Subsidy Control Bill (Third sitting)
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. May I encourage Members to wear a face covering except when speaking or if they are exempt, in line with the House of Commons Commission’s recommendations? Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper.
The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in the group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. We will start with clause 1 stand part.
Clause 1
Overview and application of Act
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.
Clause 1 provides an overview of what each part of the Subsidy Control Bill will cover and establishes its application to other legislation. It sets out the definitions, the requirements, the exemptions, the functions of the Competition and Markets Authority and the enforcement of the control requirements. Subsections (7) and (8) specify that if a subsidy is granted or a scheme is created using powers contained in either primary or secondary legislation, the requirements will apply unless an Act of Parliament specifies otherwise. It is a straightforward, uncontroversial overview of the Bill and its application.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks on clause 1 stand part. We support the clause, but I will make a few remarks on it. It provides an overview of the Bill. There are concerns that we will discuss further later, but that I want to mention in relation to the overview in clause 1.
As we said on Second Reading, we recognise the need for subsidy control legislation that establishes the framework for state aid post Brexit, but the new regime proposed in the Bill will work only if it provides transparency, oversight and scrutiny. While the Bill’s chapters reflect what the key issues are, there are areas where the Bill does not provide sufficient detail and clarity.
We are concerned about a number of areas. First, crucial aspects of the regime are yet to be defined. The Bill may establish a regulatory framework of subsidy control, but it fails to provide any real indication of how, where, and on what scale the Government plan to spend subsidies. As Alexander Rose said in his written evidence,
“there is currently no preferential system to incentivise investment into disadvantaged regions.”
The Bill also fails to provide a fair role for the devolved Administrations, and we are concerned that there is not enough balance between efficiency and oversight, particularly related to the CMA. We will debate some of these issues later, but it is important to note in our discussion of the overview why we will want further debate on the gaps in the Bill, and that we will seek to amend it in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
“Subsidy”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 2 is the cornerstone of the new subsidy control regime. It sets out the definition of a subsidy for the purposes of the Bill, and it is a fall-in test, so to be a subsidy, it must be given, directly or indirectly, by a public authority using public resources; it must confer an economic advantage on one or more enterprise; it must be specific, meaning it must benefit one or more enterprise over others by conferring an economic advantage; and finally, it must have, or be capable of having, an effect on competition or investment in the United Kingdom, or on trade or investment between the United Kingdom and other territories.
There is a non-exhaustive list of financial assistances that may count as subsidies in subsection (2). Subsections (3) and (4) establish that financial assistance provided by an intermediary will constitute a subsidy where the funds originated from public resources, or the nature of the relationship between the public authority and the intermediary is such that the decision is effectively that of the public authority. Subsection (5) establishes the point at which a subsidy is deemed to have been given.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks on clause 2. We support the clause standing part of the Bill, but there are some areas that I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on. He described the fall-in test: where the condition in each limb of subsection (1) is met, financial assistance is defined as a subsidy. That definition applies to goods and services. Subsection (2) outlines the means by which a subsidy is given. That effectively includes a direct and indirect transfer of funds. Could the Minister outline what that means for tax reliefs? Perhaps he could provide clarity on what the boundary is, and say what is and is not regarded as a subsidy.
Subsection (3) refers to a person who is not a public authority, but could be treated as one for the purposes of subsection (1). Will the Minister clarify who this is intended to refer to? Who could fall under the scope of subsection (3)? That is important, because it defines who has the authority to bring forward and grant subsidies. We would like greater clarity about what is intended by that; it was not very clear from the explanatory notes. That also relates, to some extent, to subsection (4).
We do not have an issue with subsection (6), but would like clarification on what is defined, and on why the subsection relates to “modification for air carriers”. We do not have a major problem with that; I just thought it would be helpful to clarify it, as it is the first time it comes up in the Bill.
Paul Scully
Largely, the definition of subsidies in the clause has been designed to be consistent with international obligations, especially those arising from the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, but it does lay the foundation for a bespoke domestic regime, hence the discussion about the UK internal market. A lot of the terminology included is based on domestic legal precedent, such as the definition of an enterprise and the like. On the question about the “person”, that is what I meant about the intermediary; should a public authority not have a direct payment, or if any subsidy comes through a third party, that third party is the person defined in the Bill. Largely, as is the case for tax and aviation, all these definitions sit within the framework of our international obligations under the TCA.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Financial assistance which confers an economic advantage
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 3 establishes that financial assistance should not be considered to confer an economic advantage if it could reasonably have been provided on market terms. It is a small but necessary addition to the core definition of a subsidy for the purposes of the new regime. One example is a loan; it would not be considered to confer an economic advantage if it might have been provided by a bank on the same terms. Similarly, a public authority purchasing goods and services at market rates would not be considered to confer an economic advantage as long as the public authority follows the appropriate procurement processes.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks on clause 3. We have no general comments, but could clause 3(2) be brought in as a challenge if, for example, a cheaper loan could arguably have been obtained in the market? To avoid challenge, would that be something that the public authority needed to verify when granting the subsidy, and when a subsidy is posted, would there need to be some sort of confirmation that such a check had been made?
Paul Scully
The domestic subsidy control regime in its entirety is a bare-bones framework. It empowers public authorities in the UK to design subsidies and other policy interventions, including loans, without facing excessive bureaucracy or lengthy pre-approval processes. It does not have an EU-style regulator that acts as the gatekeeper and provides the definitive decisions on specific cases. However, we will provide guidance in due course that will help public authorities and recipients understand the practical applications of the definitions, and what authorities will need to do to comply with the subsidy control regime, including in the example that the hon. Member mentions.
Seema Malhotra
I hope, from what the Minister says, that there will be tighter guidance on how a public authority ensures that the subsidy it is giving is compliant, and on whether it will need to verify or confirm that—saying, “I confirm that,” or “All this complies with x”—in any entry it needs to make. During the evidence session, it was highlighted that there is a gap in auditing the quality of the checks a public authority makes; if there is no process for that to be recorded, it is not transparent.
Paul Scully
Clearly, anybody giving a subsidy, be they the UK Government, the devolved Administrations or a public authority, would need to keep their own internal audits in case of challenge. However, the guidance that we will develop—with full consultation and discussion with interested parties, including the devolved Administrations, businesses and public authorities, to make sure we are answering the right questions—will have that level of detail.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Financial assistance which is specific
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The purpose of clause 4 is to elaborate on the circumstances in which financial assistance is not considered to be specific where it benefits one or more enterprises over others for the purpose of the new regime. Subsection (2) confirms that financial assistance is not specific if different enterprises are treated differently in a way that can be inherently justified by the nature of the financial assistance. For example, in the case of a special levy for environmental purposes, treating certain goods or services differently can be justified by the effect that the levy aims to achieve.
Subsections (3) to (7) set out further considerations that are relevant to whether a tax measure should be considered specific, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston mentioned. Subsection (4) sets out the situations in which tax measures may treat enterprises differently without being considered specific by reference to the normal taxation regime. One example is that a tax relief measure by a local authority that advantages one or more local enterprises over another is likely to be considered specific, but it will not be specific if all enterprises in the local area benefit. Subsection (5) makes provision for identifying what the normal taxation regime is by reference to its overall objective, its features and the level of autonomy that the public authority has in the design of the taxation regime.
Subsection (6) confirms that a levy with a non-economic public policy objective would not be specific if treating enterprises differently can be justified by objective criteria—for example, the criterion of limiting negative impacts on public health or the environment. Subsection (7) confirms that any carve-out from the levy will also not be considered specific if the same conditions as those in subsection (6) are met. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks on the clause. Will he clarify what guidance sits behind it? This is a similar issue to that raised on clause 3(2). A concern was raised by some of our witnesses about potential tax reliefs not being defined as a subsidy, but having the same outcome as a subsidy for all intents and purposes. We obviously want to ensure that there is integrity in the implementation of the regime, so that it does not give rise to concern that there are subsidies being made through the back door that are not subject to the regime’s transparency and control measures. Will the Minister confirm that guidance will be developed around this, to make it very clear what the delineations are, and will that guidance be given and explained to local authorities?
Another issue that came up in evidence was that local or other public authorities that have not been involved in granting subsidies before want to be sure that they are making the right decisions, and want to understand the regime and the intentions of the Government.
Paul Scully
Absolutely. First of all, the guidance will give advice on the application of provisions, including the duty to consider and act consistently with the subsidy control principles. We will develop that guidance with full consultation and discussions with other parties, so that we can all look at all the measures, including the tax-specific measures. The guidance will be published in good time to allow public authorities and other stakeholders to understand the key requirements of the new regime before it commences. It is so important that we get the transparency correct and that, as the hon. Lady rightly says, we ensure the integrity of the system.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Section 2: modification for air carriers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause establishes a more specific competition test to determine whether financial assistance for air carriers providing air transport services is a subsidy for the purposes of the Bill. Specifically, the clause will require that public authorities assess whether that financial assistance has an effect on competition between air carriers in the provision of air transport services, either within the UK or between air carriers of the UK and those of another country, or could have such an effect. An assessment of that kind more precisely reflects the specific characteristics of the market for air transport services provided by air carriers, as well as meeting our relevant international obligations.
Seema Malhotra
I have no comments or questions on clause 5.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
“Public authority”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 6 establishes the definition of the term “public authority” for the purposes of the Bill. It sets out the standard definition of a public authority, denoting a person who exercises functions of a public nature. It is consistent with UK legislative precedent. It does not include either House of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Provisions relating to the subsidies and schemes in primary legislation are included under clause 78 and schedule 3.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks on clause 6. We have no further issues in relation to it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be part of this Committee. I wonder whether the Minister could explain a little more the logic behind the exclusions. I have read the explanatory notes, and the intention is still not entirely clear to me. I do not think that I have a problem with it—I think it makes sense— but if he could explain it a little more that would be really helpful.
Paul Scully
I am very happy to respond. The provisions for subsidies given by Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly are set out in clause 78 and schedule 3, which provide for the giving of subsidies by means of primary legislation. They are covered separately to reflect the unique legal and constitutional position of Acts of Parliament. The legislature is considered to have given a subsidy when it is given under a duty imposed by primary legislation. Those subsidies are captured by schedule 3, but if a subsidy is given under a power in primary legislation, the relevant public authority will be the Minister exercising that power.
Kirsty Blackman
Just to clarify, is the logic that the devolved Administrations and the Houses of Parliament can continue to give subsidies in primary legislation, and that is why an exclusion, or a separate provision, is in place relating to them? Is it partly to do with not being able to bind future Parliaments, or is that totally separate from what we are discussing?
Paul Scully
It is more to do with the fact that public authorities have been added as an extra, whereas state aid did not go down that far. The public authority definition at the beginning widens the definition of who can give subsidy control, whereas it is established that the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Parliament, can continue to give as they do now.
Seema Malhotra
This is a helpful discussion. Further to that point, is it to differentiate—I think the Minister alluded to this—who has the power to grant the subsidy? For example, the Houses of Parliament may not but the Secretary of State or Ministers may. Is that the distinction that we should read here, or am I confusing things?
Paul Scully
Essentially, the things that tend to be given will usually be given with the agreement of the Houses of Parliament. Although it may be the UK Government that award the subsidy, it will clearly be on the back of parliamentary powers that they do so. That is where we are coming from.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
“Enterprise”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause establishes the definition of “enterprise” for the purposes of the Bill. Under the new regime, an enterprise is any person or group of persons under common ownership or common control offering goods or services in a market. Importantly, the definition applies only to the extent that the person is engaged in such activity. It is purposely broad, it is consistent with our international obligations and other UK legal precedents, and it will ensure that the new subsidy control rules apply widely to protect UK competition and investment.
Seema Malhotra
Will the Minister clarify whether that definition extends to social enterprises and co-operatives for the purposes of organisations that may be involved in economic activity? Will those organisations be within scope to potentially receive subsidies from public authorities?
Paul Scully
If a person is not engaged in economic activity, they will not be defined as an enterprise. Generally speaking, a charity or community group is unlikely to carry out economic activity. However, we are not explicitly excluding anyone from the definition of enterprise just because of their legal form. The hon. Lady talks about social enterprises, which are obviously different from charities, because some can be normal companies but do not make profits or have shareholders. However, that is economic activity, so those would be included within the definition.
The test looks at the activity that is proposed to be subsidised, rather than the legal form of the subsidy recipient. One organisation may be considered an enterprise in some contexts and for some activities but not others. One example might be a medical research charity that has a retail arm. Support given to the medical research activity is not a subsidy, because the research is not economic activity, even though the charity’s retail operation may be considered an enterprise.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a couple of questions. I am aware of social enterprises in Aberdeen that make and sell frames or make bread and run cafés and things like that. It sounds as if that would be included within the definition of economic activity, because they are selling things to the general public, even though their main purpose is to ensure that people who are disadvantaged in society are given the opportunity to get work experience and things like that. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether he intends the clause to cover all economic activity, regardless of who is doing it, but that the subsidy relates only to the arms of those organisations that are undertaking the economic activity; and that the clause applies across the board to charitable organisations and social enterprises as well as normal businesses, so long as the thing they are doing is classed as economic activity. Have I got that right?
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady has got that right. Some charities have a commercial retail arm that are taxed and approached in different ways. For example, Help for Heroes has a retail arm as well as the main fundraising arm. There is clearly no intention for subsidies of cake sales or anything like that—money may be handed over, but that is fundraising—whereas retail involves the selling of things. I am not saying that that specific example will involve in any subsidy, but such an example, where a separate business is aligned to the charity, is where the enterprise comes in that covers the economic activity that we are describing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Persons under common control
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause elaborates on what is meant by common control for the purpose of identifying an enterprise. It sets out the circumstances where common control arises: where one or more corporate bodies is controlled by one person or a group of persons, or where there are interconnected corporate bodies. An interconnected corporate body is where a subsidiary or subsidiaries exist.
A person, or a group of persons, is treated as having common control when, directly or indirectly, they can control or materially influence the economic activity of another corporate body, which also applies where there is no controlling interest over the corporate body. Interconnected corporate bodies or a group of persons under common control are considered to be a single enterprise for the purpose of the subsidy control regime. The clause will ensure that the rules under the regime are applied fairly, regardless of corporate structures.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments on clause 8. For the purposes of clarity around where public resources may go, will he explain what the clause means if, in a group of companies, one of them is granted a subsidy? Could that subsidy be shared with others in the group? I am not fully clear what the clause means.
Secondly, what if one of the other companies in the group has interests abroad? Is there something in the legislation that prevents public subsidies in the UK going through company structures within the same group to then subsidise activities abroad? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that—it is genuinely not very clear.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady gives an interesting example, which I may need to clarify afterwards. However, the essential drive behind the clause is to provide effective definitions so that public authorities can identify the characteristics of an enterprise receiving a subsidy to make sure it complies with the requirements in the first place.
A public authority should not give a subsidy to a business that is a subsidiary of a large parent company without considering that large enterprise as a whole. A subsidy designed to support a microbusiness, for example, would be inappropriate in that kind of situation. The whole group has to be considered to assess the incentives of the recipient and whether the subsidy is an appropriate and proportionate way to address that market failure.
Another example might be the minimal financial assistance exemption. Two companies under common control should not both receive subsidies of £200,000, for example, as minimal financial assistance. That would exceed the threshold of £315,000 for a single enterprise.
The measures must apply regardless of the way an enterprise is structured. The clause gives public authorities the clarity to identify where the subsidy actually ends up and whether it is being used for its intended purpose—rather than, as the hon. Lady says, the possibility of it being moved abroad or to another part of the group, which would not achieve the aims for which the subsidy was given.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for those points. However, there could be an unintended difference between what the Government intend and what the law and guidance, if not clear, could result in. I would be grateful if the Minister could come back in writing to explain, specifically, what the Government’s intentions are for the guidance that may be given to an enterprise receiving a subsidy as to whether, once it has been given, there are controls on where the subsidy could be passed on to. I know that somewhere else in the Bill, it says that if a company’s ownership changes, the subsidy can pass through, but this is a point about clarity and guidance regarding what controls exist once that subsidy is given.
Secondly, on this point about potential ownership of a group or the enterprise, are there any constraints or guidance—or is there an intention of producing any guidance—in relation to companies that may be, for example, foreign-owned but trading here, where some subsidies could end up going into other countries? Is there clarity about how that is potentially going to receive guidance or be regulated to ensure it does not happen, if that is the Government’s intention?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, and I appreciate that clarity is required on this issue. I will give her a fuller answer in writing. What I will not be able to do, though, is pre-empt the guidance, which as I say we will be developing through discussion as we progress after the framework Bill has been approved. However, the definition of a wholly owned subsidiary can already be found in section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006, so again, this is taken from legal precedent.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for that. He is referring to subsection (5), but it would be of benefit to the Committee to receive a response in writing on those broader points.
Paul Scully
I should add, as I said in my original response, that when public authorities are giving the subsidy, it is important to ensure that that subsidy is going to the enterprises for the purposes of the market failure that they are trying to correct.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
The subsidy control principles and the energy and environment principles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 9 establishes that the subsidy control principles are set out in schedule 1 to the Bill, and that the further principles for public authorities awarding energy and environment subsidies are set out in schedule 2 to the Bill. Those common-sense principles, requiring that subsidies are an appropriate, proportionate means of addressing a specific policy programme, are set out in clear terms in the relevant schedules. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. Labour has no further issues with this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
The subsidy control principles
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 51, line 8, after “concerns” insert “and areas of deprivation”.
This amendment includes areas of deprivation as an example of the equity rationales that subsidies should address.
Under EU state aid rules, subsidies could be, and indeed were, targeted at areas of economic deprivation, significantly aiding struggling regions. Labour recognises the ongoing debate about assisted areas or other ways in which there could be a successor scheme to those rules, in order to support better and more effective targeting and transparency about where public resources are going, and indeed to support the levelling up agenda. We are concerned that this is not explicit in the Bill; it is merely alluded to in guidance. This important principle needs to be explicitly in the Bill for those who might be interpreting legislation in the near future or who want it to be a regime that stands the test of time and has the confidence of all four nations.
As Professor Fothergill highlighted, as the Bill currently stands we could be treating investment in a wealthy part of Guildford on the same basis as a potential investment in a less prosperous part of Grimsby. That seems counterintuitive to the oft-quoted term “levelling up”, which highlights a policy priority for Governments of all persuasions and is a new term for what we have all talked about: increasing equality and making sure there is prosperity in all parts of our country. It is important that we all agree on the need to make sure that public resources are being used to the best effect and to achieve the best outcomes for those areas of greatest need.
Professor Fothergill went on to say:
“You would not be attempting to incentivise the levelling up of the United Kingdom. In certain places, if we really are serious about levelling up, we have to put more resources into that effort, and we have to use state aid as one of the tools for delivering new jobs.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 11, Q7.]
I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on that. Does he agree that the Bill should include a stronger mandate for reducing economic inequality? The notes on the Bill’s intention allude to levelling up, and the Government created a specific Department for levelling up. Given how much the Government have been talking about levelling up, I must say it was surprising not to see it more explicitly in the wording of the Bill. Could the Minister respond to that?
We are concerned about the overall principles. I understand that they are derived from agreements within the TCA, but they can be amended. It is not that we do not have the authority to do that. Where, if not here, do the Government intend to include and support the equity rationale that subsidies are supposed to be addressing? We believe that the amendment would make it clear that the new subsidy regime can and should play a role in reducing regional and sub-regional inequality. It is a simple way of addressing the issue within the Bill.
Paul Scully
As we have heard, amendment 6 seeks to include areas of deprivation as an example of the equity rationale that may be addressed through subsidies. Firstly, I would like to use this opportunity to welcome the hon. Lady’s commitment to the levelling-up agenda. The Government are clearly committed to ensuring that prosperity and opportunity is shared across all parts of the UK. The domestic subsidy control regime will facilitate this. It will allow public authorities to deliver investment in skills, local infrastructure and new technologies.
Principle A within schedule 1, as well as the wider subsidy control system, has been designed to allow public authorities to address inequality and disadvantage through the use of subsidies. The principle specifies that subsidies should pursue a policy objective that either remedies a market failure or addresses, to quote from schedule 1,
“an equity rationale (such as social difficulties or distributional concerns).”
As currently drafted, schedule 1 clearly covers investment in disadvantaged or deprived areas; as such, the amendment is unnecessary. Through guidance, we can come up with more specific clarity to public authorities, but I do not believe it is helpful to list in the Bill every policy objective that a subsidy may address. As I say, the specific examples will be covered and elaborated on in guidance, which is a more appropriate place to address the practical application of the subsidy control principles. I therefore suggest that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston withdraws the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
May I ask the Minister for some clarity on that? He says that he expects that more information about principle A will come out in guidance. Does he expect that that will encourage granting bodies to look at reducing inequality in some of the subsidies that they make?
Paul Scully
It will set that out in guidance. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston talked about the evidence session, and Guildford got quite a bad rap, having come up a couple of times as the example. None the less, we want to ensure that we directly address issues of inequality and disparity through the levelling-up agenda. That will come out through guidance and ensure that we address exactly what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North was saying.
Kirsty Blackman
One more try on this. Does the Minister expect that the Government’s levelling-up agenda will be part of the direction of travel in the guidance, so that the guidance will encourage granting authorities to line up with the Government’s levelling-up agenda?
Paul Scully
In terms of levelling up, it has been designed to provide a bespoke and dynamic framework. It allows public authorities to deliver bespoke subsidies that are tailored to their local needs, which will indeed address the UK Government’s priorities, such as levelling up, but within their own areas. Public authorities are best placed to work out how to address the inequality and disadvantage within regions, as well as between regions, so we have developed an approach that ensures that disadvantaged areas have the maximum freedom and reassurance to receive the levelling-up subsidies and best meet the characteristics of the area.
Seema Malhotra
I will make a few remarks and then clarify whether I will push the amendment to a vote. I will respond to some of the points raised, and I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her comments. It is important to ensure that a more explicit intention is incorporated in the wording of the Bill, but I worry that that will not be achieved as explicitly as it ought to be, if it is so squarely in line with the Government’s intentions.
I want to come back on one of the points that the Minister made. We have spoken about the evidence in relation to Guildford and Grimsby, but he makes an important point. Every area has better-off, prosperous parts and others that are worse off, which is why it is important to think about levelling up not just between regions but within them, as he said. Indeed, I know that some wards in my constituency have some of the worst records in the country for children going to university. Some of them have improved, but some London wards can be as poverty stricken as other parts of the country, which is why we need to have a more mature debate about levelling up that looks at some of those issues. What is important is that this will be an ongoing discussion throughout the course of the Committee. We have not fully closed off whether, and how, there should be a successor to the assisted areas map. We take the point about the boundaries not always being clear if we do try and have a map, and I have concerns about that having unintended consequences, such as excluding areas further down the line that may have good reason to be considered for subsides. However, there is an important principle here, and I do not want us to lose it. I will not be pushing this amendment to a vote today, but I do think that it is one that with further discussion and clarity—reviewing some of the evidence—we may want to come back to at a later stage.
Paul Scully
I agree with many of the hon. Member’s remarks, as I am the Minister for London as well. We are talking about addressing areas of inequality within regions, as well as between regions. By having a blunt tool, we can sometimes miss out on those pockets of deprivation, as well as the wider issues—both need to be covered.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 52, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) the United Kingdom reaching its net-zero commitments.”
This amendment adds the impact on the UK’s net-zero commitments as a particular consideration for public authorities before deciding whether to give a subsidy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in schedule 2, page 52, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) delivering the UK’s net-zero commitments.”
This amendment would ensure that subsidies related to energy and the environment incentivise the beneficiary to help deliver the UK’s net-zero targets.
Seema Malhotra
Thank you for allowing me to speak to the amendment, Mr Sharma. I want to speak about why I think this is so important. The reason for this amendment is that the Bill should prevent subsidies that unnecessarily harm or impede the UK’s work towards net zero. In the Bill as it currently stands, subsidies not related to energy or the environment can meet all of the subsidy control principles, but could work against the Government’s overall goal of moving towards net zero.
To prevent this the Government are seeking to amend principle G of the schedule, in order to state that the subsidy’s beneficial effects must outweigh any negative consequences they may have on the UK’s net zero commitment. This was supported in evidence by Alexander Rose from DWF Group, who noted that all civil servants would be mandated to take account of net zero. Why not extend that thinking to other public authorities and to every single subsidy? Similarly, subsidies related to energy and the environment should not impede the UK’s work towards net zero. More than that, they should actively work towards the UK reaching its targets. We are having this debate and seeing the Bill pass through Committee during COP26; in fact, we are leading into COP26 and we will pick up after it. Does the Minister agree that if the Government want to show they are serious about this, we should be thinking about how to ensure that when public money could be used to support policy objectives, we include the United Kingdom reaching its net zero commitments as part of that?
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I find nothing objectionable in what the hon. Lady is saying or indeed the amendments. However, possibly due to what she has said about the Government’s amendment and what is already in the Bill, I do not know whether what she is proposing is entirely required. Directly underneath where her proposed sub-paragraph (c) would be inserted, principle A in schedule 2, on the aim of subsidies in relation to energy and environment, refers to the aim to deliver
“a secure, affordable and sustainable energy system”,
and, in sub-paragraph (b), the aim to increase
“the level of environmental protection compared to the level that would be achieved in the absence of the subsidy.”
Both are very much in line with, and compatible with, our aim to reach net zero.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. My understanding is that the energy and environment principles would apply to subsidies in relation to energy and the environment. We are talking about a slightly broader principle here, which is that any subsidy granted under the regime should not have a harmful impact on achieving our net zero outcomes. That would seem to be a slightly perverse use of public money when net zero is such an explicit goal and when civil servants will need to be working towards it. Indeed, as Dr Barker outlined on Tuesday,
“the green industrial revolution that we are all seeking to work towards in order to achieve net zero is also something that will require…partnership between business and Government”,
and
“an effective subsidy system can be part of that.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 39, Q52.]
These amendments are simply saying that if we are serious about what achieving net zero will mean, we should not allow a system to be established, at the same time as COP26, that could work against that, and do so using public money.
Kirsty Blackman
For the avoidance of doubt, my colleague and I support amendments 7 and 8, which are both incredibly sensible. As is quite often the case in Bill Committees, I wish I had thought of them earlier and tabled them first.
I agree with the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston about COP26. This is happening now, and it is a moment that we can take advantage of to get towards net zero commitments. COP is coming up and there is a groundswell of public support for trying to make a difference. This is something on which my colleague and I also moved amendments during proceedings on the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill. We wanted ARIA’s No. 1 priority to be a focus on net zero. We also wanted a commitment from the Government that ARIA would itself operate on a net zero basis, because we are beyond the time for talking about this. In order to meet the UK Government and the Scottish Government’s commitments, we need to be taking action on this, rather than just talking about it.
It is all well and good to have in place the stuff that my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, talked about for energy and environment subsidies, but we need that for all subsidies, whether they relate to energy and the environment or anything else. This should run through everything that the Government are doing. For every decision in the Budget, which is being discussed in the main Chamber, we should be asking, “How does this get us towards net zero and reducing our carbon output?”
I just do not think we are there yet. It does not feel like the Government are taking this seriously enough, and it is not just this Government. Governments around the world are not taking this seriously enough. We need to be there now and making that commitment. If the subsidy control regime is intended to work and to stand the test of time, and if we are looking towards those net zero targets, we need that to be in this Bill. At the very least, we need a strong commitment from the Minister that subsidies in relation to not just energy and the environment but other areas will be more favourably looked on, or less likely to be rejected out of hand, if they specifically work towards reaching the UK’s net zero targets, and particularly if they work towards something that is carbon negative. We are not doing enough of those things, so if more of the new policies that come through were carbon negative, it would be much easier for us to get to our net zero target. If the Minister could make some strong commitments on that, it would be hugely welcome, but I will be happy to support the amendments tabled in the name of the Opposition.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for these sittings, Mr Sharma.
I completely agree with everything the hon. Member for Aberdeen North says and with what my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston said in moving the amendment. What is needed from Government is the commitment to hit net zero and the mechanisms to do so. That needs to go right across Government, in everything we do.
I take on board the point the Minister has already made in today’s deliberations that not everything is in the Bill; I understand that and I accept it. However, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North argued extremely well, there is a strong—we would say an essential—case for net zero to be at the heart of the regime put in place by this legislation.
Schedule 2 does not mention transport, agriculture or housing insulation, to name just three examples, so it is not comprehensive as currently drafted. That is why we need to go much further to meet the scale of the challenge in the subsidy control regime that we are debating putting in place. The Budget yesterday did not address net zero, and it is frankly extremely worrying that it did not, especially in the run-up to COP26.
I am afraid the announcements last week did not constitute a plan and were nowhere near meeting the requirement to hit the net zero targets this country is committed to in the timely fashion that is needed, especially in terms of the front-loading we all now understand is essential in all areas except the energy industry. It is needed in transport, in building insulation and in agriculture; it is needed across industry. Unless this is in the Bill, setting out the requirement for net zero to be at the heart of the subsidy regime, I am afraid we as a country, and this Government as a Government, will not be doing what is needed.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Do we need to put net zero down on the subsidy as it is? If the hon. Gentleman remembers our Paris agreement only a few years ago, he knows we agreed to get to net zero by later this century. Now we have moved it forward to 2050, and I hope—I am sure the Government hope—that we will move our net zero agreement even further forward as time progresses. Will this proposal not make the Bill a bit out of date in a few decades’ time, when it should stand for longer?
Bill Esterson
The amendment, because of the way it is phrased, envisages those changes and the increasing urgency. Let us remind ourselves that, on our present track, we are looking at a temperature rise of more than 1.5 °C through the existing commitments and policy decisions not just of this country but of Governments around the world. It is important to acknowledge that we cannot do it on our own, as we are responsible for only 1% of emissions, but when we are trying to show world leadership with the presidency of COP26, it is incumbent on us to show that leadership in everything we do, and we, as Members on this Committee, have an opportunity right here, right now to support making that commitment and putting it into legislation.
Given the way the amendment is crafted, the wording,
“the United Kingdom reaching its net-zero commitments”,
does stand the test of time as and when things change. The challenge the hon. Member for Rother Valley makes is another reminder that we need to bring things further forward and that it has become important to do that over time. At the moment, we have interim dates to hit, with ambitions in 2030, and the Government have made some progress there, but by no means enough to do what is necessary to keep us to 1.5°.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making some salient points in response to the hon. Member for Rother Valley. However, once the Government eventually hit their net zero targets, will they not want to maintain those targets and not reverse that journey? In such case, the remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley would be completely irrelevant.
Bill Esterson
That is a good point. The hon. Gentleman is right that this does not end when we reach net zero—that is the first point. The second point is that if we need a change, we can amend the legislation later. Right now, however, this is the crucial change that the country and the world need to make. I reiterate that we as Members of the UK House of Commons—those of us here today—have an opportunity to make a statement and a commitment and to put this change on the face of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
I got so carried away with my attempts to convince the Government to get to net zero as soon as possible that I forgot to ask questions when I stood up previously. It would be useful if the Minister could clarify why there are two schedules. Why does the treatment differ between the two areas? There is a difference in the treatment of subsidies in relation to energy and the environment compared with subsidies relating to any other area, and I do not quite understand the logic of having two different things. One set of principles could have covered everything, including moving toward net zero. If the Minister will explain why there are two separate schedules and why the two areas are being treated differently, that would be incredibly helpful.
Paul Scully
Let me answer that point before I speak to amendment 7. The two schedules and the additional principles are there literally just to adhere to our international obligations.
Hon. Members can rest assured that our new subsidy control regime will support the UK in meeting our net zero target by 2050, first by facilitating strategic and appropriate subsidy interventions with minimal bureaucracy and delay and secondly by ensuring that energy and environment subsidies are assessed against additional principles that promote carbon neutrality and sustainability.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central said that he could not see net zero in the Budget, but the spending review backs up the net zero strategy published the week before. The Budget will fund our strategy, which will then leverage private money and create jobs and opportunities in markets that will drive towards net zero.
Turning to amendment 7 itself, it is unnecessary explicitly to require public authorities on the face of the Bill to consider the negative effects of subsidies on the UK’s net zero commitment as part of their compliance with principle G. Public authorities will clearly need to consider the effects of subsidies in the round before awarding them, but the amendment would give undue prominence to net zero considerations with respect to subsidies that may have entirely unrelated objectives, such as high street regeneration or providing training opportunities for young people.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the Minister agree that this is the most important thing for every single one of us? Whether people are regenerating high streets or doing anything else, they should be ensuring that they are also moving towards net zero.
Paul Scully
I agree that we should be doing so, but what I am saying is that we do not need to do it in a process-driven way. It should be done, in the first place, in the devising and implementation of policy. I do not want to create two separate processes, because that might lead to public authority having to make assessments for every single subsidy that is awarded or made, even when there is no meaningful impact—just look at that bureaucracy. What we need to do is ensure that we enmesh net zero thinking in our policy development at every layer of government, rather than just listening for signals. Clearly, we need to take that leadership at COP26. We realise that this is the time to lead and to act, for all international Governments.
Unfortunately, the Bill will not have completed its parliamentary process by the time everyone leaves Glasgow. None the less, we need to ensure that we set out the strong work that we are doing. We have already announced policies that involve subsidies in some sectors, such as the clean heat grant and the contracts for difference scheme, announced by the Chancellor in the March 2020 Budget, providing up-front capital grants for the installation of low-carbon heat pumps and, in limited circumstances, biomass boilers. Those schemes will help consumers to overcome the higher up-front costs of low-carbon heat and will build the supply chains for it ahead of the introduction of regulations for existing buildings off the gas grid later in the decade. Those schemes—all schemes—will have to meet the terms of the domestic principles, which should also ensure that the money is well targeted and achieves good value for the taxpayer.
We have established the green jobs taskforce, which advises on how Government, industry and the education sector can work alongside other stakeholders to realise the opportunities of a green industrial revolution, supporting green jobs and skills, and ensuring that those opportunities are open to all. The evidence collected by that taskforce and its recommendations are being considered by Government as part of the development of the ongoing net zero strategy, which was published last week. We will develop that.
Those are the clear leadership principles that we should be promoting and pushing out to international colleagues from Governments around the world, who are coming to Glasgow this week and next, ahead of COP26. However, we do not need just this one principle, understandable as it is, in the Bill. Principle G already singles out negative effects on competition or investment within the UK and on international trade and investment. That is appropriate, as such distortions go to the very heart of what the subsidy control regime is for. By definition, a subsidy must have effect on competition, investment and trade, and distortion is common to all subsidies, regardless of what they seek to achieve.
Net zero considerations, however, are not inherent to all subsidies. Some subsidies will of course help businesses to reduce their emissions, but a great number will not have any meaningful or, importantly, measurable impact on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Amendment 8 would add to schedule 2 a requirement for energy and environment subsidies and subsidy schemes to deliver, or to incentivise the beneficiary in delivering, the UK’s net zero commitments. The intended effect is that a public authority planning to grant an energy or environment subsidy or scheme would not be able to proceed unless it was satisfied that that subsidy or scheme contributed towards net zero commitments.
It may be useful to recap that energy and environment subsidies must be assessed against a number of additional principles, which are set out in schedule 2. Those common-sense principles are designed to ensure, for example, that public authorities consider the need for energy and environmental subsidies to achieve reductions in emissions or otherwise increase the environmental protection relative to the level achieved without subsidy. They also ensure compliance with the UK’s international obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union.
We share the commitment to the net zero agenda, as I expressed. We believe that subsidies correctly designed and targeted can be a powerful means to achieve that.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister is doing a good job of explaining what is intended by some of this, putting some meat on it, which is helpful. Will he explain what environmental protection means?
Paul Scully
There is a wide definition of environmental protection beyond net zero, as big and important as that is. The principles in schedule 2 fully support the UK’s priorities on net zero and the wider protection of the environment. The additional requirement to assess the subsidy or scheme against the net zero priorities is therefore unnecessary and may actually discourage public authorities from granting energy and environmental subsidies designed to achieve other valuable aims, such as an affordable energy system or increasing biodiversity. I humbly ask the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston to withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks and all hon. Members who have contributed, including the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Aberdeen South. I will push amendment 7 to a vote, and will do the same with amendment 8 later. The wording has been quite carefully constructed. Schedule 1 states:
“Subsidies’ beneficial effects (in terms of achieving their specific policy objective) should outweigh any negative effects, including in particular negative effects on—(a) competition or investment within the United Kingdom; (b) international trade or investment.”
Amendment 7 would add:
“(c) the United Kingdom reaching its net-zero commitments.”
I have not heard from the Minister a strong argument as to why we would not want public authorities granting subsidies using public resources to ensure that beneficial effects outweighed any negative effects on the UK’s achieving its net zero commitments. That principle is significant, and it should be in the Bill, so I will push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
The schedule sets out the seven general subsidy controls, including how public authorities should consider and assess a policy objective, and make sure a subsidy is proportionate and that it incentivises and leads to a change of behaviour in a beneficiary that would not have happened had they not had the subsidy. It does not include normal business expenses. It provides that alternative policy levers that are likely to cause less distortion should be considered before a subsidy, and that subsidies should be designed in a way that meets the policy objective and minimises the impact on competition and investment within the UK’s internal market.
Finally, principle G requires public authorities to conduct a balancing test to assess the effects on competition and investment in the UK and on international trade or investment, and to determine whether the benefits of a subsidy are greater than the negative effects of providing it. I commend schedule 1 to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. Notwithstanding the debate that we have just had and our ongoing concerns, which we want to return to later in the consideration of the Bill, we support schedule 1.
Kirsty Blackman
I would like to ask a few questions, particularly about principle F in schedule 1, which says:
“Subsidies should be designed to achieve their specific policy objective while minimising any negative effects on competition or investment within the United Kingdom.”
If someone was looking to invest in the United Kingdom, create jobs, start a business or bring a specific arm of a business to a certain place, and Aberdeen were to subsidise that, which would therefore have a negative effect on Cardiff, because Cardiff was not getting the jobs and Aberdeen was, is that excluded as a result of principle F? It concerns me that pretty much every subsidy that could be given will have a potential negative effect on another part of the UK because it would be incentivising investment, or whatever, in one part of the UK.
I am concerned that principle F can be read either as not meaning anything or as something that is too restrictive for what the Government are trying to achieve with what they are doing. I am thinking about what the Government are trying to achieve because a number of Government Back Benchers stood up on Second Reading and said, “This is great, because it means we will be able to get lots more investment and put lots of subsidies into our area.” If that is the Government’s intention, which I think it probably is, I worry that the risk-averse nature of granting authorities means that they will be concerned about doing that, in case they fall foul of the principle. If the Minister gave us a bit more clarity on how the principle is intended to work, that would help granting authorities to make the right decisions in order to subsidise economic development in their areas.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for that important question. The answer to her first question is no. It is more about fitting in with the levelling-up agenda, which is what hon. Members talked about on Second Reading—attracting subsidies to an area. For example, we have seen a lot of renewables investment, including offshore wind and the manufacture of equipment, in Teesside and Humber. We have seen the setting up of gigafactories in the north-east and other areas, and such inward investments provide stimulus in those areas. There are natural clusters of businesses in those areas, but it is more in this regard—the distortive effects of, say, moving companies from one area of the UK to another, and adhering to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which we debated last year. It is about ensuring that that works, rather than being in some sort of race between the devolved Administrations of the nations, or between regions, to attract inward investment.
Kirsty Blackman
If, for example, an offshore wind farm is built off the coast of Teesside, rather than off the coast of Aberdeenshire, because of the subsidy regime that is in place, that is, by its very nature, disadvantageous to Aberdeenshire. That is what I am trying to work out here.
I think I get what the Government are intending: they are trying to stop a subsidy race. That is the intention behind the schedule, but I feel that the schedule does not achieve it. I am concerned about how the provision is worded, because any subsidy will be advantageous to one region and not to another, which is the intention behind subsidies. There could be more clarity on that principle so that it achieves what the Government want and does not preclude local authorities, or any other granting authority, from making decisions that will advantage their areas.
Paul Scully
Essentially, the framework and the clause minimise, but cannot eliminate, distortion. That is the purpose of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
This is relevant to principle G, which says:
“beneficial effects…should outweigh any negative effects, including…competition or investment within the United Kingdom”.
I cannot see where the hon. Member for Aberdeen North is coming from when she says that more clarity might be good for local authorities and other granting bodies. That is quite clearly addressed in the Bill, so the Government are clearly trying to stop the negative effects she has described.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Bill weighs up the benefits versus the disadvantages, and minimises rather than eliminates distortion—we cannot eliminate distortion. We have talked about this a number of times, and we will continue to, but the upcoming guidance will start to flesh out some of the specifics, which it is probably not appropriate to get into now.
Kirsty Blackman
Principle G absolutely does help, but it does not fix the problem. Ensuring that the positive effects outweigh the negative effects is good and grand, but comparing a windfarm in Teesside and a windfarm in Aberdeenshire relates to balance rather than the positive effects outweighing the negative. That just encourages the same investment and the same number of jobs in one place in the United Kingdom rather than in another. That is why I am concerned that G does not exactly fix that issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 2
The energy and environment principles
Amendment proposed: 8, in schedule 2, page 52, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) delivering the UK’s net-zero commitments.”—(Seema Malhotra.)
This amendment would ensure that subsidies related to energy and the environment incentivise the beneficiary to help deliver the UK’s net-zero targets.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 28th October 2021
(3 years 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 28 October 2021 - (28 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
The usual housekeeping notes: switch off your electronic devices, please, or put them on silent; and no food or drink is allowed in Committee—I do not think there is any, so that is good. Members are encouraged to wear masks, and I remind colleagues that they are worn not for your own protection, but for the protection of others, as a courtesy. Those who have speaking notes, will you please make them available to Hansard at the appropriate time, together with any documents that you are quoting from?
Clause 37
Illegal entry and similar offences
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 37, page 36, line 4, at end insert—
“(C1A) A person who—
(a) is required under immigration rules not to travel to the United Kingdom without an ETA that is valid for the person’s journey to the United Kingdom, and
(b) knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom without such an ETA,
commits an offence.”
This amendment inserts a new offence into the Immigration Act 1971 of a person knowingly arriving in the United Kingdom without a valid electronic travel authorisation (ETA) in circumstances where they require such an ETA.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 111 to 117.
Amendment 188, in clause 37, page 37, line 17, at end insert—
“(10) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implications of this section for devolved criminal justice functions and bodies in Northern Ireland and Scotland, including but not restricted to those of—
(a) the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland;
(b) the Lord Advocate;
(c) the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
(d) Police Scotland;
(e) the Northern Ireland Prison Service;
(f) the Scottish Prison Service;
(g) the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service; and
(h) the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.
(11) A report under subsection (10) must include the following information—
(a) an assessment of the how the functions and bodies listed in (10) will be affected by this section;
(b) the financial implications for those bodies;
(c) the implications for existing devolved criminal justice and related policies;
(d) details of any consultation and engagement with those bodies; and
(e) the Secretary of State’s findings, conclusions and proposed actions.”
This amendment would require the Government to report on the implications of clause 36 for bodies involved in devolved criminal justice functions and to obtain Parliamentary approval for such a report, before the clause enters into force.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 125.
Clause 60 stand part.
Government amendment 120.
Government new clause 21—Electronic travel authorisations.
Government new clause 22—Liability of carriers.
Tom Pursglove
Amendment 110 will add to the other offences in the clause the additional offence of knowingly arriving in the UK without an electronic travel authorisation where that is required. The current offence of knowingly entering the UK in breach of a deportation order or without leave dates back to the Immigration Act 1971, and is no longer considered entirely apt, given the changes in ways that people seek to come to the UK through irregular routes, and in particular the use of small boats.
Many of the individuals involved are intercepted in UK territorial seas and brought to the UK. They arrive in, but may not technically enter, the UK. However, we need to deter migrants from risking their lives and those of their families by taking such dangerous routes to the UK, and to take back control of our borders. We are committed to strengthening our border security by ensuring that everyone wishing to travel to the UK, except British and Irish citizens, seeks permission to do so before travelling.
The clause introduces new arrival offences to deal with the issue. I reassure the Committee that we do not seek to criminalise genuine refugees who come to the UK to seek asylum, but safe and legal routes can be used for that purpose, without risking lives.
Government amendments 111 to 117 and 125 are consequential amendments; they ensure that where the clause and schedule 5 cross-reference to the offence of arrival in the UK without the required entry clearance, they also refer to the new offence.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister has slightly skirted over the most fundamental point in all this, which is that lots of refugees who come to seek asylum in this country will be criminalised by the provision—a good 60% or 70%, even according to the Home Office’s explanatory memorandum. How can he possibly feel comfortable about criminalising them through an offence that could see them imprisoned for up to four years?
Tom Pursglove
Clearly, any such cases would be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service or the relevant prosecuting authorities. They must make a judgment as to whether it is in the public interest to pursue such a prosecution. I will say more about that in due course, but it is important to highlight that point.
Paul Blomfield
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but he may want to reflect on this now, although he might have been about to do so in due course. He referred to the CPS, but in July the CPS confirmed that, following an agreement made by prosecutors, police, Border Force, the National Crime Agency and the Home Office, it will no longer prosecute illegal entry.
Tom Pursglove
As I said—I will come on to this in more detail—it is for the prosecuting authorities to decide whether it is in the public interest to pursue a particular case.
On amendment 188, I reassure the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that consideration of the issues he has listed is already taking place. I fully recognise that, while immigration offences are a reserved matter, the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland have responsibility for their criminal justice systems, and decisions on prosecutions are independently taken by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland.
My officials have been in contact with the Scottish Government criminal justice division, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Department of Justice Northern Ireland, and have shared information about potential impacts and costings. The amendment would add an extra and unnecessary layer of parliamentary scrutiny to a process that is under way at official level. It would also have a critical impact on the commencement of the clause; it would add delay, but we need the measures in place to respond to the expected surge in dangerous small boat crossings when the weather improves in spring next year. I urge the hon. Member not to press his amendment.
On clause 37, the UK is experiencing a very serious problem of small boat arrivals; illegal migrants are crossing from the continent in small craft that are often equipped with only an outboard motor. They are unseaworthy and wholly unsuitable for a crossing of a minimum of 21 miles across some of the busiest sea lanes in the world. Many of the vessels break down and are intercepted by UK personnel on the grounds of safety of life at sea. The rescued migrants, including pregnant women and children, are generally brought to Dover.
The maximum sentence of six months does not reflect the seriousness of the offence of entering in breach of a deportation order. Increasing the maximum sentence to five years will disrupt the activities of foreign national offenders involved in criminal networks, including organised immigration crime.
The current offence of knowingly entering the UK without leave is ineffective and does not provide a sufficient deterrent to those wishing to enter the UK illegally by small boat. We accordingly propose increasing the maximum sentence from six months’ to four years’ imprisonment.
We also intend to create a new offence of arriving in the UK without an entry clearance where that is required. While some migrants seek to evade immigration control, for example by landing on a deserted beach, many more now arrive in the UK after being rescued at sea. It would not be right, and would be perverse, to have to let migrants take the risk of completing their journey without assistance, and of landing at a small beach, rather than rescuing them at sea, just because under current legislation, the act of intercepting them and bringing them to the UK could cast doubt on whether the migrants entered unlawfully.
It is worth repeating that we are not seeking to criminalise those who come to the UK genuinely to seek asylum, and who use safe and legal routes to do so. We will be targeting for prosecution those migrants in cases where there are aggravating factors—where they caused danger to themselves or others, including rescuers; where they caused severe disruption to services such as shipping routes, or the closure of the channel tunnel; or where they are criminals who have previously been deported from the UK or persons who have been repeatedly removed as failed asylum seekers. The increased prison penalty will allow appropriate sentences to be given to reflect the seriousness of this behaviour.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is at his most reassuring when he tells us, basically, “Don’t worry; we are not really going to apply the full provisions of the clause.” The key point is that none of this is in the Bill. I want to remove these measures altogether, but could we at least put some of the restrictions in the Bill? Otherwise, we are putting in statute a law that criminalises the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers coming into the United Kingdom.
Tom Pursglove
I hope I will be able to provide the hon. Member with further reassurance by going on to say that, of course, the decision on whether prosecution is in the public interest rests with the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland. In many cases, we will continue to seek the illegal migrant’s removal, rather than their prosecution.
The amended and new offences will apply to all types of unlawful entry and arrival, rather than being limited to entry via small boats. We should not limit our response to the evasion of proper immigration procedures and controls depending on the method of entry employed. Doing that would risk causing displacement to another, potentially equally dangerous, route. The offences will therefore also apply equally to other means of evasion, such as concealment in a lorry.
