with stakeholders and others on the formulation of the regulator and the creation of clause 37? There is a real appetite not only to enforce the clause and the new, strengthened powers but to drive them through to prosecutions, which are the true deterrent and which will lead to change in the industry.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the Committee for its deliberations on clause 37 and for the questions that have been asked of me. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked me two specific questions. First, will the measures in clause 37 also apply to buildings below 18 metres? The answer is yes. Perhaps I can explain further. I said that these powers are critical tools for building control authorities. The building control authority could be the Building Safety Regulator, for in-scope buildings, or local authorities, for other buildings. The Building Safety Regulator will use clause 37 for enforcement purposes on the buildings for which it is responsible, and local authorities can use the powers in the clause for buildings for which they may be responsible.
The hon. Gentleman asked me, secondly, about product compliance and kitemarking. In our witness sessions, we heard some evidence on the importance of having good product development and specification. There are clauses later in the Bill that address the question of product specifications, so we can have debates about those.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West made a passionate speech, calling for a proper recognition that in-flight work and development have to be properly understood and recognised. He said that it is important that we do not unintentionally create bad or poor effects for players across the sector, particularly the residents of in-scope buildings. We are working with representatives across the building control system to effectively benchmark the existing regulatory capacity and to ensure that all the actors in the regime have the capabilities to abide by it and an understanding of the consequences if they do not. That is one of the reasons why we are using secondary legislation—to ensure that we are able to properly understand what it is that we need to implement in granular detail, having consulted stakeholders and taken on board comments from members of the Committee.
As I have indicated, we are also working very closely with the shadow regulator, the Health and Safety Executive and others to ensure that we transition to the new regime in such a way that we mitigate the effects of in-flight development. We do not want to endanger people in and around buildings that have been built unsafely, but to ensure that those buildings can be properly, safely and expeditiously built within the constraints of the new regulatory regime. We need to make sure that the transition is effectively executed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made the very important point that we need to ensure not only that the penalties in the Bill are understood but that prosecutions can effectively be brought. We have tried to ensure that through this and other clauses, and through discussions with officials and colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and in expert bodies, such as the HSE. That has helped us to build an approach that will ensure that there are sufficient and appropriate penalties, in an escalating manner, that the sector will understand and that can be applied successfully should they be necessary.
We want to give the Building Safety Regulator and local authorities the powers they need to do the jobs we are asking of them. With that, I commend clause 37 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Breach of building regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
A breach of building regulations can have serious consequences for residents in occupied buildings We saw that four years ago in the Grenfell Tower fire and we have seen it on other occasions. The independent review found that
“where enforcement is…pursued, the penalties are so small as to be an ineffective deterrent.”
That is why, to repeat some of the points I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, the Government are committed to ensuring that where building regulations are contravened, building control authorities have the necessary powers to enforce the rules and offenders receive a proportionate penalty for their non-compliance.
Clause 38, alongside clause 37, will provide a stronger deterrent to those doing building work and, where necessary, stronger sanctions for building control authorities to use. At the moment, offenders can only receive unlimited fines for their contravention of the law. Even where directors or managers are complicit in their company’s wrongdoing, they are sheltered from the consequences, a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw.
The new custodial sentence we are introducing serves to reflect the gravity of breaching building regulations and, alongside clause 39, which we will discuss shortly, brings the threat of imprisonment to any director or manager of a company who is found to be complicit or negligent in an act of non-compliance. We intend for the higher custodial sentence to operate as an effective deterrent against negligent, reckless or dangerous behaviour.
Where previously prosecution under section 35 of the Building Act 1984 had to be brought within two years, making the offence triable in a Crown court removes the time limit altogether, enabling building control authorities to prosecute breaches of building regulations even when they come to light much later. There is no longer a two-year limit to court action.
This clause goes further and makes clear that the section 35 offence applies not only to breaches of the building regulations themselves, but to requirements imposed under building regulations, such as conditions imposed as part of building regulation approvals. The increased coverage will send a signal that no requirement under building regulations can be ignored without consequences.
As with other changes we have already discussed, this provision aims to encourage those involved in building work to do the right thing and to disincentivise substandard building work. To return briefly to a previous debate, in order to make this absolutely clear, whatever planning route a building is subject to, all relevant building work must comply with building regulation, whether it is on a higher-risk building or otherwise, and whether it benefits from permitted development rights or not. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale made that point in our previous sitting and alluded to it in his previous contribution.
In addition, the extension of the enforcement period under section 36 of the Building Act from one year to 10 years will provide another effective route through which building control authorities can enforce building regulations. This clause responds to the review’s recommendation that the sanctions available under the Building Act be enhanced to enable building control authorities to act effectively but proportionately whenever they encounter non-compliance. They will now have stronger powers to ensure that all buildings are designed and constructed in line with regulations. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
We welcome the stronger sanctions, given the gravity of the consequences and the context, which the Minister referred to, of the tragic events of Grenfell over four years ago.
Shaun Bailey
I, too, welcome the clause. I wish to raise a couple of points with the Minister about the defences under proposed new section 35(2) of the Building Act, relating to instances where duty holders believe wrongly that another duty holder has reported an incident. It will be
“A defence to the offence of failure to report where the person being prosecuted was not aware of the occurrence which gave rise to the requirement to report”.
I want to ensure that the scope of the defences is as tight as it can be. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck. We are fully aware that incidents happen; human failure can happen and we cannot eliminate that, so we have to take account of that within the regulatory framework, but we need to tighten the circumstances where this defence can be used. I am conscious that there is a risk that developers will see this as an opportunity to do some finger-pointing and say, “It wasn’t me. It was him,” or, “No, he missed that and I missed that.” I know that is not the intention behind the defences under clause 38, but can my right hon. Friend the Minister assure me that there will be appropriate guidance on implementation and enforcement of the provisions of clause 38, which is really important?
We have an obligation to follow through on what Dame Judith Hackitt noted in her report, particularly about the regulatory landscape. Ultimately, we do not want people who have not done right by the people we are trying to protect to find some way of getting round things. I know my right hon. Friend has worked hard to ensure that does not happen, but given that the broader point of the clause is to send out a message, particularly through custodial sentences, that breach of building regulations is serious—we are dealing with human life, as we saw with Grenfell—I want to get some reassurance from him that he will tighten that up.
I welcome the enforcement period extension. I think that is right. My right hon. Friend touched on that in his comments, so I do not need to repeat that. If he can give me those reassurances, I will be immensely grateful.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to you, Mr Efford, and my hon. Friend, who is quite within his rights to ask for reassurances.
I reiterate that clause 38 needs to be read in conjunction with clause 37. I made it clear that the current building safety enforcement regime is not fit for purpose; there are too many gaps and loopholes. With compliance notices and stop notices, clause 37 tightens the regime. Clause 38 is designed to ensure that in the event of contravention of such notices, the enforcement powers and penalties are that much greater. If my hon. Friend reads clause 37 in conjunction with clause 38, he will see that we are doing exactly that—tightening up the loopholes from compliance and imposing stronger and more effective penalties where there are contraventions.
Christopher Pincher
I will be more succinct in respect of this clause, because it follows on from clauses 37 and 38 and I referred briefly to it earlier.
Many of the persons with responsibilities under the Building Act 1984 are and will be corporate bodies, or “legal persons”, rather than individuals, who are known as “natural persons”. Any corporate body operates only through the actions of its employees, controlled by its managers and directors. As such, if there is an offence by a corporate body, there is likely to be some measure of personal failure by those in positions of seniority.
That liability is already provided for in a number of other pieces of legislation, including, most notably, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The end result is that directors, managers and other such persons are just as criminally responsible as the company at which they have either made decisions directly leading to an offence being committed, or been negligent in allowing an offence to occur.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend clarify how that will apply when there is only one director of a corporate body?
Christopher Pincher
I am not a lawyer by training, although involvement in the Bill has given me some legal background—not all of it as exciting as watching “Crown Court” on television. A corporate body and the director are separate legal entities, so normally two separate prosecutions would occur. However, in practice, both prosecutions would be conducted at the same time. If there were a conviction, it would be for the court and the judge to sentence the corporate body and the individual appropriately. Although the law says that they are two separate persons, the court action would take place in conjunction and the sentencing of both entities would be as the court decided. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend appears to be moving to intervene. I am conscious that I have failed to give way only once—to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth—and that was by accident, so in order to keep up my almost perfect track record, I will allow my hon. Friend to intervene.
Shaun Bailey
I am immensely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is characteristically very generous. I would be interested to hear how the clause would deal with developers that dissolve, disappear or fall into difficulties as a result of this. He has been assisting me with a matter in my constituency, where a developer dissolved and left the residents in a bit of limbo, so he knows all about that.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is stretching my legal knowledge, although not quite to breaking point.
Christopher Pincher
In the sense that we are discussing companies, if a company has dissolved by the point of prosecution, it cannot be prosecuted. However, to address my hon. Friend’s point, that does not preclude the liability of individual company directors or managers. They can be prosecuted individually, even if the corporate identity itself has passed into history and is beyond prosecution.
The potential for criminal liability of directors and managers reinforces the duty of those who direct the actions of companies to uphold and promote building safety throughout the operations of their companies. We consider that it is a key contributor to our stated purpose of embedding building safety at all levels of industry, contributing to residents both being and feeling safe in their homes.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Mr Efford. I cannot see a problem with the objectives of the clause and we will not object to it, but it gives me the opportunity to ask about the issue of personal liability insurance. We are picking up that construction trade professionals in the UK are increasingly struggling to get appropriate insurance. Have the Government done an impact assessment on the issue of liability insurance and how that impacts construction professionals?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady and I can ensure her that insurance, risk assurance and personal indemnity insurance, for example, are addressed in part 3, so I suspect that we will address those issues at greater length in the not-too-distant future.
In amending the Building Act 1984 through the clause, as well as increasing the maximum penalties under that Act, we are taking a significant step in ensuring that accountability for building safety lies with those responsible. I commend the clause—
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. My question relates to something that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West touched on during discussion of clause 37. There is a sort of cloak of corporate responsibility that people have hidden behind for far too long. It is almost like a game of pass the parcel when it comes to taking responsibility for some defects. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rather than enabling responsibility to be avoided, the clause widens the scope and makes sure we can focus minds? We will be increasing accountability rather than taking away from it.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is quite right. As I said earlier, corporate liability is already provided for in other pieces of legislation—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, for example. By embedding this clause in the Bill we remind corporate players—directors, managers and other appropriate senior parties in businesses—of their responsibility, and that their businesses and they themselves can be prosecuted if the standard of work or the actions that they undertake fall below the standards required in the Bill, which then allows for criminal prosecution.
The clause will further engender and embed the culture change that we all desire, so that at some point in the not-too-distant future these sorts of court actions will become a thing of the past, because all players act in a responsible way to ensure that buildings are designed, built and managed safely. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister and other members of the Committee for their contributions. The clause responds directly to the Grenfell residents’ voices, which is most welcome. We had a situation where developers, subcontractors and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea put in inferior products and cladding, despite the recommendations for that building. We have seen that sort of thing littered throughout the industry, as people have said. The clause will act as a very effective deterrent, drive the culture change that we have spoken about, and apply the tragic lessons learned in recent years.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West and for Bassetlaw for their contributions, and to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his recognition that once again the tragedy of Grenfell has opened our eyes to issues in the sector, the loopholes in compliance, and the paucity of penalties, which we are now collectively attempting to rectify. By agreeing to the clause we are taking a significant step in ensuring that accountability for building safety lies with those who are responsible for it—individuals, corporate bodies, or the individuals in senior positions who make up those corporate bodies. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to clause 30—[Interruption.] I am sorry; we now come to clause 40.
Clause 40
Revocation etc of certain provision made under section 2(2) of ECA 1972
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I would be happy enough to speak to clause 30 again, Mr Efford, although I am not sure that that is the desire of the Committee. My eloquence and possibly my effluence covered all bases.
Clause 40 makes a technical but necessary provision to enable the revocation of out-of-date provisions in building regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972 as we modernise the regulations in years to come. Although the major part of the building regulations was made using powers in the Building Act 1984, a few provisions were made using the powers in the European Communities Act. That Act has now of course been repealed, so those powers are no longer available, meaning that at present the provisions made under the Act cannot be amended or revoked.
The building regulations will need to be updated in the light of the changes being made in the Bill. As part of that exercise, we will be looking to consolidate the significant number of amendments made to the regulations in recent years, to make the regulations easier to use for industry and building control bodies. We will need to be able to revoke the existing regulations and replace them with new ones, and without the powers provided by clause 40 we would be in an anomalous position, in that building regulations made under the European Communities Act could not be revoked, so we would not be able to undertake a comprehensive updating and consolidation.
Siobhan Baillie
Revoking anything can lead to fears of an inadvertent reduction in standards. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the clause and the work behind it will achieve exactly the opposite?
Christopher Pincher
This is no back-door attempt to reduce standards now or to introduce poorer standards in the future. It is simply a necessary technical means of allowing standards to be introduced by overriding a now defunct Act; otherwise, we would not be able to repeal or change standards and regulations relating to it. For example, our future homes standard and, indeed, the future buildings standard go way beyond anything that was required of us when we were a member of the European Union or that is required of us under the European Communities Act. I assure the Committee that this is a technical change—a necessary legal and technical change—and not an attempt to reduce standards by subterfuge. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister and other Members who have made contributions. As the Minister said, this is a technical but necessary clause. He referred to the future homes and future buildings standards, and I would like to explore the interplay between the Building Safety Regulator and those up-and-coming standards.
Christopher Pincher
The future homes standard, which we will consult on and will legislate on in 2023-24 to introduce in 2025, will require all buildings built from that point to be at least 75% more carbon efficient than buildings built under present regulations. Importantly, they will also be zero carbon rated, so they will not need to be retrofitted as we change the electricity grid. Those regulations will be in force from that point—clearly, they are not law yet—and all regulators will need to have regard to them and will need to issue appropriate guidance once those changes are enacted in law, so that local authorities, the Building Safety Regulator and product manufacturers understand what needs to be embedded in product creation and the design and management of buildings, subject to the law as it stands.
I will conclude—unless anybody else wishes to intervene; I do not think they do—by saying that this is a very technical clause that is very necessary to ensure that we have a regulation landscape that we can properly manage. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Regulation of building control profession
Christopher Pincher
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 41, page 50, line 24, at end insert—
“(7) Section 91B of this Act (cooperation and sharing of information between Welsh Ministers and other authorities) applies as if references to the Welsh Ministers included references to a person to whom the Welsh Ministers have delegated functions under this section.”
This amendment provides that section 91B of the Building Act 1984 (inserted by Schedule 5 to the Bill) applies in relation to a person to whom functions are delegated under section 58Y as it applies in relation to the Welsh Ministers.
Christopher Pincher
This group of amendments deals with duties to co-operate and information-sharing powers between Welsh Ministers, fire and rescue authorities, local authorities and fire inspectors. Schedule 3, which we debated and disposed of on Tuesday, already contains very similar provisions for England. To reiterate, that schedule creates statutory information-sharing gateways and duties to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and other relevant public bodies. Furthermore, it allows local authorities and fire and rescue authorities to share information about building safety and standards and issues across all buildings, including buildings outside of the higher-risk regime regulated by the Building Safety Inspector.
Amendment 29 places duties to co-operate on Welsh Ministers and creates information-sharing powers for them, enabling them to work with other Welsh statutory bodies—fire and rescue authorities, fire inspectors, and local authorities. Sharing of information and co-operation are key elements in delivering the improvements that the Bill proposes. For Welsh Ministers, those duties and powers relate to their functions under part 2A of the Building Act 1984. Amendment 18 addresses the need for Welsh Ministers’ duty to co-operate and power to share information to be cascaded down where their functions in respect of building inspectors and/or building control approvers are delegated.
Amendment 25 removes the limitation on co-operation and information sharing between Welsh fire and rescue authorities, local authorities and fire inspectors, so that it is no longer restricted to higher-risk buildings only. Those bodies will work together across the whole range of buildings in Wales.
Amendments 24, 28 and 31 clarify that the duties to co-operate and powers to share information apply to Welsh fire and rescue authorities, as defined by amendment 33, and fire inspectors, defined by amendment 30. Amendment 34 mirrors clause 26, which we have already discussed and voted on. It confirms that information sharing under this provision must comply with the data protection legislation, so that people’s privacy rights are overridden only in certain specific circumstances. Amendments 23, 26, 27 and 32 make the consequential changes necessitated by the substantive amendments.
I am sure that Committee Members have followed all those amendments very closely, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
Again, these are very technical but necessary amendments, which ultimately simplify and unify building control legislation, processes and procedures, and enforcement.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Government amendment 18 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Dame Judith’s independent review raised serious concerns over the lack of a level playing field for approved inspectors and local authority building control. There were different statutory and non-statutory processes leading to incoherence, confusion and complexity in the system.
Clause 41 establishes a new registration and oversight regime to provide consistency across the public and private sector, and creates a new, unified building control profession. The new registration regime will raise standards in the sector and enhance public confidence by requiring a minimum level of demonstrated competence to provide building control services on different types of buildings. For the first time, individual building control professionals, whether in the public or private sector, will have to register with a regulatory authority. That is the Building Safety Regulator in England and the Welsh Ministers in Wales.
We intend for the registration process to involve the demonstration of competence against a shared framework. Registered professionals, who will be called “registered building inspectors”, will need to adhere to a common code of conduct. We will now be able to hold individuals accountable for professional misconduct or incompetence. That is the foundation for clause 43, in which we set out certain activities and functions that building control bodies can carry out only by using a registered inspector.
Together, these clauses will change the way building inspectors work with and for building control bodies, giving the consumer greater assurance that an experienced professional will be checking their building against regulations. We are introducing an updated registration regime for private sector building control bodies, currently known as approved inspectors. They will have to register with the regulatory authority to work as a registered building control approver and will be held to professional conduct rules. We are introducing sanctions and offences for misconduct to ensure that those organisations that supervise building works are held to high professional standards.
Clause 41 also allows the regulatory authority to delegate those registration functions to another body. We are introducing a new framework for the oversight of the performance of building control bodies, levelling the playing field for local authority building control and registered building control approvers. The regulatory authority will be able to set the operational standards defining the minimum performance standards that building control bodies must meet. It sets out the reporting requirements that will enable the regulator to collect information to assess and analyse the performance of building control bodies and make recommendations to drive up standards. It gives the regulatory authority investigatory powers when building control bodies breach the operating standards, and a series of escalating sanctions and enforcement measures to address poor performance issues.
Selaine Saxby
This is, obviously, a necessary and very technical clause, setting out a strong new regime of how we can improve competence levels and accountability in the building control sector. I wonder if he could clarify how the regulator will deal with poor performing building control bodies?
Christopher Pincher
We want to make sure that such a body has the right sanctions available to it. We want to give it a robust set of powers to investigate performance and, where appropriate, impose escalating sanctions. In the most serious cases, the powers will include the cancellation of the registration of the building control approvers. It will mean potentially the effective taking over of the function of a local authority building control by appointed officers from another local authority. We want to give the regulator the tools to ensure that building control bodies are improving safety and performance, driving up standards, and that, where they themselves are not performing, there is a means by which sanctions can be applied. Clause 41 is essential to creating a more robust and competent building control sector, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
As the Minister says, this will raise the bar and raise the standards of building control throughout, as recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt and the review. It will do so through its process procedure and, very importantly, enforcement and deterrent. One of the concerns the Opposition raised with other clauses is the potential to have a two-track approach to building control with buildings below 18 metres. What assurances can the Minister give that that will not be the case and that standards will be raised in buildings that are below 18 metres, say, from 11 to 18 metres?
Shaun Bailey
I, too, welcome clause 41 and its effect on the Building Act. I want to raise a point with my right hon. Friend the Minister around clarity. We will effectively have two bodies in England and Wales that will deal with this. In England it is the regulator itself and in Wales it is Welsh Ministers. I would be grateful if he will confirm that he will ensure that his Department will keep that discussion ongoing. The importance of the clause, as with the rest of the Bill, is to ensure consistency. We talked in previous deliberations about cross-border work. We need to ensure that the professionals who would sit within this regime have consistency and are conducting work across the English-Welsh border to ensure that we keep the market going and continue to meet those home building targets.
I agree that the Bill is long overdue. As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale pointed out, it is about raising standards and ensuring that the profession knows what is expected of it. There is a broader point to be made on communication: making sure the points contained within clause 41 are communicated clearly, not just within the profession but more broadly. We have talked about how the impacts of making these regulatory and standards changes need to be communicated with the sector and with training providers, but they need to be communicated with the industry more broadly. If that is not done, we might have a situation in which people enter the industry without necessarily being clear about where they need to be. I would therefore ask the Minister to be sure that his Department continues to engage.
Considering the issues, the measure is long overdue. It is common sense and something that any other regulated profession would do. There is detail about the power to have investigations, and again we need to ensure that that system works and that the regulator is in place for that, in particular for proposed new section 58H—that system must flow properly. Sanctions, too, must be proportionate. The clause is a significant one, so I will not go into every single element of it, but will the Minister ensure that its implementation is reviewed and that we continue the discourse on it, notably on proposed new section 58I on sanctions for professional misconduct?
The regulator must ensure that it continues those discussions of what is appropriate. As we have touched on in other deliberations, circumstances change and things develop. I reiterate that to the Minister, and I ask him to ensure that his Department continues those communications, that the expectations of the industry are communicated and that under the mandate of clause 41 the regulator continues its conversations with Welsh Ministers, so that we can have consistency—that will be key, given its cross-border nature. We must ensure that the clause is implemented so it is how we want to see it work. I am sure he will, but I will be grateful for his reassurances.
Christopher Pincher
I am happy to give those reassurances to my hon. Friend. We will need to take care as we plan the transition to the new regime. I assure him that in our discussions with Ministers in Wales, with other Departments and with the Health and Safety Executive we are exploring appropriate transitional arrangements to ensure that the building control sector moves smoothly and safely from one uneven playing field to a more even one, in an orderly way, as I said.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked about the new registration regime. In the clause, we are attempting to create the oversight and the regime that will provide consistency across the public and private sectors, creating a new unified building control profession for all buildings in the sector. The new regime will not only raise standards in the sector, but enhance public confidence by requiring a minimum level of demonstrated competence to provide building control services on different types of buildings. One can imagine that with a high-rise, higher-risk building, the competence levels that the Building Safety Regulator requires could be higher than or different from those for other buildings. We might come to that in later clauses.
In the meantime, I hope that the Committee will agree that the clause is vital to create a more robust and competent building control sector. I commend it—
Christopher Pincher
Or I will commend it shortly, after I have given way to the hon. Member for Brentford.
Ruth Cadbury
Brentford and Isleworth, to be precise, but I thank the Minister for being so generous in allowing my intervention. The submission from the Local Authority Building Control group welcomed this aspect of the legislation and the clause. It expressed one concern, which I am raising as a question, about CICAIR—Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register—which is designated by the Secretary of State to register and provide the oversight of approved inspectors. Has the Minister taken on board its recommendation that immediate action is taken to strengthen the audit process of CICAIR to include the requirement for external independent technical auditing in advance of the Bill being enacted? It wants to do that in order to improve current performance and standards.
Christopher Pincher
I am happy to work with CICAIR. We work with it to ensure that, for example, registration fees are proportionate. We will set out more details of that later. Fundamentally, we want to ensure that the registration and regulatory oversight process is sensible. I am happy to have further discussions with it and my officials about any appropriate audit trail. I am sure that the Building Safety Regulator—presently in shadow, but as it builds its approach—will also want to have those sensible discussions.
I will accept no more interventions and conclude by saying that the clause is essential to create a more robust and competent building control sector. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before I call the Government Whip, may I say to Members that it is customary to stand in your place if you want to indicate to the Chair that you wish to speak? I am not an auctioneer. I was a London taxi driver, so I am good at spotting various gestures, but it would be helpful if you could stand in your place.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 23rd September 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 September 2021 - (23 Sep 2021)
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Our first witness is unable to join us this morning. The sitting is suspended until our second witness arrives.
Sitting suspended.
Examination of Witness
The Hon. George Brandis QC gave evidence.
The Chair
We shall now take evidence from the Hon. George Brandis QC, high commissioner for Australia to the United Kingdom. We have until 12.45 pm for this session. Good morning, Sir, and thank you for joining us. Could you please identify yourself for the record?
George Brandis: Good morning, Mr Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is George Brandis and I am the high commissioner for Australia to the United Kingdom.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Q
George Brandis: Yes, I can tell you that. Operation Sovereign Borders was a policy introduced by the Government of Mr Tony Abbott, which was elected in September 2013, and administered under the leadership of the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, now the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave the Committee a little context. The purpose of Operation Sovereign Borders was to address a problem that had grown increasingly acute in the previous years: the arrival or attempted arrival by boat—almost always ramshackle, small, unsafe boats—across the seas, particularly the Timor sea, to the north-west of Australia, of irregular maritime arrivals. In the years prior to Operation Sovereign Borders coming into effect, there had been more than 50,000 illegal arrivals to the north-western coast of Western Australia in 827 vessels. That is the number of people we know about who made the journey.
We also know that a large number of people who attempted to make that journey drowned. There will never be a reliable figure for what that number was, because we simply do not know how many there were, but because we have counted, sadly, from the corpses, we know of 1,204 people who drowned. Whether the actual number was a multiple of that, or many hundreds more, it is impossible to tell, but certainly more than 1,200 people drowned.
Operation Sovereign Borders was introduced to address that dreadful problem. The implementation phase lasted approximately nine months, during which the flow continued. However, as the policy began to take effect and be effective, that flow dwindled to a point where some nine months later, by July 2014, it had ceased completely. Since then, there has not been a single irregular maritime arrival on Australia’s shores, as far as we can tell.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: Primarily the southern shores of Indonesia.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: It is a great distance. I cannot give you the exact figure, but it is certainly more than 1,000 km.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: They were part of Operation Sovereign Borders. There were three elements to Operation Sovereign Borders: disruption and deterrence activities; turnarounds, where it was safe to turn the vessels around; and offshore processing. I will speak briefly to each of those elements.
With the co-operation of the Indonesian authorities, the people smugglers’ activities were disrupted at the points of embarkation on the southern shores of Indonesia, so it became more difficult for them to publicise and assemble the clientele to embark on these unsafe vessels. Generally, they were run-down fishing vessels.
The turnaround operation, which was conducted in international waters, repelled the vessels and returned them to the Indonesian shore, where it was safe to do so.
Regional processing, through a series of agreements that Australia made with Nauru and New Guinea in particular, meant that people who were not turned around and were taken onboard Australian vessels—they were rescued, in effect, because they could not be safely turned around—were processed offshore in countries where they were not at risk.
It is important to stress that Australia’s obligations under the 1951 refugee convention were complied with at all times, for several reasons. First, Indonesia in particular was a transit country for these people—none of them claimed to have been persecuted by the Indonesian Government. Secondly, the countries to which they were sent for regional processing were safe countries, where they were not exposed to the perils against which the refugee convention protects. Lastly, Australia observed its non-refoulement obligations at all times.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: There was litigation in New Guinea about the agreement between their Government and the Australian Government in relation to a particular processing centre on the New Guinea mainland. It is not my understanding that that affected the other processing centre within New Guinea, on Manus Island.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: I am not in a position to speak in relation to that, but I make the point that that is entirely a matter for the Government of New Guinea. From an Australian point of view, the legal and constitutional validity of the offshore processing arrangements were challenged in the High Court of Australia, which in the Australian system is the equivalent of your Supreme Court. The High Court ruled that under the regional processing agreements that existed between Nauru and Australia, and between New Guinea and Australia, the regional processing centres were not Australian centres; they were in no respect under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia. They were centres operated by the Governments of Nauru and New Guinea respectively.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: I do not think that is correct. I think it would be correct to say that there was a complaint made by people who disagree with the policy to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: I do not have those figures in front of me. Under the regional processing agreements that Australia entered into with Nauru and New Guinea, the establishment of those centres, which required capital works and so on, was contributed to by Australia.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
George Brandis: There were always more in Nauru than in New Guinea. Whether at the maximum point they reached as many as 3,000, I am not sure, but I would not be surprised if it was roughly that figure.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: What happened, as I indicated in the timeline I outlined at the start of my evidence, is that from the introduction of the policy, beginning in September 2013, there was a period during which the effectiveness of the policy was tested by people smugglers. The numbers of people seeking to enter Australia in an irregular fashion continued and then dwindled to nothing by July 2014. Again, I do not have the figures in front of me, but I think it is generally true to say that in the early days of the policy the numbers were greater, obviously, than in subsequent years when the efficacy of the policy was established.
I wonder, Mr McDonald, whether I may make a broader point about this, because I know that this country is seeking to address a problem that has some resemblances but also important differences. The people who put these individuals, groups and families on boats were criminal gangs. People smuggling and people trafficking is a variety of organised crime. Organised crime is a business and, like every other business, it depends upon cash flow. The most important thing that Australia was able to do was drive the people smugglers out of business by depriving them of a product to sell and destroying their cash flow.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: I respectfully disagree with you, Sir, and I say that having been both a member of the National Security Committee of Cabinet throughout that time and, in fact, the Attorney General who wrote the legal advice on the basis of which the policy was founded. With respect, it was not the Australian experience, and it would be artificial and wrong, to isolate one of those three elements—disruption and deterrence activities, pushbacks and offshore processing—as being more effective than the others. Rather, it is the case that they were a suite of policies that, operating together, had the effect of driving the people smugglers out of business.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: Let me get that information for you—I cannot give you a date. It is certainly the case that, from the early days, the need for offshore processing significantly dwindled because of the efficacy of the policy.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: Sir, I am not going to engage in rhetoric. The fact is that most Australians took the view, as did the Government and the Opposition, that the inhumanity was in letting thousands of people drown.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: Sorry to interrupt, but if I have not made this clear already, it is absolutely not the case that one element of this policy was the effective element, and another element was not effective. The policy was a policy suite in which all three elements mattered.
Stuart C. McDonald
You have given your analysis of that. Obviously others disagree.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: No, but because the distances involved are so different. Embarkations from the southern shores of Indonesia, across the Timor sea, were not in dinghies; they were largely in dilapidated wooden fishing boats.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
George Brandis: I remember that decision very well; it was an NSC decision and I remember the debate as if it were yesterday. I am very proud that Australia did that. Sir, let me answer your question in this way. What we have found in Australia—this is both the view of those who have studied the issue and empirically verified by many public opinion surveys—is that there is a very direct correlation between the public’s willingness to accept a big immigration programme, with a big humanitarian and refugee element, and public confidence that the Government are in control of the borders. When the public have that confidence, they back a big immigration programme. When that confidence is eroded, they are less enthusiastic about it.
That sentiment was captured by former Prime Minister Howard in words that became almost a mantra in Australian politics of the day. He said in 2004, “We will always fulfil our humanitarian obligations, but we will decide who comes into this country and the circumstances in which they come.” Australia is a big immigration nation. To give some figures, in the year in which the Syrian refugee programme was at its most ambitious, 2016-17, Australia accepted 21,968 refugees under our various humanitarian programmes. We also accepted, under our other immigration programmes—skilled migration; family reunions—183,608 people. More than 200,000 people came that year, of whom about 10% came under humanitarian and refugee programmes.
The numbers have gone up and down a bit. That was the biggest year because of the Syrian element, which was an additional element to the normal humanitarian and refugee programme. In the most recent year, 2019-20, we accepted 140,366 people—13,171 people under our humanitarian and refugee programme. The numbers over the last several years have fluctuated between more than 13,000 and almost 22,000 per year under our humanitarian and refugee programme. In most of those years that is per capita the most generous humanitarian and refugee programme in the world, second only to Canada.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q
George Brandis: I do not have the figures in front of me. I am not suggesting that it was not a programme that cost money to implement and administer. It was implemented and administered by foreign Governments: the Governments of Nauru and New Guinea. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of the funding came from Australia. I am not disputing the figure that you give; you have done the research, sir. I do not have the financial figures, but may I take that question on notice and get them to you?
Paul Blomfield
Q
George Brandis: Please do not take from my silence that I am averring that it is right. Certainly, there was a not insignificant cost. I do not dispute that.
Paul Blomfield
Q
George Brandis: No, I do not think that is right. I have a disaggregated year-by-year figure on the offshoring. It certainly is right, as I said to your colleague before, that it was a front-end-loaded sort of policy, in the sense that once the people smugglers’ business had been destroyed and the boats stopped coming, the need for that leg of the policy diminished. But as for the date at which the last of the offshoring was undertaken, I am not in a position to tell you, other than to say that it was in the early part of the policy.
Paul Blomfield
Q
George Brandis: No, I do not.
Paul Blomfield
Q
George Brandis: I am not aware of the report to which you refer. I mean, let’s not beat around the bush here—this was a very controversial policy at the time. It became less controversial with the passage of time, for two reasons. One was that it worked. Secondly, the Opposition changed their position from opposition to the policy to support for it. However, a number of community organisations, universities and various institutions and faculties within universities continued to criticise the policies, which they are perfectly at liberty to do, and a lot of figures were thrown around. I am not familiar with the particular report to which you refer and therefore I cannot verify the data quoted within it.
Paul Blomfield
Q
George Brandis: The Kaldor Centre—
Paul Blomfield
Okay.
George Brandis: The Kaldor Centre is a centre established as an advocacy centre and a research centre to advance the interests of refugees, and it takes a particular point of view. I am not deprecating its statistical or academic rigour at all; I am merely pointing out that it approaches this debate with a particular advocacy point in mind.
The Chair
I am sorry. I said that had to be the last question. I have to try and get everybody in and there are a lot of Members. Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Q
Your Excellency, looking back in the Australian context, is it reasonable to think, that if you had stood back and done nothing about this challenge the numbers of people crossing or seeking to cross would have increased, and on less seaworthy vessels?
George Brandis: I think that is an absolutely fair inference to draw, because in the years prior to the introduction of the policy, which was in September 2013, the numbers had escalated, so every year there were more than in the previous year. It almost inevitably follows, given that nothing else would have changed, that the number of those vessels that did not make it and the number of passengers who drowned would have escalated, too.
Tom Pursglove
Q
George Brandis: Well, as I have already said in my evidence, there were three legs, or three elements, to this policy and all of them were essential to it. I do not think you can disaggregate one from another.
Tom Pursglove
Q
George Brandis: It is very difficult to answer that question in a general way. The people-smuggling gangs who were the authors and beneficiaries of this activity were located in Indonesia, primarily. That is not to say that they may not have had connections in Australia, but they were primarily groups that operated within Indonesia, and there were many of them. I am not in a position to generalise from that proposition to what extent they had connections in other countries, including Australia.
Tom Pursglove
Q
George Brandis: As is evident from the statistics I quoted before, we accept an unusually large number of humanitarian and refugee immigration applications for a country of our size. We have an ambitious humanitarian and refugee programme, and we seek to process those applications swiftly and efficiently, but we do say, “You’ve got to come in the front door, and not put yourself in the hands of criminals and put yourself and your children at risk of drowning.”
Tom Pursglove
Q
George Brandis: There were logistical challenges, particularly the turn-back operations. It was very challenging for the maritime authorities to do that while at the same time ensuring that nobody’s safety was put at risk. That was one dimension to this, but it is a bit of a different problem because, as one of your colleagues pointed out, here these people come by dinghy. Almost all the people who were trying to come to Australia were coming in decrepit old timber fishing boats, which were much more fragile. That was the difference.
I am not here to instruct or encourage your Parliament on the right policy choice; I am merely here to respond to the questions you have asked me about how a particular set of measures worked for Australia. I have already observed that there are differences as well as similarities in the profile of the problems. However, I would say that undoubtedly the key to this is to put the people smugglers out of business. The way to put the people smugglers out of business is to demonstrate to their potential clientele that they are wasting their money. The way we did that in Australia, and it was a robust policy, was to persuade the potential clientele that, if they came in through the front door as genuine refugees, they would be embraced; but, if they put themselves in the hands of people smugglers, there was no way they would ever end up in Australia.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Q
George Brandis: A lot of work was done with the Governments. I was not directly involved in that work, so I am not in a position to speak with particularity in answer to your question, sir, but they were countries in our region that were willing to enter into regional processing agreements with Australia.
Neil Coyle
Q
George Brandis: I am not aware that there were any from either New Guinea or Nauru. Those two countries were never a locus or genesis of the problem.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry, and I must apologise to colleagues who have not been called, but it is a time-limited session—that is what the Committee voted for—and I have to draw it to a close. Commissioner, the Committee is deeply indebted to you; thank you very much for coming in.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Health and Care Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 23rd September 2021
(3 years, 2 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 23 September 2021 - (23 Sep 2021)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mrs Murray. With your indulgence, I will speak to each of the clauses in turn.
Clause 51 amends section 88 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Section 88 requires that Monitor—or, in future, NHS England—treats an NHS trust that has become an NHS foundation trust as having made an application and met the criteria for a licence. The clause will require NHS England to apply that provision when that queue of NHS trusts waiting to become foundation trusts do so—[Laughter.] I hope the Committee will forgive my gentle reference to what the shadow Minister said last time. On a more serious note, the clause will also require NHS England to apply it when a foundation trust is created as a result of the merger of an existing foundation trust with an NHS trust or another foundation trust, or the separation of one foundation trust into two or more new foundation trusts.
Clause 51 clarifies the situation when new foundation trusts are created, merged or separated and ensures there is no unnecessary bureaucracy as a result. It is an important clarification for NHS England on how to exercise its licensing powers in such situations, should they arise.
We are investing record levels of capital expenditure into the NHS to help it build back better after the pandemic. We intend to set capital expenditure budgets at integrated care board level, and we expect providers to work with ICB partners to agree capital expenditure, in line with the ICB capital plan. To ensure that the interests of the wider system are taken into account at individual provider level, clause 52 provides a new power to allow NHS England to make an order imposing capital expenditure limits for NHS foundation trusts.
That narrow and reserved power will ensure that a limit can be set only for an individually named foundation trust for a specified period, and would automatically cease at the end of that period. The power relates solely to capital expenditure and not to revenue expenditure. NHS England must also consult the foundation trust before making the order. There will be clear transparency, as the order will be published.
In applying to an individual foundation trust in particular circumstances, the power stands in contrast to the capital limits that apply to all NHS trusts. The power is likely to be used where there is a clear risk of an ICB breaching its system capital envelope as a result of non-co-operation by that foundation trust, and when other ways of resolution have been unsuccessful.
NHS England must set out in guidance the circumstances in which it is likely to set a capital limit and how it will calculate it. NHS England intends to work closely with foundation trusts to develop that guidance. I want to make it clear to the Committee that the clauses are not intended in any way as an erosion of the autonomy enjoyed by foundation trusts. Unlike NHS trusts, foundation trusts will continue to have additional financial freedoms, such as the ability to borrow money from commercial lenders. However, the clause is crucial for managing NHS capital expenditure across a system and to ensure that all NHS providers operate within the ICB capital limits. Without that control, other NHS providers may have to reduce their capital spending to ensure that the NHS lives within its allotted capital resources and that resources are spent in a way that best delivers for patients and the taxpayer.
The provisions in clause 53 are largely a consequence of the merger of NHS England and Monitor, in this case reflecting Monitor’s oversight role in relation to foundation trusts. Subsection (1) gives foundation trusts greater flexibility in their forward plans. Paragraph (a) removes requirements currently in the National Health Service Act 2006 concerning the content of the forward plan. Paragraph (b) removes the requirements for the forward plan to be prepared by the foundation trust’s directors and for the directors to have regard to the views of the foundation trust’s governors when preparing the forward plan.
Foundation trusts will no longer be mandated to set out information in the forward planning documentation around non-health service activity and income. The clause also removes the requirement for governors to be mandated to determine whether the foundation trust’s forward plan interferes with the trust’s health service activity.
As the Committee will know by now, and as a consequence of the abolition of Monitor and its merger with NHS England, NHS England will formally become responsible for the support and oversight of foundation trusts, which includes taking on Monitor’s regulatory and intervention powers. That change will enable improved oversight and greater flexibility across the system. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill make the detailed changes, including formally giving NHS England responsibility for giving directions in relation to the content and form of foundation trust accounts. That includes specifying information to be included in the annual reports and accounts of foundation trusts.
The clause is simply part of transitioning the provider-based functions of Monitor into NHS England, ensuring continuity of oversight of foundation trusts’ accounting and forward planning. NHS England will be able to provide fundamental advice and guidance to foundation trusts in the exercise of their functions. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill will formally allow NHS England to monitor the performance of foundation trusts and to take steps to intervene where necessary, which may take the form of advice and support. As we discussed on a previous occasion, however, it may also involve NHS England requesting the trust to take action to remedy emerging issues. At the same time, the clause makes the requirements on annual plans more flexible, to reflect the direction of travel towards system-wide, rather than organisation-specific, planning.
I turn now to clause 54, which inserts proposed new section 47A into the National Health Service Act 2006 and allows an NHS FT to carry out its functions jointly with another person, should the foundation trust consider such arrangements to be appropriate. That would allow a foundation trust to exercise its healthcare delivery functions jointly with another foundation trust as part of a provider collaborative. The clause will make it easier for FTs to work with partners across the health system to develop integrated, seamless services in the best interests of patients.
Clause 55 amends sections 56, 56A and 56B of the 2006 Act, which relate to the merger, acquisition, separation and dissolution of NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts. It removes the requirement that an application to acquire or merge an NHS FT with another NHS FT or an English NHS trust be supported by the Secretary of State if one of the parties is an NHS trust. NHS England will now consider each application, but the Secretary of State’s role has been strengthened, as he must now approve such applications. However, NHS England will consider the applications and provide advice. That is in keeping with the policy intention that the Secretary of State should have a strengthened accountability role for NHS foundation trusts, in the light of the transfer of Monitor and NHS Trust Development Authority functions to NHS England. NHS England replaces Monitor in the relevant sections of the NHS Act 2006.
Like Monitor, NHS England has a duty to grant the application to merge, acquire or separate if it is satisfied that the necessary steps have been taken to prepare for an acquisition or the dissolution and establishment of new trusts. Additionally, the clause adds a further requirement to each of the sections, which provides that NHS England must refuse an application if the Secretary of State does not approve it. That strengthens the role of the Secretary of State in the process, and it will be for NHS England to take note of the Secretary of State’s comments in taking forward its plans. The clause provides for enhanced oversight and places strategic decision making in the health system in the hands of NHS England, while also conferring a commensurate and important role on Ministers, in line with the direction of accountability set out in the Bill.
Clause 56 relates to the transitioning of the provider-based functions of Monitor and the NHS TDA into NHS England. That will allow NHS England to grant an application by an NHS foundation trust for dissolution. The clause confers the powers that rested with Monitor to transfer or provide for the transfer of property of an NHS foundation trust on its dissolution. Previously, on the dissolution of an NHS FT, Monitor had the power to transfer the property of the NHS FT to the Secretary of State. The clause amends that power so that, when making an order to dissolve an NHS foundation trust, NHS England now has the power to make an order to transfer, or provide for the transfer of, property and liabilities to another NHS FT, an NHS trust or the Secretary of State. The clause also includes a new duty for NHS England to include the transfer of any employees of a dissolved NHS FT in the transfer order.
Taken together, these clauses ensure that foundation trusts are able to play a central role in a more integrated and collaborative healthcare system. As part of that, the clauses also provide NHS England with the powers it will need to help support NHS FTs. I therefore commend clauses 51 to 56 to the Committee and propose that they stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mrs Murray. I am glad you enjoyed Tuesday so much that you came back for another round. We will do our best to inform and entertain as we go along.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Department’s position on the clauses. We really need to have another go, don’t we, at trying to understand the landscape for foundation trusts? I have already referred the Committee to the description of foundation trusts when they were first established, as vigorous, autonomous, business-like new organisations that would shake up the NHS and bring choice and competition into healthcare. As we know, there was no evidence that that model did any better than the previous standard trusts, once the high performers had been accounted for.
The Minister’s contention that the clauses do nothing to impinge on a foundation trust’s autonomy is quite the claim. The big change in the clauses is the stripping away of financial autonomy, as set out in clause 52, directly contradicting the many occasions when we have been told that the Bill is all about permissiveness, local decision making and accountability. In clause 55, we also see the Secretary of State giving himself yet more powers.
Clause 52(2) could, in effect, mean there was an indefinite block on foundation trusts using their own capital resources. Will there be any limitations on what is a broad power? I refer to the evidence from Dr Chaand Nagpaul, who touched on that:
“At the moment, we are seeing foundation trusts thinking about their budgets, community providers thinking about theirs, and general practice as well. There is not even collaboration between the community and the hospital. No foundation trust currently has the ability to say, for example, ‘We will go beyond our budget and invest in the community—it may actually reduce our hospital admissions.’ At the moment there is no structure or processes to enable collaboration even within the NHS.”—[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 93, Q120.]
Dr Nagpaul sets out very well the lack of clarity that we still have about how finances will work at a local level within an ICB, and clause 52 gives foundation trusts even less autonomy in that respect.
On that point, I noted with interest today yet another Health Service Journal article, which talked about how integrated care partnerships may not be up and running for some time after the ICB has been set up. That raises questions about what their role is going to be in helping to form those capital priorities for an integrated care system.
In other evidence, Richard Murray said:
“The bit that I think is really uncertain is how the big hospital schemes get picked. That is the bit that looks very different. Obviously, there is a manifesto commitment.”—
although we know that, in recent times, the Government have not been so keen to follow those commitments. He continued:
“There used to be a process by which it was determined whether providers could afford to repay—if they could do it through loans, or if there was a need system. That is now going off in a completely different place, and I think that is the bit that is not quite clear. How does that work within this system? Who gets to choose how those projects get picked, so to speak?”—[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 118, Q158.]