We are also amending the offence of assisting unlawful immigration to the UK in breach of immigration law, known as facilitation, to include arrival in the UK. That will ensure that the offence of facilitation also applies to those assisting the new offence of arriving without a valid entry clearance.
Clause 60 is one of the six clauses drafted as marker clauses at introduction. As indicated in the explanatory notes and memorandum for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it was drafted as such in the interest of transparency—to make clear our intention of bringing forward substantive provisions on electronic travel authorisations. New clauses 21 and 22 are intended to replace clause 60.
Amendment 120 ensures the provisions in new clauses 21 and 22 can be extended to the Crown dependencies by Order in Council, should they wish to introduce their own electronic travel authorisation scheme by amending the Bill’s extent provisions in clause 69. As I noted earlier, the Government are committed to strengthening the security of our border by ensuring that everyone who wishes to travel to the UK—except British and Irish citizens—has permission to do so before they travel. The Government will introduce an electronic travel authorisation scheme—the ETA scheme—to close the current gap in advance permissions, and to enhance our ability to prevent the travel of those who pose a threat to the UK.
At present, non-visa nationals coming to the UK for up to six months as visitors, and in limited other categories, can travel to the UK solely on the basis of their nationality, evidenced by their passport or other travel document. That information is sent to the Government by the majority of carriers as advance passenger information shortly before the individual embarks on their journey. The ETA scheme will allow security checks to be conducted and more informed decisions to be taken at an earlier stage in advance of travel. The introduction of an ETA scheme is in line with the approach that many of our international partners have taken to border security, including the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
New clause 21 would insert proposed new section 11C into part 1 of the Immigration Act 1971, which will allow the Secretary of State to make immigration rules to administer an ETA scheme. Those rules will include, but are not limited to, who must apply for an ETA, what that application must contain, how long an ETA will be valid for, and when an ETA should be granted, refused, varied or cancelled.
Additionally, new clause 21 also inserts proposed new section 11D into part 1 of the 1971 Act, allowing the Secretary of State to administer an electronic travel authorisation scheme on behalf of a Crown dependency, if requested to do so, in the event that a Crown dependency chooses to operate its own ETA scheme. It also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to recognise an electronic travel authorisation issued by a Crown dependency as valid for travel to the UK, in line with the UK’s commitment to maintaining the integrity and security of the common travel area.
To enforce the ETA scheme, new clause 22 builds on the existing carriers’ liability scheme by incentivising carriers to check prior to boarding that a traveller holds an ETA—or another form of permission, such as a visa in electronic form—or risk a civil penalty. Such checks are necessary to enforce our requirement for everyone, except British and Irish nationals, to get permission to come to the UK before they travel.
At present, carriers are incentivised to check for the presence of a valid immigration document that satisfactorily establishes identity and nationality or citizenship, and any visa required. New clause 22 incentivises carriers to check that all passengers have the appropriate permission— including by checking with the Home Office, if that permission may be held only in digital form—or risk a penalty. The new clause also provides a statutory excuse against the imposition of a penalty, to cater for circumstances where it has not been possible for the carrier to check for the presence of an ETA, or another form of permission, through no fault of their own.
The Chair
I will call Mr McDonald first, because he has tabled an amendment that is in this group.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you very much indeed, Sir Roger.
I will speak in support of amendment 188 and against the clause. To respond to what the Minister said, and to build on one of my interventions, the Committee has to debate the clause as it appears before us, not as the Minister envisages it being implemented. As it stands, the clause is one of the Bill’s low points, as it places in an already bleak Bill an extraordinarily broad criminal offence that will criminalise pretty much everyone who seeks asylum—many of whom are refugees—as well as survivors of trafficking. That will help to strengthen the control that traffickers have over their victims, rather than helping those victims.
It is unbelievable that should a Syrian, a Uyghur, a persecuted Christian convert, an Afghan interpreter, or a victim of the horrific crime of trafficking arrive seeking our protection, instead of being championed, they would be prosecuted and imprisoned by the regime put in place by the clause. Taken alongside the removal of the protections in the convention for asylum seekers in clause 34, this is a hugely retrograde step. It is also, again, utterly against the spirit and the letter of the refugee convention and the convention on trafficking, an issue that the Minister did not touch on.
Tom Pursglove
Notwithstanding what I have already said about the prosecution services taking a case-by-case approach, the hon. Member inquired about aggravating factors not being added to the Bill. The factors for prosecution when someone comes to the UK may change depending on the circumstances. We need to be able to react flexibly, so putting the factors in primary legislation would be too restrictive. I return to the point that I would expect prosecution services to look carefully at individual cases and to take all factors into account, so I would not accept his depiction.
Stuart C. McDonald
I take a small crumb of comfort from the fact that the Minister does seem to be evidencing some discomfort about how the clause is drafted. He is trying to reassure us by saying it will not be implemented as it is set out now, but that is not satisfactory. We parliamentarians are concerned with what is in the Bill. It is fine for the Minister to say that; I do not know how long he will be in office—hopefully many years—but there will be other Immigration Ministers to come, and they may take a completely different approach.
It may be challenging to put restrictions or a statutory defence in the Bill, but the Minister has to try. He must try much harder. We cannot leave such a broad criminal offence in the Bill simply on the basis of reassurances. I am absolutely of the view that the measures should be removed—for the reasons relating to the refugee convention, and that is even before we get to the ethical considerations and the impact the measures will have on asylum seekers and trafficking victims.
What the clause actually says will make it infinitely harder for refugees or trafficking survivors who eventually make it all the way through the horrendous new system to integrate, put down roots and rebuild their lives. There are questions about how the measures would operate in practice; they raise the spectre of families being separated on arrival if one member is accused of committing this criminal offence. How much harder will it be for somebody to get a job in due course if they have this criminal conviction and spend years in prison? UK citizenship will essentially be near impossible for them.
As we have heard repeatedly, particularly from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, all of this will achieve absolutely nothing. As Tony Smith, the borders expert, told us in the Committee’s evidence sessions, use of the criminal justice system just has not worked. For smugglers and traffickers, it absolutely has, but not for their victims.
I have a question on scope. Will the Minister clarify whether someone who arrives with an entry clearance that is invalidated because it turns out that it was applied for on a false basis—for example, somebody who has secured a visit visa, when they are arriving to claim asylum—will have committed a criminal offence under the clause, because the leave to enter was obtained fraudulently? From the wording, I guess that they will, but it would be useful to hear the Minister’s clarification.
On amendment 110, we broadly support the ETA regime and encouraging carriers to ensure that the conditions are met, but we are still not absolutely convinced of the need for yet another criminal offence. Why can the remedy for turning up without an ETA not simply be to require that person to leave, or to send them back again? What group of people are being targeted here who are not already impacted by one of the other offences?
Even the wording on the state of knowledge of the person committing the offence raises questions. It says the person must “knowingly” arrive here without the ETA or entry clearance. The required knowledge seems to relate only to knowledge of arrival without the ETA or entry clearance, and not knowledge of whether he required that ETA or entry clearance. If we put that together with the fact that the measure will apply to people arriving in the UK rather than entering it, there is a danger that this will cover people who rock up in ignorance at airport border security, rather than anyone who is trying to do anything sinister. Simple ignorance and a mistake could lead to years in prison. I might be wrong about that; it would be useful to have clarity. Why is a criminal offence necessary?
Our amendment 188 was tabled to prompt discussion about consultation with the devolved criminal justice systems and the personnel in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Again, it gives me some comfort that the Minister has had some of these discussions—at least, the Home Office has—and there has been the important recognition that decisions about public interest will be for devolved prosecutors. It is important to acknowledge that, and it is welcome.
In short, as clause 37 stands, it sets out a framework for arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning several thousand asylum seekers, refugees and trafficking victims every year. Is there an estimate of what the cost will be, regardless of how it is implemented in practice? What will that do the backlogs in courts struggling to recover from covid, and what would be the impact on prison capacity? Putting all that to one side, the fundamental issue is the impact on asylum seekers, refugees and trafficking victims. The clause, as drafted, will compound the already slow and needlessly painful process of securing protection and add a criminal sanction. It is going to achieve absolutely nothing except more human misery.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It will not be a shock to hon. Members that I fully support clause 37, which has absolutely the right intention. Ultimately, as we have discussed—we have heard the evidence from His Excellency the Australian high commissioner—if we are to deter people from making this dangerous journey, we should be making sure that the deterrents are strong enough.
We have part of that already: if somebody enters this country illegally, that obviously counts against their asylum claim. Now we are saying that the right thing is that if someone chooses to enter this country illegally, that could lead to a criminal prosecution with a strong prison sentence. That is exactly what the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want to hear at the end of the day, because 73% voted to leave and wanted to make sure that we took back control of our borders. We are a part of the asylum dispersal scheme already, with over 1,000 currently within the city region. We are happy to welcome them, but we want to see a change.
For example, we would love other parts of Scotland, not just Glasgow, to take on asylum seekers as part of the asylum dispersal scheme. Obviously, Glasgow is fully supportive, but other places voluntarily choose not to take part. We would like Labour-run Islington Borough Council to participate: by the end of 2020, it had not taken a single refugee.
The city of Stoke-on-Trent is expected to bear the burden of a large load and is taken advantage of, because ultimately we are an area that has been forgotten. The Labour party is still checking its Ordnance Survey map to find where the city of Stoke-on-Trent actually is—Captain Hindsight sent out a search party, and it got stuck in North Islington having chai latte and avocado on toast. Meanwhile, Conservative Members are more interested in delivering on the people’s priorities. We are delivering on that in making sure that this provision is strong.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jonathan Gullis
I would be more than happy to hear if the search party has found Stoke-on-Trent.
Neil Coyle
It is a wonderful image, but there is only one thing I cannot bear to eat and that is avocado—I just cannot bear it.
The hon. Member is talking about the good people of Stoke-on-Trent, but I remember that they voted for a manifesto, which got him elected, that included not cutting our armed forces and not cutting our aid. Can he explain to the people of Stoke-on-Trent why his party has done exactly that, which leads to more people making the crossing?
The Chair
Order. No, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot do so in the context of this Bill. It would not be in order.
Jonathan Gullis
Thank you, Sir Roger. I would love to find a way of answering that question, and by the way the people of Stoke-on-Trent would love to see the foreign aid budget cut entirely, and I fully support that as a long-term measure—
The Chair
Order. The same admonition applies to the hon. Gentleman. Can he please stay within the confines of the Bill?
Jonathan Gullis
I appreciate your patience, Sir Roger, and of course I will.
I will wrap up quickly by saying that clause 37 tells people that if they enter this country illegally, it will count against them. That is exactly what we should be doing, and I look forward to seeing that progress. Ultimately, we have illegal economic migrants making the journey across the English channel from Calais. The French need to do more, and the threat from the Home Secretary of not sending the additional £54 million has clearly worked—suddenly, I have never seen so many videos and photographs of French activity on their shores to try to prevent the small boats from leaving. It is about time that the French stood up and did what was right, because it is British taxpayers’ money that is funding the additional support they need.
This is about stopping the illegal economic migrants who are funding criminality by putting money into the hands of criminal people-smuggling gangs. That is probably funding wider criminality in the United Kingdom, particularly drugs in our community, and therefore it is right that we stop them. Let us not forget that 70% of those making these illegal crossings are men aged between 18 and 35, whereas we want to be protecting women and children. We have done that in Afghanistan and with Syria: the safe and legal routes are the appropriate way of doing it.
Clause 37 is saying to those illegal economic migrants that we need to make sure they go through those safe and legal routes, or, as Baroness Scotland—the former Labour Minister, back in the years when the Labour party was electable—said, they should be claiming asylum in the first safe country they reach. There is nothing wrong with Greece, Italy or France. I am more than happy to holiday there, and I am sure anyone in mainland Europe would be more than happy to make such a place their home.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is very interesting to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, but I will not rise to the bait.
Clause 37 is one of the most controversial new provisions in part 3 of the Bill. It expands the existing offence of illegal entry so that it encompasses arrival in the UK without a valid entry clearance. It also increases the maximum penalty for those entering without leave or arriving without a valid entry clearance from six months to four years’ imprisonment. I have a question for the Minister. On Tuesday we debated clause 35, which reduced the penalty for a particularly serious offence from two years’ imprisonment to one year. Is it the Government’s intention to make entry a particularly serious offence for the purposes of the Bill? That is what the clause could do.
In effect, the Government’s proposals criminalise the act of seeking asylum in the UK. The Opposition wholeheartedly oppose the measures and urge the Government to consider the following facts. First, clause 37 breaches article 31 of the refugee convention, which prohibits penalisation for irregular entry or stay when people are seeking asylum. The new offence of unlawful arrival is designed to—and will in practice—penalise refugees based on their mode of travel. That goes against everything that the convention stands for.
Article 31 of the refugee convention says that states
“shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees…where their life or freedom was threatened…provided they present themselves without delay…and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
Clause 37 clearly violates the non-penalisation clause in the convention and is therefore in breach of the UK’s obligations under international law.
When taken in combination with clause 12, which excludes UK territorial seas from being considered a place of claim, clause 37 has significant implications for access to protection and the risk of refoulement. Under the proposed changes, those who arrive irregularly, including through a safe third country, could be prosecuted and imprisoned for between one and four years. That is because it is not possible to apply for entry clearance for the purpose of claiming asylum in the UK, and yet an asylum seeker must be physically in the UK to make a claim. Bearing that in mind, 90% of those granted asylum in the United Kingdom are from countries whose nationals must hold entry clearance to enter the UK.
Neil Coyle
This is more a point of order than an intervention, Sir Roger. I have been contacted with a correction to the record: Islington has actually taken refugees, contrary to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said. Does my hon. Friend congratulate Islington on its record in taking refugees and asylum seekers, contrary to the inaccurate—I was going to say “deceitful”, but I am not sure whether that is parliamentary language—and I am sure accidentally misleading comments from the hon. Gentleman?
Bambos Charalambous
I congratulate all local authorities that take asylum seekers. All local authorities should take their fair share—not just in Stoke-on-Trent or Islington, but those across the country.
In practice, someone with a well-founded fear of persecution arriving in the UK intending to claim asylum will be committing a criminal offence if clause 37 is implemented. Even if they have a visa, they will be committing an offence because their intention to claim asylum will be contrary to the intention for which the entry clearance or visa was issued. We have heard the example of students: if a student entered on a student visa and claimed asylum in the UK, they would be in breach of that visa. The clause will impact tens of thousands of people, leading to people with legitimate cases serving time in prison for these new offences, followed by continued immigration detention under immigration powers. In this context, the Government are proposing to criminalise asylum-seekers based on their journey—which, in all likelihood, was the only viable route available to them.
Secondly, the proposals are unworkable. While criminalising those we should be seeking to protect, the Bill also fails to introduce safe and legal routes to claim asylum. Clause 37 comes amid a glaring lack of lawful routes for claiming asylum in the UK. Although we welcome things like the resettlement programmes, they are not a solution for those claiming asylum because they are so limited. They cover those who are already recognised as having the protection they need.
Tom Pursglove
I will pick up on a few points in concluding our deliberations on the clause.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East spoke about costs. We are working with the various UK criminal justice systems and we have shared estimates of costs at official level as part of operationalising the plan. He sought further clarity about that and I hope that has provided reassurance. He also asked about entry clearance invalidation. If the leave is valid on arrival and is subsequently cancelled, no offence would have been committed, but if it is invalidated prior to arrival and the person knows that, the offence would have been committed.
Finally, I reiterate the point about the application of offences in this area. It bears repeating that we are targeting for prosecution those migrants for whom aggravating factors are involved—for example, those causing danger to themselves or others, including rescuers; those causing severe disruption to services such as shipping routes or closure of the channel tunnel; or those who have previously been removed from the UK as failed asylum seekers. The increased prison penalty will allow appropriate sentences to be given to reflect the seriousness of this behaviour.
Stuart C. McDonald
Has the Minister done an analysis of whether there are already criminal offences that cover the scenarios he has just outlined?
Tom Pursglove
We believe that this measure is required so that we can take appropriate action to deal with the sorts of circumstances I have just set out. I have made that clear on several occasions, and Members will have heard what I have said. I fully expect that that will continue to be the case, and that will be made clear at every opportunity.
I go back to the point that prosecuting services must judge cases on a case-by-case basis. They must of course take all the factors relevant to the individual case into account in deciding whether to proceed with it. They must also decide whether that is in the public interest. That is a very clear and established position, and will continue to be the case.
I am comfortable that the proposed approach is the right one to take in addressing the issues I have set out, which are particularly egregious and concerning and which require further action.
Amendment 110 agreed to.
Amendments made: 111, in clause 37, page 36, line 5, leave out “or (C1)” and insert “, (C1) or (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 112, in clause 37, page 36, line 19, leave out “or (C1)” and insert “, (C1) or (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 113, in clause 37, page 36, line 29, after “(C1)” insert “, (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 114, in clause 37, page 37, line 2, after “(C1)” insert “, (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 115, in clause 37, page 37, line 4, after “(C1)” insert “, (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 116, in clause 37, page 37, line 12, after “(C1)” insert “, (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 117, in clause 37, page 37, line 15, after “(C1)” insert “, (C1A)”. —(Tom Pursglove.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Question put, That clause 37, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 38, page 37, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment deletes the subsection which removes “and for gain” from section 25A(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. Currently, under section 25A(1)(a), a person commits an offence if the person knowingly “and for gain” facilitates the arrival in the UK of an individual who the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is an asylum seeker. This amendment preserves the status quo.
Following on from clause 37, clause 38 proposes to remove the words “and for gain” from section 25A of the Immigration Act 1971. Presently, under section 25A(1), it is an offence for a person knowingly and for gain to facilitate the arrival or entry, or attempted arrival or entry, of an asylum seeker into the UK. Clause 38 therefore seeks to broaden the section 25A offence to allow the Home Office to charge more people for facilitating the arrival of asylum seekers to the UK. Under the clause, someone acting purely altruistically to help an asylum seeker would be committing a criminal offence. It extends who could be convicted of the offence of knowingly facilitating the entry to the UK of an asylum seeker to individuals acting out of compassion for other people for no financial benefit.
As the Committee will know, the clause has received widespread criticism, and rightly so. I am not, for example, the first to observe that clause 38 would almost certainly have criminalised and prosecuted the likes of Sir Nicholas Winton for his life-saving actions in rescuing hundreds of children on the Kindertransport in 1939. Indeed, in July, when the Bill passed its Second Reading, many highlighted that clause 38 is so draconian that it could criminalise the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and its volunteers for helping those in danger at sea. If they were deemed to be facilitating asylum seekers’ arrival in the UK, they could face life imprisonment—life in prison for saving lives! I ask the Minister and this Committee: when did saving lives become a criminal offence?
These measures will criminalise friends, family members and individuals with humanitarian motives. The Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), attempted to provide reassurance on Second Reading by claiming that the Government have
“no intention in this Bill to criminalise bona fide, genuine rescue operations”.—[Official Report, 20 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 915.]
However, the Bill as it is currently written does not provide any similarly explicit reassurances.
The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium is especially concerned about the clause and its impact on people who provide assistance to vulnerable young people seeking asylum. It is concerned that such measures must in no way serve to deter people from saving the lives of babies and children at sea, with tragic examples demonstrating the cost of there being no safe and legal routes to the UK for families fleeing persecution. The Opposition have repeatedly drawn attention to that in Committee.
For asylum seekers who assist each other in coming to the UK to claim asylum, the implications of this measure are incredibly serious. Clause 38 increases the penalty for this offence to life imprisonment. These increased sentences, as raised by Zoe Gardner of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants in one of the Committee’s evidence sessions, risk being used to prosecute asylum seekers themselves, not the smuggling gangs and members of international criminal gangs they are intended for.
For example, according to the National Crime Agency, there is evidence that asylum seekers can often be forced to carry out work without pay for smuggling gangs. In an investigation by The Independent newspaper, migrants reported traffickers taking their money for crossings to the UK, only to then demand that they work for free in order to make the journey, and that work includes being forced to steer vessels during dangerous crossings.
In The Independent investigation, one Yemeni man demonstrated how traffickers are aware that they can criminalise asylum seekers and refugees in this way. He described the power this gives them, in that a smuggler
“told me, ‘I can kill you here, no one will identify me and I will escape.’ He took videos of me and of my friends while we were preparing boats for other journeys. He said, ‘I could now accuse you of being a smuggler, you could be in jail.’ ”
This proves how the persecuted can be coerced and controlled by these criminals, and will in turn in effect become criminals themselves under the punitive policy making of the Home Office.
Of course, the prosecution of victims for the crimes of their perpetrators is something that the refugee convention, drafted 70 years ago, considers. Article 31 of the convention is intended to protect refugees from prosecution for irregular entry because refugees are, by definition, forced into dangerous and risky situations during their flight. This is something the Government are deliberately trying to wash their hands of—and to do what? To pursue a reckless policy that will prosecute those who are demonstrably not criminals, but genuine asylum seekers and refugees.
It is worth considering whether clause 38 is indeed workable. As we know, clause 37 is likely to be unenforceable and clause 38 is equally, if not more, outrageous. In relation to our international law obligations, there does not appear to be any consideration of how this clause and the new expanded criminal offences in clauses 37 and 38 will be compatible with the duty of a ship to attempt to rescue persons in danger at sea. For example, article 98(1) of the United Nations convention of the law of the sea provides that every state shall require ships
“to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost”,
and
“to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress”.
More interestingly in relation to clause 38, paragraph 2.1.10 of the annex to the international convention on maritime search and rescue 1979—the SAR convention—explicitly obliges
“that assistance be provided to any person in distress at sea. They shall do so regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found.”
With these rules in mind, it appears that the UK cannot legally prohibit vessels from rescuing asylum seekers at sea, and I urge the Minister to consider the Opposition’s amendment 33, which will preserve the status quo.
Stuart C. McDonald
I wish briefly to associate myself with everything the shadow Minister just said; he covered pretty much all the ground that I would have covered. This ridiculous clause tramples all over our international obligations. I suspect what will happen today, as happened on Second Reading, is that we will be reassured that the clause will be used in a certain way so that the RNLI and others will not be targeted. Maybe I am wrong, which would be good, but the scope of the clause is extraordinary.
If the defence, as it was on Second Reading, is, “We’re not going to go after these people,” that is not good enough. You have to put that on the face of the Bill. We cannot create criminal offences and ask folk to go about breaching those laws and committing crimes in the hope that the Government keep their promise that they will not be prosecuted. It is a fundamental rule of legal principle—[Interruption.] The Minister is shaking his head: if that is not the defence, I look forward to hearing what is.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Halifax for providing the opportunity to explain the difficulties involved in securing convictions for an odious crime that targets and exploits vulnerable people and allows organised criminals to thrive.
Gain can be obtained in many ways, but cannot always be proved to the evidential standard required for a successful prosecution: for example, money transfers made by other family members abroad or made cash in hand, promises of servitude by the asylum seeker or others, or the provision of assistance in the facilitation act, such as by avoiding paying a fee by agreeing to steer a small boat. It is right that all available evidence should be considered and all relevant behaviour taken into account in investigating a serious offence. We are, at present, limited by what is an unrealistic evidential requirement that does not take account of the reality of how international organised crime operates.
In amending the offence, we are mindful of the excellent work of those acting from humanitarian motives both now and in the past. I understand fully hon. Members’ concerns that the wrong people will be drawn into the investigative and judicial process. We are therefore retaining the defence available to organisations whose aim is to assist asylum seekers and who do not charge for their services. I also recognise the bravery of volunteers working for the RNLI and lifeboat crews who undertake vital work in protecting lives at sea.
I will set out my intention to amend this clause on Report to ensure that organisations such as the RNLI, those directed by Her Majesty’s Coastguard, and individuals who fulfil their obligations in rescuing those in distress at sea may continue as they do now. We also intend to ensure that this provision does not prevent those responsible for vessels from complying with their obligations if they discover stowaways on board as they journey to the UK. I understand that some members of the Committee would prefer to have those amendments ready to debate now, but the issues are complex and we must ensure that we do not inadvertently provide loopholes to be exploited by criminal gangs who will look for any means to avoid prosecution.
The effect of amendment 33 is that, by retaining the constraint and having to prove the offence was committed again, we will only rarely be able to respond to and deter those committing the offence and will continue to place an unrealistic burden on our law enforcement officers and prosecutors. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, although I hope he will be reassured that I intend to table on Report an amendment to address the crux of the issues that he raised. I hope that hon. Members across the House will feel able to support the amendment that I intend to table.
Bambos Charalambous
I heard what the Minister said, but Second Reading was back in July and there has been plenty of time to table an amendment. What could be achieved by his amendment can easily be achieved by voting for this one, so I wish to press our amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 162, in clause 38, page 37, line 23, at end insert—
‘(3) In section 25A(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 (helping asylum seeker to enter United Kingdom), for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) aims to—
(i) protect lives at sea, or
(ii) assist asylum-seekers; and””
This amendment would add people working on behalf of organisations that aim to protect lives at sea to those who are exempt for prosecution for helping someone seeking asylum to enter the UK, as long as those organisations do not charge for their services.
In moving this amendment, I remind colleagues of my registered interest in respect of the excellent support that I get from RAMP––the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project––and especially from Heather Staff. I also thank the British Red Cross for its work, with a personal thank you to John Featonby for his advice and support to me and my team.
I guess that the amendment tries to help the Government, because the Minister says that he wants to table an amendment on Report. If he accepts this one, he may not need to. He called me a crafty parliamentarian last week, but there is nothing crafty about this. This is a genuine offer of a ready-made amendment that he can accept. It is a humanitarian exemption that would add people working on behalf of organisations that aim to protect life at sea to those exempt from prosecution for helping someone avoid drowning, as long as those organisations do not charge for their services and are not profit-making. It is exactly along the lines he has just outlined.
Sadly, as things stand, my amendment is necessary because this clause is deeply un-British. It denies our traditions and our heritage––our Christian heritage––of not walking on by. We have touched on Islington, which I believe has 137 asylum-seeking refugees and is a borough sanctuary. My own borough of Southwark had 1,022 in June according to Home Office figures. That number has since escalated massively because of the humiliation of our withdrawal from Afghanistan. But we do not whinge in Southwark. We do not whine about our Christian commitment and moral duty to the people we are supporting. We do not mind our international obligations being upheld. We are proud to be supportive of those in need.
It is extraordinary that the Bill, and this clause in particular, seeks to make UK citizens bad Samaritans. Without my amendment, the clause requires turning a blind eye. It requires people to watch other people die. It is a sickening extension of the culture war. It is in breach of our international obligations and law. The proposed changes risk UK-flagged vessels being pushed into a Kafkaesque Catch-22: assist those in distress and risk criminal liability or do not assist, breach duties of international law and witness the deaths of other people. This risks criminalising voluntary assistance while failing to provide for a humanitarian exemption.
My amendment presses the Government for such an exemption, along the lines that the Minister outlined and says that he wants. Not least, it would honour our international commitments and protect the RNLI and its amazing work across our country. From this Room, we can see the Thames. The busiest RNLI station in the country is here in London. Since 2002, the RNLI has saved more than 300 lives in the Thames, including in my constituency.
The RNLI saved 372 people from drowning in our waters in 2019, and more than 143,000 people since its creation in 1824. That is an astonishing achievement that we should be proud of and support. It is also astonishing that in its 200-year history, it has never been so attacked or vilified, including by the far right, and inflamed by Government narrative and rhetoric. It is with some regret that we seek to amend clause 38, to spell out that those who do their duty and protect lives at sea and in our waters, including when they need to rescue asylum seekers, are not penalised and do not face prison sentences.
The Government say that they want to stop smuggling and penalise smugglers, but if that was the case there would be no need to remove the words “for gain”. Instead, with one swipe, the Government have intentionally—or perhaps not, if anyone wants to be more generous than I—endangered the commitment to save life at sea, here and at other points, putting legislation at odds with our national maritime commitments. It is also deeply dehumanising, in a way that no UK Government have ever systematically attempted in the past. We have only ever seen such things abroad—I do not think I need to list all the countries involved—with catastrophic consequences, in time, for those involved.
To emphasise the humanitarian issues, I want to quote some of those frontline RNLI crew members in the English channel, who put it like this:
“I think what you realise when you get to the migrant boats, when you get to these dinghies, I think what hits you more than anything, irrespective of your own thoughts on this situation is the desperation that they must be in to put themselves in this situation and then you look at them as human beings irrespective of where they have come from, human beings that are in a state of distress that need rescuing, so every other thought goes out of your mind.”
Another said:
“While there are people in small boats in the channel, there is danger. My motivation is to stop anyone drowning and washing up on the beaches. I don’t care what time of day or night it is, a life is a life, and I will continue to give my best to the RNLI to protect as many as we can. I’d like to think that the crew all feel the same. You have to put the politics of it to one side; they are human beings in distress, and they need us. I am grateful that the RNLI support us and that we don’t discriminate against anyone. I am proud of the work that we do and the lives that we have saved. I want us to shout about what we do and the care and empathy that we show.”
He goes on:
“This country is having a crisis of empathy and I love that the RNLI are standing up for our morals and showing what I truly believe is the Britain we should all be proud of.”
That is the Britain that I am also proud of. I believe that the Government have stoked a filthy culture war, and it has got filthy in our waters—due not just to the sewage that they are dumping in it, but the hate that they provoke and the consequences it has had.
Let me talk about the situation as it stands before we get to the amendment that tries to protect the humanitarian organisations involved. Another crew member put it like this:
“Our inshore lifeboat was called to a small inflatable with seven people on board…four adults and three children…They’d broken down…Everybody on the boat [was]…sick, we thought they all needed medical attention...we needed to get them ashore, [and] some of the paramedics…were there to take care of them [and] were able to establish that they had exposure. But when we got there, some members of the public who saw us coming in with two families, little children, four or five years old in this boat, were standing there on the beach”
—I apologise in advance, Sir Roger—
“shouting, ‘Fuck off back to France’ at us as we tried to bring them in”.
This crew member said they had never been met by an angry mob like that before, and it was one of the most upsetting things they had ever seen. That situation is happening right now as a direct result of irresponsible rhetoric and policies.
Another crew member said:
“We’ve had some vile abuse thrown at us. We’ve been accused of all sorts of things. I’ve personally had personal phone calls at the lifeboat station people telling me what they think of me by bringing migrants in, but at the end of the day we are here to save lives at sea and all the time we are here that is what we will carry on doing.”
I pay tribute to the heroism and courage in the face of irresponsibility from this Administration.
Removing the words “for gain” has caused unnecessary distress already, in an already tough job and situation. I urge the Government to reconsider their communications on the Bill—specifically the clause and in relation to my amendment—and on the issue more widely, especially the language used when talking about asylum seekers. It has already led to such horrendous abuse of the RNLI and others, as well as the degrading language around people in need of sanctuary.
The Government are responsible for the hate that asylum seekers and volunteers and professionals at RNLI face. There are also further unintended victims of the childishness on the issue. I speak as a proud member of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I am fearful that, should my amendment not be accepted, this grubby politics risks a course of action that will drag Her Majesty into the mess that the Government are creating. Without my amendment, if people continue to film and to seek action against the volunteers and the crew, and organisations such as the RNLI, which save lives, the chances of prosecution and prison will increasingly grow, both on an individual basis and with respect to attacks on the organisation itself.
There is a reason for the “R” in RNLI: the president is His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent. He is the Queen’s first cousin, and he succeeded both his father and his mother to become RNLI president in 1969. If the Committee does not agree to the amendment, we risk the astonishing situation—created entirely by the Government—of the Queen facing calls to lock up her own cousin. Those more attuned to British history will know that that would have been more likely under the first Queen Elizabeth than under the current monarch. It is a genuinely ridiculous situation.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, of whom I am very fond, for tabling the amendment. When I referred to him in a previous sitting as a crafty parliamentarian, I meant that in the nicest of ways. I am very fond of him, and I know that he is a canny parliamentarian who is passionate about the issues he raises.
Let me touch on various points that the hon. Gentleman made. The RNLI does, rightly, have a proud royal connection, and long may that continue. Of course, the RNLI, Her Majesty’s Coastguard and others provide an invaluable service in saving lives at sea. We as a Government are conscious of that, and that tradition and that vital service must continue to be upheld. The hon. Gentleman mounted a passionate defence of the monarchy, and I think I speak for the whole Government when I say that we are proud monarchists. Perhaps he might have a word with some of his colleagues about the stance they have traditionally taken in relation to the monarchy over the years, but we have proud support for our monarchy in this country.
I also want to say that the behaviour the hon. Gentleman talked about as being exhibited towards members of the RNLI and volunteers is completely unacceptable and despicable. There is a responsibility on Members across the House to speak with one voice in saying that such behaviour is despicable, and we should condemn it in the strongest terms. I think the Committee is united in that, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that message back to the RNLI volunteers he is engaging with in his constituency, because we do speak with one voice in that regard.
On that note, I want to mention the incident off the coast of Harwich during the past few days. Two men were rescued, but, unfortunately, an extensive search and rescue operation had to be called off after a man was reported to have entered the water. That incident highlights yet again the extreme danger of crossing the channel in small boats and the callous disregard for life shown by the criminal gangs responsible for facilitating crossings. I want to place on record my thanks to all those who responded to the incident and who continue to work tirelessly to protect lives at sea while securing our border. Their work is invaluable—it is incredibly important—and I know all Members would wish thanks to be expressed to them for the work they do.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment seeks to protect those who act to save lives at sea, but as I have already set out, it is the Government’s intention to amend the clause on Report to do just that. The only thing I would add—Members have rightly spoken passionately about the importance of the issue—is that I want to be confident that the amendment delivering that is as robust as it needs to be, and that it achieves properly and to the fullest extent the objective I think we all share.
I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to let me take the matter away. What has been said in Committee has been heard. There are already efforts under way to develop this amendment for consideration on Report. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman the confidence to withdraw his amendment. We will make sure that we table an appropriate amendment on Report, which I like to think Members from across the House will feel able to vote for, and that will deliver on the objective that we all share.
Neil Coyle
I note the Minister’s words and offer, but he has not explained why this amendment specifically does not do the job that he is seeking to do in the later stages. There is no explanation of what the Government would do differently from what is on the table today, so it is unclear why he will not accept the amendment. The Bill was published some months ago, and the Government have had about three months to suggest an amendment. I have already spoken about the current situation and the attacks on the RNLI: people throwing things, people spitting at crews. That will affect its recruitment and damage its reputation and, by association, all those who are patrons or otherwise involved. We need to offer better protection to the RNLI from today and send a clear signal that its work is invaluable and that we respect and honour what it does.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 82.
Amendment 144, in schedule 5, page 74, line 30, at end insert—
“provided that the relevant officer may not do any of the things mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) where they would risk the welfare or safety of persons on board the ship.”
This amendment would require officers to assess welfare risk before stopping or boarding a ship, requiring it to be taken elsewhere or requiring it to leave UK waters, and not act if doing so would exacerbate these risks.
Government amendment 83.
Amendment 145, in schedule 5, page 75, line 8, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must publish a list of States and relevant territories with which agreement has been reached for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) within 30 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, and the Secretary of State must update that published list from time to time.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish which states or territories she has agreed arrangements with for returning or removing asylum seekers to, within 30 days of Royal Assent.
Amendment 146, in schedule 5, page 76, line 24, at end insert—
“(9) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 148, in schedule 5, page 77, line 18, at end insert—
“(7) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 147, in schedule 5, page 78, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 149, in schedule 5, page 78, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) the act was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to only act with regards to the Human Rights Act.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
In response to numbers of migrants using dangerous maritime routes to enter the UK illegally, this Government are committed to providing Border Force with the tools and legislation they need to combat this illegal migration threat more effectively. We need to strengthen and broaden our current powers not only to improve the effectiveness and capability of Border Force’s current maritime interception tactics, but to better equip them for future operational developments, which may be enhanced through agreements with our near border partners.
The clause and schedule will also provide new powers allowing Border Force to return vessels and those on board, when appropriate, to non-UK locations. Finally, the Government will use this clause to provide bespoke seizure and disposal powers intended for Border Force use against the small boats threat specifically. It will provide far more flexible options for the seizure and disposal of the vast majority of unflagged, ownerless vessels that are being used to transport illegal migrants.
I turn to Government amendments 82 and 83. We are seeing an unacceptable rise in dangerous and unnecessary small boat crossings. Our primary focus is on preventing people from embarking on dangerous channel crossings to enter the UK illegally, tackling the criminal gangs responsible and protecting lives. We must send a powerful message that people should not leave the safety of countries such as France or Belgium to enter the UK illegally in an unseaworthy boat, and if they do, they could be taken back.
Stuart C. McDonald
On the question of legality, Government amendment 82 is pretty extraordinary, because it seems to remove a restriction on the power of the Secretary of State so that she is unconstrained by the United Nations convention on the law of the sea; I am just looking at the explanatory note. Is that amendment designed to allow the Secretary of State to break the international law of the sea?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and I will come on to it imminently. To finish the point I was making, the Government amendments will remove text from the Bill that is now considered not to be essential to achieving the aim that I have set out.
The UK has ratified, and is therefore fully committed to upholding, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. The Government are committed to utilising their maritime enforcement tactics in full compliance with international law. The re-statement of that in the clause is therefore unnecessary. It is also unnecessary to state in legislation, where it is already beyond doubt, that Border Force would seek permission from a foreign country before taking a migrant boat back to that country. That statement adds nothing to the powers being created in this part of the Bill.
We want to make it explicit that operating these maritime enforcement powers in UK waters or international waters to simply divert a migrant vessel from UK territorial seas does not require the permission of a foreign state where that vessel may then enter their waters. These amendments will not result in the UK failing to abide by its international obligations, whether that be in the context of the safety of lives at sea or when seeking permission if intending to return migrants to another country, such as France.
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for what he will no doubt say about amendments 144 to 149. I will start by addressing amendment 144, which proposes to add an additional requirement to the maritime powers where the options available to officers intercepting a vessel at sea are spelled out. In order for the tactics intended for use in the exercise of these powers to be safe and legal, officers will have to carry out risk assessments before and during any exercise of the powers. That requirement will be laid out in operating procedures to ensure we meet our international obligations on safety of life at sea.
As any deployment of the tactics under the powers will be carried out in full accordance with those obligations, the welfare and safety of those on board vessels will be the priority throughout. With international obligations in this context not being a matter for UK legislation, we do not consider it necessary to add the amendment. I also note that any deployment of maritime tactics will be carried out in full compliance with obligations under the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act.
I turn now to amendment 145. The schedule that it would amend deals with new powers allowing Border Force and others to require vessels to be taken to a non-UK port if necessary. There are a number of reasons why we may wish to have the capability to do this, and they are not all related to the return or removal of asylum seekers. For example, any potential future agreement with partners to patrol waters jointly may require rescued or intercepted migrants to be taken back to the country from which they embarked on their maritime journey. As such, we do not consider that the amendment is needed or appropriate in schedule 5, and we are not prepared to commit to providing a running commentary to update on the progress of sometimes sensitive international negotiations.
I understand that the intention of amendments 146 to 148 is to emphasise the need to ensure that account be taken of human rights obligations by appropriately trained officers exercising these maritime powers. However, the amendments are unnecessary and would have no practical impact on the operation of the powers by Border Force officers and others. All operational officers within Border Force receive, and must have passed, appropriate training in order to exercise their duties. In order to be appointed as an immigration officer, an official must successfully complete and pass a foundation course that includes understanding the European convention on human rights as it relates to the Human Rights Act 1998, and their resulting obligations in the context of exercising powers.
Subsidy Control Bill (Fourth sitting)
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. The schedule lists the additional energy and environmental principles that energy and environment subsidies must be evaluated against, in addition to the subsidy control principles in schedule 1. These common-sense additional principles are designed to ensure, for example, that public authorities consider the need for energy and environment subsidies to achieve reductions in emissions, or otherwise increase the level of environmental protection relative to the lower level achieved without the subsidy. There are also more specific principles in schedule 2, including, for instance, those regarding subsidies for electricity generation adequacy, renewable energy and cogeneration. This schedule is key to complying with our obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union, and I commend it to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I thank the Minister for his remarks on schedule 2. I have no further comments to add—we will be supporting this schedule stand part—other than to allude to the debate we had earlier about making more explicit within the schedule the need to deliver the UK’s net zero commitment, and that subsidies should contribute to that goal. That is an area that I am sure we will come back to when debating later parts of the Bill, but we will support this schedule stand part today.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 10
Subsidy schemes and streamlined subsidy schemes
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 10, page 6, line 30, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) is made by—
(i) a Minister of the Crown,
(ii) the Welsh Ministers,
(iii) the Scottish Ministers, or
(iv) a Northern Ireland department; and”
This amendment would extend the power to make streamlined subsidy schemes to the Devolved Administrations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 16, in clause 10, page 6, line 30, after “Crown” insert
“, or other primary public authority, as defined in subsection (3),”.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow the Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and relevant Northern Ireland department, as well as other public authorities, to make streamlined subsidy schemes.
Seema Malhotra
I am pleased to be able to move amendment 9 on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central. We have proposed the amendment because we recognise that the streamlined subsidy schemes play a significant role in this legislation. Clause 10 defines subsidy schemes and streamlined subsidy schemes: unlike subsidy schemes, streamlined subsidy schemes can be made only by a Minister of the Crown, but they do create a route for certain subsidies to be passed more easily and quickly, and on occasion have the potential to effectively contribute to key policy objectives and targets, which is their purpose.
The question is why the Government have allowed only the Secretary of State to create streamlined schemes. In our view, the restriction not only limits the potential of the Bill, but undermines the important role of the devolved Administrations. Those Administrations are more likely than the Secretary of State to understand what subsidies and schemes may be most beneficial for their respective nations or areas, and by preventing them from being able to create streamlined schemes, the Government are potentially hampering the effectiveness of subsidies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As Daniel Greenberg explained in our evidence session on Tuesday,
“throughout the Bill, you see ‘Secretary of State, Secretary of State, Secretary of State’—all powers of HMG—and you think, “Hold on, the devolved institutions are also public authorities. They appear in the list of public authorities in clause 6, so why is it that they do not also share Secretary of State powers?”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 61, Q80.]
While Labour understand that power over UK subsidies should ultimately reside in Westminster, preventing the devolved Administrations from creating streamlined schemes undermines their important role in our democratic structure, as well as the responsibilities that they have in their respective nations. It should also be noted that any proposals for streamlined schemes must be laid before Parliament, as set out in subsection (5). Any streamlined subsidy schemes created by the devolved Administrations could be subject to ample parliamentary scrutiny. Labour is therefore seeking to amend the clause to allow Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments to create streamlined subsidies. We believe that the amendment would help increase the effectiveness of subsidies across the UK while respecting the role of the devolved Administrations. We also support the SNP’s amendment, which I think would have a very similar effect.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in the Committee’s proceedings with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I want to say a couple of things. I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston said, apart from the idea that the Secretary of State should have powers over what happens in Scotland, because obviously I believe that Scotland should be independent—but that is probably an argument for another day.
The powers of the Scottish Parliament were voted for democratically in a referendum that showed the Scottish people’s will that a Scottish Parliament should be created. Those powers have been discussed on many occasions, including in subsequent Scotland Acts. The powers of the Scottish Parliament, having been agreed democratically, are part of our democracy, whereas the powers that Westminster has do not seem to have ever been discussed or voted on democratically.
As regards what the Opposition spokesperson said about upholding the democratic nature of the United Kingdom and the democratic powers of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, I think it is really important that the ability to make streamlined subsidy schemes be included. If the Government are going to talk about levelling up, which I am sure they will—they generally do on such matters—they should consider that those devolved bodies, which are elected to represent those areas, have a huge amount of knowledge and are much closer to the places they represent. They should be able to make streamlined subsidy schemes too, because I believe, as many people do, that they would make them better than Westminster is likely to.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. It is important to recognise what the constitution of the UK says, and that is very clearly that powers and competences are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We do not have a system of equivalence; there is no equivalence between a devolved Government and the UK Government, because sovereignty rests here. I know that equivalence features in some of the contributions we are hearing, but there is no place for it in our constitution. The devolved powers and competences are very clearly defined, which is absolutely correct. The suggestion that the Secretary of State’s powers should be replicated elsewhere does not fit with our proper constitutional model.
In response to the comment from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about powers being discussed and voted on, we do of course discuss and vote on powers in the UK Government every time there is a general election, and frequently through sittings like this too, so I am happy that there is extensive consideration of them.
On the point about streamlining, it is important to understand some of the limitations, which are themselves discussed within the devolved Administrations, in particular on the number of elected members. For example, there is currently a discussion within the Welsh Senedd about increasing the number of its Members, and one of the reasons is to improve its ability to scrutinise itself. For all those reasons, I hope that I have made a helpful contribution to the discussion.
Kirsty Blackman
Is the hon. Member’s concern about streamlined subsidy schemes that he does not believe the Welsh Senedd has enough Members to agree to such schemes?
Robin Millar
No, I was observing that there is a discussion taking place within the Senedd about the number of Members, and one of the arguments for increasing that number is about improved scrutiny, because having more Members would allow for greater and more effective scrutiny of internal operation, and therefore any decision made, whether on a streamlined subsidy scheme, funding, grants or whatever, would benefit from that extra scrutiny.
Paul Scully
Streamlined subsidy schemes have an important role to play in supporting public authorities to deliver well-designed subsidies: subsidies that address market failures but minimise the risk of excessive distortion to competition, investment and trade and that are not subject to mandatory or voluntary referral to the subsidy advice unit under the provisions of chapter 1 or part 4. The Government intend that streamlined subsidy schemes will be a pragmatic means of establishing schemes for commonly awarded subsidies, including in areas of UK strategic priority, that all public authorities in the UK would able to use if they wish. They will therefore function best when they apply across the entire UK. The Government will design them so that they are fit to be used in all parts of the UK. In addition, clause 10 sets out the procedural requirements when making a streamlined subsidy scheme, including the requirement that it is laid before Parliament.
The practical effect of the amendment would be to require devolved Administration Ministers to lay streamlined subsidy schemes before the UK Parliament, both when they are made and if they are modified. The appropriateness of that procedure is questionable, given that devolved Ministers are not directly accountable to the UK Parliament.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Can the Minister give an example of a streamlined subsidy scheme?
Paul Scully
The streamlined subsidy schemes will be worked up as we come up to the commencement of the Bill, so I will not set out a list of streamlined moots as yet, but they are there for something that is common and not necessarily devolved in particular areas that needs to be rolled out at speed with minimum interruption to the public authorities. The obvious example––it is not necessarily a streamlined moot––in recent years is the grant scheme that we have had in covid, which came under a lot of pressure from having to ask for exemptions within the European Union to get the framework available there, which meant that we could not roll it out to the extent that we wanted to, as quickly as we wanted to.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the Minister think it possible that some of the streamlined subsidy schemes that will be made are likely to encroach on devolved areas, even though they are being made for the whole UK? If so, does he believe that when a streamlined subsidy scheme is laid before Parliament it should talk about the consultation that has been held with the devolved Administrations responsible and explain why, if they disagree with the scheme, the Government are going ahead anyway?
Paul Scully
Rather than a streamlined scheme encroaching on the devolution settlement, it is important to stress that any public authority in the UK will be free under the Bill to create a subsidy scheme for its own purposes. Schemes have many of the same attributes that streamlined subsidy schemes have in that only the scheme, and not the individual subsidies awarded under it, needs to be assessed under those principles. Schemes offer a similar administratively light touch means of awarding many subsidies that are also open to any and all public authorities, including the devolved Administrations. What we are saying is that the streamlined subsidies are best used when they are available across the UK but schemes are available to the devolved Administrations, to the public authorities and indeed to the UK Government to award. They are more bespoke and tailored. Because of that, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. Perhaps it is something that I have not seen, but could he clarify where it is specified that streamlined subsidy schemes would need to be UK-wide? I could not see it in the legislation.
Paul Scully
What I was saying was that streamlined subsidy schemes do not need to be UK-wide. We are not putting that on the face of the Bill. They work best and are more effective when they can be rolled out across the UK, because schemes effectively do a very similar thing. It could be more bespoke and more tailored to a local area, economy or whatever the subsidy relates to.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. It feels as if this area is not sufficiently defined. I cannot see why we would not want to have better symmetry of powers between the devolved nation Administrations.
Kevin Hollinrake
Is not a reason that this could distort competition between different parts of the United Kingdom? If an example of a streamlined subsidy scheme is the business rate grants for hospitality, whole parts of the UK—Scotland, for example—could provide a huge amount of support across the hospitality sector, which would unfairly disadvantage the rest of the UK. Is that not an example of how this might be a danger?
Seema Malhotra
I am not sure I fully agree with that. Surely it would mean that it was incompatible with the principles in schedule 1. I think that the principles would preclude that. I come back to the point that at the moment we have an asymmetry of power. I cannot, in the circumstances of streamlined subsidy schemes as they are currently defined, see why that should not be a power that is there for the devolved Administrations. It is important to go further with the amendment, and I would like to put it to a vote.
Kirsty Blackman
Just to come back on what the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, business rates are already devolved in Scotland. We already have a more generous system of allowances. People at the lower end of income, pay or value of properties pay less than they would in England anyway. So we already have that in place. It does not have to come in as part of a subsidy scheme or streamlined subsidy scheme, as far as I am aware.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston is correct. The Minister seems to be saying that the schemes will apply across the UK, but nothing in the Bill says that this will apply across the UK for any of the streamlined subsidy schemes that come through. The Government could create a streamlined subsidy scheme that applied only in Blackpool, for example. The fact that it is a streamlined subsidy scheme does not mean that it has to apply across the UK.
I did not get a straight answer from the Minister about devolved competencies. Is it intended that the UK Government will make streamlined subsidy schemes that trespass on areas of devolved competency and apply those across the UK? If that is the case, I am even more concerned about this than I already was. If they are going to do that only in reserved areas, that makes sense, but given the Government’s tendency to reduce the power of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Administrations, I am not sure that I have a huge amount of trust in the fact that the streamlined subsidy schemes will not trespass on the devolved areas.
Paul Scully
The streamlined schemes are not effectively the most commonly used ones. They are few and far between. The schemes will be far more tailored. They do very similar things and provide similar freedoms in terms of ease of access. A scheme, whether streamlined or not, needs to be assessed against the principles. Every streamlined subsidy scheme will be laid in Parliament after it is made. Any streamlined subsidy scheme that is amended will be laid in Parliament. That will ensure transparency for those schemes. We will publish a number of schemes and lay them before Parliament before the regime is commenced. Public authorities will therefore have sufficient time to understand the parameters of streamlined subsidy schemes before the subsidy control regime commences.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 10, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
“(4A) A streamlined subsidy scheme may be made, in particular, for the purposes of providing support to areas of deprivation.”.
This amendment would clarify that streamlined subsidy schemes may be made for the purposes of supporting areas of deprivation.
I will keep my remarks brief. As I stated earlier, the Bill provides an opportunity to target funding towards areas of deprivation. In our view, that is not made as explicit as it needs to be in the Bill. If we are looking at levelling up, tackling deprivation and equity of outcomes, we would want a streamlined subsidy scheme, in particular for the purposes of providing support to areas of deprivation. We have tabled a similar amendment to schedule 1, but are seeking here to amend subsection (4) of clause 10. The amendment would explicitly clarify that streamlined schemes can be used to support projects to tackle economic deprivation.
Paul Scully
As we have heard, the Government intend streamlined subsidy schemes to be a pragmatic means of establishing schemes for commonly awarded subsidies. That includes subsidies in areas of UK strategic priority that all public authorities in the UK will be able to use if they so wish.
The Government are fully supportive of action to assist areas of deprivation and to facilitate the levelling-up agenda. The new domestic subsidy control regime will give authorities the flexibility to deliver subsidies where they are needed to support economic growth, without facing excessive bureaucracy or lengthy pre-approval processes. We will also publish guidance to make clear how the principles should be applied by public authorities when considering subsidies that advance the levelling-up agenda or promote the economic development of relatively disadvantaged areas.
We would not want to pre-empt work to develop the streamlined subsidy schemes by committing here and now to privilege one specific policy objective over all the others in the Bill. In any case, the Bill does not set limits on the policy objectives that a streamlined subsidy scheme can pursue. Seeking to specify particular objectives in the Bill may lead to the power to create streamlined subsidy schemes being interpreted in an unduly narrow way in the future. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I had wanted to press the amendment to a vote, but perhaps I can ask the Minister for further clarification. If, in the further guidance that may be coming on streamlined subsidy schemes, we can return to the question of the objectives and purposes for which those schemes are made, I am happy to withdraw the amendment today and come back to the point in future discussions.
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the hon. Member. It is important that we continue to talk about this issue, so I am happy to discuss it further.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
As we have heard, the clause confirms that public authorities can create a subsidy scheme and that a Minister of the Crown can create a streamlined subsidy scheme. I have talked about the fact that they are a pragmatic means of establishing schemes for commonly awarded subsidies in areas of UK strategic priorities. All public authorities in the UK will be able to use them, if they so wish.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. In relation to the discussions that we have had, and our concerns about some of the areas under clause 10, I will not be proposing that we vote against it standing part. However, there are concerns. If there were some mechanism or means by which we could abstain, we would seek to do so. There are some big gaps in clarity regarding some of the clause’s powers and what they can be used for, and we would like greater definition and scrutiny.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Subsidies and schemes of interest or particular interest
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 11, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this section must be made by no later than three months after this Act receives Royal Assent”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations giving the meaning of “subsidy, or subsidy scheme, of interest” and “subsidy, or subsidy scheme, of particular interest” no later than three months following Royal Assent.
I am grateful for the opportunity to move amendment 11. I mentioned earlier that this Bill has many issues when it comes to devolution. We want a four-nation settlement to be integral to how the regime is implemented. It has to have the confidence of the whole nation, and it must deliver sustainable outcomes across the whole of the UK, but Professor Fothergill summarised on Tuesday:
“From the point of the view of the devolved Administrations, for example, the passage of the Bill will still leave them pretty much in the dark as to what they can and cannot do.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 12, Q8.]
Clause 11 highlights yet another devolution issue. It gives the Secretary of State the power to define schemes of interest, and of particular interest, after the Bill receives Royal Assent. How the Secretary of State chooses to define these areas will have a significant effect on the legislation and its implementation. Given the importance of these definitions, could the Minister explain why the Government have not gone further and included them in primary legislation, instead leaving them up to the Secretary of State? Does he not agree that Parliament should have the opportunity to properly scrutinise such significant definitions at this stage of the Bill?
Does the Minister also recognise that it would therefore be of concern to the devolved Administrations to be excluded from the making of these definitions? Daniel Greenberg expressed on Tuesday how the Bill falls short on
“explanation of some of the systems and mechanisms that will inevitably be required to go on underneath the surface in order to reflect the economic competencies of the devolved Administrations”.––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 60, Q80.]
As I have said, the devolved Administrations have an important role to play in the creation and implementation of subsidies in their respective nations. As such, there is an important part for them to play in the process of defining and setting these significant terms.
Paul Scully
As we have heard, amendment 11 would require the Government to make the regulations within three months. The Government fully recognise the importance of establishing clear definitions for the categories in a timely fashion, both to create certainty for public authorities and to set the parameters for the work of the subsidy advice unit.
Kirsty Blackman
To flip that on its head, if the Minister expects and hopes that the regime will be implemented in autumn 2022, will he confirm that he also expects and hopes that the regulations under this clause will be made in advance of the summer recess in 2022 to allow authorities the time to look at them properly and digest them in advance of the scheme coming in?
Paul Scully
Clearly, we want to make sure that the regulations go through due parliamentary process and that colleagues have plenty of time to see them, discuss them and scrutinise them. That is absolutely appropriate. We also want to give businesses time to see what is on the horizon, and to give public authorities—those awarding authorities—time to adjust to the new framework.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. On the basis that we want to ensure that there is time for scrutiny—and I think he alluded to some assurances that things will move as quickly as possible—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 11, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.
(5) If consent to the making of the regulations is not given by any of those authorities within the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is sought from that authority, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without that consent.
(6) If regulations are made in reliance on subsection (5), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons explaining why the Secretary of State decided to make the regulations without the consent of the authority or authorities concerned.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the Devolved Administrations before making regulations under this section. Where such consent is not given within one month, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without that consent, but must make a statement to the House of Commons explaining their decision.
It is my pleasure to speak to this amendment. It would require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before making regulations under the clause. As the Minister just mentioned, the Government may wish to bring forward further regulations to make changes under clause 11. We propose that if such consent is not given within one month, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without that consent, in line with other principles here and in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, but must make a statement to the House of Commons explaining that decision.
As I have outlined, we are very concerned that there needs to be a fair and equitable four-nations solution in how this legislation is developed and implemented. That will be an important part of its success and the confidence that people have in it over time. As I have said, the devolved Administrations have an important role to play in the implementation of subsidies, and they should play their part in defining and setting the significant terms in the legislation.
If the Secretary of State is unable to gain the devolved Administrations’ consent—I hope that it will be forthcoming on the basis of there being constructive dialogue between the nations, and those mechanisms being set up in good faith—it is important that that has the scrutiny of the House of Commons, and that the Secretary of State makes a statement to the House explaining what the issues were and why agreement was not reached.
As I have said, the regulations will have an important effect on the subsidy regime. It is bad enough that they are not included in primary legislation, but it is important that dialogue happens to ensure that the best regulations are made under this clause. I hope that the Minister will agree that the definitions need to be set in partnership and in discussion with the devolved Administrations, and that it would be a sign of confidence in the regime to seek that consent.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a couple of points on this amendment, and I want to give it my wholehearted backing. I agree that the devolved Administrations should be consulted on these regulations. I would probably go further and have them not proceed if the devolved Administrations did not agree, but we are where we are.
I am a serving member of the Procedure Committee, and we have discussed this at huge length recently in our report and our look at how the territorial constitution works, and how the devolved Administrations relate. One thing that is brought up regularly is that if the UK Government proceed with something in the absence of legislative consent, there is no clear mechanism for the UK Government to explain to Parliament why the process has happened in advance of legislative consent. For me, it seems like the very least that the UK Government should do if something proceeds without consent.
That is important in relation to legislative consent motions for primary legislation where something trips over into devolved competencies, as we have seen a number of times in recent years. When it comes to these regulations, I think it is really important that the devolved Administrations are in agreement with what happens, because, in the main, they will be guaranteed authorities implementing subsidy schemes in the devolved areas. The Scottish Parliament has authority over the local authorities in Scotland so it will oversee some of their work, particularly when it comes to directing them how to best improve their local areas. If the UK Government are to proceed without the consent of the devolved Administrations, they must come and explain to us why.
I note that the UK Government and Scottish Government, as well as the other Administrations, have regular conversations about how things could go forward, but I feel there is a significant amount of disagreement at the moment in many areas. It would be very good if we could all come to an agreement about what “particular interest” means. If we cannot, I believe that this House should know why the UK Government think that agreement has not been reached, and why they intend to proceed anyway.
Paul Scully
Obviously, the Government welcome the devolved Administrations’ ongoing interest in the Bill, and we continue to engage with them on a regular basis. In coming up with this framework, I think we have had at least 34 official-to-official engagements and 10 or so ministerial-to-ministerial engagements with the devolved Administrations. It is important that we continue that spirit of discussion, because we have to set the right definitions for the subsidies of schemes of interest or particular interest.
Having those appropriate definitions is really important to ensure that the subsidy advice unit is focused on the subsidies and schemes that are most likely significantly to distort competition and investment in the UK, or that may do the same to our trade with other countries. It also means, as we have heard, that regulations made under clause 11 may need to be amended quickly in the event that economic conditions change rapidly, for example. A requirement to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations each time the power is used risks introducing significant delays into the process.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his comments. As the Institute for Government has made clear in its commentary on the Bill,
“a successful system needs buy-in from all parts of the UK…any regulations should be made in consultation with the devolved administrations…government must take a collaborative approach to writing the regulations that will determine how the system will actually work.”
The Minister has made the argument himself, really. In his opening comments, he rightly praised the work that has already taken place, as well as all the conversations—the 34 official-to-official meetings and the 10 Minister-to-Minister meetings—that are happening. That precedent has already been set, and there is clearly a commitment on all sides for that to continue.
The Minister also made the point about urgency, but surely one month is a reasonable timeframe within which to check and consult that we are on the right course, and, if the Governments are still not in agreement, to proceed as the reasonable compromise in our amendment sets out.
Paul Scully
The spirit is certainly there, but I do not want to bind future Administrations to a requirement to respond in emergency situations.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I concur with my hon. Friend. We have seen in the past few years—with British Steel, for example—that the Government have had to move incredibly quickly to get subsidies in place. Adding that one-month period could determine the success or failure of such subsidies in supporting a specific UK industry. Time is of the essence.
Paul Scully
Absolutely. The Government have determined—as we did in debate on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—that subsidy control is a reserved matter, so it is right that subsidy control policy is made and voted on in Parliament. Clearly, we must ensure that those schemes are scrutinised, and we will continue to engage with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive, as we have done in drafting the Bill and since its introduction. We are committed to engaging with them regularly and listening to their views during the Bill’s passage and beyond. That includes engagement on the definitions of “subsidy, or subsidy scheme, of interest” and “subsidy, or subsidy scheme, of particular interest”. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston to withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. I also thank other hon. Members who have contributed, particularly the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who brought her expertise and experience from the Procedure Committee to the discussion. That was quite helpful as it highlighted a wider issue about better defining how the House can more effectively support the goals of our devolved Administrations and of Westminster in a more coherent way.
This quite measured amendment would
“require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before making regulations under the clause. Where such consent is not given within one month, the Secretary of State”
can go ahead. The amendment deals with making regulations under the clause, and would ensure that the process was working properly.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the shadow Minister agree that because the clause deals specifically with schemes of interest and of particular interest, it is pretty unlikely that a situation will arise whereby an economic failure needs to be addressed in the space of a month, but cannot be addressed because the Government cannot change the definition of “interest” or “particular interest”?
Seema Malhotra
I think the hon. Member is right on this—the definitions would not necessarily change in those circumstances, and some of that is more about the speed of being able to grant a subsidy—but I am not sure I followed the logic of the intervention, although I appreciate that there is a concern there and it is important that we iron out those scenarios. However, I am not sure the intervention is pertinent to the issue being debated now.
I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
The clause will enable the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation to define subsidies or subsidy schemes of interest, or of particular interest. We know that some subsidies are more likely than others to pose a risk of distorting international trade or competition within the UK. International trade disputes, including at World Trade Organisation level, may have arisen in particular sectors. As we heard earlier, that is especially common in sectors of long-standing global over-capacity, such as steel. Subsidies to enterprises operating in sectors that have historically faced a higher proportion of disputes may therefore warrant a proportionately higher level of scrutiny before they are given.
The Bill will establish the mechanisms for the referral of those subsidies and schemes to the subsidy advice unit, but it is important that the Government have some flexibility to modify the criteria over time in response to market conditions or the periodic reviews that will be carried out by the SAU to ascertain how the domestic subsidy control regime is working. Both Houses will have the opportunity to debate any regulations in draft to ensure that the criteria for what constitutes “of interest” or “of particular interest” are robust and capture the right subsidies and schemes for additional scrutiny.
Seema Malhotra
I will add nothing further to the comments made during our discussion of the amendments. There are areas that we continue to be concerned about, but we will not oppose the clause standing part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Application of the subsidy control principles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause is central to the new subsidy control regime. It will impose a duty on public authorities to consider the subsidy control principles before deciding whether to give an individual subsidy or make a subsidy scheme. A public authority cannot go on to give the subsidy or make the scheme unless they are of the view that it is consistent with those principles. That duty does not apply when a subsidy is given under a scheme. That is because the terms of the scheme must be consistent with the principles themselves, and any subsidies must therefore comply with those terms.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. This is an important clause, so we obviously support it standing part of the Bill. I seek his view on a couple of points that came up in relation to earlier clauses regarding how a public authority will confirm that the subsidy is in line with the principles—we talked about that in the debates on clauses 3 and 4 standing part of the Bill—and ensure that the quality of information that is then published reflects the consideration process that the public authority went through.
Earlier, the Minister talked about the expectation that public authorities will keep their own records of how they made assessments that the subsidy being provided would not distort competition, and that there were not ways in which it could have been available in the market on more favourable terms, and so on. It is important from a transparency and public confidence point of view that it be clearer how it would need to be demonstrated, or at least confirmed, by the public authority that it had considered the subsidy control principles and what records might need to be kept should there be a concern at a later date.
Paul Scully
In the first instance, an interested party can request the public authority to provide information demonstrating how it has complied with the duty under clause 76. Under part 5 of the Bill—
Seema Malhotra
I think there will be a further debate to have on the interested parties point. The important thing is what the public authority might be expected to do.
Paul Scully
Absolutely. I was going to say that the interested party can, obviously, make a challenge—commence a judicial review of the decision. The duty to consider and act consistently with the principles does leave room for legitimate judgment by public authorities.
On the question of what standard will be applied when looking at that, should it be judicially reviewed, the Competition Appeal Tribunal will apply the judicial review standard when hearing challenges. None the less, the guidance that is going to be published will provide advice on the practical application of provisions, including the duty to consider and act consistently with the subsidy control principles. That guidance will be published in good time for public authorities and other stakeholders to understand the key requirements of the new regime before it commences.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Application of the energy and environment principles
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 13, page 7, line 30, leave out
“in relation to energy and environment”.
This amendment would require public authorities to consider energy and environment principles when giving any subsidies, not just those related to energy and environment.
The reason I tabled the amendment is something that we covered earlier today in relation particularly to net zero and thinking about the obligations that we all have to ensure the protection of the environment. I think it is really important, as the Minister agreed earlier today, that in every policy decision that is being made by every authority, whether it is granting a subsidy or doing anything else, those authorities are considering the environmental principles of that decision.
This proposal would ensure that consideration was given to the energy and environment principles in schedule 2 in relation to every subsidy that was given. That is not too much for us to ask of granting authorities. They are giving subsidies, and we have to remember that the subsidies they are giving represent significant amounts of money. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds; we are not talking about when a local authority gives a grant of 100 quid to a small community council to put up Christmas lights. As we are talking about big sums of money, it is totally reasonable that we expect these public authorities—which do anyway a huge amount of audit, and a huge amount of sense checking of any spend that they do and consideration of any spend that they do— to think about all that spend. They should do so not just in relation to subsidies, but in relation to the energy and environment principles.
I probably would have written schedule 2 slightly differently. I maybe would have had slightly different energy and environment principles, including the Opposition’s suggestions around net zero, but given that those are in the Bill and that schedule 2 is in the Bill, it is totally reasonable for us to say that those authorities should consider the energy and environment in everything they do. That is not explicit or even implicit in schedule 1, in terms of the concerns that authorities have to look at with regard to the principles there. This is hugely important.
Andrew Bowie
Given that we did not accept the hon. Lady’s earlier amendment, does she not worry that this new proposal might weaken the Bill further with regard to what she is talking about—environmental protections?
Kirsty Blackman
I think that, actually, schedule 2 does provide some environmental protections; I am quite comfortable in saying that. It does not do everything I would have wanted it to do. It does not create a requirement to meet the carbon commitments and move towards net zero in the consideration of the principles. However, increasing the level of environmental protection is in there, and it is important that all authorities are thinking about increasing the level of environmental protection in whatever they are doing. Now is the time for the UK Government to make that explicit in relation to everything that everybody is doing, whether it is subsidies or something else. That is why the amendment has been tabled.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Lady for her explanation of the amendment. We certainly recognise the intention behind it, which was something we looked at and gave thought to. We share the view that climate and environmental considerations should be taken into account in assessing all subsidies, and ensuring that all subsidies are assessed in the context of the UK’s net zero commitments is important. That is a real gap in the Bill—for example, transport subsidies might sit outside the scope of schedule 2, and therefore a public authority might not be required to consider the environmental questions and impact relating to those.
Labour believes that hardwiring the net zero considerations into all subsidy decisions would be better achieved by amending schedule 1, as our amendment would have done. I hope that as we proceed with our debates in the House and the period of COP26, which is just ahead of us, we can return to how we embed that principle in the legislation. These are principles of general relevance, so that is where we see a general requirement to consider net zero sitting a little more comfortably. That is why, while we support the intention behind the amendment, we would prefer to reconsider how we look at embedding the general principle of net zero more widely in the legislation.
Paul Scully
I remind hon. Members that the principles in schedule 2 include general matters such as requiring energy and environmental subsidies to be aimed at, or to incentivise the beneficiary in, delivering a secure, affordable, sustainable energy system, or to increase the level of environmental protection relative to that which would have been achieved in the absence of the subsidy. The schedule also includes a number of more specific principles, covering for example the decarbonisation of emissions linked to industrial activities or subsidies to electricity-intensive users to compensate for rises in electricity costs.
While I recognise the commitment shown by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North to our transition to net zero—subsidies that are correctly devised, designed and targeted can be a powerful means to achieve that—public authorities grant subsidies for many reasons and in connection with many policy objectives.
Kevin Hollinrake
The UK is pretty much a world leader in tackling climate change, second only to Sweden in the Climate Change Performance Index. We must look at this question in the context of what the United Kingdom does, rather than something so specific. Would not the amendment effectively open the door to a lot of judicial challenges on whether subsidies were always in the interest of energy and the environment? Is that not opening the door to a lot of problems in the granting of subsidies?
Paul Scully
It might be. Whether there would be a slew of judicial reviews remains to be seen, but certainly, there is a question whether subsidies for other policy objectives would be awarded in the first place, because it would be too onerous to do so. Let me take the example of subsidies for training young people. There are some valuable economic and societal purposes there, but depending on what we are training the young people for, they do not always necessarily have much connection to the energy and environmental principles.
Expanding the principles in schedule 2 to include all subsidies may discourage public authorities from granting subsidies in pursuit of otherwise valuable aims. We do not want that to happen. The additional principles in schedule 2, which apply to energy and environmental subsidies and to subsidy schemes, fully support the UK’s priorities on both net zero and protecting the environment. I want to ensure, particularly given this morning’s discussion and the fact that we are in the lead up to COP26, that we are championing those priorities and continuing to lean in and show global leadership from the front. In this instance, owing to the reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister, the Opposition and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for their comments. I agree that this amendment is not the best possible way of achieving our aim, and that other amendments moved this morning—particularly the amendment to schedule 1—would be a better way to go about embedding net zero in our commitments. Unfortunately, the will of the Committee was tested this morning, and schedule 1 went unamended. Hopefully it will be amended on Report, or the Government may choose to change it to include net zero commitments in the principles, but this is where we are in the absence of them doing so.
If we are talking about subsidies to get young people into employment, every local authority, or whoever is granting the subsidy, should ensure that they do so in a way that does not take us away from our net zero targets. That should be part of the decision-making process for every decision we make, whether it is about training young people or building an offshore wind farm. My concern, which was raised by the Opposition this morning, is that that is not embedded in everything the UK Government are doing, and it should be. I tabled this amendment because net zero should run through everything that everybody does, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause establishes that public authorities granting energy and environment subsidies, or establishing schemes to award such subsidies, must assess them against the additional principles in schedule 2.
Seema Malhotra
We support clause 13.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Introductory
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause sets out the purpose in general terms of chapter 2 of part 2 of the Bill, which prohibits several categories of subsidy from being given and establishes requirements on the giving of other categories of subsidy.
Seema Malhotra
We support clause 14.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Unlimited guarantees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The notes for clause 15 stand part are not in my pack but fortunately, because of technology, which does not require a subsidy, I can tell the Committee that the clause prohibits subsidies in the form of unlimited guarantees of an enterprise’s debts or liabilities if this guarantee is either unlimited in monetary terms or in its duration.
Seema Malhotra
I understand that the clause, as the Minister describes, provides that an unlimited guarantee for the debts or liabilities of an enterprise is prohibited. That does, as I understand it, reflect the commitments in article 12.7 of the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement on subsidies, and article 367 of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that these commitments are rolled over from the EU and Japan agreements.
Paul Scully
As I said, the clause ensures that we continue to comply with our international obligations, which have included those prohibitions on unlimited guarantees for many years.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Export performance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
We are back to old-fashioned analogue for this part of the Bill Committee. The clause prohibits subsidies that are contingent, whether in law or in fact, on export performance. It permits two types of subsidies to be given for export credit support, including short-term export credit insurance for non-marketable risks, and an export credit, an export credit guarantee or an insurance programme as permitted by the agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures. It also defines key terms and specifies a list of marketable risk countries.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a quick question on subsection (7), which says that a direction given under subsections (4) or (6) must “be laid before Parliament” and
“be published in whatever manner the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
It makes sense that it is laid before Parliament. I am not sure what that means, although I probably should. Does it mean that a written statement on the changes is laid before Parliament? Do the words
“be published in whatever manner the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
mean that it will be published for the public or for granting authorities to see? What method does the Minister think might be considered appropriate? Are we talking about putting it on gov.uk, for example, or about writing to organisations to let them know why the changes have happened?
Paul Scully
The clause basically allows the Secretary of State to give a direction to amend the list in order to respond to any changes in market conditions. That direction must be laid before Parliament and published.
Kirsty Blackman
Specifically on that point, if the Minister does not mind, does “laid before Parliament” mean a written statement or does it mean regulation? I am confused. If he does not have an answer, I would be happy to speak to him later.
Kirsty Blackman
Specifically on the words “must be published”, I would be keen to know how the Government might publish the direction. I am not asking the Minister to tie himself down, but I want clarity that it will be published in such a way that those who are affected by it are likely to see it, rather than it being hidden away somewhere in the back of gov.uk, where they would not trip across it unless by accident.
Paul Scully
I will clarify that, but there is no purpose in hiding it. We want to give certainty to businesses and the public authorities.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. It is quite a long clause. It does not appear to be one that we need to raise real concerns about today, but I would like to raise some points of clarification, because the question is whether there is anything deeper in there that could have other implications.
According to the notes, the clause establishes
“rules around subsidies for goods and services designed to be contingent, whether in law or in fact, on export performance”
which may include, for instance,
“subsidies to cover the price difference between domestic market prices and international market prices. Subsidies of this kind are prohibited unless specific conditions or terms are met, in line with the UK’s international obligations under”
various other pieces of legislation such as the TCA. The clause establishes that
“short-term export credit support, where this support is not in the form of support for marketable risk for buyers in marketable risk countries… is not prohibited.”
In the light of some of the circumstances we are seeing in relation to differences in domestic prices and international market prices, I would be grateful for greater clarity on what the overall clause is there to achieve and whether it will work in the interests of businesses in the UK and support of them.
Paul Scully
The significant distortive effect of export subsidies on our international trade has been recognised for many years, so except for certain types of export credit, export performance subsidies for goods are prohibited under the World Trade Organisation’s agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures. This Bill obviously complies with that agreement.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Use of domestic goods or services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 17 prohibits subsidies that are contingent on the recipient using domestic goods or services over imported goods or services. Such subsidies are generally known as local content subsidies, and since they benefit domestic businesses, they are generally regarded as being distortive to trade and therefore often result in inefficient outcomes for consumers. Again, local content subsidies for goods are prohibited under the World Trade Organisation’s agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures.
Subsidies to the audio-visual sector are exempt from that prohibition: it may sometimes be appropriate to give subsidies to that sector that require local content, in light of its contribution to our nation’s cultural objectives. That approach is in line with our international obligations and reflects the approach taken by many of our trading partners, including Canada and New Zealand.
Subsection (3) clarifies that certain types of subsidies should not be considered local content subsidies—for example, when the Government incentivise an enterprise that is not currently based here to locate production in the UK, or to train or employ workers in the UK.
The clause facilitates our international obligations under the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union and as a member of the World Trade Organisation, and I commend it to the Committee.
Kirsty Blackman
This is one of the issues that has frustrated me most about the entire Brexit thing: a whole bunch of left-wing Brexiteers thought that these subsidies would be allowed in the event of our leaving the EU and coming out of its state aid system. They thought that we would be able to incentivise local content, and a lot of people in left-wing areas supported Brexit for that reason, but it is expressly prohibited by the WTO and the trade and co-operation agreement. I am just rising to vent my frustrations briefly; I am not going to vote against the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Relocation of activities
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 18, page 10, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report complying with subsection (3B).
(3B) The report must explain how the prohibition established in this section is consistent with—
(a) reducing deprivation across the United Kingdom; and
(b) the Government’s policy on the establishment of freeports in the United Kingdom”.
This amendment would mean that the prohibition in clause 18 does not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report explaining how that prohibition is consistent with reducing deprivation across the UK and the Government’s freeports policy.
I am grateful for the opportunity to move this amendment, which would mean that the prohibition in clause 18 would not come into force
“until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report explaining how that prohibition is consistent with reducing deprivation across the UK and the Government’s freeports policy.”
Clause 18 provides that a subsidy is prohibited if it is conditional on relocation from one part of the UK to another, and that the relocation would not occur but for the giving of the subsidy. Subsection (2) clarifies the meaning of an enterprise relocating existing activities: such a relocation occurs where the business carries on activities in one area of the UK before the subsidy is given, and it ceases to carry on those activities in that area after the subsidy has been given and instead carries them on in another area of the United Kingdom. Clause 18 is intended to protect the UK’s internal market and prevent subsidy races between parts of the UK.
The Government’s March 2021 consultation document anticipated clause 18, and suggested that measures could be introduced to prevent the uneconomic relocation of economic activity between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The important word there is “uneconomic”, which is notably missing from what appears to be a slightly blunter instrument in clause 18 as currently drafted. The Government’s consultation cautioned:
“Any additional measures here would need to recognise the value of subsidies which seek to address regional inequalities.”
However, clause 18 does not seem to do that. There is no acknowledgement of the value of subsidies that seek to address regional inequalities. Alexander Rose of DWF Group said on Tuesday that relocations can be highly beneficial to the economy.
Kevin Hollinrake
Is it not quite obvious? We are trying to target new investment to go into those regions, rather than existing investment being transferred from one part of the country to another. Is that not what the clause is trying to say?
Seema Malhotra
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and that is indeed what it is probably trying to do, but the problem is not only that it potentially undermines levelling up; it could also undermine and challenge the Government’s freeport policy. In the Queen’s Speech and the 2021 Budget, the UK Government announced eight new freeports in England, which are intended to promote regional regeneration and job creation and to become hotbeds of innovation. However, it is notable that no mention of freeports was made in the Government’s consultation on subsidy control policy, which closed on 31 March.
Under the Government’s freeport policy, significant subsidies, particularly tax reliefs, move to a particular site. In fact, they are conditional on a relocation. Are these tax reliefs—enhanced capital allowance, enhanced structures in building allowance, business rate relief and relief from national insurance contributions—which are conditional on relocating to a freeport, prohibited or not by clause 18? We heard significant reservations about clause 18 from our expert witnesses on Tuesday. As Jonathan Branton from DWF Group put it:
“Having a prohibition in the Bill, even a badly worded one, is potentially too blunt a tool, which might backfire.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 56, Q77.]
Amendment 13 would mean that the prohibition in clause 18 would not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report that explains how the provision is consistent with both reducing deprivation across the UK and the Government’s freeport policy. This modest amendment is designed to ensure that the Government have properly considered the impact of the clause 18 prohibition on tackling regional inequality and on the freeport policy. However, we are not convinced at the moment that sufficient thought has been given to that impact.
Beyond our concerns about whether the Government have considered the impact of this provision on their claimed commitment to levelling up across the UK, there are also questions about how public authorities should interpret the clause 18 prohibition. Specifically, the prohibition applies where a subsidy is conditional on moving all or part of the economic activity from one area of the UK to another, but I cannot see where we have had a definition of “area”. Will the Minister explain whether “area” refers to a nation of the United Kingdom, a region, a local authority, a town, a village or any or all of the above? What about a council subsidising a business to move from one part of a local authority to another? There might be perfectly sensible and sound economic and regeneration reasons to do that—for example, to make way for an infrastructure project—but presumably this would be caught by clause 18. Therefore, it is arguably prohibited. Will the Minister clarify the interpretation of the current wording of clause 18?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is setting out very clearly the rationale for our amendment. I would add, in response to the comments from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, that this is about incentivising and ensuring that the measure is used in a positive way.
Our concern is that the wording of the clause is a very blunt instrument. It could be interpreted by a business that was looking to invest in either Middlesbrough or Mayfair that already has a base in Mayfair as a disincentive against favouring an investment in Middlesbrough. That would surely fundamentally undermine the Government’s own levelling-up agenda. The amendment would reassure businesses that they can be incentivised to invest in Grimsby rather than Guildford, without it being a binary choice between one or the other—it is much more nuanced.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put the amendment in those terms—it seeks to bring clarity. The Minister will probably appreciate that these are complicated questions for enterprises that may be in receipt of subsidies for positive reasons that meet the objectives of the regime and public policy goals. Clarity for public authorities in granting those subsidies is also important, ensuring that they are not subject to challenge when they genuinely want to achieve positive outcomes, but would be caught under the fairly blunt definition in clause 18. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Kirsty Blackman
The concerns I raised on principle F of schedule 1 are very similar to the ones being raised here. The Government have an intention here, but the clause will not achieve that intention; it is also too restrictive.
I love this amendment; it feels hugely cheeky. I know it is very serious, but I love the way it is drafted—how sad is that?—and I quite like the way both issues are put together in the same amendment. It makes sense that this measure is included alongside the amendments moved earlier by the Opposition on areas of deprivation. There is also the freeport element. The clause basically rules out freeports and the way the Government have explained they are intended to work, which is massively concerning if that is the Government’s plan.
If, for example, a Government Department was to relocate from Whitehall to Salford—I cannot think which Department might be doing that—and if there is going to be some sort of incentive for them to do that, that relocation would be prohibited. Surely that is something that the Government want; if they did not want it, they would not be doing it. They want Government Departments to be able to relocate to places outside Whitehall and to bring jobs to those areas. I am glad they are doing that, but it now would not be able to provide any subsidies for that to happen. That does not make sense.
If the Government’s stated aim and objective is to try to level up places to ensure more jobs, there is going to have to be some level of relocation. That is going to have to happen. We are going to end up in a situation where the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy does not have 400 staff here and has 400 staff in Salford instead. Surely that is a good thing, rather than a bad one. It would be helpful if the Government could clarify what is meant here.
I agree with the amendment. I agree with the report. We covered areas of deprivation this morning. The freeport thing, however, is unsolvable unless the Government provide us with more information, whether by the Minister explaining, changes being tabled for future iterations of the Bill—perhaps on Report—or the report asked for by the Opposition being provided.
Paul Scully
I shall cover a few of the points raised. To take the example of a local authority wanting to incentivise a business to move back to its high street or something like that, the Bill would not prevent local authorities from offering subsidies to support regeneration.
As for what constitutes an “area” in the relocation prohibition, it is not a defined term in the Bill. Public authorities will therefore have to apply common sense in their interpretation. The objective is to prevent the relocation of all, or part of, existing economic activity between different areas of the UK, but there will be circumstances in which relocation within an area may occur. For example, where a business has an existing presence in a region and moves within that region, it is unlikely to engage the prohibition. Again, that will come in guidance.
Seema Malhotra
The Minister might say that that will come in guidance, but the scenario that he just outlined does not seem to be consistent with the wording of the clause. Even if the local authority was to agree a move from one end of its area into a high street, and even if all the existing economic activity was relocated, that would not have occurred but for the giving of the subsidy. Activity would be carried on in an area of the United Kingdom different from where it was before. Will the Minister reflect on that? It might be helpful to read that again, even against the scenario he just outlined.
Paul Scully
The regenerative example that I gave would fit, but it will be fleshed out in guidance. Let me come to freeports quickly, because that issue complies with the principles and prohibitions set out in the Bill, including in the clause.
When designating freeports, bidders are required to explain how their choice of tax site locations minimises displacement of economic activity from wider local areas, especially other economically disadvantaged areas. The focus of freeports, however, is to encourage new investment and to create new businesses and jobs, rather than harmful displacement, so tax sites will be designated only once the mitigation of displacement and other factors have been demonstrated by the successful bidder in its tax site. We are confident that the risk of harmful displacement has been minimised.
In summary, the subsidies will not be conditional on the relocation of existing economic activities.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister has made a good case on subsidies for the purpose of regeneration, but that is not stated in the clause. At no point is it stated that the regenerative ideals or decisions to produce regeneration in an area trump the clause.
Paul Scully
I said that the clause does not prevent local authorities from offering subsidies to support regeneration. None the less, we will supply more support through guidance, because we want to give public authorities the confidence to apply subsidies in that scenario and similar ones.
The purpose of the clause overall is to prohibit wasteful subsidies that serve only to poach economic activity from one area to another. I must say, the ears of the good people of Guildford must be burning after their third mention in a couple of days—
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
What about the good people of Mayfair?
Paul Scully
As Minister for London, I do not think that this is aimed at the good people of Mayfair.
We do not want to prevent levelling-up subsidies that attract investment to disadvantaged areas. The clause achieves that by prohibiting subsidies that explicitly require enterprises to relocate existing economic activities from one area of the UK to another, where that relocation would not have occurred without the subsidy. We have said that. The amendment, however, risks delaying the commencement of the clause, which might allow subsidies to be granted that could poach economic activity from disadvantaged areas.
Stephen Kinnock
I have a brief question. Why would the Government not want to make it a condition? Either the Bill is an empty vessel that will just regulate certain activities or it has a public policy objective. Schedule 1 clearly states that public authorities must explain and assess the policy objective behind the subsidy.
If the policy objective of the Bill is levelling up, why would the Government sometimes not want to actually give public authorities the opportunity and ability to make it a condition of a subsidy for an entity to relocate to another part of the country that will benefit from the investment? I can understand that sometimes it should not happen and sometimes it should, but amendment 18 offers a more nuanced position where it can be explicitly said, “For reasons of levelling up, we are driven by this policy objective and we want the opportunity to incentivise accordingly.”
Paul Scully
Basically because this is a framework Bill. The policy objective of the Bill specifically is not levelling up. It enables levelling up through the framework, but it is the spending and subsidy themselves that are the policy objectives we are talking about. That is why schedule 1 refers to having to explain those policy objectives. Ultimately, this is a framework Bill that allows a permissive approach to subsidy, rather than the opposite—the state aid regime that we had when we were a member of the EU. The Government are fully committed to making sure that the UK subsidy control regime does support disadvantaged areas and facilitates the levelling-up agenda.
As part of the broader consideration that public authorities are required to undertake when assessing a subsidy, the subsidy has to be compliant with the principles within the Bill, and the wider impacts of the subsidy on competition and investments in other parts of the UK must be taken into account. We will publish guidance to make clear how this requirement should be applied by public authorities when considering subsidies that advance the levelling-up agenda or promote the economic development of relatively disadvantaged areas.
I welcome the interest in freeports, which are one of the Government’s flagship programmes to support levelling up and economic recovery. They are there to encourage new investment and create new businesses. The freeports offer follows the subsidy control principles set out in the Bill. They are an example of the UK Government levelling up economic growth across the UK—a strategic interest, which the domestic regime has been designed to reflect.
Kevin Hollinrake
On the Minister’s earlier point about technology needing subsidy, actually touchscreens, GPS and the internet were all developed initially through public funding, both in the US and the UK. Is the clause not trying to prevent companies from gaming the system by trying to pit one local authority or area of the country against another through a bidding race to bring their jobs to a certain part of the country?
Paul Scully
That is exactly right. Look at subsidy control regimes around the world. Witnesses in the evidence sessions focused on America and the subsidy race between various states, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid through this sensible and proportionate measure. Accordingly, we believe that requiring the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on clause 18’s consistency with the Government’s strategic priorities to do with supporting deprived areas and freeports is not necessary. The new UK domestic regime is designed to ensure that disadvantaged areas have maximum freedom and reassurance to receive levelling-up subsidies that best suit the characteristics of the area. I request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Bill Esterson
It is great to see you back in the Chair, Ms Nokes.
Clause 18 is crystal clear about preventing the use of subsidies to enable businesses to move from one location within the UK to another. The example of the high street is crystal clear, as is the example of the freeports. I will come back to the point about promoting new investment in freeports shortly.
The Minister talked about issuing guidance to go with the provision. That is the way the legislation has been crafted, which I think we can all understand. However, guidance will always be open to interpretation, and what takes priority? Is it the primary legislation—the very clear statement set out in clause 18 that a subsidy is prohibited if
“the relocation of those activities would not occur but for the giving of the subsidy”?
How is that overcome by the guidance? That is the point that all Opposition Members who have spoken have tried to get to, whether with the example of the regeneration of high streets or that of freeports.
The Minister talked about the justification for freeports and the support that the Government have given. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston made the point that freeports were not part of the consultation for the legislation, and they are ruled out by the clause. It could not be much clearer.
On the point about freeports being just about new investment, the evidence base—the report published by the UK Trade Policy Observatory, and the commentary by Adam Marshall when he was director general of the British Chambers of Commerce—shows all too clearly that they are exactly about relocation and displacement, and all the things that the Minister said that they should not be about. His point that they do not deliver displacement from one deprived area to another is undermined by the evidence base provided by the UKTPO and the British Chambers of Commerce.
I am afraid that we have not had an adequate answer from the Minister on how all those circles will be squared, and how the primary legislation of clause 18, which he wants to go through unamended, will not override attempts to use subsidies to support local areas in the examples that we have given him and that he says we should not worry about. I am afraid it comes back to a point that we have made a number of times, and will continue to make, I suspect, through the Committee’s deliberations: specific statements need to be added to the Bill to provide reassurance and to make the framework a much more workable system of subsidy.
Without that, things will be left wide open. As much as the Minister defends the Government’s freeport policy, notwithstanding the analysis that I have given from those experts, and claims that local authorities will be able to sort their high streets, and despite his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon about supporting more deprived areas otherwise, I am afraid that without additional content going in at this stage, or on Report, or in the House of Lords, we will be left in a position where the framework will leave awarding bodies open to judicial review because of the uncertainty and the contradiction that will almost inevitably be left in place between the primary legislation of clause 18 and whatever he puts in guidance.
Seema Malhotra
I listened to the Minister’s response and the contributions to the debate. I remain concerned that the clause is worryingly worded in terms of what could be permissible under it and what might not be. In the light of that, it is important that we press what is a very measured amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
As we have heard, clause 18 prohibits subsidies that explicitly require enterprises to relocate economic activities from one area of the UK to another, where this relocation would not have occurred without the subsidy. I should say that the purpose of the provision is only to prevent subsidies that are explicitly contingent on a relocation—in other words, that the business ceases its economic activities in the previous area. We believe that the approach strikes the right balance: it prohibits some of the most potentially harmful subsidies without preventing levelling-up subsidies that attract investment to disadvantaged areas.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. He has our concerns on the record. We will not oppose the clause, but I think this is an important area. Perhaps I will write to the Minister about this, which I hope will help to make sure the provision is as positive as it can be for the purposes of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Rescuing
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 19, page 10, line 29, after “exceptional circumstances” insert
“including the protection of critical national infrastructure and industries of strategic national importance,”.
This amendment clarifies that protecting critical national infrastructure and industries of strategic national importance may constitute exceptional circumstances.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 15, in clause 20, page 11, line 15, after “exceptional circumstances” insert
“including the protection of national security and industries of strategic national importance”.
This amendment clarifies that protecting critical national infrastructure and industries of strategic national importance may constitute exceptional circumstances.
Bill Esterson
We broadly support the measures in clause 19 on rescue subsidies, and we want to strengthen the measures by adding, with amendments 14 and 15, the important areas of critical national infrastructure and security.
Clause 19 prohibits subsidies from being given to ailing and insolvent enterprises unless the subsidy would prevent social hardship or severe market failure. In these cases, the subsidy should act only as “temporary liquidity support” to provide the enterprise with time to prepare a restructuring plan. That is exactly the right way to phrase the clause thus far, because we recognise that public money should not be used to prop up failing businesses. We are pleased that the Government are in the right place here.
However, we recognise that the Government have a poor track record on protecting and supporting industries of national importance. I am afraid that the case of the steel industry a few months ago is a prime example. Until 5 pm on the day before the trade remedies were due to expire, the Government had not intervened to overturn the recommendations of the then trade remedies investigation directorate, which right at the end came into operation as the Trade Remedies Authority. Its recommendations were to drop steel safeguards, and it took significant lobbying from the steel sector, individual businesses, trade unions, the Trades Union Congress and Labour Front Benchers to push the Government to realise what a catastrophic mistake it would have been had those safeguards been dropped at that time.
The steel industry outlined how the industry was then lurching from crisis to crisis, and to a degree it still is. Over a number of years, the laissez-faire approach to the production of steel has been at the heart of that. Steel is a crucial national industry: it is critical to our national security and it is critical, or it should be, to our infrastructure production. We should be supporting that industry. That is what our amendments are about, and steel is a very important example. There are other examples of the Conservatives’ reluctance to show an interest in nationally significant businesses, such as the takeover of Morrisons by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice just recently—another business of great importance to national infrastructure.
Andrew Bowie
Will the hon. Gentleman expand on how Morrisons would fit into the definition of “national critical infrastructure”, as set out in amendment 14?
Bill Esterson
Morrisons, as one of the big four supermarkets, is crucial to our national economy. The problem is that the Government do not show enough interest in businesses of such strategic importance.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Member; he is too kind. The decision to allow Morrisons to be taken over, in the way that it was, was made because it was deemed that that would be good value for shareholders, but also good for the company in general—it would be able to reinvest in its infrastructure here, in the United Kingdom. The decision was actually supporting one of the big four supermarkets to provide jobs and employment for this country. To try to define it in this way and say that the Government should step in when businesses like that are under threat of takeover—even when those takeovers could be to the advantage of that company and to the British people—would be, I think, a retrograde step.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. I think he is rather missing the point, which I tried to explain the first time around. I am making the point that the Government showed no interest in what was going on with Morrisons, nor the merits of what was happening.
Coming back to steel, the Government have belatedly woken up. Before I was intervened on, I was actually going to say that perhaps there are signs of improvement on this front. The Government have shown some interest in improving things, because there are amendments in the Budget that would give the Secretary of State for International Trade powers to overrule the recommendations of the Trade Remedies Authority. I am therefore mildly hopeful that we are seeing an improvement in policy and approach from the Government on that measure alone.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is making some very important points. We have clearly sparked a debate about what constitutes critical national infrastructure and what constitutes businesses that are vital to our national security and our national interest. We can certainly have a debate about businesses operating at the consumer end of the spectrum, but there are other examples. The steel industry is an obvious one, but look at the issues around AstraZeneca and the attempted hostile takeover by Pfizer; look at Arm, or at the way in which private equity is taking over our defence industry. Our country has become the capital of the world for hostile foreign takeovers. We have more than any country in the OECD, and we face a world in which aggressive Chinese-backed investment vehicles and businesses are looking to take over businesses that are potentially coming out of the pandemic distressed and vulnerable.
Stephen Kinnock
National security is at the heart of our magnificent amendment. Let us not carry on being up for sale to everybody.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding some extremely important examples to my point.
Bill Esterson
Not yet; let me answer my hon. Friend first before I take what I am sure will be an incredibly important and insightful intervention, as always—it does not mean he is right. It is extremely important that we take nationally significant businesses seriously, that we have a regime that enables us to support them when appropriate, and that we take on board what is in the national interest. That is the purpose of our amendment. I will take the intervention from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, even though he is not wearing a mask today—he did partly on Tuesday.
Kevin Hollinrake
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about national infrastructure and inward investment, but would he and the hon. Member for Aberavon not concede that Tata’s investment in the UK steel industry is important? Investments in Jaguar Land Rover, which was a failing business before it was taken over, were important for the UK and they protected and effectively created lots of jobs. If the hon. Member for Sefton Central thinks that foreign direct investment in the UK is bad—I know Morrisons is an important company in Yorkshire—is it also bad that our UK-based private equity businesses invest in other countries?
Bill Esterson
No, not at all. I have no idea at all why the hon. Member thinks that is where my or my hon. Friend’s arguments were going. We are very much in favour of foreign direct investment to this country and investing overseas as well. Indeed, the success of foreign direct investment in the north-east of England under the Thatcher Government has been put at risk by the attitude of this Government towards the Japanese and the rather strained relations, which hopefully are beginning to repair since the UK-Japan deal. However, let us not underestimate the reputational damage that was done by the way some of that was handled.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Conservative Members appreciate what you are trying to say, but the fact that there is a lot of confusion and concern about how you are saying it shows me that the amendment should not stand. Rather than just saying “exceptional”, which covers what we need it to do, we have this definition. Even under “critical national infrastructure”, 13 industries are officially defined by the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, none of which is steel. We can argue for steel, but it is not actually listed in the official categories. It just creates confusion. That is why I do not think the amendment works.
The Chair
I remind Members that interventions need to be short, and can we lose the yous, please?
Bill Esterson
Thank you, Ms Nokes. That intervention rather makes the point that I was making in the previous debate about the need for definition in the Bill around what we mean by various terms and the need to avoid leaving things open to chance in guidance and interpretation. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but this is why we need a bit more clarity in primary legislation.
Continuing with the steel industry, not least because we took evidence from UK Steel, if some support is not given in the short term to the UK steel sector to support its decarbonisation and reduce the massive energy costs associated with the industry, we could soon see steel, which is a vital strategic industry for the UK, facing imminent threat. I do not think anybody disagrees on the strategic importance of the steel industry at a national level.