I appreciate that the point is slightly off-piste, but as we are talking about capital expenditure it is appropriate to raise it, and I am sure the Minister will take the opportunity in his response to set out that process in more detail. At the same time, can he set out in more detail what the guidance set out in proposed new section 42C would entail? Hopefully we will be able to set out some broad points in respect of that.
While we are on the Minister’s response, will he consider the broader point we made on Tuesday about foundation trusts’ focus on involvement of patients and the public and whether that needs to be strengthened across the board? He needs to think again about the whole question of accountability on ICBs.
To go back to the essential question, are foundation trusts now any different to plain, old-school NHS trusts? Is a foundation trust now a dodo? Is it extinct or on its way out? If an ambitious young chief executive of a trust were to approach the Minister and say they were thinking of putting in an application for foundation trust status, what would the Minister say to them about the benefits of such an application, both to their trust and to the wider healthcare system?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his suggestion of a consolidation Act. I can tell just how much he enjoys the sessions we spend in Committee and how eager he is that, no sooner do we finish, than we are back in another Bill Committee together. In terms of his gentle gibe about reorganisation in another two years, there was roughly a two-year gap between the 1999, then the 2001, then the 2003 and then the 2006 reorganisations of the NHS under the previous Government. I fear this is something that affects Governments of all types.
Justin Madders
Indeed, but the point that we would make is that there was such a mess to clear up after 18 years of Conservative Government that we had to do a lot of reorganisations. If the Minister can state for the record that there will be no reorganisations within a specified timescale, we would all be delighted to hear that.
Edward Argar
We must always retain flexibility so that the legislative framework reflects the evolving nature of healthcare provision in this country and we can we deliver what all our constituents want us to.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the importance of licensing. The licence applies to anyone providing NHS services, including the independent sector. With the system oversight framework, it provides a tool that helps to ensure quality across all types of providers in a consistent way, hence the importance that we still attach to it.
At the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s speech were his points about foundation trusts, a 2004 innovation. The reason we are introducing these changes is that we recognise not only the ability of foundation trusts to be autonomous, but the need for them to collaborate and integrate. The aim is to create a framework that allows for local flexibility but brings together local services, recognising the synergies that need to exist between all healthcare providers in an area. With the ICB holding the ring, we get local flexibility, but we look at it the local system level rather than the individual provider level. I alluded to it jokingly, but as I promised in our last session I can confirm to him that I was correct that there are no current applications from NHS trusts to become foundation trusts. I said that I was relying on my memory, but I can confirm for the record that my memory was accurate.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the new hospitals programme and capital more broadly. While slightly stretching the scope of the debate, I think that is probably relevant because he was talking about capital, so I am happy to accept that—subject to your judgment, of course, Mrs Murray—as being in scope. In terms of investment in new hospitals, the bottom line is that this is capital provided by the Treasury—by central Government —to build new hospitals where they are most needed. He will have seen the criteria and the approach set out for the next eight schemes, which are currently being considered. An expression of interest is the first stage of that process. A number of criteria are set out—for example, are there safety issues? Is there an urgent need? Will this facilitate transformation and improve patient experience? The criteria are set out publicly.
The next stage, which will take place next year, is the whittling down of the applications to a shortlist and further consideration. I believe it is entirely right that, guided by advice from officials and local NHS systems, Ministers make those decisions, because it is central Government money that is being invested directly in the schemes, rather than the normal capital allocations from NHS England to local NHS systems that are decided at local system level. This is additional, over and above the normal capital allocations.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned proposed new section 42C and asked what it is envisaged the guidance will say, what it will cover, and how it will work. Essentially, we envisage it setting out how and when NHS England and NHS Improvement will exercise the powers—for example, where a foundation trust’s plans potentially put at risk the broader ICB plans for capital, unduly divert resources, or skew the capital allocation in a particular direction. We do not envisage their being used with any regularity, and hope that, as now, broadly, there is a collaborative approach. It is more informal now than envisaged under the provisions, but there is a collaborative approach.
In his broader remarks about the balance between autonomy and freedoms, the hon. Gentleman asked what I would tell a keen and ambitious NHS trust chief executive who was considering taking advantage of the spaces in the queue to become a foundation trust the advantages in doing so are. Essentially, I would say that they should consider what best reflects the local needs for their local healthcare system, because foundation trusts will of course retain freedoms around commercial borrowing and other existing freedoms. The powers that we are introducing act as a safeguard should they be used against the wider interest of the system. There are still advantages, but each NHS chief executive in that situation should consider carefully their own local circumstances and what is most effective in providing for their patients and service users.
My two final points go to what the hon. Gentleman said about the fear that the powers are significant and should be used only as the last resort, and his second point about whether there should be a greater willingness to allow NHS providers to decide how they spend their surpluses, rather than a regulator or central Government deciding. I might be paraphrasing, but I think those were his two key concerns. On his first point, the powers act as a safeguard to allow national-level intervention when local negotiation cannot resolve disputes. I have alluded to what we would use the guidance for, which is to add a bit of flesh to the bones. We think that is best set out in guidance rather than on the face of statute, as circumstances change over time and applying a narrow statutory test could hinder the aims of the clause, which would ensure that NHS spending overall is in the best interests of the public.
To the second point about whether it should be down to NHS providers and systems to determine how they spend surpluses or moneys that they have saved each year for a particular purpose, the hon. Gentleman is right that NHS trusts and foundation trusts operate as autonomous organisations that are legally responsible for maintaining their estates and providing healthcare services. That will continue, but only where there is a clear risk of a trust acting against the wider interest of the NHS system locally and an ICB would the controls be considered for application.
Justin Madders
The Minister is setting out the aims, but I am a little unsure what a foundation trust acting against the wider interest of the ICB would look like. Can he give us examples of where that might have happened?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to give a specific example. The reason we chose the flexibility of using guidance is that we cannot envisage every eventuality, so we will set out in guidance the process and approach. I will try to give him an illustrative example rather than a specific one, if he will allow me. If we have an ICB making collective decisions about where capital investment is most needed at a system level, and if we have a foundation trust with resources deciding to prioritise huge investment in one particular area, that might not necessarily reflect the broadly agreed local priorities in the ICB plan and the ICP plan for that area. I envisage such matters being resolved at an ICB level. I have certainly seen in this job and in a past life, as I suspect the hon. Member for Bristol South has, where informal resolution of these things is often the most effective way, so I would not envisage these powers being used often, but it is important that we have the flexibility that they bring. On that basis, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 52 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Transfer schemes between trusts
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 59 stand part.
Government amendments 15 and 16.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
As we have discussed, clauses 39 and 40 make it clear that the Secretary of State continues to have the ability to create new NHS trusts. Clause 58 is an integral part of ensuring that the NHS has the correct provider landscape necessary to deliver integrated care and to respond to emerging priorities.
The clause allows NHS England to make a transfer scheme relating to NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. Such a transfer scheme can provide for the transfer of property, rights, staff and liabilities from one NHS provider to another to ensure that the right resources can, when necessary, be transferred to support the delivery of services across the NHS.
NHS trusts and NHS FTs will be able to apply jointly to NHS England to make transfer schemes under the clause. NHS England, as the national regulator, may grant the application for the transfer scheme if it is satisfied that all necessary steps to prepare for the scheme have been undertaken. The process can ensure, for example, that all transfer schemes are in the best interests of patients and represent value for money for the taxpayer. Transfer schemes for NHS providers are crucial to ensuring that we have a flexible, adaptable provider landscape to deliver the best care to our patients.
Clause 59 introduces schedule 8 to the Bill, which amends chapter 5A of the National Health Service Act 2006, which relates to trust special administrators. Schedule 8 outlines the changes to the process and authorisation for the appointment of trust special administrators, including the reporting mechanisms.
A trust special administrator is appointed to take charge of the trust, at which point the trust board of directors—in the case of NHS foundation trusts, the governors—are suspended. Trust special administrators may be appointed by NHS England to exercise the functions of a chairman and directors of an NHS trust, or the governors, chairman and directors of a foundation trust, where that is necessary to secure sustainable and high-quality services and where other interventions to secure financial or clinical sustainability have been exhausted.
Schedule 8 co-outlines the changes to the process and authorisation for the appointment of trust special administrators, including the reporting mechanisms. The changes are part of transitioning the provider-based functions of Monitor and the NHS TDA into NHS England, and it does not represent a substantial change in policy approach. It also transfers delegated duties placed on the NHS TDA to NHS England in relation to the appointment of a trust special administrator to an NHS trust. It also transfers functions of Monitor to NHS England in relation to the appointment of a trust special administrator for NHS FTs.
The administrators are to be appointed by NHS England to make recommendations about actions to secure sustainable and high-quality services. NHS England must appoint a trust special administrator if required to do so by the Care Quality Commission. Otherwise, it may make the order to appoint only if it considers that to be in the interests of the health service and if the Secretary of State has given their approval.
The process remains broadly the same under schedule 8, giving NHS England the appropriate role in relation to NHS trusts and foundation trusts. However, one change I draw to the attention of the Committee is in relation to NHS trusts: both NHS England and the Secretary of State will receive the administrators’ report, which will state which action, if any, either is to take. The schedule confers a shared duty on NHS England and the Secretary of State to consult one another before taking any decision on action.
The provisions enable NHS England to discharge its responsibility for the support and oversight of NHS trusts and foundation trusts, including taking on Monitor and the NHS TDA’s regulatory and inspection powers in relation to such trusts. They provide transparency to the appointment process and its reporting mechanisms, and clarity to the system in securing and delivering sustainable and high-quality services when the trust providing them has been placed into administration. I commend the clauses and the schedule to the Committee.
Government amendment 15 will ensure that integrated care boards are consulted when the Care Quality Commission requires NHS England to make a trust special administration order and ensures that the process properly accounts for all future commissioning arrangements involving those boards. Proposed new section 65B(4)(b)(ii) introduced under paragraph 2 of schedule 8 retains the existing requirement for the Care Quality Commission to consult commissioners of services from the NHS trust in question. The commission considered that to be appropriate. However, it does not account for situations where, in future, an NHS trust may provide services in an integrated care board area without formally providing services to that integrated care board. For example, where an NHS trust ends up spanning two integrated care board areas, those boards may decide to have a lead commissioner of services from an NHS trust. The purpose of the amendment is to put beyond any doubt that any integrated care boards that might be impacted by a trust special administration order being triggered for an NHS trust should be consulted as part of the formal process.
Similarly, Government amendment 16 will ensure that integrated care boards are consulted when NHS England decides to make a trust special administration order and that the process properly accounts for all future commissioning arrangements involving ICBs. Proposed new section 65B(5)(b), introduced by paragraph 2 of schedule 8, retains the requirement for NHS England to consult commissioners of services from the NHS trust in question, if
“NHS England considers it appropriate”.
However, that again does not account for situations where, in future, an NHS trust may provide services in an ICB area without formally providing services to that ICB. For example, where an NHS trust may end up spanning two integrated care board areas, those boards may decide to have a lead commissioner of services from a trust. The purpose of the amendment is to put beyond any doubt that any integrated care boards that might be impacted by a trust special administration order being triggered for an NHS trust should be consulted as part of that formal process.
Amendments 15 and 16 ensure that the trust special administration process reflects the role the ICBs will play and the different levels of autonomy and status between different NHS trusts and foundation trusts under the present system, putting the need for calibration and consultation at the heart of the measure. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to support the amendments.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. There is not a tremendous amount to get excited about in these clauses and amendments, but I want to ask a couple of questions of the Minister.
On clause 58, it makes sense to provide for a time where there needs to be a transfer of property, rights or liabilities from one NHS trust or foundation trust to another. Indeed, I suspect that our conversations about boundaries in earlier parts of the Bill are far from finished. That may have a knock-on impact on providers, so we may see it used in the near future. On the powers reserved for NHS England to create transfer schemes, it is not greatly surprising that it is the ultimate arbiter of applications. That is consistent with the rest of the Bill.
I could not tempt the Minister to cover one point in the final grouping on Tuesday evening, and I hope he might expand on it now. Where are the integrated care boards in this? Surely they would have a significant view about changes to the providers, and possibly the splitting up of providers—the Minister mentioned cross-border trusts, and how that might be led with lead providers. It is not inconceivable that the integrated care boards might have significant views, so should there not at least be a sense that their views have been sought? If not, there ought to be support, which would probably be desirable. In the previous grouping, we covered the fact that that was also true for trusts entering special measures and for trusts becoming foundation trusts. Again, there was no sense of what the ICB’s role was. I do not think that the Minister mentioned that in his summing up. I hope that he might do so on this occasion.
I heard what the Minister said about Government amendments 15 and 16, which I have a lot more sympathy for. I raised this issue on Tuesday night. Where the Care Quality Commission and NHS England are involved in a trust failure situation, they should of course want the ICB to be a part of that process. I believe that the point the Minister made was that amendments 15 and 16 will amend the clause sufficiently to ensure that integrated care boards have their say in situations of failure. I hope he will clarify that ICBs in any such situation will get due consultation about what comes next.
I accept the Minister’s point that clause 59 does not represent a material change in direction or policy from where we are today, but instead tidies up who is responsible and deals with new arrangements for NHS England, as set out earlier in the Bill. Again, there is not much of a reference to the ICBs. Hopefully we get clarity that the point of the amendments is to put that back in. If so, obviously we would support that, but I would wonder why that has not happened in other places—both in this group and previous ones too.
The Minister will love how granular this inquiry is. I ask it for no other reason than out of a genuine desire to know the answer; I am not trying to catch anybody out. Schedule 8 replaces section 65KD of the National Health Service Act 2006. Proposed new section 65KD mentions ICBs—I think it was about the only reference to them in the schedule, before the Government tabled amendments 15 and 16—and provides for what happens should an ICB fail to discharge its functions. In that case, under proposed new subsection (5)(b),
“the Secretary of State may exercise the functions of NHS England under section 14Z59(2), (3)(a) and (5)(a)”,
which are introduced by the Bill.
Proposed new section 14Z59 is titled:
“Power to give directions to integrated care boards”.
At that point, the Secretary of State has taken over NHS England’s role and now acts as NHS England himself or herself. Can the Minister explain why that would be necessary? If we are saying that an ICB is part of a failure of circumstances, not discharging its functions properly, would not the first port of call traditionally be the centre—NHS England—to step in and provide support, or is there a judgment that the national leadership has failed too if the local leadership has failed, and therefore the Secretary of State must be the next link in the chain?
I am conscious that that is a granular query, but I think the provision departs from principles earlier in the Bill. It may well be that this is a very specific and niche example, in which case there is less to worry about, but I would like an explanation on that, and on where ICBs are in the grand processes around clause 58. When changes happen, what consultation does there have to be with them, and what support will they have?
Edward Argar
On the shadow Minister’s central question about where ICBs fit in, he is right that we envisage their being, as we have discussed throughout, central to decision making in their locality. He is right to highlight that, as drafted, there was the potential for them to be regarded as not front and centre, hence Government amendments 15 and 16, which we hope add clarity and add that ICBs will be consulted, for example, when a special administrator is being appointed. We wanted to include them as part of that process. I fully acknowledge that, as drafted, there was a degree of ambiguity. That is why the Government introduced the amendments. I do not like having to amend my own legislation, but I think it important that we do so here.
Alex Norris
The Minister should not be shy about that at all. It is good sign, and shows that, after publication, he is still reflecting on the Bill and improving it as we go along. That is a strength rather than a weakness. However, these are amendments to schedule 8. I am surprised that there are no counterpart amendments for clause 58 or to the group that we discussed previously, which included clauses 39 to 42 and clauses 44 to 50. Why was the judgment made not to amend those in a similar way?
Edward Argar
We took the view that in this case there are very obvious consequences. In normal circumstances, we envisage collaborative work with, and the involvement of, the ICB. I was very keen that we were explicit here. It could be argued, as I would have done, that the clauses did not prohibit such co-operation, but I wanted to be very specific, because the appointment of a special administrator and the actions likely to be taken in that context could have profound impacts on the system. I wanted to be absolutely explicit about the need to involve ICBs.
The hon. Gentleman asked a detailed and granular question about paragraph 15(4) of schedule 8, and the powers in proposed new subsection (5)(b). The key point is that we would envisage it going up through the chain of accountability—chain of command is wrong word—but it is important that we recognise, as we do with the Bill, that the Secretary of State has a role in that chain of accountability to the House, to the public and to others. That theme has run through a lot of the discussions of the legislation, so we therefore think it appropriate to include the Secretary of State in that subsection.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 61 stand part.
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
As the Committee knows, one intention of the Bill is to create more flexibility, alongside the promotion of greater local integration. The clauses help to allow local bodies to work together in different ways to deliver effective health services.
Clause 60 enables NHS organisations, and any other bodies that may be prescribed in regulations, to commission and arrange services collaboratively, not only with other NHS organisations but with local authorities, combined authorities and other bodies that could be specified in regulations. Existing NHS legislative mechanisms make it difficult for the health and care system to work collaboratively and flexibly across different organisations, forcing local systems to adopt complex workarounds to be able to take joint decisions and pool budgets. In that context, back in the day, when I served in a local authority, we used section 75 of the 2006 Act as one mechanism for doing that with the local primary care trust.
In practice, however, those arrangements can sometimes be cumbersome and difficult to manage, and can delay making vital decisions. The new provisions inserted by the clause into the NHS Act 2006 will enable NHS organisations and any other bodies that may be prescribed in regulations to delegate functions to, or jointly exercise functions with, other NHS organisations, local authorities, combined authorities and other bodies as specified in regulations. Where functions are exercised jointly, the provisions will also enable those organisations to pool funds and form joint committees, facilitating partnership working and joint decision making at place and system level.
To ensure that delegation or joint exercise of functions does not lead to reduced accountability for delivering services, we have proposed appropriate safeguards in the clause. The Secretary of State will be able to set out in regulations which functions can and cannot be delegated, impose conditions in relation to delegation or joint exercise of functions, and specify the extent of such arrangements, for example. Furthermore, the parties will be able to agree terms as to the scope of the delegation arrangement. NHS England will have the ability to issue statutory guidance in relation to functions that are being delegated or jointly exercised under the provisions. The relevant body, as defined in the provision, must have regard to such guidance.
The provisions will replace those in existing sections 13Z, 13ZB and 14Z3 of the NHS Act 2006, which provide for the delegation of joint exercise of NHS England’s functions. The clause also amends section 75 of the 2006 Act, which I just alluded to. That section details arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities so that where a combined authority, for example, exercises an NHS function as part of arrangements under the new provisions, it can be treated as an NHS body. That is in line with how combined authorities are treated for other, similar joint working arrangements.
Clause 61 and schedule 9 focus on the delegation of functions. Clause 61 inserts a new section into the NHS Act 2006 that makes express the assumption that a general reference in the Act to a person’s functions includes any functions that they are exercising on behalf of another person. That means, for example, that a reference in the Act to the functions of NHS England should cover any public health functions of the Secretary of State that NHS England may be exercising on their behalf under section 7A arrangements. The practical effect of this would be, for example, that any general duties that apply when NHS England is exercising its functions would also apply when it was exercising delegated functions. Until now, delegated functions have not been dealt with consistently in our health legislation. While it is not feasible, notwithstanding the suggestion of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, to remedy this issue across all health legislation in one consolidating Bill, this clause seeks to produce a more consistent approach.
Schedule 9 contains amendments to the NHS Act 2006 and other legislation to reflect the broader approach taken by clause 61 to delegated functions. Clause 61 also enables regulation to be made to create further exceptions where necessary to ensure that delegated functions are not covered by a provision where this would be inappropriate. Clause 61 addresses an important but technical legal issue in the Bill and is essential for enabling consistent and clear interpretation of our legislation.
These clauses are essential for ensuring that NHS organisations can collaborate effectively with each other as well as with other partners in the system. I therefore commend clauses 60 and 61 and schedule 9 to the Committee.
Justin Madders
Members will be relieved to hear that I will not detain the Committee long on this. Clause 60 does what the NHS itself has decided it needs. Over the last six years, we have had various iterations of this integration process, joining things up around joint working, joint bodies and delegation. The provisions try to put all that in one place.
A recurring theme is clarity about the extent of crossovers between local authorities and the NHS. In that respect, proposed new section 65Z5 suggests that local authorities can carry out any function of an NHS body. Could the Minister say more about that? Does it mean that we could see local authorities commissioning—setting up GP surgeries in wellbeing centres? We are assuming that this is one-way and there is no reciprocal arrangement for the NHS to take on local authority functions, so that a foundation trust could not take on an arm’s length management organisation or some other local authority function as a tax-efficient way of avoiding certain liabilities. Could the Minister respond on that?
I also wonder about care trusts, which were the original integrated working teams with the NHS and local authorities. They are rarely mentioned and were largely regarded as unsuccessful. Is there any intention to favour such genuinely integrated bodies? They were used in one recent case by an integrated care provider to get around some of the prohibitions on new trusts. Can the Minister tell us anything about where care trusts now fit into the landscape?
Given the joint nature of the provision, I would like to know why the guidance was published only by NHS England. Should it not have been a joint effort by the NHS and the Local Government Association? Was the LGA consulted and involved in the preparation of the guidance? That perhaps exposes that this is really about the NHS, not about integration across the board. As we have heard today, the ICPs will roll up at some later point, perhaps exposing the reality that this is going to be an NHS-dominated process.
Finally, on the pooling of funds, is there any limit on that? Is that envisaged to be an occasional opportunity, or will it be a more significant step down a road of full funding? Will the Minister set out whether the direction of travel will be quite as dramatic as possibly suggested by the clause?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his support for the clauses and for the, as ever, perfectly sensible questions he poses. I hope to reassure him that the intention behind the clauses is not to create tax-efficient organisations or anything like that; it is to create the most efficient organisations for the delivery of joined-up care. I alluded to section 75 of the 2006 Act, which is an example of what many local authorities are doing already.
On guidance, I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, throughout the genesis of the legislation, we worked collaboratively with the Local Government Association, reflecting local authorities more broadly. As we develop guidance, I am clear that the NHS, NHS England and the Government will continue to work with the association to ensure that local government’s view is reflected in the drafting. A number of conversations have already taken place between officials and the LGA. Notwithstanding the debates we may have in this House or how the legislation emerges, I am clear that we will continue to work collaboratively throughout with all the partners involved, even in areas where we may disagree. We will always seek to work with them.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concerns—he will shake his head if I paraphrase him unfairly—about whether the legislation will allow for unlimited or unfettered delegation without checks and balances. Will we be able to transfer anything from an NHS trust to a local authority, or vice versa? The short answer is no. There will need to be a clear line of accountability between the body ultimately exercising the function and the delegating body. Safeguards ensure that any onward delegation is appropriate. That said, there may be circumstances in which a local authority would commission a particular healthcare service linked to other functions of the local authority delegated from the NHS. We would expect that clear accountability to be in place where that is done. We do not envisage the power being used regularly in that way, but there might be circumstances in which it would be.
Regulations may restrict what, where, when and how—and, indeed, to whom—delegations occur. The delegation agreement may also prevent further onward delegation of functions beyond a certain level. In addition—this goes back to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the LGA—NHS England will, I expect, issue statutory guidance on delegation and joint committees, which would include scenarios, case studies, model delegation agreements and similar to show how, in practice, we envisage this working. The guidance would be statutory, and I envisage it being developed in concert with local authorities, represented by the Local Government Association—that is probably the most effective way of doing that.
I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance that there is nothing sinister—for want of a better word—intended in the clauses; they are merely meant to make things easier for local NHS bodies and local authorities, in particular, to co-operate more. That goes back to the integration at the heart of—the thread that runs through—all the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Before I speak to clauses 63 and 64, I crave your indulgence, Mrs Murray: I should have said to the shadow Minister that the previous clauses were about delegation from the NHS to local authorities, not the other way around. I would just like to put that on the record for him, because he expressed a concern about that.
Clauses 63 and 64 have been included in the Bill to help support ICBs and ICPs and to enhance integration across the health and care system. Clause 63 allows NHS England to issue guidance about appointing an individual to roles simultaneously in NHS commissioners and NHS providers, or in relevant NHS bodies on the one hand, and local authorities or combined authorities on the other. We have seen a number of clinical commissioning group and local authority joint appointments that have supported integration and been successful, and we would be keen to see those continue.
The clause further sets a requirement for these NHS bodies to have regard to such guidance when considering making a joint appointment. Joint appointments between organisations can support aligned decision making, enhance leadership across organisations and improve the delivery of integrated care. However, we believe that greater clarity is required to support organisations in making appropriate joint appointments, to avoid conflicts of interest that can be difficult to manage. Before issuing any new or significantly revised guidance, NHS England would be required to consult with appropriate persons.
Clause 63 will allow NHS England to publish a clear set of criteria for organisations to consider when making joint appointments and ensure regard is given to such guidance. That will also provide a safeguard against any conflicts of interest that may arise in the process of making joint appointments.
Clause 64 amends sections 72 and 82 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which deal with the co-operation between NHS bodies and the co-operation between NHS bodies and local authorities respectively. The clause inserts a new power for the Secretary of State to make guidance related to the existing co-operation duties between NHS bodies and between NHS bodies and local authorities. While the existing co-operation duties in sections 72 and 82 relate to both English and Welsh NHS bodies and local authorities, the guidance relates only to England, and the requirement to have regard to guidance issued under this new power will apply only to English NHS bodies and English local authorities.
Our intention is not to produce a single piece of co-operation guidance, which would risk being too general or too wide-ranging to be effective. Rather, we are considering discrete pieces of guidance in specific areas such as delivery of alcohol and drugs services, sexual and reproductive health, or hospital discharge services, to encourage and facilitate co-operation and integration in their delivery.
The clause also amends section 96 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which concerns the setting of licensing conditions for providers of NHS services. The licence, as we touched on earlier today, was established in 2013 so that providers of NHS services must meet to help ensure that the health sector works for the benefit of patients. Currently, conditions can be set on co-operation, but these provisions can apply only in certain circumstances.
The clause goes further: it supports system integration, promotes greater co-operation by removing the limitation on setting licence conditions on co-operation, and expands the range of bodies with which co-operation can be required. That will strengthen and reinforce the requirements on providers to co-operate and further strengthens the ability for NHS providers to deliver the system plan.
Co-operation is central to the intentions and underpinnings of this Bill. New guidance and expanding the role co-operation plays in the licensing regime will give organisations greater clarity about the practical expectations for co-operation, help the NHS to build on the innovation, working relationships and positive behaviours that have been seen over the past year, and further embed these behaviours across the health and care system. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I am sure the Minister will be unsurprised to learn that the Opposition are a little wary of the powers in clause 63. One person doing two jobs is never ideal. I make an honourable exception for the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, who, in his other role, plays an important part in contributing to the wellbeing of the nation. Such exceptions are rare, and we think that two jobs for one person is never a sustainable or long-term solution.
We draw a distinction between a secondment, which obviously means that the position is by definition time limited and allows the post-holder to return to their original position. It is often good for career development, and that kind of mobility and interchange between the NHS and local authorities may be a very positive development, particularly with ICBs. However, the idea that there can be a joint appointment of a commissioner and a provider sounds wholly contradictory. Although the Minister has tried to allay our concerns by referring to guidance, it is clear that an NHS body needs to only “have regard” to that guidance. The question remains: at what point does someone step in when there is a clear and detrimental conflict of interest? We will see what the Minister has to say, but it we may need to keep a very close eye on that.
Clause 64 is a rather less obvious power grab by the Secretary of State, but it is one all the same. Clearly, he is not satisfied with the extent of co-operation between NHS bodies, because the Secretary of State now wants to be able to tell them how to co-operate. The guidance is to be issued, and a duty is to be placed on NHS bodies to follow it, or else face the consequences. What of? It is good old-fashioned persuasion—the willingness to work together for the greater good. It is actually the case that the Secretary of State wants two goes at this, as there are further powers to issue guidance in respect of NHS bodies and local authorities, which currently have to co-operate in order to advance the health and wellbeing of people.
Surely it is the case that they are doing that already. I cannot think of any reason why they would not co-operate, but what would be the sanction if they do not? Can the Minister tell us who he thinks these errant councils are that are not co-operating? Between myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and the Minister himself, we must have over a quarter of a century of experience in local government, and I cannot think of any occasion when councils were anything other than co-operative with the NHS. That is my experience, but if the Minister can help fill in the gaps, I would be most obliged.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister tempts me to name and shame. He may be tempting me in vain. He raised three key points. One was about one person doing two jobs. To paraphrase him, he asked how that would work and why it was appropriate. He also mentioned conflicts of interest and asked why it was necessary and appropriate for the Secretary of State should have these powers.
To his first point, the clause is about driving greater integration. During my time as a member of Westminster City Council many years ago, we had a joint appointment. Our director of public health, if I recall correctly, was also an NHS appointment and she sat in both organisations in the senior management structure. It was extremely effective. Conflicts of interest, as we would envisage here, were managed both within the system and in accordance with guidance and principles of appointments and appropriate governance. That worked extremely well. It was not so much one person doing two jobs, but where the job was needed and the job description fitted both organisations, it delivered a real synergy and better outcomes.
There are circumstances where it can work. I would not have envisaged it being used essentially so that one person has multiple roles and jobs, but there are occasions when there is a benefit from someone sitting jointly in two organisations to help drive that integration and shared understanding. We can create, as we are doing here, mechanisms and structures to help drive integration and co-operation, but as the hon. Member for Nottingham North will know, and as the hon. Member for Bristol South will know from her time in the NHS, we can have those structures, but ensuring that organisations work effectively often relies on individuals, personal relationships and the trust that builds up at that level.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked about care trusts, and the clause is partly designed for just that. The real problem with the clause and with joint appointments is that we already know that there are probably not enough senior, experienced people to go around to manage the difficult job of running a large hospital. The issue is ultimately about the focus on those hospitals and, indeed, on patient safety. The job of a chief executive of an NHS trust or foundation trust is an absolutely critical and quite busy one, but we are encouraging those people to take on an ICB leadership role, or joint roles in a local authority. We can either accept that those are large organisations that require particularly skilled people whom we pay properly, or we can simply merge the organisations. I would go for the former option. There are not enough of those people to go around. There is not enough variety of people. We are not encouraging the pipeline of talent, and we are not diversifying enough, and that is reflected in the NHS looking inward at itself. It is a big mistake to accept that we must have those joint appointments to bring the NHS together and make organisations collaborate.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but those joint appointments have always gone on—they have existed for many years. The example I referred to was in about 2008 or 2009, and it worked extremely well, as both organisations benefited from that individual being a part of both. Our clauses seek to ensure that those joint appointments work well and effectively.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked why the powers sit with the Secretary of State rather than with the local NHS or NHS England. I am afraid that he will not tempt me into naming any particular local authorities or otherwise. The NHS is a critical part of our health and care system, but integration and co-operation need to go beyond the NHS itself, encompassing the role of local authorities in this space, which we all recognise. I hope that that co-operation will be consensual and voluntary, as the hon. Gentleman said, but it is important that the Secretary of State, with his accountability to this place and to the public, sits above that system. I would argue that he is in the best position to offer guidance on how that system can co-operate, and to help to resolve matters.
Justin Madders
One of the things that we have been told consistently is that integration and joint working are already well under way on the ground, and that the Bill is, in part, just putting a legislative seal on that work. If that is correct, why does the Secretary of State need those additional powers?
Edward Argar
Because we wish to take the opportunity to further drive forward the integration. The system has evolved, but we want to be more ambitious. The powers reflect the fact that the Secretary of State is able to take that wide perspective to most effectively see those two organisations coming together at a macro level—at the national level. That does not mean that I am denigrating in any way the evolution that is already occurring voluntarily in a whole range of areas around the country.
I sense that the hon. Gentleman is still unconvinced by joint appointments, so I will say a little more about them before I conclude, although I might still leave him unconvinced. There are already very few prohibitions on joint appointments, and we see an increasing number of them. In some cases, however, there could be a perception, or a reality, of a potential conflict of interest that could be difficult to manage or could lead to a perception of bias. We recognise that, which is why we have proposed the power to issue guidance to help organisations make the right joint appointments and to help them understand what factors to consider when deciding whether to proceed down the route of a joint appointment. The new powers for NHS England to issue guidance will ensure that there is a clear set of criteria against which to judge joint appointments when considering whether to make one. Bodies will have to have due regard to that guidance. I believe that the powers are proportionate.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. One of the critiques that we have developed —I hope that he has noticed—is that the Secretary of State has given himself an awful lot of powers and abilities to intervene. It seems highly incongruous that in the specific example of joint appointments, where there would be a clear role for the Secretary of State to intervene, he has not availed himself of the opportunity to do so.
Edward Argar
As with so much else in the Bill, we are trying to future-proof it. Indeed, the shadow Minister and others made the point in a different context. Where are the powers? What are the options if there is disagreement, a dispute or a conflict? While not anticipating conflict, we are seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to issue guidance to resolve any conflict or issues that may arise in that context. It is a pragmatic and proportionate measure to ensure that any such risks can be managed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 64 and 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
The NHS payment scheme
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 84, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The NHS payment scheme must ensure that the price paid to any provider of services which is neither an NHS Trust nor an NHS Foundation Trust cannot be different from the price paid to an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust.”
This amendment ensures payment to private providers can only be made at tariff price to prevent competition for services based on price.
Amendment 100, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) NHS England must obtain the agreement of the Secretary of State before publishing the NHS payment scheme.”
This amendment ensures that the NHS payment scheme, which sets out the prices to be paid for NHS services, is approved by the Secretary of State.
That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
I express my gratitude—I may be less grateful when I sum up—to hon. Members for tabling the amendments, and for the discussion that we are going to have about the NHS payment scheme. The Bill replaces the national tariff with a new NHS payment scheme, with additional flexibilities to allow the NHS to deliver population-based funding and more integrated care approaches. The NHS payment scheme, which will set rules about how commissioners pay providers for services, will apply to all providers of NHS services, including NHS trusts and foundation trusts, the voluntary sector and the independent sector.
Amendment 84 aims to ensure that payment to private providers can be made only at tariff price. While we will not introduce competition on price, rather than quality, there may be scenarios where it is appropriate to pay non-NHS providers different prices from those paid to NHS providers, to take account of differences in the cost of providing those services—for example, different staffing costs or a different range of services provided. There may also be cases where the financial regimes of different providers make it appropriate to set different prices or pricing rules. When setting any prices, NHS England will aim to ensure that the prices payable represent a fair level of pay for the providers of those services, as well as fair pay between providers of similar services.
I reassure the Committee that we do not expect to see the rules being used to give a premium to private providers to encourage them to enter the market. We do not expect to pay the independent sector 11.2% greater than the NHS equivalent cost, as the King’s Fund briefing on independent sector treatment centres set out in 2009. Nor do we expect commissioners to pay for 100% of the contract value regardless of whether the activity reached the contracted level. Instead, the new payment scheme delivers what the NHS has asked for to implement its long-term plan. For that reason, we encourage Opposition Members not to press the amendment to a Division, but I may be pressing them in vain.
The Government will also, I am afraid, oppose amendment 100, which would require the NHS payment scheme to be approved by the Secretary of State. The NHS payment scheme will be published by NHS England, following consultation with relevant providers and commissioners, and, where relevant, the publication of an impact assessment. Integrated care boards and relevant providers will be able to make representations and formally object in response to consultations on the NHS payment scheme, as they can with the national tariff. Where the percentage of objections exceeds the prescribed threshold for either ICBs or relevant providers, or both, NHS England must further consult the representatives of the ICBs and providers that were objecting. NHS England may then publish a revised payment scheme, with another consultation for significant changes. It will also be able to publish the proposed scheme without amendment, but will be required to publish a notice stating that decision and setting out the reasons for it.
The Government are responsible for setting out overall funding for NHS England, who in turn will continue to be required to have regard to fair levels of reimbursement for providers in setting the details of the payment scheme. The Department and NHS England will continue to work closely together in the development of the NHS payment scheme, as we do with the national tariff. However, as a last resort, derived from clause 37 powers of direction, the Secretary of State will be able to require NHS England to share the NHS payment scheme before publication. The Secretary of State will also be able to direct NHS England not to publish a payment scheme without his approval, and about the contents of the payment scheme under his general powers of direction under clause 37.
Although we do not expect to need to use the powers of direction to intervene in this area, they can be used and will act as a further safeguard against unfair payment scheme provisions, as well as allowing for appropriate parliamentary accountability for funding flows in the NHS. The consultation requirements in schedule 10, and the general powers of direction, allow for sufficient Government oversight and accountability for the payment scheme, and further specific provisions would be inflexible and unnecessary. [Interruption.] I will shorten my remarks. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I am happy to go on and on, but I fear the Committee might wish me to conclude. In that context, I will highlight to the Committee that, as with the national tariff, fair levels of reimbursement are a key principle of the legal framework reflected in NHS England’s duty in subsection (6) of proposed new section 114A(6) to have regard to differences in providers’ costs and the different range of services that they provide for the purpose of securing that prices and the overall payment scheme result in a fair level of pay to different types of providers.
I will also highlight and draw to the Committee’s attention provisions in proposed new section 114C as inserted by schedule 10, which makes clear that, before publishing the payment scheme, NHS England must consult integrated care boards, relevant providers and any other person that NHS England thinks appropriate. It must also provide an impact assessment of the impact of the proposed scheme.
Karin Smyth
There is a lot of drawing up of complicated documents and costings and then a lot of complicated consultation and decisions on whether the Secretary of State will or will not decide whether he wants to be involved in looking at what the final solution is. Does the Minister have any idea of when we might see the final NHS payment system under the new arrangement?
Edward Argar
I would not prejudge the passage of the legislation and how the House might judge it, but I look forward to such a scheme being introduced expeditiously, if I may put it that way to the hon. Member. I hope I can also reassure the Committee in respect of amendment 107, which was not selected but raised issues pertinent to the clause more broadly. This is important. It is right that the amendment was not selected—I appreciate that it was not tabled by a member of the Committee—but it does highlight issues that we need to put on the record. I appreciate the impulse behind it.
Although NHS staff pay and conditions are outside the scope of the proposed payment scheme and are protected by provisions made elsewhere, unions and other representative bodies may wish to be reassured that their members are able to go to work in appropriately funded services. I hope I have given reassurance on that point and set out why I feel the amendment, although I am grateful that it was not selected, would be unnecessary, as the Bill already requires NHS England to consult with integrated care boards, relevant providers and any other person the NHS thinks appropriate before publishing a payment scheme. It must also publish an impact assessment of the proposed scheme, ensuring that any potential consultation is properly informed of the potential effects of the scheme. I appreciate that the amendment was not selected, but I put those points on the record as I can understand the intent behind the amendment and I wanted to offer those reassurances. I hope I can persuade Opposition Members not to press amendments 84 and 100 to a vote, but I may be unlucky in that respect.
Clause 66 introduces schedule 10, which amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012 by repealing the national tariff and replacing it with the new NHS payment scheme. The national tariff has for many years improved access to services and driven up quality across the NHS, but as we move towards a more integrated system focused on prevention, joint working and more care delivered in the community, we need to update the NHS pricing systems to reflect new ways of working since the tariff was introduced, and in the light of the covid-19 pandemic.
The new NHS payment scheme will build on the success of the tariff. It will support stronger collaboration than ever before, with shared incentives for commissioners and providers of services to improve quality of care and promote sustainable use of NHS resources. The scheme will move away from a wholly payment-by-activity approach to an approach that supports more joined-up ways of delivering services, with commissioners and providers working together to deliver the best quality care.
The new payment scheme will remove perverse incentives for patients to be treated in acute settings and allow more patients than ever before to be treated closer to home and in the community. It will allow NHS England to guide the health system, through the development of guide prices for entire care pathways, while ensuring that local systems have the necessary flexibility to deliver high-quality care and use NHS resources sustainably.
The payment scheme will specify rules that commissioners must follow when determining prices paid to providers of NHS-funded healthcare services. It will allow significant flexibility over the current pricing scheme, and allow rules to set prices, formulas and factors that must be considered when determining prices paid. It also allows for in-year modifications to the rules, to reflect changes in the costs of providing services.
Crucially, the scheme will also allow the NHS to set prices for public health services commissioned by the NHS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, such as maternity screening, to allow for seamless funding streams for episodes of care. These changes to increase the flexibility and reduce transactional bureaucracy associated with the current tariff are, we believe, crucial to integrating care and tackling the elective backlog. I therefore commend this clause and schedule to the committee.
Alex Norris
Clause 66 is exceptionally important, so I cannot promise the same brevity as the Minister. I think the rules work slightly differently on the hard stop on a Thursday than they do on a Tuesday.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that clarification. If I am interrupted by colleagues in order to meet the conventional times, I will not take that as a kindness.
The clause governs how billions and billions of pounds will be spent every year, so it is surprising that it is so thin: three lines under clause 66 and a rather broad schedule 10. People could read into it whatever they want. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South made a good point that we could be in the business of filling that out for a very long period.
I am also surprised that the Minister is so reticent about the Secretary of State’s involvement and that this power is solely reserved for NHS England. We are not suggesting that the Secretary of State would want to set payment levels for specific treatments; but the Secretary of State, either today or in the future, may want some sort of say over what is being incentivised in the system and how that extraordinary purchasing power works in practice, whether that is about innovation, prevention or incentivising buying British, for example. That is something in which I would expect there to be some political interest.
The Minister talked about using clause 37, but that is a rather blunt tool. What we offer in amendment 100 is much lighter and much less drastic than using the clause 37 powers. If the Government will not accept our amendment, I am surprised that they have not introduced a similar one of their own. Perhaps they may yet do so.
The history of the tariff and payments bears an airing here, because it informs our future. It is an itinerant journey, which all Governments of the day, of different political persuasions, have their fingerprints on. This is not a partisan issue; it is about getting this right for the future. The purchaser-provider split in the ’90s and the development of various market and quasi-market systems was patchy and sporadic. That is a topic that has launched a thousand dissertations. Sometimes it feels like we aimed for payment by results, which is a noble cause, but in reality we can very easily get to payment by volume, and that is our challenge.
Going back even further than that, it was even less satisfactory. Traditionally, we had funding mechanisms that were very hard to understand and worked by adding a bit to the previous year’s allocations, and then really sophisticated people might make some downward adjustments for efficiencies and upward adjustments for assumed increases in activities. Inevitably, bits of the health service would get into trouble and would need bailing out, and new ideas would be dolloped out without much of a process. We have, to a certain extent, returned to that during covid. Block funding has given trusts one less thing to worry about. That was probably wise, but we would not want to do it forever.
The idea of the tariff was a variant of the 2012 Act. It could, I guess, incentivise competition on quality, but not really on price, as in a real market, as the Minister said. Prior to that, in the first decade of the century, the introduction of payment by results was one of the factors that allowed the longest successful period in the history of the NHS, which saw waiting lists come tumbling down—so much so that the demand for queue-busting private options evaporated and private providers became suppliers to the health service, rather than suppliers of private healthcare.
Payment by results, or pricing, can be a tool to tackle waiting lists. Given that Conservative Governments leave office with spiralling waiting lists, that is worth remembering for the future. Although that may be a discussion for another day, I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks NHS pricing is likely to be part of the recovery strategy. It is all well and good saying that this may take years and years to come to fruition, but what about now?
The historic decision back in the first decade of this century was that private providers should be paid the same as the cost of the NHS, so that there is no financial incentive to use the private sector. I think that is a wise principle, but it can and has been worked around. We have seen some very dodgy, spurious outsourcing of services, such as cleaning, which was an absolute disaster in Nottingham.
There are and have always been large swathes of the health services where payment by results or volume did not apply. One was mental health, where defining the product was far from easy, so it was very difficult to price. For many years, the mental health sector wanted to be part of this, but that never happened. That is much less of a priority for the sector now; it is just desperate for proper funding. It continues to struggle.
Of course, in such a system we will always have gaming and bureaucracy. Any system such as this gets gamed. Upcoding is one example, where the work that is billed for gets put into the highest-paying category. We have invoicing, chasing errors, and disputes over such coding, the actual volumes of work done and all the rest. That was hugely prevalent when payment by results first arrived for primary care trusts, and I think it is still with us in some form today. The cost of the market systems, data collection and processing is well above the cost of providing entirely necessary management information about cost and volumes.
Of course, that is not to make an argument for no prices at all. For decades, the NHS as a system did not really have any idea what anything cost. The accounts were not particularly well kept, and there were no data collection systems and staff doing analysis. As a result, the variations were huge, and that did not work in the interests of the system. I am arguing not for a no-cost regime, but for one that lands in a sensible place and does not become an industry in itself. At the moment, we have no idea, because what is on the face of the Bill is so broad, and the Minister is promising quite a long walk into the future with not a lot of certainty.
Many discussions about the long term plan, the formation of STPs—then accountable care systems, then integrated care systems, and now ICPs—and the rest have been about co-operation and collaboration, a return to non-market days, and a dilution of the commissioner-provider split, at least so far as NHS bodies are concerned. There will still be a strong current to say that there has to be some sort of tariff and benchmark as a guide, but some will say that there may be some sort of ability to vary as circumstances dictate—a kind of “Trust me, guv” arrangement whereby people of good will and common purpose can decide what is best, and that would be acceptable. To an extent, that flexibility is understandable if we are talking about the internal workings of an integrated, publicly provided NHS.
However, when we are talking about £10 billion more a year of contracts with private acute care providers, that is real money exiting the NHS bank account, so we need to be much more careful. That is where amendment 84 comes in: there has to be some sort of limitation on what private providers are paid. I was not at all convinced by the Minister’s explanation that there might be different costs, because of course there are different costs, the No. 1 cost being the need to derive profit from the contract. That is already a big cost. Of course, that can be met by compromising on quality or through downward pressure on what staff receive, but that is also a bad thing, so I did not think that was a particularly persuasive argument.
When it comes to all this money going out to private providers, there really ought to be some standardisation of the contract. If amendment 84 were accepted, we would have greater assurance that this is something done based on need, not cost or convenience. We would much rather invest in the NHS itself, taking away any perverse incentives to lean on the private sector as a resource pool and any risk of sweetheart deals due to our reliance on the good will of for-profit organisations.
In conclusion, we do not want the Secretary of State to price up a hip operation, but we do think there ought to be some interest in what our purchasing does in this country, to ensure that it is as good as possible. I do not think we should be using the blunt and brutal tools in clause 37, so I hope that the Minister will think again about amendment 100—if not now, then at a later point in proceedings.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Steve Double.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 23rd September 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 September 2021 - (23 Sep 2021)
The Chair
We will now hear from Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees representative to the UK, and Elizabeth Ruddick, senior legal associate, both representing UNHCR UK. We have until 2.30 pm for this session. Will you please both introduce yourselves for the record?
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Good afternoon to everyone. My name is Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor. I am the UNHCR representative to the United Kingdom.
Elizabeth Ruddick: Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Ruddick. I am a senior protection associate with the UNHCR in the United Kingdom.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Thank you very much for this question, but I would like to start with a short statement, which will also cover that. It is, of course, one of the areas of particular interest and concern to us.
You know, of course, that UNHCR has already published two sets of opinions: one on the policy document and the other on the Bill. I want to start by saying that we actually support the broad intent—the broad aims—of this Bill: combating smuggling networks, having fairer and faster procedures, and facilitating the return of those who are found not to be in need of international protection. However, we believe that the Bill is unlikely to achieve those aims, and may further exacerbate some of the identified issues.
Our concerns revolve around three areas. The first concerns the breach of international law, as the Bill contravenes the UK’s obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. The Bill revolves around the notion that refugees are required to seek asylum in the first safe country they find. To be clear, that principle is not found in the refugee convention, and it is not a requirement in international law. It is also unworkable because it would further increase pressure on those few countries that find themselves at the frontier of a crisis. The risk, of course, is that they would be overwhelmed, and that might impact on both their capacity and their good will to provide protection and solutions.
The Bill, as it stands, will cause significant suffering to people who are guilty of nothing more than seeking asylum in the UK. It makes unauthorised arrival and presence in the UK a crime punishable by up to four years in jail, without the defences that are actually provided for by the 1951 convention. It would also keep refugees in a situation of enforced precarity for up to 10 years, with no access to public welfare unless destitute, and under threat of removal to another country, if that were possible. This is really going to create massive problems not only for these individuals at a personal level, but for their communities, local councils and the NHS.
Lastly, the system as described would exacerbate the current backlog and increase costs by making procedures longer. That will delay the integration of those who are eventually found to be refugees, and will hamper the return of those who are not found to be in need of protection. It will have a number of unintended negative consequences that will impact on the very aims that the Bill purports to pursue.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Absolutely. As I said, there is no requirement in international law that refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country they find. We believe that there will be consequences if countries start reneging on or trying to diminish their responsibilities and commitments under the convention. There is a risk of triggering a race to the bottom. We have to perceive that every time we make it harder or try to discourage refugees from reaching our shores, we are diverting them to another country. It risks creating a chain in which refugees will find it harder and harder to find asylum anywhere. The international system is based on the good-faith application of the commitments that have been freely undertaken by states. When states do not fully embrace those commitments, the result is the erosion of international law. International law is nothing more than a contract between states, and it lives or dies by states’ willingness to comply with it.
Yes, we are very concerned, and we are concerned also because we are frankly in a position of constantly advocating for asylum and doing so with countries that have way more refugees than the UK. The element that has been lost in this discussion is that the UK, by reason of its geographical position and its relative distance from crisis countries, in fact receives a pretty small number of refugees. I am not suggesting that this is something you want, and there are certainly more than you would wish for, but in the big scheme of things it is a relatively small number. This is also true, by the way, of countries around you. The UK has a fairly stable number of asylum seekers in the range of 35,000 per year. France has just under 100,000 per year, with some variations. Germany has around 150,000, and Spain, Greece and Italy all receive more applications than the UK. Of course, I am not even mentioning countries closer to the crisis. Let us not forget that 73% of all refugees and asylum seekers remain in countries neighbouring their own, and that about 85% or 86% remain in developing or middle-income countries. I would like to encourage you to look at this matter in perspective. The channel crisis is certainly a challenge, but I think it has to be looked at in a broader perspective of a global challenge for all countries with respect to displacement.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Turkey at the moment has the largest number of refugees, as you know. We are talking about upward of 4 million or maybe even more. At one stage, Lebanon had one Syrian refugee for every four people; a huge percentage of its population were refugees. If you are talking about Afghanistan, there is a registered population of Afghan refugees of 780,000 in Iran, plus probably 1.5 million—maybe more—who are non-registered. Likewise, Pakistan has, between registered and unregistered, well above 2 million people. It has, I think, 1.4 million registered and maybe quite as many unregistered. So you are talking about numbers that are, frankly, enormous, relative to the numbers who come to Europe and, even more so, to the ones who come to the UK.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: There have been attempts by other countries, and of course the case that comes to mind is Denmark, which has been in the media, particularly in relation to the question of returns of Syrians. But I would like really to focus on the UK, rather than on other countries, if you will allow me. First, obviously there are principles that are applicable across the board. Obviously, we are asking all countries to act in a manner that is consistent with their international obligations. I think that we tend to forget that situations are sometimes different in terms of the practical applications. I know that you had the Australian high commissioner here this morning, even though I did not listen to his presentation. But of course the situation in Australia is very different from the situation in the UK. In any case, I would strongly recommend you not to follow that example, frankly.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Yes and no. Having resettlement schemes and other legal pathways, such as a well-functioning and perhaps slightly more generous family reunion mechanism, will certainly allow certain people to come legally where they might otherwise have been tempted to do so irregularly. However, the reality is that resettlement programmes—even a generous and well-run resettlement programme such as the VPRS—are really a bit of a drop in the bucket. You have to consider that, in any given year, we manage to resettle a fraction of 1% of the refugees who would be in need of resettlement. There is really a vast disproportion. That is why we say that resettlement is extremely valuable, is a life-saving mechanism—and we really commend the UK for its efforts in this sense—but is not an offset for granting asylum.
Bambos Charalambous
I know other colleagues wish to come in, so I will leave my questioning there. Thank you very much.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Thank you for this question, because it allows me actually to address what I believe is generally a bit of a misconception about spontaneous arrivals. Certainly—of course—the UNHCR has a system to identify the most vulnerable, but as I said, we only manage to submit a very small percentage of those we have identified, so the system definitely does not cover the needs. But the individuals who come here should not be regarded necessarily as wealthy people who have the means to come here. Typically, the vast, overwhelming, majority of those who move irregularly do so having gathered all the resources of themselves and their families. Homes are sold. Whole families are literally impoverished to gather the money that is required for somebody to make this trip. One of the reasons these trips can last weeks, months, or occasionally even longer, is that sometimes they have to stop in an intermediate place, such as Libya, to gather more money. We should not think of these people as being privileged and wealthy, and therefore having the luxury of travelling irregularly. The reality is quite different; these are journeys of desperation in most cases.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: I cannot talk about the statement by the Minister about the Boko Haram area, but I can tell you that, first, “middle class” means something different in different countries. Secondly, the people you see applying for refugee status here are not necessarily members of the middle classes. There is a much wider range. I suggest that if someone is truly wealthy, they might be able to come by plane. That is the most expensive kind of irregular journey because it would mean purchasing a passport and a ticket.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Of course.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Thank you very much for that question. Being or not being a refugee has nothing to do with economic status. Refugees can be poor, middle class, or very wealthy. What makes a person a refugee is a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five reasons established in the convention. Since we are talking about this in the Bill, the manner of a person’s arrival also has no bearing on this whatsoever. A refugee is a refugee is a refugee. If you are a refugee, you are entitled to certain things. That is really the bottom line.
On the criminalisation of those who may be assisting people to move across borders, there is an important difference to be made between those who do so for gain—the smuggler; we all know that there are criminal networks preying on people’s despair, and we commend the Government for their robust action in pursuing these people and bringing them to justice; that is a relief—and those who provide assistance to people in difficulty. They could be organisations rescuing asylum seekers and migrants at sea, for example. That is a completely different kettle of fish, and we definitely believe that it should not be penalised. The difference is between gain and humanitarian purpose.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: I do not. Perhaps Elizabeth does. Otherwise, I can of course let you know
Elizabeth Ruddick: In Canada, there was an attempt to prosecute refugees who had been abandoned by the smugglers and were steering a boat to safety. They were prosecuted for facilitating each other’s safe arrival. That was found to be a violation of the convention, because if you criminalise refugees assisting each other to survive during the course of their journey, you are criminalising seeking asylum.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
My other question involves the raging debates we have here all the time, which has come down to, “Yes, it does”, or, “No, it doesn’t”. People who are refugees seeking protection do not have to seek protection in the first country that they come to. We say that all the time, but we have debates with our colleagues who say, “Yes, they do. If they don’t, they are not refugees.” You say, “No, they don’t.” Will you explain that more?
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: The answer is, unequivocally, no. Refugees are not required to seek asylum in the first country, full stop. The manner of travel has no bearing on refugee status—none at all. That said, it does not translate into an unfettered right for people to choose where they want to seek asylum.
What is important to consider here—it has a bearing on your situation—is that UNHCR encourages countries to enter into agreements that allow them to transfer responsibilities for asylum seekers in a manner that ensures that every individual has access to a fair procedure, to decent and appropriate reception and, if found to be a refugee, a viable integration path. They do so by sharing responsibility in such a way that protection space is expanded rather than decreased.
One of the specifics of your Bill is that it makes extensive use of so-called inadmissibility in a situation in which there is no agreement that would allow the UK to transfer these people to another safe country in which it would make sense for them to be assessed. The UK, as you know, was part of the Dublin scheme, which is not perfect by any means but was at least a mechanism that established certain rules allowing states to share responsibility and to decide who should be assessed where.
At the moment, you do not have any such agreement with the EU, so a bit of a strange situation is realising itself. Since the entry into force of the changes to the initial rules, I understand that about 4,500 individuals have been notified of their possible inadmissibility. Seven of them have been found inadmissible, but I do not think that anyone has been returned to anywhere, because this has simply created a very long queue leading to nowhere. It is fundamental to the good management of the international refugee system that there should be strong collaboration between states. I hope that clarifies things.
Anne McLaughlin
That really does help. I have one more brief question. Would you say that you are an authority on the refugee convention?
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: The UNHCR is the established guardian of the 1951 convention. Our statute is an annex to a General Assembly resolution. The duty of states to collaborate with UNHCR is enshrined in article 35 of the 1951 convention, so yes.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
When you spoke first, you said that the Bill would not carry out its intentions. To pick up on that, many parts of the Bill have similarities to the Australian model, which was implemented in 2014. As we know, that was very successful —no migrants were crossing after about nine months of that policy coming in. You said that there were differences from the situation that arose in Australia. I get that, there are differences between them and us, but there are also a great deal of similarities. In your eyes, what are the differences that would make this legislation so unsuccessful?
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Let me just take a step back on Australia. The Australian approach was essentially based on offshoring and externalisation, and on turning around the boats. The offshoring and externalisation did not have any impact on the boats, but it did have a terrible, terrible impact on the people who got caught in it. If you read reports of what happened on Nauru and Manus island and so on, there were very high levels of violence, sexual violence against women and children and suicides. Children were found to be the most traumatised that most practitioners had ever seen. Children were essentially withdrawing into themselves and becoming entirely irresponsive to external stimuli. There were also suicides and self-harm. You really need to ask yourselves whether that situation is something you would like to associate your country with, to be entirely frank.
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt when you are giving such good testimony, but quite a few people want to ask questions and I would like to get them in if I could. We will take Jonathan Gullis, then Paul Blomfield, and then the Minister. Apologies.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Sorry?
Jonathan Gullis
In the constituency I serve, the residents are livid with the situation in the English Channel. We are more than happy to do our fair share on a global perspective—we have seen that with Afghanistan and Syria—but illegal economic migrants crossing the Channel is totally unacceptable. Do you not think that having a system in place that says that if you enter this country illegally, that will have an impact on your application, that will help to deter people and make them understand that it will harm their opportunity to get permanent residency in this country?
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: No, I do not. I think that the reasons why people come are not likely to be affected by what you are saying. Most of the people who arrive here are found to be genuine refugees, not illegal immigrants, by the Government and by your procedures. The fact that they came as they came has got nothing to do with whether or not they are refugees.
The best way of ensuring that the system works is by having a very fast, fair and efficient procedure, because that allows you to move quickly and determine who is a refugee and can stay, and who is not a refugee and needs to be returned, if they have no other legitimate reasons to remain. That can be done if it is done quickly, not if it happens five or 10 years down the line. The Home Office is working now on procedures that will allow it to deliver much faster and, we think, better quality judgments. That would help to deter those who might be trying their luck and at the same time provide protection for those who need proper security.
The Chair
Sorry, Jonathan; can I just bring in Paul Blomfield? Paul, I am then going to have to interrupt you to get the Minister in.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: I will. One of the important elements is that if you have a system, there have to be consequences to that system. It does not make any sense to have a system that determines who is a refugee and who is not, and then the results go nowhere. I know that it is difficult to arrange for returns—there are a number of issues and they need a great deal of partnerships internationally—but it is a fact that if somebody is properly looked at in a proper procedure and then found not in need of international protection, it is a lot easier if that happens closer to the time than after a few years, when they have had time to establish a family and when perhaps the whole question of identification is getting a little more vague. It is a fact that good case management increases the chances of people returning, and it increases the chances of people returning voluntarily, too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Granted, you will never have a silver bullet that solves all of your issues until and unless people no longer feel the need to seek asylum elsewhere. However, as I said, I think that a fast and fair procedure is your best defence, alongside strong agreements with the European Union on the allocation of responsibility for asylum seekers. That is by far the best way of dissuading people who might sometimes be hopping around countries to choose a jurisdiction or who are just giving it a shot—people whom your colleague referred to as illegal immigrants. There are some who could masquerade as asylum seekers; there is no question about that.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry, but that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Siobhán Mullally and Dame Sara Thornton gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Siobhán Mullally, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, and Dame Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. We have until 3.15 pm, so slightly longer than the last session. Would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Dame Sara Thornton: Good afternoon. I am Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner for the United Kingdom.
Siobhán Mullally: Good afternoon. I am Siobhán Mullally, Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, especially women and children.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: It is not for me to have a view on most of the provisions, but part 4 and its impact on modern slavery is my particular focus. One of my concerns about the Bill is the unintended consequences, in particular of clause 51, on disqualification from protection. That is probably my gravest concern about unintended consequences.
In my view, we currently prosecute far too few traffickers and criminals for those offences, and I am concerned that the Bill could unintentionally undermine that. I say that because in defining the public order exemption, the bar has been set low and the net has been cast wide—whichever phrase you want to use. It has the potential to reduce support for a considerable number of victims of modern slavery through the national referral mechanism, which matters because, if victims are not supported through the national referral mechanism, they are put in a very difficult position in terms of supporting police investigations and prosecutions. That is my concern.
I was trying to be helpful and think what it is about clause 51 that is a particular problem. Clause 51(3) defines the public order exemptions; I have been looking at paragraphs (b) and (f) in particular. Paragraph (b) is where the list of offences is from schedule 4 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That list was passed by Parliament six years ago for a very different purpose. It was about which offences were excluded from the protection of the statutory defence. The first question I have had is about whether we are actually going to use that list for a very different purpose.
The second issue is clause 51(3)(f), where the definition of a foreign criminal from the UK Borders Act 2007 is used. Again, that is a very low bar because all it requires is for somebody to be sentenced for 12 months, and sentenced not just in the United Kingdom but anywhere in the world. My concern is that it sets quite a low bar. I have been speaking to colleagues in law enforcement and from charities that provide support for witnesses, and their concern is many people who have given witness evidence in the Crown court would be caught by this, and they would not necessarily be provided with support in the NRM. That is my concern. My other suggestion might be considering an amendment saying that if a victim is supporting a police investigation or a prosecution, then perhaps they should be exempted from this provision.
Holly Lynch
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: I do not think it is necessarily incompatible. My main point is that clause 51(3)(b) uses the schedule 4 list of offences passed by Parliament in schedule 4 of the Modern Slavery Act for quite a different purpose. I would hope that somebody has spent some considerable time thinking, “If we use this for a purpose other than that for which it was intended, can we model the consequences?” At the moment, the number of prosecutions is in the hundreds per year. My concern is that if we remove support from victims and witnesses, we will reduce that even more.
Holly Lynch
Q
Siobhán Mullally: Thank you very much for your question. My role as UN special rapporteur on trafficking in persons is to ensure that the highest standards are met in terms of protecting the human rights of victims of trafficking, as well as combating impunity for trafficking in persons by ensuring effective investigations and prosecutions. That is critical to a human rights-based approach because we need to combat impunity, ensure accountability and protect victims of trafficking.
The protection of victims enables us to be effective in investigations and prosecutions. As it stands, with my mandate as UN special rapporteur on trafficking in persons, I have specific concerns around clauses 46 to 51 in particular as not complying with international law, international human rights law and with the state’s positive obligations to identify, assist and protect victims of trafficking without discrimination. That in itself will hinder effective investigations and prosecutions and hinder the goal of combating impunity for trafficking in persons and ensuring accountability.
I have very specific concerns about those provisions in relation to the state’s positive obligations under the European convention on human rights, in particular articles 4 and 6, and under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, as well as very specific concerns in relation to the rights of child victims of trafficking, as protected under the UN convention on the rights of the child and many other human rights instruments.
I can talk a little bit more about those specific concerns, but as it stands I would have concerns that the Bill does not comply with the state’s obligations under international human rights law.
Holly Lynch
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: Last year in 2020, nearly half of the potential victims referred into the NRM were children, but in this part 4 on modern slavery there is only one mention of children. I have some specific suggestions: on clause 53, which is about the granting of limited leave, there were real concerns about the way that the requirement to consider the best interest of a child appears to be ignored. The best interests of a child goes back to the UN convention on the rights of a child; it is in the Children Act 1989, and it is also in the European convention against trafficking, that decisions should be taken in the best interests of the child. Looking at clause 53, and thinking about where there is a positive conclusive grounds decision that the child has been trafficked, and that they were under 17 at the time they were referred into the NRM, there really should be a presumption for the Secretary of State that leave to remain is given in the child’s best interests.
Clause 53 is one example. I am now going out of part 4 into clauses 14 and 15. The equality impact assessment published by the Government last week committed to mitigating the adverse impact on unaccompanied asylum seeking children by exempting them from the inadmissibility process. I do not think that is anywhere in the Bill. I think that it is important that something that has been identified as a problem for children is considered in legislation.
There are two other areas: in clauses 46 and 47, which are about the traffic information notices, there is no comment about whether they would apply to children. It would be really good to have clarity about whether children are going to be given these traffic information notices and asked to respond in a set period. Lastly, I have just covered clause 51 and the exemptions from protection; again, it is not clear whether those would apply to children. I think experts in the rights of children would argue that there are several international legal frameworks that suggest this is not appropriate and not in the children’s best interests.
Holly Lynch
Q
Siobhán Mullally: First and foremost, it is for the best interests of the child to be the primary consideration when addressing the rights of children under all aspects of the legislation. The convention on the rights of the child is almost universally ratified, and that is a core principle of the convention.
To go back to clauses 46 and 47, in particular: with regard to both adult and child victims of trafficking, there is no attention given to the impact of trauma on victims of trafficking. It is well recognised that this can lead to delays in disclosure of information. The impact that the experience of trafficking has on the disclosure of information and the reporting of the harms that have been endured has also been documented in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights—for example, in Elia in Greece, and Essen in Croatia. That is even more heightened with children.
In the recent judgement of V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised again that it is a positive obligation on the state to identify and ensure assistance and protection to victims of trafficking. It is not an obligation on the victim to self-identify or report, and certainly not within any specific timeframe. It is a positive obligation on the state. As the European Court of Human Rights said in V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom—with regard to the two Vietnamese boys in that case who were in an even more vulnerable situation—because of children’s vulnerability, they have a right to international protection. It is critical that that informs all elements of the Bill. I am picking out those two because they have a specific impact, in terms of recognising the impact of the experience of trauma on a victim of trafficking. It is a core commitment of the United Kingdom to combat the trafficking of persons, and modern slavery, both at home and abroad. It is critical that we see best practices being incorporated here.
Holly Lynch
Thank you very much, I will leave it there, unless there is time at the end.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: There are two schools of thought on this. Many in the sector will argue that the current, very low bar is appropriate, but I know colleagues in law enforcement think it is too high. The Bill is suggesting that we use the wording in the European convention against trafficking, or reasonable grounds to believe that an individual is a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. On balance, I think that is appropriate.
Reasonable grounds is a pretty low threshold that people understand. It is more than a hunch or a suspicion, but it is not as much as a balance of probabilities. There needs to be some sort of objective information to base that reasonable grounds decision on. The obvious thing to say is that the guidance given to staff in the competent authority will be key, but it is not an unreasonable proposal—not least because the current legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland uses the word “is” and, as far as I understand, the competent authority uses the same test across the United Kingdom. I do not think it will make that much difference, and to be consistent with the European convention is a reasonable proposal.
Siobhán Mullally: A concern here would be the possible impact of changing the threshold in terms of potential victims of trafficking accessing support and assistance and in processes of identification. Is it likely to have a negative impact? Is it likely to increase difficulties in identifying victims and referring them in a timely way for assistance and protection? That would be a concern if it is a regressive measure from where we are now; in terms of human rights law, you want to ensure non-regression in the protection of human rights of victims of trafficking.
I have concerns about the impact of that and whether it will increase the difficulty of timely and early identification of victims, because early identification is critical to ensuring effective access to protection. There is a question about how it will be implemented in practice and what the fallout will be in its implementation.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: That links to a comment I made in my correspondence with the Home Secretary. If the penalty for illegally entering the country is increased to four years, we could have a situation where, as a matter of course, if somebody had been prosecuted for that they would not be able to access the NRM. It is a risk that probably exists more on paper than in reality, because most of the time immigration enforcement does not use the law to prosecute; it tends to use administrative processes.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Siobhán Mullally: As I said, clauses 46 and 47 pose serious difficulties with regard to both adults and children in terms of the state’s compliance with international human rights law on the protection of victims, because of the particular difficulties a victim of trafficking may have not only in disclosing information, but even in identifying as a victim of trafficking. It is not the obligation of the victim to self-identify, but we know that where the context is new, where there may be a distrust or lack of familiarity with officials within a state, where there may be language barriers or delays in accessing legal assistance, or where there may be fears of reprisals for the victims or their families, that can lead to delays.
The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly addressed that in terms of not properly taking account of the delays that can occur, the inconsistencies that may arise and the trauma that is endured by victims. That is not appropriate in terms of ensuring the fullest protection of the rights of victims of trafficking.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: Briefly. Siobhán has explained the issue of trauma, what we know about its impact on the brain, the way it affects memory and the way people recall with inconsistencies. We know that in practice that is very often the case with victims, and until they form trusting relationships you do not get a narrative that starts at the beginning and ends at the end; it is very piecemeal. As people trust and become more open, they might disclose more. That is a really big consideration. If we are not careful, these two clauses disregard that. Secondly, I have come across cases where victims are more able to disclose labour exploitation, for example, but it might take several years for them to disclose the most awful sexual exploitation because they may be embarrassed or ashamed about it. That is a concern. Also, of course, we know that some victims just do not identify as victims. They do not see that the awful things that they have endured mean that they are, in fact, victims.
I have been thinking about whether any amendments could acknowledge this issue about trauma. We have slavery and trafficking care standards, which are all about trauma-informed care. Is there a potential amendment that says that when you are doing this process it has to be done with those sorts of standards and principles in mind?
Similarly, the Bill does not talk at all about how long people might be given to respond to a trafficking information notice. Again, I would be really worried if that were just a matter of a few days. Colleagues have looked at arrangements in some asylum cases. It may be 20 days. I think this might be more complex, so you might think about 30 days. Is it worth thinking about putting in the Bill what sort of time period might be appropriate?
Lastly, colleagues have suggested that you might even want to define in the Bill what might be a good reason for disclosure, because at the moment it is left very much open. It could be open to guidance, but one aspect would be to list—whether it is trauma, mistrust of authority, or a threat from traffickers—all the sorts of reasons that could cause late disclosure, and perhaps, as I say, have them in legislation rather than just relying on guidance.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: I will start with the second first. The earlier witnesses gave evidence about the two-tier approach. The concern would be that that creates vulnerability for people who are in this country in that situation because they have fewer protections, and no recourse to public funds unless they are destitute. I know from my work that people in that situation are driven by desperation to take exploitative work. It is a real concern that it could create vulnerability, which criminals and traffickers would exploit.
On the second point, I referred to material that was in a House of Commons Library report that suggested that when you look at the reasons why people choose or choose not to come to a country, there are many other factors that they consider. There is better evidence that they consider other factors than the nature of the law and the situation when they get there—the policy and practice of the country. My concern would be that you risk making more people vulnerable, because they live lives of precarity anyway, with a hope that this will deter. I completely understand the Government’s position that this is a very dangerous way for people to come to this country and we need to stop it, but I am concerned about the extent to which there is evidence that suggests that it might be effective, given that I think it could increase vulnerability.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Siobhán Mullally: Again, it is disappointing to see that reduction in the recovery period. It is a regressive measure in terms of current standards and protections, so I would have concerns that it is moving backwards the human rights protections of victims of trafficking. There have been previous examples of regressive measures, in terms of attempts to reduce assistance levels to victims of trafficking. Again, it breaches the principle of non-regression in human rights protections, so I would have concerns around that and the longer-term impact, in terms of ensuring effective protection of victims of trafficking and trying to break the cycle of re-trafficking and vulnerability to exploitation.
Dame Sara Thornton: I really welcome the fact that it is going to be in statute, because it was not in statute in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I acknowledge that the current guidance is 45 days and that this is only 30 days, but 30 days is what is set out in the European convention. The other thing that is worth saying—I do not know whether Members are aware of this—is that the wait from reasonable grounds to conclusive grounds is very, very long. In 2020, the average was 465 days. We have a big debate about 45 days versus 30, but the reality is that when I meet victims and survivors, most of them have a sense of waiting a very, very long time. They are being provided with support, but they feel that their lives are on hold.
I have a couple of other thoughts about the time period. Of course, if people are being supported for a long time, there is some benefit to that, but there is also a disadvantage, particularly when cases are related to criminal proceedings, the courts are waiting for decisions and the system is grinding very slowly. One particular issue might seem very tactical and technical, which maybe it is, but it is important. One of the weaknesses of the current national referral mechanism is that, historically, all the decisions have been taken by the Home Office—the competent authority. I think a lot of the decisions about whether somebody has been trafficked are best taken locally by local safeguarding partners, and I am really pleased to say that the Home Office established a pilot early this year in 10 local authority areas, whereby local safeguarding boards are making those decisions. You have the right people around the table, and they have a much fuller picture of what has been going on.
Those pilots are going very well. One of the things they are able to do is that, when they meet to discuss what has happened to a child, they are able to take both the reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds decisions at the same meeting—you might imagine how that speeds things up. I would not want anything in the legislation to undermine the really good best practice that is currently being developed, which means that decisions about children’s trafficking are being made locally by the people who are best qualified to do them, and it is happening so much more speedily. I would hope that the Bill does not undermine that good practice.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: If it was the case that that meant that people were getting just 30 days’ support, it would have a negative impact. If you think about providing people with counselling and helping with their medical support and legal advice—a whole range of things— 30 days is not very long. I am just saying the reality in the UK at the moment is that it is taking so much longer that the difference between 45 and 30 is less significant.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: The period between the new plan for immigration in March and the publication of the Bill in July was very short. We are aware that groups involved in asylum were much more involved in the consultation process than some of the groups that support victims of slavery and trafficking. It is too late now, but it would have been good to see more involvement of survivor groups particularly, so that people could give their views about what this would mean on a personal level, from that survivor perspective.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: This Bill specifically refers to a minimum of 30 days between the reasonable grounds decision and the conclusive grounds decision, and what I am saying is that, in these pilots, with some cases—not in all cases, but in some cases—the decisions are being taken on the same day, and I would not want that to be undermined. Presumably you would have to say, “Well, today we will make the reasonable grounds decision. We have got to come back after 30 days and make the conclusive grounds decision.” Actually, they are able to do both at the same time.
Of course, it matters a lot for children to get these decisions made, particularly when quite a lot of these cases are cases of child criminal exploitation and there are related proceedings in the courts. So it also helps the courts. As you know, there is an issue with backlogs in courts, so the more those decisions can be made in an effective and efficient fashion, the more that helps the courts, as well as being in the best interests of the child, in my view.
Neil Coyle
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: This is taken from the equality impact assessment, which I think was published on Friday last week and which talked about the Government continuing to mitigate adverse impacts on vulnerable people. One of the examples given is that it says the Government will mitigate the risk of adverse impacts on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children by exempting them from the inadmissibility process, which I think is set out in clauses 14 and 15. So that was a very specific issue referred to in the equality impact assessment. I do not think there is any kind of read-across to the Bill at the moment.
Neil Coyle
Q
Siobhán Mullally: Yes, certainly. I will make a written submission, but those are well-established cases from the European Court of Human Rights: L.E. v. Greece, and S.M. v. Croatia. Then, of course, there is V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom—the judgment on that was final earlier this year. They are all quite specifically relevant in terms of clause 51, in particular the implications on non-punishment, victims of trafficking, rights of access to the courts and right to a fair trial. V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom found the state to be in violation of articles 4 and 6 of the European convention on human rights, read in conjunction with the Council of Europe’s convention on action against trafficking.
L.E. v. Greece and S.M. v. Croatia are particularly important with regard to recognising the trauma endured by victims of trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation and the need for that to be taken account of in terms of identification processes, referrals for assistance and protection by the state; and recognising that it is a positive obligation on the state, as stated again in the V.C.L. judgment by the court, to ensure effective protection.
Neil Coyle
Q
Siobhán Mullally: I think that part 4, as it is currently drafted, is not in compliance, as I said, with international law. It is not in compliance with the state’s obligations under the ECHR, the Council of Europe’s convention on action against trafficking or the UN’s protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children—the Palermo protocol.
So I think that that part of the Bill, in particular, raises very serious questions and concerns. In particular, I would point to clause 51 but also to other clauses—clauses 46 to 51. Other provisions in the Bill raise other concerns. I am speaking particularly about those areas, because they raise very specific concerns in relation to my mandate on trafficking in persons, especially women and children.
Holly Lynch
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: This has become quite a topic of discussion in law enforcement. The problem has been that practice has varied from force to force as to whether missing person reports were completed or whether there was a report to immigration enforcement. I know that some interim guidance has been put out by the National Police Chiefs’ Council setting out what needs to happen, but to give you an example from June this year, about 140—I think—Vietnamese migrants who had come across in small boats were put in hotels in a variety of cities across the UK, and within 24 hours they had all disappeared. My view is that that was because they were clearly under the control of traffickers. They got sucked into the asylum system; that would not be the plan of the traffickers. As I say, they were gone in 24 hours. The reason I am aware that there has been some debate is that the forces were all then saying, “What’s going to be our response? What should we be doing in terms of investigating what has happened?”
One of the difficulties, if I may, is that when people go missing in that situation, we have no biometric data on them, so it is very difficult to ever work out whether you have found those people or not, with all the issues of language and difficulty with names and dates of birth. It is a live and current operational issue at the moment.
Holly Lynch
Thank you. Ms Mullally?
Siobhán Mullally: The state has very specific obligations to protect victims and potential victims of trafficking, and there are very specific provisions under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings with regard to missing children, whether those are foreign nationals or not. Internal trafficking is a very serious concern that is often not recognised sufficiently in many jurisdictions, not exclusively the United Kingdom.
A concern was raised previously by the Council of Europe group of experts on action against trafficking, the treaty monitoring body under the convention on action against trafficking, about children going missing in the UK—particularly unaccompanied, separated asylum-seeking children, but also child victims of trafficking internally. Of course, there are very serious obligations on the state to provide protection to all children without discrimination.
One concern with regard to the trafficking context can be that sometimes the child victims and adult victims go outside of the ordinary protection mechanisms and are not treated with the same urgency that they ought to be, but there are very specific obligations on the state to try to respond effectively and in a timely way to prevent that, and to ensure protection.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: Thank you, Minister, and I very much welcome the new staff who are being recruited into the single competent authority, because I have raised the need to speed up decision making with your predecessors on many occasions.
The biggest cause of difficulty, I think, is the increased numbers. Although 2020 was similar to 2019, with about 10,600 referrals into the NRM, that number has doubled in three or four years, so there is substantial pressure. The other thing that is happening, as I mentioned earlier on, is child criminal exploitation and the cases of children. Those decisions need to be made quickly, because there are often related proceedings. Having been to the single competent authority and spoken to the staff, what tends to happen is that all those priorities keep going to the top of the pile and then there are an awful lot of cases in the backlog. On the whole, it has been about increased demand, and the resources just have not been able to keep up with it. So I welcome the fact that there are new staff. It will take a while for them to be trained and to be competent, but that is a good thing.
The second thing, which is identified in a report I published last year, is that one of the difficulties for the decision makers in that competent authority is that they do not always have all the information. They have some information, but they are often having to make decisions on partial information. They might have asked local authorities, they might have asked police forces or they might have asked Border Force. They do not always get the replies and therefore they are having to do the best in difficult circumstances. Staff have been under huge pressure and I hope we can begin to bring those averages down and bring the weight down.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: There are difficulties. Colleagues might be aware that the process is that you have first responders, who are police officers, members of Border Force, immigration enforcement and local authority staff, who have the ability to refer a potential victim into the national referral mechanism. One of the difficulties, and it is constantly reported on, is that the staff who are doing that do not understand how the national referral mechanism works. They do not understand enough to give good advice. So report after report recommends that there needs to be more training of first responders, and the Home Office recently published some more training.
I am getting to the position now where I wonder whether it is a sensible to expect that every police officer should be able to deal with this—every member of Border Force, every member of a local authority—and whether you might want to have specially trained points of contact who deal with it. If you think about it, even though the numbers have been going up, most police officers in the course of a year will never deal with these situations. I do think there is an issue about that, and we need to think very seriously about the model we have for first responders.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: I think that people who smuggle fellow human beings, or indeed traffic them, are committing a most heinous crime. Think about the 39 people who lost their lives in Essex two years ago. Whether they were smuggled or trafficked is a matter much debated, but the callous way that those criminals treated those victims, in my view, needs the harshest punishment. The only thing I would say is that, as a former police officer, I am on the whole in favour of harsh punishments, but you have life sentence as an option from the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for slavery and trafficking. It has never been used. So there is the point that, I guess, it has a deterrent effect, but there is also an issue about whether, if those powers exist, they really need to be used to be a really effective deterrent.
The Chair
I see no further questioners. I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Lisa Doyle, Mariam Kemple-Hardy, Priscilla Dudhia and Alphonsine Kabagabo gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome, everybody. We will now hear from Lisa Doyle, executive director of advocacy and engagement at the Refugee Council and Mariam Kemple-Hardy, head of campaigns at Refugee Action, both of whom are appearing in person. We will also hear from Priscilla Dudhia, advocacy co-ordinator at Women for Refugee Women, and Alphonsine Kabagabo, director of Women for Refugee Women, who are both joining us remotely via Zoom. Given that this panel is split between physical and video link contributions, it is especially important that Members direct their questions at specific witnesses to avoid confusion. We have until 4 pm for this session. Please could the witnesses introduce themselves for the record? Can we start with the witnesses who are present in the room?
Lisa Doyle: I am Lisa Doyle, director of advocacy and engagement at Refugee Council.
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: Hi, I am Mariam Kemple-Hardy, head of campaigns at Refugee Action.
Alphonsine Kabagabo: Hi, I am Alphonsine Kabagabo, and I am the director of Women for Refugee Women.
Priscilla Dudhia: Hello, I am Priscilla Dudhia, policy co-ordinator, also from Women for Refugee Women.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Lisa Doyle: In our opinion, it does not meet those aims. Previous witnesses you have heard from in the last few days have also said this. There is little evidence that putting deterrents in place actually stops people arriving in the UK. People are pushed into situations where they seek safety. Research that we have conducted, and that the Home Office conducted a while ago, showed that people often did not have information about the rights and entitlements they would be greeted with in the UK.
Because there are not enough safe and regular routes for people to come to the UK, they are forced to rely on smugglers and others to reach here, and they get different types of information. The deterrents do not work. There is not evidence that they work. Our concern with lots of the provisions in the Bill is that they seek to punish or disadvantage or make vulnerable people even more vulnerable, rather than giving them the protection they need.
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: Thank you very much for having me today. I want to say that I will be giving evidence based not just on the work that Refugee Action do as a service provider. Over July and August we held a series of focus groups with refugees and people in the asylum system to consult with them on what they thought the impact of the legislation would be.
First, at Refugee Action we have really welcomed the warm words of the Government recently in response to the Afghanistan crisis. They have said that they want to give a warm welcome to refugees fleeing that horror, and we welcome that. However, that warm rhetoric is not matched by the harsh reality that we see in this Bill.
As Lisa has said, the Bill is about punishment. It is not about protection. We understand there are two key objectives of this legislation, the first being to make a fairer asylum system and the second being to deter people from making dangerous crossings. We believe the legislation fails on both counts.
When it comes to making a fairer asylum system, what we actually see is this legislation creating a deeply unfair system, where, for the first time ever in UK law, refugees will be judged based on how they enter the country, not on their protection needs.
Secondly, when it comes to deterring dangerous journeys, this legislation is likely, as per the Government’s own equality impact assessment last week, to make people take even more dangerous routes. Far from breaking the business model of people smugglers, this legislation plays into that business model. If you make it harder to enter the country, smugglers can charge more and encourage people to take even more dangerous routes. We are likely to see more people losing their lives as a result of this.
The key disrupter to that business model is providing safe routes to safety, but we do not see anything said about that in this legislation. There is nothing to increase refugee resettlement, nothing to increase access to family reunion and nothing about humanitarian visas. It is all about punishment. It is not about protection.
Alphonsine Kabagabo: Thank you for giving us this opportunity. We will be focusing on the impact of this Bill on women, because we represent that area. We are an organisation that supports women to safety in the UK and defends their rights. As other people have already said, this new Bill will have a great impact on women.
As you know, quite a lot of women in our network have survived gender-based violence. They have been traumatised through being raped, being forced into marriage, being forced into sexual exploitation or through FGM. For them to access a safe route has got to be an option for me, because it is not a choice. It is an issue that they cannot avoid. This Bill makes it even harder for those victims to access safety.
We are also concerned about some of the detail, such as providing evidence when you arrive, as soon as possible. Women who have been traumatised, because they have been violated, raped and all that, cannot provide that evidence straight away. They need time to heal, to be protected, to access mental health support. They need time to understand the system, so that is retraumatising them even more.
We are also very concerned because there is even a clause about being a member of a particular social group, and gender is not one of the groups. That really will absolutely affect some of the women we are fighting for. We were also surprised that the Bill is at odds with the Government policy on violence against women and girls, which proposes to support survivors of gender-based violence. Instead of offering safety and support, this new Bill will actively harm and traumatise women. So, I will say that, but my colleague Priscilla might want to add something. Over to you, Priscilla.
Priscilla Dudhia: That was fantastic—nothing to add.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Lisa Doyle: In terms of the two-tier system, it seems incomprehensible that you would treat somebody differently based on their mode of arrival, not because of their protection needs. You could have a perverse situation with next door neighbours from Afghanistan, with one fortunately finding their way on to the formal resettlement route and the other being forced to take the decision to make a dangerous journey, then, on reaching UK shores, getting a different level of protection and rights than their next door neighbour, even though they are fleeing the same persecution and threats. People’s protection needs are not based on how they travel, how much money they have or what their identity is—in terms of whether men might be more prone to travel or not. People make decisions, when they are forced to rely on smugglers, about who they will prioritise to send to a country, and then hope that they can apply, through refugee family reunion, for others to join them afterwards. Having differential treatment based on mode of arrival seems grossly unfair.
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: I agree with everything Lisa has just said. Afghanistan is a really instructive example. In August, the whole world witnessed what it is like when a country enfolds itself in crisis—how chaotic it is. We saw how few and how precious those places on those planes were.
It is fantastic that the Government have committed to taking in 20,000 refugees from Afghanistan over the next two years, but we know that that is a drop in the ocean. We saw people clinging to the sides of planes. That is how desperate they are to reach safety. Although we welcome the fact that the Government have said that they will take in 20,000 Afghan refugees, we are very concerned about what will happen to the 20,001st Afghan refugee who arrives after this legislation. That Afghan refugee, as Lisa says, will be fleeing the same horror, but they will be treated as a second class of refugee.
When we spoke to our focus groups, they said that if they were to get this second-class version of refugee protection, their life would be one of “You can’t. You can’t. You can’t.” They said, “Look, this temporary protection is no protection at all.” They thought that, with very unstable immigration status, all the building blocks of rebuilding your life—being able to access a job, to rent somewhere, to send your children to university—would be far, far beyond them. As a result of that, we believe that this whole concept of temporary protection is, as I said, no protection at all. It is a system of punishment, not protection.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Priscilla Dudhia: Without repeating what has already been said, we would like to highlight that, as well as distinguishing between refugees based on their mode of arrival, the Bill also distinguishes between refugees based on the point at which they claim asylum and punishes those who have not claimed asylum “without delay”.
As an organisation that, as Alphonsine highlighted, supports a large network of women who have survived the most horrific cases of sexual and gender-based violence, we are concerned about the fact that women who had survived that violence would be punished by this. We know that women who have experienced that kind of violence have issues in disclosing that.
Those issues are well acknowledged in Home Office policy. That policy talks about the barriers that feelings of shame and guilt can create, the stigma that comes with sexual violence and the fear that some women might have of reprisals from community and family members. That same policy goes on to say that late disclosure should not automatically prejudice a woman’s credibility. In clause 10, we have a direct contravention of that acknowledgement of the very real challenges that women who have fled gender-based violence face in sharing their experiences.
Alongside that, there are other situations in which women might not be able to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity. For instance, many of the women to whom we have spoken in our network had no idea that they could claim refugee protection on the basis of the gender-based violence that they have faced. There are other women who have fled violence and did not intend to stay in the UK for a long time—who came here on a visa, wanting to escape persecution but with the intention of going back—but later discovered that, “Actually, no, there is a grave threat to my safety still, and I need to stay.”
I would like briefly to share the story of one such woman, called Agnes, who is a refugee from a west African country. Agnes fled political persecution. She fled her country—she was in danger—and eventually decided to go to the UK, where her daughter was studying. She was the only family member that she could be with. She wanted to return, but once she was here she realised that political opponents were still being targeted. A lady for whom Agnes was working as an assistant was in prison at the time when Agnes was in the UK, and she realised that it was not safe for her to go back.
Agnes said that she was expecting to go back home quickly, but she could not: “When I realised my visa was going to expire, I went to Croydon to ask what to do to apply for asylum, and that is what I did.” Unfortunately for Agnes, she was locked up in detention, which she found hugely traumatising given her previous experience of incarceration. Her claim was refused at the initial stage and on appeal, and she had to lodge a fresh claim. Today Agnes has refugee status and we are immensely honoured to say that she is part of our team at Women for Refugee Women, where she works as a detention campaign spokesperson. I say all this to highlight that there may be legitimate reasons why vulnerable women are not able to claim right away, and we do not think that it is acceptable to be punishing them.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Lisa Doyle: At the Refugee Council we are really concerned about having large-scale accommodation centres set up where people are kept away from communities that, should they get refugee status, they would want to be able to integrate into, so they will have little contact with friends, neighbours and volunteers. Those kinds of things are a real worry. The dispersal policy as it works now is that people are housed within communities. There are little details about the accommodation centres, and we are aware that the Home Office has started to tender out for those, but a lot of the detail on that is privileged to those who want to bid. We want to know who would be put into those centres. Napier Barracks is a really good case of looking at suitability for people. We know that with covid there were particular risks, and independent inspectorates showed that parts of Napier were not fit for human habitation.
In terms of vulnerability, the Home Office has alluded to the fact that it would not necessarily put vulnerable people into large-scale accommodation centres, but it does not have a very good track record of identifying vulnerable people at an early stage. Many people were removed from Napier because of their vulnerabilities, because non-governmental organisations and charities took legal cases against the Home Office and then the Home Office removed them. The safeguards are not there. If people are outside communities, there is not oversight and that will really damage people’s chances to integrate and rebuild their lives should they get refugee status.
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: The first thing to say is that asylum accommodation has been in crisis for years. In the last 12 months, five of our clients have had the ceilings where they live fall on them. The two-year-old toddler of one of our clients was hospitalised because their head was split open. We have had whole families having to live in just one room. We have had people stuck in hotels for years. There is a crisis of accommodation. However, what we see in the Bill is that it doubles down on that injustice that we see.
When it comes to accommodation centres, we are against them on a point of principle and also because of the practice at Napier and Penally Barracks over the last 12 months. When it comes to the point of principle, as Lisa says, the idea of segregating part of our society and othering them is something that we disagree with. It takes people away from the communities that they want to integrate into; it takes them away from the healthcare that they may need to access—they are very traumatised people who have particular mental health and physical needs in many instances; and it takes them away from opportunities to get education and so on. On a point of principle, we are very much against that practice. However, in terms of actual practice, over the last year in Napier and Penally Barracks, we have seen appalling situations where people have tried to take their own lives. We saw, at the height of the pandemic, people being forced to live with 28 other strangers in dormitories. In Napier Barracks, there was an outbreak when 197 people tested positive for covid-19. Traumatised people in Penally Barracks were next to an active firing range. In terms of the way this has been put into practice, we are deeply concerned about the plans.