In the evidence sessions, Richard Warren spoke about the costs of renewables and carbon taxes in relation to electricity prices:
“The UK steel sector pays between 80% and 100% more for its electricity than its counterparts in the EU. Those exemptions have reduced our electricity prices. There is a still a big gap, but they are really important to improving competitiveness in the UK.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 50, Q72.]
He made the point that it was in the national interest to support the industry. He said:
“Net zero or low-carbon forms of steel production will add anything from 30% to 50% to the costs of steel production”.
On the cost of steel production, he said:
“If other countries are not moving at precisely the same speed or putting the same constraints on their industries, you will need some sort of intervention to correct that market failure.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 57, Q77.]
That is why we think there is a very strong case for putting this provision into primary legislation.
More widely on the issue of net zero, this point is backed up by the written evidence from the Institute for Government, which says that it is
“sensible to require some additional process to ensure that the subsidy is designed well.”
That was in relation to major infrastructure that could contribute towards net zero. That is what our amendments are trying to achieve, and it is why we think they are so important.
Anything that is in the national interest or the interests of national security demands an additional level of support and attention, including attention to the way it is worded. Again, I am afraid we come back to the point that not having this set out in primary legislation creates weaknesses, and leaves the prospect of challenge and of the regime not operating as well as it should.
Paul Scully
As we have heard, amendment 14 relates to clause 19. The Bill provides that in order to give either a rescuing or a restructuring subsidy, the public authority giving that subsidy must be satisfied either that it contributes to the objective of the public interest by
“avoiding social hardship or preventing a severe market failure”,
or that there are
“exceptional circumstances that justify the subsidy”
despite that test not being met. The amendments would specify that those exceptional circumstances would include the protection of critical national infrastructure, industries of strategic national importance and, in the case of amendment 15, national security.
I fully agree that public authorities should be allowed to grant necessary and appropriate rescue and restructuring subsidies in order to protect critical national infrastructure, national security, and industries of strategic national importance. I am therefore pleased to be able to provide reassurance to the hon. Member that, as it stands, the Bill does so. The reasons are twofold: first, clause 45 contains a general exemption from all subsidy control requirements for the giving of a subsidy with the purpose of national security. Secondly, the conditions set out in clauses 19 and 20 will allow for rescue and restructure subsidies in order to protect critical national infrastructure and industries of strategic national importance. In my view, many hypothetical rescue and restructure subsidies for those purposes could in principle meet the first test in clause 19(4)(a) and clause 20(5)(a) of being in the public interest by
“avoiding social hardship or preventing a severe market failure”.
Where that condition is not met on the facts, but there are other exceptional circumstances in play, clauses 19(4)(b) and 20(5)(b) already provide for exactly that situation, so it is not necessary to attempt an exhaustive list of potential exceptional circumstances that could be relevant to the clause. That would risk unduly influencing public authority behaviour. On the one hand, it risks encouraging inappropriate rescue and restructure subsidies in circumstances that are not genuinely exceptional on the facts, and where they could have excessive harmful effects on domestic competition. On the other hand, it could discourage the use of rescue and restructure subsidies in circumstances that are genuinely exceptional and merit such interventions, but are not specifically listed in the Bill.
The purpose of clauses 19 and 20 is to prevent aimless bail-outs of failing enterprises, while allowing public authorities to provide temporary rescue support for enterprises that it is in the public interest to rescue and restructure. Those subsidies should not be undertaken lightly, in order to maintain a competitive free-market economy and facilitate compliance with our international obligations, including those in the TCA with the EU. As such, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the Minister for drawing the Committee’s attention to where the points covered by our amendments exist elsewhere in the Bill. I have reservations about the strength of those clauses, which I explained in my speech and will not revisit, but there is reference to the protection of national security in the Bill. Whether it is adequate, time will tell. I know that the Minister or a member of his team will bring these measures forward in secondary legislation. We think they are better in primary legislation and that there should be more detail at this stage, but we accept the assurances the Minister has given, and we will not push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Scully
The clause prohibits rescue subsidies to ailing or insolvent enterprises unless the three specific conditions are met: there must be a credible restructuring plan, the subsidy must be limited to temporary liquidity support, and it must be in the public interest, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Restructuring
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause prohibits restructuring subsidies to ailing or insolvent enterprises unless four specific conditions are met. This clause does not apply to deposit takers or insurance companies. Again, the enterprise must have prepared a restructuring plan and, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a restructuring subsidy must only be offered if it is in the public interest. Restructuring subsidies can only be given to enterprises that are small or medium-sized, and they must also be contingent on an enterprise’s not having received a restructuring subsidy before, or five years having passed since it did, although there are exceptions to that.
Bill Esterson
The Opposition do not oppose this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Restructuring deposit takers or insurance companies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause sets out specific conditions for subsidies for the purpose of restructuring ailing or insolvent deposit takers or insurance companies.
Bill Esterson
The fact that subsidies should not be given to ailing or insolvent banks, insurance companies or other deposit takers unless certain conditions are met, such as that the subsidy is given on the basis of a restructuring plan that is likely to restore long-term viability, is an eminently sensible measure that we are content to see in the Bill. We also recognise that such companies should receive subsidies only when they have contributed to their restructuring costs from their own resources. We are pleased to see the clause included in the Bill. There are some concerns relating to this clause that I will come to in clause 24, but I think they are better dealt with there.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Liquidating deposit takers or insurance companies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause prohibits subsidies for insolvent deposit takers or insurance companies that are unable to demonstrate credibly that they can be restored to long-term viability, unless they are able to satisfy specific conditions.
Bill Esterson
We are happy to support clause 22.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Liquidity provision for deposit takers or insurance companies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause sets out specific conditions for subsidies that are for the purpose of supporting liquidity provisions to ailing or insolvent deposit takers or insurance companies.
Bill Esterson
We support clause 23.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Meaning of “ailing or insolvent”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause defines “ailing or insolvent” in relation to the giving of rescue and recovery subsidies to deposit takers, insurance companies and enterprises. The definition of ailing or insolvent in this Bill incorporates both domestic and international terminology. It combines the existing concept of insolvency in UK law with the wider concept of ailing or insolvent agreed in the TCA. The definition is compliant with our international commitments and has a strong basis in British law. Subsections (1)(b) and (c) use the existing insolvency test in the Insolvency Act 1986. Subsection 1(a) uses the TCA definition of “ailing or insolvent”. An enterprise being unable to pay its debts or the value of its assets being less than its liabilities are British tests for declaring an enterprise “insolvent”. Subsection 1(a) builds on this by extending the tests to include enterprises that are “ailing or insolvent”—those which would go out of business in the short to medium term without subsidies.
Subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations on what is meant by
“would almost certainly go out of business in the short to medium term without subsidies”.
While the definition of “insolvency” reflects existing domestic law, “ailing” has no such domestic definition. A narrow power such as this allows the Secretary of State to make further provision on the meaning of ailing, should that be necessary.
Bill Esterson
We recognise the importance of clauses 21 to 27. We have some questions about the definitions of “ailing” and “insolvent”. The definitions of those terms in the Bill are arguably more demanding than those under EU state aid rules, which require an enterprise to be almost certain to go out of business in the short or medium term, and to be unable to pay its debts as they fall due; also, the value of its assets must be less than the amount of its liabilities. Why have the Government chosen broader definitions for ailing and insolvent enterprises than those in the regime that is being replaced?
Alexander Rose from DWF raised concerns that these broader definitions risk harming tech and research-and-development heavy start-ups because they require significant expenditure before they start making profits. As I am sure many Members will know, that can be months, if not years. Can the Minister explain what consideration has been given to these broader definitions where they relate to start-ups that are capital-intensive for significant periods before profits are made? What are the Government going to do with the regime to ensure that start-ups are not harmed by the legislation? I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is sensible to support our innovators and to allow them to take the time to become profitable. It will be interesting to see how he intends to do it. We need to be competitive internationally, which is crucial for an export-led recovery.
The same point applies to scale-ups, a point Rolls-Royce made in its written evidence. It has that concern about start-ups, and quoted some case law from the Supreme Court saying that courts should be careful not to leap to conclusions when asked to apply the test about insolvency, and that allowance should be made for debts when the maturity date is some time in the distance. Is the difference between liabilities that are due in the short term and long-term liabilities and debts picked up in the primary legislation? How is the Minister planning to ensure that a distinction is made between short-term and long-term liabilities?
Interestingly, Rolls-Royce made the point about national security, going back to our earlier debate. In addition to mentioning what we raised before, it asked about dual use. What is the Government’s plan on subsidies where dual use includes national security investment and non-national security investment, which is common in areas such as aerospace?
Paul Scully
The Bill is clear that an ailing or insolvent enterprise is one that would almost go out of business in the short to medium term without subsidies. Importantly, this definition applies only to the giving of rescue and recovery subsidies. I hope my opening remarks help the hon. Gentleman’s understanding of where we go in some of the definitions. Just to repeat: subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations on what is meant by
“would almost certainly go out of business in the short to medium term without subsidies”.
While the definition of insolvency reflects existing domestic law, “ailing” has no such domestic definition. Therefore, there is allowance for the Secretary of State to make further provision on the meaning of “ailing”, should that be necessary. We went down that route because the EU’s “undertaking in difficulty” test is disliked by stakeholders, is highly prescriptive and in some cases prevented the giving of subsidies to viable businesses with a longer route to market and profitability. These were businesses such as medical technology firms and start-ups. The definition that we are using has a much more restricted application, but where it does apply it provides greater flexibility while also preventing the use of subsidies to bail out unsustainable companies.
The hon. Gentleman talked about national security exemptions as well. We are going to get on to—
Bill Esterson
Before the Minister moves on, I want to tie down the difference between short-term and long-term liabilities. From my dim and distant accountancy past, there seems to me to be quite a good definition for this from insolvency legislation—from memory. We may have other accountants with us who can confirm or deny that. Does the hon. Gentleman know that that is the kind of distinction that the Secretary of State is likely to make in regulation?
Paul Scully
Largely, we want to use insolvency legislation where it stands, so that will be the starting point of any discussion. Hopefully that has answered that point.
To respond to the security issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, the provisions in clause 45, we will get to, safeguard the UK genuine national security in a way that is fully compliant with our international obligations, including the TCA. It is obviously customary for countries, in international agreements such as free trade agreements, to reserve their right to protect their valid security interests. However, we are going to exercise that properly, and only when there is a genuine national security interest at stake that requires such protection; it cannot be used to seek an economic advantage alone.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Meaning of “deposit taker”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
This clause defines the meaning of “deposit taker” for the purposes of clauses 19 to 24 of this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Meaning of “insurance company”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
This clause defines the meaning of “insurance company” for the purposes of clauses 19 to 24 of this Bill. The clause also makes it clear that the meaning of “insurance company” may be amended in future by the Treasury by the affirmative procedure, provided that both the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority are consulted in advance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Subsidies for insurers that provide export credit insurance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
This clause permits subsidies to be given to insurers that provide export credit insurance where two conditions are met. Subsidies that do not meet these conditions are prohibited. These are that an insurer providing export credit insurance for marketable risk countries must provide the insurance on a commercial basis, and that the subsidy is not used to directly or indirectly benefit any of the recipient’s marketable risk insurance business.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of Bill.
Clause 28
Subsidies for air carriers for the operation of routes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause establishes conditions on subsidies granted to air carriers for the operation of routes. Subsidies not meeting one of those conditions are prohibited by the clause.
Bill Esterson
We recognise that subsidies to an air carrier for the operation of a route should be prohibited unless certain conditions are met, and those conditions are listed. I cannot help noting the irony of the reduction in taxes on travel for short-haul flights, and the fact that one can get a ticket from London to Glasgow for COP26 for £45 on the railway and it is about £145 to fly. That is possibly going slightly beyond the scope, other than to say that again this is not consistent with what the Minister said earlier about the intention of travel, so to speak, on moving towards net zero.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend may be aware that it is part of the application, if someone is going to COP26, to show how they are—
The Chair
Order. May I remind Members of the need to stay on the subject of the Subsidy Control Bill.
Seema Malhotra
The requirements of applying for a pass for COP26—[Laughter.]
Bill Esterson
I think I understood my hon. Friend’s excellent intervention. She was correcting me: actually, one can get a ticket for £25 from London to Glasgow, not £45.
Seema Malhotra
The Government requires that delegates state their method of travel.
Bill Esterson
Yes, there is the irony that the Government are requiring delegates to COP26 to show their method of travel to the conference. I hope that we will see subsidies supporting rail travel. In my constituency, I have been long campaigning for a rail link from the port of Liverpool rather than a new road, and in the run-up to COP26 that would make sense, rather than concentrating on air travel. There is a serious point that we need to use the subsidies to support rail and low-carbon transport, and reduce the reliance on, and support that the Budget gave for, air travel.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Services of public economic interest
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause sets out the requirements for giving subsidies for services of public economic interest.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks on clause 29. Similarly to EU provisions on support to services of general economic interest, the clause relates to enterprises that are assigned with a particular task in the public interest. We recognise why the clause is needed, to outline the regulations for subsidies given to SPEIs. Labour recognises that SPEIs differ from enterprises that may normally receive subsidies, and accepts that different regulations should therefore apply to subsidies given to SPEIs. We support the regulations under clause 29. It may be important to note that we do not support the exceptions given to SPEIs under clauses 38 and 41, but that will be discussed at a later date.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Effect of prohibitions etc in relation to subsidy schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause sets out how the prohibitions and other requirements in this chapter apply in relation to subsidy schemes. It ensures that public authorities cannot evade those prohibitions and requirements when establishing a subsidy scheme.
Seema Malhotra
We support clause 30 standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Subsidies or schemes subject to mandatory referral
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 31 prohibits a subsidy or scheme that a public authority has failed to properly refer to the subsidy advice unit, or which has been given or made before the referral process has been allowed to conclude.
Seema Malhotra
Clause 31 outlines the regulations for mandatory referral of subsidies to the CMA. We support the regulations in the clause, which will be an important part of the operation of the regime, but we will seek to amend clause 54, which will be discussed at a later date.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Tomlinson.)
Health and Care Bill (Twentieth sitting)
Thursday 28th October 2021
(3 years 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 28 October 2021 - (28 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
All the rules and regulations you have all heard four times this week still apply, so we will crack on.
New Clause 29
Health warnings on cigarettes and cigarette papers
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require tobacco manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to require manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes.—(Mary Kelly Foy.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 30—Cigarette pack inserts—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require tobacco manufacturers to display a health information message on a leaflet inserted in cigarette packaging.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to require manufacturers to insert leaflets containing health information and information about smoking cessation services inside cigarette packaging.
New clause 31—Packaging and labelling of nicotine products—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and other novel nicotine products including requirements for health warnings and prohibition of branding elements attractive to children.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging which is appealing to children.
New clause 32—Sale and distribution of nicotine products to children under the age of 18 years—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit the free distribution of nicotine products to those aged under 18 years, and prohibit the sale of all nicotine products to those under 18.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include an exception for medicines or medical devices indicated for the treatment of persons aged under 18.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit the free distribution or sale of any consumer nicotine product to anyone under 18, while allowing the sale or distribution of nicotine replacement therapy licensed for use by under 18s.
New clause 33—Flavoured tobacco products—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations remove the limitation of the prohibition of flavours in cigarettes or tobacco products to “characterising” flavours, and extend the flavour prohibition to all tobacco products as well as smoking accessories including filter papers, filters and other products designed to flavour tobacco products.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit any flavouring in any tobacco product or smoking accessory.
New clause 34—Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes—
“(1) The Secretary of State may make a scheme (referred to in this section and section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] as a statutory scheme) for one or more of the following purposes—
(a) regulating the prices which may be charged by any manufacturer or importer of tobacco products for the supply of any tobacco products,
(b) limiting the profits which may accrue to any manufacturer or importer in connection with the manufacture or supply of tobacco products, or
(c) providing for any manufacturer or importer of tobacco products to pay to the Secretary of State an amount calculated by reference to sales or estimated sales of those products (whether on the basis of net prices, average selling prices or otherwise).
(2) A statutory scheme may, in particular, make any provision mentioned in subsections (3) to (6).
(3) The scheme may provide for any amount representing sums charged by any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies, in excess of the limits determined under the scheme, for tobacco products covered by the scheme to be paid by that person to the Secretary of State within a specified period.
(4) The scheme may provide for any amount representing the profits, in excess of the limits determined under the scheme, accruing to any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies in connection with the manufacture or importation of tobacco products covered by the scheme to be paid by that person to the Secretary of State within a specified period.
(5) The scheme may provide for any amount payable in accordance with the scheme by any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies to be paid to the Secretary of State within a specified period.
(6) The scheme may—
(a) prohibit any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies from varying, without the approval of the Secretary of State, any price charged by him for the supply of any tobacco product covered by the scheme, and
(b) provide for any amount representing any variation in contravention of that prohibition in the sums charged by that person for that product to be paid to the Secretary of State within a specified period.”
This new clause and NC35, NC36 and NC37 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 35—Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)—
“(1) The Secretary of State may make any provision the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling or facilitating—
(a) the introduction of a statutory scheme under section [Tobacco supplies: Statutory schemes], or
(b) the determination of the provision to be made in a proposed statutory scheme.
(2) The provision may, in particular, require any person to whom such a scheme may apply to—
(a) record and keep information,
(b) provide information to the Secretary of State in electronic form.
(3) The Secretary of State must—
(a) store electronically the information which is submitted in accordance with subsection (2);
(b) ensure that information submitted in accordance with this provision is made publicly available on a website, taking the need to protect trade secrets duly into account.
(4) Where the Secretary of State is preparing to make or vary a statutory scheme, the Secretary of State may make any provision the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for transitional or transitory purposes which could be made by such a scheme.”
This new clause and NC34, NC36 and NC37 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 36—Tobacco supplies: enforcement—
“(1) Regulations may provide for a person who contravenes any provision of regulations or directions under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] to be liable to pay a penalty to the Secretary of State.
(2) The penalty may be—
(a) a single penalty not exceeding £5 million,
(b) a daily penalty not exceeding £500,000 for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues.
(3) Regulations may provide for any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] (4) or (6)(b) to be increased by an amount not exceeding 50 per cent.
(4) Regulations may provide for any amount payable to the Secretary of State by virtue of provision made under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] (3), (4), (5) or (6)(b) (including such an amount as increased under subsection (3)) to carry interest at a rate specified or referred to in the regulations.
(5) Provision may be made by regulations for conferring on manufacturers and importers a right of appeal against enforcement decisions taken in respect of them in pursuance of [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes], [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] and this section.
(6) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (5) includes any provision which may be made by model provisions with respect to appeals under section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40), reading—
(a) the references in subsections (4) and (5) of that section to enforcement action as references to action taken to implement an enforcement decision,
(b) in subsection (5) of that section, the references to interested persons as references to any persons and the reference to any decision to take enforcement action as a reference to any enforcement decision.
(7) In subsections (5) and (6), ‘enforcement decision’ means a decision of the Secretary of State or any other person to—
(a) require a specific manufacturer or importer to provide information to him,
(b) limit, in respect of any specific manufacturer or importer, any price or profit,
(c) refuse to give approval to a price increase made by a specific manufacturer or importer,
(d) require a specific manufacturer or importer to pay any amount (including an amount by way of penalty) to the Secretary of State,
and in this subsection ‘specific’ means specified in the decision.
(8) A requirement or prohibition, or a limit, under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes], may only be enforced under this section and may not be relied on in any proceedings other than proceedings under this section.
(9) Subsection (8) does not apply to any action by the Secretary of State to recover as a debt any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] or this section.
(10) The Secretary of State may by order increase (or further increase) either of the sums mentioned in subsection (2).”
This new clause and NC34, NC35 and NC37 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 37—Tobacco supplies: controls: (supplementary)—
“(1) Any power conferred on the Secretary of State by section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] and [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] may be exercised by—
(a) making regulations, or
(b) giving directions to a specific manufacturer or importer.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) may confer power for the Secretary of State to give directions to a specific manufacturer or importer; and in this subsection ‘specific’ means specified in the direction concerned.
(3) In this section and section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] and [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] and [Tobacco supplies: enforcement]—
‘tobacco product’ means a product that can be consumed and consists, even partly, of tobacco;
‘manufacturer’ means any person who manufactures tobacco products;
‘importer’ means any person who imports tobacco products into the UK with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector, and contravention of a provision includes a failure to comply with it.”
This new clause and NC34, NC35 and NC36 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 38—Age of sale of tobacco—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute the age of 21 for the age of 18 for the sale of tobacco and make consequential amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 and the Children and Families Act 2014.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to raise the age of sale for tobacco products to 21.
Mary Kelly Foy
The Government’s prevention Green Paper, published in July 2019, included an ambition to make England smoke free by 2030. Admitting that bold action would be needed, the Government promised further proposals in order to finish the job. Two years on, and with less than nine years to go before 2030, we are nowhere near on track to achieve that ambition. Using Government data, projections by Cancer Research UK show that we will miss the target by seven years, and by double that for the poorest in society. Despite the promise of further action on tobacco, there are no measures to tackle smoking in the Bill. That is a major oversight, which my new clauses seek to address.
The new clauses are based on the recommendations included in the latest report from the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, of which I am the vice-chair. They set out a range of complementary measures to deliver the smoke free ambition, which will also significantly increase productivity and reduce pressure on the health and care system. Although the smoke-free 2030 ambition applies specifically to England, all parts of the UK have stated an ambition to end smoking, so I am pleased that members of the Committee from Wales and Scotland support the new clauses.
I will briefly run through the new clauses and why they are necessary additions to the Bill. New clause 29 would give the Secretary of State the power to require tobacco manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers. New clause 30 would allow the Secretary of State to require tobacco manufacturers to display a health information message on a leaflet inserted into cigarette packaging, which the Government promised to consider in the prevention Green Paper two years ago. Those are simple, uncontroversial and effective measures that would help deliver the Government’s smoke-free 2030 ambition at minimal cost.
New clauses 31 to 33 would allow the Secretary of State to close loopholes and regulations that allow tobacco and e-cigarette manufacturers to market their products to children and to undermine regulations that are designed to protect public health. New clause 31 would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging that appeals to children, such as branding that uses sweet names, cartoon characters and garish colours.
New clause 32 would give the Secretary of State powers to block a shocking loophole in the law that means that, although e-cigarettes cannot be sold to children under 18, they can be given out for free. There is no reason why we cannot seek to rectify that anomaly today. New clause 33 would give the Secretary of State powers to ban all flavouring and not just that defined as characterising. That term is subjective and ill-defined and has allowed tobacco manufacturers to drive a coach and horses through the legislation.
The Government were required by law to review the relevant tobacco regulations to check whether they are fit for purpose, and to publish a report in May 2021, which they have not done. It is time for them to address these egregious loopholes in the regulations, and the Bill is an ideal opportunity to do so. These new clauses are uncontroversial, and would be of clear benefit to child public health. I will therefore seek to divide the Committee on new clauses 31, 32 and possibly 33.
Following on from those new clauses, we must accept that if England is to be smoke free by 2030 we need to stop people starting smoking at the most susceptible age, when they are adolescents and young adults. There is a real and present danger that must be addressed: new figures from a large survey by University College London found a 25% surge in the number of young adults aged 18 to 34 in England who smoked during the first lockdown. New clause 38 would give the Secretary of State powers to raise the age of sale for tobacco products from 18 to 21. That regulatory measure would have the largest impact in reducing the prevalence of smoking among young adults, as demonstrated by what happened in the United States when the age of sale was increased to 21.
Finally, I want to address the issue of funding. The coronavirus pandemic has meant that the need for more investment in public health is greater than ever before. The Government promised to consider a US-style “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers in the 2019 prevention Green Paper. New clauses 34 to 37 would enable the Secretary of State to regulate prices and the profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers, which could provide funding not only for England, but for the devolved Administrations, with any excess allocated to other vital public health interventions.
I want to express my gratitude to my hon. Friends for supporting these new clauses. I hope the Government will engage with these proposals in a similarly constructive manner with regard to the forthcoming tobacco control plan, ensuring that public health is at the heart of any discussions around smoking and tobacco.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Obviously, smoking has increased during covid, particularly during the lockdowns, which is quite depressing after some of the progress made in recent decades. This array of new clauses tries to tackle the issue from different angles. New clauses 32 and 38 relate to the age at which someone can purchase, along with other point-of-sale policies. Those issues are all under devolved control, so I have not got involved in those. However, the policy decisions around manufacturing, flavourings, packaging and so on are all reserved, and all four nations of the UK would agree that the biggest single favour anyone can do for their own health is to give up smoking.
As older people and people who have smoked for many years sadly succumb to the diseases we know are caused by smoking, such as heart disease, stroke and cancer, it is incumbent on tobacco companies to recruit a new generation. That is what ornate packaging and childish flavourings are clearly aimed at doing, and they are therefore completely counter to the policies of the UK Government and the devolved Governments.
This is an opportunity to stake the point, move forward and take action to prevent the recruitment of young smokers into cigarette smoking, which will inevitably cost the NHS—indeed the four NHSs—more, as they deal with the health issues over a number of decades, than is raised by tobacco duty. The Government need to stop looking at what they earn from cigarettes and focus on minimising their use. That is the Government’s stated policy, and these new clauses would take that forward.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to resume proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for her new clauses and the powerful case she made for them, but also for her leadership in the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, alongside the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I know it is a truly impactful APPG and I have always been grateful for my opportunities to go to its sessions to contribute or to listen, as I know Ministers have as well. Reducing smoking and being smoke free by 2030 is a major public health prize. It was a bit disappointing and surprising that there were no tobacco control elements on the face of the Bill, so it is right that we spend a little time trying to change that.
Successive Governments have rightly taken real pride in the reductions in smoking over the past 20 to 25 years. Those reductions have not happened by accident, but through concrete interventions that were sometimes controversial and often challenging at the time, such as the smoking ban, plain packaging and packet warnings—things that we soon afterwards realised were very impactful, and very much the right thing to do. Of course, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire says, we have to view this in the context of covid, and there has perhaps been a bit of backsliding on that progress, but that should drive us not to despair, but to redouble our efforts. I hope we can move things forward in the spirit that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham suggested.
We have to understand that the gains we have made in recent years come with a caveat. Most of the quitting has been done by people from better-off communities, and the benefits have largely accrued to those communities. We are now at the point where smoking accounts for 50% of health inequalities between the poorest and the best-off communities. If we really are serious about levelling up or whatever we want to call it, health is surely a crucial part of that. We know that smoking accounts for half of that difference, so we really ought to be focusing on it.
Reducing smoking ought to be a major project for any Government, because poorer smokers are just as likely to want to quit as their better-off counterparts, and just as able to do so if they have access to good services. However, we have spent a decade cutting those services in general, but particularly in the poorest communities, so high-quality smoking cessation services—which are so effective—have withered on the vine in many of the places that need them the most.
I will now turn to the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, beginning with new clause 29. About one in seven adults smokes. That is about 7 million people, and while health warnings have been displayed on smoking packages for well over a decade, there is evidence that the impact of warnings such as those wane over time. However, the dangers of smoking remain high—between 2016 and 2018, there were 1,167 deaths attributable to smoking in my city of Nottingham alone—so we need to build on the techniques that have worked, with new ones to refresh our under-standing of the dangers of cigarettes to smokers.
There is evidence that dissuasive cigarettes can make smoking less attractive to younger people and non-smokers, and the inclusion of warnings on individual cigarettes, as proposed by new clause 29, is one key way of doing that. Such warnings are already being considered around the world: an in-depth study from France found that warnings on cigarettes increased negative health perceptions, reduced positive smoker image and the perceived pleasure of smoking, decreased the desire to start smoking, and increased the desire to quit. There are therefore signs that such a policy would be impactful.
New clause 30 deals with cigarette pack inserts. Inserting leaflets that contain health information and information about quitting is an effective and cheap way to target existing smokers and help them get support to quit. Those inserts are easy and cheap to implement and, moreover, while the reading of cigarette pack warnings decreases over time, the reading of inserts increases. In Canada, package inserts have been a legal requirement since 2000, and a survey of smokers in Canada found that between one quarter and one third of respondents had read pack inserts at least once in the prior month, and those intending to quit or having recently tried to do so were significantly more likely to have read them. Pack inserts will support and reinforce the impact of other measures that will require more significant investment campaigns to go with them, such as behaviour change campaigns and stop smoking services. They are a really good evidence-based, low-cost addition to such campaigns.
New clause 31 relates to the packaging and labelling of nicotine products. Over the decades, regulation has transformed traditional cigarette packaging, plastering it with warnings and preventing tobacco companies from selling a desirable image of smoking. However, regulations have not kept pace with the less traditional nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches. Tobacco companies are still able to sell e-cigarettes adorned with bright colours, cartoon characters and attractive images, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, and I know that e-cigarette shops in my constituency offer vape liquids branded as vanilla ice cream, slushies and cookie dough, all of which appear targeted at young people, and children in particular.
I am enthusiastic about vaping—it still feels like that is an unfashionable thing to say, but I stand by it. I think vaping is a really good way to help people quit smoking and stay quit, and it is a really important part of a smoke-free 2030. However, it should be regulated properly to help make being smoke free a reality. Data shows that restrictions on the branding of e-cigarettes and refills reduce the appeal of vaping to young people, particularly children, while having little impact on adult smokers’ interest in using these products to quit smoking, so, again, it is cost-free.
Dr Whitford
I assume from the hon. Gentleman’s comments that he shares my concern that although vaping is considerably safer than traditional tobacco, as Public Health England reports on vaping show, vaping products still contain nicotine, which is a vascularly active substance. Therefore, we should still be concerned about non-smoking children being recruited on to vaping. We have no idea what decades of nicotine vaping will do to someone.
Alex Norris
I do share that view, particularly around children. Our preference would be for them to never start. There should not be packages with cartoons and child-friendly descriptors to develop a market among children. I think there would be a high level of consensus on that.
In that spirit, new clause 32 addresses an incredible loophole, which I cannot believe anybody thinks is a good idea. If the Minister is not going to accept new clause 32, I hope he will say when the issue will be resolved. The idea that you cannot sell e-cigarettes to children but that you can give them out as free samples to under-18s is quite hard to understand. It is time for us to get hold of this simple loophole, which goes against the spirit of the legislation, which is designed to protect children against nicotine addiction. I hope we can get some clarity, either because the Minister accepts the new clause or gives us a clear picture that we will see action very soon.
On new clause 33, about flavoured tobacco products, it again feels like the market is not acting in the spirit of the laws that have been passed. Flavoured tobacco is designed to make products more appealing, especially to younger people. In May 2020, we banned the sale of tobacco with a characterising flavour such as vanilla, spices and menthol. However, companies have adapted to this legal change with new innovations that skirt the law and provide smoking experiences that replicate flavoured tobacco. I can go to supermarket websites and find “green” branded cigarettes being sold, with many reviews stating how similar the flavour is to menthol cigarettes. I do not think that is in the spirit of the law.
In the year from May 2020, Japan Tobacco made over £91 million in profits from menthol brands. Clearly, the law has not worked as we want it to. Moreover, between January 2020 and 2021, a survey of smokers showed that the smoking of menthol cigarettes has not declined, despite the apparent ban, so I do not think the law is working. This new clause would do a good job of closing that legal loophole. If the Minister is not minded to accept it, I would be keen to know what the Government intend to do instead, because I cannot believe that they want laws that they passed, in possession of full facts, to be worked around in that way.
I will take new clauses 34 to 37 as a group, because they create the same thing: a tobacco control fund, paid for by manufacturers, combined with the regulation of tobacco companies’ profits. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, when the Government announced their smoke-free 2030 ambition, they promised to consider a US-style “polluter pays” levy on the manufacturers, and included an ultimatum for industry to make smoked tobacco obsolete by 2030. My hon. Friend’s APPG has published a very strong option for how to do that. Ministers could lift and shift that very happily and get on with this. There are real benefits to that.
Action on Smoking and Health do some wonderful work, and I am grateful for its support in my work. It estimates that a comprehensive national, regional and local tobacco control programme—in many ways, we have lost that in recent years—to deliver a smoke-free 2030 would cost the UK about £315 million. That would involve adding back lost services. ASH’s estimate for a levy, based on the model the APPG talks about, is £700 million. This could be a “polluter pays” model, and we would have plenty left over to overturn all those poor public health budget cut decisions taken over the last decade. If the spirit of yesterday’s Budget was to try to rewind and erase the lost decade that we have had in this country, this would be a really good place to do that, and I think that is a good deal.
Of course, the EU tobacco tax directive is no longer a blocking factor, so we have complete agency to act in this area and it is in the gift of the Government, so I am very interested to know how far along the Minister or his colleagues are in the consideration, as they said, of this matter, and when we will see some proposals. Similarly, when will we see another tobacco control plan? That is something that everybody, from local government, public services, the private sector, community and voluntary services and all of us in this place, can organise around. The 2030 goal is a common goal. Pretty much everything that we have said in the new clauses are things that we are of one mind on. We can do something really good for the health of the nation, and I hope to find the Minister in action mode on that.
I will finish by referencing new clause 38, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, because I do not want it to look like I have ducked the question. It is important that we actively look at that and consider the evidence. I am perhaps not ready to say that it should be in the Bill, but it should be part of an active conversation in this area and part of a tobacco control plan. I think the Minister may be in a similar place on that, because we know that it is an effective part of the armoury. There are loads of really great things to go at in this set of new clauses, and I hope that he feels the same way.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for City of Durham for giving us an opportunity to debate the new clauses. I had the privilege and pleasure, I think almost a year and a half or two years ago, when I was standing in for the Public Health Minister, of responding to a debate in the House on this subject—I think she was in Westminster Hall responding to another debate. I therefore had the pleasure of listening to hon. Members speaking about the work of the APPG, and this issue more broadly, on that occasion. It seems like an age ago. I suspect that it was only about a year ago, but that is what the last year and a half has done for many of us.
New clause 29 seeks to provide powers for the Secretary of State to impose a requirement for tobacco manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers. That requirement is intended to further strengthen the current public health messaging and encourage smokers to quit. The Government are sympathetic to the aims of the new clause. We strongly support measures to stop people smoking and to educate smokers of its dangers, as we have done through warnings on cigarette packs. However, we believe that we need to conduct some further research and build a more robust evidence base in support of such additional measures before introducing them. If evidence shows that that requirement would not be effective, there is a risk that the power would not be used. As hon. Members will be aware—the hon. Lady was right in the point that she made—health is a devolved matter. Therefore such a measure would need to be considered in partnership with the devolved Administrations.
We are currently in the process of developing our new tobacco control plan. When the hon. Lady winds up the debate on this group of new clauses, she may say, “All well and good, but we’ve been in that place for a while. When will I see it?” I would be surprised were she not to do so. We continue to work on the plan at pace. She will be aware that the events of the last year and a half have, in a number of areas, knocked the existing timelines for producing plans slightly sideways, but we continue to work actively on that. As part of the tobacco control plan that we are working on, we are exploring a broad range of new regulatory measures to support our ambition to be smoke free by 2030. We are reviewing this specific proposal as part of that work, in considering the options for a package of legislative measures.
New clause 30 seeks to provide a power for the Secretary of State to introduce a requirement for manufacturers to insert leaflets containing health information and information about smoking cessation services inside cigarette packaging. We believe that that power is not strictly necessary as the Department could legislate to do that already under the Children and Families Act 2014, as inserts could be required for public health messaging through amendments to the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. It is also important to note that we already have strong graphic images and warnings of the health harms of smoking on the outside of cigarette packs, and the NHS website provides advice for people seeking to quit smoking. That website address is required on packaging under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016.
The current regulations, the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015, prohibit the use of inserts, as there was limited evidence during the development of those regulations that placing public health messaging inserts inside cigarette packets was more effective than the messaging on the outside of packs. A post-implementation review of SPOT—if I may refer to the regulations in that way to save a little time—is currently under way. It is seeking to assess whether the regulations have met their objectives, and will identify whether there is a need to strengthen them in any way or to revisit any aspect of them, such as the one that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentions. We aim to publish the post-implementation review before the end of this year.
If we were to introduce inserts through regulations, we would need to conduct further research on that. We would need to establish the public health benefit, costs to businesses, impact on the environment from litter and practicalities around enforcement, and crucially build a robust evidence base in support of such measures and their efficacy, along with, obviously, public consultation on them. This is something that we will consider as part of the Smokefree 2030 regulatory plans, but we will wait and see what, in the next couple of months, the published post-implementation review says. Health, as I have mentioned, is devolved, so it is something on which we would need to work with our friends and partners in the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations.
New clause 31 seeks to enable legislation that would make provision about the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and other novel nicotine products. That would include requirements for health warnings and the prohibition of branding elements that are attractive to children. I pay tribute to the work that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, has done in this space. I know that this is not just an issue of shadow ministerial concern for him, but something in which he has taken an interest as an individual Member of Parliament, so I recognise his expertise and knowledge in this area.
We are currently undertaking a post-implementation review of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 as well. The current regulations include requirements on the packaging and labelling of e-cigarettes, along with restrictions on marketing, and they prohibit advertising on mainstream media such as TV and radio for e-cigarettes. Again, we will publish that review this year.
We want to encourage smokers to quit smoking using nicotine replacement therapy and by switching to less harmful products such as e-cigarettes. I take the point made by the hon. Members for Nottingham North and for Central Ayrshire. I share the shadow Minister’s view that if there is a choice between a conventional cigarette and an e-cigarette, I would much prefer people to be smoking an e-cigarette, because it is less harmful. But I absolutely take the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who is, as we know, an eminent clinician, that even if it is less harmful, it is still harmful. The ideal would be that people use neither product, but if it is a choice between the two and a question of getting someone to change their habit, I would much prefer to see them using an e-cigarette than a conventional cigarette. I think that there is consensus on that point across the two Front Benches and, indeed, the SNP Front Bench.
However, we need to ensure that our regulatory framework continues to protect young people and non-smokers from using e-cigarettes. That is the point about the degree of harm: although less, it is still there. Regular youth use of e-cigarettes does, on current evidence, remain very low, at about 2% of 11 to 15-year olds. That figure dates back to 2018, so it is slightly dated, but it gives us a useful data point. However, I do not believe that that should induce complacency in any of us. We need to continue looking at the matter very carefully.
Again, the Government are sympathetic to the aims of the new clause and strongly support measures to protect young people. Again, I point to the timing and the need for the post-implementation reviews and for further research and consideration in the light of those when they come forward in the next few months.
New clause 32 seeks to give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit the free distribution or sale of any nicotine products to anyone under 18, with the exception of the sale or distribution of nicotine replacement therapy licensed for use by under-18s. There is already in place, as the shadow Minister alluded to, legislation that prohibits the sale of tobacco and e-cigarettes to under-18s; that includes proxy sales. There are also existing powers in the Children and Families Act 2014 to extend the age-of-sale restrictions to include any nicotine products such as nicotine pouches. Therefore, as he said, the new clause is not needed in relation to sales.
New clause 32 seeks to further protect young people from the distribution of free nicotine products to under-18s, but again, we do not have a firm or robust evidence base at present to suggest that that is a widespread problem. The recent post-implementation review of the Nicotine Inhaling Products (Age of Sale and Proxy Purchasing) Regulations 2015, published earlier this year, did not raise that as a concern. I suspect the hon. Member for Nottingham North will say, “Why not get ahead of the game, anyway, with a pragmatic measure?”, and I have some sympathy with that point.
Dr Whitford
With regard to the free provision of e-cigarettes or nicotine substitutes, the provision that could be amended quite simply by referring to where they are being provided through smoking cessation services, as opposed to where someone is buying them and then dishing them out, or is trying to use them to recruit young smokers. Accessing them commercially is quite different from being given them as part of a public health smoking cessation project.
Edward Argar
That is the point I was seeking to make. Smoking cessation services would still continue as normal. The argument from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North—this is where I might diverge from him, not necessarily in intent but in the timing—is that even if we cannot see this as a problem at the moment, we should act now on the basis of principle. His argument is: “Even if it is not happening, why would we let it happen? We should just close the loophole”—I paraphrase, but I think that is his argument. My counter-argument is that it would be appropriate to look at this, but to conduct further research to develop the evidence base further. Beyond that we have—from 2018, for example—more work to do on vaping first. That is essentially the point of difference.
The shadow Minister might say, “I accept that, but I still think we should do it now.” That is ultimately a difference in positions, not a point of principle about needing to look at this. It is about whether to act now or to do further research. That is the only difference, and the research is needed to evaluate the detailed benefits of the new clause. Also, there is the scale of the issue that we might be tackling. I know that the hon. Gentleman is fond of an impact assessment of the costs as well as the benefits. He rightly, as does his colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and you on occasions, Mr Bone—
Edward Argar
Except perhaps the proper conduct of proceedings.
Moving on swiftly, new clause 33 seeks to change the current flavour ban, which would of course be the context in which I was referring to proper conduct proceedings requiring proper documents to be published. The new clause seeks to change the current flavour ban, which is based on characterising flavours in cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, to one based on flavours for all tobacco products, as well as accessories used to flavour tobacco products.
The Government are committed to protecting the population from the harms of tobacco. Tobacco for smoking that has a detectable flavour—for example, menthol—has been changed to be more appealing to young people and easier to inhale. That can often result in a lifetime of tobacco addiction. Through the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, we have already banned characterising flavours in cigarettes and hand-rolled tobaccos. That means flavours that are noticeable before or during smoking of the product.
Again, the Government are sympathetic to the aims of the new clause, which would prohibit flavours in all tobacco products and accessories, but it is not clear how a ban on flavours would be enforced in practice, as it would include a ban on flavours that do not give a noticeable flavour to the product. Furthermore, it is not clear how this may be a better option than the current regulations, although the hon. Member for City of Durham might wish to address that point in her winding-up speech. As ever, I will reflect carefully on what she says and then discuss it with my colleague, the Public Health Minister. We are currently in the process of developing our new tobacco control plan. We are exploring, as I have said, a broad range of additional regulatory measures to support our Smokefree 2030 ambition.
New clauses 34 to 37—which, with your permission, Mr Bone, I will take in one bundle—seek to provide the Secretary of State with a power to enable the introduction of a scheme on tobacco manufacturers, limiting profitability by regulating prices. Tobacco taxation matters are, it will not surprise hon. Members to hear, a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury. Although earlier this week I found myself answering an urgent question relating to matters pertinent to Her Majesty’s Treasury, I will not stray into its territory, beyond saying that reducing the affordability of tobacco is one of the most effective measures to trigger smoking cessation. Tax increases are particularly effective among a range of groups of smokers, and therefore this is a key tool in helping to address health disparities and health outcomes associated with smoking.
As part of the annual Budget process, the Treasury will continue the policy of using tax to raise revenues and encourage cessation through high prices on tobacco products. The tobacco industry is already required to make a contribution to public finances, through tobacco duty, VAT and corporation tax. While the Government are open to the idea of the tobacco industry providing additional funds beyond taxation, further consideration of the potential options for and impacts of a scheme, including a robust impact assessment, would be needed. We would also need to consider how such a scheme would be implemented and how it would impact the taxation requirements currently placed on the industry. Such a scheme would likely take a number of years to develop and deliver to ensure that it was effective and robust.
The Department will continue to work with Her Majesty’s Treasury to assess the most effective regulatory means of making the industry pay for the harm that its products cause to our population, to support the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition, including exploring a potential future levy. Our ongoing work has contributed to smoking rates falling to their lowest on record, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, but there is still much more work to be done to protect people from the harms of tobacco.
Finally, new clause 38 would introduce a power to introduce legislation that would increase the age of sale on tobacco from 18 to 21. We have successfully made many regulatory reforms over the past two decades, and the UK is a global leader in tobacco control. Measures include raising the age of sale from 16 to 18, a tobacco display ban, standardised packaging and a ban on smoking in cars with children, all strengthening the barrier between young people and tobacco products.
The Government remain committed to our ambition to be smoke free by 2030 and to continue to protect the population and future generations from the harms of tobacco. However, the Government would like to review the evidence base of increasing the age of sale to 21 in more detail—I am probably in the same place on that issue as the shadow Minister. We would like to further assess its full impact on public health, the costs of implementation and how it would be enforced by trading standards. We have not consulted publicly on raising the age of sale to 21 to assess public opinion and consider whether it is the right regulatory measure to take forward to protect future generations. I know it is an issue that the APPG and the Royal College of Physicians have recommended we should consider.
We are currently in the process of developing our new tobacco control plan. We will review all the proposals in that context, as well as the well-researched reports that the APPG has put forward. I suspect the hon. Member for City of Durham will still want to push us on a few of these points—if not disagreeing with the sentiment, then possibly with the speed or the timescale. I will listen very carefully to what she says. I encourage her not to press the new clauses, but I suspect I may be out of luck.
Mary Kelly Foy
I welcome the Government’s commitment to publishing the plan and the consideration of some of the recommendations. I hope we will see that very soon. I will not press the majority of the new clauses, but new clauses 31 and 32 are aimed at children and child public health. I do not think we can wait.
We already have examples of vaping companies handing out free vaping products to 16 and 17-year-olds. There is an example of a 17-year-old woman on a market stall. A third party company came along and offered her vaping products in return for her email address, which was suspicious enough anyway. They do not tell the young person that the products have nicotine in them. There are already such examples.
I went online this morning to see whether I could purchase vaping products. The first one that came up was called the Breakfast Club, which tastes like marshmallow-flavoured breakfast charms. It is a shot of nicotine that goes into the refill of a vaping product. The refill is 15 ml, with a space left at the top for the shot. The Breakfast Club “charms”, which come in pink and yellow, are aimed at young people. When I went to buy some, I was asked if I was over 18; I would just have to click “Yes” for it to be delivered to my door tomorrow.
There is evidence that the longer we wait, the more young people will be hooked on nicotine through vaping products. I do not think we need further evidence. How many more young people will be addicted by the time the plan is introduced? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion, but I will divide the Committee on new clauses 31 and 32.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 31
Packaging and labelling of nicotine products
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and other novel nicotine products including requirements for health warnings and prohibition of branding elements attractive to children.”—(Mary Kelly Foy.)
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging which is appealing to children.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 40—Definition of carers—
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 275 (Interpretation) insert—
‘“carer” includes carers as defined by Section 10(3) and 10(9) of the Care Act 2014; parents of disabled children with reference to Section 97 of the Children and Families Act 2014; unpaid carers of disabled children as in Section 1 of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995; young carers with reference to Section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014; and young carers with reference to Section 63 (6) and Section 63 (7) of the Care Act 2014.’”
This new clause inserts a definition of carers into the National Health Service Act 2006 which includes parent carers and young carers as well as adults caring for adults.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Bone.
The NHS needs to have a core duty to have regard to carers and to promote their health and wellbeing. New clause 39 would put on a statutory footing the requirement for integrated care boards to collect information on carers and their families, and then to use it to develop strategies to promote their health and wellbeing. This is an attempt to ensure a strategic approach to the need for the NHS to demonstrate that it has considered carers in its policies and practice. In other words, all parts of the NHS would have to think carer.
The new clause would avoid situations arising in which carers had been omitted from consideration, for instance in hospital discharges, by ensuring proper care-proofing throughout the entire NHS. We believe that could help integration. Social care sees carers as an equal partner in care and very much part of the system, but sometimes there is a less favourable experience in the health service.
There would also be benefits to the NHS overall, through improved health and wellbeing, improved satisfaction with services, reduced admissions and readmissions, reduced crisis and reduced need. The new clause would avoid the significant omission of carers in recent guidance and improve the general approach to carers. It would also be good for NHS staff, one in three of whom couple working in the NHS with unpaid caring for family members and friends. Research shows increased job satisfaction when employers recognise carers, and the Minister will know how important it is to improve retention rates.
There is definitely an issue here. Surveys have consistently shown a problem, with 55% of carers saying that they agree or strongly agree with the statement, “I feel invisible to the NHS”. They are often providing more than 50 hours of care a week, which is more than a full-time job, and are essential to the NHS, yet that goes unrecognised. There are a range of other statistics on how carers feel about the recognition of their role; 56% agree or agree strongly with the statement, “Health services and professionals do not share information with me, even if it is essential for me to be able to care”. More than half are not involved in decisions on hospital discharge, two thirds of carers do not feel listened to by healthcare professionals about their willingness and ability to care, and a majority are not given enough information and advice when a person they care for is discharged from hospital to care for them safely. Most carers—60%—say that at the point of hospital discharge, they receive insufficient support to protect the health and wellbeing of the patient, or their own health.
Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, carers have parity of esteem, and an equal right to receive information and advice and to have their needs considered. The Government accept that that is right for social care, so we think it should apply equally in healthcare. The NHS has very few responsibilities towards carers when compared with the social care sector. Carers were left out of the original Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation decision on vaccination, even though they were in the green book. They were completely left out of the White Paper that underpinned this Bill; they were left out of two versions of the “Discharge to Assess” guidance; and they barely get a mention in integrated care partnership guidance—there is one reference in there to unpaid carers.
Several organisations are keen to support the approach set out in the new clause, including the Patients Association and the MS Society. The new clause would serve as an important marker in laying out the importance of carers, and it would help us work towards proper strategies to ensure that their value is recognised and that they are supported.
Turning to new clause 40, carers are mentioned in clauses 5 and 19, but are not defined anywhere. They could in theory include carers of any age. The new clause seeks to ensure absolute clarity about who the term “carer” refers to: it would refer to unpaid carers only—not volunteers or paid staff, but friends and family, commonly, who provide care. This keeps the definition consistent with other legislation, and includes parents of disabled children and, most importantly, young carers, who are particularly vulnerable to being forgotten. Young carers face more health inequalities than other children of the same age, and that persists into young adulthood. Every GP patient survey has shown that it is essential that it is made clear and explicit in legislation that provisions on carers include young carers.
In conclusion, we want to acknowledge the vital contribution that carers make, which can be quantified as running into billions of pounds. The NHS could not function without the daily support of unpaid carers, and during the pandemic the extra caring responsibilities that carers took on stopped the NHS being completely overwhelmed. These new clauses ensure carers’ needs will be at the heart of NHS decision making and polices. That is why we hope the Minister is sympathetic to them.
Edward Argar
New clauses 39 and 40 focus on carers. First, I join the shadow Minister, as I suspect all hon. Members wish to, in recognising and paying tribute to the enormous amount of work that carers, both formal and informal, do. We want to strengthen the system by which carers are supported, and ensure that those receiving care have choice and control over how they access services.
New clause 39 would create an obligation on integrated care boards to collect information, and understand and respond to the needs of carers with regard to their health and wellbeing. The Bill provides an opportunity to ensure the views of carers are properly embedded in integrated care boards. The Bill confers a duty on integrated care boards to promote the involvement of carers, along with those who access care and support, in decisions relating to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and care. There are equivalent provisions for NHS England-commissioned services.
Furthermore, the joint strategic needs assessment, prepared by health and wellbeing boards, will continue to have to consider the needs of carers, and that will shape the strategy developed by the integrated care partnership and the plans of the ICB. That means the services commissioned through these routes in the area where a carer lives will have considered the impact on carers in that community. Carers UK has welcomed the clauses for recognising
“the crucial role carers play day in, day out supporting their relatives’ health”,
and it says the clauses
“give carers more of the visibility they need within health legislation.”
Dr Whitford
Does the Minister recognise the difficulty in getting unpaid carers to recognise that they are unpaid carers? Particularly during covid, couples may have grown into a caring role without ever thinking of themselves as carers, and therefore they do not seek financial or other support. We need a campaign to try and get people to recognise that they are carers. A project that I was involved in when I was back in the NHS in the first wave used the community pharmacy system to interact with carers who were collecting medicines, and helped guide them to the available support.
Edward Argar
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. There is a huge number of unpaid carers who we know about, and who recognise themselves as carers, but there will be a huge number who, as she says, do not see themselves in that way. They see caring for a loved one as part of their normal life, and as what they do; they do not recognise that they are providing care.
There is also a large, often unidentified, number of child carers. They care for their parents, grandparents and others, but they will not think of it in that way. They just think they are doing their bit to look after mum or dad, or granny or grandad. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the need for all of us—both in government and other Members—to make it as clear as possible that these people are carers and should be able to access support and help. There is support and help available, but people need to understand that they are in that category and are entitled to it. That is a long answer to basically say that I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.
We are not convinced that the provisions of new clause 39 are appropriate for the ICB, as a similar duty to that in the new clause is already held by and imposed on local authorities, so it risks causing duplication. The local authority will be part of the ICB and of the ICP, so we feel that the issue is captured.
Carers already have a legal right to an assessment of their needs from their local authority. Local authorities have a legal duty to meet needs identified through a carer’s assessment where the carer is deemed eligible. In 2019-20—the latest figures I have to hand—376,000 unpaid carers in England were assessed, reviewed, and/or supported. However, the number may well be a lot higher than that figure, which goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.
We continue to work closely with stakeholders, care organisations and the wider sector to support carers. We will work with care users, providers and other partners to co-develop more detail on our plans for the reform of adult social care. We will publish further detail of our plans for reform in a White Paper later this year, building of course on the strong foundations of integration we are setting in this legislation. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, would have been disappointed or concerned about me if I had not said that, and would have wondered what was going on.
New clause 40 introduces a definition of carer that includes—this goes to the point to which I have just responded—young carers, parent carers and adult carers. It seeks to bring clarity and to ensure that all carers, regardless of their age or their relationship with the person they care for, benefit from the measures in the Bill related to carers. The circumstances and needs of every unpaid carer are unique. Unpaid carers make a vital contribution to the lives of those they care for, and I know that every member of this Committee would want to put on record a tribute to them. It is important that we continue to work to understand carers’ needs and how to best support them, while reflecting the diversity of carers.
I have already discussed the measures in the Bill designed to promote the involvement of carers. “Carers” in this context should include anyone, child or adult, who cares, unpaid, for a friend or family member who, due to a lifelong condition, frailty, illness, disability, serious injury, mental health condition or even addiction, cannot cope without their support. In seeking clarity and inclusion, it is important that we do not inadvertently exclude groups of carers. The legislation as drafted is based on an everyday use of the term “carer”, and this allows for flexibility and the inclusion of all who provide unpaid care, in any shape or form, to a loved one or friend.
I appreciate, and to a large extent share, the shadow Minister’s intention of strengthening the legislation and seeking to bring clarity, so that those who are entitled to support know it, and can claim what they are entitled to. I want to reassure members of the Committee that we have today heard the concerns expressed about carers. I will take that away and carefully consider the issues, and see if we can continue to address them through the wider work of the Department on carers, and our ongoing discussions with organisations, many of which we deal with as constituency MPs, week in and week out, on their work in our constituencies.
For these reasons, I encourage the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to consider not pressing his new clauses to a Division, but I look forward to hearing from him.
Mary Kelly Foy
For those who do not know, I should say that I was a carer for my severely disabled daughter for 27 years. Maria died six years ago; she suffered with cerebral palsy. I was very fortunate to be in a local authority that recognised the need for respite for carers. I was lucky enough to have a very generous package of six weeks, and that allowed me to engage with public life, have a social life and just recharge my batteries. However, other local authorities do not give such generous packages; it is a postcode lottery. When carers can no longer look after their loved one and that person has to be placed in social care, the cost to the public purse is huge.
On young carers, the issue is not just the caring role of young children. My children were classed as young carers, and the package they had was to enable them to enjoy social activities with other young people. They felt very left out of normal activities, because I was spending most of my time looking after Maria. It is very important that carers recognise that there is help out there, and help has to be consistent. As we know, local authorities have had their budgets cut massively, so what was once perhaps a gold star service for carers is down to a much lesser service.
A lot of carers I knew did not think they were carers and did not really want anything from the state. They said, “We’re just doing it because this is our loved one, and this is what we need to do.” However, the needs, health and wellbeing of unpaid carers are so important if we want them to continue doing the fantastic job that they do.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for relaying her family’s experience. She has articulated far better than I could why it is so important that we support carers, and young carers in particular.
I have listened to what the Minister said about the new clauses. I think he is keen to support this agenda, and there is clearly quite a lot of change happening in the Department over the next few months. We will keep an eye on how the issue of carers sits within that, and how ICPs work in practice, and will not push our new clauses to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 41
Review of implementation of NHS continuing healthcare by integrated care systems
“(1) Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (quality of health and social care) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 46A insert—
‘46B Review and performance assessments: integrated care systems
The Commission must, each year—
(a) conduct a review of the implementation of NHS continuing healthcare by integrated care systems,
(b) assess the performance of these systems following the review, and
(c) publish a report of its assessment.’”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would require the review and assessment of NHS continuing healthcare systems.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Continuing healthcare ought to be something that we do not need to think about in a truly integrated care system. Hopefully, when the next White Paper comes along, it will address some of our issues with continuing healthcare—no doubt the Minister will tell us whether that is correct.
We all know that continuing healthcare is a huge source of contention between the NHS and local authorities. Arguing about who pays for what is not productive or efficient, and of course it is always the patient who is stuck in the middle. I have numerous examples, as I am sure other hon. Members do, of constituents who have been wrangling, for years after the care was provided, about who is picking up the bill for what. It seems a highly bureaucratic, unfair and at times deeply distressing experience for the families involved.
It has been clear for decades that we are moving into a world where many people will have multiple long-term conditions, with both health and social care needs. The new clause was tabled with that in mind, and with the assistance of the Motor Neurone Disease Association. As one would expect, those with MND often fall into the CHC web. I cannot allow a reference to MND to pass without paying tribute to Rob Burrow and the many other magnificent campaigners who have put the spotlight on the challenges that those diagnosed with MND face. I had the privilege of knowing Rob when he was a professional sportsman, and he has taken equal vigour, determination and courage into this field. He has been an absolute star in campaigning on these issues.
Under the current complex and poorly understood rules, some qualify for free social care—in other words, the NHS pays for it, rather than the local authority—but it is for adults only, and in order to qualify there has to be an assessment by professionals of all a person’s needs. If the needs change, the eligibility can change, and of course there are endless arguments about what the needs are at any particular time. That demonstrates why the integration of care is very important and will probably be more efficient in the long run. Those in receipt of, or possibly eligible for, continuing healthcare should be fully involved in the assessment process and kept informed. Carers, who we have already discussed, and family members should also be consulted. There are the personal experience aspects of the process to look at, as well as the arguments about who pays for what.
The new clause accepts that we cannot fix all these things overnight. It suggests that in some cases someone should be responsible for ensuring that the system works properly in the interests of those with continuing needs. This is all part of the wider application of proper openness, and of transparency being the strongest and best form of good governance.
Clinical commissioning groups have a legal responsibility to meet the assessed health and care needs of every person in their area who is found eligible for continuing healthcare. Their responsibilities are laid out in the national framework and supporting guidance, but I am afraid there is extensive evidence that they do not always fulfil those responsibilities, and that the monitoring of delivery of continuing healthcare is inadequate. In 2018, a Public Accounts Committee inquiry on continuing healthcare found:
“NHS England is not adequately carrying out its responsibility to ensure CCGs are complying with the legal requirement to provide CHC to those that are eligible.”
It also found that
“there are limited assurance processes in place to ensure that eligibility decisions are consistent”,
and that existing measures
“may not go far enough to address the variation in performance”
across CCGs. These findings were echoed in a November 2020 report by the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman, which warned that
“people continue to be seriously let down by failings in the way…healthcare is handled by CCGs.”
Patient organisations, represented collectively through the Continuing Healthcare Alliance, have reported a wide range of significant problems in CHC delivery, including CCGs not adhering to the national framework or associated guidance for assessment and care delivery, leading to significant inconsistency and variation across the country. Not enough data is collected about who receives continuing healthcare and multidisciplinary teams are frequently not used to conduct assessments, which leads to them sometimes being carried out by individuals with no knowledge of that person’s history or their medical condition. Care packages are frequently inadequate to assess needs, particularly when individuals require complex care or specialist care input. There is no effective system or process in place to monitor the quality of delivery across the country, to address that unwarranted variation and to take action when commissioners fail to live up to their legal responsibilities in respect of CHC.
We are seeking to address some of those issues through the new clause. We have what we would describe as an accountability gap, where there is no effective mechanism to monitor delivery of CHC and hold to account those who are meant to be responsible for delivering it. It goes without saying that people in receipt of CHC are sometimes the most vulnerable in the population, by definition, and it is surely unacceptable that a group of individuals continue to be let down by a failing system with no mechanism to identify and address those failings.
We hope that the new clause will address that issue and support better patient experience and outcomes with CHC. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I would appreciate some responses from the Minister. The issue is not going to go away, so I would like his thoughts about the future of the whole idea of continuing healthcare and how we best monitor and ensure consistency and compliance throughout the country. Any thoughts on how we can make the system better would be most welcome.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and join him in paying tribute to the work of the MND Association and other campaigners who do so much to bring these issues to our attention, both as individual MPs and in debates such as this.
The new clause would impose a new duty on the Care Quality Commission to conduct a review and assess the performance of NHS continuing healthcare, or CHC, by integrated care systems each year. It would also require the CQC to publish a report of its assessment. Again, as with many of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals, I understand and have a degree of sympathy with the intention behind what he seeks to do with the new clause. It is right that clinical commissioning groups, as they are currently called, are held accountable for NHS continuing healthcare within their local health and social care economy. That will also be the case with the national move to integrated care boards, where the board will discharge those duties and be accountable for NHS continuing healthcare as part of its NHS commissioning responsibilities.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for suggesting that the new clause is, in essence, a probing amendment to highlight the issue, because I am not convinced that it is necessarily the most effective way of doing that, although it certainly airs the issue in Committee. I reassure him that the Government share his view about the importance of ensuring adequate oversight in how health and social care services are delivered, including in this space.
First, by way of some reassurance, NHS England has a core role in overseeing ICBs in the exercise of their functions. The Bill requires NHS England to assess the performance of each ICB every year and ICBs are required to provide NHS England with their annual report, which will include oversight of NHS commissioning and thus, in that context, continuing healthcare.
In addition, as Members will be aware, we have debated an amendment to give the CQC a duty to assess integrated care systems at a system level. The intention is for these reviews to provide the public and the system with independent assurance of the work within the ICS and, in particular, the effectiveness of joined-up working and integration. They, too, will be a valuable way to improve the services provided. The scope would include NHS commissioning and NHS continuing healthcare. We also intend for the CQC to work closely with NHS England, which will be conducting its own assessment of integrated care boards. We therefore think that those are the most effective vehicles for that oversight.
However, I share the hon. Gentleman’s view and suspect that we will all, possibly with a degree of regularity, have constituency cases about continuing healthcare payments and whether the system is working efficiently or otherwise. Local healthcare systems must continue to focus on this and seek to do what they can to make the system as smooth and efficient as possible. We believe that the mechanisms in the Bill are an effective way of doing that, but that in no way implies that individual systems should stop looking at ways of continuing to improve that provision and the mechanism by which continuing healthcare funding is delivered to individuals.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments—it seems that the message has been received. Obviously, if the ambitions in the Bill to improve integration, collaboration and joint working are to be delivered, this will be one area where we would expect to see significant improvements. I have no doubt that we will return to this in future, but I beg to ask leave the withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 42
Alcohol product labelling
“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to ensure alcoholic drinks, as defined by the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or in future versions of that guidance, display—
(a) the Chief Medical Officers’ low risk drinking guidelines,
(b) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption,
(c) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption when pregnant,
(d) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the direct link between alcohol and cancer,
(e) a full list of ingredients and nutritional information.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce secondary legislation on alcohol product labelling.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to bring forth a consultation on introducing calorie labelling on alcohol products, for which we have been calling for some time, but I do not think there is a need to wait for this to be introduced in order for alcohol products to display the chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines, health warnings, ingredients and nutritional information, which is what the new clause asks for, mirroring what clause 127 does for food.
As it stands, there are no legal requirements for alcohol products to include health warnings, calorie information or even basic information such as ingredients. I am aware of the research by the Portman Group, which says that nearly half choose to do so. However, it is not quite cutting through. Consumers have a right to know what they are consuming and the associated risks, but many people are unaware of the calorie content in alcohol. About 80% of people are unable to identify the number of calories in a large glass of wine. Furthermore, beyond the most obvious risks of drinking alcohol, many people are unaware of the broader risks. Only a quarter of people are aware that alcohol is linked to breast cancer.
Similarly, despite alcohol’s link to worse pregnancy outcomes and serious lifelong impacts on a baby, one in three people are unaware that it is safest not to drink while pregnant, and it is estimated that 41% of women consume alcohol during pregnancy. That is a serious matter, and the issue of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is not well known enough in this country. Especially in communities such as mine, I suspect that it has a profound impact on child development, which I know we will talk about shortly. My predecessor, Graham Allen, was a very strong proponent of a national study into FAS, and I echo his call. I really hope that might be something the Minister addresses, because it would have profound outcomes for child development and some of the care services that we might need in communities such as mine.
The public have a right to know what is in what they drink and eat and to make informed choices. I will not go round the bars snatching bottles of beer or glasses of wine out of people’s hands—I could not credibly do that, but I also have not inclination to do that. However, people should have a free and full understanding of the impacts of drinking alcohol and make their own judgments based on that. A recent survey conducted by YouGov found that 75% of people want the number of units in a product on the label, 61% want calorie information and 53% want the amount of sugar to be displayed. Again, this is what people want. Notwithstanding the research on some of the good things that the industry is doing voluntarily, which I pointed to earlier, we are still in a situation whereby that is not happening enough.
The Alcohol Health Alliance did a review of 424 alcohol product labels in London, the south-east and north-east of England, Wales and Scotland, which revealed that 71% of labels did not include the chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines. More than one quarter of labels included incorrect or misleading information that was either out of date or from other countries, 72% of labels did not list the ingredients and a majority had no nutritional information. Just 7% of labels displayed full nutritional information including calories, which is what we called for.
Dr Whitford
Many of the labels simply say, “Drink responsibly” or, “Drink aware”, but, as the hon. Gentleman is highlighting, the lack of information on labels introduces quite a complex step of that person having to go and look up the risk of harm or the unit measures. Yet we have just been debating the need to have warnings on cigarettes. Alcohol introduces harm both to the individual and, if they are heavy drinkers, to those around them, and therefore we should be taking this seriously. We have tried to do so in Scotland with measures such as minimum unit pricing, but information to the consumer is the first step.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention. I would certainly not talk down including the very broad messages that the hon. Lady mentions; I know that in an overwhelming number of cases that is available, but, as she says, that is not enough. People are conscious of that message and we should keep reinforcing it, but the jump-off point is, “So what? What am I going to do differently, or what do I need to understand differently?” At the moment, we are not helping them in that process.
This new clause, mirroring clause 127, asks the Secretary of State to introduce secondary legislation to compel the inclusion of this sort of information on products. It is a relatively modest ask, but it promotes informed choice, which in this area would be a very good thing. I do not think we should miss the opportunity to put it in the Bill.
Edward Argar
As has been set out, this new clause would make provision to ensure that alcoholic drinks display the chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines, a warning intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption, a warning intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption particularly when pregnant, a warning intended to inform the public of the direct link between alcohol and cancer, and a full list of ingredients and nutritional information.
First, let me say that alcohol labelling is an important part of the UK Government’s overall work on reducing alcohol harm. We believe that people have a right to accurate information and clear advice about alcohol and its health risks to enable them to make informed choices for themselves about their drinking. However, we feel that the new clause is unnecessary, because the Government are about to launch a consultation on these matters.
As part of our tackling obesity strategy, published in July last year, the Government committed to consulting on whether mandatory calorie labelling should be introduced on all pre-packaged alcohol, as well as alcoholic drinks sold in the out-of-home sector. The Government have worked with the alcohol industry to ensure that labels on pre-packaged alcohol reflect the UK chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines, and the industry has made some progress towards achieving that.
To make further progress, as part of our public consultation on alcohol calorie labelling we will also seek views on whether provision of the chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines, which include the various specific warnings that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, such as drinking in pregnancy and the drink-drive warning, should be mandatory or should continue on a voluntary basis. Respondents to the consultation will be able to provide suggestions for additional labelling requirements that they would like the Government to consider, such as nutritional information. As I said, that consultation will be launched shortly.
Clause 127 confers a power on the Secretary of State in England, and on Ministers in the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, to make improvements to and amend or repeal articles of European Union Regulation 1169/2011. This EU regulation currently prohibits mandatory calorie labelling on pre-packaged alcohol that is 1.2% alcohol by volume and above. The passage of this legislation will therefore enable Governments to introduce changes such as mandatory calorie labelling on pre-packaged alcohol labels through regulations.
If a decision is made to mandate those labelling requirements following the consultation, the Bill will support the Government in being able to make the necessary changes through a new power in the Food Safety Act 1990. Consistent with the Government’s obligation to consult on matters concerning food law, before any regulations are made, a consultation with interested stakeholders must take place. Therefore, as there is a statutory duty to consult on introducing mandatory labelling requirements and as work on improving alcohol labelling is under way, we do not believe that a separate clause in the Bill is necessary at this time. I encourage the shadow Minister to be reassured by what I have said and to consider not pressing his new clause to a vote.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Any measure, as with that in the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, again relies on us waiting for consultation. It feels like an awful lot of consultation, which is of course an important part of doing the process right, but we should never confuse it with action. We have spent an awful lot of time in this space, and it feels as if there is a danger that we are into soft-pedalling territory, rather than action territory. Nevertheless, I heard what the Minister said, that it is an active process, so on that basis I will not press for a Division. We will reflect on the issue on the Labour Benches but, widely among those interested in the area, there is a growing sense of impatience. I hope that us giving the Minister and the Government space to continue the process is not confused with us being content that we are going quickly enough—I feel strongly that we are not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 43
Annual report on alcohol treatment services: assessment of outcomes
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament at the start of each financial year a report on—
(a) the ways in which alcohol treatment providers have been supported in tackling excess mortality, alcohol related hospital admissions, and the burden of disease resulting from alcohol consumption, and
(b) the number of people identified as requiring support who are receiving treatment.
(2) Alongside the publication of the report, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the level of funding for alcohol treatment providers on their ability to deliver a high-quality service that enables patient choice.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make an annual statement on how the funding received by alcohol treatment providers has supported their work to improve treatment and reduce harm.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to make an annual statement on the spend on, and impact of, alcohol treatment services. Each day in the UK, 70 people die of alcohol-related causes. Alcohol is linked to 200 different diseases and injuries and costs the NHS £3.5 billion each year. Good alcohol treatment is essential to support those with alcohol dependence towards recovery. That is important for individuals and for the collective, because it reduces emergency services call-outs, unnecessary hospital admissions and avoidable deaths.
Despite the importance of treatment, even going into the pandemic, only one in five dependent drinkers were believed to be in treatment—that is 80% lacking healthcare. The incomprehensible and frustrating picture in this country in recent years, between 2016 and 2018, is that more than two thirds of local authorities in England cut their alcohol-treatment budgets, and in 17 of them those cuts were greater than 50%.
Having been a local councillor in that period, responsible for public health in my community, I know that no colleague did that because they thought it was the right thing to do for their community; they did it because the public health grant in this country has been run down over the past decade, which has been an absolute tragedy. Those are the sorts of services that we have lost.
A very visible example comes from St Mungo’s—we all know its wonderful work—which estimates that funding cuts have meant that 12,000 fewer rough sleepers accessed support in 2018-19 than would have done had funding remained at 2010 levels. The covid pandemic has only worsened the situation, leading to significant and sustained increases in the rate of unplanned admissions for alcoholic liver disease. This issue is very important now, in the very immediate term. We need to act.
Owing to resource cuts, however, many alcohol treatment providers have been forced to reduce their offer. A lack of outreach resources leads to people with some of the most complex needs missing out on support, while the reduction in capacity means that many of those at the lower levels, where an earlier intervention would be very impactful, miss out as well. Those with greater dependency are not getting specialised treatment or, in some cases, are not getting any treatment at all.
I strongly believe that the Bill needs to address the importance of alcohol treatment in terms of its funding and impact. Requiring the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the ways in which alcohol treatment services have been supported and funded, and on the number of people requiring treatment and how that need is being met, will keep the issue at the forefront.
The Government’s own alcohol strategy states that alcohol treatment services
“offer the most immediate opportunity to reduce alcohol-related admissions and to reduce NHS costs.”
We also know that for every £1 invested in alcohol treatment £3 is yielded in return, rising to £26 over 10 years. Recovery also yields powerful dividends for families and communities affected by addiction, but at the moment we are going the wrong way in terms of our commitment to this issue. What I am asking for in the new clause, and I think it is a relatively modest ask, is for the Secretary of State to have on an annual basis an honest and candid assessment of the situation in this country, and then to account for the activity that is being taken to meet the need. It would be a very powerful statement that the Secretary of State and the Department have a grip of the issue and are committed to it, so I hope to find the Minister in listening mode.
Edward Argar
As ever, I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his exposition of the new clause, which would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to publish an annual statement on how the funding received by alcohol treatment providers has supported their work to improve treatment and reduce harm. It would also introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the level of funding for alcohol treatment providers on their ability to deliver a high-quality service that enables patient choice. I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to St Mungo’s for the work that it does, which I think we would all recognise across the House.
We do not think that a new reporting requirement introduced by the new clause is necessary as significant work is already under way in this area. Outcomes for local authority-funded alcohol treatment services are already published via the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities’ national drug treatment monitoring system. They are monthly and quarterly reports provided at a local authority level, and annual reports at a national level. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities also publishes annual data on estimated numbers of alcohol dependent adults in each local authority in England. Health commissioners can use that resource to estimate the number of adults in their area who need specialist treatment, supporting them to appropriately plan and improve alcohol treatment services.
The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities provides a number of data tools to support local areas to compare their performance against that of other areas, and against national performance. Those tools include the public health outcomes framework, local alcohol profiles for England, and the spend and outcomes tool. With respect to spending, local authorities are currently required to report on their spend on alcohol harm prevention and alcohol treatment on an annual basis to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Part 2 of Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs was published in July 2021 and the Government, in their initial response, published on 27 July 2021, agreed to carry forward its recommendations and publish a new drugs strategy later this year.
The review recommended increased transparency and accountability from local authorities on how funding is spent. Although the subject of the review was drugs, the implementation of that recommendation will apply to both drug and alcohol treatment through mechanisms such as an improved commissioning standard, which is currently in development. I therefore encourage the shadow Minister not to press the new clause to a Division.
Alex Norris
I cannot quite accept that answer from the Minister. I understand the significant work that he talks about, and the different places where data is available. Those things tell us what is going on; they do not tell us why, and what we intend to do about it as a country. As a result, I do not think that is delivering for us, and we see that in the very difficult outcomes. On that basis, I am afraid I will have to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Health and Care Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Thursday 28th October 2021
(3 years 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 28 October 2021 - (28 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to resume our consideration with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. The new clause is in my name and those of my colleagues. If we think about the pandemic and the last 18 months, we will have various views on all sorts of things that have gone on during that period, but I think that one thing that we would be of one mind on is how well our nation’s directors of public health have performed in this crisis. They have been incredible, pulling together the local response and bringing to bear their unique combination of training, relationships and local soft power in order to ensure that the local approaches to dealing with the pandemic in aid of the community have been strong ones. I think we would all say that they have done absolutely superbly.
The new clause seeks to codify a little more formally the place of directors of public health in the system. As we are authoring a new system in the Bill, this is no bad time to do that. The purpose of the new clause is to clarify the roles, powers and duties of directors of public health and to put them on a statutory footing. Whatever structures DPHs sit within, their major role—the reason why as a country we need them and why we invest in them as we do—is that they act as an independent advocate for the health of the population, for system leadership and for the improvement of the system for the population. They are already responsible within their area for a broad range of things, such as measurable health improvement, health protection, public health input, planning, commissioning, reducing inequalities and more. There is a strong reason to put them on a statutory footing. They of course provide an independent advisory function for a wide range of organisations, including the NHS. My local DPH is very good indeed. She often reminds colleagues that she is the system’s DPH rather than just the local authority’s. She may well be hosted by the local authority, but her remit goes much broader, and that is a very good thing. Putting DPHs on a statutory footing would recognise the system leadership role that they have.
The new clause would use a corporation sole model to ensure that directors of public health have scope for independent action; it would ensure that special arrangements are made for them, as officers of the Crown, to bring certain things to the attention of the Attorney General and the chief medical officer, and to ensure public health representation on NHS managing, regulating or commissioning bodies where necessary; and it would guarantee their professional independence in these wider functions. In the vast majority of cases across the country, most of these functions and roles are operating very well indeed, but the new clause would give statutory underpinning to that.
Together, these changes would allow DPHs to have influence across the entire place that they work for and across all policy areas, including budgetary and allocative decisions, and ensure that they have a chance to play their part across all decisions being made in the local community that impact on public health. This proposal would hardwire links between DPHs and the NHS public health workforce who enact public health policy. For place-based officials, having strong links with local and regional NHS employees is not only a benefit but a necessity. It would help to strengthen our response to health inequalities and hence the prevention of ill health—we have spoken at length about that during these proceedings—as well as enhancing relationships for emergencies, which we have seen in recent months.
Where this is done best, it is a strong model. I know that some directors of public health have consultants within their local NHS trust. That is something that the Association of Directors of Public Health is very keen on. If the Bill and the direction of travel are about an integrated system, those kinds of integrators are a very good model of doing that.
These are critical roles. We have seen that in challenging times, but in more general times, as we push on in order to have a healthcare system that is more preventive, that closes inequality gaps and which delivers excellent services to our population, directors of public health will be really key players in it, so I hope that this attempt to put them on a slightly stronger and more consistent footing will be welcome.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Ms Elliott.
My understanding, in the light of what the shadow Minister has said, is that one of the underlying aims of the new clause is to ensure that the public’s health is at the fore as we reform the health and care system. I have the utmost sympathy with that an aim
The Government recognise the importance of a robust public health system that works to improve the health and wellbeing of the nation and to prevent disease. That is why we have taken decisive steps to reshape our national public health bodies so that we are well equipped to face future challenges. Furthermore, we agree that directors of public health and their teams should have a crucial role at the heart of the new system.
The shadow Minister is absolutely right to say that although directors of public health are hosted by local authorities, they represent the whole system, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. In our past lives, he and I would have worked with DPHs in our local authority contexts, and of course, as Members of Parliament, we have all seen what our local DPHs have had to do over the past year and a half. I suspect that Members who did not know their local DPH have probably got to know them and their work in the community a lot better, which is no bad thing.
This fits naturally with the strategic emphasis on population health that we expect of integrated care systems. Both the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England have set out in published policy and guidance documents our expectation of directors of public health having an “official role” in integrated care systems. Officials in the Department are working closely with the Association of Directors of Public Health and others to help describe further the place of these roles, the outcomes that we hope collectively to achieve, and the ways in which they can best add value to the system’s impact on health overall.
Although we entirely understand the motivation behind the new clause, I am not sure that it is strictly necessary. It seeks to clarify the roles, powers and duties of DPHs, but their roles and responsibilities are already clearly and accurately set out in legislation and current guidance. The requirement for the recruitment to the role of director of public health, for example, is already clear on professional qualifications, and the registration and regulation requirements are clearly laid out. The new clause may have the effect of reducing the flexibility of the post, although I am sure that the shadow Minister would say that that concern is unfounded.
Furthermore, the current system already provides independence and influence for directors of public health, and that is strengthened by several provisions in the Bill, which includes, for instance, a duty on ICBs to seek advice from persons with the appropriate expertise on prevention and public health, including directors of public health, complementing the existing duty, in the section 6C regulations of the National Health Service Act 2006, for local authorities to provide the NHS with public health advice.
Additionally, we do not believe it necessary to make directors of public health officers of the NHS, as the Bill already provides opportunities for DPHs to link into and influence NHS bodies in their current guise. Integrated care partnerships, for instance, must develop an integrated care strategy to which integrated care boards must have regard in drawing up their commissioning plans. The intended result is to create a plan to meet the health—including public health—and social care needs of the population within their defined geography. That will provide directors of public health with the opportunity to influence NHS commissioning plans to meet wider public health aims.
It is also possible that the new clause would create a number of undesirable consequences—I suspect that the shadow Minister will allay some of those fears in his response. Rather than bringing clarity, the new clause could create confusion and complexity in a system that is already functioning effectively with a clear understanding of the role and how it operates.
The new clause would put a host of prescriptive new requirements on DPHs, including a requirement for them to be officers of the NHS, NHS consultants in public health, and officers of the Crown, while retaining independence of thought and action.
While we certainly understand the motivation of wanting to knit together the system through an individual post, that approach would add a layer of complexity. I believe that it would be challenging for an individual holding that office to seek to balance those complex responsibilities, accountabilities and potentially competing priorities within various organisations. That would also complicate the lines of accountability
My concern is that the new clause is overly prescriptive about the status and nature of the role, which would go against the overall aims of the Bill in terms of permissiveness. Although we hope and expect that directors of public health will act as a nexus for bringing coherence to the local system’s focus on population health, we are not convinced that this level of prescription over permissiveness is appropriate. That reflects a thread of the debate throughout the passage of the legislation on where the appropriate balance should be struck.
Proposed new paragraphs (e) and (h) would weaken the ties that directors of public health have with local authorities. Since the 2012 reforms, there has been widespread consensus that local authorities are best equipped to deal with a wider range of public health matters for their population’s needs. In that context, I pay tribute to local authorities for their role in tackling the pandemic, including those in elected roles. If I recall correctly, the wife and partner of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, is active as an elected councillor in a local authority. Many Members of this House will have served in that role, too, and will recognise what local authority councillors and officers do in that space.
From their home in local government, DPHs have been able to maintain an independent mindset while playing a critical role in improving and protecting the public’s health. Although it may well evolve in future, that system is working, and we have a strong and solid base that is understood by all system players. I therefore encourage the shadow Minister to continue to work with me and others to make that system work, rather than seeking to press the new clause to a Division.
Alex Norris
I certainly did not intend to add complexity; I was hoping for clarity and consistency. Nevertheless, as the Minister says, those roles are currently functioning effectively, so I will not divide the Committee.
I would say to the Minister and his colleagues, however, that we need a real watching brief on this matter, because assuming that the Bill continues its onward journey and establishes those ICS footprints, there will be a range of different outcomes and organisational cultures. The stronger systems will be those in which the DPHs are at the heart of insight and decision making, and the reverse will be a defining characteristic in systems that are not as good. I certainly hope that we consider the Care Quality Commission reviews that were included in an earlier new clause, and any sector-led improvement, as well as the work those systems do to reflect on what they do and do not do well.
One of the criteria for both streams of improvement ought to be what the DPH does, how central they are, and how sighted they are on decision making. As I have said, in good systems that will be good, and in weak systems it will be weak. Those criteria would be a bellwether of how good the local ICS footprint is. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 45
Duty on integrated care boards to have regard to net zero commitment
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 14Z43 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) insert—
“14Z43 Duty to have regard to net zero commitment
When procuring or commissioning goods and services on behalf of the NHS, integrated care boards must have regard to NHS England’s commitment to reach net zero by 2040.””—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would place a duty on integrated care boards to have regard to NHS England’s commitment to reach net zero by 2040.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I will be brief in speaking to the new clause. What we are seeking to achieve is pretty clear: for integrated care boards procuring or commissioning goods and services on behalf of the NHS to have regard to NHS England’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2040.
We can assume that the Government fully support the commitment made by NHS England. We were all transfixed by the goings-on in Committee yesterday, so we may have missed the part in the Chancellor’s statement about investment in net zero and in the NHS, but perhaps the Minister will say a little more on that. I suspect that although he will accept that ICBs should have regard to the overall commitment, he will say that the new clause is unnecessary as NHS England already has a commitment that will percolate down to ICBs. We would say that NHS England can achieve that target only by working through ICBs, which will, of course, have the ability to commission more than £100 billion-worth of services.
We may end up yet again in the realms of the permissive versus prescriptive debate, but the power of public sector procurement is a massive issue, and there is no bigger part of the public sector than the NHS, which is the responsibility of the Minister’s Department. We should be very much on the front foot in using that to deliver the commitment to net zero.
Of course, we have yet to see what will replace the public contracts regulations in Government procurement as a whole. It is hoped that the same commitment to green issues will be in the mix somewhere, but until we know what that looks like, the new clause presents an opportunity to enshrine in law a commitment that I think most if not all Members want to see delivered.
Edward Argar
There is no doubt that the climate emergency is also a health emergency. Climate change threatens the foundations of good health, with direct and immediate consequences for our patients, the public and the NHS.
The NHS accounts for around 4% to 5% of UK emissions, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is right to highlight the critical role the NHS has to play in achieving net zero. Although I have some sympathy with the intention of the new clause, I remind the Committee of the commitment. The commitment to be net zero by 2040 applies only to NHS direct emissions, such as those from building energy and does not apply to supply chain emissions that are the target of the new clause. While ICBs should and will consider the environmental impact of their procurement, that consideration must go wider than the commitment made by NHS England to net zero direct NHS emissions.
To support that work, NHS England is already leading the way on the agenda through a dedicated programme of work, which includes ambitious targets for achieving net zero for the NHS carbon footprint plus by 2045 and for its direct emissions by 2040. We fully welcome and endorse those ambitions. As part of that programme of work, under the 2021-22 NHS standard contract, every trust is expected to have a green plan. As NHS England has made clear in its guidance on green plans, published in June 2021:
“Every trust and every ICS is expected to have a Green Plan approved by that organisation’s board or governing body. For trusts, these should be finalised and submitted to ICSs by 14 January 2022. Each ICS is then asked to develop a consolidated system-wide Green Plan by 31 March 2022, to be peer reviewed regionally and subsequently published.”
On the question of procurement, the NHS is already publicly committed to purchasing only from suppliers who are aligned with its net zero ambitions by 2030. Earlier this year, NHS England set its road map giving further details on the expectations of suppliers to 2030. That work is supported by a broad range of additional action on NHS net zero. NHS England will publish the world’s first net zero health building standard; it will apply to all projects being taken forward through the Government’s new hospital programme, which will see 48 new hospitals built across England by 2030—I can almost see the slightly cynical smile through the hon. Gentleman’s mask.
I know the shadow Minister will argue that the new clause would give impetus to the NHS to move towards net zero in the work it is already doing. I am afraid I am not convinced that it is necessary, given the substantial work already under way. The NHS is already showing its commitment, backed up by clear plans.
Justin Madders
I wonder whether the Minister’s nickname in the Department is Steady Eddie, given his consistent responses to many of my new clauses and amendments—consistent, but not always correct. It is very important that the commitment is delivered. We are clearly going to have a disagreement about the best legislative framework in which to do that, but I am not going to push this to a vote. It is clearly an issue that all Members are very keen to see delivered.
I am sure that we will debate the new build programme on a number of other occasions—we may get beyond how many new hospitals it is and on to some of the wider issues. It is a matter we will come back to on a number of occasions.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Exclusion of NHS bodies from ability to withhold information requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on commercial grounds
“(1) Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3), insert—
‘(4) Subsection (2) does not apply to information held by NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts except to the extent that subsection (5) applies.
(5) Subsection (2) applies to information held by NHS England, integrated care trusts, NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts relating to another organisation if disclosure of the information would in the opinion of the organisation pose a real and significant risk to the commercial interests of that organisation.’” —(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would prevent NHS bodies from withholding information on commercial grounds unless the information related to another organisation and that organisation considered that its disclosure would pose a real and significant risk to the commercial interests of that organisation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 46 would amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is a recognition that, as a result of the move to integrated care systems, the whole concept of the NHS being run as individual businesses really ought to go. We have already pointed out in our discussions the apparently contradictory duties placed on NHS bodies in this regard. Some consider themselves as quasi businesses and refuse to disclose their business plans or provide information about their business dealings under the Freedom of Information Act. That makes it difficult for staff to understand the precise nature of proposals. I will come to some examples of that later. I have to say that they take their lead from the Government a bit in that respect. As we are no longer in the era of markets and competition, and NHS bodies no longer have to compete with one another, commissioners really do not need to enter into complicated contractual arrangements. So there is not really the need for them to cite commercial confidentiality as a reason not to comply with FOI inquiries. The interests of trusts, the public and patients should be aligned. They should not be subservient to wider commercial interests.
The Minister may say that this is not an issue, that the NHS is already open and transparent and that everything is sweetness and light in the garden. It certainly should be, but we think there are occasions when that has proven not to be the case. It might also be argued that NHS trusts and foundation trusts have to have some protection from FOI requests so that they can conduct their affairs properly when they are properly engaged in commercial activities such as procurement. That might well be the case, but we can illustrate from the experience of trade union colleagues, especially in the case of contracts for clinical services placed with private providers in the outsourcing of facilities to subcos, that the reality is somewhat different. We often hear that the staff representatives hear that the trust they work for is considering outsourcing some service. Of course, these are the staff who carry out that particular work. Rumours and leaks slip out before there have been any discussions with trade unions, but the trust has already made the decision to outsource and starts talks on TUPE transfers before any real dialogue has taken place.
There is a great deal wrong with that approach, given the requirements that we have talked about previously with regard to the NHS constitution. The point here is that, where management have refused to discuss anything other than the results of a decision that they have already made, staff and trade unions often have to resort to FOI to get answers to the questions they are asking. They put in their FOI request relating to how the trust has made its decision to outsource the service. Then they get the reply, “We’re not going to tell you, because it is commercially confidential.” I think the fear of trusts is not that a commercial interest is endangered but that its reputation is going to be damaged. They are not confident about negotiations with staff representatives and know that the cases that they have built are painfully weak and will not stand up to rigorous external examination.
Staff, understandably, are anxious and curious because they know that their terms and conditions are often tucked away in the business case under the heading “Savings”, which is where the debate really ought to be. That is why we never get to the truth of these things. So it is not really an issue of commercial confidentiality. It is about refusing to be open and transparent about the true intentions. This has been well documented with the subco sagas. In around 20 cases, trusts had decided to form subcos to deliver facilities management services. We could look at all the tax implications of that and the ducking and diving that follows, but we are not going to do that. We need to point out that in those cases the subcos are fully owned by the parent trust. There is no intention for them to procure anything, because that is what forming the subco delivers. There is no information or collection of details on bids from other organisations. There is no commercial competition aspect to this at all. In many cases, trusts are asked by the staff to provide the business case for going down the subco road and the answer they get back is, “Well, we are not giving you that because it is commercially confidential.” The trusts may have at least pretended to look at options, and even scored them, to arrive at the decision they have already made, but why is that process secret? Who would receive a commercial advantage from seeing that information? The trusts might argue that disclosure of the financial case might give the bidders information that they could exploit, but if there is a proper competitive tendering process, that should not be an issue at all. Even if it were, the recourse is to redact the numbers in the one or two places where they are most sensitive. The rest of the business case ought to be disclosed, but that is not what happens.
Let us assume for a moment that the trust has made a strong case, as it will have to do under the new provider selection regime. Will the new regime set out disclosure requirements in respect of business cases and so on? Looking at what NHS trusts do, are they actually put at a disadvantage by having to disclose their business case? We know what will be in those business cases, as the Treasury sets out guidance as to what is required, and most of the cases are about a rationale for change. That should not be a secret, and the old Office for Government Commerce set out guidance that covered how FOI requests were to be dealt with during the various stages of a public procurement. That guidance said clearly that business cases can and should be disclosed.
I will briefly address the wider issue of FOI requests. As the Minister may or may not be aware, I am a regular submitter of FOIs to his Department—indeed, all Government Departments and the wider NHS—and I have to say that over the past few years I have been more disappointed than delighted by the responses I have received. Many are rejected for a variety of reasons. It seems I am not alone in that respect: only this week, openDemocracy issued a new report on FOIs, called “Access Denied”, so I think we can all guess what they found. I will run through a few highlights from that report anyway: it said that 2020 was the “worst year on record” for FOI transparency. The Government exploit legal loopholes to deny access to information and, most controversially, the clearing house that openDemocracy reported on last year does not simply advise Departments on their responses, but plays a much more hands-on role, which includes drafting responses to FOI requests. I do not think that is because they want to help Departments to be as transparent as possible, but because they want to help them to avoid revealing the truth. Transparency and a commitment to the principles of freedom of information start at the top with the Department, and it should be leading on this subject.
On a slightly more positive note, there are better examples. There are trusts that work with their staff and even with the wider public and patients. They have open discussions. They do not hide their case; they make their case. If they have to engage in a tender process, they involve staff in specifications, options appraisals and questions to bidders at every stage of the process. If they can do it, why can’t every trust do it? The answer is that trusts can wriggle out of their obligations by using these loopholes in the Freedom of Information Act request procedure, and nobody is able to challenge that. It is time that changed, which is why I ask the Minister to support this new clause.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend and echo everything he has said. I have spent a great deal of my time in this place looking at the issue of wholly owned companies, trying to stop them from happening and questioning why they are happening. I think I remember sitting opposite the Minister in an Adjournment debate talking about the excitement of VAT rules and tax exemptions, a subject that is beyond the individual ken of most of us, but once we dig into it we find that the mixed messages the Government gave were not very helpful, and that underlying this problem is the culture of secrecy.
We have alluded to why this is so important: we need the openness provided by agenda meetings and locally accountable people—people we can actually talk to about our health services—and setting that culture from the top is really important. Ultimately, this is about patient safety, because once we have a culture in which there is a presumption of denying information and having to jump through hoops to get it, that permeates the entire organisation. That, sadly, is why we continue to revisit problems with patient safety. This issue is therefore really important, and I hope the Minister will look favourably on the new clause.
Edward Argar
I can reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, that I am not aware of how many FOIs he tables, which is possibly as it should be; it suggests that they are handled in the appropriate way by officials, and not by me. I am sure he keeps officials busy with those requests.
I think we can all agree that transparency and openness are of key importance but—this is where the hon. Gentleman and I may diverge slightly in our views—it is also vital that genuinely commercially sensitive information is adequately protected. Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act recognises the balance that needs to be struck. It exempts from disclosure any information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including the public authority holding the information. It is, however, as he will be aware, a qualified exemption. Merely identifying that the information is commercially sensitive is not enough. The public authority holding the information must weigh up the “genuine public interest” arguments in favour of and against disclosure.
I remind the Committee that there is a robust system in place for testing such decisions. We have an independent commissioner who can scrutinise the decisions, who has the right to see the information in question and who is more than capable of challenging public authorities where he believes that disclosure is in the public interest. Beyond that, of course, those requesting the information have a right of appeal to the tribunal.
There genuinely needs to be a level playing field between public and private contractors, but the new clause would, I fear, place NHS bodies at a disadvantage in some commercial negotiations. It could mean that the NHS was not able to protect its commercially sensitive information, whereas other parties could. I struggle to see how an uneven playing field would benefit the general public and protect taxpayers’ money. I fear that the new clause would also place a significant additional burden on NHS bodies at a time of real strain and, as I have highlighted, there are already remedies in place that meet its stated aim.
I am also concerned about the power the new clause could place in the hands of those conducting commercial negotiations with the NHS. It would be for them, not the public authority, to decide if and when the release of information would pose a real and significant threat. It is difficult to see how the opinion of the organisation could be tested or challenged through the usual route of appeal, as they would not be a public authority within the scope of the Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office would be assessing an NHS body on the basis of judgments reached by a third party. I also point out that
“pose a real and significant risk”
is not a test used elsewhere in the Freedom of Information Act, and so could be open to novel interpretation by the originator of the material. For those reasons, I do not think that the new clause would achieve in a fair way what the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Justin Madders
I am relieved to hear that the Minister is not personally dealing with my FOI requests. I know he is very busy dealing with all the foundation trust applications in his in-tray. He made some fair points about ways in which the new clause might cause unintended consequences, but we wanted to put on record our concern about the way the Freedom of Information Act has been used by some trusts to avoid proper scrutiny. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, this is unfortunately part of a pattern in patient safety issues, and that is obviously something we have discussed in this Committee. I will not put the new clause to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 49
Protection of the title of “nurse”
“(1) A person may not practise or carry on business under any name, style or title containing the word “nurse” unless that person is registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council and entered in sub part 1 or 2 of the register as a Registered Nurse or in the specialist community public health nursing part of the register.
(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent any use of the designation ‘veterinary nurse’, ‘dental nurse’ (for which see section 36K of the Dentists Act 1984) or ‘nursery nurse’.
(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level four on the standard scale.”—(Justin Madders.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is another Ronseal new clause: it does exactly what it says on the tin—it seeks to create legal protection for the use of the title “nurse”. The title “registered nurse” is protected, but “nurse” is not, meaning that, legally, anyone can call themselves a nurse. Under current legislation, people could operate under that title even if they had no nursing qualifications or experience, or had been struck off. To protect the public, the title should be limited to those, such as registered nurses and dental nurses, who are registered with professional regulators. That would put it on a level with other titles, such as paramedic and physiotherapist, which are limited to those on professional registers.
The issue of the title of nurse not being protected in law has long caused concern to the profession. There are many examples where the title has been abused. We have seen people campaigning for election calling themselves nurses when they were not—I appreciate that that is outside the Minister’s responsibility, but it shows the power of the title, its significance and the risk we are trying to deal with through this new clause.