I want to make two quick final points about the how the legislation is currently drafted. First, the legislation would give the Home Secretary the ability to extend the maximum amount of time that someone can be in an accommodation centre. At the moment, the maximum is six months. The Bill does not say how long someone could be in the accommodation centre—arguably, it could be unlimited.
Secondly, the Bill also allows people in those conditions to be put under residence conditions, such as being told that they were not able to leave that accommodation for a certain period of time during a day. We are seeing the potential for unlimited de facto detention as a result of the Bill. Someone in our focus group said, “Let’s be honest; it’s not a camp, it’s a prison. Let’s call a spade a spade”. This is not something that we want to see in our refugee protection system.
The Chair
I am terribly sorry to our witnesses on Zoom, but I would like to get some more questions in, if that is okay. I call Jonathan Gullis.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: I heard the UNHCR give comprehensive evidence earlier, and I think the points that they made about the need or not to apply for asylum in the first safe country of entry were clear and unequivocal. In addition, I do not think it is up to me, you or anyone else to decide what is safe for someone.
I will give you an example of someone we spoke to. They are from South America, and they fled to the UK, but they had to take a flight to Spain first before moving to the UK. Many of us in the room would say that Spain is a safe country, but that individual was fleeing gang violence, and the gang had extensive networks in Spain, so it was absolutely not a safe country for him. He is deeply concerned about the impact the legislation could have on his claim for asylum in the UK.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: First, the number of safe routes to this country is vanishingly small. As I said, it is shocking that there is not a word in the legislation that actually increases safe routes to safety. There is nothing about family reunion, refugee resettlement and so on.
However, on the issue of channel crossings—thank you for raising it—we at Refugee Action do not want to see people crossing the channel. It is dangerous and we do not want to see it at all. However, we notice that the rhetoric around this particular debate often focuses on the question of how we can keep people out, not how we can keep people safe. If we were to ask the question, “How do we keep people safe?”, there are very clear policy solutions. As I say, it is about family reunion, refugee resettlement and so on, but there is nothing at all in the legislation—nothing—to increase safe routes.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: As I said earlier, the evidence is clear that if you make it harder and harder to enter a country, that does not break the business model of the people smugglers. As the Government’s own equality impact assessment stated last week, it actually plays into that business model, because you enable them to charge higher prices and people are more likely to go by much riskier routes. In terms of being a deterrent, that is not going to be effective. The most radical way to disrupt this business model is to focus on how we keep people safe, and that is about increasing access to safe routes. In terms of offshoring, I am not sure if Lisa wanted to add anything.
The Chair
I am ever so sorry, but owing to the shortness of time, rather than go to another member of the panel, I would like to get someone to ask a question. I would like to give Alphonsine and Priscilla their first go at answering. I call Robert Goodwill.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Alphonsine Kabagabo: We certainly welcome a system that will let more women in and will give them the choice to be brought to safety in a safe way—we absolutely welcome that—but that is what we do not see. We do not see those opportunities being available today. We do not see the opportunities being available for the women we work with to reach a safe country in a safe way—even for men, although I do not have those figures. We have women who crossed the Sahara to come here, seeking safety. I will let my colleague add to that.
As someone who has experienced being a refugee, when I was stuck, I would have taken any route. When I was in Rwanda during the genocide, I would have taken any route to get to safety. No one offered me that safe route. The Belgians and the French came to rescue expatriates, not Rwandan people. That is the problem. The problem is that those routes are not available to us.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Priscilla Dudhia: As my colleagues have already said, the way to deter these gangs and so on is to create more safe and legal routes—to expand the global resettlement scheme; to set a number; to prioritise women who have survived sexual and gender-based violence; to expand family reunification laws, but is also to look towards other routes. My connection cut out for a bit earlier, so apologies if I am repeating what has already been said. We strongly urge the Government to explore humanitarian visas. Right now, there is no asylum visa. We think that all that would minimise the risk of people taking dangerous journeys. As Alphonsine has already highlighted, safe and legal routes are not available to everyone, unfortunately. We must not shut the door on vulnerable women who cannot avail themselves of the routes for reasons that are entirely beyond their control.
Looking to the situation in Afghanistan, for instance, the two-tier system would lead to immense cruelty and absurd results. You could have a female Afghan journalist who is really vulnerable and gets on the resettlement scheme, and then female Afghan journalist B, who is just as vulnerable, but for whatever reasons cannot access the resettlement scheme and has to quickly uproot herself from danger. We have heard reports from civil society organisations about Afghan women being targeted. Because of the way she has journeyed—because of the irregular route she has taken—she is punished. Yes, we need to create routes, but we cannot punish women like that. What is our asylum system if those are the consequences that ensue for vulnerable women?
The Chair
Thank you. I would like to bring in a representative from the SNP now, because they are yet to ask any questions.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Lisa Doyle: Certainly by expanding the safe routes that we have been talking about. A question was asked earlier about women and children. If the Government are serious about prioritising vulnerable women and children, the proposals to limit family reunion rights will run counter to that, because 90% of people who join people on family reunion are women and children.
We have an issue with decision making being too slow. At the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, the Home Office said that the average waiting time is a year now. We all want quick, efficient and accurate decisions, which would mean that anyone entering the UK would have their claim assessed quickly, and that would flow through the system and reduce the pressure on asylum accommodation. Putting more decision makers into the Home Office would certainly help. Improvements in the quality of accommodation and an expansion of safe routes would be a good investment for Britain to play its role in the international protection system.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: Sure. I am afraid I cannot speak about resignation syndrome. However, on mental health, I have mentioned that there are a few crises in the asylum system, but one of them is definitely a mental health crisis. When we work with and speak to refugees in the asylum system right now, they talk about the impact of the system—not just the accommodation, but the system overall. One person, who has been waiting almost three years for a decision on her claim, said, “It has destroyed me psychologically as a person.”
We have a system in which people are left in limbo for years. While they are waiting, they are not allowed to work—in effect, they are banned from working. They have to live on £5.69 a day—effectively, state-sponsored poverty. People tell us that they feel that they have lost all purpose. They feel that their experience of the asylum system is almost like a mental war, a complete retraumatising. These people have made it here, trying to seek safety, after going through a very traumatic process.
As I said, however, this legislation will only double down on that injustice. It will build an additional six months’ wait into the process, if someone is inadmissible. If their claim is deemed inadmissible and they have to wait six months to see if the Government will support them, it is unlikely that they will. Then, after six months, they enter the asylum system.
We would like to see policies in legislation that are sensible and humane. For example—I will say one final thing on the right to work—you mentioned how much money the legislation might cost the Home Office. Actually, those sensible policies we believe would save the Home Office a huge amount of money and would really help people in that psychological limbo while they wait for their asylum claim to be processed. If people were given the right to work, we estimate that it would save the Home Office about £100 million per year, and actually 71% of the public fully support giving people seeking asylum the right to work. However, we do not see such policies in this legislation. Instead, we see policies to punish and not to protect.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Q
How can they be concerned? How do they get that information? I do not see that the information that they are getting about the Bill will be a motivator, because it all seems to be about push—about getting away from where you are—as opposed to any thoughts even about what they will find when they get here. I cannot square that circle—what knowledge refugees actually have about our place when they set off, other than, “It’s a nice place to go to.”
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: Absolutely. I watched those evidence sessions. I heard, I think, Zoe Gardner and Jon Featonby talking about the misinformation that people get as well. Actually, many people have said that they are more likely to get misinformation from, for example, smuggling gangs that are trying to get them to take these dangerous routes, rather than understanding the ins and outs of the most recent legislation in Parliament.
The people we have spoken to in the asylum system are talking about the legislation they are seeing and the asylum system they are experiencing once they are here. Before they left to come here, many people have explained that they knew very little about how to claim asylum in the UK. It was only when they arrived here that they understood what it would mean. As you say, it is all about the push factor. People explained to us, when they needed to leave, they needed to leave—they did not have any time to sit down, to do the research. One person was living in a refugee camp and thought that only four countries in the world would provide asylum.
One thing that the focus group said was that they felt the legislation fundamentally misunderstands the concept of what being a refugee is, as though it is a choice and you can choose where to go and how to get there. For them it was not a choice. It was not a choice to come to the UK, because the UK was where they believed they were going for safety. One person said, “This is where I felt I was going to be welcomed and where I was going to be free,” because they have language ties and family here, and things like that. That is why the UK is the place of the safety for them. They are not shopping around and saying, “Okay, it’s a nice place.” It is the place of safety for them.
The key thing to try to square the circle—I am not sure that I have—is that people have very limited access to information in that chaotic moment of trying to leave, as we saw in Afghanistan. People come here, and many have said—I think it is quite sad, looking at the legislation—that they believed that the UK was a beacon of human rights that would protect them. That is why they are here. They are then devastated to learn of the plans, and by how they have been treated in the asylum system so far. As I say, the plans will simply double down on the injustice that we already see.
Alphonsine Kabagabo: Can I confirm what you just said, Mariam? Some people choose to come here also because of historical connection and the language. If you have been colonised by the UK, you feel safe to come to a country where you have a historical tie. When I was a refugee, I went to Belgium. I speak French, so I felt safe there. If I am in Belgium, I feel that is where I need to be. We need to understand that we are talking about people here, not numbers—people who are trying not only to survive, but to rebuild life, and rebuilding life sometimes means thinking, “Where do I have a chance to rebuild life—not just to be a refugee, but to be a person again?”. That is what I want to emphasise.
Paul Howell
I get that, but my concern is how to get the message back around to the beginning. The refugees who get here and can therefore get messages back to people where they came from—is that not the most efficient method of getting anything true back to those people, as opposed to the noise they get from people smugglers and so on? That message should be that the best way to come is the safe route. If they come across the channel they will run into all sorts of problems, and therefore we want to motivate them to go the safe way, rather than any other way.
The Chair
I am sorry, but I want to get another question in. Neil, do you want to ask your question? That will probably be the last one—both questions can be answered together.
Neil Coyle
Q
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: The first question asked how we can get information to people that they should take the safe routes instead. My very quick and simple answer is that there is a vanishingly small number of safe routes, so that question is completely irrelevant for most people. If you want to know how to help people to take more safe routes, the answer is to create more safe routes. Nothing in the Bill creates more safe routes.
To the second question, we have for a long time been calling for the Government to announce a regular annual global commitment to refugee resettlement. We have been calling for the Government to resettle 10,000 refugees from around the world on an annual basis. We believe that is absolutely possible, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said in the past that it is absolutely feasible. We would like to see the Government take the legislation and do what they have set out in their rhetoric by creating safe routes to safety.
There are other different types of routes—I believe the British Red Cross spoke in particular about family reunion—but we would like to see one key thing that the Government could do relatively easily. We previously took in 5,000 Syrian refugees each year. Let us up our ambition, meet the ambitions of global Britain and say, “Yes, we will take in 10,000 refugees from around the world.” It was great to see the announcement of the Afghan resettlement scheme, but that answers only today’s crisis. We want to see a resettlement programme that addresses not only the crisis of today, but the crises of tomorrow.
The Chair
We have a couple of minutes. Do any other witnesses want to say something briefly?
Lisa Doyle: May I just add to that? I agree that resettlement needs expansion. Refugee family reunion is a really good safe route; it is used by tens of thousands of people, 90% of whom are women and children. The Bill seeks to reduce the rights to refugee family reunion, rather than expand them. Priscilla also mentioned a humanitarian visa that would allow people to travel to the UK to claim asylum. They would still have their asylum claim looked at, but they could formally and legally get on a plane and come to the UK—you have to be physically present in the UK to claim asylum, so that would be helpful.
However, no matter how many safe routes are opened, you should not be closing down routes for people who need to enter irregularly. That is in the convention, as was just highlighted very strongly by the UNHCR. There will be categorisations and formal processes and criteria that people will have to meet for all of the safe routes, and not everyone will be covered yet. There will still be people who fall outside of those who have protection needs, and we should honour those.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Q
Lisa Doyle: We do not want people to drown and die to get here.
Craig Whittaker
Q
Lisa Doyle: We should not be punishing people who feel they are forced to travel irregularly to enter a country. There is a precedent in international law to do that. All the evidence in previous days has said that if you build your walls higher, the people smugglers become more and more sophisticated and have to take—
Craig Whittaker
Q
Lisa Doyle: Of course I would not want to see people drown. What I am saying is that there will always be a need for people to enter countries and to seek safety not on formal safe routes, because formal safe routes are not broad enough to encompass everybody. The reality is that people are desperate. They need to move and they want to rebuild their lives.
The Chair
Thank you. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Patricia Durr, Patricia Cabral and Adrian Berry gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Patricia Durr: Hello. My name is Patricia Durr. I am the chief executive of ECPAT UK. We are a child rights and anti-trafficking charity working directly with child victims and those at risk, and advocating for their rights to protection and care.
Patricia Cabral: Good afternoon. I am Patricia Cabral, the legal policy officer at the European Network on Statelessness. We are a civil society alliance working to protect stateless people, and to reduce statelessness throughout Europe. We have more than 170 members across Europe in 41 countries, including the UK. There are 45 of us in the UK.
Adrian Berry: Hello. I am Adrian Berry, patron of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. We represent barristers, solicitors and other immigration advisers who work in the field of migration policy to secure just and equitable immigration law and practice.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Durr: Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee. One of our concerns has been what little attention has been paid to child victims in consideration of the measures in the Bill. We welcome the focus in the earlier evidence session with Dame Sara Thornton and Siobhán Mullally, and some of the questions from the Committee on that. One of our key concerns is that the measures in part 4 of the Bill will affect all child victims of trafficking, including British national children, who currently form the majority of those who are referred into the national referral mechanism; yet it is being dealt with within an immigration context. For us, consideration of child victims of trafficking and modern slavery is a child protection matter solely.
We are also concerned that the measures in the Bill will be detrimental to unaccompanied children, who we know are at particular risk of exploitation, abuse and trafficking. We know that increasing numbers of children are being identified as victims; yet the barriers are huge. We support some of the stated intentions of providing more support for child victims, but this measure seems to be increasing vulnerability and increasing punishment of children who are already too often criminalised for their own exploitation.
We also think that the Bill is not compatible with the UK’s current obligations towards children, principally the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and the UN convention on the rights of the child, and that all decisions about children, including that of immigration leave, must be taken with their best interest as the primary consideration. They must not face discrimination due to their immigration status, nor must they be disqualified from protection in the UK. There should be a safeguarding response to all children.
We are concerned about all the clauses in part 4 of the Bill, but we have particular concerns about identification, the conclusive grounds provisions, the recovery period, which will potentially have an impact on child victims, and the disqualification from protection, as well as the leave to remain provision in clause 53. We think there is an opportunity to improve and strengthen that in terms of particular provision for children, whereas there is nothing in there now that meets the international legal standard for children.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Durr: We need to bear in mind that the biggest single form of exploitation of children who are being referred is criminal exploitation, and to a large extent some of that is about increased awareness and better identification of children and young people. We are not sure yet what impact covid may have had on some of that; we know that the numbers of adults went down, maybe as a result of the access into work environments where they are being exploited. There may be some of that, but there is a broad understanding that there is an increase in exploitative behaviour towards children.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Durr: We are really concerned about that, because the definition of the threat to public order is not appropriately drawn. It is so broad that, as you say, a significant number of child victims would potentially be disqualified from that protection. The consequences for children and young people are huge. As we have said, criminal exploitation is the most commonly reported form of modern slavery for potential child victims, and a significant number of those cases are for drug-related offences, including some of the so-called county lines crimes, which may carry custodial sentences of more than 12 months, which this provision brings in. Those children would be disqualified from protection if they were identified on appeal for serving custodial sentences.
We also know that data on arrests of children aged 10 to 17 for drug-related offences show that more children are arrested for possession with intent to supply class A drugs. We are also concerned about the terrorism subsections of clause 51, which will exclude child victims exploited by non-state armed groups from accessing protection. The international legal framework on the use of children in armed conflict defines this form of exploitation as the worst form of child labour, and exclusion of children recruited by armed groups on public order grounds will significantly hinder their ability to be safeguarded from harm and to access support and protection. We draw particular attention to the impact it will have, not only on migrant children. It may include the identification of children domestically, such as those in Northern Ireland who are recruited into paramilitarism.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Durr: Yes. It is a principle set out in international—and also our domestic—law that children should not be punished for their own exploitation and abuse. That non-punishment of trafficked children was recently judged in the European Court of Human Rights. I think Siobhán Mullally mentioned this case of V.C.L. and A.N., two Vietnamese teenagers who were criminalised and not identified as child victims of slavery. Yes, we are very concerned about this clause. We think that child victims should not be included within its remit.
Holly Lynch
Q
Adrian Berry: It is certainly appropriate for people to receive legal advice. The key element in that regard is whether or not people have public funds in order to secure the appropriate advice, and whether there is adequate funding for that. Yes, we would support that at all stages. Of course, it does not correct any of the defects in strengthening the tests for making a reasonable grounds decision or changing a standard of proof in respect of conclusive grounds decisions. What it does do is enable people to assert their rights, so it is a basic jumping-off point.
Holly Lynch
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes, of course. As you know, there is a whole series of notices, including in relation to trafficking, which increasingly assimilate it to the asylum process where you get punished for producing evidence or material after an arbitrary cut-off date. There is no safeguard in the Bill for when that cut-off date is—it could be too soon, before you have had an opportunity to recover, to produce the information and receive support. Legal aid is one way of enabling people to properly frame their case at the earliest possible opportunity. The use of notices throughout the Bill, whether trafficking, asylum or priority removal notices, is a subject of serious concern in terms of procedural fairness and ensuring convention compliance, whether that is the trafficking convention or the refugee convention.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Patricia Cabral: Thank you for the question. Clause 9 proposes to amend and restrict a vital safeguard in British nationality law that was initially introduced with the aim of preventing and reducing childhood statelessness. It is important to note that the UK has international obligations in this area, so the existing safeguard implements those international obligations by enabling a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless to acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here. We are concerned that the amendment proposed by clause 9 restricts children’s ability to access that safeguard and acquire British citizenship. It is not in line with the UK’s international obligations, and it clearly risks leaving even more children in the UK stateless and in limbo throughout their childhood.
In the last year, we developed a project to understand the issue of childhood statelessness specifically in the UK, so we have gathered some evidence about the barriers these children are facing and who the stateless children in the UK are. Perhaps it would be useful for us to share some of our findings in this area. I will just note that the stateless children in the UK are mainly children who are currently affected by statelessness because their parents belong to a recognised stateless community—for example, the Kuwaiti Bidoon, Rohingya, Palestinian or Kurdish populations—but many of them are also children in care, especially where they have a migrant background. There may be issues with acquiring parental consent if it is required for the child to access nationality, because the documentation may be missing. Children in care are at particular risk of statelessness, because there is a general lack of awareness from local authorities about nationality issues. There may also be children of Roma families or children affected by domestic abuse, trafficking or other forms of exploitation. We are generally talking about children who are already vulnerable and marginalised, and who are also stateless.
We should also bear in mind that clause 9 would amend the provision that applies only to children who were born in the UK and who have lived here for at least five years. We are talking about children who were born here, who grew up here and who really feel that they belong in the UK. They do not know any other country, they feel British and they wonder where else they belong, if not in the UK. We have received some statements from children who grew up in the UK without British nationality, and it really has an impact on them. They describe feelings of alienation, a loss of self-confidence and the challenges to their identity. We have heard from a child who told us that she could not join her class on a trip to France, and she felt that the situation was really insecure and that it was not safe for her to make close friendships. We can only imagine the emotional burdens of this.
We can see how children feel the impact of being stateless, but they really do not understand why they are stateless, and they feel disempowered to change this. That is because the power to change this is really with the UK authorities—for them to grant nationality and a sense of belonging to the UK. Therefore, that starts with simply not amending the existing safeguards that are in line with international law, so clause 9 of the Bill should simply be dropped.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: There are two things to say. First, there is a real problem with the efficacy of this provision. At the moment, you can apply for registration under this route only when you reach the age of five. But at the age of 10, any child, regardless of whether they have a nationality, can apply for registration as a British citizen under a different provision—section 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981. This is a provision on the face of the Bill that is designed to capture children between the ages of five and 10, because you have another route once you reach the age of 10. The question needs to be asked: what is the point of doing that? You have to have some compelling advice about the cohort aged between five and 10 in order to do it, and there is no evidence at all that that particular cohort of people are the subject of concern. There is no data adduced to show that there is any abuse of the current provision in schedule 2 to the British Nationality Act 1981, which deals with stateless children. There is no reason why you would just leave a child stateless between the ages of five and 10, knowing that there is another provision in law once they reach the age of 10. There is no gain by using this provision. On the question of—[Inaudible.]—simply that the provisions become more available.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes. Clauses 1 to 8 are good stuff, as far as they go. They correct—[Inaudible.]—on the grounds of sex discrimination, discrimination on the grounds of illegitimacy, and historical unfairness in relation to people who might have been prejudicially treated in the Windrush scandal. There is not much not to like about that. There are some omissions. They cure prejudices against people who would be British citizens and overseas territory citizens today, but they ignore the people who would be British overseas citizens today. You will know that their concern is directly because they have no ability to come to the UK, but they still have British nationality. So there is more work to do, but so far, so good, and there are some welcome developments in clauses 1 to 8.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: If you apply for a visit visa, you are making a representation that you intend to return to your country of origin. At some point, unless you claim on arrival when you land, you may be declared an illegal entrant under existing provisions. The problem with clauses 37 and 38 is that they criminalise arrival and assisting arrival in the UK. So it is the crime of arrival or assisting arrival, if you want to think about it like that. What that does is that applies to asylum seekers. So you say, “Of course, we are not impeding the efficacy of the refugee convention”. In the explanatory notes the Home Office says that, but in practice it is. If you criminalise arrival, that is precisely what you are doing. You cannot see those provisions separately from clause 12, which prohibits you from claiming asylum in UK territorial waters.
When you fit them all together, you have the criminal offence of arrival: you do not have to have entered the UK, you are still on a vessel. You are in UK territorial waters because you are on your way to the UK and you cannot claim asylum there. However, the maritime enforcement powers, which the Home Office gives itself under schedule 3, allow it not only to board your vessel and not take your asylum claim, but require you to go back to the port from which you came and require you to leave UK territorial waters. If you look at the package—criminal offence, not being able to claim asylum, and power to board your vessel and require you to leave—not only might that put you at risk in your insecure vessel, but it just shuts you out from the refugee convention. It is a full-scale assault on being able to claim territorial asylum in the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes. The whole point of the refugee convention is not about resettlement; it is about people making it to the territory and processing and determining their claims. That is why you have the prohibition on penalties in article 31. It is all about coming to the UK to claim asylum and being a refugee on an irregular route. If you shut that out, all that is left is sur place claims, as they are called, where you are on the territory, as you suggest.
Paul Howell
Q
Patricia Durr: We are waiting for more information about the age assessment, given the placeholder clauses in the Bill. I guess our biggest concern is about children being treated as adults. I know that the Committee has expressed some concern about adults being treated as children, but we need to consider that the greater risk is that children are being pushed into adult systems through inappropriate age assessments. Obviously, it is a concern all round, but that is the greatest concern, I think, because the consequences of the adultification of children who are then also criminalised are huge. In any provision for children and young people in this country, we should have in place very strong, robust safeguarding measures that provide better protection for children and young people there than would be provided for a child in adult provision. That is the way I would consider that.
We are concerned that age assessment should remain within a safeguarding framework and remain with professionals who are skilled in children’s development and care. I think the British Medical Association has given written evidence to the Committee to disavow the idea that there is a scientific method or approach to age assessment. It is obviously about professional judgment by skilled professionals—in this case, social workers—who have a better understanding of child development.
Paul Howell
I agree that it is a difficult one either way—children to adult or adult to children. It is just a question of where the boundaries sit and making sure we get those in the right place.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: This is an attempt to be prescriptive on the way in which, first, the Home Office and, secondly, judges will assess credibility in a range of situations in relation to claims on human rights grounds and asylum claims. It is not the first time that we have had credibility clauses put into Bills to tell judges what their job is and how to approach witness evidence. Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 tried to do that, and now we see a range of these provisions spattered across the Bill. The problem is that they always set early cut-off dates for providing evidence and then say, “Well, if you provide the evidence late, you’re penalised on credibility.” But the obvious question is this: what is the instrumental connection? If the evidence is good and proves that you are in need of international protection, why is your credibility damaged? You have done what you are supposed to do, and the UK obligations are engaged.
It attempts, effectively, to usurp the judicial function, to take it away from judges, who are expert at assessing past facts of what has happened in foreign countries, foreign laws and protection risks, and to say, “Well, here we’re going to discipline the task for you, regardless of the merit of the application, and penalise a person who may have difficulty getting evidence, who may be traumatised by their journey to the UK and who may lack funding to get things properly translated or to commission expert reports.” It says to them, “We’re going to penalise you, regardless of the merits of your claim, because we have set an early cut-off date and you haven’t met it.” It is introducing yet one more hurdle. It has not worked before, under the 2004 Act, and it is unlikely to work in this Act.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: Severe, in fact. If you look at the provision for priority removal notices and expedited appeals, there are some serious concerns. If you introduce a claim for asylum and you provide evidence after the cut-off date given, in a priority removal notice you are given what is called an expedited appeal. That begins in the upper tribunal. Your first punishment is that you lose your right of appeal and hearing in the first-tier tribunal. The second punishment—much more serious—is the return of the ouster clause. It is that the upper tribunal hearing is final; there is no onward appeal to the Court of Appeal. That is something that was first tried in clause 11 of the 2004 asylum and immigration Bill, before it became the 2004 Act. And it is wrong—one first-instance appeal on human rights grounds or asylum grounds in the upper tribunal. Mistakes happen. They need to be corrected. There would be a reason for the Court of Appeal to be available, and thereafter the Supreme Court. And there is no vice in allowing that, because of course the appeal tests, for permission to appeal, are tightly controlled and policed by judges making permission decisions. An expedited appeal leaves you with one shot—no rights of appeal. It has serious implications for the rule of law that the first-instance tribunal decision cannot be reviewed.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: There are three things. First, there is no need for them. We already have three ways of controlling advocates in court. First, there are case management powers in the tribunal system to regulate conduct of a case. Secondly, under section 29 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, there is a wasted costs and unreasonable costs jurisdiction, which is applied in the tribunals. Thirdly, there is the ability of tribunals and courts to refer practitioners who are considered to have behaved improperly or negligently to their regulatory bodies, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We already have all those constraints.
Adding in charges, which would be paid to the state, rather than being costs between the parties, and making provisions for unreasonable costs orders, is absolutely unnecessary. There is not any evidence in the explanatory notes as to why that needs to be done, because there is no evidence of any deficiencies in the existing three mechanisms that I have outlined. It will chill the ability of other people to take difficult points on behalf of vulnerable people.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: Maritime enforcement provisions butt up against the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and its article 98 duty of rescue. That is a part of customary international law. If you are at sea as master of a ship and see someone at risk of losing their life because they are in an insecure vessel or are in distress and they ask for assistance, you are obligated to help them. That is the basic position. This provision not only creates powers to allow Home Office vessels to leave UK territorial waters and enter international and foreign waters, but it enables them to stop, board and then divert vessels away from the UK and back to foreign ports.
That creates a situation where there may be a risk to life and limb, because these vessels are often very insecure. Although Home Office staff may not board them, in circling them and trying to press them back, they are making those lives insecure. There may be a question of extraterritorial jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act 1998 for such behaviour. It also risks their lives. It cuts across the duty of rescue, which applies not just to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or to merchant vessels; it also applies to those very Home Office vessels. They, too, are subject to the duty of rescue, regardless of the fact that they are trying to hustle asylum seekers back out of UK territorial waters.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes, that is clause 38, which removes the “for gain” provision from assisting an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom. That could prejudice a prosecution that is brought on people who are involved in search-and-rescue operations, which is also part of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, by the way. In addition, an asylum seeker who might be piloting an unsecured vessel across the channel could be prosecuted, even though they too are an asylum seeker. There is no article 31—of the refugee convention—defence to that criminal charge, and it would undoubtedly be a penalty, because it would be frustrating the operation of the refugee convention, in terms of the UK’s obligations under that.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: Judges are not necessarily meant to laugh in court, but the question is: what is the purpose of it? When we were in the European Union and had the common European asylum system, we had a system of common standards, so the refugee qualification directive specified the way in which refugee convention terms were to be applied, because we needed to have common methods and systems throughout the European Union. We have left, as we all know, and the status quo ante ought to apply, where we just apply the refugee convention as determined by our courts and the provisions thereunder.
This specification in primary legislation is unnecessary. These terms are well understood. The only attempt here is to change the settled law, including from the highest judicial courts—the previous judicial House of Lords, now the Supreme Court—and other decisions of binding authorities. We see an attempt to change the standard of proof for the assessment of past facts in refugee cases from “reasonable chance” to “the balance of probability”. That cuts straight across binding authority in this jurisdiction in the case of Karanakaran v. Secretary of State for the Home Department. We see an attempt to revise the definition of “particular social group” so that the two tests are now cumulative rather than the alternative. Again, that cuts across binding authority. It is an attempt to write out the settled view of the courts on the interpretation of the United Kingdom’s international obligation, where the UK courts’ interpretation is consistent with international practice and the terms as defined in the Bill are not.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: No, not at all. If you want to end smuggling routes, you have to open safe and legal routes to claim asylum in the UK, which may mean humanitarian corridors. It may mean bringing people to the UK to claim asylum rather than allowing them to be exploited by smugglers and traffickers. It may mean improving and having a fast and fair procedure in the United Kingdom that allows claims to be determined swiftly and robustly. The main reason why there is a smuggling industry is that there are no safe and legal routes, and therefore one can make a profit out of these vulnerable people.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Adrian Berry: I do not think it provides clarity to take away the ability to properly prepare a protection claim. What you need are proper resources and proper funding in order for that claim to be properly advanced, and then you need a robust determination mechanism to assess it. The difficulties relate to gathering evidence, taking witness statements from people who have been traumatised in their home country and traumatised by their journey, and obtaining other evidence in terms of other witnesses of fact and expert evidence in a case. These things take a little bit of time, and the existing procedure creaks even without accelerating the procedures. So long as people are treated with dignity and the resources are available, determinations will be made that are good and do not require challenge. That alone would foreshorten the procedure.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Adrian Berry: Foreign national offenders are a completely separate issue. We are talking about asylum, and the Bill is focused on protection claims in the section that we are concerned with. It is very important not to confuse foreign national offenders with people who are claiming asylum.
Tom Pursglove
To be clear, I am talking about the Bill as a whole.
Adrian Berry: Yes, and the Bill as a whole contains provisions on asylum, not extra removal provisions, so I was talking about the Bill as a whole as well. You already have everything you need. We are almost returning to the stage where immigration Bills happen every couple of years, attempting to address problems that had apparently been solved by earlier immigration Bills. The Home Office has a vast array of powers at its disposal. What is needed is that it properly uses them.
The Chair
Are there any other questions? Mr McDonald, I stopped you on a question. Would you like to carry on?
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: It is extremely problematic, and not just because it is deprecated in other jurisdictions, but because it makes the judge’s task so much harder—they have to have a split personality. They have to weigh some of the evidence—including the question of whether the person has a refugee convention reason, such as a political opinion or membership of a particular social group—on the balance of probability standard, and then they have to assess the question of what happened in the past on that standard. Then they have to evaluate future risk, which is intimately bound up with how you have been treated in the past, on the lower civil standard of reasonable degree of likelihood.
It is a charter for errors of law creeping into decision making and for onward appeals. It will almost certainly lead to more onward appeals, which will lengthen the process. It will add to costs and uncertainty, and ultimately it will leave people without protection, when there is a commonly understood threshold test, with the reasonable degree of likelihood across the piece, whether it is past facts or future risk, that has applied in this country and other common law jurisdictions and is endorsed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Patricia Cabral: Yes, there are a number of issues with statelessness in the UK anyway, but with this Bill we want to focus on clause 9, in particular. Our research shows that children who are brought up stateless in the UK already face a number of significant issues in acquiring British citizenship. There is a lack of legal advice and quality legal support. Legal aid is not always available. There are a number of challenges in evidencing and proving statelessness. There are already all these barriers for children trying to acquire British nationality, which might be the only nationality available to them.
What we are really aiming for today is just to make sure we do not create even more barriers for these children, and that we remove clause 9 to ensure that we do not amend any of the existing safeguards. Paragraph 3 of schedule 2 to the British Nationality Act 1981 is in compliance with international law—the 1961 convention on the rejection of statelessness and the convention on the rights of the child. We simply do not need to touch those safeguards or make this amendment.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Durr: We have talked about how children’s rights are exercised by the provisions in the Bill. A children’s rights impact statement would really have assisted consideration of some of the measures, by setting out which children’s rights are invoked and how they are impacted. It is something the Committee on the Rights of the Child has asked the UK Government to do systematically. It is safe to say that the length of the consultation period was not sufficient.
We were quite surprised that the part 4 provisions are being included in this asylum and immigration Bill, particularly given that there is currently a review of the modern slavery strategy. On the lack of consultation, certainly from our perspective, what implications might there be for child victims of trafficking? Their experience of waiting in limbo, and the lack of provision for leave to remain as recognised child victims of trafficking, rather than through asylum provisions within the immigration rules are certainly a huge concern for the young people we work with, and that would come through very strongly from them. It was that combination: why these provisions in this Bill, and the lack of engagement with children and young people—from our perspective—but also, survivors of trafficking and exploitation more broadly.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Cabral: I think that would be preferable, given that we have got a review of the whole of the modern slavery strategy. What we do not want to risk is the progress that has been made, and the good provisions that have been made, through the UK’s modern slavery strategy, potentially getting rolled back. That is the big concern. What we should be doing is improving things. I would support looking at the provisions around modern slavery and trafficking as safeguarding matters, rather than immigration matters. Obviously, there are enforcement matters related, but there is confusion. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Government’s 2014 review, by Jeremy Oppenheim, which led to revisions of the national referral mechanism to separate immigration decisions from matters of modern slavery. The provisions in part 4 are rolling that back quite considerably.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Adrian Berry: I do not know whether the other witnesses have had experience of age assessment trials—I have. This Committee cannot scrutinise that clause in the Bill, because all you have put in it is a placeholder clause, with the detail said to be coming later on. We are not in a position to scrutinise it, and I cannot tell you what it says, because you had not finished the Bill before publishing.
Age assessment trials are trials; although they take place within a judicial review context, they are full trials with witnesses, and over time the courts have developed a system for case managing those trials. The difficulties that arise would arise in any context. In other words, it is very difficult to tell how old someone is. It is a process that requires expert evidence and the gathering of timelines and the chronologies of people’s journeys, and their explanations. That would take time in any context. Until we see the detail of what you propose, the age assessment provision simply cannot be assessed. We hope you bring forward the actual clause by Report.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Patricia Durr: We did not submit the FOI, but the response back indicated that that information is not available, so evidence of widespread abuse does not exist as far as we know.
Anne McLaughlin
Perhaps the Minister will get it for us for the next meeting. Thank you very much.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. That brings us to the end of our oral evidence sessions. The Committee will meet again after the recess on Tuesday 19 October at 9.25 am to commence line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Building Safety Bill (Tenth sitting)
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that we have quite a lot of the Bill still to get through—we have only reached clause 42 of 147—and that points should be made succinctly where possible. I am sure the Committee will want to give due scrutiny to all of the Bill and the various new clauses that have been tabled. The explanatory notes to the Bill have been published, so I say gently to the Minister that he should not feel the need to recite them.
One Member has caught my eye and asked whether it is okay to remove his jacket. I am quite relaxed about that; if people want to remove their jackets, they can.
Clause 42
Transfer of approved inspectors’ functions to registered building control approvers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)
I am obliged to you, Mr Efford, for offering me the opportunity to speak to clause 42. I am mindful of the points that you have just made about the importance of succinctness. Given that this is a relatively technical and uncontroversial clause, while reserving my right to speak as I feel appropriate to other clauses, I propose to move it formally. [Interruption.]
The Chair
I have made a request that people stand in their place if they want to speak. I call Mike Amesbury.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I concur with the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 43
Functions exercisable only through, or with advice of, registered building inspectors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Once again, this being a relatively straightforward and uncontroversial clause, I propose to move it formally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Default powers of appropriate national authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I will speak a little to this clause, because I think it bears some scrutiny. The Government are committed to driving up the standard of building control. Clause 44 strengthens the powers in relation to failing local authorities by giving the Secretary of State a new power in England to make an order to transfer building control functions of a failing local authority to another local authority. Currently, the Secretary of State only has the power to transfer the functions of a failing local authority to himself.
The clause should be read in conjunction with clause 41, and in particular proposed new section 58Z7 of the Building Act 1984, under which the regulator will be able to recommend that the Secretary of State makes an order to transfer the functions of a failing local authority building control department. Where such a department has consistently failed to meet the required standards and that is putting the safety of persons in or about buildings at risk, the Secretary of State could, for example, transfer only the management of the building control function to another local authority. That would mean that senior officers or managers from another authority would manage the failing building control department to return it to full compliance. Once the performance issues of the failing authority have been addressed, the Secretary of State will consult the regulator and revoke the order, returning the building control function to the local authority.
The clause makes a number of consequential and clarificatory amendments to sections 116 to 118 of the 1984 Act, including amending section 118 of the Act to allow for the variation or revocation of an order by the appropriate national authority to return the transferred functions to the original local authority. The Secretary of State must first consult the Building Safety Regulator and make additional provisions to deal with the transfer and discharge of any liabilities through the revoking or new order.
The amendments in clause 44 are important for improving the competence of building control teams, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I will be brief in my remarks to the Minister. I am just looking for some clarity and reassurance. The Executive and the Secretary of State obviously hold a lot of power here. What checks and balances will be built in, regardless of the political complexion of the Secretary of State?
Christopher Pincher
Just to clarify, the present law allows the Secretary of State to transfer only to himself the power to take on the functions of a failing local authority. In terms of checks and balances, what we are trying to do is allow the Secretary of State greater discretion to transfer to another appropriate local authority the authority to discharge those functions on behalf of the failing local authority while it is brought back into competence. The effect is to ensure that another local authority—possibly one that is closer to the one that has failed or is similar in terms of the housing stock, and that has a greater degree of historical success in dealing with such issues—can perform the role of the local authority.
As I said in my concluding remarks, we have also ensured that any liabilities—in other words, any costs incurred by the local authority that is taking on the responsibility—can be properly recovered by that local authority, so that it is not out of pocket as a result of taking on those responsibilities. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues appear to support the clause, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 45 and 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Insurance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I know that this clause is of some interest to members of the Committee, so I shall make some remarks and then address any questions or debating points in my concluding remarks.
The clause relates to the legal requirements for insurance for private sector building control professionals. When the private sector competitive element was introduced in 1984, a requirement was included in the Building Act of that year for approved inspectors to have “adequate insurance” from a Government-approved scheme in relation to the work that they supervise. The Bill maintains the double protection of requiring adequate insurance from a Government-approved insurance scheme. We believe that that is a sensible protection for approved inspectors, consumers and the construction sector.
The Bill also maintains the current requirement for approved inspectors to prove that they have insurance before they can obtain permission to start work on a new project—also known as the initial notice process. However, there have been difficulties in the past with a limited number of approved insurance schemes and no set definition of what constitutes the adequate insurance required. The problem worsened when it coincided with much wider insurance market changes, especially in 2019, and a reduction in the level of risk that insurers were prepared to accept. That led to cases of approved inspectors being unable to obtain insurance cover and, therefore, to operate. The number of approved inspectors involved was already small, but the effects on ongoing projects and local authorities that had to pick up the work were noticeable.
The Bill makes two main changes to reform and address that situation while keeping the fundamental requirement for insurance for approved inspectors. The first is a duty to prepare and publish guidance on what is adequate insurance cover. The second is the ability for the Secretary of State to designate bodies to undertake the functions both of joined-up guidance and of approving insurance schemes.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Who might the Government approve to do that work on their behalf? Will it be part of the Building Safety Regulator’s role?
Christopher Pincher
Over the next few weeks and months we will assess all potential organisations that might undertake that role. They will need to demonstrate expertise and capability, to determine whether they can meet the high standards set by any prospective building control insurance scheme. We will pursue an answer to that question over the next several weeks and months. I will be happy to update the House as we progress through that process.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Sadly, the construction industry does not enjoy a lot of confidence, which is no surprise, mainly because of the fires we have had. Professional indemnity is very difficult to get; far more questions are being asked to obtain it. The Association of British Insurers has been very involved with the Government and is broadly very supportive of the Bill—it is the right step and will improve the building industry and commercial and residential premises. However, the ABI has made a number of significant comments about using modern methods of construction
“to ensure these buildings are built and maintained in a way which enables them to access affordable insurance for the lifetime of the property.”
It has also called on the Government to develop
“a publicly accessible database of buildings developed using Modern Methods of Construction which provides information on the materials used, methods of construction and relevant standards or certification”
and to mandate
“the installation of high integrity fire alarms in all new developments to address the high number”—
Ms Rimmer
I do not consider that the Bill will address all the insurance problems. I am concerned that we may end up in a situation where we do not get the buildings done, because of the insurance problem. I do not believe that we can do everything in the timescale to enable the construction of the homes that we need—
The Chair
Order. Can I say gently that we have not had much deliberation in this Committee, so I am loth to shut this down, but rather than making a long intervention, the hon. Lady should make a speech. I am sure the Minister will answer your points equally well whether you make a speech or an intervention. We cannot have interventions of that length. I assume the hon. Lady is finished.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady. I understand the point that she makes, which does bear 30 seconds of explanation. We are working with the modern methods of construction expert Mark Farmer to find ways of standardising the modern methods of construction sector. The off-site construction standards mechanisms that have been developed over the last few years to respond to that new marketplace give lenders and insurers adequate protections and assurances. Her point speaks to the wider issue that, in an evolving building terrain, where new methods of construction are being constantly developed, it is right that we have a flexible building safety regime to respond to those concerns. That is one of the reasons why, rather than placing lots of regulations and requirements in the Bill, we are using secondary legislation and regulations to respond to that evolving terrain. I think that modern methods of construction will be one of the areas in which the terrain responds.
Ms Rimmer
I should not apologise, because I need to make a point. There is too much dependence on secondary legislation, and we do not have sight of it. When will it be introduced? I like to make informed decisions, but I am not able to when there is this constant reference to future regulations and secondary legislation. When I get to read about the regulations, it says that they are subject to or delegated to statutory instruments, so I am going from the Bill to secondary legislation and then to statutory instruments. Will they be affirmative or negative? I do not feel in a position where I am able to make an informed decision.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I would say, somewhat reflecting what Justin Bates said in evidence a couple of weeks ago, that we could put a great deal in the Bill—in primary legislation—but that would make the law exceptionally unwieldy and unresponsive to the developing terrain of building assurance, building safety and methods of construction. As Mr Bates pointed out, it would also mean that we would have to sit here from now until some time in 2022 for line-by-line consideration of the clauses in the primary legislation. Secondary legislation allows us to be flexible and respond to the changing terrain, while also giving Parliament an appropriate degree of scrutiny and control.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Given that the Government intend to use secondary legislation to such a large extent, does the Minister accept that it is vital that all stakeholders, particularly leaseholders affected by the legislation, have sufficient time to scrutinise it?
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. She will know that we often consult on secondary legislation before laying the regulations, so that there is time for the community, in its widest context, to give feedback on that legislation. Whether the regulations are subject to the affirmative or negative procedure, there is ample opportunity for Parliament and the House of Commons to consider them, have a say and scrutinise that secondary legislation, either in a Committee such as this for the affirmative procedure, or with the entire Chamber praying against regulations subject to the negative procedure.
We have already published secondary legislation and a number of factsheets to support the primary legislation. We will continue to do so throughout the parliamentary process, which, I remind the hon. Lady, is likely to be longer rather than shorter; this Committee stage will be followed by Report. There will be ample opportunity for the Committee and the House to look at the legislation and the regulations and to comment and vote on them.
The insurance market for approved inspectors is intricate and some bodies have specialist insurance expertise in this area. The power in clause 47 will enable the Secretary of State to appoint specialist bodies to undertake this important and complex work, as the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston alluded to, where the Government think that appropriate. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister and other Members for their helpful contributions. As has been said, insurance, particularly professional indemnity insurance, has caused considerable debate and angst, not only for the professionals involved, but about the future role of the accountable person and those involved in building control. The ABI and AXA refer to that in their submissions.
Members have spoken about secondary legislation. The market has to respond to this measure, and that is why more detail would have been helpful. The Minister’s comments on consulting key stakeholders are constructive and reassuring. I assume that the ABI will be one of those stakeholders, and those discussions may be taking place not quite as we speak but over the next few weeks—I hope that that is the case. Ultimately, this is about ensuring that the clause and the new SIs provide adequate cover and deliver the culture change that we all want.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I will keep my comments brief. I want to touch on whether primary legislation is the appropriate place to set out the specification.
I fully appreciate and do not disagree with the comments that have been made on the need to see the detail. I completely agree with the comments of members across the Committee about the need to consult and to ensure that stakeholders are appropriately engaged. If we put this in primary legislation, I think there might be a slight unintended consequence of pigeonholing it too far.
My interpretation of the ABI’s evidence is that there is a need to ensure that appropriate stakeholder feedback is reflected in regulation. In other areas, it is not uncommon for insurance mechanisms such as those in clause 47 to be delegated to secondary legislation, because it allows time for that engagement and the pulling together of stakeholders. It also allows for drilling down into the detail, because that secondary legislation can focus specifically on those really important points. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, it is appropriate to delegate to secondary legislation, but I also agree with the points raised by the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston. There is concern in the industry, as we have heard, particularly about incidences of fire and the inability to obtain appropriate insurance. Clause 47 seeks to remediate that and to interlink that more widely, so that we can have the safety we have been talking about and the cultural change that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale mentioned a moment ago.
This is an important but technical debate on whether primary or secondary legislation is the appropriate place for the requirements in clause 47. Broadly speaking, I think my right hon. Friend is right, but I say to him again, and this has been echoed across the Committee, that Members are seeking to ensure the broadest level of engagement with different stakeholders as this progresses. That will be important in ensuring that the subsequent legislation that feeds off clause 47 reflects accurately what we are trying to bring about and, ultimately, that the clause achieves its aims.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I share the concerns about what is happening to the insurance industry in the context of building safety. I also share the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston about the Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation for so many elements, including insurance.
I want to highlight a couple of issues that the insurance industry has raised with us. We have had submissions from AXA—one of the biggest insurers in the country—and from the Association of British Insurers, which says that it is
“concerned that significant detail is left to secondary legislation.”
The ABI has raised specific concerns about the availability and affordability of cover for fire safety works, an issue that is already hitting a number of professionals in the construction industry. It is concerned about the confusion over the definition of the accountable person and the building safety manager roles, and how that impacts on their ability to obtain professional indemnity insurance. It wants more detail so that there is no “potential for confusion”. The ABI is also concerned about the
“legal position where there may be multiple APs responsible for a building”,
and it is seeking
“a better understanding of the liabilities that flow”
from the issues of underwriting PI insurance, and particularly how those liabilities are split between the two roles.
The ABI goes on to say that
“the current market conditions make it a sub-optimal time”
—I love the term “sub-optimal”; it basically means “a rubbish time”—
“to be launching any kind of new regulatory framework requiring mandatory PI cover.”
Of course, we all want everyone involved to have adequate insurance cover in some form or another.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I appreciate a lot of the hon. Member’s points and I share concerns about the very difficult situation. Does she agree, however, that if the legislation is too prescriptive, we could end up restricting the industry and as a result make it more difficult for it to adjust to what are actually asking it to do?
Ruth Cadbury
The hon. Member makes a good point. The problem with insurance is that it can dominate discussions about public policy because issues arise that are not covered by the original legislation and regulations. If something does not go ahead—we have seen tabloid headlines like, “Council stops children going on a school trip”—it is often not because it has been proscribed but because of the insurers. It has nothing to do with the council. We must understand the crucial relationship between the private sector and the insurance sector. The Government must be careful that any legislation on safety, such as this Bill, does not have unintended consequences.
In conclusion, the ABI wrote in its submission that
“there is no ‘silver bullet’ solution to the problem of the cost of insurance for un-remediated high-rise residential buildings…However, market-led intervention by itself will not ‘solve’ the problem—there is likely to be a need for the Government to intervene to provide support for the relatively small number of buildings that are simply too risky for the market to insure at prices that are affordable to the majority of leaseholders.”
Is that something that the Government are considering? The last thing we want is to go from the current situation of having many unsafe new homes, to one where we have no new homes.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the Committee for its consideration of the clause. Before addressing the points that have been raised, let me reiterate that we believe that the reforms in the Bill, and particularly in this clause, by creating a requirement to publish guidelines in the future and providing the Government with the power to secure the involvement of specialist bodies in assessing what the insurance guidelines and approved schemes should be, provide clarity to assurers and the insurance market. I can assure the Committee that my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh has held a series of discussions with the insurance sector over the last year. Indeed, today he began a series of much more detailed bilateral discussions with the sector to make sure that the insurance provision is appropriate and available.
Before I address the points made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, let me address one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West about secondary legislation in the context of this clause. Although I understand the points that Members across the House, and not just in this Committee, express about secondary legislation, we must remember that if there is to be further Government legislation in the financial affairs space—in risk assurance or lending, for example—that could have a consequential effect on the regulations that apply to the insurance market with respect to building safety if we write those regulations into the Bill. Because of changes and other legislation that may come from other Departments, it is much safer for us to put our consequential arrangements in secondary legislation, which allows the Government the flexibility to respond more quickly and allows the House to scrutinise those changes.
I turn to the compelling contribution by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth. I recognise that she raised some questions about the relative roles and responsibilities of the accountable person versus the responsible person, and the way in which the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the Fire Safety Act 2021 and this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will operate. We will certainly ensure, though guidance, that those understandings are clear. That is one of the reasons why, for example, we have specified that where there are potentially multiple accountable persons, there will be a principal accountable person. That should, I hope, give the insurance sector and other players in the market some clear direction and guidance as to who is responsible for what, and their relative responsibilities.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the difficulties with risk assessors, for example, getting assurance and insurance. We recognise that. One might say that the insurance sector has been rather sclerotic, but that is one of the reasons why we have worked closely with it, and one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) made it clear when he was Secretary of State that we will provide for public indemnity insurance for EWS1 a Government-backed backstop where the market is not able to provide insurance for those inspectors that require it.
We have tried to ensure that we have sufficient flexibility in the clause to respond to the changing terrain of the insurance market and of building safety, and that we have provided, through other means, adequate resources and adequate assurances to the market that the Government are there to help where necessary. Having said that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Plans certificates
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Clause 48 aims to bring the process for checking plans when work is supervised by a registered building control approver more into line with the process when local authorities are the building control body—another example of our trying to level the terrain. Currently, section 50 of the Building Act 1984 enables an approved inspector, or registered building control approver as they will be called in the future, at the request of a person intending to carry out building work, to issue a plans certificate to the local authority. That can be issued if they have inspected plans of work covered by an initial notice, and are satisfied that if the work is carried out in accordance with the plans the work will comply with building regulations’ requirements.
At the moment, plans certificates are voluntary, and we know that only a small proportion of initial notices are accompanied by plans certificates. In contrast, where a local authority is the building control body, plans of building work have to be deposited for building work to be carried out on a building subject to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. These plans have to be approved or rejected by the local authority.
Although approved inspectors or registered building control approvers will undoubtedly do a diligent job in checking plans, it is right that we seek to bring the processes more into line with each other. That will ensure greater transparency, bolster assurance that plans have been properly checked, and avoid any suggestion that those carrying out building work may get an easier ride depending on whether they use an approved inspector or registered building control approver, or a local authority. This will also provide a better basis for consultation between registered building control approvers and fire and rescue authorities on the fire safety aspects of plans.
We consulted last year on the principle of making plans certificates mandatory in specified circumstances. There was strong support for that, and clause 48 provides the framework for doing so. The clause inserts proposed new subsections (1A), (1B), (1C) and (1D) into section 50 of the Building Act 1984. They set out that if certain conditions are met, and the person carrying out the work so requests, a registered building control approver must issue a plans certificate and that these must be provided in the prescribed form.
Clause 48(2)(c) inserts proposed new section 50(7A) into the Building Act 1984. It enables building regulations to prescribe circumstances in which a plans certificate must be issued, and the consequences if a plans certificate is not issued.
Christopher Pincher
I will just finish this part and then I will give way to my hon. Friend, who I know is champing at the bit.
We can prescribe, for example, that plans certificates must be issued for buildings covered by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Siobhan Baillie
The Minister may be coming to this, but it would help my learning and understanding if he could clarify why we are not mandating plans certificates for all building works. It would be helpful to have a few more examples of where there will be mandated plans.
The Chair
Order. Before the Minister responds, I gently point out again that I was reading his speech from the explanatory notes as he made those points. Will he point out to his officials that we do not need them to provide him with notes from the explanatory notes, which are already in the public domain, to read out here in Committee?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to you, Mr Efford. There are certain legal reasons why I say to the Committee what is in the explanatory notes. It helps the Committee to understand and ensures that those listening to my words also understand the way we intend to upgrade the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked why we do not mandate certificates for all building work. We think that it is a disproportionate response to expect plans for small-scale building work to be deposited with an approved local authority, and the same principle essentially applies for plans certificates. We need to make sure that proportion is maintained at all times.
I will reiterate the key function of the clause in order to help the Committee and to help you, Mr Efford, in guiding our deliberations. I am grateful to the Clerks for their ever-mindful guidance. The clause provides the framework for us to make important changes to the way in which plans certificates are issued. I hope the Committee will agree that it should stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 49 and 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Information gathering
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I will try to be brief. Clause 51 relates to local authorities gathering information about particular projects supervised by registered building control approvers where that project has become the responsibility of the local authority. Under the current system, approved inspectors are under no explicit duty to provide information about their casework to a local authority; only the owner of the building can be asked to provide information. There can be problems where an approved inspector ceases to operate or leaves a project unfinished, or indeed both.
In such cases, either the local authority or a new approved inspector will pick up the building control function, but it can struggle to obtain the information on the work completed thus far. In practice, that can result in delays to projects and a risk that building work continues without adequate oversight. It also means a stop-start approach to building control enforcement and more work for the local authorities trying to access that information, which are sometimes unsuccessful.
The changes introduced by the clause require registered building control approvers—or former ones, if they have ceased operating—to provide local authorities with information relating to their building work. Failure of the registered building control approver to comply with a request made by a local authority will be a criminal offence, which is newly provided for in the Bill. Registered building control approvers will also be under a duty to provide copies of that information to their clients.
Together, the measures will ensure a smooth transfer of information from registered building control approvers to local authorities where there is a change of building control provider.
Selaine Saxby
I come from somewhere with multi-tier authorities and a very small district council which is responsible for planning. Should we be concerned about the measures being burdensome for local authorities?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend. We always apply the new burdens doctrine when applying new responsibilities to local authorities, and I am sure that will be the case here.
Christopher Pincher
As he is on his feet and complying with your adjudication that one should stand to intervene, Mr Efford, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby.
Ian Byrne
Thank you, Mr Efford; it is pleasure to know that there is a fellow taxi driver in the room. I didn’t realise you were an ex-cabbie—that makes two of us.
On the issue of local authorities, and the point that the hon. Member for North Devon has just raised, will the Minister ensure that local authorities actually have the funding to ensure that what he is outlining can work within this system?
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As I say, when we apply new responsibilities to local authorities, it is usual practice to apply the new burdens doctrine and thereby determine what further support local authorities might require. Incidentally, last year local authorities received their best funding settlement in 10 years. The Government are committed, through the spending review process, to ensure that this Building Safety Bill, the regulations that flow from it and the organisations and officers created by it are also adequately funded. Having made that point to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
Briefly, I am sure these clauses are welcome; information sharing will be vital to the new landscape of building safety. The introduction of an electronic portal—I might refer to the Minister’s previous profession and experience in IT—will result in greater systems efficiency, but will require some investment in hardware, systems, development and training. Could the Minister touch on that?
Shaun Bailey
I will keep my comments brief, to keep in line with the culture across the Committee so far. To complement what the hon. Member for Weaver Vale just said, I had hoped to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Minister’s point about consistency of process. The portal in clause 52 is welcome, but the back-office processes required to ensure that that is usable and feasible will clearly be important. We have been discussing this duty to share information throughout the Bill, but it is particularly highlighted by clauses 51 and 52. Clearly, for that to succeed, we must be able to ensure that it can be done in the way that we would require.
The point that I really want to press on my right hon. Friend the Minister is that we should ensure that we have that consistency of approach. Perhaps he could reassure us that his Department will work with local authorities to ensure that, in respect of these clauses, we can get that consistency? As hon. Members have said, operational delivery is the one thing that this might fall down on. I am also heartened to hear what he said on the funding point, but, as this progresses, it may need a somewhat flexible approach.
Christopher Pincher
I certainly do not want to prescribe how a portal might be built. That is not for a Government Minister to do—certainly not for one who is a former IT consultant. To respond to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, we will work closely with the Building Safety Regulator to determine how a national portal will be established and maintained. We will bring forward further information in due course; we are working closely with the shadow regulator, and will inform the House when we have more information about how the portal will operate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Functions under Part 3 of Building Act 1984
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Again, this is a little technical, but it bears some description. The clause provides powers for the Secretary of State, by regulations, to allocate responsibilities for functions provided to local authorities in part III of the Building Act 1984 between the Building Safety Regulator and local authorities. Part III of the Act places a number of functions on local authorities in relation to buildings, including the ability to issue a notice to the building owner to require work to be undertaken on the building on matters such as drainage, sanitary conveniences, provision of food storage and means of escape—a variety of requirements.
Part III of the Act also provides functions for local authorities in relation to demolitions of buildings, but there is a potential overlap for the Bill in respect of in-scope buildings. This is between some of the functions placed on local authorities under part III and the regulator’s role for in-scope buildings, both in occupation and as a building control authority, under part I of the Act. To avoid any confusion and any potential duplication of the regulations, we will be able to allocate formally to the regulator functions under part III for in-scope buildings, using regulations under the clause.
Alternatively, those functions may continue to rest with the local authority or be available to both the regulator and the local authority. It will be important that where the local authority retains responsibility for certain matters under part III, it informs the regulator if it intends to exercise the relevant functions, so that there is effective co-ordination between the two. The clause provides for regulations to require a local authority to notify the Building Safety Regulator if it intends to exercise one of the part III functions, and vice versa.
Christopher Pincher
I see the hon. Lady is on her feet, so I shall give way.
Rachel Hopkins
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am interested in part III of the Building Act 1984, which talks about means of escape. How will personal emergency evacuation plans be co-ordinated under this measure? I would be grateful if the Minister could explain further on that point.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady, and that is something that we will work through with the Health and Safety Executive and BSR as they work together to build up their specific competencies and responsibilities. That will become increasingly clear as the BSR beds in and builds out.
We will consult local authorities in developing any regulations. As they are subject to the affirmative procedure, Parliament will of course have to approve them.
Ruth Cadbury
I was not sure when it was best to ask this question, so I will ask it now. It is a genuine question that I do not know the answer to. The hon. Member for North Devon rightly raised the concern of small districts. “Saddled” is the wrong word, but they will have increased responsibilities, require increased technical knowledge, and have a wider range of responsibilities. There is also the crossover with their other responsibilities mentioned in the clause. Many authorities, particularly small ones, share functions, departments and teams across more than one authority. Does the Bill take account of that—for instance, where an authority does not have its own building control team or one of the other safety teams, but shares it with another authority? Has the Bill taken this issue into account?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady. Yes, I believe it has. As we know, local authorities share services and a variety of functions, some of which are statutory. They are able to share those functions across geographies and still execute their statutory responsibilities, and I do not foresee any issue here. She is quite right to say that smaller authorities often have challenges with resources that do a multiplicity of things. One of the reasons why we want in the Bill to see the development of multidisciplinary teams—the Building Safety Regulator and its functions, fire and rescue services, local authorities —is to ensure that even smaller authorities that have in-scope buildings are able to use those multidisciplinary teams to do the work that the Building Safety Regulator will require of them.
I hope that Members will agree that these regulations serve an important purpose and will support the clause. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I have just one brief question—and a plea. Again, they refer to personal emergency evacuation plans, or PEEPs, and a submission from the Leaseholder Disability Action Group, or Clad Dag, which I know the Minister is familiar with. In earlier clauses that we have considered, we spoke about the importance of residents’ panels in shaping the current landscape, and of ensuring that disabled people are a key voice on those panels. So I would be interested to hear the Minister’s observations on that point, briefly.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that we heard in evidence from the Health and Safety Executive that the shadow regulator is already doing work to—using that awful phrase—reach out to various communities and groups, to make sure that the residents’ panel, when it is fully constituted, is also fully representative.
With respect to people with disabilities, I do not believe that anything in the Bill cuts across or undermines disability rights or legislation.
With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Minor and Consequential Amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 22, 35 and 38.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Government amendments 20 and 21.
Christopher Pincher
As these are Government amendments, I should probably speak to them, at least briefly.
These amendments provide Welsh Ministers with the power to commence certain provisions of the Bill in relation to Wales, as well as transferring to Welsh Ministers the power to commence certain uncommenced provisions of the Building Act 1984.
In broad terms, amendment 20 amends the commencement power in clause 146 of the Bill to ensure that only Welsh Ministers have the power to commence provisions that apply only in Wales; only the Secretary of State has the power to commence provisions that apply only in England; that Welsh Ministers have the power to commence in relation to Wales provisions that apply in England and Wales, with some minor exceptions; that the Secretary of State has the power to commence in relation to England provisions that apply in England and Wales; and that the Secretary of State retains the power to commence provisions that apply in England and Wales but which we consider are not within the legislative competence of the Senedd.
Amendment 22 ensures that in relation to buildings in Wales where enforcement action has been taken under section 36 of the 1984 Act, there is clarification that the power to seek an injunction for rectification or removal of work in breach of the building relations is not prejudiced, and it applies to the Counsel General. It is a technical amendment; it does not transfer or confer any new powers on the Counsel General. It is merely a clarification.
I turn very briefly to schedule 5. As well as the substantive changes to the 1984 Act set out in clauses in part 3 of the Bill, a number of minor and consequential amendments to the Act are set out in schedule 5. These changes include those needed to reflect the new terminology used in part 3, such as building control authorities or applications for building control approval. They also include changes to reflect the fact that certain functions previously exercised by the Secretary of State will now be exercised by the Building Safety Regulator.
These are all necessary changes to ensure that the Building Act 1984, and other pieces of legislation, fully reflect the changes made in the Bill, enabling the legislation to work effectively. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Briefly, clause 55 relates to changes to appeals under the Building Act 1984. We propose to move certain appeals, which are currently heard by the Secretary of State, to the regulator. These appeals relate to the use of certain materials, the refusal to relax building regulations, and a registered building control approver’s refusal to give a plans certificate. The regulator will oversee the performance of building control bodies in England, so it follows that appeals of local authorities and registered building control approver decisions will now sit with the Building Safety Regulator.
Clause 55 also moves appeals of various building matters from the magistrates court to the property first-tier tribunal. We believe this will create a high level of expertise within the first-tier tribunal, and we intend to establish a specialist unit within it. Cases on important matters, such as the use of products and fire and safety risk assessments, will be heard by that first-tier tribunal specialist unit. Over time, a body of case law and precedent will emerge, leading to increasingly informed and rapid rulings. The full details of this clause are found in schedule 6.
Schedule 6 contains amendments to the Building Act 1984 that relate to appeals and other determinations. I have previously mentioned that appeals and determinations under the Act in England will now be undertaken by the Building Safety Regulator or first-tier tribunal. We want to align the appeals procedure for all building control decisions in England to sit ultimately with that tribunal, and to accommodate the Building Safety Regulator’s position as a new building control authority with oversight of building control bodies.
Paragraphs 2 to 8 move appeals on the use of certain materials, refusal of relaxation of building regulations and refusal by a registered building control approver to give a plan certificate from the Secretary of State to the regulator. Paragraphs 9 to 28 transfer functions from the magistrates court to the tribunal in England, along with minor and consequential related amendments. Finally, paragraph 30 creates new provisions for appeals where it is disputed whether proposed work is higher-risk building work. That is to say that a person who intends to carry out the work can appeal a local authority’s view that their building is in the scope of the higher-risk regime. These are, again, technical but important items, and I commend them to the Committee.
Shaun Bailey
I will keep my comments brief. I appreciate that this is a technical clause, as my right hon. Friend has articulated well, but I will make a few brief points. Broadly speaking, I support the clause. It is right that we have people with the expertise to determine appeals. We must ensure that that is done in a way that provides public confidence, so people know that appeals have had due process.
As someone who has interacted with these systems in the past, may I make a plea to my right hon. Friend? It is all well and good setting up systems such as this, but can we please ensure the process works? It may be hindered if we put things into new bodies and new units in the judicial system, and then people have the frustration of going through the rigmarole of processes that do not work or dealing with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service systems that may not function to the best of their ability. We want to ensure public and industry confidence that when an appeal is made, it will be dealt with in an appropriate, timely and cost-effective manner, and the rules and regulations will be followed.
I concur with my right hon. Friend when he says that he hopes a body of precedent and case law will build up in this area. Clearly, there is existing precedent, which I hope judges who are learned in this area will pick up on. He has had a shopping list of requests from me today, but I ask him to ensure that there is appropriate guidance and real engagement between the Department, the Ministry of Justice and the judges who will sit within this tribunal. It is important that there is consistency in the process, and that it ultimately instils confidence.
Whenever we set up an appeals process such as this one, it is vital that we ensure that it can work. The clause has my full support. It is right to ensure that these technical appeals are dealt with by people who have the right skillset and knowledge, but let us ensure that the process works so that the really good intentions behind clause 55 are realised as we would expect.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend has provided me and my officials with not so much a shopping basket as a shopping trolley of requests. Perhaps an Ocado delivery will arrive at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities very soon.
I will clarify my remarks to help my hon. Friend, because he is quite right. When I said that over time a body of case law and precedent would emerge, I should have said that over time a further body of case law and further precedent, built upon what already exists, will emerge, and that will lead to increasingly informed rulings. Having listened to you and your rulings, Mr Efford, I now commend this clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 56
Fees and charges
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I will try to ensure that I keep my teeth in as I whistle through the s’s in clause 56.
We are committed to ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator receives the funding required to enable it to deliver. Members of the Committee have made that point in discussion of the previous clauses. Dame Judith’s review recommended that the regulator for buildings in scope of the new and more stringent regulatory regime should fully recover its costs from those it regulates. The recommendation reflected that duty holders who require the most intervention by the safety regulator should pay more. The Bill needs to enable the Building Safety Regulator to charge fees, both to implement the recommendation of the independent review and to put the Building Safety Regulator on a firm financial footing. The power could also be used to charge for other Building Safety Regulator functions under the Building Act, such as registering building inspectors and building control approvals.
In a previous debate on clause 27 on the power to charge regulator fees, the Committee was rightly interested in any effects on leaseholders. We expect that the power under clause 56 would be used to charge fees for building control during the design and construction of new high-rise residential buildings, just as building control is charged for currently. Leaseholders will not directly bear the cost of such fees. However, the purchase price for a new home may reflect the costs of construction, including any regulatory costs, as is the case now. We do not intend that the leaseholder bear directly the costs of these particular fees.
For building control during refurbishments, the position remains as it is now. Building control fees can be passed on only if the terms of the lease allow—of course, different leases have different terms. This is a complicated area, and I remind the Committee that although the position on building control fees is broadly unchanged from current practice, we are introducing a new regulatory regime in occupation under part 4, for which the regulator may charge fees under clause 27.
For costs under part 4, there are specific provisions that deal with the effects on leaseholders under the building safety charter. The charge includes the costs of delivering a defined set of safety measures, to ensure that leaseholders and residents feel safe in their homes. The charge includes regulator fees specifically associated with the activities covered by the building safety charge, such as checks on the safety case to ensure the building is being managed safely. The building safety charge provisions also contain strong safeguards for leaseholders that prevent fees resulting from enforcement action by the Building Safety Regulator or from any negligent or unlawful act by the accountable person being passed on to leaseholders.
This clause also provides powers for regulations to extend the scope of current local authority building control charging schemes. Currently, local authorities can charge for specified building control activities, as set out in the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010, namely checking plans, inspecting work, dealing with building notices, dealing with reversions from approved inspectors and dealing with requests for regularisations. Local authorities can also charge for advice given in relation to any of those activities. However, local authorities carry out a number of other functions under the Building Act that are not in the scope of the current charges regulations.
We want to give local authorities the opportunity to recover more of their costs. Therefore, clause 56 provides wider powers for regulations to set fees and charges in relation to any local authority function under the Building Act. It enables the regulations to prescribe what fees should be set and that local authorities can set out their charges in schemes established in accordance with principles set out in the regulations. This is in line with the approach in the current regulations, which enable local authorities to set out charging schemes and principles that those schemes must follow. The clause also enables Welsh Ministers to charge for their functions under part 2A of the Building Act in Wales.
Mike Amesbury
After how many days will the building safety charge be payable, and how much will it be? That is vital, obviously, to resident leaseholders. On the finer detail of the scope, will the charge be levied on buildings from 11 to 18 metres, and on those that are18 metres-plus?
Christopher Pincher
With respect to the last point, the charge will be levied on buildings in the scope of this Bill—this regime. We have said that the charges will not be more than a certain amount, but clearly, charges can change over time, so it would not be appropriate for me to say what a specific building safety charge ought to be. On how long it will take to pay, that is certainly something that we will want to work through with the Building Safety Regulator and we will specify in secondary legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Levy on applications for building control approval in respect of higher-risk buildings
Rachel Hopkins
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 57, page 78, line 12, at end insert—
“(4A) The regulations must exempt applications or specified descriptions of relevant applications made by or on behalf of registered social landlords for the provision of social housing as defined by the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.”
This amendment would seek to remove the levy as introduced by Clause 57 from social housing.
Rachel Hopkins
It is appropriate that I mention my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I welcome the opportunity to move this amendment. The Minister will recognise my deep interest in housing and in ensuring that everyone can live in a good-quality, secure, safe home that they can afford to live in. The amendment would place in the Bill, rather than in regulations, an exemption for social housing from the levy introduced by the clause.
The levy is designed to meet building safety expenditure. That expenditure is not the ongoing cost of the new building safety regime, which is met through the building safety charge; it is designed to cover the cost of Government support for the remediation of unsafe cladding. That support is provided to leaseholders in buildings with unsafe cladding systems, either through the Building Safety Fund or through a system of low-cost loans for buildings under 18 metres, the details of which are yet to be announced.
For the most part, that support is not available to social landlords, other than to alleviate costs that they may otherwise have to pass on to leaseholders. With the exception of buildings with aluminium composite material cladding, social landlords have been denied access to those funds. For councils, remediation costs therefore fall on the housing revenue account and must be recouped either through rent increases or by diverting funds away from improvements to council housing or the provision of new council housing.
In contrast to many private developers and freeholders, social and council housing providers were the quickest to react post Grenfell. Analysis has shown that housing associations have paid six times more than developers to remediate dangerous cladding. According to G15, the group of London’s largest housing associations, overall, associations have set aside nearly £3 billion for historical remediation costs, far more than the half a billion pounds that the private sector has provided.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is making really powerful points. I have a number of blocks in my constituency managed by housing associations, but they were generally built by volume house builders, and the housing associations are having to deal with the costs that she mentions. Ultimately, as she says, those costs are falling on leaseholders, many of whom are shared owners and people on fixed incomes, and on the future social tenants of the housing association, because the costs impact the association’s capital programme. Does she agree that that means a slowdown in what is already a very slow social housing new build programme, and concerns about other repairs and capital works to existing social rent homes in the portfolios of the housing associations?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making those key points so well. I will reiterate them: the Local Government Association and housing associations have warned that building safety costs will put at risk their ability to build much more affordable housing, as she pointed out. The required subsidy per affordable home currently sits at approximately £50,000; £3 million spent on remediation costs would mean 58,000 fewer homes over the next 10 years. Shelter also estimates that we need 90,000 new social homes a year to fix our housing crisis, and that does not go into what is needed to get social homes to a decent standard or reach our net zero targets, which the Minister will know we discussed in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee earlier this week.
The Local Government Association—or should I say the Conservative-led Local Government Association—stated in its written evidence:
“Imposing the developer levy on councils would leave council tenants paying for the failings of private developers. If the Levy is imposed on social providers, their ability to deliver the improvements and additions to the housing stock that the Government requires will be put at risk.”
Daisy Cooper
Has the hon. Lady received any estimates of the cost of the levy for social providers? If not, does she agree that it might be helpful if the Minister could tell us what estimates the Government have made?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank the hon. Lady for her important contributions. There are different levels, because this is such a complex area, but research that the LGA commissioned, which just looked at the total cost to deliver compliance with the high safety standards, the installation of sprinklers and compartmentation across the entire housing revenue account council housing stock, would be more than £8 billion over a 10-year period, with the majority of the investment taking place in the first five years.
There is so much at stake here that will have an impact on social housing and the likelihood of being able to build good social housing. The conclusion is that the levy, if imposed on councils and social landlords, will increase the cost of building or refurbishing social housing, or increase the rents, yet the benefits to funds will not be available to the tenants who would otherwise have benefited from lower rents or better housing.
Finally, imposing the levy on councils means council tenants will be subsidising the failings of private developers and paying the costs of both remediating council housing and private housing. I am pleased to move this amendment; I hope the Minister will accept it, and I look forward to hearing his comments.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her amendment. In parenthesis, let me say that the Government are committed to increasing affordable housing and socially rented homes as a component of that. She will know, as an articulate and committed member of the HCLG Committee, that we have made available in the present 2021 to 2026 cycle more than £12 billion, £11.5 billion of which is new money, to build some 180,000 new homes, economic conditions permitting, of which 32,000, or double the number in the present cycle, will be for social rent. We have also made it easier for councils and local authorities to build social homes if they wish, but I will not go into the detail of that, because it is a separate matter and does not apply to this clause.
I had a conversation only last night with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on our approach to the levy and exemptions, and I am pleased to inform the hon. Member for Luton South that we have already proposed —not as a direct result of that conversation, but more broadly—an exemption from the levy for affordable housing as a whole. That includes social housing, as well as housing for rent or sale at least 20% below market value, shared ownership and rent to buy. We recognise that applying a levy to affordable housing, which includes social housing, would increase the cost of developing affordable housing and is likely to be a disincentive to supply.
We presently have a public consultation in flight, seeking views and evidence on how the exemption would work in practice. The consultation will conclude on 15 October. We would not want to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation, although I think the hon. Member for Luton South can see the way our thoughts are progressing, but neither do we want to write such a matter on to the face of the Bill, because we think that it is more appropriate in secondary legislation. We are consulting on it and we do want to ensure that the exemption applies, so I hope that she will agree that her amendment is unnecessary and therefore withdraw it.
Ian Byrne
It is really good to hear the Minister talk about social housing, because when the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has taken evidence on this we have heard only about affordable housing; we could not get the social housing element drawn out. Just to clarify, will social housing associations be exempt from the charge?
Christopher Pincher
Our proposal is that social housing be exempted from the levy. We are consulting on how to do it, but that is our proposal, so the Committee can see the flight trajectory that the Government are on. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Luton South, when she has an opportunity to make her views plain, will withdraw her amendment.
Shaun Bailey
I very much concur with the sentiment behind the amendment, as someone who is very passionate about social housing, as my right hon. Friend knows. Will he ensure that the consultation is as broad as possible, because social housing providers, as I am sure we all know, come in many different forms—it is a complex landscape? Can he reassure me that we will see the broadest possible consultation, to ensure that this works as effectively as possible?
Christopher Pincher
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We consult a wide variety of statutory stakeholders, but we do not include only the usual suspects in Government consultations, so it is possible for anybody to respond. We usually expect a wide variety of inputs, in order that we may reach a sensible conclusion. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Luton South will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Mr Efford, is it your wish that I should speak to clause 57 itself before we decide on the amendment?
Christopher Pincher
Then I shall do so.
Clause 57 introduces powers to create a levy on developers who seek regulatory permission to build certain high-rise residential buildings at the gateway 2 stage of the new building safety regime. This building safety levy will be used for the purposes of meeting the Government’s building safety expenditure, such as providing assistance for the purpose of removing unsafe cladding. Residential developers who construct new high-rise buildings will gain from the restoration of confidence in the housing market, so it is right that they should help fund the significant costs associated with fixing buildings when they are unsafe.
The Government have already set up a £1 billion safety fund, with grants to help leaseholders pay for the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding on their high-rise buildings. That is in addition to the £600 million for replacement of ACM cladding, bringing the total remediation funding to £1.6 billion. An additional £3.5 billion was announced in February 2021, so we are now providing over £5 billion, plus a waking watch fund, to support in-scope high-rise buildings to be remediated.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South, and I welcome the direction of travel, which demonstrates how this place can work most effectively for the good of the affordable housing sector as a whole.
On clause 57, the principle of the levy is most welcome. Campaigners up and down the country have been pushing for a levy—sometimes under the polluter pays principle. There is a history of failure and deregulation in the construction industry, and resident leaseholders are certainly not responsible for the mess. Then we get to some of the details. The principle of polluter pays is a good thing. Looking at the evidence from the Select Committee—we have colleagues present who are key members of that—the cost of remediation is estimated to be some £15 billion. The Minister referred to conversations with his good friends in the Treasury, who are referring to a levy of £2 billion—a fraction of that.
On the scope of the levy, I understand some of the practicalities of gateway 2, but to whom will that money be directed to provide support? Will it be by way of grants? I notice another reference in clause 57 to the provision of loans, but loans to who? The principle is good and we welcome a levy, but it is nowhere near sufficient to deal with the building safety scandal, which is exactly what it is. We urge the Minister to look again at the size and scope of that with his good friends in the Treasury. Of course, voices outside this place will continue over and over and get louder and louder until justice is done.
On other potential exclusions, looking at the Department—I am not on top of its new name, by the way, so excuse me—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Mike Amesbury
It just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? According to the Government’s own figures, 274 hospitals of 18 metres and above are in scope at the moment, as well as 10 care homes. For the hospitals, that will affect capital spending in other Departments. I am sure that we all have ambitions to get renewed hospital facilities in our constituencies via capital spending. Drawing on the previous amendment, I am sure that that is something that Ministers are strongly considering. Of course, the Opposition—or Members across the piece, actually—would urge them to look at those exclusions.
Shaun Bailey
I am really pleased to speak both to the clause and to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Luton South. As someone who probably would not be here were it not for social housing, I completely agree with the sentiment behind her amendment and with most, if not all, of what she said about the need to build more social housing, and in particular, her point about improving the quality of existing stock. I am sure that the biggest issue we both deal with is the quality of the existing stock in which people currently live. I do not disagree with the sentiment behind the amendment, which seeks to enable social housing providers to retain their limited resources—I am sure she would agree that they need more—to improve their stock.
I am heartened to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister about the positivity that appears to be coming from Her Majesty’s Treasury on this matter. It is fantastic to hear that those deliberations and conversations have been positive. I will probably not articulate it very well—apologies, this is a bit personal for me—but I am really pleased to hear that. It is important, and I was probably struggling with the issue a bit given my background and experiences. I am glad to hear that the Treasury have heard that point, and I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment.
The clause is the right move in respect of developers and the levy. As Dame Judith Hackitt pointed out, we will ultimately ensure that our system works and is financially robust. As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale pointed out in his contribution, the regulations will be the meat of the legislation. I note the exemptions listed. I listened with real interest to the point the hon. Gentleman made about hospitals and care homes. Many of us, across the piece, can have discussions about that and perhaps work on it. We have talked about unintended consequences all day, and what we do not want to see is any sort of inhibition of the Government’s agenda of building more hospitals, improving social care, and doing what we know needs to be done in our communities. The hon. Gentleman made an important point. I do not necessarily expect an answer from my right hon. Friend the Minister today; I appreciate that the conversations are ongoing, and I am sure he agrees that they are important.
We have heard some well-articulated speeches, and it is always a bit of a nightmare speaking after them because we tend to say what everyone else has said. To keep my comments as brief and to the point as possible, the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s amendment is absolutely spot on, and I am really heartened to hear the response from my right hon. Friend the Minister. The levy is right, but we will need to scrutinise the accompanying regulations, particularly on exemptions, which I will consider with interest. The principle underpinning clause 57 is right and has my wholehearted support.
Rachel Hopkins
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. On the basis of his assurances about the outcome of the consultation, the direction of travel that he indicated, and the fact that we will keep a close eye on the progress of that consultation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Health and Care Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 23rd September 2021
(3 years, 2 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 23 September 2021 - (23 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 84, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The NHS payment scheme must ensure that the price paid to any provider of services which is neither an NHS Trust nor an NHS Foundation Trust cannot be different from the price paid to an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust.”
This amendment ensures payment to private providers can only be made at tariff price to prevent competition for services based on price.
Amendment 100, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) NHS England must obtain the agreement of the Secretary of State before publishing the NHS payment scheme.”
This amendment ensures that the NHS payment scheme, which sets out the prices to be paid for NHS services, is approved by the Secretary of State.
That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr McCabe. You missed the start of an exciting debate about the NHS payment system; I am sure you are grateful not to miss the end of it.
The complexities of NHS funding are hardly mentioned in the Bill, and some hon. Members may think thank goodness for that, but I urge them to take a bit more account of clause 66—as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has said, it is a short one—because we are talking about over £100 billion of taxpayers’ money, rising to 40% of the Government’s annual spend. It is particularly important that we understand how and where that money is spent and to be assured that it is spent effectively and efficiently.
In large part because of the data collection journey that it has been on for some 20 or 30 years, we know that the NHS is the most efficient system we could have, as has been reviewed in numerous reports during that time. We have ways of looking at variations across the country and across a city such as my own, and that can only be a good thing. There are people—I am not suggesting there are any in this Committee Room—who think the NHS is a continuous money pit, is inefficient and could be operated better in another way, and part of understanding that argument is to understand the data and the way in which the money is spent, particularly the costings.
As I said in my earlier intervention on the Minister, about the process that has now been embarked on of producing a payment system, this clause is really important and really quite concerning. We have no idea when this payment system is going to be available.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Before the hon. Lady asks more questions, I may be able to reassure her by adding to what I said this morning as I have now discussed this further. I said “expeditiously”; I am willing to go further on the Floor of the Committee Room now and say that I would expect the scheme—I may be creating a hostage to fortune—to be published in the course of 2022. I hope that gives her a little reassurance; she will now hold me to that.
Karin Smyth
There is an army of accountants out there suddenly looking at their abacuses and speeding up the work they are doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North mentioned coding. The basis on which we know how much things cost—we can then compare things, look at efficiency and so on—is coding. We know there has been some up-coding over the years, but we also know that it took a large effort to train up and try to reward coders, who are often the lowest of admin staff, to recognise how important they are to the system.
Part of that was a drive for competition, payment by results in foundation trusts and so on, but it seems that that is all going to be swept aside by the Bill in the interests of co-operation—that is another word for collaboration, which is something we all support. I do think that running through this Bill is a problem of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the NHS really had no idea what things cost and what value they brought. We had no way of objectively understanding how scarce resources were being allocated. In a publicly funded system, that should worry us all, particularly as we in Parliament are the guardians of the public’s money.
We can argue about how much money will be saved by not having the current system. I am not sure that much money will be saved by abolishing the current system, although the Minister may be able to assure us about this point today. I gently advise the Minister and the Secretary of State to take a great deal of interest in this and consider how the NHS will produce such a system in 16 or 17 months at the maximum, as we have just heard. The data on which the system is predicated—the collection of that data, and the use of it to inform clinical and managerial practice—will continue, but, without the incentives around competition and price and the competing agenda of recovery and the management of large hospitals in particular, it will be quite a tall order.
The Secretary of State and the Minister might want to look at the issue in a bit more detail. The Minister outlined quite a complicated process about how we will get to this scheme and a lot of consultation. Although I am all for democracy, as we embark on our conference season the Minister might want to consider at some point why a scheme should go out to quite so much review and consultation by the providers in the system.
Perhaps I could say something here about how the issue affects our local system. When we start to iron it all out and see the impact assessment on the impact—classic NHS terminology—on our local communities, there will be, for want of a better phrase, a bun fight in all our local communities. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North outlined earlier, when we talk about payment by results it is, of course, acute sector trusts that are the major drivers. Mental health, learning disabilities, community services, and GP services are outwith some of that funding scheme.
Many providers then wanted to come on to the system because they felt that it was more rewarding financially and better for their bottom line. The fact that those services are outwith the scheme remains a problem. I can see why the Government want to change that, but it is not quite as simple as they might want to make out. My hon. Friend has talked much about whether we start competing on price, but now that we know that competition on price is not being permitted, that does throw out a lot of other issues, particularly those around the procurement system.
With regard to amendment 84, the Minister made reference to independent sector treatment centres and incentives for getting the private sector in under previous Governments. We can all banter about the politics of that, but the key task for the Labour Government was to incentivise and change practice in a monolithic system, to drive down waiting lists and times. The question that I leave hanging for the Minister is, given the movement to a new payment system, how will the patient voice, waiting times and waiting lists be managed and incentivised in a central block payment system, which is what I think we are looking at?
Furthermore, with regard to our amendment, the private sector, having no responsibility for education, training and the large crumbling estate, should be able to offer any kind of services at a lower price than the NHS by any logic of efficient running. Ensuring that it is not offered more is the very minimum that we should be demanding. Given that the private sector should have a lower-cost base than the public sector, perhaps it should offer a cheaper price.
Does the Minister have a view on whether paying by results will be anywhere in the new system? Are we to continue following the changes made during covid, by which I mean the block grant system, which allows for baseline costs, a bit of variation for the population, and perhaps some deduction for efficiency and top-ups for various programmes—a bit like the old days when we mysteriously drew down pots of money from the centre for various programmes across the country? What is the balance between that block funding, payment by results and programme funding? Will there be an assessment of the impact of this change, particularly on reducing lengths of stay, as a measure of efficiency in the system, or on reduced waiting times and waits for diagnostics?
It would be good to nail down a few of these key principles in the Bill. The Secretary of State should really approve any scheme and give Parliament a look in; we should understand, as local representatives, what the impact is on our local system and whether we are gaining or losing money, or whether this is just £100 billion-plus going into a central pot and then seeing what happens—that cannot be sustainable.
Private providers should certainly have no say in the rule-setting, as this is a public service; if it is not a market, it is not a market. We are going to be able to debate this only when we know what it is. Given that the Minister has given a big push to the abacuses across the country, with a deadline of somewhere in 2022, for a Bill that we are expecting to put into a new system for April 2022, this situation is not satisfactory for us as representatives. There must be some way—perhaps this will be debated when the Bill leaves this place—for us to understand the broad principles and criteria. We know that there is going to be guidance from NHS England, but if it is going out for consultation, re-consultation and re-consultation, then redrafting and at some point the Secretary of State is going to see it, at some point Parliament should have a say or have a look at that and we, as local representatives, should understand what the impact is on our local communities.
We should also understand what the impact is on the balance between the acute sector, and the community and primary sector—and mental health and learning disability services. Another real concern about the Bill, which I will keep referring back to, is the cartel between the acute trusts and this new integrated care board, and the cutting out now of GP primary care commissioners, and the rolling back on the aims of the primary care trusts to switch the movement of the NHS to be focused not just on the money and where the big money is being spent, but on the service for patients and the public.
The crucial point for the Government will be: how are they going to use the financial mechanisms that exist to recover the backlog and put the NHS back on an equal footing? We have been asked to pay more for the new part of social care as well. As we continue to ask our constituents, the taxpayers, to pay more for what is a good, efficient service that does use its money well—we know that and we want to keep knowing that—how are we going to be able to persuade them of that in the future if we have this amorphous block allocation of money and no incentive to keep focused on efficiency and, in particular, on data collection?
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure, once again, Mr McCabe, to serve under your chairmanship. I fear I may not persuade Opposition Members not to press amendment 100—but you never know, so I will try my luck. The hon. Lady made a number of points and I responded to one when she kindly took an intervention; the only caveat I should add is that that, as she has alluded to, is subject to the passage of this legislation. I would not wish to pre-judge the mood of this House. With that in mind, the aim would be to publish in 2022, in time for the start of the 2023-24 financial year, to allow those systems to do the work they need to do.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, asked, “Why use clause 37?” I think he was referring to the clause rather than me as being a “blunt instrument”—well, I will charitably assume that he was. The reason is simply that the setting up of the payment scheme is an operational issue, and in practice—I will turn in a moment to the strategic, broad points the hon. Lady made—we would not expect to intervene in the day-to-day running of the NHS as a matter of course. However, the hon. Lady is right to say that the payment scheme and the mechanism for payments is a powerful incentive to shape activity and how the NHS operates. I can reassure her, I hope, in one respect: I will certainly take a close interest, within the bounds of appropriateness, as will be set out in the Bill and the guidance underpinning it, in what the payment schemes look like. She is right in terms of the impact. She is also right—again, this could be career limiting; I hope the Whip does not note this down—to highlight some of the levers and mechanisms that the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, used in the early 2000s to make sure the money that he was investing in the NHS was driven through system and producing results.
The Chair
Mr Norris, before we go to the vote I want to give you an opportunity to respond, particularly on the amendments, so we can be clear about what you are up to.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I will give a quick indication, if that is okay, Mr McCabe. I take what the Minister has said about amendment 100, and I hope that he will continue to reflect on it. At many points, the Bill reserves specific powers to the Secretary of State, but if we do not need to do so, because the Government can just use clause 37, why on earth would we ever do that? I actually think this would be a very suitable place to do it, but on that basis, I will not press amendment 100. I would like to push amendment 84 to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10
The NHS payment scheme
Amendment proposed: 84, in schedule 10,page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The NHS payment scheme must ensure that the price paid to any provider of services which is neither an NHS Trust nor an NHS Foundation Trust cannot be different from the price paid to an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust.”—(Alex Norris.)
This amendment ensures payment to private providers can only be made at tariff price to prevent competition for services based on price.
Karin Smyth
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 67, page 60, line 15, at end insert—
“(1AA) The regulations must make provision—
(a) for anyone with a diagnosis of terminal illness to be offered a conversation about their holistic needs, wishes and preferences for the end of their life, including addressing support for their mental and physical health and wellbeing, financial and practical support, and support for their social relationships,
(b) that where that individual lacks capacity for such a conversation, it is offered to another relevant person, and
(c) that for the purposes of section 12ZB a relevant authority must have regard to the needs and preferences recorded in such conversations in making decisions about the procurement of services.”
This amendment ensures that the scope of the regulations as to patient choice includes those at the end of life.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Karin Smyth
I will not push my amendment to a vote, but I seek responses from the Minister. I want to highlight the issue that we touched on earlier, and I am grateful for his comments, about how end-of-life and palliative care are the responsibilities of these new bodies.