Earlier this month, an anti-vaccination campaigner who denies the existence of covid-19 told Nursing Times that she planned to continue to call herself a nurse despite having been struck off by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for putting the public at risk of harm. Professor Judith Ellis, chair of the Tropical Health and Education Trust and former interim chair of the NMC, has campaigned for years for protection of the nurse title, and we commend her for her work. She said:
“It is totally unacceptable that when someone in the UK describes themselves as a ‘nurse’, the patient or their relatives have no way of knowing, or indeed checking, if that individual has the knowledge or skills to safely care for them or their loved ones. The title ‘nurse’ needs to be protected.”
Nursing is the most trusted profession in the UK, yet someone ill or vulnerable could trust a person calling themselves a nurse and that person might be nothing of the sort. NHS England’s chief nursing officer, Ruth May, has committed her support to protect the title of nurse in UK law. She said:
“The protection of a professional title provides assurance that someone using that title is competent and safe to practise”,
adding that she is
“committed to doing all we can to strengthen protection of the public.”
I welcome anything the Minister can say about this issue; I do not know whether the Department is considering it, but I have heard rumours that it might be. We have talked on a number of occasions about patient safety, transparency and openness, and this measure would be entirely consistent with those aims. Can the Minister give us some comfort or confidence that we might be able to make some progress on this important issue?
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I rise to support what the shadow Minister said. It has indeed been an area of contention for many years not only that nurses who have been struck off can use the title but that the title is used loosely. We touched on the same issue when we talked about regulation and about aesthetic procedures: when these titles of doctor, and particularly nurse, are used the public have a perception of what that means. They assume it means a registered and regulated practitioner, and therefore the patient is given far too high a degree of trust in the person simply from the use of that title. It should be a protected title.
Edward Argar
As has been set out, the new clause would protect the title of nurse by making it an offence for a person to use that title unless they were registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. I entirely understand the intention behind that; as the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesperson have set out, a title such as that comes at any time, but particularly after the past year and a half, with an expectation of the qualifications and duty of care that sit behind it, and brings with it trust. Therefore, it is extremely important that that trust is not in any way abused. I am sympathetic to the intent behind the new clause; I know it is something my constituency neighbour the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), has also spoken about in recent weeks.
The title of registered nurse is protected in law but, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston rightly says, the title of nurse itself is not, given its use across multiple professions, including dental nurses, school nurses, veterinary nurses and so on. As the interim chief nursing officer for Scotland has pointed out, the impact of any change on other groups currently using the title of nurse outside healthcare settings would need to be carefully considered. Quite rightly, the interim CNO said that there is an issue, but it needs to be carefully considered and calibrated.
I am sympathetic to the principle that protection of the title of nurse would be seen as a positive step by the profession, stakeholders and the public. I am also aware of concerns about the potential for confusion in this regard, as highlighted by the petition brought forward by Alison Leary, and I can see the benefit in providing reassurance and clarity to patients and professionals. Given the complexities inherent in making “nurse” a protected title, we need to do further work and gather further evidence to better understand the case for change and the potential impact on some of those other perfectly legitimate professions that use the title.
Dr Whitford
I recognise that the term is also used as highlighted—for example, “nursery nurse”. However, veterinary nurses and dental nurses are registered professionals, and therefore that is outwith the group we are talking about. I can see that there needs to be discussion around the more social “nursery nurse”. School nurses are also nurses.
Edward Argar
They are, but my point was the difference between registered nurses and just using the title “nurse”. The question is how, in legal terms, we catch that. I accept the hon. Lady’s point that they are all registered nurses. However, we have to make sure that, in drafting, the legislation would not inadvertently catch people who may well be perfectly legitimately registered, as she says, but could potentially be caught if we did not draft or consider the measure carefully.
Dr Whitford
I recognise the importance of drafting, but obviously the new clause is seeking to establish that the title “nurse” could be used only by nurses registered with the NMC, dental nurses and veterinary nurses—so that it could not just be used as a title by someone who is not on the register.
Edward Argar
I go back to the point I made: there are some perfectly legitimate professions—where there is an expectation and understanding of what they do and a respect for what they do—who use that title, as she alluded to. That is why we have to think a little more carefully about how we might do that, and whether it is the most effective way of assuring and enhancing patient safety.
Protection of title is only one part of the protection regime; it is important, of course, but there are other parts. We should also look at prosecutions of protection of title offences, which are extremely rare; we need to look at that in the context of how that might be enforced. Part of the reason for that is the availability of offences such as fraud by false representation that carry more substantial penalties including custodial sentences, which, I suspect, are sometimes the mechanism used to prosecute in such cases. Depending on the context in which the title is used, other legal action could be taken against a person, including criminal proceedings, civil proceedings and employment disciplinary proceedings, particularly where the person used the title to gain work or employment. There is also the opportunity to prosecute employers who hold their staff out to be regulated healthcare professionals when they are not.
To give some succour to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, we are committed to reviewing the protection of titles as part of the ongoing Government review of the regulation of healthcare professionals.
Edward Argar
Just one more sentence, then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before I sit down.
We need to gather further evidence to better understand the case for change and whether it represents the most effective and enforceable way to promote patient safety. However, I will certainly carefully consider the proposals he has put forward, in that context, as will my colleagues. I have a few sentences left, so I will give way while I can.
Justin Madders
The Minister is sympathetic and has highlighted why the issue needs careful consideration throughout the debate. Are we able to get a formal commitment to public consultation on the issue from the Minister today?
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister pushes me a little further than I can go today. However, what I can say is that I have considerable sympathy with what he has said. I will undertake to look at what he and the right hon. Member for Leicester South have said in the context of that review.
Any subsequent change from that review and from consideration thereof probably sits most effectively, in terms of legislative reform, as part of the reform programme for the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is most effectively taken forward via secondary legislation under section 60 of the Health Act 1999. In the context of that review, and any secondary legislation flowing from it under section 60, we will look at what he set out in his new clause.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for his positive comments. We were probably pushing our luck with getting a formal commitment from him, but it sounds like we are probably as close as we are going to get to progress on the matter without pushing the new clause formally to a vote. We will keep a close eye on the issue and will, no doubt, come back to it if progress is not made in orderly time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 50
Access to innovative medicines and medicinal products review
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake and publish a review of the use by the NHS of innovative medicines and medicinal products.
(2) The review must—
(a) conclude before 31 December 2022;
(b) consider ways to improve the use of innovative medicines and medicinal products within the NHS in England.
(3) The review may consider—
(a) the creation of a specific pathway to assess medicines and medicinal products for rare and less common conditions;
(b) improvements to the way in which patient and clinical experience is accommodated when considering the adoption of new medicines and medicinal products.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the assessment and use of innovative medicines and medicinal products, and to consider how to improve access to medicines and medicinal products for people with rare and less common conditions in particular.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would put a helpful requirement on the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the assessment and use of innovative medicines and medicinal products, which I believe would be a positive step forward. Medical innovation, including new drugs and cutting-edge treatments, produces life-saving and life-changing results, and those benefits are particularly felt by those with rare and genetic diseases.
Dr Whitford
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman shares my concerns after leaving the European Union about access for clinicians, and indeed their patients, to the European reference network, which helps to provide advice and treatment and has co-ordinated research, through the European Medicines Agency, into these rare, often childhood, diseases? They can be studied much more easily in a population of 500 million than one of 60 million.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that contribution. It is axiomatic that, if we are talking about diseases that affect small populations in this country, growing the field of people who are affected so that we can undertake better research, trials and treatment can only be a good thing. I hope that the Minister might touch on how he is ensuring that we are not disadvantaged in that way. When we add up the nearly 8,000 diseases, we are talking about 3.5 million people—one in 17, so one person on the Committee, basically—who will in their lifetime be affected by a rare disease. So actually they are not so rare at all. It is really important that we are meeting that group of people’s needs, but access to medicines and medical devices remains a problem, which is why such reporting for rare conditions is so important.
At the moment, approved medicines are available for only 5% of rare diseases and, even where licensed treatments exist, patients can face an uphill battle in accessing them on the NHS. I am sure that most of us will have at least one case of a young constituent who desperately needs medicinal cannabis to treat epilepsy. There is a political consensus that this is the right thing to do, and we ought to do it. That has been a settled matter for at least three years now, but frustratingly it is still not getting through, and that is a pattern across rare diseases. Perhaps that points us to the conclusion that the current assessment process is not quite accounting for the unique challenges presented by rare and ultra-rare diseases.
I do not think that the Minister will want to be drawn on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methods review, because we are in that process. I have spoken in multiple debates about my enthusiasm for NICE, and its processes and expertise, but clearly something is missing. My working theory is around evaluation. Again, if we have a small patient population, the data is noisy and there are higher degrees of uncertainty due to the small sample sizes. That leads us nicely to the point that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made about trying to grow those pools. At the moment, we are unable to get first-in-class treatments in many cases, which we should want to do something about.
Herein lies the squeeze, as the medicines for rare and ultra-rare diseases are often assessed by processes that were designed for drugs with larger target populations. The statistics are a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, which creates a severe disadvantage. The purpose of the new clause is to get the Secretary of State to report generally on how we are ensuring that we are world leading and meeting population need, and then to drill down within that on how we are ensuring that the system for rarer conditions is fit for purpose. As I say, I am conscious that the methods review is ongoing, but I hope that the Minister might at least give us a sense of the general policy direction in this area, and what we might look to do differently in the future.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for this discussion. I reassure members of the Committee that the Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring that UK patients, including those with rare diseases and less common conditions, have access to the most promising medicines and medicinal products. Hon. Members raised some important points, which I will seek to address in my broader response to the new clause.
The first part of the new clause asks the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the use by the NHS of innovative medicines and medicinal products. We have existing reporting tools at our disposal to monitor that. Indeed, NHS Digital publishes a bi-annual report on the use of innovative medicines by the NHS in England, known as the innovation scorecard. The latest publication from June 2021 shows that uptake of over 70% of the NICE-approved medicines reported in the scorecard has increased over the past 12 months. I can assure the Committee that we are committed to further strengthening these innovation metrics and to improving our understanding of the use of innovative medicines and medicinal products in the NHS.
The accelerated access collaborative—the umbrella organisation overseeing the health ecosystem—is also continuing to develop the AAC scorecard that monitors the impact of the programmes, and is scoping the development of an overarching innovation metric.
In the second part of the proposed new clause we seek a review to consider ways to improve the use of innovative medicines and medicinal products in the NHS in England. As I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the accelerated access review, an independent review published in 2016, set out detailed recommendations to increase the uptake of proven and cost-effective new treatments and technologies in the NHS. The report identified several strategic barriers to UK health innovation, including fragmentation across the system, alongside a lack of horizon scanning and insufficient commercial flexibility in NHS England.
Following publication of the AAR, the Government, the NHS and partner organisations have worked closely together to increase the use of proven and cost-effective medicines. The Government established the accelerated access collaborative to bring together leaders from across the life sciences sector to tackle the barriers to the adoption of innovations in the NHS. It is delivering real success. Last year alone it helped over 300,000 patients to access proven innovations, resulting in 17,000 fewer hospital admissions and 140,000 fewer days spent in hospital, delivering more than £100 million of savings for the NHS. That is thanks to AAC programmes, such as the rapid uptake products programme, which offers bespoke support to NICE-approved innovations to address the systemic barriers that inhibit their widespread use across the NHS, and the early-stage support programme, which supports categories of new, potentially highly effective products that need support through the regulatory and approvals process.
However, the Government acknowledge that there is more we need to do to tackle unwarranted variation in the uptake of clinically proven and cost-effective treatments. This is why we recently published our ambitious life sciences vision, which was co-developed with industry following extensive engagement with stakeholders from charities, patient interest groups, the NHS and the devolved Administrations. The vision lays out our priorities to improve the use of cost-effective innovation, including new medicines and medicinal products within the NHS, with a particular focus on identifying and addressing any unwarranted variation in uptake. The AAC will continue to be at the forefront of that agenda, and work is under way to consider how to best utilise regional, local and frontline delivery partners to support the adoption and spread of proven innovations.
It is important to note that there are already mechanisms in place to assess and support medicinal products for rare and less common conditions. The innovative licensing and access pathway—ILAP—brings together the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the NHS and the devolved Administrations to provide tailored, joined-up regulatory and access guidance to businesses. The scheme began operating in 2021, and over 50 applications for innovative medicines have been received so far.
NICE also plays an important role in ensuring that patients have access to promising new innovations, including for patients with rare diseases. Through its technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies programmes, NICE makes recommendations for the NHS on whether new medicines represent a clinically effective and cost-effective use of NHS resources. Where NICE makes a positive recommendation, NHS England and Improvement and clinical commissioning groups are under statutory obligations to fund the technology. It is our intention to extend that obligation to integrated care boards.
Patients with rare diseases are already accessing effective innovations through the NICE programmes. For the drugs for rare diseases—known colloquially as orphan drugs—appraised since 2013, 87% of NICE’s technology appraisal recommendations and 100% of its highly specialised technologies programmes recommendations were positive. That is a significant and positive outcome for patients. However, I am aware of the long-standing challenges, which were alluded to by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, where evidence relating to a medical technology is uncertain. That is a particular challenge regarding rare diseases where, as he said, the population is small.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for his full answer. He mentioned reviews around the innovative medicines fund and NICE methods, and it is probably wise for us to let those processes play out before looking at anything else, so I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division. However, I will leave the Minister with some final thoughts on NICE methods.
First, I hope there will be a parliamentary moment for us to engage with that and have those conversations. The process has independence for a very good reason, but we should still have views on its overall direction. I want to flag ahead of that—with a focus on combination therapies, particularly in the cancer space—that we are understanding better every day how different therapies used together can have an incredible aggregate impact on the individual.
I do not think it is breaking any great state secrets to say that the problem is that the way we pay for drugs in this country is an imperfect market. Do not get me wrong; it has found a balance, but one problem is that the treatments are—funnily enough—often priced to what we can afford to pay for. That is fine until we need to combine two different treatments from different providers, when it becomes really challenging to work out how to apportion that. If we are to achieve the innovations that we need, particularly in cancer, we will need a good answer to come out of that review.
I hope that the Minister has a watching brief on that review, and that when NICE has finished, we can have a good conversation about the outcome to ensure that it supports the goals that I think we all have. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Duty on integrated care partnerships to prepare and deliver a Best Start for Life strategy
“(1) The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) After section 116B (substituted by section 20 of this Act) insert—
‘116C Duty on integrated care partnerships to prepare and deliver a Best Start for Life strategy
(1) Each integrated care partnership must—
(a) assess the needs of expectant parents, infants and young children in its area;
(b) prepare and publish a strategy to improve outcomes and reduce inequalities among expectant parents, infants and young children;
(c) consult parents and carers in the area when developing the strategy;
(d) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy.
(2) Local authorities, NHS bodies and other relevant partners must—
(a) cooperate on delivering the strategy;
(b) have regard to the strategy when exercising their functions.’”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require each Integrated Care Partnership to prepare and deliver a “Best Start for Life” strategy, in cooperation with relevant bodies.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I cannot quite remember on what day this new clause was submitted; it is towards the end of the new clauses but not at the very end, so that probably carbon dates it by 10 days or so. Nevertheless, we had some news in this space from yesterday’s Budget. We are in the strange situation of having seen effective early intervention services, such as Sure Start, take a clobbering for a decade, and then getting paid back pennies on the pound and being supposed to feel grateful for it. We are not. Nevertheless, there needs to be a commitment at all levels of Government and local government—and, in this case, integrated care boards—to have a real focus on early years.
The first 1,001 days of a child’s life, from conception to age two, are crucial. Getting things right in this period can determine what kind of life a child has and their health, wellbeing, cognitive function and psychological make-up. During those early years, a baby’s brain grows rapidly, and it doubles in size within the first year of life. As is so well established, child development is influenced by early experiences and environment, which means that it is so important to ensure that little ones in our communities get what they need—care, nurture and support—while ensuring that they are protected from neglect, harm and stress.
As the Government’s strategy in this space recognises, getting things right impacts not just on the lives of our children, but on our entire society. By ensuring that children get what they need at an early age, we can target some of the big issues that we have talked about for the last two months in this Committee: physical and mental health issues, pressures on the NHS, crime and antisocial behaviour, and drug and substance abuse. So much of that leads back to the early stages in life, and this is a matter of established science. There is no doubt that in this country, we are not very good at doing something about that. Six months or maybe even a year ago—time flies—we had a fantastic Westminster Hall debate, led by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who chaired a very good review in this space.
There is barely a leaf’s width of disagreement on this issue between right hon. and hon. Members of all political persuasions. The common diagnosis for why we have not made more progress is that we know that such things save public services money in a generation’s time, but we cannot demonstrate that in a cashable savings way that passes Treasury processes. I am afraid that I did not see anything yesterday to suggest that that fight is yet being won, and I hope the Minister and his colleagues are doing everything in their power to argue for early interventions. Frankly, I would argue that for pretty much all Members present, the bulk of the returns will come when someone else is sitting in our seats and our roles are somebody else’s dreams, but that should not stop us acting, because it is so significantly in the national interest and in the interests of our communities.
There are huge inequalities. The most basic health statistic is that a child born in my city will live for seven fewer years than one born in the City of Westminster—never mind the yawning chasm of almost twice that in healthy life expectancy. That is the result of smaller inequalities that all add up to different life paths: family income, financial stress, smoking and alcohol use, and access to care and services. We know that the 1,001 critical days from conception are the moment to offer really good-quality support. Families receive support from a wide range of services, including maternity, health visiting and early years, and perhaps children’s social care, mental health and paediatrics.
As well as the inequalities, there is complexity. I have mentioned five different organisations with five different uniforms, five different organisational plans and five different organisational cultures. Someone has to pull that together. We have been told throughout proceedings on the Bill that that is exactly what integrated care partnerships are here to do, so let us put a responsibility on them to do so, and to have a plan. I dare say—the Minister might say this himself—that they are more than likely to want to do that themselves, and that would be a very good thing, but I do not think we can allow variance. This should be important for everybody and all footprints should be doing it, so that the first 1,001 days are given priority in new health systems. That would have a significant impact on the long-term health and wellbeing of our country.
Dr Whitford
I rise in support of the new clause. It is important to shift the narrative from what is often a structural focus on the NHS, and catching people when they fall, to looking at wellbeing and population to allow people to be healthier and live higher-quality lives for longer.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North mentioned the slowing down of improvement in life expectancy and the variation in life expectancy, but the bigger issue is the failure to improve healthy life expectancy. The 20 years of unhealthy life expectancy faced by many across the UK, particularly in more deprived areas, put pressure on the NHS, and we have seen that come home to roost over the last decade.
A lot of those health issues, or unhealth issues, are laid down in childhood. I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for health in all policies, which conducted an inquiry into the impact of child poverty. A figure from the Faculty of Public Health that has stayed with me is that the UK loses 1,400 children a year as a direct result of poverty, including by immature birth, small birth weight, foetal alcohol syndrome, fires, road traffic accidents, alcohol and drugs, violence and suicide. That is the number of students in a large secondary school, and if the roof of a large secondary school were collapsing every single year, we would do something about it.
Often, the time to do something about that is in the 1,001 days from conception forward, as the hon. Gentleman said. That means looking at maternal health and nutrition, which is why the early years collaborative in Scotland led to the Best Start grants to mothers and children at birth, on entering nursery and on entering school.
One internationally used measure on the health of our youngest children is infant mortality—death perinatally or in the first year. In 2014, England and Scotland had the same rate of 3.6 per 1,000 live births. In Scotland, we have managed to drive the rate down to 3.2, but in England, it is currently at 3.8. In some poorer areas of the UK, the rate is worse than in parts of the global south and the developing world. That is a brutal statistic.
We talked yesterday about maternal and infant deaths, but this also relates to the attainment gap and other issues faced throughout life by those who struggle in childhood. Investing in early years saves money in the long term. That might be the pitch to the Treasury: if we gave more children a decent start in life, fewer would struggle in the education system, fewer would struggle to get jobs, and fewer would be trapped by addiction or caught in the criminal services system. Instead of picking up the pieces later through the NHS or other public services, surely we should be investing in the best start in life for all our children.
Edward Argar
We believe that the creation of integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships represents a huge opportunity to support and improve the planning and provision of services to ensure that they are more joined up and better meet the needs of expectant parents, parents, infants and young children.
We acknowledge that new clause 51 is intended to ensure that the needs of expectant parents, infants and young children are expressly considered by ICBs and ICPs through the development of a tailored strategy. We are working on bespoke guidance, which will set out the measures ICBs and ICPs should take to ensure that they will deliver for babies, children and young people. That will cover the importance of the ICP integrated care strategies having measurable objectives for babies, children and young people.
The strategy must also set out how assessed needs for the area are to be met. The Department is working with NHS England and NHS Improvement and the Department for Education on the drafting of this bespoke guidance, and we will work with stakeholders in the upcoming months on refining the guidance prior to publication.
As per our general approach to the Bill, although we are clear about the statutory functions that will be conferred on ICBs—as they are currently on clinical commissioning groups—including on children’s safeguarding and special educational needs and disabilities, when it comes to implementation, we want to provide local areas with the flexibility to determine what will work best for their systems. We fear that over-prescribing system approaches in the Bill will make it harder for systems to design the approaches that will work best in their areas. That is why we believe the wording, as currently drafted, is appropriate.
Alex Norris
The point that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made about the UK losing 1,400 children a year is sobering. Whatever comes out of the process that the Minister mentioned must to be different from what we have today, or we will keep repeating that mistake. I shared the hon. Lady’s view about the pitch to the Treasury, but we will have to demonstrate that planning cycles in this country are mature and flexible enough to reflect the fact that not everything can be delivered, and show immediate returns, before the next general election. It is a challenge, and we will have to do better in that space. I am grateful for the Minister’s response, and he addressed my concerns very well. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 52
Plan for implementing recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices review
“The Secretary of State must, within six months, publish a report containing a plan for the implementation in full of the recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices review that have hitherto not been implemented.” —(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require the implementation of any remaining recommendations from the IMMDS report.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In February 2018, the noble Baroness Cumberlege was asked to carry out the independent medicines and medical devices review into the experiences of people—generally women—who had been treated with Primodos, sodium valproate or pelvic mesh implants. In very many cases, they had to battle for decades to be heard. They were gaslit, belittled and ignored at every turn. Some of the ways in which they were treated were just astonishing, and so upsetting. However, through that report they got their deliverance. They were vindicated: what they said had happened to them had happened to them—even though they had not been believed—and it should not have done. Acknowledging the pain that had been caused to these families was a big start in helping them come to terms with what they had experienced.
The excellent review team set out nine ways in which things would be made better, or at least a little bit easier, for those people now, and to try to prevent future incidents. Those nine recommendations should have been accepted in full. Instead, we have seen from the Government a pattern of accepting things that I suspect they were already keen to do, but otherwise taking the families for a long walk when it comes to the harder and more significant things that the Government clearly do not want to do. In aggregate, it has become a refusal to do right by these families, and that is a really poor decision.
This new clause seeks to attend to that by saying that within six months, the Secretary of State must publish a report containing a plan for the implementation of the recommendations in full. Of the nine, only four are being implemented in full and, frankly, that is not good enough. I am pleased that there has been an apology, and the families were too. I was also pleased to see legislation for a patient safety commissioner. We were lucky that the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 was in front of us at that time, because it gave us a moment to introduce that and a devices database, which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and I pursued during proceedings on that Bill. Those things have a bit further to go, but they were significant, as were the promises of cultural reforms at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. We will wait to see meaningful change there. With the remaining five recommendations, there has been a mixture of in-principle acceptance, partial acceptance and, in some cases, outright denial. I do not think that is good enough, and the new clause seeks to change that.
These are the bits that we are still missing. Recommendation 3 calls for:
“A new independent Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices”.
The Government responded that they did not accept that. The problem is that families are therefore left to rely on conventional civil and legal routes. Those are expensive and long, and who do the families sit against in the courtroom? Very big companies with very big legal teams, so there is a significant imbalance. The whole point is that, as recommendation 3 goes on to state:
“The Redress Agency will administer decisions using a non-adversarial process with determinations based on avoidable harm looking at systemic failings, rather than blaming individuals.”
That would have been really significant, but we do not have that. Instead, families are left stuck in the court system for as long as they can stick at it.
Recommendation 4 states:
“Separate schemes should be set up for each intervention—HPTs, valproate and pelvic mesh—to meet the cost of providing additional care and support to those who have experienced avoidable harm and are eligible to claim.”
Again, the Government do not accept that. These families meet exceptionally challenging needs day after day. Some have lost their house; some have had failed relationships; and all struggle with mental health, or certainly distress, as a result of what has happened, and we are not doing enough to help them. This should have been done, if not on day one, at the very first possible moment for support, rather than us expecting them to fall back on the conventional system, as they did. What have they gained by their vindication?
Recommendation 5 states:
“Networks of specialist centres should be set up to provide comprehensive treatment, care and advice for those affected by implanted mesh; and separately for those adversely affected by medications taken during pregnancy.”
The Government accept that only in part; it is particularly with regard to valproate that those affected will not get those centres. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s justification for that. I understand that valproate is different, in the sense that its use is ongoing in certain situations where that remains medically appropriate. However, the lack of specialised knowledge is a real issue. If there is not specialisation, we need a real sense that there is a universal step change in knowledge and experience in this area to give us greater comfort.
Recommendation 8 states:
“Transparency of payments made to clinicians needs to improve. The register of the General Medical Council (GMC) should be expanded to include a list of financial and non-pecuniary interests for all doctors”.
That is very basic. There were relationships between clinicians and big drug companies that were unknown to the families when certain treatments were suggested. The Government accept the recommendation in principle, but will not use the General Medical Council model, preferring to go practice by practice. That is big mistake. Our constituents can go to one easy, obvious place—our website—to find out our exact financial interests if they have concerns or just want to know them. We ought to be able to do the same, through the GMC, when it comes to doctors. Again, there is an unwillingness to move quickly enough to resolve these issues.
Finally, it remains surprising that the Government have not availed themselves of recommendation 9. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response on this point. It states:
“The Government should immediately set up a task force to implement this Review’s recommendations. Its first task should be to set out a timeline for their implementation.”
Of course there should be a taskforce, including families and the broader aspects of the state, to do that. Again, the Government say they accept the recommendation in part, but the reality is that they have no plans to establish an independent taskforce. There is a patient reference group, and we of course support its work, but it is not in control; it is not at the table. The problem is that these things were done to families; they had no agency and no say. The solutions that come out of this cannot follow that same model. Once again, families are having things done to them, rather than being worked with.
I meet representatives of these groups frequently, as I know colleagues do. I like meeting them. These are good people who have been through incredible things and have extraordinary dignity and courage, not to mention that they are brilliant campaigners. They are probably sick of seeing me, and I would rather see them in happier circumstances. When I ask them what is next, they say that they are campaigning again. They campaigned over many years to be listened to, and were proven right in the most absolute terms, but they feel they have to campaign again to get the justice that should flow from that report and from their vindication. What an extraordinary demonstration of how we have let them down. They fought for too long. It is time that we stood up for them and did right by them by implementing the recommendations in full; otherwise we fail them again. I hope to hear of significant progress from the Minister.
Dr Whitford
I support the new clause. For a surgeon, knowing that an operation that they were trained to carry out, and performed in good faith, has caused harm is one of the worst things that can happen. I remember how I felt in the mid-1980s when we began to realise the impact of contaminated blood. It had a huge impact on how I operated. I used special diathermy techniques to avoid blood transfusion in all elective circumstances, and that is something I carried on throughout my time doing breast cancer surgery.
In this case, there may well have been doctors who were dealing with device companies and so on—that regulatory declaration is absolutely needed—but there will be a much greater number of surgeons who were using a device that was licensed and was given to them as the correct, safe device to use.
I find it shocking that although the report was commissioned by the Government, they have accepted fewer than half of its recommendations. The others directly relate to patients who have suffered harm, whether that is the women who had vaginal meshes inserted, or the mothers of children who were harmed by the use of Primodos or sodium valproate.
Sodium valproate is still an excellent anti-epileptic and will not disappear, but it is not a matter for specialist centres. It is so widely used that it is critical that within primary care and on product boxes it is made clear that women who are looking to conceive or who are of child-bearing age should not be left on Epilim; that should be discussed with them right from when they are young teenagers, so they can think about the impact later on.
The recommendations that have not been accepted are not to do with reorganising licensing, or a yellow card system; they are all recommendations that relate to women. That is really disappointing. The redress for them—the setting up of specialist centres to try to repair the damage as far as possible—is what is not being provided. The Government should look at the fact that those are the recommendations they have skirted around and not accepted. These women and the children affected have gone through enough.
Edward Argar
It is quite right that we articulate once again the suffering that was the genesis of the review. The hon. Members for Nottingham North and for Central Ayrshire spoke with passion on the issue. We are talking about procedures that had a dreadful impact on individuals and their families.
The Government recognise the effect that the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, and the lived experiences behind it, has had on all the women and children impacted, and their families. That is why, on the day after the review was published, the Government issued a full and unreserved apology on behalf of the health and care sector for the time it took to listen and respond.
I am grateful to Baroness Cumberlege for all the time and effort she put into her report. As hon. Members will be aware, that sentiment was expressed at the time by the Minister responsible for responding to the report, who is now of course the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
The Government published our response to the review on 21 July this year, after carefully considering each of the review’s nine strategic recommendations and the 50 actions for improvement in greater depth. Our response set out an ambitious programme for change that, at its core, is focused on improving patient safety.
The Government accepted the vast majority of the strategic recommendations and actions for improvement. I reassure the Committee that we are committed to making progress on all accepted recommendations at pace. That is why, in our response to the review, we committed to publishing an update on our progress in implementing the accepted recommendations 12 months after the initial response. I know that hon. and right hon. Members from across the House will rightly vigorously continue to hold the Government to account on that. I reassure them that the Government take very seriously our responsibility to implement the accepted recommendations at pace.
Many of the recommendations will introduce large-scale changes to patient safety, and we have a duty to get their implementation right. I hope it will encourage hon. Members to hear that the Government have already made strong progress on implementing many of the accepted recommendations of the review. I will turn to those in more detail, because I think it is important that we update the Committee and the House.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for colleagues’ contributions. The comments of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire presaged what the Minister said: yes, the Government have been able to do the more strategic aspects of this, but they have done half a job. The half they left out relates to people who have fought for so long just to get a little support, and recognition that they have been badly wronged in a way that significantly changed their life. They really do not ask for much—just a bit of support. It is not a nebulous or open-ended ask; it is just for what was in the report, and that does not seem too much to me.
The Government have been in defensive mode for a long period on this issue, but I desperately hope that they do not think they have done the job, because they really have not. I also hope that they do not think these women will go away, because they absolutely will not, and a lot of right hon. and hon. Members in this place want to help them and give them a platform from which their voices will be heard. A good way to act would have been through the new clause. With that in mind, I intend to press it to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is a fitting follow-up to new clause 52, in the sense that the theme of the report was that, yes, dreadful things happened, but—as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said—largely with a complete lack of knowledge among clinicians, who were just following the guidelines, as they were supposed to and had been trained to. A common theme beyond that is that this happened to women, and when women tried to express their concerns, the system was not geared up to listen. Instead, the response of the system was to write them off—some of the name calling will probably not amaze us, but it should.
The new clause seeks to ensure explicitly that local care boards take into account the views of women on reproductive health. High-quality reproductive healthcare should be accessible and individualised at each stage of a woman’s life, from puberty and through the years of menstruation to the menopause and beyond. This is something that we will discuss tomorrow through the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). She will put the case well, I have no doubt.
The system should enable women to decide whether, when and how often to have children by informing them about, and providing easy and timely access to, the full range of contraceptive methods. Maintaining good reproductive health and wellbeing has profound and positive long-term effects for women and wider society. However, at the moment, inherent system fractures in the commissioning and delivery of reproductive healthcare services mean that many women are left struggling to access basic reproductive care, including contraception and gynaecological cancer screening.
The impact of the current situation is stark. Almost half of British women have experienced poor sexual and reproductive health, and that figure should give us pause. We know that since the Health and Social Care Act 2012—again, this is something in that Act that we should want to change—reproductive healthcare has been compromised by a lack of strategic prioritisation and prevention, a deeply fragmented commissioning landscape, and of course that ongoing theme of significant cuts to public health, which in this case include a 14% real-terms reduction for sexual and reproductive health services. Again, that has been felt more by poorer communities, and all those factors have resulted in gaps in the reproductive care pathway, creating disconnected and disjointed care for women. For example, in many areas of the country, women are not able to access a fitting for an intrauterine device—one of the most effective contraceptive methods—or cervical smear tests in a similar healthcare setting, meaning that they have to go through multiple invasive exams in different settings. Of course, it is important that those tests take place, but we should seek to make it the easiest process that it can possibly be.
Women approaching the menopause are not able to access treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding at community clinics or GP practices, because many are not commissioned to provide that service or lack the funding or trained staff, resulting in those women being bounced around the system while living with obviously debilitating conditions. This Bill is an important moment to tackle long-standing structural challenges in reproductive healthcare. If we are truly moving towards greater integration and collaboration within the healthcare system, this is a really good chance to implement holistic women’s reproductive healthcare services at a regional and local level. Through listening to women and integrating care around the needs of the individual, rather than the institutions, we can deliver holistic care across the breadth of reproductive healthcare.
I know that there is a broader duty in this Bill for integrated care boards to promote the involvement of their patients and carers in decisions about the provision of health and care services, as well as having regard for inequalities. This new clause builds on that by wiring in engagement with women, because it is not happening. Again, if we just keep doing things in the same way, we will get the same outcome, so this is an opportunity to design a healthcare system for women that listens to women and builds in accountability. That will help ensure that reproductive healthcare pathways fully meet the needs of those who they are meant to serve, which would be a very positive outcome.
Karin Smyth
I rise to support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. He is absolutely right that this new clause follows neatly from the previous one, because I am in no doubt that if women were more involved and more listened to and had more power within the healthcare system, the debacle around vaginal mesh would not have got so far, and we would not sadly still be in a state where the recommendations have not been implemented. This is about power, listening, and having a voice in the system with regards to reproductive healthcare planning.
In the Chamber last week, I said regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East’s menopause revolution that when we worked on a women’s health strategy in the late 1980s, we barely mentioned the menopause. We were looking at reproductive rights even then, and for those of us who have followed this issue over a period of 30-odd years, it is deeply worrying to see where we still are. Again, this comes back to very basic patient care. I will certainly be supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East tomorrow to start the menopause revolution, which is going terribly well. We are hoping for serious improvements in healthcare over the coming years, and this new clause highlighting reproductive healthcare planning is really significant for the voice it should give to women at this important stage in their lives.
Edward Argar
It is possibly lucky for the Government that the hon. Member for Swansea East is not on this Committee, because she can be extremely persuasive. In my role at the Ministry of Justice, she managed to get a number of things out of me by persistent campaigning.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate today. Women’s reproductive health remains a priority, and it is vital that women’s voices are listened to, particularly when it comes to their own healthcare. That is why we are developing a new section of the reproductive health strategy, which will of course sit alongside the developing women’s health strategy. They will both seek to address issues relating to women’s reproductive health.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady may be about to agree with me; she is welcome to do so.
Dr Whitford
When we debated vaginal mesh, Primodos and valproate in the Chamber, one of the big issues that came up—I certainly spoke about it—was the issue within medicine, with doctors. What work will be done with Health Education England and medical schools to ensure that young student doctors, and doctors in early training, recognise this terrible dismissal of women’s concerns about all aspects of their health? The menopause is a classic, but there are many others.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that. We need to get across, loud and clear, to our future clinicians almost right from the start—from their training and early education—the message that everyone’s health concerns matter equally, subject, obviously, to clinical decision making. I hope and believe that HEE and others will engage with that process in the context of the women’s health strategy. We do not want it to be a document that just sits on a shelf, or want it to look at issues in a siloed way; it should look at them across the piece. Over many years, there have been strategies on particular aspects of health. In the strategy, we seek to bring together a whole range of factors, so that we can look at how women interact with the healthcare system, and how to meet their needs holistically.
We want to maximise the independence of ICBs, so that they function in the way that best suits the needs of their patients and their organisations. We are therefore keeping their legislative obligations proportionate; that brings us back to a debate that the Committee has had multiple times about the permissive nature of the legislation. I agree that appropriate representation is essential in healthcare planning. I fear that the new clause is overly specific and not necessarily in keeping with the obligations on ICBs set out in clause 19 on general functions.
The Bill already puts obligations on ICBs that will help to ensure that relevant groups are fully represented and consulted in decision making. In particular, ICBs will need to ensure that they have taken appropriate advice from a broad range of those with professional expertise. As the work of ICBs will inevitably cover reproductive health, that requirement ensures that relevant groups are included in this work. Furthermore, as we discussed in the opening sittings of the Committee, local areas will have the flexibility to determine any further membership of the ICB beyond the minimum for which we have legislated. That discretion will allow local areas to ensure appropriate representation.
On working in partnership with the non-profit sector and local community groups, I recognise the essential role that those organisations and groups play, and agree that they should be involved in strategic decision making where appropriate. Each ICB and their partner local authorities will be required to establish an integrated care partnership. We expect the ICP to bring together organisations from across health, social care and public health, and representatives from wider areas where appropriate. That could include organisations from the voluntary and community sector. The ICP will be tasked with promoting partnership arrangements and developing a plan to address the health, social care and public health needs in its area. As that will include reproductive healthcare needs, we would expect relevant local groups to be represented. The ICB and local authorities will have to have regard to that plan when making decisions. That will enable more joined-up planning and provision, both in the NHS and by local authorities, which will enhance the services that people receive.
Existing and proposed duties already address the concerns underlying the new clause and ensure effective public involvement. We have concerns about imposing additional duties on individual services. Our approach enables local NHS bodies, supported by national guidance, to decide how best to involve patients and the public in the planning of commissioning arrangements, and in developing and considering proposals to change them, so we are not convinced that the additions in the new clause in respect of reproductive healthcare are necessary.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Many people will be looking with great interest at what happens tomorrow. She spoke about the menopause not having been on the political agenda for such a long time. I think that that has changed, and not before time, so we are all very much looking forward to what will happen.
We have tested the Minister on the permissiveness point quite a lot, so by this, the 22nd sitting of the Committee, I think it is possibly an established fact, and I do not intend to divide the Committee, but I do want to come back on what he said about the sufficiency of the duties as drawn. When we have pushed for individual plans for each ICB—say, on inequalities, on the first 1,001 days and on drugs and health—there has almost been a sense of, “Well, of course these bodies will want to do that. It will be their local decision, but of course the evidence will drive them to do that.” I do not think we can say, on women’s health, that that is an “of course”, because we know that actually, historically, it can be very much an afterthought.
The thought that I might leave colleagues with on this issue is that we are having a growing conversation in this country about misogyny, and one of the things that you will hear men say a lot—I have said this myself, because I mean it—is, “We have to hold one another to account for the things we say and the way we act.” I completely agree with that. In that spirit, we have to understand that if a lot of the basic reproductive healthcare things that we are talking about today happened to men, we would be doing them in McDonald’s drive-thrus. It is as simple as that. Therefore, if we are to have an honest conversation with one another about misogyny in this country, it is that sort of thing that we mean. It is not always about pointing fingers and blaming, or policing jokes, which I think is important; it is actually about saying that services are different because these things do not happen to us and we should be more mindful of that and should want to change. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 54
Enhanced data collection
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 14Z43 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) insert—
“14Z43A Duty to develop data collection systems
Integrated care boards must—
(a) develop single whole-system IT systems across the whole of their integrated care system with the explicit purpose of supporting data collection and sharing;
(b) prioritise the use of those data systems for streamlining patient pathways;
(c) establish mandatory standards for patient-initiated follow ups; and
(d) use the data systems developed under paragraph (a) to report on a regular basis performance against improving patient outcomes in line with the standards established under paragraph (c).””—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause requires ICSs to develop digital data collection and sharing systems, and use them to track performance against mandatory standards, with specific regard to patient-initiated follow ups.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
I keep going, Ms Elliott. Again, you can perhaps file this under gluttony for punishment. I do not intend to talk for very long about this new clause. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give us comfort easily on the point of new clause 54. It is just to develop the point about data one last time before our carriages turn into pumpkins.
A specific part of the Bill deals with data, and we had some very good conversations at that point. I will not repeat any of that. I will explain what I am chancing my arm at in new clause 54. I talked previously about systems and the problems with systems talking to one another. Here, we are asking integrated care boards to develop
“single whole-system IT systems”.
That is perhaps at the top end in terms of what should be aspirational and what is in fact achievable, but I do want to pursue the point a little.
Data is critical, as we have said before, in driving improvements. NHS England’s own website talks about the need to use it to improve services and decision making, to identify trends and patterns, to draw comparisons, to predict future events and outcomes and to evaluate services. But to do that, we have to have some sense of consistency. I will not repeat the arguments around the General Data Protection Regulation—we had those at length—but that shows the challenges if we do not get it right.
Going down to ICS level, if we are going to have a system that really does harness all the information, we need systems that talk to one another. Therefore, the prescription in proposed new subsection (a) is that it is a single system. As I have said, that is the stretch target. What I am hoping to get from the Minister is a sense of where he thinks this will land. Is it the same organisations using the same systems but trying to find a new way to do them, or will there be some new, novel approach to how we support footprints to do that? It is an established fact that data is going to be really important to local systems, so we want to give them the fairest wind to make the best use of it that they can.
Dr Whitford
On new clause 54, I just want to speak to proposed new subsection (d)—the use of data to assess performance against outcomes. Between 2009 and 2019, there was really no significant national audit of quality of breast cancer services in England, even though some of that audit had been carried out in previous years. Part of that was due to the fracturing of the system from the social care Act. There might be only one breast unit within an area, and quality was left to commissioners. How can commissioners measure whether a local breast unit is treating people properly or achieving the aspired-to targets?
In Scotland, 19 of the commonest cancers are audited; I was involved in developing the breast cancer standards in 2000, and they have been updated many times since. They are assessed annually with an annual peer review conference, where clinicians will openly discuss the challenges they face and therefore will share the solutions many of them have come up with. The clinical things that we know will affect the survival and outcomes of our women in the future are all set as national benchmarks. It is important that, while data would be collected locally, it is benchmarked against national standards.
The Getting It Right First Time project was restarted in England a few years ago but, to my knowledge, although the Getting It Right First Time for breast cancer report was completed at the end of 2019, I have not seen it published. That appeared to be due to the election in December 2019; perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the breast cancer GIRFT report has now been published, when it might be published and what other GIRFT reports have come out.
The problem is that, even if that report were published now, two years after its completion, it would largely be based on data from 2018, and therefore clinicians would shrug their shoulders and say, “Out of date.” It is important that data is used in a timeous manner to audit as quickly as possible, so that the audit loop can be closed and services improved. Having led on this process in Scotland, I saw the change in standards between 2001, when we began the first assessment, and 2005, and it is an incredibly satisfying, not frightening, thing for clinicians to see year on year the quality of care delivered by their unit driven up. There must be national standards, but local audit.
Edward Argar
This new clause would create an obligation on ICBs to develop system-wide data-sharing IT systems. It would also require them to set and report on targets linked to outputs from this system. I recognise the importance of effective IT systems for the efficient delivery of services and for holding systems to account. However, we must set that against seeking to maximise the independence of ICBs to function in a manner that best suits the needs of their patients and organisations.
The obligations set out in the Bill are designed to establish a framework which ensures that ICBs fulfil their functions properly, while granting them as much discretion as possible in how they do so. The provisions in the Bill strike the balance between conferring the necessary duties and functions on ICBs to operate safely and effectively, and avoiding being overly prescriptive in any specific area. By placing too many statutory duties on ICBs, the risk is that innovation and locally led solutions may be stymied and focus may be taken away from their primary function of arranging for the provision of health services.
Of course, ICBs should be committed to improving patient pathways. However, we believe the duties already set out in the Bill are sufficient to ensure this happens. Further to the requirements set out in the Bill, there are already specific relevant provisions elsewhere in legislation. Section 251B of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 places a duty on certain health or social care organisations, which would include ICBs, to share information about an individual with certain persons where this will facilitate the provision of health services or care to the individual and is in the individual’s best interests.
In addition, there is significant work already under way on data strategy, which will have a direct impact on ICBs. The data strategy “Data Saves Lives: Reshaping health and social care with data” sets out commitments to transform the way that data is used across the health and care system, giving patients control of their health data and enabling staff to save more lives through improved care and treatment. It recognises that ICBs will help the NHS to join up data and delivery more seamlessly, working side by side with local government, third sector partners, and the wider health and care system to address long-term challenges, and sets out that each ICB will be expected to use digital and data to drive systems working, connect health and care providers, improve outcomes and put the citizen at the heart of their own care.
The data strategy was published in draft for engagement in June and a final version will be published by the end of the year. It sets out a range of commitments to ensure that health and care professionals have the data they need to provide the best possible care, that local and national decision makers are supported with data, and that data for adult social care are improved. It also includes commitments on every ICB having shared care records in place, and commitments in relation to data sharing between NHS organisations and supporting the underpinning infrastructure in order to ease data sharing.
Alex Norris
This is not something that we will be able to resolve with top-down prescription, but I have made the point that I hope we will do everything we can at a national level to model best practice, to demonstrate best practice and to give our local systems access to best-practice systems, because that will be very important. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 56
Domestic violence training for GPs
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 83B (inserted by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 of this Act) insert—
“83C Duty concerning domestic violence and abuse
(none) Integrated care boards must ensure that specialist domestic violence and abuse training, support and referral programmes are universally available to all general practitioners.””—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause adds a requirement for specialist domestic violence and abuse programmes to be available universally throughout general practice.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Domestic abuse is an issue of significant interest across this place. We know that two women a week are killed by a current or former partner in England and Wales alone. As we mentioned the other day, a quarter of women will experience domestic abuse in the course of their lifetime, which has devastating effects. It impacts on both the physical and mental health of survivors and their children, and it has a terrible cost in general to everybody, including a financial cost.
New clause 56 would impose a duty at a local level to ensure that GPs have access to specialist domestic violence and abuse training. It is something that would be very welcome, and we are proposing a duty for integrated care boards to provide that. GPs are a credible point of contact for people in violent relationships. Some 80% of women in a violent relationship seek help from health services first. In some cases, that is their only contact. Training for GPs is vital to ensure that such contact is of the best possible quality. A study of women in violent relationships in the Netherlands found that 50% of women who did not speak to their GP about the matter would have done so if the GP had been in a position to approach it. Moreover, 50% of the women who did talk to their GP did so because they hoped to be referred on, so they wanted to have a high-quality conversation with someone who knew the system.
From my time prior to this place and my experience in Nottingham, I have a lot of enthusiasm for the IRIS programme—the identification and referral to improve safety programme. A trial carried out by Bristol University found that the training programme led to up to six times more women receiving the help they needed, and that it boosted the number of referrals to specialist domestic violence agencies. After IRIS training, GPs reported being better able to assess domestic violence risks and a greater awareness of services, while 99% of service users felt listened to and 87% felt safer.
The evidence is that such training works. This is of course not the way in which we should write a new clause, but I am saying that IRIS should be universal or something like it. I would leave the “something like it” to the provider market and to commissioners but, in general, the principle is that all GPs should have training so that they can understand and act on domestic abuse and have the right resources to provide support and make skilful onward referrals, so that the system can wrap its arms around an individual who is trying to get out of an abusive situation. That would be exceptionally important for such women, and I hope the Minister will have some thoughts about how we can get to a universal, IRIS-like level of engagement with our GPs.
Edward Argar
The new clause would require ICBs to provide specialist domestic violence and abuse training, support and referral programmes to all GPs, with the aim of strengthening the health response to domestic abuse and improving links between the NHS and voluntary sector support for victims. We have concerns about the new clause, which is why we cannot accept it, but I hope that I can set out to the shadow Minister my reasoning.
Domestic abuse, as we discussed yesterday when considering another proposed new clause, is a terrible crime, and it can have a devastating impact on victims and survivors. It is also important that we remember that children are often just as much victims as the victims themselves, through the experiences that they have of domestic abuse and domestic violence. The Government are clear that there is absolutely no excuse for abuse. Tackling domestic abuse and supporting victims, survivors and their children is a key priority for Government, now more than ever.
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the forthcoming domestic abuse strategy will help to provide a whole-system approach to protect and support victims and their children. The measures in the 2021 Act seek to promote awareness by introducing a statutory definition of domestic abuse, and to recognise children, as I alluded to, as victims in their own right, in order to protect and support both, tackle perpetrators, transform the justice response, and drive consistency and better performance in the response to domestic abuse.