This particularly relates to coming out of the pandemic, but even before the pandemic we had numerous reports from the Royal College of Physicians, the Care Quality Commission, the health service ombudsman and Compassion in Dying about how people approaching the end of life do not feel supported to make the decisions they are faced with, are not always given an honest prognosis and do not know what options or choices they have. I think the issue of patient choice is very important in this clause, and I feel very strongly about it. I think this could generally be stronger in the Bill, but I will particularly highlight what is in my own amendment.
Amendment 93 would enable dying people to have conversations about what matters most to them, which is the first step to ensuring that they are at the centre of any decision making about their own care and treatment, and it starts the advance care planning process. I have been fortunate in that I have had three children, and I talked through my birth plans and my choices for the whole experience very carefully. It was presented to me as part of the process of giving birth. It does not always go well, as we know—we had a baby loss event today in Parliament, which many of us could not be part of.
The principle of choice at fundamental points in people’s lives as a patient is one we have embedded in the health service. Co-production of care for most incidents that we face is a fundamental part of clinical practice. Only at the point when people are most vulnerable, at the end of life, is the principle of advance care planning and co-production in their choices and prognosis something we are still not prepared to contemplate in the health service. It really is as basic as that. If I can make those choices about when I am giving birth, we should be able to make those choices when we are on the pathway of the end of our lives.
The evidence on advance care planning in order to support people on where and how they die is well made. This is about promoting earlier access to palliative care, communication, reducing conflict, helping families understand what is ahead and making the person less likely to have to go through rushed accident and emergency and distressing journeys into hospital. There is a need to start supporting advance care planning, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on where the Government now think they are on that.
A key part of this amendment is proposed new paragraph (c), on authorities and new ICBs having
“regard to the needs and preferences recorded in such conversations in making decisions about the procurement of services.”
The full value of advance care planning can be realised only when individual care preferences are reflected in actual treatment decisions. Again, that is about empowering patients, something that I hope Members from across the House support.
Alex Norris
This is an important clause and an important amendment. We have said on many occasions that we want a model that promotes collaboration, rather than competition, but in doing so it is important that we do not create 42 closed shops, where a patient has little agency over their care. That will not feel right for those individuals and it risks weakening a culture of the pursuit of excellence and the best standards of care. Therefore, enshrining choice for citizens actually becomes more important in a collaborative system, so it is right that this is being addressed.
The Minister might not have a reply immediately on this, but he might be able to work with one from his officials about reports overnight in Nottingham, where there is no choice now over someone’s cancer care and such care is being “rationed”—that was the word used—because of workforce shortages. That is exceptionally alarming and will lead to some dreadful outcomes for people in our city. I hope there could be a follow-up letter about what is being done to switch those services back on immediately.
Turning back to the Bill, it is right that NHS England would have the power to investigate cases and direct an ICB as to how to rectify failure. It is good that there is a provision whereby investigations can be averted by an undertaking from an ICB to rectify the failure directly; that feels like the right level to start at. I am keen to understand from the Minister how he expects a person to enter the system and enter into that mechanism. Are they likely to be expected to contact NHS England directly to trigger an investigation or will there be a local process at an ICB level first before escalation? It would seem reasonable that we should exhaust local options before escalating to the regulator. If that is so, what prescription will there be, perhaps in guidance, if not in the Bill, for the form that that takes, so that an ICB that is not engaging positively with an individual cannot act like a blocker to elevating that? Perhaps we could consider bringing in a trusted third party at a local level—for example, Healthwatch would very well placed.
We saw in written evidence concerns that the current plans might not go far enough. The National Community Hearing Association said in its evidence:
“Existing rights to patient choice do not go far enough and typically only apply to primary care and consultant-led services. Giving patients more choice and control over their care for non-consultant-led services, especially for long-term conditions such as adult hearing loss, results in better health outcomes and helps tackle health inequalities. We would ask the Committee to press the case for the regulations to be made under this power to expand a patient’s right to choice. Regulations can do this by enabling patients to choose an NHS community provider for their hearing care where clinically appropriate. Currently only 50% of NHS regions in England offer patients this choice, resulting in inequalities in access to care.”
I wonder whether the Minister has considered that and could perhaps give us his reflection on the matter.
Edward Argar
Before I turn to the substance of my contribution, let me say that I am not aware of the specifics of the issue that the hon. Member for Nottingham North raised, but if he writes to me, I will pass it on to my officials and see whether I can look into it for him.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol South for bringing this important discussion on end-of-life care before the Committee today through her amendment. Amendment 93 would add a provision to the regulation-making powers in relation to patient choice, requiring that any regulations made under the power must make provision so that anyone with a diagnosis of terminal illness is offered a conversation about their holistic needs and their wishes and preferences for the end of their life. This would include addressing support for their mental and physical health, wellbeing, financial and practical matters and social relationships.
Such regulations would require that, where that individual lacks capacity for such a conversation, it is offered to another relevant person, and that a relevant authority must have regard to the needs and preferences recorded in such conversations in making decisions about the procurement of services.
It is of course incredibly important that anyone at the end of their life, whether or not they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, has the opportunity to discuss their needs, wishes and preferences for their future care, so that they can be fully taken into account. There is already ongoing work across the health and care system to support this aim, including a commitment within the NHS long-term plan to provide more personalised care at the end of life. There is also a recently updated quality statement within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on advance care planning.
Furthermore, the ministerial oversight group, which was recently established following the CQC’s review of “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” decisions during the covid-19 pandemic, is also developing a set of universal principles for advance care planning to further support health and care professionals in having appropriate and timely discussions with individuals at the end of life. I hope that the reassurance that I was able to offer the hon. Member for Bristol South in our discussion on a previous clause did help.
At this moment, I will pause briefly to join the hon. Member for Nottingham North and others in paying tribute to the work of Marie Curie, which does amazing work day in, day out. Through its work on this, it has helped to raise, in the context of the Bill, the profile of this issue.
I should also say to the hon. Gentleman that I recall his work, when we were relatively new Members in this place, on the TUC’s Dying to Work campaign. I have considerable sympathy with the campaign, and I pay tribute to him for his work back in the days when I was a Back Bencher and able to engage more directly with campaigns. I also pay tribute to the TUC for its work in this area, because it is extremely important. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not stray into other Departments’ policy remits, but the issues that he was bringing to the fore were important ones and that continues to be the case, so it is right that I acknowledge his work.
We know that patient choice is a powerful tool for improving patients’ experience of care, and we intend to ensure that effective provisions to promote patient choice remain. I do not feel that it is appropriate for it to be written into primary legislation. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Bristol South said she does not intend to press the amendment, but she makes her point.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He mentioned the ministerial oversight group on advanced care planning. Would he be able to indicate when we will hear from that review—if not now, perhaps in writing?
Edward Argar
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to communicate that information to her.
We know how important patient choice is, and not just in terms of individual choice, although it is of course vital in that context, but also in helping drive the system to continuously improve. We take the view that it should be determined through regulations. We have chosen that approach to allow the legislation to be flexible and to reflect changing priorities and new policies in relation to patients’ rights to choice.
The shadow Minister raised the process and mechanism for complaints. The individual would in the first instance complain to the ICB, as the commissioner and main body providing and co-ordinating health services in their locality. If they are not satisfied with that, they could then escalate that complaint to NHS England. It is not straight to the top, as we all know through our casework. We recognise and advise our constituents to go through the complaints process, and only at the final stage does it reach Ministers and NHS England or ombudsmen or other national bodies. That would be our approach.
Regulations on patient choice have previously been made under section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Opposition Members will of course be deeply saddened that that section is being repealed by the Bill, including its procurement elements. In so doing, the Bill also revokes the regulations covering patient choice, so clause 67 ensures that patient’s rights to choice continue to be protected.
The clause adds similar powers, including those relating to guidance and enforcement of the standing rules, into the National Health Service Act 2006, and introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations on patient choice. The power to make guidance and enforcement of patient choice will be held by NHS England, following the planned merger with NHS Improvement, with the complaints process that I set out earlier. The clause will give NHS England powers, which NHS Improvement currently holds, to resolve any breaches of patient choice.
There is currently a wide range of choices that people should expect to be offered in the NHS services they use—for example, choosing a GP and GP practice and choosing where to go for your appointment as an outpatient—and the clause will allow for those and other aspects of patient choice to be preserved. The clause will make sure that, under the new model, bodies that arrange NHS services are required to protect, promote and facilitate the important right of patients to make choices about who provides those services.
We know that patient choice is an incredibly powerful tool for improving patients’ experiences of care. The clause will ensure that effective provisions to promote patient choice remain, will strengthen existing choice rights and will continue to make them a requirement of the decision-making bodies that commission healthcare services. Without the clause, patients’ right to choice would be removed along with section 75’s removal. NHS bodies would not be under duties to protect and promote patient choice. Clause 67 reinserts the right and inserts schedule 11.
Schedule 11 provides further details of the powers given to NHS England to resolve any breaches of the patient choice requirements imposed on an ICB. It requires NHS England to publish a procedure outlining how it will resolve failures of an integrated care board to comply with patient choice, and lays out the reporting and appeals process. It also allows NHS England to treat inaccurate, misleading or incorrect information from an ICB as failure to comply, which will, I hope, encourage the full and accurate engagement of an ICB in addressing a failure.
People should expect to be offered a wide range of choices, as I have alluded to, and the clause and schedule will allow for that. NHS England will be able to ensure that ICBs are required to protect, promote and facilitate that important and powerful right. We know how important that is for individuals and for driving the right behaviours in the system and to improving care.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting this issue with such importance. We know that patient choice is vital when a person gets to those end-of-life stages and has a terminal illness. Could I request that consideration is also given to timeliness around choice-making? For some people, particularly those suffering with motor neurone disease, their disease can move quite swiftly, so timeliness in those conversations is important. I would be grateful if consideration could be given to that, and I am heartened by what I hear from the Minister.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about timeliness, both from the system, in initiating those conversations, and as something that all of us need to pay heed to as individuals. Before the pandemic and before she stood down at the 2019 election, I held an event in my constituency with the former right hon. Member for Loughborough, Baroness Morgan of Cotes, about thinking and making choices early and preparing ourselves for getting older—things like preparing a will and powers of attorney. All too often, for very understandable psychological reasons, many of us do not want to think about such things, because they are an intimation of mortality. However, it is important that as individuals and as a system and a society we think and plan early, because it can make such a huge difference to the quality of our older years or the end-of-life period.
Therefore, if I may, Mr McCabe, I commend clause 67 and schedule 11 to the Committee.
Karin Smyth
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 68
Procurement relations
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 68, page 61, line 32, leave out “health care services” and insert “services required”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 99, in clause 68, page 61, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulations must provide that no contract for the provision of the services specified in subsection (1)(a) and subsection (1)(b) may be awarded other than to a relevant authority unless a formal competitive tendering process provided for by the regulations has been followed.”
Amendment 96, in clause 68, page 62, line 1, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must—
(a) include the power for integrated care boards to continue to commission the services provided by an NHS trust or Foundation Trust without any requirement for any re-tendering process,
(b) require that, prior to commencing any formal procurement process for a service provided by an NHS provider, where the contract value exceeds a threshold set by the relevant integrated care partnership, the integrated care board must conduct a public consultation and publish the business case for opening the service to a competitive tender process,
(c) require an assessment to be made of alternative ways of providing a service using NHS providers before a contract with a non-NHS provider may be extended or renewed,
(d) be based on the assumption that the NHS is the preferred provider of services, and
(e) require providers to pay staff in line with NHS rates of pay and to provide terms and conditions of employment at least equivalent to NHS terms and conditions.
(3B) NHS England must publish a report each year on the proportion of contracts subject to the regulations which are awarded to each of NHS, third sector, local authority and independent sector providers.
(3C) NHS England and each integrated care board must publish a plan every three years on reducing the provision of NHS services by private providers and increasing the capacity of NHS providers to provide those services.
(3D) Integrated care boards must publish, in full and without any recourse to commercial confidentiality, all—
(a) bids received for contracts,
(b) contracts signed, and
(c) reports of routine contract management.”
New clause 12—NHS as the preferred provider of NHS contracts—
“(1) The NHS is the preferred provider of NHS contracts.
(2) NHS contracts must be provided by NHS suppliers unless the NHS supplier is unable to fulfil the terms of that contract.
(3) Where the NHS is unable to fulfil the terms of a contract, a competitive tender must be held to identify an alternative provider.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) ‘alternative provider’ means private companies and independent sector treatment centres, and
(b) general practice and GP-led community services are NHS suppliers.”
This new clause would establish NHS suppliers of services as the preferred providers of NHS contracts. Independent sector providers could hold NHS contracts after winning a competitive tender.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr McCabe. We have arrived back at the start: the need to end the bureaucratic, expensive and ultimately corrosive requirement for compulsory competitive tendering for health services, which led the drive from NHS England and its former chief executive to first ignore the Lansley Act and ultimately push for its repeal. It turned out that trying to implement the requirements of that Act gave rise to all the problems the Opposition foresaw a decade ago.
Has the Minister seen any impact assessment of the benefits to the NHS of removing the requirements? Is he able to give us a total amount of the cost to the NHS of this folly over the past decade? Is he able to quantify exactly how much public money has been spent on lawyers and consultants going through all the hoops that were laid down by Lansley? I am not just talking about the extra work in putting the contracts out to tender in the first place, never mind the millions that will have been spent on defending and justifying decisions taken from disappointed bidders, which is a big part of it as well. Let us not forget that, as a result of that legislation, we had the obscene spectacle of the NHS being sued by Virgin Care. That certainly was not one of the benefits trailed by the Government of the time back in 2012.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for a fantastically thorough, comprehensive and damming indictment on everything that has come before and for some warnings about what may face us. I rise because I do not want to let the moment go without saying goodbye to section 75. It is what brought me into Parliament, having worked collaboratively in the local system at that time developing clinical commissioning. There was broad agreement before the 2010 election on the direction of travel, which was completely upturned by the coalition Government and the fault lies at the doors of both parties.
The destruction is a warning, though. I am looking around the room, Mr McCabe; I think that nobody on this Bill Committee was a Member of Parliament at that time, apart from your good self. I may be wrong about that, but it might be the case. What I experienced working in that service was the horror that Parliament could produce something that had been so widely warned about and that would be so disastrous. There was not a single ounce of support beyond the political agreement that the coalition formed at that time, which got them into this terrible position, even with the pause, that could not be rowed back. That is something that has helped me as a parliamentarian: what we do here—how we are sometimes invited to vote by the Whips, the scrutiny we give to legislation and the judgment we have to use as individuals—is really important.
Every time we go into the voting Lobby or review legislation, we should all give serious thought to the processes in this place—I understand them now, but did not then—that led to that terrible legislation being passed. We should find better ways to climb off the perch when something has gone as far, and as disastrously, as that legislation did.
There is debate about political interference or accountability—whatever we call it—when it comes to the NHS; as I have said before, the huge amounts of money that parts of the public sector now consume means we should operationalise quite a lot of that. We have heard a lot of that from the Minister over the course of this Bill.
Ultimately, what we have been asked to do is get rid of something we can all agree to get rid of. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, we have little idea of what will replace it, and crucially—the theme we keep coming back to: how are the patient and public voice empowered in the new system and how is the local external scrutiny and accountability in the new system? Again, I refer the Minister to my helpful amendment about a good governance commission.
However, the situation does not bode well because, as the pandemic has shown us, when backs are against the wall contracts can be put forward, friends and family can be added to major bodies, and organisations that play by the rules and go through due process can be completely marginalised. That has tainted the Government and all of us as politicians, and we need to get away from it.
Finally, the disaster of the reforms—the Lansley Act—was not only about the public waste, time and opportunity devoted to them; the warnings about pandemics were there at the same time, in 2010 and 2011 reports. The system was not developed and not focused on to how to prepare for the pandemic that we have now endured. That is the cost of management time and focus that was put into this sort of outsourcing, regulations and procurement, and trying to understand them. It was not focused on patient outcomes as they presented or on futureproofing the system. That is why we were not prepared.
We can all dance on the grave of the Lansley reforms today, with this Bill, which is a good thing. However, I am afraid that there is deep concern about what follows. Those reforms should be a lesson to all of us about the consequences of the very grave decisions that we make in this place.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I have listened with great interest to the points made by the hon. Lady and by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, but I do not recognise my NHS as being a sort of binary choice between public and private sectors.
During the pandemic, we have seen the incredible work across sectors; I am glad that the shadow Minister mentioned the voluntary and community sector, and charities, because that sector has largely been left out of people’s comments. Possibly it was convenient to leave it out because it shows that the breadth of the NHS family is more than the NHS itself; it is very much about everybody working together. For me, that is what integrated care is all about. I welcome the mention of the voluntary and community sector.
When we look at NHS procurement, we also need to focus on prevention as well as on clinical treatments because the wording of new clause 12 seems to focus very much on clinical treatments. We all agree, I think, that the purpose of integrated care is to have a big focus on the prevention piece, and the NHS family must surely include the third sector and private sector providers that are specialists in that area. For me, there is no conflict.
Edward Argar
I welcome the sentiments underpinning some of Opposition Members’ comments about our changes to section 75. I am nothing if not prepared to listen and be pragmatic, and I am glad that they at least welcome that aspect of the Bill.
I will address directly a number of Opposition Members’ points. My right hon. Friend—I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, but it is surely only a matter of time before she is right honourable—was absolutely right about the NHS family being wider than the NHS itself. All these organisations are involved; to be fair to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, he mentioned the voluntary sector and particular organisations that have done amazing work in the past year and a half. In fact, they do that work every year, and day in and day out, working hand in hand with the NHS. I put on the record my appreciation of the independent sector providers for what they have done during this pandemic to support the pandemic response.
The shadow Minister asked a very specific question about what activity had been undertaken, what money had been spent and what assessments had been made, including of value for money. I do not know whether I have written to him already, but a number of colleagues from across the House have written to me and I have set out, in broad terms, the number of patient episodes that have been provided by the independent sector. If he would like me to write to him in a similar vein, I am very happy to do so; my officials have heard that commitment and I will adhere to it. Regarding the broader point that he made about value for money, cost and how money has been spent, those details will be published later in the year in the usual way, when the accounts for the last year have been audited. They will be published; I make that commitment to him.
The shadow Minister raised a number of other specific issues and I will address one head-on before addressing the substance of the amendments. Essentially, he said that the NHS should be deemed the preferred provider by default almost, citing the words of Dr Chaand Nagpaul. Dr Nagpaul and I have our differences of opinion, shall I say, but he is an eminent clinician and performs a very important role, and I put on the record my respect for him and for the principles that he articulates on many occasions.
I believe that the key defining feature should be what delivers the best outcomes for patients, rather than simply having a default presumption. Now, that may well regularly be, as Dr Nagpaul asserted, the NHS. However, I think we should start from the presumption of what delivers the best services and the best outcomes for patients.
The shadow Minister asked—I think he asked this, but if it was the hon. Member for Bristol South I hope she can forgive me—what regime would apply to the Department. My understanding is that that would continue to be the Public Contract Regulations 2015 in the context of the Department itself. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston suggested that in the next couple of years we would do the next reorganisation; I can reassure him that I am not necessarily sticking to the new Labour playbook of 1999, 2001, 2003—doing something almost every two years.
The hon. Gentleman’s broader point was about the involvement of private sector providers. He will be aware of this, because he knows his NHS and health history, but one of the key points came in 2004—the first time the then Government opened up clinical services to tendering by the private sector, in that case for out-of-hours services. Again, “any qualified provider” dates back to 2009, under the title “any willing provider”, as it then was. It was exactly the same scheme, and all that happened in 2012 was that the name was changed from “any willing” to “any qualified” provider; the scheme was brought in under the Government led by Prime Minister Brown.
Governments of all complexions have amended and changed the clinical regime to recognise that there is a role, as there always has been, for private and voluntary sector providers and, of course, for the NHS at the heart of it. None of that puts at risk a taxpayer-funded NHS that is free at the point of delivery. For the record, I reassure the hon. Gentleman, as he would expect me to, that in the context of trade deals the NHS is not for sale: it never has been, and it never will be.
Turning to the detail of the amendments, amendment 95 would change the scope of the regulation-making powers in this clause. Currently, these will govern the procurement of healthcare services for the purposes of the health service; this amendment would broaden the provision so that it extends to all services required by the health service.
The NHS procures many services, but has specifically asked us to introduce a new, tailored provider selection regime that would replace section 75 and enable it to arrange healthcare services in a more flexible manner and one that fosters integration and collaboration. The NHS has told us that the current competition and procurement rules, particularly the PCR 2015 rules, are not well suited to the way healthcare is arranged in the context of the services the NHS provides. They create barriers to integrating care, disrupt the development of stable collaborations and can cause protracted processes with wasteful legal and administration costs, while adding little value to patients or the taxpayer.
Regarding the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I am afraid the individual costs over the years since 2012 would have been borne at a local systems level, so I suspect that they are not agglomerated together in a national figure. However, I understand his reasons for asking.
When NHS England consulted on the new provider selection regime earlier this year, it suggested specific key criteria to be used in decision making under the regime, tailored towards the effective arrangement and delivery of healthcare services. The proposed criteria include integration and collaboration, and that services should protect patient choice and focus on tackling inequalities. Having a power to introduce procurement measures specifically for healthcare services will enable procurement decisions to focus on such tailored criteria, and to create a regime that works best for the health service.
However, it is right that non-healthcare services—cleaning services, administrative services and others—should, and will, still fall under the PCR 2015 and, in future, the new Cabinet Office procurement regime, which is currently being considered. This will ensure that these services are still arranged in a way that continues to add the best value to the healthcare system.
We know there may be cases in which it is essential that a service is procured as part of a healthcare service contract—I think that was one of the hon. Gentleman’s points. It is for this reason that we have included the ability for regulations made under this power to include provision in relation to mixed procurements, where other goods and services are procured together with healthcare services.
We are working closely with the Cabinet Office and with stakeholders across the health service to ensure that the regulation of mixed procurements of healthcare and other services works effectively for the appropriate arrangement of healthcare services and for the arrangement of wider public services, with respect to their distinct characteristics. Should the hon. Gentleman wish to write to me and ask me to forward his letter to the Cabinet Office to ensure it is cognisant of his views, I am happy to do that.
Amendments 96 and 99 and new clause 12 in effect make statutory NHS providers and general practitioners the preferred provider of NHS-funded services, but our intention is not quite as rigid as what the hon. Gentleman would wish. As I have said, the vast majority of NHS care has and will continue to be provided by public sector organisations, but successive Governments of all political affiliations have allowed the NHS to commission services from the private and voluntary sector, to improve accessibility and experience for patients, to increase capacity swiftly or to introduce innovation.
It is the strong view not just of this Government but of the NHS that local commissioners are the best people to determine what services a local population needs. The best interests of patients, the taxpayer and the population, rather than dogma or ideology, should guide those decisions, and that is what this Bill aims to deliver. I know that the hon. Gentleman is certainly not dogmatic—he may be ideological, but he is certainly not dogmatic—so I hope he appreciates the sentiment behind that statement.
Amendment 99 would mean that a contract for the provision of healthcare services could not be awarded to a body other than a relevant body as defined in the clause unless a full formal competitive tendering process had been followed. This requirement would need to be set out in the regulations made under proposed new section 12ZB.
Amendment 96 would require that regulations include the power for ICBs to commission services provided by an NHS trust or foundation trust without retendering. Regulations would also need to require an ICB to conduct a public consultation and publish a business case where it wished to put out to competitive tender a service currently provided by an NHS provider for contracts over an agreed value. They would also need to require an assessment to be made of alternative ways of providing a service using NHS providers before a contract with a non-NHS provider were extended or renewed. It would require any procurement regulations to be based on the assumption that the NHS is the preferred provider. Regulations would also need to add a requirement on providers to pay and provide terms and conditions of employment to their staff that are at least in line with those of the NHS.
In addition, the amendment would require NHS England to publish a report on the proportion of contracts subject to the regulations made under the new power that are awarded to different types of providers, and would require both NHS England and ICBs to publish a plan for reducing private providers’ provision and increasing the capacity of NHS providers to provide those services. As the shadow Minister set out, it would require ICBs to publish in full bids received for contracts, contracts signed and reports of contract management.
By way of context, the NHS has told us that the current competition and procurement rules are not well suited to the way healthcare is arranged. That is why we are creating a new provider selection regime that provides greater flexibility, reduces bureaucracy on commissioners and providers alike, and reduces the need for competitive tendering where it adds limited or no value. I fear that the amendments would start reimposing a degree of that bureaucracy. The absence of competitive tender processes does not mean an absence of open, transparent and robust decision making. Our proposed new regime is designed to allow transparency, scrutiny and due diligence in decision making, but without all the barriers and limitations associated with running full tender exercises.
NHS England has laid out a series of reasons in its public consultation why competitive tendering may not be suitable in every case. We do recognise the value of competition in particular cases, but this is about introducing an element of greater flexibility, rather than rigidity. NHS England has proposed that, having considered a set of key criteria, the decision-making body may have reasonable grounds for choosing either to continue with the incumbent provider where it is doing a good job and the service is not changing, or alternatively, where the service is changing, of selecting one provider or group of providers or of course holding a competitive tendering process.
Structuring the new provider selection regime around such criteria will ensure that the factors taken into account by commissioners are those relevant to the health service, while still retaining flexibility in the types of provider from which commissioners can commission. Amendment 99 would mean that these regulations go further than the existing rules under the PCR 2015. Those regulations allow for an exception to competitive tendering where competition is absent for technical reasons, but this provision would not allow for that, nor for an exception in relation to a procurement for an extremely urgent case.
Transparency was a keen concern of the hon. Gentleman. Regulations and statutory guidance made under new clause 68 will set out rules to ensure transparency and scrutiny of decisions to award healthcare contracts under the new provider selection regime. The regulation-making powers specifically allow for the imposition of requirements for the purposes of ensuring transparency and fairness in arranging services, which will allow us to design a regime to ensure open, transparent and robust decision-making, including requiring decision-making bodies to keep records of the rationale for their decisions.
We do not consider it necessary to publish all bids received for contracts or the detailed content of all contracts. Doing so would have the potential to prejudice the commercial interests of the parties involved, including NHS commissioners and providers as well as those bidding.
We consider these amendments to be unnecessary. Indeed, we fear that they might actively undermine what the NHS is telling us it needs from the private selection regime to secure high-quality, safe and good-value services. Therefore, I hope that I might tempt the hon. Members not to press their amendment to a vote. I have a feeling, though, that we might face a Division on it in the near future.
Let me move briefly to the clause 68 stand part debate. The clause inserts a new section, 12ZB, into the National Health Service Act 2006.
Edward Argar
In that case, I nudge the Opposition to consider withdrawing their amendment, but I may be unsuccessful.
Justin Madders
I picked up some interesting points. There was, I think, some common ground with the Minister about the mistakes of the past. From the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South, I think we have found one positive aspect of section 75, which is that it brought her to this place. At last, there is something positive to say, because we do not mourn its passing. As she said, at the time, not a single ounce of support existed for those rules outside of the coalition Government, but we will not go over all the old ground again.
In his response, the Minister talked about the “any qualified provider” regime that was introduced in 2009. My understanding is that, had we been successful at the 2010 election, we would have moved to “a preferred provider”, but, of course, when we look at the commitments made in 2010, we can forget David Cameron’s promise not to reorganise the NHS. We will see whether the Minister’s promises in respect of that are as robust.
The Minister says that what matters is the best outcome for patients, and we absolutely agree with that. We think that the best outcome for patients will be stability and a regime in which the NHS is the preferred provider, because all the evidence points to better outcomes for patients.
I am grateful to the Minister for not characterising me as dogmatic, because I do not wish to be. I wish to be pragmatic. The idea of putting into the Bill some requirements about what we expect from the regulations is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but until we see those regulations, we cannot be sure about what they will include. By supporting the amendment, what we hope to include is a base position that injects a degree of transparency, which is what has been lacking over the past 18 months, and the Bill clearly fails to refer to any particular issues in that regard. Our view is that the purpose of this Bill should be to reinforce the NHS—to bolster it—by using a preferred provider, which is why we wish to put our amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
I will be brief because we covered key aspects of clause 68 in debates on the amendments. The clause inserts proposed new section 12ZB into the NHS Act 2006. Section 12ZB allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the regulatory framework for the procurement of healthcare services, to better meet the needs of the NHS.
Section 12ZB provides further information about the content of those regulations. They may contain provision in relation to the objectives of procurement, and they may contain provisions ensuring transparency, fairness and effective management of conflicts of interest, as well as provision for the purpose of verifying compliance with the regime. The new section also allows for NHS England to publish guidance about compliance with the new procurement requirements to which relevant authorities, as defined in the section, must have regard.
The NHS has sent us a clear message that the current regime for arranging healthcare services is not working. It is confusing, overly bureaucratic and does not fully support the integration and efficient arrangement of services and collaboration in the best interest of patients, which, of course, run through the Bill like a golden thread. Through the clause, we will develop a new provider selection regime for the NHS and public health—a bespoke NHS regime that will give the NHS and local government more discretion over how they arrange healthcare services. Informed by the consultation run by NHS England earlier this year, it will aim to enable collaboration and collective decision-making—recognising that competition is not the only way of driving service improvement. It will aim to reduce bureaucracy on commissioners and providers alike, and to remove the need for competitive tendering where it adds limited or no value.
We recognise that in many cases competition can be beneficial for procurement. Where a competitive tender is the best way for an NHS commissioning body to secure value and quality in its healthcare provision, it will be used. However, it will no longer be the default that contracts in the NHS are automatically put out to tender. All decisions about provider selection will continue to be made in an open and transparent way, considering key criteria and applying them to decision making, in the best interests of patients and the taxpayer. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I will not repeat all my comments from earlier, to save the Committee’s time. I have two remaining specific questions, which I hope the Minister can address. The clause says that regulations “may” be produced. Can he state for the record that there will be regulations? Can he also give us some indication of when they are likely to be made and when they are likely to take effect?
Edward Argar
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that “may” is the technical language used in drafting such legislation, but we intend that they will be made. I am afraid I will disappoint him on the second part of his question, because I would not presume to say exactly when; that will be down to the passage of this legislation and then the usual wait and the discussions through the usual channels on securing an appropriate slot for the regulations. I hope I have given the hon. Gentleman a modicum of reassurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Procurement and patient choice: consequential amendments etc
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 97, in clause 69, page 62, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) In the National Health Service Act 2006, in section 272(6), after paragraph (za), insert the following paragraph—
‘(zaa) regulations under section 12ZB,’”.
This amendment would require a draft of procurement regulations under new section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act (inserted by clause 68) to be laid before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
I will not detain the Committee long on this amendment. Following on neatly from our previous discussion, it requires that the regulations, which I am now assured will be produced, are subject to a resolution of approval by both Houses. I do enjoy spending time in Delegated Legislation Committees with the Minister, and I hope we will be able to do that again as a result of this amendment’s being accepted.
Edward Argar
I am, as ever, grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The amendment would require a draft of procurement regulations under new section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act to be laid before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament. As set out in our delegated powers memorandum, the powers created by clause 68 amend the NHS Act 2006. In line with the vast majority of regulations made under that Act, these powers will be subject to the negative procedure in section 272(4) of that Act.
As demonstrated by the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, there is significant parliamentary interest, both in this House and the other place, in the rules for determining how healthcare services are arranged. However, it is vital that we strike the right balance between democratic scrutiny and operational flexibility. The negative procedure provides that balance, ensuring transparency and scrutiny, while also providing sufficient flexibility to ensure that the regulations continue to drive high-quality services and value for money.
We have consulted extensively on the proposals for these regulations to ensure that we are delivering the flexibility, transparency and integrated approach that the NHS has asked for. The engagement exercise undertaken in early 2019 collected views from across the health sector, and the proposals put forward by NHS England around procurement gained widespread support, with 79% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposals.
Earlier this year NHS England consulted on further detail of the proposed regime that should apply when healthcare services are arranged in future, following removal of the current requirements. NHS England received a range of responses from NHS national and representative bodies. In addition to written feedback, it met NHS colleagues and external stakeholders. We have been and continue to be as transparent as possible in our approach to these proposals. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman amendment’s is unnecessary.
Justin Madders
In the light of the Minister’s comments, 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
I will be very brief. The clause will remove the specific healthcare procurement rules that currently apply to NHS commissioners when arranging clinical healthcare services. Specifically, it will repeal sections 75 to 78 and schedule 9 to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and revoke the National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No.2) Regulations 2013. It also makes other minor, consequential amendments in relation to these changes and the introduction of the power to make a new provider selection regime for procurement of healthcare services under clause 68.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 71 and 72 stand part.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 73 stand part.
Edward Argar
I will try to be as brief as I can, while giving the Committee the information it wishes to have.
This package of measures is aimed at promoting collaboration in the NHS, reflecting a shift towards integration between commissioners, providers and other partners as a way of improving the healthcare people receive. Clause 70 allows for the removal of Monitor and the Competition and Markets Authority’s duties to co-operate in the exercise of their functions as concurrent competition regulators. Instead, they are replaced with a duty on NHS England to share regulatory information with, and provide assistance to, the CMA where the CMA requires it to exercise its functions.
Clause 71 removes the Competition and Markets Authority’s role in reviewing mergers solely involving NHS foundation trusts, NHS trusts or a combination of both. The CMA has led a number of investigations into NHS provider mergers or acquisitions in recent years. Although it has approved all but one merger, the investigations have been costly and time-consuming for the organisations involved.
We recognise the CMA’s important role in investigating alleged infringements of competition law and particular markets if it sees issues for consumers with reducing competition. However, as has been alluded to, the NHS is not a true market, and it has become clear that the CMA is not the right body to review NHS mergers. Instead, NHS England will continue to review all NHS provider mergers to ensure they have clear benefits for patients and the taxpayer. The CMA will retain its merger control powers in relation to the private healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, where competition plays a greater role. The NHS should be able to make decisions about provider mergers itself. Without this clause, NHS provider mergers will still be subject to costly, time-consuming investigations.
Building on the experience of the last few years, the Bill will clarify the central role of collaboration in driving performance and quality in the system. As part of that, under clause 72, we are looking to remove Monitor’s role as a concurrent competition regulator. However, although we are removing Monitor’s competition regulation functions, it is right that NHS England should continue to share regulatory information with and provide assistance to the CMA so that the CMA can carry out its functions. The clause will ensure that the CMA has the information and assistance it needs to do that in respect of its competition functions to prevent anti-competitive behaviour in the wider sector. That will ensure that the CMA can continue to make sure that the healthcare sector works for consumers, patients and the taxpayer.
The clause removes Monitor’s competition functions, which it exercises concurrently with the CMA. It also inserts schedule 12, which makes consequential amendments in relation to the removal of Monitor’s competition functions. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 allowed Monitor to exercise some of the functions that the CMA holds under the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002, but solely in relation to the provision of healthcare services in England. Those included powers to take action on anti-competitive agreements and conduct in the sector and powers in relation to mergers in the sector.
The Bill will enhance collaboration between different NHS commissioners, providers and local authorities. We therefore expect that NHS England’s primary role, following its merger with Monitor, will be to support commissioners and providers to deliver safe, effective and efficient care, rather than to act as an economic or competition regulator.
While competition will continue to play an important role, including through patient choice and the new provider selection regime, it is right that the duties and role of the merged NHS England give greater weight to fostering collaboration and integration rather than enforcing competition, and that competition regulation is left to the CMA. The concurrent competition duties and functions of Monitor should therefore be removed. Schedule 12, inserted by clause 72, makes the necessary consequential amendments to take account of the removal of Monitor’s competition functions. The clause allows NHS England to work collaboratively with organisations to deliver the best possible services to patients.
Finally, clause 73 removes the CMA’s role in reviewing contested licence conditions. The licence conditions have not changed substantially since they were first agreed in 2013. However, NHS England and NHS Improvement’s oversight of the NHS has changed significantly. Their primary role is to support the delivery of safe, efficient and effective care. The merged NHS England, as provided for under this Bill, should be able to set its own licence conditions for providers and regulate providers of NHS services without needing to refer matters to an external competition regulator such as the CMA.
NHS England will remain under duties to consult with local organisations on revised licence conditions. That, alongside the removal of the CMA’s review functions, ensures that any decisions remain in the interests of the NHS as a whole. In addition, NHS England’s accountability arrangements to the Secretary of State and Parliament offer a further safeguard against disproportionate changes to licence conditions. Sufficient safeguards, such as those that I have mentioned, ensure that providers have input into any proposed changes, without the need for oversight from a third party.
We therefore believe that these measures deliver the changes that the NHS has been asking for to help it deliver the long-term plan and recover from the pandemic. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee long, but perhaps we need a minute to pause, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said on Tuesday, this marks the end of an era. Monitor is gone, competition is no more, and procurement is gone—I think—and become bespoke, to be determined in more detail in the regulations. Perhaps even more stark is the fact that ICBs now have providers on the board, having jettisoned the GPs, and that NHS England is now both an actual commissioner and a systems manager for both commissioners and providers. It feels like we are going back to the future.
As the Minister said, these clauses end the role of the Competition and Markets Authority. This is the final nail; it is perhaps the final recognition that the wild promises made about the 2012 Act have failed to achieve what they said they would. The expectations that Lansley set out back then have failed to produce any desirable results. I do not know whether Government Members wish to shed a tear at this point for the end of these measures, but, for Opposition Members, health is not a commodity; it is a right. Health is not a product, and the NHS is not—and never can be—a market.
As we see the end of the ideological attempt to create a market, Opposition Members cheer the bidding into history of this failed experiment, which should never have occurred. Turning to the actual substance of the clauses, as the Minister set out, they do what is necessary to achieve that aim.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 71 and 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Special Health Authorities: removal of 3 year limit
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clauses 74, 75 and 76 repeal the three-year time limit on special health authorities, restate the requirements for special health authorities and NHS trusts to keep proper accounts and records, and repeal the powers of the Secretary of State to make a property or staff transfer scheme.
Together, along with the provisions in the Bill to merge NHS England and NHS Improvement and the powers we will discuss in part 3 of the Bill in a few weeks’ time, these technical changes will help ensure that we have flexibility in the arm’s length body landscape to support the delivery of a world-class healthcare system.
Clause 74 repeals legislative provisions that currently impose a three-year time limit on any newly established special health authority. When the three-year time limit was initially imposed under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it was envisaged that any future special health authority would have time-limited functions and therefore be temporary in nature. This has not proved to be the case.
The NHS Counter Fraud Authority is the only special health authority created since the time limit was introduced. The Government consider it unnecessary for the NHS Counter Fraud Authority, or any other special health authorities that are established in future, to undergo the process of extending their lifespan every three years. As well as repealing the time limit, the clause sets out changes to the statutory instrument used to create the NHS Counter Fraud Authority, to reflect the fact that there is no longer an abolition date.
Clause 75 simply tidies up provisions in the current legislation in respect of requirements to keep accounts. It restates the requirements for special health authorities and NHS trusts to keep proper accounts and records. It also restates a number of requirements in relation to the auditing and publication of accounts. This clause does not create any change in existing arrangements.
Finally, clause 76 abolishes powers taken in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to transfer property, rights and liabilities from bodies abolished or modified by that Act. Those powers are now spent, so we are removing the clause to ensure neatness of the statute book, especially as a number of bodies in the 2012 Act are being abolished by this Bill. However, we have retained the ability to make transfer schemes in respect of previously transferred property and rights.
The Bill allows property, rights and liabilities that have been transferred previously under section 300(1), to subsequently be transferred to a Minister of the Crown, NHS England, an integrated care board, an NHS trust or foundation trust, or a qualifying company. That will ensure clarity that rights, property and liabilities are properly allocated and maintained, and not lost to the NHS.
These technical changes will support the wider intentions of the Bill to have a flexible and responsive national architecture for managing the healthcare system. I therefore propose that these clauses stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee for long. We are enjoying the Minister’s conversion as regards the folly of the 2012 Act, this being another example of things not turning out as originally envisaged. As he said, these clauses are necessary and we will not oppose them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 75 and 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Abolition of Local Education and Training Boards
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 77 is a relatively short clause, which seeks the abolition of local education and training boards—these committees of Health Education England will, by the provisions of the clause, be abolished. In consequence, as set out in the legislation, we amend the Care Act 2014 to reflect this abolition. This is a substantive provision, but it is of a technical nature, to reflect the evolution of the provider landscape. I propose to make no further comments at this stage, but I suspect the shadow Minister may wish me to respond.
Justin Madders
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. We would more accurately describe this as a reflection of the reality on the ground, and how local education and training boards have not really been the vehicle for change that they might have been. Their original rationale was to
“build a system that is responsive to the needs of employers, the public and the service at local level.”
It seems odd that this is happening, given that the thrust of the rest of the Bill is to increase local autonomy, but I understand that the regional people boards will be taking up the majority of the slack. It raises the question of how exactly the undoubted variation in recruitment and training needs within ICBs and regions will be addressed, and how ICBs will interact. I would like to hear from the Minister about that. There is also a concern from the British Medical Association that this could mean the loss of dedicated local support systems for GP trainees, and there is some need for clarity on how that function will be met.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister is right in surmising that once LETBs are abolished, their functions will be discharged by HEE directly in the manner he has set out. On his specific questions, HEE will continue to have responsibility for workforce planning and will engage with regional people boards, integrated care boards and the regional directorates of NHS England to carry out this function. Those responsibilities will be set out in a report that we will publish describing the system for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service in England, as debated in relation to clause 33—to which we may yet return, either on the Floor of the House or in the other place.
We are not removing local or regional workforce planning from the statute, as the hon. Gentleman suggested; HEE will continue to have responsibility for that workforce planning. The LETBs were sub-committees of HEE and reported to the HEE board in any case, so clause 77 just removes some of the rigidity in respect of how HEE had to operate. As is the theme throughout this legislation, this clause seeks to give a greater degree of flexibility and permissiveness to allow the system to adapt to changing needs. On that basis, I ask that it stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
Hospital patients with care and support needs: repeals etc
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 98, page 68, line 22, at end insert—
“(2A) A social care needs assessment must be carried out by the relevant local authority before a patient is discharged from hospital or within 2 weeks of the date of discharge.
(2B) Each integrated care board must agree with all relevant local authorities the process to apply for social care needs assessment in hospital or after discharge, including reporting on any failures to complete required assessments within the required time and any remedies or penalties that would apply in such cases.
(2C) Each integrated care board must ensure that—
(a) arrangements made for the discharge of any patient without a relevant social care assessment are made with due regard to the care needs and welfare of the patient, and
(b) the additional costs borne by a local authority in caring for a patient whilst carrying out social care needs assessments after a patient has been discharged are met in full.
(2D) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the effectiveness of assessment of social care needs after hospital discharge, including a figure of how many patients are readmitted within 28 days.”
Clause 78 is the final clause of part 1, but it is an important one, and we hope that the amendment improves it. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views. This all relates to discharge to assess, where patients are discharged from hospital into the community setting and have their care needs assessed at home, or wherever they have gone from hospital, rather than waiting to be discharged from hospital and having to stay there longer than they clinically need to before the assessment takes place. Importantly, this is something that has been trialled during the pandemic. There is a lot of vulnerability at that point, and this process will matter to a lot of people. It is right that we give it proper consideration, and I think we ought to tighten it up.
I will confess that I have gone back and forth on the principle of discharge to assess, and I have had this conversation with colleagues in recent months. When the Bill was published, my first instinct on this clause, as former local authority social care lead, was a negative one. I felt—I still have this lingering doubt—that there was a real risk of patients essentially being parked in the community to the detriment of their health, with the obligation and cost put on local authorities. Of course, in many cases, some of that will be borne by continued healthcare funding. However, in the end that will become a local authority responsibility for each individual, and there will be a significant risk of them being readmitted shortly afterwards.
Local authorities are already scandalously underfunded to meet the social care needs of their population. Adding some of the most vulnerable people to that list and to the quantum of need that needs to be met will add greater risk, so I have serious reservations. This is not a conceptual debate, and that makes life easier; we have evidence to work with. Through no one’s planning, we have essentially run a de facto pilot scheme during the pandemic, so we know of what we talk. We have a sense of what is going on on the ground, and clause 78 will put it on a permanent footing.
On matters relating to local government, I always fall back on my former colleagues in local government. Their views on this are very clear, and I have had this conversation with them a lot. It always ends up with me saying, “Are you sure?” However, we should not miss their evidence. They say:
“The repeal of legislation related to delayed discharges is good news. This paves the way for the continuation of discharge arrangements which have worked well during the pandemic. The emerging evidence is that going home straight from hospital is what people want.”
I can certainly understand that. They also want greater clarity on the future of this de facto pilot from next month, in the interregnum between when the Bill becomes law and when the funding runs out next month. That is a very reasonable request, and I hope the Minister can respond. The strength of feeling from local government colleagues—our experts by experience—cannot be ignored, and that is why we are seeking to improve rather than prevent this innovation. It does need improving.
Important concerns were raised in the written evidence from Carers UK, which says:
“Under the CC (Delayed Discharges, etc.) Act 2003 a carer’s assessment can be requested and if so, a decision must be made about what services need to be provided to the carer, whether by social services or a consideration by the NHS, to ensure that the ‘patient is safe to discharge’.”
That will be repealed by clause 78. However, they will still be able to fall back on the Care Act 2014, so the carer will get a carer’s assessment under that if they wish. Presumably, that will now take place post-discharge. That is quite a significant change. A great deal of people will become family carers overnight. They might not be conscious that that will happen, but before anybody has made any assessment of their capability to do so, they will quickly find themselves operating as family carers for very vulnerable people immediately post discharge. By the time they get the carer’s assessment, they may well have been struggling to cope for a significant period of time. That could have some dreadful consequences, which is why amendment 98 states that there must be an assessment within two weeks. Obviously, we would want it much more quickly than that, but two weeks is a bare minimum backstop.
I do not think that this is catastrophising. According to research that Carers UK submitted, 26% of carers had not been consulted about discharge before the discharge of the person they care for, and a third were consulted only at the last minute. I do not think that is setting families up to succeed. If the Minister thinks that that will get better as a result of these innovations, we would welcome that, but I would like to understand why he thinks that might be the case and how the situation will look better. Carers UK recommends putting greater responsibility on the integrated care board to have oversight of how discharge to assess is working for the individuals in their care and across their footprint more generally. That is what we have sought to recommend with amendment 98.
The concerns of Carers UK are echoed by the British Association of Social Workers, and social workers, like family carers, have first-hand experience of the trial. The association worries about there being a move away from the fundamental point that the wellbeing principle is uppermost, and its evidence is concerning:
“A survey of Social Workers conducted in December 2020 involved in hospital discharges highlighted that the vital contribution of social work in the multidisciplinary team was being marginalised by the medicalisation of people’s journeys out of hospital. Most importantly, social workers felt that the voice of the individual was lost”.
It is quite significant to say not only that skilled staff would not be able to play their normal role in the process but that the individual’s voice would not be there.
The worst manifestation of the provisions in the clause would be for it to be in the system’s interest to move people out of hospital, because that would then be the priority. We need to make sure that that is not the case. The British Association of Social Workers would rather that the clause was not in the Bill at all, but we have not gone that far and have sought to improve it by putting a maximum two-week wait time in the Bill. That would be prudent. The amendment would also centre the integrated care board in the management and oversight of the process. If the integrated care board is to act as a system leader and integrator, surely such a system process—this is the ultimate system process—that touches on the borders between institutions ought to be within its purview. Otherwise, where will the oversight come from? Who will hold the different parts of the system to account?
I hope that the Minister addresses the concerns I have expressed, because this is an important and, in the plainest-speaking sense, risky decision. There are ways to mitigate that and we have suggested a good one in the amendment. I am keen to hear the Minister reflect on that.
Karin Smyth
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. We discussed this when the Bill hit the Vote Office, because from a system management point of view I saw this change as a positive move. It was necessary in the system to increase the flow out of hospitals, particularly in the pandemic.
We talk about flows out of hospitals, but we are really talking about individuals—our nearest and dearest. During the summer, my husband and I were both responsible for supporting my mother and my mother-in-law in and out of the system, and my mother-in-law was part of the discharge to assess programme. This is not the place for me to rehearse the traumas of becoming, as my hon. Friend so eloquently put it, a family carer overnight and realising, if I did not know already, how little there is outside hospital. My hon. Friend’s point about families suddenly becoming responsible carers overnight is really important. Thousands and thousands of families are finding themselves in that position. Most people would agree about discharging people out of hospital as soon as possible, particularly given the fear of covid and people not being able to go into hospital to see their loved ones. In my mother’s case, she was discharged very quickly, and we went to get her because there was no ambulance service.
The closure of hospitals to visitors adds to the trauma of an acute episode, and people then have to take on that responsibly. People are assessed for care and told in the same sentence, “You’re assessed for care, but there is no care,” and that care takes several weeks to come into play. Among my own family and my in-laws, we have a clinical person in the team, we are fairly articulate, we are knowledgeable about the system and we perhaps know what we are taking on and have the capacity and capability to manage the situation, but it is deeply worrying that people who have no advocate or no other support—even social workers—are told when they are discharged that they need assessed care but there is none. It will take some time for us to understand what has happened to thousands of people who have found themselves in such a difficult position. I am particularly worried about people who have no advocate.
I suspect that the Minister will not accept the suggestions in the amendment now, but I hope he will take advice so that we can understand better—perhaps through an assessment—what has happened to people who have been discharged in the last few months without having support in place. We need to hear about that.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham North and the hon. Member for Bristol South. I knew that the hon. Member for Nottingham North and I had a shared background in local government, but I did not realise that it may have covered the same portfolio. I share his view on two points in particular. First, we have had the opportunity, of necessity, during the pandemic to see how the approach might work in practice. My instinctive reaction is that I can see how it works from the perspective of the system and the health service but, with my old council hat on, I would say, “How does it work from our perspective?” What we have seen throughout the pandemic has not been without its challenges, but it has broadly worked.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am always happy to speak to my local councillors, who will not hold back in telling me what they think is working and what is not. However, I do think that this is the right approach when implemented properly. We know that if people stay in hospital longer than is medically necessary, it affects not only the system but individuals’ physical and mental health. It is therefore right that we get people home or to an appropriate interim place where they can be cared for and continue their rehabilitation in the right setting.
The amendment would introduce a new requirement for local authorities to carry out social needs assessments either before a patient has left hospital or within two weeks of discharge. Integrated care boards would have to agree the process with local authorities, including any penalties when local authorities fail to assess people within two weeks. It would also introduce a requirement for an annual report to be produced
“on the effectiveness of assessment of social care needs”
post discharge. As I hope I alluded to in my opening remarks, I entirely appreciate the intention of the amendment—all patients must receive the care that they need on being discharged—and understand where the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are coming from, but I am not sure that it is the best way to advance that objective.
Existing discharge guidance states that health and social care systems must determine the most appropriate discharge pathway for each person to ensure that they receive the interim care and support they need, pending full assessment. Legislation already requires the NHS to meet people’s health needs, and local authorities must still assess and meet people’s adult social care needs. We are co-producing new statutory guidance on how the existing statutory duty for health and social care partners to co-operate will apply in relation to discharge. By way of reassurance, where local areas follow the discharge to assess model, unpaid carers are still entitled to a carer’s assessment where they are not able to care or need help. A carer’s assessment should be undertaken before caring responsibilities begin for a new caring duty or if there are increased care needs.
As all colleagues who have been involved in local government or the NHS will know, the devil is in the implementation rather than the detail in this case. We must ensure that the system works. The entitlement is there, and we must ensure that that pulls through into practical realities. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the discharge guidance also states:
“Before discharge a determination must be made about the status and views of any carers who provide care, including that they are willing and able to do so.”
Evidence broadly suggests that when long-term needs assessments are carried out at the point of optimum recovery, that leads to a more accurate evaluation of needs and more appropriate care packages. Many people discharged from hospital require longer than two weeks to recover; we fear that requiring social care needs assessments to be completed within two weeks of discharge would create an extra layer of bureaucracy. In practical terms, it would not necessarily function in people’s best interests.
Our extensive engagement with health and social care partners has highlighted how current bureaucratic discharge requirements, including penalties for local authorities, can damage relationships and create discharge delays, and they do not support collaborative working across sectors. We fear that creating a new penalty for local authorities for failing to carry out assessments would again risk creating a tension within the system, which would go against the spirit of the integrated working that the Bill seeks to support and the good co-operation that I would argue normally and generally occurs. Our existing clause creates freedom for local areas to develop discharge arrangements that best meet their local needs.
I fully appreciate the need for accountability, which is why we are working with NHS England to publish hospital discharge data from 2022 onwards that will include data on the destination and discharge pathways being used to support people after they leave hospital.
For those reasons, I gently encourage the hon. Gentleman to consider not pressing his amendment to a Division.
Alex Norris
I am happy to say that I will consider that request; obviously, I have heard what the Minister has said. I was slightly heartened to hear the point about guidance. I suspect that if we do not see something exactly like what I propose in the amendment, we will see something very similar to it being put in the guidance.
However, we do not have that guidance at this point, which leaves us with two alternatives: either we press the amendment to a Division or we do not. If we do not, we will not be opposing the stand part debate, which means that we might create the impression that we have waved through something that we are concerned is too loosely defined. For that reason, we have to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
I will endeavour to be relatively brisk; I think that we have covered some of the issues pertaining to the clause in our discussion of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.
The clause repeals legislative barriers to the discharge to assess model, in order to better align legislation with current best practice. During the pandemic, local authorities and the NHS developed innovative ways to support better discharge from hospital to community care. The clause is crucial in enabling local areas to build on those partnerships to adopt the discharge approach that best meets local needs, including the discharge to assess model.
The clause will enable the safe and timely discharge of people to a familiar environment where possible. Individuals receive recovery and re-enablement support, and are assessed at the point of optimum recovery. This will enable a more accurate evaluation of their long-term care and support needs. The provision does not change existing legal obligations on NHS bodies to meet their local population’s health needs, and local authorities are still required to assess and meet people’s needs for adult social care.
In addition to those responsibilities, we are co-producing discharge guidance with health and social care partners, setting out how the existing statutory duty in the NHS Act 2006, which requires health and social care partners to co-operate, will apply to discharge. Our guidance will be clear that no one should fall through the gaps so that people receive the right care in the right place at the right time. Discharge to assess will not change the thresholds of eligibility for continuing healthcare—CHC—or support through the Care Act 2014. The clause includes consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation. Those are needed to remove references to pieces of legislation that we are repealing with clause 78 and to tidy up the statute book.
Alex Norris
I shall not duplicate anything I said in the previous debate. I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said. We accept that hospital is a bad place for a sick person to be once their initial ailment is dealt with. They do not want to be around all sorts of illnesses when they are susceptible.
I want to make a final point on rehabilitation and re-ablement, as the Minister called it. That is at its most valuable as early as possible. Getting a person into their rehab and exercises rather than just being parked in an armchair is a big part of someone’s bouncing back from physical injury, and it helps with mental health as well. It is not desirable for them to wait a long time for an assessment because that will be a part of how they bounce back, rebuild their lives, and re-able and rehabilitate themselves. That strengthens rather than weakens the case for trying to be very tight about how quickly we want that to happen.
Edward Argar
I concur with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. It is absolutely right not only to have the right model in place but that that model moves swiftly and effectively to provide the services required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Violence against Christians: Central African Countries
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when not speaking, in line with Government guidelines and those of the House of Commons Commission.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of violence against Christians in central African countries.
This issue concerns us greatly. I applied for this debate with the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and others. We have a deep personal interest in the violence against Christians in particular across the world. Those who intend to speak and intervene understand that the issue is close to our hearts. I declare an interest: I am chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on international freedom of religion or belief and on the Pakistani minorities.
In the Chamber today there is a selection of right hon. and hon. Members who also have deep interest in these issues. I am very pleased to see a goodly turnout, especially as it is the last day before we go home. I often call this the graveyard slot because it is the end of the time before recess. It is important that we are all here to discuss this issue.
Across vast and growing swathes of the globe, Christians are no longer free to peacefully practise their faith. For many, threats of abduction, sexual violence and even killing have become a daily reality, and entire communities live under a constant and pressing fear. We hear the stories; I know others will tell them, and I find them quite hard to deal with. They involve my brothers and sisters in the Lord, so they are close to my heart. Those are things I feel deeply, which is why this debate is so important.
In its 2021 report, the charity Open Doors estimated that just in the 50 countries in the world watch list, 309 million Christians face very high or extreme levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith—an increase of a fifth in just one year. It is not getting better; it is actually getting worse. That is the issue.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the charity Open Doors. Does he agree that its work is absolutely vital in continuing to shine a light on the situation that many Christians around the world face? It must be commended for that.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I thank her for that intervention, because her words are salient to this debate and underline the issue.
Events in sub-Saharan Africa have accounted for much of that persecution and discrimination. There has been a significant increase in the number of violent attacks against Christians perpetrated by Islamic extremists. In Niger, Mali, the Central African Republic, Sudan and Nigeria—I will focus on Nigeria, as others probably will—the situation has become increasingly worrying. Many of us in this House—everyone who is here today—try to highlight the shocking and rapidly deteriorating situation in Nigeria, where the number of Christians killed last year rose by 60% on the year before. That illustrates the issue that the hon. Lady referred to. Open Doors states that things are getting worse, not better, because the number of people being murdered because of their faith has increased greatly. The stories of what is happening on the ground are horrifying. More Christians are being killed in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world. That is worrying for us all.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Sudan recently abolished the death penalty for apostacy—a step forward in the region, which I hope we will see in more countries in the near future. Although there has been resistance to such huge changes, it has been considerably less in recent years. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts about how tolerance of religion can be built upon?
Jim Shannon
Over the last few days, the hon. Lady and I seem to have followed each other in each debate. I thank her for coming along and for her intervention. The APPG that I am very privileged to chair speaks up for those with Christian faith, those with other faiths and those with no faith. That is what we try to promote. It is about tolerance and understanding people of other faiths, but it is also about accepting other faiths and people of different religious viewpoints. That is something that we all need to take on board.
The hon. Lady referred to Sudan. There have certainly been some stories in the press recently about an attempted coup that was thwarted. I welcome the steps that Sudan took, but what they have done needs to be replicated elsewhere in the region.
Violence is increasingly bleeding—and I use the word intentionally—over the borders into an already destabilised central Africa. This region, in the shadow of its more powerful neighbours, has all too often been overlooked, both by—I say it respectfully—the UK Parliament and by the wider international community. We must not let the displacement and killing of hundreds of thousands of Christians go almost unchallenged by parliamentarians. That is why we are having this debate, and I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for it.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Nigeria, and I wanted to raise the plight of people there, which is extreme. This week, speaking to some of the agencies that work there, I heard that it is now commonplace for gunmen to go into schools, abduct young children—particularly those who have Christian beliefs—and hold them captive. Given that the Bring Back Our Girls campaign had such cross-party support, does he think that we should be doing more in this House? We could ask the Minister to think about what more we could do to bring back those children.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I remember the abduction of the children. I think of Leah Sharibu. She is still missing—a young Christian girl who had never converted and was therefore kidnapped and imprisoned. Her mum, Rebecca, would love to see her back. A day does not pass that I do not pray for the return of Leah Sharibu back to her mum. Perhaps the Minister could give some indication—this is one of the questions that I wanted to ask, so I thank the hon. Lady for it—of what we can do in conjunction with the Nigerian Government to ensure that young boys and girls are not abducted from school.
Some countries in central Africa are in the unenviable position of being among the poorest in the world. I understand those issues: poverty often becomes violence, because there are people prepared to take advantage of it. Several of these states have spent much of the past decade trapped in violent conflict, governed by people who exert little or no control over vast swathes of their countries.
Increasingly, Islamic groups such as Boko Haram and Islamic State’s west African arm are expanding their terrorist campaigns against Christians eastwards, even into areas that have in the past been considered peaceful. Analysts warn that the region’s widespread poverty greatly increases the risk of the radicalisation—Islamist or otherwise—of these youthful and rapidly expanding populations. The region is an example of the fact that it is not only minority religious and belief groups that face persecution for their peacefully held beliefs; those belonging to dominant faith groups can also become the victims.
To return to the matter raised by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire, more than 95% of people living in the Democratic Republic of Congo are Christian, yet Open Doors warns of soaring violence against Christians in that country, with DRC rising 17 places up the charity’s world watch list this year. That is the one league table that one does not want to rise up—one wants to be at the bottom of it. The Christian population in the DRC and their churches are said to be at huge risk of violence in the east of the country, where the Islamic extremist rebel group that calls itself the Allied Democratic Forces operates—its name itself is wrong.
Violence has left more than 1 million people internally displaced and has seen countless Christians become the victims of killings, kidnappings, forced labour and torture. Christian men are forcibly recruited into militia groups, while women often face rape and sexual slavery. It causes me great angst to recall that my brothers and sisters are subjected to this. Sometimes we become desensitised to the horror of rape and sexual slavery until we hear a story such as that of the young woman raped at the age of 13, passed on to be married to bring her into a “true faith”, according to her abductor, or passed on to be used—these are the words used by her family—as a pair of shoes to be tried on by whoever wants to try them on. These are not simply words: words are the way in which we try to explain such experiences, experiences that children suffer through, and while words in this Chamber cannot change those experiences, perhaps they can lead to change that will prevent them from happening again. That is what I would like to see.
Over the northern border lies the Central African Republic, which has been occupied by various armed militia groups since 2013. Many of those militias specifically target Christians, leading to mass displacement of people. There was a shocking surge in sectarian violence in the run-up to parliamentary and presidential elections last December, which led to a further 120,000 people fleeing home. Armed groups are responsible for the vast majority of human rights violations being perpetrated in the Central African Republic, including violating people’s right to freedom of religion or belief. Those groups continue to operate across the country without any restraint whatever, so we need a concerted plan by the Governments of all these countries for how we can help Christians in these areas, but also a plan from our Government and our Minister, to whom we look for support and leadership. I am quite sure that that will be forthcoming.
Margaret Ferrier
Lockdown saw an increase in domestic violence rates across the world, even here in the UK, but for vulnerable Christian women in central African countries, the danger has intensified, with increased reports of kidnappings and forced marriages—a devastating removal of any autonomy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there need to be aid efforts focused specifically on women and girls?
Jim Shannon
I absolutely agree. I know that the Government intend to address the issue of violence against women and children, and if domestic abuse has risen in this country throughout the coronavirus pandemic, that is even more the case in countries such as the Central African Republic, Nigeria, Niger, Mali and Sudan.
Christian converts in the Central African Republic are ostracised by their local community and even face persecution from their immediate family members, who often force them to renounce their Christian faith through violence. They are not just asked to renounce their Christian faith: they are physically abused to make it happen. Christian leaders who have publicly denounced the violence have been threatened, and churches have been repeatedly attacked, ransacked and burned down.
Across Nigeria, there has been a significant number of attacks on church buildings and others. Aid to the Church in Need has said that displaced people are sheltering in monasteries and mission stations, where priests and religious leaders risk their own lives to try to protect others from persecution. I commend all the aid charities that are helping out, including Open Doors—to which the shadow spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire, referred—and many others such as Release International, the Barnabas Fund, and Aid to the Church in Need.
It is important to stress that Muslims and other faith groups also suffer greatly as a result of this violence, and in some regions are even the primary victims. A significant percentage of the Central African Republic’s minority Muslim population has also fled across the borders: more than a quarter of a million refugees have fled to neighbouring Cameroon, for example. The problem starts in the Central African Republic, but it rapidly spreads, and Cameroon now becomes part of it. Cameroon itself faces an increased threat from Boko Haram, which is active in the north of the country, killing and kidnapping Christians for their faith with remarkable ease.
Security injunctions in the region have set heavy restrictions on churches that have already seen much of their congregations flee. Female converts from Islam are often forced into marriage with non-Christians there, and Christian women are threatened with abduction by Boko Haram. Religious leaders in the anglophone regions, some of whom are accused of supporting separatists, repeatedly accuse security forces of burning churches and desecrating religious spaces.
I believe there are actions to be taken; there are questions to be asked, and answers to be given by some of those security forces, who seem to be using their positions to enforce those illegal and criminal activities against Christians—all this despite Cameroon’s constitution, which prohibits religious harassment and guarantees freedom of religion and worship. That is a question for Cameroon to answer.
The international community must work to end the culture of impunity surrounding such attacks. People in the region have grown weary of the near-continuous conflict and the lack of law and order. They often have no trust in the institutions that claim to govern them. Those failing states then become the breeding grounds for further radicalisation.
I implore my Minister and my Government to provide support to the region’s Governments to fully investigate reports of kidnapping, violence and killings, and to bring those responsible to justice. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) referred to the groups already there. The non-governmental organisations, Christian churches and charities, those who stand up for persecuted Christians and those involved in human rights issues are all there, and they would be able to provide an evidential base that would fully justify actions taken against those responsible.
Those administering UK aid in the region face stark choices. In central Africa, we see the intersection of great need, staggering volumes of people displaced by violence and severe cuts to official development assistance. My position on aid—like that of many others in this Chamber, I suspect—is clear: we did not want to see the aid being cut, because we felt it would have a detrimental effect on those who need it most, but none the less we need to make that point very clearly.
Dr Cameron
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the aid budget should not have been cut at this critical time, but, given that it has, does he agree that it is important that it is channelled towards those most in need, and that much of the aid money could be focused not only on ensuring equality of access to education for young girls and those with disabilities as well as boys, but on community safety, particularly supporting Governments to ensure community safety and equality for minority groups?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is right. If the money is going to be cut, and it is, the question is how we perhaps use it more wisely. She is correct to say that we must face the reality of where we are, so how do we use that money better and ensure that that happens? Again, when the Minister has a chance to reply, perhaps she can tell us what can be done to ensure that that happens.
It is also important to understand the great diversity of experiences in the region. According to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the Central African Republic had almost no previous history at all of sectarian violence prior to 2012, when fighting broke out between the Bozizé Government and the Séléka rebel alliance. It was during the ensuing violence that human rights began to be violated on such a vast scale, and the Christian population then became targets.
It is important to remember that these conflicts are neither perpetual nor inevitable. Despite having been a target of many attacks, for example, Chad’s diverse religious communities are said to remain relatively free of significant conflict, both between groups and from extremist movements. As the Lake Chad region is under significant threat from Islamic terrorist groups, we should look to further our support for countries’ efforts to maintain peace. Where a country is trying hard and hopefully succeeding in containing the violence, what are we doing to ensure that that violence does not boil over into adjoining countries and have an impact on them?
The Lake Chad regional stabilisation facility, which the UK—our Government and our Minister—currently helps to fund is a great example of how the UK can help to strengthen community security, provide basic services and support livelihoods in the region. Perhaps that example of proactivity ties in with what the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow referred to. If we can do it there, we can do it elsewhere. Do Her Majesty’s Government support similar programmes elsewhere in the region? We should embrace this depth of experience and champion much of Chad’s cross-border efforts.
The scale of religious-based violence in central Africa is truly overwhelming, but I am greatly encouraged by the commitment of Her Majesty’s Government to making international freedom of religion or belief a priority for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Government as a whole. We are thankful for that and want to welcome it. In accepting all 22 of the Bishop of Truro’s thorough recommendations from his independent review of the persecution of Christians across the globe, the UK Government—our Government—have demonstrated commitment to becoming a world leader in defending our values on the global stage.
The hon. Member for Congleton will refer to next year’s conference and how we MPs will check that the bishop’s recommendations are all delivered. We have set a target and I look forward to hearing the hon. Lady refer to that. Ahead of that independent review next year, I urge the UK Government to encourage our allies to carry out their own evaluations of their practices in defending freedom of religion or belief, both at home and abroad. The staggering scale of the displacement caused by religious-based violence in the region speaks to the urgency of the intervention needed now to halt the rapidly rising persecution of Christians—and, indeed, people of all faith groups—in central Africa.
Other global powers may have closer ties to parts of the region than the United Kingdom. What are other countries doing to help? We need to develop a partnership or team effort. We cannot afford to take a back seat on this issue. As aid groups have warned, extremism thrives on such conflict. As we watch the horror of the violence in central Africa, we recognise that the longer the international community continues to turn a blind eye to the suffering in the region, the greater the risk that the millions of refugees will never be able to return safely home. Many wish to, but they need the security, knowledge and confidence to do so.
In conclusion, I am thankful for the steps that the Government take to work in partnership with the NGOs and the Churches to provide support. I understand that there is not an unlimited supply of funding, but we are surely able to do more and do better. That is what I seek today. We recognise that the Government have a project and strategy for Chad, which they are helping to fund; perhaps we can emulate that in all the other countries concerned as well.
We talk a lot about what needs to be done, but we must also follow that with action. As the hon. Member for Congleton knows, I always have a scriptural quotation for these debates because it is important that people recognise that we as Christians are speaking up for Christians in other parts of the world—we are speaking up for our brothers and sisters who, unlike us, do not have the liberty to go to church and cannot socialise spiritually. They have not the right to prayer, their churches are burned and they are attacked. They do not have the job opportunities, education or healthcare because they happen to be Christians. Then they are directly targeted by Islamic terrorists and other groups, and sometimes by Government.
I love this verse, from 1 John 3:18, which reminds us:
“let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.”
The issue is quite simple. It is time to make sure that we are walking the walk—taking action and not just speaking words. That is my final word. I look forward to what the Minister and other Members have to say. We are looking for positive action.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak as vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. I thank our chairman, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) not only for securing this debate and for an excellent, passionate speech but for his enduring commitment to freedom of religion or belief.
I, too, want to focus on Nigeria. There are multiple drivers of the deeply concerning and increasing causes of violence there, including issues that are specific to a local area’s history, politics and ethno-linguistic make-up, and resource competition. However, we must call out the reality that, today, is this: extremist Islamist ideology is the key driver of violence across Nigeria. The victims are Christians, Muslims and those of other faiths or of no faith at all. I visited Nigeria in 2016 and took the then head of the Christian Association of Nigeria to meet UK Department for International Development representatives to convey to them that the root of so much violence then was religious tensions. As the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I am mandated to lead on the full implementation of the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro’s 2019 review by July 2022. That review describes perpetrators of atrocities in Nigeria as “militant Fulani Islamist herdsmen” and concludes:
“Fulani attacks have repeatedly demonstrated a clear intent to target Christians, and potent symbols of Christian identity.”
In June 2020, the all-party parliamentary group published its report, “Nigeria: Unfolding Genocide?” That two-year in-depth inquiry described in detail violations of freedom of religion or belief. The report was taken extremely seriously by the US State Department. I have been told that it contributed to the US designating Nigeria as a country of particular concern. I know from meetings that I held earlier this year, from elected parliamentarians in Nigeria, from a governor there and from NGOs how much that report was appreciated by them in Nigeria. It is cited it as shining a light on the grievous violations of FORB in that country.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing out the point about ideology because that was the question that was forming in my mind after the speech of the hon. Member for Strangford as to what was driving this. My particular interest is in the report and the impact that she describes. Could she elaborate on whether anything is said about the impact of this terrible state of affairs on children?
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend raises a very pertinent point. The impact of this violence on the young and the upcoming generation is acute. Indeed, a recent UNICEF report stated that 1 million Nigerian children are missing school due to mass kidnappings. Their parents are now too frightened to send them to school. The knock-on effects of that on their loss of education and their ability to earn a livelihood are acute.
I welcome the new Minister to her post. I have had the pleasure of working with her and seeing how effectively she worked in her previous role. When she responds to this debate, I hope that she will agree to meet me, the hon. Member for Strangford and other officers of the APPG about our 2020 report and subsequent concerns. Since that report, those concerns have been exacerbated and are even more pressing. Dr Obadiah Mailafia, a former Nigerian presidential candidate and former deputy governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, who provided oral and written submissions to our all-party parliamentary group inquiry, sadly died on 19 September 2021 after allegedly receiving poor treatment. In a speech that he delivered just a few days before he died, at a symposium entitled “The role of the Church in nation-building”, Dr Mailafia had warned that the country was
“certainly exhibiting the features of a failing state in terms of the kind of violence we are seeing, widespread insecurity, terrorism, the abuse of humanity, criminality, rape, killing, maiming and destruction. We are a failing state.”
He goes on:
“Rival groups control territory. Boko Haram is in control over half of Niger State and if they successfully take over Niger, Abuja will be a walkover. Government cannot provide security for the people. Nowhere is safe in the country. The forests have been taken over by foreign invaders. The economy is collapsing. There is the collapse of the institution. Police, university’s standards are low. Corruption has taken over in the country.”
On 4 August 2021, Intersociety-Nigeria released figures compiled from documented cases of violence that are deeply disturbing. The statistics reveal that in the past 12 years, 43,000 Christians have been killed by Islamist Fulani militia, 18,500 have disappeared—many, I have no doubt, also killed—and 17,500 churches have been attacked. Ten million people uprooted in the north, 6 million forced to flee, 4 million displaced and 2,000 Christian schools have been lost. Within that timeframe, 29,000 Muslims were also killed. The report states that moderate Muslims are targeted for several reasons,
“as collateral mistakes or punishment for those collaborating with the ‘unbelievers’ or in revenge for state actor attacks against their targets, or for purpose of enforcement”
of extreme interpretations of Islamic sharia law.
Earlier this year, I read a well-evidenced report on the impact of covid from testimonies on the ground in Plateau state and Kaduna state. I will pass details of that well-evidenced, authoritative and lengthy report onto the Minister. I quote briefly from it:
“In Nigeria, the attacks on Christian villages during the pandemic were religiously motivated. Local politicians are perceived to deploy security forces and distribute aid along ethno-religious lines. Participants reported”—
that is, participants of the research for the report—
“that soldiers appear indifferent to their communities and fail to pre-empt or repel attacks.
In Nigeria, the lack of protection and security for Christian villages in Kaduna and Plateau exacerbates the impact of covid-19.”
It goes on to say:
“The loss of access to schooling for children is universal, across all the groups. It is exacerbated in Nigeria by the attacks on Christian villages, where schools and churches have been burnt down, and teachers have fled.”
Looking at the Christians, even in their facial outlook, the research team talks of them being
“emotionally broken, psychologically demoralised”.
They were
“representing anxiety of an ambiguous future caused by the loss of husbands, children, wives, relatives and their sources of livelihood.”
Christian men in Plateau state spoke of attacks, which in Kujeni took place during Sunday mass. They felt the response from the Government was inadequate and that the attacks were religiously motivated, as they targeted Christian villages, not neighbouring Muslim villages. One said:
“Yes, yes because I know this has everything to do with my faith, why burning my church, why burning my church?”
The critical deficit of governance is evident in the lack of security services provided by the state.
This morning, I had the privilege of speaking with an individual who has direct knowledge of what is happening in Nigeria now. He is an authority on the issue. I want to quote his words. They are lengthy. Just a few hours ago, he told me this:
“The violence is getting worse by the day. It is affecting the whole country. ISWAP”—
that is, Islamic State West Africa—
“has taken over the command of Boko Haram and have joined forces with the Fulani militants. The Governor of Niger State has declared that Boko Haram and ISWAP have planted a flag just 2 hours from Abuja. Just 2 weeks ago they have new headquarters set up in Southern Kaduna. With the developments in Afghanistan they have become emboldened. If Nigeria collapses it’s a fragile area surrounding it—there is an impending implosion—Chad, Niger, Cameroon, Mali, Ghana, Central African Republic.
In the NWest there is Muslim on Muslim violence—Sokoto, Kebbi and Katsina. The Governor of Katsina has said that people doing the violence are Muslims, Fulani and some foreigners. People cannot send their children to school for fear of violence and abductions. No reasonable parent can send their child to school…People dare not farm their land. The situation of Christians is pathetic.
Recently, a bus carrying Muslims was attacked, and there was anger across the country. This does not happen when Christians die.
Muslims are dying at the hands of fellow Muslims, however, the attacks are incessantly on the Christian communities, whilst the federal government remains silent.”
He continued:
“If only the British Government would regularly call out this violence against Christians, and ask the Nigerian Government to do something.”
I asked him what he wanted the Nigerian Government to do. He said:
“I want them to guarantee security. When schools and villages are attacked. The army and police don’t take action. I want them to take action.”
He added:
“People are being attacked with AK47s and machetes and more recently the Islamic jihadists showed they have the capacity to shoot down an aircraft—they did so. Two weeks ago, they attacked the Nigerian Defence Academy in Kaduna and killed two officers and took one captive, released three days ago. What they want is to take over Africa.”
I will close with this: we need to acknowledge the scale of ethno-religious violence, and to urge the Nigerian Government to hold those responsible to account. Security and stability need to be ensured for all communities, especially in the north and middle belt regions, and the Yoruba and Igbo people urgently need to be provided with the help and protection that they are crying out for.
As fellow parliamentarians in our all-party group, such as the noble Baroness Cox and Lord Alton, have said previously, for the sake of all the people in Nigeria, and for the sake of security across the continent and beyond, we urge the UK Government to press the Nigerian Government swiftly to address this violence, and to ensure protection, justice and recompense for victims of all ethnicities, without bias.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time this week, Ms Ali. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for speaking on this incredibly important issue. It is so important that we keep giving the issue the attention that it deserves. I do not think it is nearly widely enough reported on, and consequently, it is not taken as seriously as it should be by the British people.
In Somalia, we know that Christians are referred to as high-value targets. Indeed, all minority religions in that country are heavily persecuted. The tiny populations of Christians in the country are also in danger from al-Shabaab, who have often murdered believers on the spot—especially if they are from a Muslim background. In the Central African Republic, in the year up until 30 September 2020, there were at least 56 attacks on churches, with at least 35 Christians killed for faith-related reasons. Open Doors reports that the destruction of churches has become common, something that is hard for us to understand here in the United Kingdom.
There is a urgent need for reconciliation between Christians and Muslims. The Archbishop of Canterbury is right to call for a much greater focus on the need for reconciliation globally, and for the United Kingdom to be at the forefront of promoting that, which I am sure we all agree with.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the most serious threat to Christians is that the eastern part of the country has become a safe haven for the Islamist group, the Allied Democratic Forces. That group seeks to create an Islamic state in Uganda and has been targeting churches and Christians in the north-east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for several years, since its attempt to overthrow the Ugandan Government failed.
These issues are current, as less than a month ago, on 29 August, suspected ADF militants killed 19 civilians in North Kivu using machetes and firearms, and 13 houses were set on fire. On 1 September, four people were killed in the same area, when a convoy was ambushed and dozens of people were abducted. The Government blamed the ADF for the incident. In July 2020, a United Nations report suggested that the crimes committed by the ADF might amount to war crimes.
In Cameroon, 53 Christians were killed for faith-related reasons in the year to 30 September 2020, including on 6 November 2019, when suspected Boko Haram fighters killed retired pastor David Mokoni. The following month, Boko Haram began a series of attacks on Cameroon’s Christians, including opening fire on a funeral, something that is almost impossible for us to understand, and there were homes looted, with seven Christians killed. In South Sudan, the dean of St Luke’s Cathedral and 32 worshippers were shot in September 2020.
The Church of England continues to support reconciliation efforts and to work with its international partners to end the protracted conflict. Tragically, on 16 August this year, two Catholic nuns were among those murdered on a bus, and no perpetrators have yet been held to account.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said, Nigeria faces the greatest challenges in this part of Africa. The number of Christians killed is truly shocking. Open Doors estimates that in the year to 30 September 2020, at least 3,530 Christians and 1,020 Muslims were killed. Practitioners of African traditional religions have also been violated. The United Kingdom and Nigeria have particularly close relations, and Nigeria is an important member of the Commonwealth. Many Nigerians in the United Kingdom view the atrocities in their homeland with horror.
The murder of George Floyd last year was truly shocking and the global outrage that followed was entirely justified. However, I have sympathy for the headline I saw recently, referring to the thousands of Nigerians killed for their faith this year, which asked:
“Do these black lives matter?”
I am grateful for the opportunity of today’s debate, to put these matters on the record and to express my concern about the seriousness of these issues. There is an ongoing need for reconciliation and the acceptance of diverse minorities, and their right to practise their religion or belief without fear in Africa, and around the world. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, there are 300 million Christians being persecuted globally, which is a very large number.
Looking back at Nigeria, I am shocked that in the last decade it is estimated that 37,500 Christians have been killed; my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton used a slightly higher figure. That is the equivalent of the population of a fair-sized British market town, such as Dunstable in my constituency. Where is the press? Where is the media focus on this issue? It needs to be there, and it is not always.
As the hon. Member for Strangford said, we have become desensitised. All these numbers and figures sometimes get a bit numbing, which is why it is important to mention some individual names. Leah Sharibu was mentioned earlier, and she is one of the 276 Nigerian schoolgirls abducted on 14 April 2014. She is still in captivity and her mother does not know what has happened to her: we continue to hope and pray for her release.
I commend the Government for taking this issue seriously; I have no doubt that they do. I am pleased that they are committed to implementing all 22 of the Bishop of Truro’s recommendations, and that they will host an international ministerial conference next year on freedom of religion or belief. That is absolutely right, but as the Minister has heard today, this issue has never been more important. Never has there been a greater need for the United Kingdom to take a lead in this area.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for once again ensuring we have a debate on these matters. I have been taking part in these debates for the best part of two decades. At first, the position of our Government was studiously neutral, but I am glad to say that progress has been made.
This debate is part of a process of drawing attention to what is happening and trying to shine a spotlight on these matters. I will go through a few cases. We have heard about the situation in South Sudan. In April, there was a violent attack against the then Father—now Bishop—Christian Carlassare, the Italian missionary appointed as Catholic bishop of Rumbek in South Sudan. The Government invaded his residence and fired 13 bullets, injuring the bishop-elect, who had to be airlifted to hospital in Nairobi. South Sudan is, of course, a majority Christian country but is still plagued with violence, as groups have been jockeying for power for the 10 years since independence.
In 2021, an Anglican priest, Rev. Daniel Garang Ayuen, was murdered. In 2018, a Jesuit priest, Father Victor Luka Odhiambo, was murdered. In 2017, the Pentecostal leader, Joel Mwendwa, was murdered.
I hope the United Kingdom Government have been quietly proactive—I am afraid it probably is only quietly—in trying to bring peace and security to South Sudan. I recently met our former ambassador to South Sudan, Chris Trott, in the context of his becoming the ambassador to the Holy See. He assured me that our Government took the situation in South Sudan seriously, and that he was trying to work with Church leaders of all denominations to resolve it. It seems to me that working with the Churches is key to all this and to understanding what is happening on the ground.
In South Sudan, Auxiliary Bishop Daniel Adwok of Khartoum told Aid to the Church in Need, which is a Catholic charity I work with closely, that
“Terror reigns in South Sudan, with warriors, government and politicians grappling for power, positions and not minding the fate of the ordinary Southern Sudanese. The fact that until today no one knows—the government itself does not know—how many people died in South Sudan since the start of the war in December 2013 is indicative of how the value of the human person has become of no worth in South Sudan.”
One of the reasons for this sort of debate—my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) rightly articulated the point of view that black lives matter—is that there is precious little interest in this in the media and among the general population in Europe. These places are considered to be faraway places of which we know little. Perhaps the general view is that life there is not of such importance, as it is in Europe. Although we will mention a whole series of cases, names, figures and facts, as my hon. Friend said, the fact is that every one of these murders is a human life. All these children have mothers and fathers, and all these mothers and fathers have children. It does not matter that it is happening in a very poor, remote and faraway place. Every single one of these massacres and incidents of horrible violence is tearing a family apart. It is cruel and horrible. Once again, the hon. Member for Strangford is to be congratulated on trying to draw attention to this, even if only here and not in the main Chamber.
Let us look at other countries we have heard about. The so-called Allied Democratic Forces—the ADF—is a Ugandan violent Islamist group that is being forced slowly out Uganda, we hope. It now operates in the North Kivu province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and beyond. In December last year, 17 people in the village of Mwenda were killed in a machete attack. Weeks later, on 4 January, 22 more were killed in the same village. Simultaneously, 25 were murdered in the village of Tingwe. This is all in the past 12 months.
Members will have noticed that I started speeding up when I read those out—22 murdered here, 25 here, 35 there. These are all individual human beings. Imagine if it was going on in Europe or America. In 2016 the United Nations estimated that ADF had killed 645 people since 2014. Five years later, that number has hugely increased. The ADF is hardly the only group involved, either. There is a group calling itself the Islamic State Central Africa Province, affiliated to ISIL in Iraq and Syria. It has been operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and infiltrating neighbouring states. In June this year it claimed responsibility for an attack on a Catholic church in Beni in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as well as a suicide attack at an intersection at the same time.
In Mozambique, Islamic State militants have linked up with a pre-existing local group, Ansar al-Sunna, to expand the insurgency in the Cabo Delgado province. Illia Djadi from the charity Open Doors has said,
“These predominantly Christian communities are attacked by an Islamic extremist group with a clear Islamic expansionist agenda”.
He pointed out that, while different groups with different origins are involved, there is a common agenda. Militants want to create an extreme Islamic state, stretching from the Sahel, where French soldiers have been hugely successful in fighting rebels, all the way through central Africa, Kenya and Somalia.
Fiona Bruce
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, as he always does. He talks about a common agenda. Does he share my concern that not only do these individual groups have a common agenda, but they are now linking up? That is what is really concerning, because there is serious danger across a wide range of countries in a continent.
Sir Edward Leigh
I think we should take that extremely seriously, in terms of western geopolitical interest. We are not talking about uncoordinated local attacks, terrible as they might be in terms of human lives. We are talking about whole provinces in danger of being lost by the central state. We have seen what has happened in Afghanistan. If anybody thinks this will not come back to bite us in terms of terrorism being exported, that may be a rather sanguine point of view.
Let me finish with a comment from Bishop Paluku Sikuli Melchisédech of Butembo-Beni in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He has given a harrowing account to Aid to the Church in Need of the Islamist insurgence in the country, saying that
“The number of incidents is particularly high in the northern part of our diocese. Armed groups are destroying schools and hospitals. Teachers and pupils are being killed. They are even killing the sick as they lie in their hospital beds. Not a day goes by without people being killed.”
He added:
“We need centres where people can go for therapy. Many people are traumatised. Many have watched as their parents were killed. There are many orphans and widows. Villages have been burned to the ground. We are in a state of utter misery.”
The bishop implied that the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are complicit in the violence. He said that
“The state as such does not exist.”
I have been to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and it is a failed state. There is no doubt about it. The Bishop said:
“The reach of the government does not extend into the east, be it out of weakness or complicity.”
Responding to the growing threat of extremist Islamisation, the Bishop said:
“Islam is being forced on us. Mosques are being built everywhere, even though no one needs them. The mosques do not look like the traditional ones we are familiar with.”
He added that
“anyone who has been kidnapped by these terrorist groups and managed to escape from them alive has told the same story. They were given the choice between death and converting to Islam.”
What about the UK response? We have the Minister here. What can we do? The evidence is overwhelming and appalling in terms of human dignity, rights and peace, and also a danger to us. I have said the Government, and the previous Government, were too reticent in these matters, but we have had progress. We welcome the changes we have seen in recent years, particularly the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s review chaired by the Bishop of Truro into Government support for persecuted Christians. The review issued its report in July 2019 and we received a solid commitment from Ministers to implement its recommendations.
The situation in central Africa shows the Government need to do more. In particular, the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, needs to have—I say this directly to the Minister—a properly dedicated civil service resource. She cannot say this herself; she is an absolutely committed lady, but she has not been given the support she needs from our Government in terms of support from senior Ministers, such as the Foreign Secretary, or in terms of resources given to her. Too often in Government, hon. Members are appointed as envoys to keep them quiet, but this lady is not going to be quiet. All right, Minister?
Sir Edward Leigh
Give her proper support because she is literally working every day of the week on these issues, and she is not going to give up or go away.
Is there any frontline role for the UK to be more proactive in defeating violent extremists in central Africa? When the Minister replies, I very much hope she will not just say, “This is terrible” and all that, which we all agree with, but she will say what we can do. The French are very good in all this. I declare an interest: I am well-known for my belief in the importance of strategic co-operation with our French allies, who are our closest neighbours. We depend on them in many ways. They have been extremely effective in the use of their special forces, and one of the reasons why we want to improve our relationship with France is we want to work more closely on that.
The Minister will not be able to comment on how our special forces have been involved, but I believe special forces are crucial in dealing with terrorism. These people are bullies, and what they do not like is some Special Air Service person lying in wait for them and shooting them in the back when they are on their way to murder people. It is one thing that bullying terrorists and murderers do not like. I believe that co-operation—I accept the Minister cannot comment on this part of my speech—and special forces are crucial.
Perhaps the Minister can comment on the support she is giving to friendly Governments, such as Nigeria. There is a huge amount of belief in these areas that central Government is either weak, corrupt, complicit or totally ineffective. I went to a conference organised by the British Government last year where we had people coming from all over central Africa and relating their experiences, and the common theme was the ineffectiveness of central Government. I do not know exactly what the state of our aid programmes is, but I would have thought, given we are such a major aid donor, that we have a lot of influence, and we should not be afraid to exert that influence on Governments that are weak, corrupt, complicit or ineffective.
In conclusion, is there more that our Government can do to help national, regional and local government officials in this part of central Africa that is plagued by violence? We cannot just walk by on the other side of the road. We have a duty to protect others, prevent further catastrophes, and help to secure peace and stability in the region. The United Kingdom must do more. We must do our bit and pull our weight.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. It has been said by others better than I can, but this is clearly an important issue that we need to give due attention to. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I must confess that I had not intended to speak—I had some questions and made interventions accordingly—but I am moved by what I have heard. I think that there are some important points to add to what has been said.
I would like to make two key observations, and both draw on my own experience. I was an engineer before I came here, many years ago. I went through university and learned the ways of an engineer. As an engineer, one is taught to look at problems and seek their causes before jumping to solutions and answers. I was particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for talking about the cause of this problem: militant Islamic extremism. We have to acknowledge that. Those were not her words but the words of reports that she cited. It may be uncomfortable, but we have to look at it. If an engineer is building a bridge, they cannot say, “I would really rather this foundation sprang from a rock instead of a sandy riverbank.” They have to deal with the situation that is there to successfully deliver a solution. We have to deal with reality.
Let us face it: in a secular western society, that is uncomfortable for two reasons. First, we have lost some of the fluency of the language of faith that would allow us to apprehend these issues and understand the motives and behaviours involved in them. Secondly, that lack of fluency has flowed through into our policies, our institutions and the way in which we deliver these things. These are institutions that have built up over decades. That is the reality of the situation. If one is an engineer trying to build a bridge, one has to deal with the conditions. If the bridge is a long way from supplies of concrete and steel and from roads, one still has to get those supplies there. We have to deal with the situation as it is.
In her speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton talked very effectively about the impact and consequences. I asked about children in part because my sense from her speech was that there is a much wider impact than simply, as the title of the debate has it, “violence against Christians”. It is clear that this militant extremism is displacing people. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) listed a litany of displaced peoples and nations: refugees who have moved as a consequence of this behaviour. Again, we have lost some of that fluency—understanding what impact beliefs and ideologically driven behaviour can have. Perhaps it is because we approach things with our western, rational, secular mindset. We say, “This does not make sense,” or “I cannot understand or explain.” For other peoples in other parts of the world, this may seem like reasonable, sensible, logical and acceptable behaviour.