The 2021 Act also sets out the convening of local domestic abuse partnership boards, with healthcare representation. We recognise the key role that healthcare services play within a whole-system approach to tackling domestic violence. Healthcare services must identify signs of risk and harm, enable victims and survivors to come forward, and provide timely integrated care and support. We know how important it is that statutory agencies and professionals properly understand and react to domestic abuse. However, I hope that I can reassure the Committee that placing in the Bill a formal duty on ICBs to ensure that specialist domestic violence and abuse training, support and referral programmes are universally available to all GPs is not necessary.
General practice is delivered by multidisciplinary teams, rather than just GPs, and existing Care Quality Commission registration requirements include a review of practices’ safeguarding processes. In addition, NHSEI’s ICS people guidance sets an expectation that ICBs will foster learning and continuing professional development. Going further, the Bill, in proposed new section 14Z41 of the National Health Service Act 2006, imposes a duty that each ICB
“must, in exercising its functions, have regard to the need to promote education and training for the persons mentioned in section 1F(1)”
of the 2006 Act.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Again, I break the convention that Whips do not speak, because this issue is close to my heart. I listened carefully to the discussions yesterday, and to what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, and the Minister have said on the new clause, but if we looked at domestic abuse as a disease or virus, given the fact that it kills women, it kills people in their homes, and has mental and economic impacts that affect people’s overall health, we would certainly ensure that GPs were trained on it. Why can we not do the same thing with domestic abuse?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. In part, the reason is because this is sadly not a well drafted new clause. It is very narrowly drafted to GPs, not recognising the multidisciplinary nature of how healthcare is delivered in GP practices. I suspect that we all have correspondence from constituents—whether happy or unhappy—going to doctor associates, practice nurses and others. That is one of my key concerns, but let me articulate a little more what is already being done. I see where she is coming from. As I mentioned yesterday, I was the Minister with responsibility for victims of domestic violence, and of crime in general, when I was in the Ministry of Justice, so it is something that I am very familiar with. It is about raising awareness not just with GPs, but within the police and a range of agencies. My challenge, just before she intervened, was partly about the way the new clause is drawn, but let me articulate a little further our views on it. I am keen to do so before the business possibly collapses early in the House, and we have to adjourn in order that I can respond to the Adjournment debate.
Section 1F of the 2006 Act defines a wide group of people, covering persons who are employed, or who are considering becoming employed, in an activity that involves or is connected with the provision of services as part of the health service in England. That duty on ICBs would already cover general practitioners, but it goes wider. I appreciate that the new clause goes beyond training, so I will also discuss the support and referral elements that the hon. Member for Nottingham North talked about.
The NHS provides care and support to victims of domestic abuse through a range of healthcare services. This response is centred around ensuring that healthcare professionals are trained to spot the signs of domestic abuse and those at risk; to make safe and sensitive enquiry of the issue; to know where to refer people to get further support, and to know when and how to share information appropriately with colleagues and other organisations.
All NHS staff must undertake annual mandatory safeguarding training, which includes focus on domestic abuse. NHS England, NHS Improvement and Health Education England are reviewing mandatory safeguarding training for all health professionals to ensure that they are fully equipped with the key skills, knowledge and principles to protect all citizens. The Government published an online domestic abuse resource for health professionals and have developed a number of training modules with the Institute of Health Professionals, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of General Practitioners.
From 2018 to 2020, the Department managed £2 million of funding for the domestic abuse pathfinder programme, which created a model health response for survivors of domestic violence and abuse in acute, community and mental health services. The pathfinder toolkit was published in 2020 as the result of emerging promising practice at our pilot sites, coupled with the expertise of the pathfinder consortium of specialist domestic abuse organisations, to encourage best practice across the health system. Pathfinder has given us a model for our response to domestic abuse in healthcare. It is a model for integrated, joined-up and trauma-informed care and support, with healthcare settings and the voluntary sector working together.
As the shadow Minister mentioned, the Department of Health and Social Care has also funded the IRIS programme, to which I pay tribute. IRIS is a training, referral and advocacy model to support clinicians in better supporting patients who are affected by domestic violence and abuse, and to increase the awareness of domestic violence and abuse within general practice. IRIS is recognised by the DHSC as good practice, and via the National Institute for Health Research we funded a study that demonstrated the effectiveness of the IRIS programme at scale. I am delighted to note that the study won the 2020 Royal College of General Practitioners research paper of the year award.
I am proud that the Government have championed the building of that evidence base. I believe that it would not be best or appropriate, however, for the legislation to require local health and care systems to adopt specific programmes. Indeed, such detailed requirements would reduce local health and care partners’ flexibility to meet the needs of their local populations or to engage with particular local organisations and expertise in delivering their programmes.
Beyond ICBs, I see a huge opportunity for integrated care partnerships to support improved services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and other forms of harm, through better partnership working and joint planning of services. The Government have also developed a cross-Government strategy for tackling violence against women and girls, and will develop a cross-Government domestic abuse strategy.
As committed to in the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, the DHSC will continue to work closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement to promote evidence-based approaches to tackling violence and abuse through guidance and engagement with the new system.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am more than happy to wait for the domestic abuse strategy, but I really hope that such measures will feature in it, and that when the strategy goes around various Departments for their comments, the Minister will make a commitment—
Edward Argar
May I make the offer to the hon. Gentleman that I or the relevant Minister leading on this—whoever is more appropriate—will engage directly with him?
Alex Norris
That is very welcome, and in that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 57
Cancer strategy
“Within 12 months the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish a new cancer strategy; and
(b) either designate a minister or appoint a national lead with responsibility for enacting its implementation.” —(Alex Norris.)
This new clause requires the publication of a new cancer strategy, with a minister or other person made responsible for its delivery.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 64—Cancer treatment data reporting—
“(1) Beginning within 6 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish each month data on—
(a) the number of patients awaiting treatment for cancer,
(b) the number of patients with a cancer diagnosis, and
(c) what NHS’s previous estimate was of the number of patients who would have a cancer diagnosis at that point in time.
(2) Six months after the publication of the first report under subsection (1), and every six months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the action being taken to reduce the number of patients awaiting treatment for cancer.”
Alex Norris
I am conscious of other business, so if I am interrupted, I will not take it as rudeness.
Alex Norris
New clauses 57 and 64 both relate to cancer. It is not quite possible to quantify the damage done by cancer in this country because we end up just throwing big numbers around. In the UK, there are 375,000 new cases and 166,000 cancer deaths each year. Each of those numbers represents a person with a devastated family. I lost my father to cancer in my infancy—35 years ago in January—and that loss is something that lives with a family for the rest of their lives.
We know that one in two people born after 1960 will be diagnosed with cancer. Our investment in cancer services is £5 billion a year, but the cost dwarfs that, at over £18 billion. Nearly 40% of cancers are preventable. Happily—this is something we should be proud of in this country—the developments that we are making in medical and technological areas mean that cancers are increasingly survivable, with the survival rate doubling in the last four decades. Better diagnosis and treatments mean that nearly 50% of those diagnosed with cancer in England and Wales now survive for 10 or more years, and there is no reason for that to stop increasing.
Edward Argar
New clause 57 seeks to commission, as the shadow Minister has said, a new cancer strategy and to designate a Minister or appoint a national lead with responsibility for enacting its implementation. The Government’s current cancer strategy is incorporated in the NHS long-term plan, published in 2019. That plan sets out ambitions that by 2028 the proportion of cancers diagnosed at stages 1 and 2 will rise from around 54% to 75% of cancer patients, and 55,000 more people each year will survive their cancer for at least five years after diagnosis. The shadow Minister is right to highlight the importance of the issue as something that touches everyone in some way, directly or indirectly. In the midst of the pandemic last year, I lost my uncle to cancer, and I suspect families all over the country are experiencing something similar among their family and friends. That is in the nature of the disease that we are talking about.
The NHS long-term plan contains a series of commitments to support the ambition. It focuses primarily on fast and early diagnosis, raising greater awareness of the symptoms of cancer, lowering the threshold for referral by GPs, accelerating access to diagnosis and treatment, and maximising the number of cancers that we can identify through screening. That ambition was intentionally set at a stretching level. Achieving it requires material progress in all of the long-term plan’s activities as well as successful innovation. The covid-19 pandemic has made the ambition even more challenging because of the additional pressure it has put on the NHS. It is still too early to assess the extent of the pandemic’s effect on that ambition in the long term. We remain absolutely committed to the need to prioritise earlier diagnosis to improve cancer outcomes. This ambition was strongly supported by the many cancer charities that worked with us to agree the priorities for the NHS cancer programme, and I pay tribute to them all.
I understand the intention behind the new clause. The covid-19 pandemic affected all NHS services in creating an environment unforeseen at the time by the long-term plan. In response to the pandemic, NHS England and NHS Improvement set up the cancer recovery taskforce, which provided advice and guidance on the national strategy for the recovery of cancer services. It monitored progress against the aims of restoring demand, reducing waiting times and ensuring sufficient capacity for cancer diagnosis and treatment. The taskforce published the cancer recovery plan in December last year, which fed into NHS operational and planning guidance outlining how the NHS would return to its pre-pandemic cancer performance within the long-term plan. It is thanks to the taskforce and forward planning that the CQC’s “State of Care 2020/21” report says that cancer services have achieved the best response and recovery, generally closing the gap in access on pre-pandemic levels more than any other area, although it notes that this still leaves a large backlog, which the recovery plan is focused on tackling.
The long-term plan commits NHS England and NHS Improvement to speed up the path from innovation to business as usual, spreading proven new techniques and technologies and reducing variations. I therefore consider the new clause, while it covers an important issue and quite rightly draws it to the attention of the Committee, not strictly necessary, because an ambitious cancer plan is already embedded in the long-term plan, with clear plans in place to support the recovery of cancer services from the pandemic specifically. We are fully committed to the actions within these plans and to seeing the long-term plan to its conclusion.
Dr Whitford
The Minister has not mentioned the workforce, specifically in radiology, which is very much the central specialty in diagnosing cancer. The data show that, once someone has been recognised as a cancer patient, they are still being treated relatively quickly—as he highlights, there is a shorter gap—but the problem is actually diagnosing someone, and the radiology workforce has a drastic shortage.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is distinguished in this field herself, from her previous career. She quite rightly highlights the importance of the workforce. Since 2010, in both radiology and radiography, there have been significant percentage increases in the workforce of those specialist professions. However, she is right to highlight that, while we have seen a significant percentage increase, in absolute terms we still need to do more to grow those professions. We have plans in place to do that, but that is a slow task; it can, in some cases, take up to 10 or 12 years to become an experienced specialist in that field.
On those increases since 2010, the Government would argue that we put measures in place, but it is also important to recognise that the previous Labour Government were working on this as well, hence the pull-through; those radiologists and radiographers did not magically appear immediately after 2010. There were programmes in place before and after that, so it is right that we recognise the contribution of the Opposition when they were in Government.
Finally, the new clause also seeks to place a Minister or national leader in charge of that new cancer plan. My ministerial role includes responsibility for elective recovery and recovery from the pandemic—our plan to tackle those waiting lists. As the shadow Minister knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, who briefly sat on this Committee, had responsibility for cancer services specifically, as does the new Under-Secretary. Dame Cally Palmer is the national lead as the national cancer director at NHS England and NHS Improvement. She has a distinguished career as chief executive of the Royal Marsden Hospital in parallel. We are jointly responsible for the current cancer plan. It is therefore unnecessary to include that new duty when we already have those accountabilities.
I will move on briefly to new clause 64, which we are considering with new clause 57. It seeks to legislate for an additional duty on the Secretary of State to publish data on cancer waiting lists, cancer diagnoses and action being taken to reduce the number of patients waiting for cancer treatment in England. Again, I understand the intention behind the new clause. Cancer is one of the greatest challenges to people’s health, as we set out. I would like to highlight first the fact that the Government are already delivering on the request for monthly publication of cancer performance data. Ensuring transparency of data is a priority. Each month, we publish official statistics on waiting list data, including the number of patients who began cancer treatment and waited longer than 62 days for treatment. NHS England also publishes monthly management data on the number of people currently waiting longer than 62 days for diagnosis or treatment. The new clause calls for data that is very similar to what is already published, and we therefore consider that it would be duplicative.
Secondly, on the request to publish predictions—that is not something that is currently done. Doing so would likely result in unhelpful poor-quality assumptions or modelling that could lead to expectations or an understanding that is not reflected in the reality of the data that comes through. While we look at all data sources internally, it would not be in the best interests of scrutiny and, potentially, patients to publish poor-quality predictions with a limited confidence factor.
Thirdly, there is no evidence of need. Following the success of campaigns such as Help Us, Help You, we have seen the public seek medical attention for symptoms that might be cancer, while cancer referrals from GPs have been at record levels since March. At the same time, the NHS has been delivering high-quality and innovative solutions to improve cancer care and treatment. We have announced funding for elective recovery, including cancer services, of £2 billion this year and £8 billion over the next three years, which will increase activity and deliver millions more checks, scans, procedures and treatments. We will continue to publish and review the monthly official statistics to monitor progress.
Finally, on the request for the Secretary of State to publish a report every six months on the actions taken to reduce the number of patients awaiting cancer treatment, I should state that the NHS has already undertaken extensive work to reduce the number of patients waiting for treatment and to continue progress in delivering the long-term plan ambitions for cancer. We will publish the elective recovery delivery plan later this year, which will set out how the NHS will deliver increased elective capacity and how cancer patients will be prioritised for access.
Furthermore, the NHS cancer programme already regularly reports on progress through both NHSEI and DHSC governance structures, through publication of monthly data on cancer waiting times and through regular communications products. We would therefore argue that the new clause is duplicative. While I assure the Committee that we are taking urgent action to reduce cancer waiting lists, we consider the new clause to be unnecessary.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer, which reflects the current difference in public policy between the Government and the Opposition. At oral questions to the Health Secretary, I always ask and will continue to ask whether the Government’s position is that the current plans and status will be sufficient to meet the challenges and the backlog—we think they are not. While the system was overheated before the pandemic, it has been distressed by the last 18 months. We do not think that asking that system to meet both emergent and old problems will work. However, that is probably a point for oral questions and future debates, rather than this Public Bill Committee. On that basis, I will withdraw the clause.
As we are coming to the end of the debate, I might gently say to the Minister, on his point that the Government do not make predictions because they might be unhelpful in the future, that it feels as if, every time he goes on the news, the Health Secretary puts waiting lists up by another million in an extraordinary attempt to manage expectations. Was it 13 million last time? It just goes up and up. I do not think it is quite fair to say that Ministers do not do that—the Health Secretary, at least, certainly does. Nevertheless, that is no reason not to withdraw the clause, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 28th October 2021
(3 years 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 28 October 2021 - (28 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government Amendment 82.
Amendment 144, in schedule 5, page 74, line 30, at end insert—
“provided that the relevant officer may not do any of the things mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) where they would risk the welfare or safety of persons on board the ship.”
This amendment would require officers to assess welfare risk before stopping or boarding a ship, requiring it to be taken elsewhere or requiring it to leave UK waters, and not act if doing so would exacerbate these risks.
Government amendment 83.
Amendment 145, in schedule 5, page 75, line 8, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must publish a list of States and relevant territories with which agreement has been reached for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) within 30 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, and the Secretary of State must update that published list from time to time.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish which states or territories she has agreed arrangements with for returning or removing asylum seekers to, within 30 days of Royal Assent.
Amendment 146, in schedule 5, page 76, line 24, at end insert—
“(9) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 148, in schedule 5, page 77, line 18, at end insert—
“(7) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 147, in schedule 5, page 78, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 149, in schedule 5, page 78, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) the act was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to only act with regards to the Human Rights Act.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
In terms of schedule 5, let me just say that clause 42 is one of the six drafted as placeholder clauses, as indicated in the explanatory notes and memorandum for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It was drafted as such in the interests of transparency, to make clear our intention to bring forward substantive provisions on working in the territorial seas. The placeholder clause is now to be replaced by new clause 20.
The Government’s clear position has always been that permission to work is needed for all foreign nationals intending to work in the United Kingdom landmass—that includes all UK waters. New clause 20 will bring legislative clarity: migrant workers wishing to work in the territorial seas or internal waters of the UK will need permission to do so. To obtain that permission, they will need to apply for a visa under the points-based system in the same way as when coming to work on the UK landmass.
New clause 20 will clarify the legal framework, but will not change the existing position that migrant workers need permission to work in UK waters. As such, the new clause does not invent a policy change and its effect should be negligible. The new clause does not impact on those engaging in innocent passage or crew who are covered by section 8 of the Immigration Act 1971.
Government amendments 126 to 128 are minor and technical. They are intended to ensure that the regime I have just talked about can be enforced.
The Chair
Order. Apologies, but I think you have strayed into the debate on schedule 5, which includes Government amendments 126, 127 and 128 and clause 43 stand part. I appreciate that there are a lot of different moving parts.
Tom Pursglove
I apologise if that is so, Ms McDonagh. The groupings on the selection list are not clear, because they are talking about schedule 5. I am happy to leave that there and return to it separately in a moment.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Despite the Minister’s request, I would like to speak to amendments 144 to 149, which seek to address a couple of pretty serious issues: the immorality and the impracticality of the Government’s approach to the policy of pushback.
As regards Australia, the United Nations special rapporteur expressed real concern that the policy could intentionally put lives at risk. We have also seen the reports on those who lost their lives as a result of pushbacks in the Mediterranean. Clearly, the Government do not want to risk death or injury. Ministers have told us repeatedly that the objective of the legislation is to prevent drowning in the channel. Amendment 144 therefore seeks simply to put that commitment in the Bill.
I heard the Minister’s comments earlier, but a constant theme throughout our debate over the past few days has been that we identify real problems with the Bill and the Minister says, “Oh, don’t worry, we’ll sort it out.” We are trying to say, “If we’re in the same place on the issue, let’s sort it out by putting something on the face of the Bill.” Amendment 144 would do that by requiring officers not to act under powers granted by proposed new paragraph B1(2) if they risked the welfare of those on board. It would simply ensure that an officer who wants to stop a ship, board it or require it to be taken elsewhere in the UK or internationally and detained or to leave UK waters must first consider the implications for those on board. Given that we are in the same place in our intentions, I hope the Minister can accept amendment 144.
Amendment 145 addresses the issue of practicality. Clause 41 is disturbing enough in itself, but it also reflects a wider problem with the Bill. The Government are trying to talk tough and grab headlines but with proposals that are actually undeliverable and that will not solve the problem of people smuggling that we all agree needs to be tackled. We have discussed offshoring and third country returns on previous clauses, and here we are again. Amendment 145 seeks to press the Govt on the issue.
In schedule 5, proposed new paragraph B1(7) makes it clear that the Government can proceed with the policy of pushback only where the relevant territory
“is willing to receive the ship.”
So where are the agreements? Amendment 145 would require the Home Secretary simply to publish a list of states with which she has secured agreement under sub-paragraph (7) to send ships with asylum seekers to, and to do so within 30 days of Royal Assent. That is not 30 days from today; that is 30 days from Royal Assent. That is a considerable amount of time. The Government have put a lot of thought into the Bill apparently, although there seem to be a lot of last-minute amendments. The Minister has said repeatedly that he does not want to provide a running commentary on negotiations. Let me reassure him: we do not want a running commentary. We just want some indication that there are agreements, or agreements in the pipeline, but there absolutely do not seem to be any. That is key.
The Government have so far failed to secure any agreements for returning asylum seekers. Instead, they encourage rumours that they are so close to securing an agreement with one country or another, but every country that has been mentioned has slammed those rumours. Rwanda said it had no agreement with Denmark, whose Government have been condemned by the African Union —an entire continent—in the strongest terms possible. The African Union said that offshore processing amounted to “responsibility and burden shifting” and criticised European attempts to extend border control to African shores as “xenophobic and completely unacceptable.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark pointed out, the UK Government were rebuffed by Albania. The Albanian Foreign Minister told the press:
“Albania will proudly host 4,000 Afghan refugees based on its good will, but will never be a hub of anti-immigration policies of bigger and richer countries. We have instructed our Embassy in the UK to demand the retraction of this fake news.”
There are not just no agreements, but the Government are managing to offend countries around the world by implying that they are prepared to enter into agreements when they are clearly not. How many other countries are the Government deciding to burn bridges with over this issue? When will they come clean on this empty rhetoric?
Amendment 145 is intended to be helpful. We want to see transparency and, at the end of this process, to give the Government the opportunity, which they have so far failed to take, to publish the agreements they have secured. I hope that by accepting the amendment the Minister can prove us wrong in our doubts about the Government’s work in this area, and that he will agree that this information should be published well before the Bill takes effect.
Amendments 146 to 149 seek to ensure that officers adhere to the Human Rights Act 1998 and have completed relevant training before searching asylum seekers. These amendments relate to officials carrying out searches of people during maritime enforcement for documents, evidence of crime and other purposes. They seek to ensure that those officials have received training that is relevant to the task, and at all times are adhering to the Human Rights Act 1998.
As we have discussed many times in Committee, those fleeing persecution and danger to build new lives in the UK are likely to be victims of violence and trauma. They are vulnerable, and personal searches in particular could be extremely difficult or upsetting. Schedule 5 allows for officials to search a person, but forbids them to
“remove any clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves.”
That is welcome as a bare minimum, but there is no stipulation or description of what can be done in searches in private, so this amendment seeks to ensure that the Home Office designs and delivers training to officers to ensure they are sensitive to the needs of the vulnerable people they may search. Additionally, it would ensure that all those searches are conducted with consideration given to the Human Rights Act and the right to a private life, to encourage the use of these powers only in extreme circumstances and when absolutely necessary.
Again, I draw the Minister’s attention to the lived experience of those who have come to our shores. In 2015, Women for Refugee Women published a report, “I Am Human”, which details the impact of searches on those who have experienced sexual violence. The searches triggered mental health problems, flashbacks and traumatic memories because people felt handled and scared by the process. When addressing my earlier amendments, the Minister sought to reassure me on these points too, saying that the Government would of course be compliant with the Human Rights Act and would take account of all the issues I am raising—fine. So why not put that commitment on the face of the Bill?
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow my friend, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. When there are no safe and legal routes —or very few, as we have discovered throughout our many debates in this Committee—refugees will travel by unsafe means. We leave them no other choice. An estimated 40,000 refugees and other migrants died between 2014 and 2020 in the process of moving between countries, so as you said during a previous Bill Committee sitting, Ms McDonagh, we all of course want these dangerous crossings stopped.
We need to establish a network of the safe and legal routes the Government keep claiming the Bill is all about. But if it was about safe and legal routes, the Government would not be spending so much time, energy and money on introducing this so-called pushback policy for vessels found in the English channel. In the Bill, they refer to ships, but they have stretched the definition of what a ship is beyond recognition: it is now anything that appears to float. I feel the need to emphasise that for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North—I see his ears pricking up at the mention of the word “Stoke”. Given his comment that he is happy to holiday in Greece, and that refugees should therefore just stay there, he clearly thinks people are arriving here on cruise ships. He really ought to look into this issue a bit more before he casts another vote or speaks another word. The Bill specifically talks about
“any other structure (whether with or without means of propulsion)”.
That is because people are making these perilous journeys on the flimsiest of vessels, so desperate are they.
Let us not sanitise things by talking about the pushing back of boats, ships or vessels of any description. Let us call it what it is: a policy of pushing back people—human beings. That is who we are pushing back. Who are these people? They are not, as the Home Secretary disgracefully claimed yesterday, economic migrants who just want to stay in UK hotels. Several very well-respected refugee organisations have spoken to me this morning to express their anger over those words, because as the Home Secretary knows, it is not true. The Home Office itself, over which she presides, accepted that 98% of those who arrived on boats in 2019 were asylum seekers, so I repeat: it is not true.
Who are these people, then? Migrant Voice and Amnesty International, in their evidence to their Committee, said that they are often babies; children; pregnant women; people who are ill; people with physical or mental incapacities; people suffering the traumas of past slavery, torture, or the frightening journeys they are on or have taken; or people who are afraid. Guess what? Young men, with the exception of being pregnant, can also be all of those things. It is clear that it takes just one person to panic or misunderstand an instruction for lives to be in jeopardy—the lives of all those aforementioned people.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, and I am delighted that she is using the word “Stoke-on-Trent”. It is wonderful to hear it mentioned by hon. Members from across the House, and I hope that we will spend much more time talking about the city of Stoke-on-Trent.
I will discuss clause 41 and schedule 5. As we heard from His Excellency the Australian High Commissioner in the evidence session, pushback was one of a range of methods used to deter people from making the dangerous journey. There is no single approach that works on its own, and the clause adds to the raft of measures already in place. We already have in the Bill increased prison sentences and the idea that if someone enters the country illegally, it will count against their application. The clause says that if someone makes an illegal entry or attempts to do so, there could be pushback.
Of course, we acknowledge that pushbacks are not simple; they are dangerous and need to be thought through carefully. In the current legislation, pushbacks can already take place, as the Home Office has announced. There is a small legal window for that to happen, and it is up to the commander on the boat to make a decision on whether a pushback is safe to do. I believe that we should give confidence to commanders to know that this country has their back when they fulfil their duty to the people who elected the Government, and who therefore wanted the Bill delivered.
Ultimately, we know that Monsieur Macron was terrified by the threat of money not ending up in his pocket. The idea was that the French were so busy not doing their job and allowing boats to make the dangerous journey—some people in my patch would even have said that the French were aiding such crossings. It is not for me to say whether that is true—I am sure there are questions that could be answered—but, ultimately, we know it is election year in France. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk mentioned earlier today in the main Chamber that the French were seizing British maritime boats over fishing, but they are not seeking to do enough when it comes to illegal economic migrants making the dangerous journey across the English channel. We are asking that boats are pushed back to a safe place.
Let us not forget that His Excellency the Australian High Commissioner said that when the Australians were using the method of pushback, they were using military vessels to stop what they described as rickety wooden boats. We would be doing it with rubber dinghies in some cases, which means that, in his opinion, there is not as much danger to the pushback as what was undertaken by the Australian navy. That is from someone who has actually lived that experience and gone through it, and he is obviously an extinguished lawyer who understands the legal implications. Ultimately, the Government are ensuring that we add more strings to the bow in order to deter people from making illegal crossings and to try to stop people risking their lives.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I think the hon. Gentleman meant “distinguished”. To clarify the record, will he take this opportunity to correct his mistake this morning and perhaps even issue an apology to Islington Council, which he so sadly besmirched?
Jonathan Gullis
I do not believe that is in scope of the clause, but I will not apologise to Islington Council. I made it very clear that, by the end of 2020, it had not taken any refugees. Obviously, Stoke-on-Trent had taken far more. The statistics back up what I am saying, and I am more than happy to have exchanges with the hon. Gentleman on the Floor of the House at another time, if he wishes.
Anne McLaughlin
I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s circumstances; he could have 10 kids or none. We have already established that most asylum seekers have no idea where they are going. They do not decide where they are going based on the immigration and asylum policies of the country where they end up, but imagine if they did. If the hon. Gentleman was one of them and was told, “If you go through that country, you will possibly end up in jail, but if you don’t leave your country right now, you are going to end up dead,” which would he choose for his family?
Jonathan Gullis
I have one daughter and a son on the way in early February, which I am pleased to announce to the House. What a lucky father I am going to be. The hon. Lady said it—there is nothing dangerous about France, Italy or Greece. People’s lives are not at risk. They may well be in Afghanistan or Syria. People will have left those countries and made that dangerous journey, which they should not have done because there are safe and legal routes to the UK. Other countries across mainland Europe could look to us as an example. They can claim asylum in those countries and not risk their lives by crossing the channel from France to the United Kingdom.
As I said, 70% of people making that illegal crossing are men between the age of 18 and 35. Predominantly, women and children are not coming with them but staying in those dangerous countries, which is why what we did with Afghanistan and Syria was so brilliant—we took women and children from a terrorist regime that I have no time for whatsoever, who treat women as second-class citizens and force certain children into slavery. We need to ensure that those women and children are protected.
I therefore believe that we should give commanders the confidence to do that again if they believe it to be safe. It is the commanders who will make that decision, and I have full faith that they will do so knowing the law, and the legal system in this country will have their back. Most importantly, they will take into account the condition of the waters at the time and the passengers onboard, so they can decide what is safe. The French can then do what they are meant to do when boats are in French territorial waters—stick to the obligations they sign up to for the money they get from British taxpayers and take those people back.
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are so angry about what is going on that they want us to pick people up and take them straight back to Calais. I am sympathetic to their viewpoint, and that is one way to deter. This is a legal opportunity for us and the right one for the Government.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. He has shown a real insight into seafaring from Stoke-on-Trent, which we all know is a coastal town.
It will come as no surprise that we will vote against clause 41 and schedule 5. Both plan to extend and enhance the new maritime enforcement powers beyond the UK territorial waters into international waters. They seek powers to stop, board, divert and detain foreign ships and ships without nationality.
The overarching goal of clause 41 is to push back asylum seekers, and for Government to redefine ships in legal terms, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned. They broaden that definition to include fragile and insecure vessels that cross the English channel. At present, the definition of “ship” includes every description of vessel, including hovercraft, used in navigation. That definition is to be supplemented so that “ship” also includes any other structure, with or without means of propulsion, constructed or used to carry persons, goods, plant or machinery by water. To be more precise, it is referencing the small boats that cross the English channel.
The clause would grant new powers to the Home Office to stop or board ships, take them to any place on land or water in the UK or elsewhere, retain them there or require them to leave UK waters, if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a relevant immigration-related offence is being committed. The powers may be exercised in relation to a UK ship, a ship without nationality, a foreign ship or a ship registered in another British territory. In addition, extensive new enforcement powers are to be conferred in this clause, and the power to seize and dispose of ships will be conferred in schedule 5. The problem with the power to divert ships bound for the UK is that it raises profound questions about the safety and wellbeing of the people on board, and ultimately presents a risk to lives. There is no proof that the diversion of a ship would occur only where safe, no suggestion of how it would be policed and enforced, and no intention from the Government to act in accordance with international law. Such intentions are likely to be assessed meaningfully only in retrospect, once people have been harmed.
Tom Pursglove
There are a few points that I briefly want to address in concluding the debate on this clause. The first is the training that immigration officers have to undergo. I clarify again that all immigration officers have to pass the immigration foundation course to be appointed. This includes training on the Human Rights Act. Further specialist training is given to those officers working in the maritime environment, which includes vulnerability assessments in the context of human rights obligations. They will be exercising maritime powers using operational guidance that emphasises the need to take full account of relevant human rights aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Human Rights Act, in the context of safety of life at sea obligations. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central is very keen that we include this in the Bill, but I respectfully disagree. There is already an established process in place that is delivering exactly what the hon. Gentleman wants to see. We are very mindful of these obligations on an ongoing basis.
The issue of immunity has also been raised; however, these protections are nothing new. Border Force has existing powers to intercept vessels in UK territorial seas; an officer is not liable in any criminal or civil proceedings if the court is satisfied that the act was done in good faith and there were reasonable grounds for it. This provision is also included in the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and applies in other contexts. This provision follows the same approach as the Immigration Act 1971.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East raised a number of points in relation to search and rescue operations, which we had an extensive debate about during this morning’s session. Again, I make the point that this Government are absolutely committed to search and rescue operations, as would be rightly expected. That is an important function and service, and it is right that it continues to be a strong commitment. We are committed to it and that service must be provided. Again, I will emphasise that this Government will abide by their international obligations at all times.
Neil Coyle
Can the Minister be absolutely clear that no new powers, or attempts at immunity that arguably do not follow international law, are being sought? This is contrary to some of the Government reports on this issue.
Tom Pursglove
All I can say in response, is that I refer the hon. Member to what I have just said. There is an established position in relation to this; these protections are nothing new.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
I beg to move amendment 126, in schedule 5, page 73, line 23, at end insert “24B,”.
This amendment and Amendments 127 and 128 are consequential on NC20.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 127 and 128.
Clause 42 stand part.
Government amendment 124.
Government new clause 20—Working in United Kingdom waters: arrival and entry.
Tom Pursglove
As you noted, Ms McDonagh, I have spoken to various aspects of the grouping in my earlier remarks, so I do not propose repeating what I said. Amendments 126, 127 and 128 are changes to existing maritime enforcement powers to ensure that these are available in relation to illegal working offences in the UK’s territorial sea. Amendment 124 brings new clause 20 into force automatically two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent for the purpose of making regulations.
Amendment 126 agreed to.
Amendments made: 127, in schedule 5, page 73, line 31, after “(S.I. 2020/1309),” insert—
“(ba) an offence under section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006,”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 126.
Amendment 128, in schedule 5, page 73, line 37, leave out “paragraph (a) or (b)” and insert “paragraphs (a) to (ba)”.—(Tom Pursglove.)
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 126.
Amendment proposed: 144, in schedule 5, page 74, line 30, at end insert—
“provided that the relevant officer may not do any of the things mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) where they would risk the welfare or safety of persons on board the ship.”—(Paul Blomfield.)
This amendment would require officers to assess welfare risk before stopping or boarding a ship, requiring it to be taken elsewhere or requiring it to leave UK waters, and not act if doing so would exacerbate these risks.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 43, page 40, line 8, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government new clause 28—Removals: notice requirements.
Bambos Charalambous
Clause 43 refers to no-notice removals and presents another problem of access to justice in the Bill. The clause aims to provide a statutory minimum period to enable individuals to access justice prior to removal and makes provisions for removing individuals following a failed departure without the need for a further notice period. It also includes the provision of written notices of intention to remove and departure details. It makes clear in statute the duty of the Home Office to give people a maximum of five working days’ notice when they are going to be removed from the UK.
For more than 10 years, the courts have recognised that that duty to give notice of removal is essential to accessing justice and the rule of law. As the Committee will acknowledge from our discussions on the Bill so far, it is vital that, when officials decide people should be removed, those people can access the courts to challenge that decision if they have a legitimate case.
However, while this clause sets out to provide access to justice, its effectiveness in doing so is very unclear. If the purpose of the notice period is, as stated, to enable those facing removal to access legal advice and the courts, it is essential that people served with a notice are able in practice to access that advice.
For example, the clause does not explain how the Government will ensure that access to legal advice will be provided. Asylum seekers can be highly vulnerable and may experience difficulties in effectively accessing legal advice and in understanding the legal intricacies of the asylum process, such as studying legal determinations or preparing submissions. As we know from our earlier scrutiny, clause 22 in part 2 provides for up to but no more than seven hours of legal aid for those served with a priority removal notice to receive advice on their immigration status and removal. We do not believe that provision goes far enough, but this clause is worse still. Unlike the provisions for priority removal notices, there is no specific provision in part 3 for ensuring that those who are served with notice of intention to remove can access legal advice within the notice period. The scheme therefore depends on existing legal aid provision, which has of course been decimated by the Conservatives for more than a decade. There are serious limitations in the availability of this provision for those both in detention and in the community.
Subsection (8) inserts new section 10A in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It sets out potential scenarios where a further notice period is not required, which includes, for example, where the person was not removed on the date specified in the first notice due to matters reasonably beyond the control of the Secretary of State, such as adverse weather conditions, technical faults or transport delays, or disruption by the person to be removed.
Disruption is very broad of course, and can be interpreted on a very broad basis. It could be applied to a person refusing to leave their room in detention because they want to speak to their lawyer. The fine print also states that a new notice of intention to remove and a further notice period are also not required where the person was not removed on the date specified in the first notice as a result of “ongoing judicial review proceedings”.
That point is even more problematic. It applies where a planned removal does not proceed because of judicial review proceedings. If those proceedings are resolved in a way that means removal can proceed, the Home Office does not have to give any notice of removal if it is carried out within 21 days of the court’s decision.
As the Public Law Project and JUSTICE have pointed out, that decision could come weeks, months, or even years after the first notice of removal. Over time, the person’s circumstances could have changed fundamentally, important new evidence could have come to light or the situation in their own country might have changed dramatically. Such changes can happen virtually overnight, as recently witnessed in Afghanistan. Yet once the previous judicial review proceedings, which were potentially based on completely different facts and circumstances, are decided, a person can be removed without any notice or opportunity to raise these new circumstances with the Home Office or to access the court. If implemented, that could give rise to significant injustices.
I have one example to highlight this point—I thank the Public Law Project and JUSTICE for sharing this example. MLF is a Sri Lankan national whose asylum claim had been dismissed. During judicial review proceedings, in which he was unrepresented, he submitted further representations to the Home Office based on new evidence of the killing of three male relatives. That new evidence could not be considered in the judicial review proceedings because it post-dated the decision being challenged. The Home Office’s barrister informed him that the material would be forwarded to the relevant part of the Home Office for consideration.
MLF was subsequently served with a decision that refused to consider his fresh representations. He was subsequently removed to Sri Lanka on the same day without any notice or opportunity to access the court. In hiding in Sri Lanka, MLF applied for judicial review of his removal without notice. The Home Office conceded that he had been unlawfully removed and arranged for MLF to return to the UK. He has since been granted refugee status on the basis of evidence that post-dated his original appeal, including that which he had submitted during his judicial review proceedings.
If clause 43 was implemented in that case, it would have authorised the removal of MLF without notice. To avoid situations where people are wrongly removed and evidence is not considered properly, amendment 137 seeks to delete subsections (3) to (5) of new section 10A of the 1999 Act. That change would ensure that people are required to be given notice of removal directions and an opportunity to ask the court to issue an injunction preventing their removal while additional elements of their case are considered or in order to present fresh evidence to challenge an initial decision.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The shadow Minister has raised lots of sensible questions. I have one other brief question for the Minister, on new clause 28. He may not be able to answer it today, but I would like it clarified, if possible.
Proposed new section 10E to the 1999 Act that the new clause would add is supposed to apply when a person has applied for judicial review and the court has made a decision authorising the removal. To be clear, does that decision relate to the judicial review, or could it relate to any prior decision? That point will not affect lots of people, but it will be important. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer immediately, but I hope we will get clarity on that in due course.
Tom Pursglove
It may be easier if I explain that the power in amendment 137 already exists—albeit for 10 days—in published policy that is available on gov.uk. The purpose of putting the policy into statute is not to introduce a new power, as it already exists. Rather, we want to place it on a statutory basis to enable parliamentary scrutiny.
We can currently rearrange a migrant’s removal on another flight within 10 days of a failed removal without the need to give the migrant a fresh notice period. Clause 43 will increase the period to 21 days. Our recent experience during the pandemic has shown us that organising flights and complying with travel restrictions is difficult—dealing with self-isolation and rebooking escorts, for example. It is therefore entirely reasonable and sensible to allow the flexibility of 21 days to remove the migrant if the removal fails for reasons that are reasonably beyond the Secretary of State’s control.
It may be helpful to provide some examples to illustrate that point. A migrant has already had time to access justice and is due to be removed, but the flight is cancelled because of bad weather. The removal fails, but we manage to book a flight for the next day. We do not want to be in the position of having to wait another five working days before we can remove that migrant. As a second example, if a removal fails because the migrant is deliberately disruptive, that person should not be rewarded with another five working days in which they can try to defer their removal further. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate to withdraw his amendment.
To pick up on the point about access to legal aid during the notice period, migrants who are detained in immigration removal centres during the notice period will have access to the free legal advice surgery.
New clause 28 replaces clause 43 in its entirety. Our expert drafters have advised that it is better to do it that way because the text flows better and it is easier to navigate.
Unfortunately, migrants subject to enforced removal often wait until the last minute to challenge their removal from the UK. Consequently, flights are cancelled and removals are inevitably delayed at great cost to the taxpayer. We think it right that migrants subject to enforced removal must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to access justice. The sole purpose of the notice period is to give migrants time to seek legal advice. That is the rationale underpinning the clause.
Our current policy is complicated. Some migrants are given a minimum notice period of 72 hours, while others are given five working days. Calculating when the 72 hours start and end is confusing. They must include at least two working days, and the last 24 hours must include a working day. Evidently, there is scope for simplifying the process and making it consistent across the board. New clause 28 will do just that by placing in statute a single statutory minimum notice period of five working days for migrants. The new clause requires us to serve a written notice of intention to remove, setting out the notice period. Before the migrant can be removed, we must serve a written notice of departure details containing the date of removal.
A limited exception to the single statutory notice period relates to port cases. Migrants who are refused entry at the border can be removed within seven days without receiving a notice period. It is unlikely that they would have developed ties to the UK within that week.
The clause will create more clarity for Home Office staff, legal representatives and migrants. Migrants will know how long they have to access justice—in fact, some will have more time to access justice—and will therefore have fewer excuses to frustrate removal.
To be clear, we are not reintroducing removal windows, which were found to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal. Under the new clause, the migrant cannot be removed during the notice period. If the removal is cancelled or deferred because the migrant raises a fresh or further claim, a fresh notice period must be given before removal can proceed. Individuals will also be given a fresh notice period if there is a change to the previously notified destination or route, unless the place of transit is in a safe country.
The new clause provides that migrants can be removed within 21 days of a failed removal that was caused by their disruption. In such circumstances, a further notice period is not required because the migrant has already had sufficient opportunity to access justice, which is entirely reasonable when there are no significant changes to the migrant’s circumstances. That is in our current published policy but with a timescale of 10 days. Extending the time from 10 to 21 days will give us more time to rearrange removal.
The pandemic has highlighted the fact that organising escorts and rebooking flights cannot always be turned around quickly. Migrants frequently challenge their removal by way of judicial review, and of course that is their right. As per the clause, once a court decides that the migrant can be removed, we can remove them within 21 days without a fresh notice period. The migrant has already had time to access justice, and the removal decision has been subject to judicial scrutiny. There is no justification for further time.
Bambos Charalambous
We are not convinced by the Minister’s response and wish to press amendment 137 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Neil Coyle
I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 44, page 41, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) A prisoner who arrived in the United Kingdom before their tenth birthday is not eligible for removal from the United Kingdom under subsection (1).”
This amendment would prevent deportation as an FNO for those who arrived in the UK before their tenth birthday, in line with the age of criminal responsibility.
The amendment is not down in my name; it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, who has an urgent constituency engagement. Forgive me if I am not as eloquent as my hon. Friend. I will try to do justice to his amendment.
In recent months and years we have seen a multitude of cases of individuals who have lived in the UK almost all of their lives, and in some cases were even born here, being deported as a result of past convictions. The amendment seeks to prevent that happening if the individual came to the UK before the age of 10, the age at which the UK deems one becomes criminally liable for their actions. Assuming that the age at which criminal liability kicks in is the age at which we believe someone starts to become at least partly responsible for their actions, why should their previous country of residence change how they are dealt with in the criminal justice system years or decades down the line? My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central has provided a case study.
We hear of cases such as that of Sam Trye, who was born within sight of this room, just over the river in St Thomas’ Hospital, where my daughter was born and where perhaps the son of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North will be born. We might not agree on many things, not least a scattergun approach to facts, but I congratulate him on his news, which I hope his wife gave permission for him to share before breaking it to us this morning. I hope our children have better life chances than Sam was afforded because he has since served a prison sentence for a non-violent crime, and the Home Office has been trying to deport him to Sierra Leone, from where his family moved to the UK. Despite Sam being born in the UK, he is treated differently as he lacks birthright citizenship. He has two British children and cares for his mum here in London, so his right to family life is therefore well established.
There is a question here about the UK’s responsibility. When a child is born here and has been through our education system and our support services, and has grown up British in every sense, we have a duty to ensure that if they commit a crime, the British state takes responsibility for that individual. It is nonsensical to deport those who have never known another country, who came to the UK before they were ever criminally liable in UK law, let alone an adult with full independence and responsibility.
That issue was raised during the Windrush report, and by Sir Stephen Shaw in his 2016 “Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons” and his 2018 follow-up progress report. Sir Stephen stated:
“I found during my visits across the immigration estate that a significant proportion of those deemed FNOs had grown up in the UK, some having been born here but the majority having arrived in very early childhood. These detainees often had strong UK accents, had been to UK schools, and all of their close family and friends were based in the UK… Many had no command of the language of the country to which they were to be ‘returned’, or any remaining family ties there… The removal of these individuals raises real ethical issues. Not only does their removal break up families in this country, and put them at risk in countries of which they have little or no awareness. It is also questionable how far it is fair to developing countries, without the criminal justice infrastructure of the UK, for one of the richest nations on earth to export those whose only chance of survival may be by way of further crime.”
Sir Stephen’s recommendation 33 was that
“The Home Office should no longer routinely seek to remove those who were born in the UK or have been brought up here from an early age.”
That recommendation has been routinely ignored by Ministers, but we do know that the Government accept that premise in specific circumstances, so there is a precedent. Last year, when there was an outcry over their attempted deportation of people to Jamaica, the Government reached a private agreement with the Jamaican high commission that it would not deport those who came to the UK under the age of 12. When there were further charter flights this year, despite Ministers refusing to answer parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central on the subject, as they wanted to hush up the agreement, we know that when the flights departed, no one who came to the UK under the age of 12 was on board. So which other countries does the Minister have other such agreements with, and which other countries are negotiating with him or others in the Government to secure such agreements? If the Minister has an agreement with Jamaica, which we know is sensible, why will he not make it a blanket policy? I invite him to respond if he can.
The amendment reflects British values, in the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, and it take steps to enact Sir Stephen Shaw’s recommendations. I urge the Government to accept it.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for raising these important issues. Amendment 143 aims to prevent the deportation of a foreign national offender where they arrived in the UK before the age of 10. The clause enables the removal of a relevant prisoner at an earlier point in their sentence. The amendment would exempt FNOs who arrived in the UK before the age of 10 from the provision enabling them to be removed at an earlier point in their sentence, but it would not exempt them from deportation. I cannot see a rationale for exempting FNOs who arrived in the UK before the age of 10 from the provision enabling them to be removed at an earlier point in their sentence, given that they will still be liable to deportation at the end of the custodial part of their sentence if they have not been removed earlier.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark stated that the purpose for the amendment is to align the age on arrival in the UK at which an exemption to deportation applies with the age of criminal responsibility. Almost all foreign national offenders that the Government deport from the UK have committed offences since they were adults. It does not make sense to provide an exception based on the age of criminal responsibility. Unlike England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12.
Neil Coyle
I am keen to explore this on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central. Will the Minister tell us more about the arrangement with Jamaica, and those with any other countries? He says that it would not make sense to have such an arrangement, but there is an existing one with a country. Perhaps he can tell us more about that specific arrangement, and any other countries we have entered into similar arrangements with.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful for that question. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central is not here. I promised earlier to write to Committee members on the RNLI issue. I will make sure that this issue is addressed in that letter, particularly so that the hon. Gentleman can see that information in its full context, given that he is unable to be here because of a constituency commitment.
The amendment is too broad in scope. It does not define what is meant by “arrived in” the UK. This could include anyone who visited the UK for a short period or who arrived here clandestinely, as well as those who have been lawfully resident here since the age of 10. It is technically deficient and, I argue, wrong in principle. I also refer hon. Members to the requirements under the UK Borders Act 2007, passed under the previous Labour Government. For these reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Neil Coyle
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 8—Prisoners liable to removal from the United Kingdom.
Tom Pursglove
Clause 44 is one of the six clauses drafted as placeholder clauses at the Bill’s introduction. As indicated in the Bill’s explanatory notes and the memorandum for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it was drafted as such in the interests of transparency, to make clear our intention to bring forward substantive provisions on the early removal scheme. New clause 8 is intended to replace clause 44.
New clause 8 forms part of a package of measures that will enable the swift removal of those who have no right to be in the UK. By expanding the existing early removal scheme and increasing the removal window from nine months to 12 months, we will have greater opportunity to remove as many foreign national offenders from the UK as early as possible. However, to ensure that those sentenced by the courts are not simply let off their sentence, and to maintain public confidence in the justice system, removal under the scheme is subject to at least half of the custodial period of the sentence—the “requisite custodial period”—being served in prison. The knowledge that offenders will serve punishment for their crime in prison and will be removed from prison and the UK before they have an opportunity to be released on licence will provide comfort for victims.
The new clause will also mean that eligible foreign national offenders can be removed at any point in their sentence provided they have served the requisite custodial period and are within 12 months of their earliest release point. Presently, the scheme does not permit removal for those foreign national offenders who are serving a recall—FNOs who have been released into the community after serving their custodial sentence and subsequently recalled to custody for breaching that licence. The new clause brings them into scope.
The new clause also serves to deter foreign national offenders who have already been deported once from returning to the UK through the introduction of a stop-the-clock provision. Should a foreign national offender ever return to the UK after being removed, they will be liable to immediate arrest and return to custody to serve the remainder of the custodial period of their sentence. This is in addition to a maximum 5-year prison sentence that may be imposed for returning in breach of a deportation order.