I was very interested in the choice of words of the hon. Member for Strangford at the end of his speech: “in deed and in truth”. I will come back to this at the end, when I address comments to the Minister. We must take action—in deed—but that action must be in truth: it must be in proper cognisance of the challenge that we face and of our capacity to deal with it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for making his points about the civil service and the capacity that we have to deliver these things. There are others more experienced in these matters than I am and will know better what Government have done and can do. I would only add my own name, voice and weight to that plea for the necessary resource to do this work. From what has been said this afternoon, there can be no doubt that we are of one mind and intent in seeking to alleviate and resolve this problem.
My second point might seem small and inconsequential; again, it occurred to me when I was listening to the earlier speeches in this debate. They brought to mind a report that I heard recently of the return of some of the Chibok girls who had been kidnapped by Boko Haram some while ago. I understand that recently the girls have started to be released. Again, I am not an expert in these matters, but my understanding is that the Nigerian Government have a programme of deradicalisation, rehabilitation and reintegration, which is encouraging some of Boko Haram’s terrorists to put down their weapons, and to come out of the wilderness—literally—and back into civilisation.
However, the reports were talking about one or two girls who are coming with their family: with their children and husband. That concerned me, because they did not go with a husband; they did not have a family when they were kidnapped. I am concerned that in some of this reporting we are losing sight of something else that happens alongside this conflict and terror. An important part of the conflict and terror is the violence perpetuated against women in these situations; I think we all know what I am referring to.
The kind of man described in the report is not the “husband” of one of those girls, as we would understand it in a normal, consensual marriage—or even perhaps in an arranged marriage, as might be normal in a different culture. We have to be sure and somehow, in addressing this problem, to address the violence perpetuated against women, and not simply accept or allow such casual reporting of an abuser as a “husband”.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, particularly as he had not intended to speak in this debate. Does he agree that we need to stop using the terms “forced marriage” and “forced conversion”, because they simply are not acceptable terms? Marriage should be a relationship entered into freely; when one makes a declaration of faith, or a decision about faith, that is something that one does individually from one’s heart. Neither marriage nor faith should be “forced” on someone else. We need to start talking about such situations for what they are—the most dreadful abuse, often of young women, including rape.
Robin Millar
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she is absolutely correct.
I try to read around subjects and understand them, having entered politics—with a splash, I suppose, here in Parliament. Reading some essays about freedoms in society, one that really struck me was about exactly this point: about how freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of action follow on from each other. What we have seen in this case is an obliteration of each one of those: the freedom of belief is removed through coercion; the freedom of speech, including the freedom to consent to a marriage, is also removed through coercion; and then the freedom of action is removed through rape.
I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, but I will make one further comment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough really made a compelling argument for us to be interested in this subject. If it is not enough for us to recognise that people and groups are displaced, to recognise the damage that does to geopolitics and to recognise that such instability eventually laps against these shores as well, then it is enough to say that this is about human lives and that we are connected to them. That connection is much greater than any division by colour, race or distance. That is why we must take an interest in this issue and pay attention to it.
I will stop there, but first I thank the Minister for her interest; I know that she has a keen interest in these issues. Secondly, I thank the Government for what they have already done, and I urge them to address the point that the hon. Member for Strangford made at the start of the debate about acting in deed and in truth. There must be full acknowledgement of this problem, including its scale.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the others who secured this important debate on a topic that should be of deep concern to us all. Today’s speeches have been particularly thoughtful.
I am fortunate to represent East Renfrewshire, which is one of the most religiously diverse areas in Scotland. The issue of freedom of religion and belief, particularly for religious minorities—including Christians in some areas of the world—is of significant concern to many of my constituents, although the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made the very good point that the topic is not given a wider airing. I am very grateful to my constituents for their continued engagement on this issue. I know that the ability of Christians to practise their religion freely and fairly across the world is a matter of real significance, and should be of concern to people across Scotland, the UK and the world.
There is no doubt that we would be right to remain deeply concerned about the severity and scale of violations and abuses of freedom of religion and belief in central African countries. The hon. Member for Strangford spoke about Open Doors—a fantastic charity that allows us to have information about persecuted Christians around the world that we might not otherwise have access to. The Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Cameroon are all mentioned in information that Open Doors has shared, highlighting the top 50 most dangerous countries in which to be a Christian. We have heard very powerfully, particularly in the speeches made by the hon. Members for Strangford and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), about the situation in Nigeria.
This year, the Democratic Republic of the Congo rose 17 spots in the Open Doors world ranking, mainly due to attacks on Christians by the Islamic extremist group Allied Democratic Forces in the east of the country, with 460 killed in the period 2019-20 and 100 churches attacked or closed down. Christians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are at risk at all times of kidnapping, torture, murder, forced recruitment into militia groups, forced labour, and having their homes destroyed. Christian women in particular are extremely vulnerable to rape and sexual slavery, as the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) has powerfully expressed.
In the Central African Republic, there has been near-constant conflict and fighting since 2013. Much of the country is occupied by various armed militia groups that are responsible for a range of human rights abuses, and many of those groups—whether Islamic extremists or otherwise—specifically target Christians, so life is constantly uncertain for people in areas under militia control.
Prior to the coup in 2013, there had been no previous history of sectarian violence in the area, but since then, armed groups have regularly manipulated ethnic and religious divisions to realise their aims, as we have heard today. For instance, this February, over 100 homes were destroyed and supplies damaged in an arson attack on a camp located in the Catholic Church compound of Alindao. In Bangassou, 500 Muslims are reported to be sheltering with Christians in the Catholic churches, and in Grimari, churches have also provided shelter to 1,500 Muslims and Christians.
I turn to Cameroon. Dictatorial paranoia and Islamic oppression have led to the targeting of Christian communities there. For instance, as we have already heard, the Islamic extremist group Boko Haram is very active in the north, and has kidnapped and killed Christians for their faith. Christian women also face significant danger of abduction by Boko Haram and forced marriage—the comments we heard about that earlier were absolutely on point. Again, we see that double whammy effect of Christian women and girls being doubly vulnerable, targeted for both their faith and their gender. In addition, country experts indicate that several girls have been forced to act as suicide bombers to further decimate Christian populations. While the Government have been fighting a civil war, Boko Haram has regrouped, and the pandemic has also increased opportunities for action by jihadists, who are likely to make further inroads if a sustainable peace is not achieved.
This UK Government’s progress in implementing the recommendations of the Truro report, which should be a means of trying to make progress in this area, has been too slow. We in the Scottish National party welcomed the Truro report: it was a bit shorter than we would have liked, but it makes robust points, and it is important that we see a commitment to real action in a timely way. I appreciate that the UK Government did say that they would accept the 22 recommendations made by the report in full. However, as of 9 July this year, which is the latest update I can see, only 10 of the recommendations have been fully implemented. As we have heard, an independent review of progress is due to begin next year, but there is nothing that suggests to me that the 22 recommendations will be fully implemented, especially given that work on four of them has yet to start, two years on.
It was somewhat unfortunate that the role of the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief was vacant for a time, although I am very aware that the hon. Member for Congleton is very focused on these matters, which is welcome. We also need to think about the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Human Rights and Democracy Report. If that report is correct in saying that defending freedom of religion and belief for all is a priority for this Government, as I know it is for the hon. Lady, then more urgency is needed in achieving the implementation of the remaining recommendations, especially given that the number of those being targeted for their faith is certainly not reducing.
Every day 13 Christians are killed worldwide because of their faith. In 2020, 260 million people—approximately 10% of all Christians in the world—were persecuted for their religious beliefs. That is an increase from 245 million in 2019 and approximately 215 million in 2018, according to a report by Open Doors. More can and must be done to provide adequate support, particularly in relation to aid, to persecuted Christians. However, as we know, the UK is in fact cutting bilateral aid to Africa by 66%. Frankly, that is not good enough.
International aid is vital in stemming the spread of religious intolerance, stigma and socioeconomic exclusion, all of which tie together. The UK Government have been warned time and again not to lose sight of the benefits of international aid in tackling these issues, but they are cutting that aid. They are sending no bilateral aid to Cameroon at all this year, for example, although a very small amount has been promised. It is not entirely clear if that will go towards trade purposes rather than humanitarian support.
The Bishop of Truro’s report did draw positive attention to the £12 million freedom of religion or belief programme under the Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development. However, it has not yet been publicly confirmed whether that programme will continue beyond its current schedule. I would welcome any clarity on that.
Last year, the Advocacy Policy Officer at Open Doors at that time, Dr Matthew Rees, said:
“Both the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must do more to recognise the specific and hidden vulnerabilities of women from minority religious communities and provide tailored and added support through targeted programming.”
I would be keen to hear from the Minister about the commitments made in the report that detail this double vulnerability and the disproportionate impact that Christian women face in many countries because of their gender and faith.
It would also be interesting to hear what the FCDO is intending. How will it look to increase funding in areas of reconciliation mediation, religious persecution survival, trauma care—all really important points, which have been well-aired today—and also places of worship, security funding and rapid response teams globally? Will it make an assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of aid distribution to persecuted Christians? It is vital that the UK Government’s words and actions marry up, acting, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, in deed and in truth. These deeds really do matter. The Government cannot simultaneously criticise religious persecution abroad and overlook human rights abuses when they are searching for a post-Brexit trade deal with Cameroon, for example.
The UK should have followed the lead of the US and Canada in approving resolutions that call out with great force the brutal campaign of subjugation of minorities in Cameroon. The US Senate’s resolution praised the fact that the US trade representative at the time terminated Cameroon’s access to preferred trade rights due to persistent gross violations of internationally recognised human rights, in order to penalise the Biya Government and urge members of the international community to join the United States in a strategic, collective effort to put pressure on the Government of Cameroon, including the use of all available diplomatic and punitive tools.
On the very same day, the UK Government brought into effect their continuity trade agreement with Cameroon, which still remains unpublished and was subject to negligible parliamentary scrutiny. If it had been subject to due parliamentary consideration, we would have highlighted that it gives no concern to the persistent gross violations of international human rights taking place inside Cameroon. We are yet to see whether it contains the provisions that we would want on human rights, but I remain somewhat sceptical. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that point. The negotiations were a missed opportunity to raise valid concerns about the persecution of Christians. Instead, the UK Government signed an agreement, apparently with no hesitation over the Government of Cameroon’s human rights record and no apparent effort to strengthen human rights provisions.
The issue of freedom of religion and the protection of people’s right to their religious faith should be something we all agree on. We know that Christians in central African countries are routinely persecuted for their faith. We have heard that other groups, including Muslims and those of other faiths, are similarly persecuted. We should be sending a message here, backed up by actions. I sincerely hope the Minister is going to talk us through that. It is very clear that people in these situations can wait no longer.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Ali, and to contribute to this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his continued support for this issue in the House, as well as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who I know well from the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, and who shares with me a real concern about human rights across the globe. The work of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief looks so interesting. I receive the newsletter, but it is difficult to fit in all the meetings, due to my role. I know the important work that comes out of it feeds into debates like this. It is a delight to be here and to listen to the different thoughts of Members.
The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made a very important comment on resources for the role that the Prime Minister has given the hon. Member for Congleton. The resource must be there so that effective scrutiny can take place, not just in country—there is a real need for the hon. Member to travel to, for example, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—but of the merger of DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and how that sits alongside the trade brief, so that one Department or Minister is not saying one thing while another is saying something else almost simultaneously.
Although the merger is still in its infancy, I do not think that Members who are interested in foreign affairs have really seen the full forcefulness that we could have, given the excellence of the civil service and so on. We cannot really feel the impact of the special envoy, because it has not all quite been brought together yet—the vision has not quite been laid out. I hope we will see more of that vision in the coming months and that the role of the hon. Member for Congleton will be underlined, because it is so important to see where minority religious groups are being persecuted.
Something I appreciate about the APPG is that it defends the rights of those who have no religious beliefs. My constituents often write to me on that issue—I have very well known humanists in my constituency. It is such an important point. In some countries in the world, it is not acceptable to not be a believer, so I am so pleased that the APPG underlines the rights of those with no religious beliefs.
Andrew Selous
Does the hon. Lady take some comfort from the fact that a good Christian friend of mine went to visit an atheist imprisoned in Indonesia to console him? Like me, she would probably like to see rather more of that sort of thing.
Catherine West
I think there is too much hatred between different groups in the world. What we need to do, as debates like this do, is to promote tolerance, understanding and respect.
That brings us back to the point made by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald): we are all worried about cuts to the DFID programme. With a 66% cut in our aid to the poorest continent in the world, we worry that some of the very long-term, slow-burn work on developing civil society, tolerance and understanding, and education—girls’ education, in particular—might be lost. I suppose the Minister will give me reassurances on that question.
Hon. Members have laid out very well the severity of the persecution, discrimination, abductions, sexual violence and killings that we have unfortunately seen in the countries we have talked about today. South Sudan is obviously a notable one. Seeing the murder of those two nuns on the bus last month was tragic, and something that I know our constituents care deeply about and want us to be talking about.
I also thank hon. Members for raising the Bring Back Our Girls campaign. It was very powerful when Michelle Obama highlighted it, but I think that we did do a lot more in the House at that point, and it would be facile to think that that problem has gone away. We know that if 1 million children were not attending school anywhere else, we would be up in arms about it, so it is important to highlight that.
From my work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, I know that Nigeria has a huge malaria burden. It does seem that the global health security question is often married up with conflict, violence and the persecution of minority faiths.
I put on record the excellent work of Open Doors and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which do such important work and have fed into the Bishop of Truro’s independent review. My colleague, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire, has gone into where we are with the review in depth, so I shall not repeat that. However, I would appreciate it if the Minister said where she thinks we are with the 22 recommendations.
We all welcome next year’s ministerial conference—it is important to get people around the table talking about the recommendations and how we can do more, but we need to apply more urgency to the task. As we know, the violence is getting worse. It was good that we had the example of what is happening in south Kaduna. This is not a time to withdraw mentally; we must keep up the focus, even though we have had the 66% cut to the aid budget, which, of course, some of us in this Chamber voted against. We must not lose that focus on education, civil society and the promotion of tolerance.
I commend the right hon. Member for Gainsborough on his comment about working with partners. I share with him the commitment to work with friends in France, across the Sahel and across the region, because it is only by working with all our partners that we can achieve what we want. Where the French have put in a lot of resources, let us work with them, sharing the expertise that they may have in a particular area and complementing it with the UK’s specialities and niche approaches, so that together we offer the most secure environment we can for those African nations.
I want briefly to highlight three other hon. Members. Back in September, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) asked the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), what assessment the FCDO had made of
“the adequacy and effectiveness of the distribution of aid to persecuted Christians.”
We heard at that time that
“the UK will be the third largest donor within the G7 as a percentage of GNI. We will spend more than £10 billion in aid”
in 2020. Will the Minister before us say, in her concluding remarks, whether she feels that the posts across the FCDO network will retain their regular network reporting on local human rights situations, including in relation to the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief?
In April 2021, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) asked the former Minister—again, not the Minister we have here today—about tackling
“religious persecution and gender based violence of Christian women in countries around the world.”
The former Minister replied that the UK was committed to that. Will the Minister before us say what shape her commitment will take to defending freedom of religion or belief for all, and recognising that women and girls from religious minorities often suffer because of both their gender and their faith?
Will the Minister lay out how she will ensure that our human rights policy work considers the intersectionality of human rights, including the importance of addressing the specific vulnerabilities experienced by women and girls in the countries we have talked about today? For example, in the DRC, a project with faith leaders and community action groups halved women’s experience of intimate partner violence from 69% to 29%. These actions and our commitment can make a difference, and the DFID funding is crucial, so I look forward to the Minister’s comments in that regard.
Through UK Aid Connect, will the FCDO continue to support the Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development programme, managed by the Institute of Development Studies, to work with women from religious minorities in the five countries in Africa and Asia that have been pinpointed, to understand the problems that are faced and identity effective approaches to tackle these issues?
[Mr Virendra Sharma in the Chair]
It is a delight to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I look forward to finishing my brief remarks under your chairmanship.
We have had a good airing of the issues in this debate. We have talked about security, and specifically about violence against women and girls, and the 1 million girls who are missing from the education system in Nigeria alone. We have also heard about hotspots such as South Sudan and the Central African Republic. We have thanked the NGOs who work tirelessly to bring these matters to the attention of the UK Government. They have high expectations, as do our constituents, that we will focus on the areas that have been outlined today, so that violence can be reduced and we can put in place the civic society model that we have here, which should be expected abroad as well, where women are respected, there is a focus on education, and basic human rights and safety are promoted.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who is new to her role. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford and all hon. Members who have participated in the debate on this important topic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing such an important debate. I commend him for his tireless work in defending freedom of religion and belief.
I thank my predecessor as Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). He worked tirelessly to build strong relationships across Africa and put great effort into promoting this cause during his time in the role. I am absolutely committed to continuing work on this important issue.
My own interest in bringing people together across religious divides comes from my childhood and teenage years, when I saw the work that my mother did as a volunteer English doctor in Northern Ireland, reaching out to Catholic and Protestant communities, and bringing them together to help in that long journey towards peace. It is also rooted in memories of my grandmother, a theologian, who was one of the people who worked towards and succeeded in setting up the World Council of Churches after the war.
I thank all the members of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief who have come here today. I have taken note of their annual commentary. It provides valuable insights and I would be delighted to meet the group’s members.
Violence against any person because of their religion or belief, or indeed lack of belief, is completely unacceptable. I deeply agree with hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that it is important that we continue to raise these matters in this place. Although this debate focuses on the plight of persecuted Christians, we must not forget those who have been persecuted for belonging to other religions and holding other beliefs, and those who have no religious belief at all. The Government are committed to championing freedom of religion or belief for all, which is enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights.
Earlier this afternoon, in my first week in this role, I met the African heads of mission based in London. I strongly emphasised that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are core UK values, and that they include the freedom of religion or belief. I also emphasised the UK’s support for 12 years of quality education. All boys and girls must be able to go to school safety. Our Prime Minister continues to be passionate about championing the right of all girls across the world to get those first 12 years of education, and we chaired an education summit on that in July.
When I met the heads of mission, I also took the opportunity to emphasise my interest, and that of so many Members, in the rights of women and girls. Women and girls should have the right to make the decisions about what affects their lives. That means that they need access to education, healthcare and employment opportunities, and that they must know that they can live their lives safely and securely.
Vicky Ford
I will not take too many interventions, if that is okay, because I want to cover quite a lot of content, and we have already run over the hour and a half. I may come back to the hon. Lady later.
We want everyone, everywhere to be able to live in accordance with their own conscience, to practise their own choice of faith or belief, or to hold none. They must be able to do so free from persecution, prejudice and harm.
Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)
I apologise for interrupting you, Minister, but the debate can last for up to three hours.
Vicky Ford
Okay; let me make a little progress, and then I will take interventions.
When countries protect and promote freedom of religion or belief, they tend to be more stable, more prosperous and safer from violent extremism. The Minister responsible for human rights, Lord Tariq Ahmad, continues to work closely with the Prime Minister’s special envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), whom we are honoured to have here today, in delivering those goals.
As we have heard, challenges to freedom of religion or belief sadly persist in central Africa—especially in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic—and countries such as Nigeria. We are particularly concerned about human rights in those countries. Christians make up the majority of the populations of many central and southern African countries. However, those of minority religions, such as Islam, face frequent difficulties in exercising their rights. That can include violent attacks by armed groups, and converts often face additional pressures, such as being ostracised by their communities because religion is so closely tied to culture and heritage.
As the APPG report highlights, violence in the region is often triggered by inter-communal disputes. Although victims may not be targeted specifically because of their religion, the intersection of identity rights and religion cannot be ignored.
Catherine West
Thank you, Mr Sharma, for reminding us of the length of the debate. The Minister is making a very good start to her speech by talking about the role of women and intersectionality. In her assessment of her role, which I understand is in its infancy, how does she see the envoy, the resources and the reorganisation within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, with trade off to the side, coming together, so that we can better understand, as parliamentarians, how we can scrutinise the arrangements?
Vicky Ford
Let me deal with the first of those points, as clearly we can scrutinise arrangements in many different ways in this place, including being able to intervene in Westminster Hall debates on the newly appointed Minister for Africa on a Thursday afternoon. As we all know, there are many ways to ask questions of the Government. I also point the hon. Lady to the integrated review, which is worth reading, because it sets out in great detail how different Departments will work together not only to support British interests across the globe, but to help build partnerships with other countries.
We recognise that women and girls from religious minorities can often suffer because of both their gender and their faith. That is why our human rights policy looks at the intersectionality of human rights: for example, the importance of addressing specific interests such as gender-based violence, which may be experienced by women from religious minority communities. The Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion and belief, my fantastic hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, has spoken about that double vulnerability that many women from religious minorities face, including at an International Women’s Day event organised by the UK Freedom of Religion or Belief Forum this March. I thank her for the effort that she puts into this work, because having that additional voice on those sorts of platforms really helps in continuing to reiterate these important messages.
The hon. Member for Strangford spoke very powerfully about incidents of violence and abuse in the DRC. The UK is deeply concerned about the violence against civilians in the DRC, including the recent attacks by the armed group Allied Democratic Forces. Back in April, the British embassy in Kinshasa issued a joint statement with international partners condemning the attacks perpetrated by the ADF in Beni and North Kivu, and we continue to urge the DRC Government and the UN to work together to protect civilians from ongoing violence and address the root causes of conflict. The previous Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East, raised this issue with the President on multiple occasions. We are committed to ensuring that the UN peacekeeping mission MONUSCO remains focused on delivering its mandate to protect civilians, and that vulnerable communities remain central to the UN’s work in the DRC.
In the Central African Republic, there are long-standing concerns about violence along religious lines. I am grateful for the APPG’s explorations of the nuances of the conflict and the religious tensions in that country, which will further enrich the Government’s understanding and help to inform our approach. Sadly, hate speech and inter-communal tensions remain prominent in the CAR, and disinformation can be used to drive divisions for political and economic gain, so while the current conflict is not predominantly religious in nature, the lack of formal justice and reconciliation mechanisms mean that tensions could become defined along religious and ideological lines. We will continue to monitor this issue very closely, and FCDO officials are working with researchers in the CAR to understand more about the role that disinformation is playing in fuelling this conflict. We continue to shape the peacekeeping mission mandate in both countries to protect vulnerable communities and promote inclusive dialogue.
Turning to Nigeria, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and many others spoke passionately about the violence and, indeed, the increase in violence in Nigeria. We are very troubled by the rising insecurity in that country, including terrorism in the north-east, where insurgents from Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province are responsible for regular attacks on both Christians and Muslims. Both groups regularly attack Nigerians of all faiths who do not subscribe to their extremist views, causing immense suffering in both Christian and Muslim communities. Separately, there is inter-communal conflict and banditry occurring across multiple states; again, that continues to blight both Christian and Muslim groups. The drivers of those conflicts are deeply complex; they can be highly localised and relate to a number of different factors.
We really welcome the APPG report on Nigeria. It analysed inter-communal violence in the middle belt, and acts of terrorism committed by Boko Haram and ISWA in the northeast. A full response was issued by my predecessor as Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East, which emphasised our support for solutions that get to the root causes of the conflict—addressing the root cause is so important if the violence is to be reduced. My predecessor visited Nigeria in April, and discussed the increasing of security across the country with the Government and community leaders. During the Nigerian delegation’s visit to the Global Education Summit in London in July, he also discussed the impact of insecurity, potential religious dynamics, and issues such as school kidnapping with the Nigerian Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State for Education.
We totally condemn the devasting impact that this violence has had, and is having, on people in Nigeria. We continue to make clear to the Nigerian authorities, at the highest levels, the importance of protecting civilians—including all ethnic and religious groups—and protecting human rights for all.
Fiona Bruce
I have been listening very carefully to the Minister, and I thank her for much of what she has said. However, when a Minister talks about the fact that they have mentioned something when visiting a country, it is often the case that that has been done quietly and in private. What many of us are now sensing is that there needs to be a clear and public calling out of what is happening in Nigeria, and a call to the Nigerian Government to tackle it in the way that I have previously spoken about. Private discussions will no longer cut it.
Vicky Ford
I know that my hon. Friend thinks about this matter very deeply, and I am looking forward to discussing it with her in more detail. What I am hearing from groups that are expert in this area is that it is really important that we look at the different things that are happening in different parts of the country, and that we try to avoid conflating the north-east conflicts with the inter-communal violence that is occurring, for example, between farmers and herders. We do not want to risk exacerbating ethnic tensions. These are incredibly complex matters, but I hear what my hon. Friend is saying. We do not want the ideology that can be seen in the north-east extending into broader inter-communal violence. These are complicated issues, but issues that we are right to discuss and to tackle.
The hon. Member for Strangford outlined the UK’s support for the Lake Chad basin regional stabilisation facility. I can confirm that the UK is committed to security and stability in the wider Sahel region. We have currently deployed 300 troops to the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali, as part of a long-range reconnaissance group. We are providing further conflict, security and stability programming to support the reduction of violent conflict and promote long-term stability in the region. There is an investment of approximately £12 million a year in that programme. It includes local stabilisation projects in Mali, strengthening civilian-military co-ordination to facilitate humanitarian access, for example, and improving the participation of women from all communities in stabilisation projects and the peace process in Mali.
Jim Shannon
As I said earlier, the scheme that the UK Government have introduced is excellent. It is really proactive and positive, and I would ask whether we could roll it out in some of other areas.
Vicky Ford
I will very much look into what the hon. Gentleman says, and I thank him for his praise of the project.
I want to come back to Sudan, as it was mentioned in one of the earlier interventions. I spoke to the Prime Minister of Sudan, Abdalla Hamdok, yesterday. We totally condemn the attempted coup and strongly support the civilian-led Government in the country’s transition to democracy. Standing up for democracy is a core value of our country.
In Cameroon, we engage with faith actors of all kinds and the Government. We are deeply concerned about the upsurge of Islamic State and note that it is targeting security forces—including, sadly, some security forces trained by Her Majesty’s Government.
Kirsten Oswald
I am glad that the Minister mentions Cameroon, but I would not like her to move away from that subject just yet. Is she able to answer some of the questions that I posed about Cameroon and trade? It would be helpful to Members across the House to hear a bit more about what lies beneath the agreement that has been reached.
Vicky Ford
I will get back to the hon. Lady separately on that topic, if I may.
There have been some questions about the implementation of the recommendations in the Bishop of Truro’s report. I am pleased to hear many colleagues draw attention to the Bishop of Truro’s independent review on the persecution of Christians. I was personally delighted when I heard that he was going to do the review. It was at a time when I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary’s team and to Foreign Office Ministers, and I know how important it was to Members across the House. I was really pleased to see the report come out and the conclusions that it had reached. The Government are committed to implementing the bishop’s 22 recommendations in full, to drive real improvements in the lives of those who are persecuted. Eighteen of the recommendations have already been implemented or are in the process of being implemented, and we are on track to deliver all 22 recommendations by July 2022—so 22 by ’22.
As a long-standing champion of human rights and freedoms, the UK has a duty to promote and defend our values of equality, inclusion and respect, both at home and abroad. I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that this Government will continue to do just that.
Jim Shannon
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I will start with the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is a dear friend. She referred to the psychological pressure on Christians, which is sometimes missed because we focus on the physical side. She also referred to the combination of Boko Haram and ISWAP in relation to the destabilisation of Nigeria. It is a very important issue, which we have to address.
I apologise, Mr Sharma, because I should have written down all Members’ constituencies—you realise when you want it that you have not done it. If you forgive me, the hon. Gentleman to my left-hand side—
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) . He referred to something very appropriate: Black Lives Matter. Across the world, Black Lives Matter ran a great campaign, but here is a campaign for Black Lives Matter that does not seem to have caught the attention of the world. It should have done so, which is what the hon. Gentleman said.
The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is someone with whom I have had many discussions. I never realised that this was a matter that he has been bringing up in this place for 20 years. I can recall very well, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember, the debate we had in 2012. I have never forgotten his contribution that day. That is the truth. I felt it swung that debate, which was on the persecution of Christians, in the main Chamber. I have always remembered that.
The hon. Gentleman across the way—
Jim Shannon
Apologies. I thank the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) for his late arrival—not his late arrival, he was here from the beginning. Rather, his late arrival to speak. His contribution was really appropriate and we thank him for that.
The Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), and I are together on so many of these issues and I was pleased to see her coming down to participate and refer to the aid cuts. Also—I hope I caught this right—she said that sometimes, when Christian children are kidnapped and abducted, they are then converted and used as suicide bombers. I was not aware of that. It is incredibly worrying.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), as always, delivered on so many issues. She reminded us of the Bring Back Our Girls campaign, which I can recall very well. I thank her for her massive contribution on these issues.
I should have said at the beginning—it was remiss of me not to do so, but I am going to do it now—how pleased I am, and I mean it, to see the Minister in her place. She knows that she and I were born in the same town, in Omagh, County Tyrone in Northern Ireland. She is a lot younger than I am, of course, but I am very pleased to see her in her place. I am also pleased that in reply to the hon. Member for Congleton the Minister kindly agreed to have a meeting. The two of us and other officers who are also Members of Parliament will be happy to follow our engagement further.
On the rights of women and girls and the human rights of many, I see—and I thank all right hon. Members and hon. Members for their contributions—that this House is united, on behalf of our Christian brothers and sisters but also on behalf of those of other faiths across the world. We have the great privilege in this House and in Westminster Hall today of putting forward our requests on their behalf. Everyone who spoke has a burden on their heart for those people across the world, and we wish to see our Government as they do and as they have—sometimes we need to recognise the good work that our Government do and I recognise that. I thank them all and look forward to working with the Minister over the next period of time. Two people from County Tyrone—along with others—working on these issues, because they are so important.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of violence against Christians in central African countries.
Written Statements
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Flexible Working and Carer's Leave
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Government have today published a consultation on flexible working and the response to our consultation on a new right to time away from work for unpaid carers. These deliver on commitments in our manifesto and are an important part of our drive to build back better after the pandemic, deliver for working families by helping people to access and stay in work, and improve business productivity.
Flexible working consultation
This consultation considers measures to increase the availability and uptake of the full range of flexible working options—whether that is a part-time or job-sharing working arrangement, flexing working hours or working remotely—freeing employers and employees alike from the default nine-to-five model.
The consultation proposes that every employee in Great Britain is given the right to request flexible working, regardless of time served, under our plans to modernise the way we work and improve business productivity.
Under the proposals—which would see around 2.2 million more people given the right to request flexible working—employees would also be able to make more than one request for flexible working each year, and the current three-month period an employer has to consider each request would be shortened.
If an employer is unable to accommodate a request, our consultation proposes that they would need to consider what alternatives they could offer. For example, if they couldn’t change their employee’s hours on all working days, they could consider making the change for certain days instead.
There is no “one size fits all” approach to working arrangements. While certain ways of working may suit some employers and employees, they will not suit everyone. Therefore it is important that Government do not prescribe specific arrangements in legislation. Instead, these proposals would provide a strengthened legislative framework that encourages conversations around flexible working to be more two-sided. They are designed to balance the needs of employee and employer, and encourage all parties to focus on what may be possible, rather than what is not.
Empowering workers to have more say over where and when they work makes for more productive businesses, and happier employees. Flexible working allows employees to balance their work and home life: including helping people manage childcare commitments or other caring responsibilities. It can also be key to ensuring that people who are under-represented in the workforce, such as new parents or disabled people, have access to more employment opportunities.
Alongside clear benefits to workers, there is a compelling business case for flexible working. Benefits include:
Attracting top talent—Research conducted by Timewise, a flexible working consultancy, has shown that 87% of people want to work flexibly, rising to 92% for young people.
A highly motivated, productive workforce—Research published by HSBC shows that nine in 10 employees consider flexible working to be a key motivator to their productivity at work—ranking it as more important than financial incentives. Employers have reported seeing improvements in staff motivation and employee relations.
A better business environment—the CBI employment trends survey found that 99% of all businesses surveyed believed that a flexible workforce is vital or important to competitiveness and the prospects for business investment and job creation.
For both these individual and business reasons, the Conservative party’s 2019 manifesto committed to a consultation on measures to help make flexible working the default unless employers have good reasons not to. Today's publication delivers on that commitment. It also contains our response to measures in the July 2019 “Good Work Plan: proposals to support families” consultation on publishing flexible working and family-related leave and pay policies; and stating whether jobs may be open to flexible working in the advert.
While the consultation focuses on contractual flexible working arrangements, the Government recognise that people do not always need something so formal to help them balance their home and work life. The consultation therefore also sets out our future plans for a call for evidence on how to support more “ad hoc” and informal forms of flexibility, for example to attend a one-off appointment.
The territorial extent of the proposals included in this consultation extends to England, Wales, and Scotland (employment law is devolved to Northern Ireland).
The consultation runs for 10 weeks until 1 December 2021. I will place copies of the flexible working consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
Government response to the carer’s leave consultation
The Government have also today published their response to the consultation on carer’s leave.
Around five million people across the UK are providing unpaid care by looking after or helping a family member, relative or friend. Nearly half do this while also working full-time or part-time. Juggling caring responsibilities and work can be challenging and can limit the participation of unpaid carers in the labour market. Women, who are often still the primary carers within families, tend to be disproportionately impacted.
The 2019 manifesto committed to introduce an entitlement to one week of leave for unpaid carers. This was followed, last year, by a consultation on carer’s leave, which recognised that unpaid carers face particular challenges in balancing work and caring responsibilities that may warrant a specific new employment right to time off from work.
The response, published today, sets out key aspects of the leave entitlement, including:
Employees with caring responsibilities for a dependant with long-term care needs will be entitled to one working week of unpaid carer’s leave (per employee, per year).
This new right will be available from the first day of employment.
Eligibility for the new right, both in terms of who the employee is caring for and how the leave can be used, will be broadly defined.
The leave can be taken flexibly (i.e. from several half day blocks to a single block of whole week).
The entitlement has been designed to balance the needs of employers and employees, ensuring that employers are able to plan and manage the absence created by carer’s leave. These include a minimum notice period and enabling employers to postpone (but not deny) the request for carer’s leave where the employer considers the operation of their business would be unduly disrupted.
The territorial extent of the proposals included in this Government response to the consultation on carer’s leave extends to England, Wales, and Scotland (employment law is devolved to Northern Ireland).
I will place copies of the carer’s leave consultation response in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS303]
Infected Blood Compensation Framework Study: Terms of Reference
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
On 20 May my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), announced the appointment of Sir Robert Francis QC to carry out an independent study to look at options for a framework for compensation for victims of infected blood. The study will make recommendations for compensation, before the infected blood inquiry reports. Terms of reference of the study were to be finalised following consultation between Sir Robert and those infected and affected. The consultation period concluded in August, and Sir Robert wrote to my predecessor with his recommendations.
Sir Robert’s consultation received a positive response from the infected and affected community. A total of 447 formal responses were submitted (including from many of the legal representatives of infected and affected core participants of the inquiry), along with over 150 further representations, primarily personal accounts from the infected and affected on how this tragedy has affected their lives. These accounts were of great assistance to Sir Robert in reviewing the draft terms of reference. Sir Robert wishes to express his gratitude to the many individuals who contributed to the consultation, in many cases having to relive the awful experiences they have suffered over so many years, and I would like to echo his gratitude.
Sir Robert’s recommendations identify the key issues that the study should consider. They offer assurance to the infected and affected communities that the matters of most concern to them will be considered by the study. I am therefore happy to accept Sir Robert’s recommendations in full, and I am today publishing the following terms of reference without amendment:
Rationale for compensation
To consider the rationale for compensation as a matter of general principle and in relation to any particular classes of compensation, recognising that it is not for the study to pre-empt the determination by the infected blood inquiry as to what, if any, rationale is supported by the evidence it has received;
Independent advice to the Government
Give independent advice to the Government regarding the design of a workable and fair framework for compensation for individuals infected and affected across the UK to achieve parity between those eligible for compensation regardless of where in the UK the relevant treatment occurred or place of residence. While the study is to take into account differences in current practice and/or law in the devolved Administrations, it is not asked to consider whether delivery of that framework should be managed centrally or individually by the devolved Administrations;
Scope of compensation
To consider the scope of eligibility for such compensation (including the appropriateness or otherwise of any conditions such as “cut-off” dates), and whether it should be extended beyond infected individuals and their partners, to include for example affected parents and children, the wider affected family (e.g. siblings), and significant non-family carers and others affected, either because of the impact of caring responsibilities or the effects of bereavement or some other impact; to include consideration of former and new partnerships/marriages; and whether the estate of any individual who has died should be eligible for compensation;
Categories of injury and loss
To consider the injuries, loss and detriments that compensation should address, in relation to the past, present and future, including:
(a) the physical impact and consequences of infections (including the effect of any treatment, and potential future adverse effects);
(b) infections that cleared naturally; and the risk of any significant or long-term side effects of treatment (such as liver damage, increased risk of cancer) even if they are yet to materialise;
(c) the mental health, social and financial impacts (including access to financial services)—both actual and in terms of loss of opportunities—suffered by both the infected and affected; and
(d) other types of loss if appropriate;
Types of award and method of assessment
To consider:
(a) the extent to which any framework should offer compensation on the basis of an individualised assessment and/or fixed sums or a combination of these (including consideration of the position of an individual who was both infected, and affected by another individual’s infection);
(b) whether awards should be by way of final lump sums, periodical payments or both;
(c) whether an individual should be required to prove matters (if so what types of matters, by what means, and to what standard);
(d) whether there should be any limitation by way of time or other bar on entitlement or claim, and whether any existing time bars should be maintained;
(e) the extent to which compensation should be limited to matters currently recognised by the law (taking into account any differences in the law across the UK) on damages and evidence as recoverable for the purposes of compensation, or, if not, the basis on which broader matters should be taken into account;
Measures for compensation
To consider the measures for compensation, looking at other national schemes (for example, the compensation tribunal established in the Republic of Ireland) to examine their merits or otherwise, and experiences, both as to form (i.e. administration/process) and the substance of compensation;
Relationship with current schemes
To consider the relationship between a compensation framework and other receipts and payments by individuals, including: (a) the pre-existing financial support schemes; (b) legal claims; (c) welfare benefits and tax;
Options for administering the scheme
To consider options for administering the scheme (including but not limited to what bodies, organisations or tribunals might need to be established to facilitate such administration); what principles, aims or criteria etc might underpin the development of an appropriate scheme; and any ancillary matters which should be considered such as interim payments, publicity of the scheme, outreach to potential claimants, and support;
Other issues
To consider other issues that, in the course of his investigations, Sir Robert considers relevant; and
Reporting to Government by February 2022
To submit to the Government its report and recommendations as quickly as possible and no later than the end of February 2022, to provide the Government with advice on potential options for compensation framework design.
Sir Robert and his team will now begin the more detailed conversations and analysis to look into the detail of the issues raised by the infected and affected community. This will allow him to produce a set of comprehensive recommendations to the complex issues involved.
I, like my predecessor, am deeply committed to ensuring that Sir Brian Langstaff’s independent public inquiry has all the resources it needs to complete its work; in Sir Brian’s words, “as quickly as thoroughness permits”. The infected blood scandal continues to claim the lives of infected people, and those directly affected have waited too long for answers, and for justice.
[HCWS305]
Agreement Between British Trade and Cultural Office and Taipei Representative Office
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
A protocol to the agreement with the Taipei Representative Office in London was signed in London on 11 August and in Taipei on 19 August. The text of the protocol is available on HM Revenue and Customs’ pages of the gov.uk website and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The text of the protocol will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
[HCWS306]
UK National Risk Assessment of Proliferation Financing
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
As a major global financial centre, a key component of the UK’s economic strength and prosperity is our openness to investment and trade. However, this quality also makes the UK economy vulnerable to illicit finance activities, including proliferation financing. Despite robust controls in place in the UK to tackle proliferation financing activity, actors involved in proliferation financing look to exploit the UK’s position in the global economy and international financial system to raise funds to develop chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) programmes which counter UK national security objectives and threaten international peace and security.
On 23 September, the Government published the UK’s first national risk assessment (NRA) of proliferation financing risks. This assessment, published by HM Treasury using views and evidence from Government, the private sector, and academic and research partners, provides a comprehensive review of the proliferation financing risks facing the UK. The UK is one of the first jurisdictions to carry out an assessment of this kind.
The key findings of the UK national risk assessment of proliferation financing are:
The UK’s financial sector is at high risk from proliferation actors. It is highly likely that proliferation actors will target the UK to gain financing for CBRN proliferation despite the robust controls in place to prevent this. The UK’s financial services industry, particularly the banking and insurance sectors, is especially at risk.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran are the most significant proliferation financing actors at state level. The DPRK seeks to evade international sanctions regimes to obtain financing for its unlawful weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programmes, and Iran for its nuclear programme.
There is limited awareness in the private sector of proliferation financing compared to other risks, including money laundering and terrorist financing. A lack of awareness of proliferation financing in parts of the UK economy can lead to a lack of understanding of how certain industrial products, for example, may be manipulated for hostile use or for use in a CBRN programme.
Despite the above threats, the assessment highlights the robust counter-proliferation legal framework in place in the UK to protect the country from proliferation financing. The UK's autonomous financial sanctions regimes targeting CBRN proliferation, as well as UN sanctions regimes implemented in the UK, export control regimes, and other tools available to the UK Government, limit opportunities for proliferating actors to exploit the UK to obtain financing for CBRN capabilities.
The report is available on gov.uk www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-risk-assessment-of-proliferation-financing.
The national risk assessment demonstrates the UK’s ongoing commitment to counter proliferation financing, set out in the integrated review of security, defence, development, and foreign policy 2021. We also committed to publishing a proliferation financing NRA in the Government’s economic crime plan. Moreover, the UK is at the forefront of international efforts to counter proliferation financing, particularly at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) where we have led progress on updating FATF recommendations focusing on proliferation financing.
This is the first NRA the UK has produced evaluating the threat posed by proliferation financing. Under proposed amendments to the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations (MLRs), HM Treasury will be required to review and update this NRA on a regular basis. This would offer opportunities to further refine the assessment and its methodology going forward and ensure that the UK is proactively seeking to address new threats and trends posed by proliferation financing. In this proposed amendment of the MLRs, which is currently out for public consultation until October 2021, the Treasury also plans to set requirements on relevant persons to take appropriate steps to identify and assess the risks posed by proliferation financing, and to establish strategies to mitigate and manage these risks effectively. The findings of this assessment will also provide the UK with further opportunities to develop its counter-proliferation financing policy.
[HCWS307]
Making Tax Digital
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
The Government have set out an ambition to become one of the most digitally advanced tax authorities in the world.
Making tax digital (MTD) is the first phase of our move towards a modern, digital tax service fit for the 21st century. It supports businesses through their digitisation journey and provides a digital service that many have come to expect in their everyday lives. MTD helps businesses reduce common errors in their tax affairs and allows for better customer interaction and guidance through digital prompts and nudges.
Since the introduction of MTD for VAT in 2019, over 1.5 million businesses have joined and many are already experiencing benefits. MTD users are reporting that preparing and submitting returns is easier, and that MTD has increased their confidence in managing tax affairs and using technology. MTD also puts businesses on a path to further digitisation: integrating tax management with a range of business processes can contribute to productivity gains.
During the pandemic, UK businesses increasingly turned to digital tools to communicate remotely and work collaboratively. Businesses adapted rapidly to the challenges posed by the pandemic, using digital solutions to maintain resilience and reduce disruption.
Over the past year, HMRC has worked closely with partners in the business and tax communities on the proposed design and scope of MTD for income tax (ITSA).
Today the Government have laid regulations in Parliament to help those impacted by the changes to prepare, and for their representatives to develop their own support and guidance.
The Government recognise the challenges faced by many UK businesses and their representatives as the country emerges from the pandemic over the last year. In recognition of this and of stakeholder feedback, we will now be introducing MTD for ITSA a year later, in the tax year beginning in April 2024.
General partnerships will not be required to join MTD for ITSA until the tax year beginning in April 2025. The date at which all other types of partnerships will be required to join will be confirmed later.
In March 2021, the Government announced a new system of penalties for the late filing and late payment of tax for ITSA. This will now be introduced for those who are mandated for MTD for ITSA in the tax year beginning in April 2024, and for all other ITSA customers in the tax year beginning in April 2025.
Alongside the regulations, HMRC has also today published a tax information and impact note (TIIN) setting out the projected benefit and cost impacts of MTD for ITSA, as well as a policy paper to help different businesses understand what their transition to MTD could look like in more detail.
A later start for MTD for ITSA provides more time for those required to join to make the necessary preparations and for HMRC to deliver the most robust service possible, affording additional time for testing in the pilot.
HMRC will continue to work in close partnership with business and accountancy representative bodies and software developers to ensure taxpayers are well supported as they adopt MTD for USA.
The Government have also recently consulted on a reform of the complex basis period rules that govern how self-employed profits are allocated to tax years. Many respondents said that the reform was a sensible simplification but asked for more time to implement the changes. In recognition of these concerns, these changes will not come into effect before April 2024, with a transition year not coming into effect earlier than 2023. The Government will respond to the consultation in due course providing the next steps.
[HCWS308]
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (James Cleverly)
The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) has replaced the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
[HCWS304]
Machinery of Government: Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of government change.
Responsibility for driving forward the levelling up agenda and elections and UK governance and devolution policy is being moved to create a new Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This change will embed levelling up commitments and policy on governance in the United Kingdom and elections within a single Department which already manages relationships with local communities, local government and the housing sector. Bringing these responsibilities together will allow the Secretary of State to embed ever closer working with the territorial offices and lead co-ordination with the devolved Administrations on my behalf.
The new Department will consist of staff previously employed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and staff from the Union and Constitution Group in the Cabinet Office in support of cross-Whitehall efforts aimed at delivering tangible improvements in every part of the UK. A levelling up taskforce has also been established which will report jointly to me and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
[HCWS309]