Bambos Charalambous
The Government will disagree to clause 44 and replace it with new clause 8, although I understand that new clause 8 has fundamentally the same principle as the clause. Clause 44 and new clause 8 will extend the length of time a foreign national offender can be considered for early removal from the last nine months to the last 12 months of their sentence if they become eligible for the scheme. The Opposition have concerns that increasing that time limit will lead to unfairness in accessing justice for foreign national offenders as well as leaving them with inadequate time to obtain access to legal representation.
In our already overpopulated and overworked prison system, foreign national offenders have limited access to legal support and resources even when compared with people detained in immigration detention centres. They have no access to mobile phones or the internet. In the limited time that they do have access to a phone, the contacts they can call are vetted by the prison and this process can take many weeks. Thus, acquiring adequate legal representation becomes near impossible. Time is of the essence to these individuals and increasing this early removal widow will only lead to exacerbating these difficulties.
Bail for Immigration Detainees produced a report in 2017 on the lack of legal advice available to prisoners, which found that only five of the 86 prison detainees surveyed had received independent advice about their immigration case. They found that detainees in prison are routinely denied access to basic information that might help their immigration case. Cuts to legal aid have only made this situation worse. The High Court earlier this year held that detainees in prison have suffered discriminatory treatment due to obstacles in getting legal advice—in particular, exemptions from legal aid eligibility.
Despite what high-profile recent Home Office failings might imply, when it comes to deportations the already heavily stacked deck is stacked against the deportee. Not having proper legal representation means that the detainees will almost certainly be denied the fundamental right to a fair hearing. It would mean that they could be deported to countries in which they face persecution, or it would be in breach of their human rights. We should not undermine that right by extending the length of time they have for removal. Charities such as Bail for Immigration Detainees are already stretched to breaking point trying to support these vulnerable individuals. Instead of limiting access to justice, the Government should work on increasing its efficiency so that foreign national offenders who have committed serious crimes are dealt with swiftly and those who have claims to remain are given a fair hearing.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 44 disagreed to.
Clause 45
Matters relevant to decisions relating to immigration bail
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
For too long, individuals with no right to remain in the UK, including foreign criminals, have been gaming the system in order to get released from detention and frustrate their removal. We have seen individuals making asylum claims while in detention, but then delaying the resolution of that claim through their own deliberate actions, such as refusing to be interviewed. The current system incentivises non-compliant behaviour. By creating obstacles, bail is more likely to be granted due to the time it will take to resolve the claim and any subsequent appeals. It is not right that a person’s non-compliance enables their release.
Similarly, an individual may refuse to provide fingerprints for a travel document or may lie about their true nationality, thereby obstructing the returns documentation process. This again makes the prospect of removal more remote and increases the likelihood that bail may be granted. From an operational perspective, non-compliance is difficult to tackle and becomes much harder to counter once individuals are released from detention into the community, where they have the ability to abscond or continue with non-compliance. Therefore, eliminating the risk and impact of non-compliance is a key benefit that arises from the use of immigration detention if appropriate in the individual case.
We must have an immigration system that encourages compliance. The purpose of clause 45 is to ensure that, so far as possible, appropriate weight is given to evidence that a person has not been co-operative with the immigration or returns processes without reasonable excuse when making immigration bail decisions. This is currently not explicitly referenced as one of the specific mandatory criteria for considering whether to grant immigration bail.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister did seem to accept that all those factors can be taken into account already if they are relevant to the question of whether the person is going to be removed in a reasonable time or whether they will abscond. Surely those are the only two questions. This is not necessary at all and seeks to use immigration detention as a form of punishment.
Tom Pursglove
I do not accept that depiction. We are requiring decision makers to take into account co-operation with removal proceedings and immigration processes when considering applications for immigration bail. We are mindful that non-compliance may already be considered, and that the tribunal takes such behaviour into account when deciding whether to grant bail. However, the intention behind the provision is that there be the same focus on evidence of non-compliant behaviour as there is on those factors already particularised and considered in every case. As we have always made clear, we do not detain indefinitely, and the clause will not mean that people will be detained solely due to non-compliance, as there must always be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale.
Bambos Charalambous
We will oppose the clause. It makes it more difficult for individuals to get bail and leaves them stranded in immigration detention indefinitely.
The clause would require decision makers to consider previous failure “to cooperate with” certain immigration processes when considering whether to grant immigration bail. That is extremely vague and broad language. There is a risk of it being misconstrued and used to penalise those who use their legal rights to resist or appeal against immigration decisions made against them.
The Public Law Project has stated that if detainees are given the impression that any resistance to a decision of the Home Office may be held against them, it would increase unfairness and have a significant chilling effect on those bringing legitimate legal challenge. There is already an uneven playing field; the clause risks tipping things still further in the Home Office’s favour. The Home Office is expanding its powers of detention, while preventing independent judicial oversight of its decisions to detain.
Immigration detention is a harsh measure. It has no time limit and little judicial oversight, and should be used only when necessary and for the shortest time possible. The Government hold vulnerable people in prison-like immigration detention centres for periods ranging from days to several years. That includes people who have lived in the UK since childhood, people fleeing war and persecution, torture survivors and victims of human trafficking. Such vulnerabilities cannot be managed in detention and will no doubt be worsened by the prospect of bail being denied.
Since 2000, 49 people have died in immigration detention centres, and incidents of self-harm are now recorded at more than one a day. The Home Office’s immigration detention facilities are not fit for purpose, and narrowing the availability of immigration bail will only make the situation worse.
The uncertainty of indefinite detention is cruel not only for the detainee, but for family members waiting for them at home. Research by Bail for Immigration Detainees, which helps 3,500 detainees to apply for bail every year, shows that children of detainees are often British citizens, and suffer a range of physical and mental effects due to separation from their parent. Those are compounded by further, unexpected separation. For those children, cutting off the prospect of bail will lead to further mental ill health and suffering.
The majority of people in detention do not need to be there. More than 60% of people taken into detention are eventually released, their detention having served no purpose, at a cost of £76 million a year, according to Matrix Evidence research. BID has said that the Home Office repeatedly breaks the law and detains people unlawfully. In the past two years, the Home Office has paid out £15.1 million to 584 people whom it had detained unlawfully.
The clause will make it tougher for people to get bail and leave them trapped in detention for longer. The Government have committed to reducing detention, but this measure is counter to their own rhetoric. It means less justice for detainees, more harm for vulnerable refugees and more wasted costs for the taxpayer. That is why Labour opposes the clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
As I said in my intervention on the Minister, the decision has to be based on whether there is a reasonable prospect of imminent removal, and included in that is the question of the likelihood of the person absconding if bail is granted. If any historical non-compliance has any sort of relation to that question—if it is relevant—the tribunal will obviously already be able to take it into account. Today, the Minister is asking us to tell the decision makers to take into account historical non-compliance even where it has absolutely no bearing, in the decision maker’s view, on the fundamental question of whether someone should be interned. That is moving from weighing up those considerations in the question about removal to using detention almost as a form of punishment. It is completely unjustified, and I echo what the shadow Minister has said.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 170, in clause 46, page 41, line 41, leave out “, before the specified date,”.
This amendment would remove the hard deadline for compliance for persons who have made protection claims or human rights claims to comply with a slavery or trafficking information notice.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 169, in clause 46, page 42, line 4, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) Subsection (5) applies if the recipient of a slavery or trafficking information notice does not provide the Secretary of State or competent authority with relevant status information within a reasonable period of time.
(5) The Secretary of State must provide recipients with an ongoing opportunity to explain why they did not provide the relevant status information within a reasonable period of time (and see section 47).”
This amendment would remove the hard deadline for compliance for persons who have made protection claims or human rights claims to comply with a slavery or trafficking information notice.
Amendment 171, in clause 46, page 42, leave out lines 13 and 14.
This is a consequential amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
Clause 46 brings us on to part 4 of the Bill, which relates to modern slavery. I will make a few general points in this debate, which will save me from having to repeat them in later debates. They are relevant to the clause and the amendment, and to other ones as well.
My first point is: why is modern slavery in a Bill that relates to immigration and border enforcement? The fact that it is included betrays the Government’s motivation. It is not about protecting survivors or addressing the huge difficulties victims face in accessing protection and support. Rather, this has to do with border enforcement functions and is based on unevidenced assertions of abuse. It is important to remember that people cannot refer themselves to the national referral mechanism as a potential victim of slavery; they have to be referred into it. The majority of referrals come from the Home Office and the police. In the overwhelming majority of cases— nine in 10—the NRM results in positive and conclusive decisions. None of this is evidence of any sort of abuse.
This part of the Bill also pre-empts the review of the modern slavery strategy that is supposed to be happening. The proposals are all largely absent from the new plan that was published earlier this year, and they have not been consulted on—certainly not with trafficking survivors. Efforts to tackle the traffickers will suffer as a result of the lack of consultation and engagement. When we debate these clauses, let us also remember that a huge number of survivors are British citizens.
The real problem that we face with trafficking is encouraging people to come forward. That is partly because of the power that traffickers have over their victims, partly because of the trauma that victims have suffered, and partly because we are not doing enough to enable them to feel sure that they will have protection. Too often the experience of the NRM process is that people are re-traumatised and left in limbo waiting for a decision, often for years and without any right to work. Even when they are recognised as trafficking or slavery survivors, as the vast majority are, they are given no leave to remain and are subject to removal. It is little wonder that while some expert groups reckon that there could 100,000 or more modern slavery victims in the UK, we conclusively identify around just 3,000 or so each year. Instead of fixing that, the clause and others in this part of the Bill will make things worse.
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there will be a clause stand part debate later. If he could concentrate on the amendments in this group, that would be good.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am happy to do that, Ms McDonagh.
I will not repeat the arguments that I have already made about why it is wrong for Parliament to tell decision makers how to assess evidence that they see, but that we never will—I have done that already in relation to other notices. I simply make the point that putting in place deadlines for disclosure and punishments for missing them is especially dangerous and counterproductive for victims of trafficking.
Tom Pursglove
Before turning to part 4, which deals with modern slavery, I would like to make a declaration of interest. In October, prior to my appointment as Minister, I ran the London marathon and raised funds for the Mintridge Foundation, which encourages young people to get into sport, and Justice and Care, a charity that works to tackle modern slavery. I make the declaration in the interests of complete transparency and for the information of the Committee.
I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and for Glasgow North East for the amendment. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised important questions about the purpose of the slavery and risk trafficking notice.
The clause forms part of our approach to expanding the one-stop process to include modern slavery through the establishment of a new slavery and trafficking information notice. We have already debated the one-stop process, so I will not repeat that discussion, but the aim of the process is to identify possible victims as early as possible and ensure they receive the support they need. To best achieve that, we also need to discourage misuse of the system by stating our expectations and stipulating the consequences of non-compliance with the process.
That being said, let me reassure hon. Members that the clause has safeguards built in, and decision makers will consider each case on its grounds. To seek to remove the deadline stipulated by the slavery or trafficking information notice, as suggested by amendment 170, would go against the approach I have outlined. Without a deadline, the Government would be unable to seek the information up front that supports speedier decision making. Equally, changing a “specified” time to
“a reasonable period of time”
would provide less certainty to victims and decision makers on what is required. That would be detrimental to the victim identification process and goes against what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.
The ability to identify victims at the earliest opportunity is fundamental to our ability to support them. The clause is part of a wider process of much-needed change to the system to enable quicker decision making and reduce opportunities for misuse of the system, which takes valuable resources from victims. To deliver on that aim, it is right that we specify the time period in which information should be given, so that there is a connection to the consequences of late provision. As I have already set out, that does not mean that late claims will not be considered; any individual who brings a late claim for a good reason will be treated as if the claim were made in time. That will enable us to strike the right balance between preventing misuse and focusing resources on victims. For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
We share the same goal, which is identifying victims. Unfortunately, every single trafficking organisation that has got in touch with us has said that putting these hard and fast deadlines in the Bill will make that harder, rather than easier. We will probably end up voting against this clause, but in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 172, in clause 46, page 41, line 42, at end insert—
“(2A) The requirement in subsection (2) does not apply in relation to anything that the slavery or trafficking information notice recipient has previously provided to the Secretary of State or any other competent authority.”
This amendment would ensure a recipient of a slavery or trafficking information notice does not need to provide information that has already been submitted to the Secretary of State or any other competent authority.
This amendment makes a short and simple, but important, point. Requesting the same information that has already been disclosed could be needlessly re-traumatising for a victim of modern slavery or trafficking, so the simple question is whether the Minister can assure us that that will not be made necessary under clause 46. The clause seems to envisage that trafficking information notices could be served on someone who has already had a positive reasonable grounds decision. Can the Minister confirm whether that is right, and if so, why that would be necessary? As it stands, the clause calls for “any” information that might be relevant for the purposes of making a decision on reasonable or conclusive grounds. Surely there will be no penalty if information already provided is not once again provided in response to the notice being served.
Tom Pursglove
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment. I reassure Members that the clause already has safeguards built in, and it is clear that decision makers will consider each case on its grounds. I appreciate the consideration given to the provision of information, and the recommendation that the clause should stipulate that information provided previously to the competent authority should not be included. However, the amendment is not needed. Decision makers in the competent authority will consider all information provided to them. Credibility considerations connected to lateness will, by implication, apply only where information has not been provided within a specified time period and without good reasons, which will be made clear in guidance. For that reason, I respectfully invite the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which I will go away and consider. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 184, in clause 46, page 42, line 3, at end insert—
“(3A) Any slavery or trafficking information notice must be accompanied by information regarding the Secretary of State’s obligations to identify and support potential victims of modern slavery and trafficking.”
This amendment would ensure that potential victims are given information regarding their rights at the same time the notice is served.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I commend the Minister on having run the London marathon for Justice and Care, which does invaluable work.
We are supportive of the previous Scottish National party amendments to clause 46, which were outlined by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. If we achieve nothing else this afternoon, I did promise the SNP spokesperson that I would work on being able to pronounce his constituency in time for our debates on the Bill, having managed to avoid doing so entirely during the passage of last year’s Immigration Act. I hope he will recognise those efforts.
With your permission, Chair, I will come back to clause 46 more broadly during the stand part debate. Our amendment follows a damning letter sent by 60 charities from across the human trafficking and modern slavery sector. They seeks to mitigate the effects of a Bill that they claim
“will have a disastrous impact on the UK’s response to modern slavery.”
In the light of the series of recommendations in that letter, amendment 184 would require any slavery or trafficking information notice to be
“accompanied by information regarding the Secretary of State’s obligations to identify and support potential victims of modern slavery and trafficking.”
We have serious concerns about both clauses 46 and 47, but these trafficking information notices are a new initiative, and should be accompanied by a full explanation of why the questions are being asked and what rights and support a potential victim of trafficking should be entitled to. The Government have placed significant emphasis on the need to reduce the time taken for victims to be identified, and on ensuring they receive the correct support package at the earliest opportunity. We strongly share that objective, so the requirement for information to be provided at the same time as the notice is served seeks to address any uncertainty and anxieties a potential victim may have.
Furthermore, it is critical that a trafficking notice is served with an assessment and awareness of risks and victims’ needs, as they can be incredibly wide-ranging, and that assessment and awareness can be essential for safeguarding purposes. Some victims will not have English as their first language, and some may have limited literacy skills. They will need access to the correct translator and there should be recognition of any special educational needs. That reinforces the need for each case to be evaluated sensitively.
We seek to ensure that the basic entitlement to information is met. It is important to recognise that in cases of modern slavery, many first responders and expert witnesses have found that victims interviewed often have so little knowledge of the national referral mechanism that they do not know if they are, or have been, in the NRM. Victims being unable to self-identify and limited awareness of how to navigate the NRM are consistent issues, and we will return to them under other clauses in part 4. Amendment 184 seeks to mitigate potential restrictions to the NRM, and is a sensible suggestion, and I hope that the Minister sees its merit.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate, and for Halifax, for tabling the amendment, and the hon. Member for Halifax for setting out the case for it. Clause 46 forms part of our expansion of the one-stop process to include modern slavery through the establishment of a new slavery and trafficking information notice.
Amendment 184 is not required, as the Government are providing mechanisms in the Bill to ensure that potential victims are fully aware of their rights and the Secretary of State’s obligations to them, including the right to free legal aid where appropriate. Information on the Secretary of State’s obligations to victims will be provided to individuals when a slavery or trafficking information notice is issued. These measures will ensure that potential victims better understand the national referral mechanism and their support entitlements.
In combination with clause 46, clauses 54 and 55 seek to ensure that individuals are provided with advice on the national referral mechanism when they receive advice on asylum and immigration matters. That will enable more victims of modern slavery to be referred, identified and properly supported.
Primary legislation on the process of providing information to possible victims is not required, and while I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, it would duplicate what happens through clauses 46, 54 and 55. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Halifax is content to withdraw the amendment. We have had a pretty good debate on clause 46, so I hope that it can stand part of the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I am somewhat reassured by the Minister’s remarks. I hope that he will inform Committee members when the draft notices have been finalised; we will continue to keep a close eye on that matter. We will not push the amendment to a vote, but given what the Minister said about the clause, I might move on now to my speech on clause stand part.
Holly Lynch
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I have some broader remarks on the clause, which we do not intend to support. I thank colleagues right across the human trafficking and modern slavery sector for their professional expertise, and their assistance with our scrutiny of the proposals before us.
As was said in the evidence sessions, and by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, part 4 came as a surprise to many; they had not anticipated its proposals, which were wrapped up in an otherwise very heavily trailed piece of immigration legislation. There are no two ways about it: part 4 is a backward step after the hard-won progress of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Every Child Protected Against Trafficking was scathing about it in its briefing; it said there had been a complete lack of due process when it came to these elements of this primary legislation, and that for that reason, parliamentary scrutiny of them would be even more urgent and important. The Children’s Society has been explicit in saying that part 4 of the Bill should be removed entirely. It has described the Bill as
“an affront to the Government’s own recognition that identifying victims of modern slavery or human trafficking is a safeguarding, not immigration matter. Consequently, not only will this Bill have unjust and dire impacts on children and young people who have fled to this country seeking safety and protection, it will particularly harm children if they are then also trafficked or exploited.”
That is a stark warning to us all.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will be brief, given what I said in support of the amendment. All the anti-trafficking organisations that got in touch with us—60 or so—said that this clause could cause huge problems. I am not clear at all what issue the Government think it will resolve. What is the problem they are striving to tackle? It has not been outlined at all. All hon. Members agree that we need to identify more victims, but as the hon. Member for Halifax said, this will do the opposite and make it harder, not easier.
Tom Pursglove
It might assist the Committee if I say a little more. I am not concerned about covering ground that we may have already covered if it helps to clarify matters further and to put beyond any doubt the Government’s undertaking.
The purpose of clause 46 is to ensure that genuine victims of modern slavery are identified at the earliest possible opportunity, so that they can get the support they need to recover from their exploitation. The clause is part of the measures that seek to expand the current one-stop process to include modern slavery through the establishment of the new slavery and trafficking information notice, which can be issued alongside the new evidence notice introduced by clause 16.
Asylum and human rights claimants will need to provide relevant information relating to being a victim of modern slavery or trafficking within a specified period and, if providing information outside that period, set out a statement of their reasons for doing so. The slavery and trafficking notice aims to help identify possible victims at the earliest opportunity, to ensure that they receive appropriate support. It also aims to ensure that those who are not genuine victims are identified at the earliest possible stage.
The clause is underpinned by access to legal advice to help individuals understand whether they are a potential victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, and to support a referral into the national referral mechanism if that is the case. The clause works in tandem with clause 47, which sets out the impact of not providing information in good time without a good reason, such as the effects of trauma. Individuals will also be made aware from the start that if they fail to disclose information, save for good reason, their credibility may be damaged. We will set out our approach in guidance, giving decision makers the tools to recognise the impact of exploitation and trauma, and ensuring any changes to processes resulting from those measures are designed to take full account of the impact of trauma on victims of modern slavery. We intend to work with the sector to develop the guidance around that. I hope that will give Members confidence that the views and experiences of those groups will be taken into account when developing the guidance.
Neil Coyle
Perhaps the Minister could name one of the expert organisations that support the inclusion of clause 46 or 47. As it stands, the vast majority of organisations in the sector oppose the inclusion of those measures. It is all very well the Minister saying he will impose a requirement on the sector to work with the Government on that guidance, but they are saying categorically that they do not want the clauses.
Tom Pursglove
I think the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my point. I was not saying there was any intention to impose a requirement on the sector to work with Government to develop the guidance, but undoubtedly we would welcome the input of the sector, which has a lot of experience and knowledge. We think there is a genuine issue that we need to address. The point I have made several times is that we want people to access the help they need when they need it as quickly as possible.
Stuart C. McDonald
The sector would have preferred to have been consulted on the clause. The key problem it has is what happens if someone has gone past that deadline. This scheme puts real pressure on that person not to disclose at all, because they will fear that the regime will lead to their being disbelieved. That is a fundamental problem. Consulting after the clause is already on the statute book will not fix that.
Tom Pursglove
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s broader interpretation of the situation. We want to identify and help genuine victims as quickly as possible. I would expect cases to be looked at appropriately and individually to ensure that is exactly what happens. There was also a question of whether victims will receive a slavery and trafficking information notice before getting a reasonable grounds decision? Yes, we want to identify victims as soon as possible.
Holly Lynch
The Minister had, and I am eternally grateful to him for giving way.
It does worry me somewhat that, as I understand it, those decision makers at the Home Office would ordinarily make reasonable grounds decisions very quickly in order to facilitate a swift entry into the NRM. If that will no longer be the case and we will be issuing notices, bearing in mind what we have discussed about trauma and victims taking time to disclose it, that could introduce significant delays for a victim entering the NRM. That really worries me. Could the Minister say any more to assure us that we will not be preventing victims from accessing the support they need by introducing that additional process?
Tom Pursglove
I would expect cases to be looked at on an appropriate case-by-case basis that properly takes into account all of the relevant circumstances. It might be advantageous if, in my note to the Committee, I include some commentary on how we expect the process to work, to set that out for Members in more detail and make sure there is no confusion.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move amendment 190, in clause 47, page 42, line 19, at end insert—
“(aa) the person was 18 or over at the time of the incident or incidents in respect of which the slavery or trafficking information notice was issued;”.
This amendment seeks to ensure those exploited as children are not penalised for late disclosures.
The amendment seeks to ensure that those who were exploited as children are not penalised for late disclosure, because of their age-related vulnerability and safeguarding concerns. Statutory guidance under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 very clearly states:
“Whatever form it takes, modern slavery and child trafficking is child abuse and relevant child protection procedures…must be followed if modern slavery or trafficking is suspected.”
There is a remarkable lack of distinction between children and adults in the proposals set out in the Bill. That issue was picked up by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who commented in her letter to the Home Secretary in September on the lack of detail on provisions for children.
This is the first in a series of amendments to clauses in part 4 of the Bill that seek to ensure that the worst elements of part 4 do not apply to children. As we know, the Children’s Society has been deeply critical of the Bill and of clause 47 in particular, arguing that the clause will disproportionately and unjustly affect children and young people, who we know are often unable to disclose evidence
“because of the trauma of their experiences, or due to inadequate legal representation.”
Putting the responsibility of disclosure on to a child victim of slavery or trafficking in order to comply with a pre-determined Home Office timeframe, so that they can access the support they need to escape slavery or trafficking, is a perverse barrier. Surely that is not what the Minister intends to achieve. If it is not, I urge him to adopt amendment 190 to make that clear.
In its written evidence, Every Child Protected Against Trafficking points to a 10% increase in the number of children identified as potential victims of trafficking from 2019 to 2020. There were 4,946 referrals last year. That is why we must recognise children within the NRM as requiring a different approach from that required by adults. I return to the point that child protection procedures must be followed as outlined in the modern slavery guidance. Nowhere does that feature in this part of the Bill.
ECPAT makes the point that child trafficking is a form of child abuse and that identifying child victims of trafficking is a safeguarding matter, not an immigration one—not least because so many children in the NRM are British citizens. However, we have a responsibility to any child victim of trafficking to protect them from exploitation, first and foremost. To put the burden of proof on to a traumatised child with trafficking information notices is not right; nor, I suspect, would it comply with various other safeguarding obligations.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for Halifax and for Enfield, Southgate for setting out their case, and for tabling this amendment. I appreciate their consideration of this clause and their concern for a vulnerable group of individuals. Ensuring that clause 47 enables decision makers to take account of individuals’ vulnerabilities is fundamental to our approach. That is why we have included the condition of good reasons, and we will ensure decision makers have the flexibility and discretion to appropriately consider them without prejudicing what that should cover.
What constitutes “good reasons” has purposely not been defined in the Bill. The detail on how to apply good reasons will be set out in guidance for decision makers. This will give decision makers the tools, for instance, to recognise that the age at which traumatic events took place may affect an individual’s ability to accurately recall, share or recognise such events, while maintaining a case-by-case approach. Doing so in guidance will ensure that we also have the flexibility to update and add to the range of considerations undertaken by a decision maker in exercising discretion. To create a carve-out for one group of individuals, as amendment 190 seeks to do, would undermine this approach and create a two-tiered system based on the age at which exploitation may have taken place.
I am sure that this is not the intention of the hon. Member for Halifax, but this amendment could also incentivise individuals to put forward falsified referrals regarding the timing of exploitation to delay removal action. Our approach avoids this potential avenue for misuse, but still allows for important considerations regarding the age of the victim to be looked at. Indeed, reasonable grounds decision making already takes account of the specific vulnerabilities of children by, for instance, not requiring there to be any means of exploitation when establishing whether an individual is a victim.
We believe that the right approach is to provide more detail in guidance on the varied and complicated reasons that may constitute good reasons. These will include the age when the exploitation took place, but a wider range of potential reasons and indicators will also be considered to avoid focusing specifically on one victim cohort. This approach will allow decision makers to consider each case on its merits, whilst considering all the information relevant to their case without prejudging it. To do otherwise would not be appropriate or fair to all victims. Again, I hope that the sector will work with Government to shape those guidelines and ensure that they are right. For these reasons, I respectfully invite the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
Holly Lynch
I am concerned by some of the Minister’s response. He says that children, and the age of the victim, will be a consideration within good reasons. However, once again we have not got that guidance; it has not been nailed down, so we have no assurances of how the detail will look. He also says that it would not be appropriate to have a different approach for victims based on their age. However, I think that would be entirely responsible and appropriate, and we look to do so throughout a whole range of legislation and legislative approaches. I think it would be a responsible requirement to place on the Government. With that in mind, I will press amendment 190 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 173, in clause 47, page 42, line 21, leave out—
“or a conclusive grounds decision”
This amendment would disapply this section when a conclusive grounds decision is being made (i.e. when a reasonable grounds decision will already have been made).
The amendment is designed to allow us to question how the new process will interplay with the NRM process, and to establish how long the notice period in the new process will be, so it is another short but important point. The amendment would disapply the section on credibility if a reasonable grounds decision is made. It is even less clear what sensible case can be made for the use of a trafficking information notice if sufficient information has already been provided to justify such a reasonable grounds decision.
Depending on how the system operates, and given the huge delays in making conclusive grounds decisions, the following scenario could play out. A person receives a reasonable grounds decision and is referred to the NRM process. That person makes a claim for protection, and the Secretary of State then serves them with a trafficking information notice. Full disclosure takes time because of their circumstances. The person is better placed to disclose much more information after the deadline for the trafficking information notice has passed but before a conclusive grounds decision is reached. It would surely be very strange, then, for the conclusive grounds decision to take account of late provision of information, but the clause appears to envisage that that could happen. Has that all been appropriately thought through? It would be useful to hear an explanation of how those two processes will interact.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for their amendments. I am pleased to see from the amendments that they acknowledge the benefits of a system that brings forward at the earliest opportunity all information related to modern slavery, enabling us to provide support and protection quickly to those who need it.
To that end, clause 47 covers information raised at the reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds stages, which are the two crucial decision-making stages in the national referral mechanism, and which both confer different rights on possible and confirmed victims. Although there are different standards of proof at those two stages, it is critical that the decision maker at both points can review all information to take decisions. Those decisions should include consideration of whether information has been provided late and whether there are good reasons for that. By removing that consideration at the conclusive grounds stage, amendment 173 would remove the consequence of providing late information when the decision-making threshold is higher. That could perversely incentivise misuse of the system at the later stage.
We are clear that that approach should be taken across both decision points to ensure that we meet the clause’s aim of identifying victims as early as possible and reducing opportunities for misuse.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am confused. I cannot see the benefit of late disclosure if the conclusive grounds process is ongoing. What does the amendment incentivise?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I simply make the point that decisions are made case by case. We maintain that we need all the information at both decision points to reach the right decisions in individual cases. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
We will go away and study what the Minister has said. I am still confused about the interaction between the two processes. The amendment was designed to seek an explanation, and I suspect that we will not be satisfied with it, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 174, in clause 47, page 42, line 23, leave out “or on behalf of”.
This amendment would exclude statements made on behalf of a slavery or trafficking information notice recipient (as opposed to statements made directly by them) from this subsection.
This is a very short point, but another important one. The amendment is designed to try to get further information from the Minister. I am sorry to have to test him on all the detail of the clause, but it is important. What we are asking here is why statements made on behalf of a trafficking information notice recipient should be impacted by the clause because of late provision of evidence. What does this cover? Is a medical report, for example, to be impacted by the clause so that its credibility is doubted because the recipient gave information late? Is analysis of the truth of what a social worker or a counsellor has said on behalf of the trafficking survivor to be impacted by the clause as well? We are really just asking this. What does it mean? What is the scope of the fact that this scheme applies to statements made on behalf of the trafficking information notice recipient and not just by the recipient himself or herself?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for setting out his case for the amendment. We know that, given the nature of modern slavery and human trafficking, many individuals often struggle to provide information relating to their abuse. That is why these measures are supported by the provision of legal aid to support possible victims in understanding the process and the national referral mechanism. It is also for that reason that the clause is specifically drafted to capture information provided by the victim or on their behalf.
All relevant information should be considered, whoever provides it, when decision makers are taking into account the provision of late information. Not to do so would create an artificial divide between different cohorts of individuals, depending on who provides the information for consideration. That could inadvertently encourage misuse of the system by leaving it open for individuals to seek to use others to provide all information late, knowing that its late disclosure will not be part of the consideration of credibility, when they could provide it themselves. That could delay disclosure and therefore our ability to identify and support individuals at the earliest opportunity as well as reducing opportunities for misuse. To give a practical example, I am confident that if someone else failed to press “Send”, the individual affected would not be impacted negatively by that.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I respectfully encourage the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and we will consider it. I am still not absolutely clear on precisely what the scope of the provision is and whether, for example,
“a statement…on behalf of the person”
would include a medical statement—a medical report—so that its credibility would be damaged just because the person who underwent the medical report disclosed information late. We will go away and think about that. I think the Home Office may need to give it some consideration as well, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anne McLaughlin
I beg to move amendment 175, in clause 47, page 42, line 24, leave out from “account” to the end of the subsection and insert
“of all the factors that may have led to the person providing the information late.”
This amendment would remove the presumption that delayed disclosure in relation to slavery or trafficking will be deemed damaging to a person’s credibility.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 163, in clause 47, page 42, line 26, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) ‘good reasons’ include, but are not limited to—
(a) the impact of trauma, including avoidant behaviours and memory fragmentation consistent with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder;
(b) distrust of authorities, including fear of punishment or a lack of confidence in the confidentiality of information sharing;
(c) fear of reprisals against them, their children, families or friends if they make an allegation of slavery;
(d) experiencing pressures and fears related to bonded debt;
(e) where the claimant was under the age of 18 years at their time of arrival in the UK or at the time of their exploitation;
(f) where the claimant has diminished capacity;
(g) fear of repercussions from people who exercise control over the individual;
(h) a lack of understanding of Modern Slavery including being unable to identify themselves as a ‘victim’;
(i) narrative reasons including being unable or unwilling to identify themselves as a ‘victim’;
(j) Stockholm syndrome; and
(k) an ongoing or previous relationship with the trafficker.”
This amendment seeks to define “good reasons” for late disclosure.
Anne McLaughlin
We know that it is common for the impact of trauma on trafficking survivors to result in late disclosure of the trafficking experiences. I will not repeat things that we have already said, but let us not pretend that we do not know that already. The clause places an additional burden on people to demonstrate good reasons for their late disclosure, or lose credibility and be less likely to be recognised and given the support essential to recover—in as much as one can—from the crimes that have been visited on them, as a trafficked person. They are no less in need, however, and for that reason, amendment 175 would stop the very common delayed disclosure of information from damaging a victim’s credibility.
Holly Lynch
We very much support the SNP’s amendment 175, which, as we heard, seeks to strike “as damaging” from the clause and hand that discretion back to the Home Office decision maker, as the Minister has already gone to some lengths to assure Members will be the case.
I will also speak to our amendment 163. We seek to mitigate the Government’s refusal to spell out what, if anything, would constitute a good reason for late disclosure. In Committee on Tuesday, the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, argued for a similar approach during our debates on part 2. The Minister responded that
“the situation will be set out clearly in guidance. We think that is the better approach, because it allows greater flexibility on the sorts of factors that might be relevant to the disclosure of late information, and obviously on matters that are relevant to individuals circumstances.”––[Official Report, Nationality and Borders Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 333.]
I understand the points that the Minister made, but he will appreciate that for the Opposition, it is feels although he is somewhat putting the cart before the horse. We are being asked to consider the clauses in blind faith without the guidance, and one way he could address that is by including something in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said earlier, we can debate only what is in front of us.
I expect one thing we can agree on is that no list can ever be exhaustive. I suspect that, as we have heard, the most convincing reasons for late disclosure are ones that we cannot comprehend. It would be nonsense to think that any list would be exhaustive, but without having in front of us any indication of what good reasons might be, we are being asked to take a leap of faith too far. The reasons in amendment 163 include, but are not limited to, a person’s fear of reprisals against them, experiencing pressures related to bonded debt, and being unable to recognise themselves as a victim.
In discussing part 2, again, the Minister went on to say that
“the Home Office will have discretion over who is served an evidence notice and the extent to which credibility is damaged by late evidence”,
and that
“claimants who raise matters late will have the opportunity to provide reasons for that lateness—and where those reasons are good, credibility will not be damaged. Decision makers will have the discretion to determine the extent to which credibility should be damaged, and that determination need not by itself be determinative of a claim”––[Official Report, Nationality and Borders Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 26 October 2021; c. 333.]
I felt that the Minister was very much talking up the discretion that the competent authority decision makers would have, in order to offer us assurances, but that is not reflected in the primary legislation in clause 47. I would be grateful if he could confirm that “good reasons” will be set out within the guidance for NRM decision making, as was the commitment for asylum decision making in part 2.
I would be grateful if the Minister also confirmed when that guidance will be published, and when the training, which he described as being necessary in accompanying the guidance, will begin. I hope he will recognise that amendment 163 is measured and sensible and that he will agree to adopt it.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for their genuine interest in these matters and for bringing forward their amendments. By introducing a statutory requirement to provide information before a specified date, victims of modern slavery will be identified at the earliest opportunity, ensuring that those who need protection are afforded it quickly. This measure is supported by the provision of legal aid to ensure that possible victims feel able to share information in a safe and supported manner.
It is important to state that the requirement to bring forward information related to being a victim of modern slavery does not mean that referrals brought late will not be considered; all claims of modern slavery will be considered, irrespective of when they are raised. We have purposefully not defined “good reasons” in the Bill, and the detail on how to apply “good reasons” will be set out in guidance for decision makers. That is the appropriate place, giving the Government the flexibility to respond to our ever-increasing understanding of modern slavery victims.
We will of course work carefully with stakeholders as we operationalise guidance to ensure that decision makers have the tools to recognise the effect that traumatic events can have on people’s ability to accurately recall, share, or recognise such events in some instances, while not seeking to prejudge their decision making by placing this detail in legislation. However, as has been recognised, we cannot legislate for every instance where someone may have “good reasons” for providing late information. To attempt to do so would be impractical. It would also limit the discretion and flexibility of decision makers, who are best placed to consider all factors on a case-by-case basis.
Amendment 163 would have the perverse impact of individuals facing different requirements simply because their situation is excluded from the amendment. It also ignores the possibility that a person may identify as one of the listed categories, but their information may be late for unrelated reasons. It would therefore create a blanket acceptance for late information in specific prescribed circumstances, while a vulnerable individual who did not fall within the specified categories would face a different test on whether they had good reason for providing late information. That would be unfair.
As I have set out, it is important that we are clear on the consequence of late disclosure of information in order to provide clarity for decision makers and victims, and to deter possible misuse of the system. Removing the reference to impacting credibility, as amendment 175 seeks to do, would remove our ability to require the provision of information up front. A duty to provide information requires a consequence and I think we are all agreed that seeking information on modern slavery issues up front is of benefit to all. The clause already includes mitigations to the possible consequence of damaged credibility, providing clear safeguards while still addressing the issue of potential misuse. The solution is not to stifle the clause of any robustness.
As I stated, more detail on good reasons and the credibility considerations will be set out in guidance. We will work to ensure that this takes account of vulnerabilities related to an individual’s exploitation. However, as I have outlined, we believe that removing the consideration of credibility as damaging would impede the ability to reduce potential misuse and reduce the impetus to identify victims as early as possible. As a result, that would perpetuate the issues that these clauses are designed to address, to the detriment of victims.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am still not sure that the Minister has addressed a fundamental point here. The worry is that if somebody genuinely is a victim of trafficking—I hate even having to describe people in that way—and misses that deadline, the fact that there are possible consequences of that, even if they might have a good reason, means that all they know is that they have missed the deadline. It is a huge disincentive for them to then come forward with other information. That is the whole point, and I still do not think that has been addressed by the Government.
Tom Pursglove
I recognise the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s concern about this. What I would say to him, as I have now said many times, is that I expect appropriate decisions to be taken on a case-by-case basis, taking proper account of all the circumstances, mitigations and issues that people bring forward in relation to good reasons. I am confident that that process can be properly developed and delivered in a way that is responsive to those sorts of issues. That is why—to address the point made by the hon. Member for Halifax—it is difficult to put a precise time on when that guidance will be put in place, for the simple reason that we want to engage properly with the sector in the way that I have outlined. I want that to be a thorough process and for the guidance to be put in place in an appropriate manner that is as exhaustive as possible, but does not lack common sense and means that proper consideration is given to the many varied reasons that people may have for providing information late, for example.
Anne McLaughlin
I have a couple of points to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East made the point that once people get past the deadline, they will be terrified to come forward. What will the Minister do about those people—
Tom Pursglove
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady in mid-flow. I just want to provide some clarity on this point. If there are reasonable grounds to believe that someone is a victim, they will get positive identification even if the information is provided late. I want to be clear about that and place it on the record.
Anne McLaughlin
But the Government are refusing to accept amendment 163, which would put in the Bill what some of the good reasons could be. The Minister says that he will allow decision makers to have discretion, but what he is actually doing is allowing them to have discretion not to accept some perfectly valid reasons—including trauma, as we have covered. I would love to press the amendment to a vote, but we have to pick our battles in this place, so I reluctantly beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Amendment 163 has already been debated. Do the Opposition wish to move it formally?
Holly Lynch
The Minister has heard my comments, and we anticipated his response. We will follow the issue closely, but at this stage we will not press it to a Division.
Neil Coyle
I beg to move amendment 181, in clause 47, page 42, line 31, at end insert—
“(5) The provision of relevant status information identifying a person as a likely victim of human trafficking for sexual services shall constitute a “good reason” for the purposes of this section.”
This amendment would mean that the credibility of victims of human trafficking for sexual services would not be called into question by reason of the late provision of information relating to that fact.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 187, in clause 47, page 42, line 31, at end insert—
“(5) Subsection (2) does not apply where the person is a victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) the person may be considered a victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation if there is evidence that the person—
(a) Has been transported from one location to another for the purposes of sexual exploitation;
(b) Bears signs of physical abuse including but not limited to—
(i) Branding
(ii) Bruising
(iii) Scarring
(iv) Burns; or
(v) Tattoos indicating gang membership;
(c) Lacks access to their own earnings, such as by having no bank account in their own name;
(d) Has limited to no English language skills, or only such language skills as pertain to sexualised acts;
(e) Lives or stays at the same address as person(s) meeting the criteria in paragraphs (a) to (d); and
(f) Sleeps in the premises in which they are exploited.”
Under this amendment, late provision of relevant status information would not be taken as damaging the credibility of the person providing the information if that person were a victim of trafficking for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation.
Amendment 182, in clause 48, page 42, line 36, at end insert—
“(za) at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
(aa) the sorts of things which indicate that a person may be a victim of human trafficking for sexual services;”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue specific guidance on the sorts of things which indicate that a person may be a victim of human trafficking for sexual services.
New clause 42—Offence of human trafficking for sexual exploitation—
“(1) A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the travel of another person (“V”) to the United Kingdom with a view to V being sexually exploited in the United Kingdom.
(2) It is irrelevant whether V consents to the travel (whether V is an adult or a child).
(3) A person may in particular arrange or facilitate V‘s travel to the United Kingdom by recruiting V, transporting or transferring V, harbouring or receiving V, or transferring or exchanging control over V.
(4) A person arranges or facilitates V‘s travel to the United Kingdom with a view to V being sexually exploited in the United Kingdom only if—
(a) the person intends to sexually exploit V in the United Kingdom during or after the travel, or
(b) the person knows or ought to know that another person is likely to sexually exploit V in the United Kingdom during or after the travel.
(5) “Travel” means—
(a) arriving in, or entering, the United Kingdom,
(b) departing from any country outside the United Kingdom in circumstances where the person arranging or facilitating V’s travel intends that the destination will be the United Kingdom.
(6) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of—
(a) where the arranging or facilitating takes place, or
(b) where the travel takes place.
(7) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if—
(a) any part of the arranging or facilitating takes place in the United Kingdom, or
(b) the travel consists of arrival in or entry into, departure from, or travel within, the United Kingdom.
(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both.”
Neil Coyle
I have always wanted to be a dame—[Laughter.]
I thank Tom Farr of CEASE and Kat Banyard of UK Feminista for assisting in the drafting of the amendments and for their valuable work. Before I address each amendment in turn, I want to quickly highlight the concern that we have seen online in response to today’s discussions about some of the language that the Minister has used, specifically the issue of “genuine cases”. It is my understanding that nine out of 10 “reasonable and conclusive grounds” decisions were positive last year, and I gently urge the Minister to consider the impact of his words, especially when it comes to more people coming forward in the future. He said that he will listen to the sector. I hope that is a genuine offer, given that the sector does not feel that it was listened to. The consultation period was very brief and unexpected and has left the sector very unhappy.
Amendment 181 would help ensure that the credibility of victims of human trafficking for sexual exploitation would not be called into question by a late disclosure of being trafficked, which clause 47 would do. If a person discloses that they have been a victim of human trafficking for sexual services, the lateness of the claim should not matter.
As we are all aware, the treatment of trafficked women and children subjected to sexual exploitation is unimaginable. It is widely understood to severely impact on their ability to escape from the situation they find themselves in. For many, it impacts on their ability even to understand or admit what has happened to them, for reasons of denial and other issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax raised in the debate on clause 46.
There is a bureaucracy behind the Government’s plans. Many individuals who have been sexually exploited are wholly unaware of the process of having to declare themselves as a victim of sexual exploitation. Many are likely to be suspicious of any involvement with the authorities. There may be a very good reason why a person feels that way, including that they have not been in control of their activities and are unaware that they have committed specific immigration offences or other criminal offences that they have been forced to engage in under duress, such as soliciting.
Clause 47, in practice, means that if trafficking status is disclosed at a late stage, that will have a devastating impact on credibility. That simply cannot be justified. As my hon. Friend argued, victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation must not be precluded from legal protections simply because they are too frightened or traumatised—we have previously discussed post-traumatic stress disorder—to disclose information as soon as they come to the attention of the authorities. To encourage disclosure can very often take time and sensitivity, something that the Home Office does not always currently allow for, and which the proposals in this Bill will affect to an even greater level. The amendment would make sure some of the most vulnerable people who have been trafficked continue to be protected under the law.
Amendment 187 supports amendment 181. It details how a person making a late disclosure of trafficking for sexual exploitation might better be identified by any relevant authority. A person may be considered a victim of trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation in a number of ways: first, if there is evidence they have been transported from one place to another for the purpose of sexual exploitation; secondly, if a person has signs of physical abuse, including but not limited to branding, bruising, scarring, burns or tattoos; thirdly, if a person has no access to their own earnings—for example, a person who does not have access to a bank account—fourthly, if a person has limited or no English language skills, could not cope on their own and has been managed previously; fifthly, if a person lives at the same address as anyone who meets any of these criteria; and finally, if they sleep in the same place they have been or were exploited.
Although authorities may have the best interests of an exploited individual at heart when investigating any trafficking-related crime, they may not even be aware of how to recognise such an individual, given the distinct and specific treatment that they have been subjected to. Putting these comprehensive but by no means exhaustive guiding factors into the Bill aims to ensure that authorities have a deeper understanding of the factors they should be aware of and how to identify and help victims.
It is important to note that it is often only when the authorities make wider arrests of criminal gangs that exploited individuals are discovered, usually in brothels or closely-controlled transient places of residence. In a situation of criminality, it may be difficult for authorities to discern who may ultimately be responsible for such criminality.
Acknowledging that exploitation often manifests in ways such as physical and mental trauma, as well as a total lack of autonomy over their own lives, will improve the current legal situation in two tangible ways. First, it may deter lengthy and expensive prosecutions of victims of exploitation, who may otherwise fall between the cracks and be prosecuted for an offence they committed under duress. Secondly, it will put into law current Crown Prosecution Service policy, which is to treat these individuals as victims as and where they are discovered. That is not happening now—we see the prosecution rate for sex crimes in this country at a historic and terrible low.
Amendment 187 would allow the UK to further build its status as the world leader it wants to be when it comes to a toolkit to combat human trafficking and sexual exploitation. These individuals must be viewed as victims of crime and not criminals requiring punishment.
Amendment 182 is an alternative probing amendment that would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the specific factors that may indicate that somebody is a victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. I hope the Minister will give an indication of whether that is the direction of travel for the Government.
The amendment would also provide greater clarity for the relevant authorities. As already said, it would prevent the prosecution of individuals who may have been compelled to commit offences while being sexually exploited, as well as providing a framework for authorities to refer to when trying to discern exactly the type of exploitation that has taken place. I hope that the aim behind these amendments will be welcomed by the Minister today, even if they are not accepted.
New clause 42 would put into law a specific offence of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. The clause makes it an offence to arrange or enable the travel of another person for the purpose of sexual exploitation, regardless of whether the person consented to travel. Arranging or enabling travel can be done in numerous ways: by recruiting a person, by moving or carrying a person, by holding or receiving a person, or by transferring or exchanging control of a person.
Trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation means planning to sexually exploit a person during or after travel to the UK, or knowing another person is planning to sexually exploit a person during or after travel to the United Kingdom. Travel means arriving in the UK or leaving any country outside of the UK if the destination is the United Kingdom. A UK national commits the offence regardless of where the facilitating, arranging or travelling takes place. A non-UK national commits the offence by facilitating, arranging or travelling into and out of the UK. Committing the offence carries up to life in imprisonment if tried in a Crown court and would be a welcome step forward.
New clause 42 is necessary because while the Modern Slavery Act 2015 covers exploitation more broadly, the issue of sexual exploitation, specifically within the commercial sex industry, now merits being recognised as a distinct offence due to the catastrophically high numbers of trafficking victims brought into the commercial sex industry in the UK, organised by serious organised crime outfits.
The link between trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation—industrial-level prostitution—is undeniable, and the problem is getting worse. During the covid pandemic there was a 280% increase in the advertising of sexual services online in the west midlands, with the women being predominantly of eastern European origin. A 2010 report suggested that at least 10,000 women involved in off-street prostitution were victims of trafficking or non-UK nationals who were highly vulnerable. These statistics are shocking. We are not seeing provisions in current legislation to match the scale of the problem in the country.
Introducing new clause 42 would ensure that authorities and the Government recognise these intrinsic links and would aid in all our efforts to combat the scourge that is human trafficking and broader violence against women and girls. The benefits of the clause would include, firstly, requiring authorities to dig deeper to examine whether human trafficking has taken place when investigating any prostitution-related offence. Second, it would protect victims of sexual exploitation who have been trafficked. If an individual is being investigated for a prostitution-related offence, it is wholly unacceptable that they should be prosecuted for acts committed under duress or threat of violence from exploitative traffickers.
Placing this specific offence in law would encourage authorities to think more carefully about whether individuals who may initially be viewed as criminals are, in fact, victims of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. It would further allow for the specific prosecution of those who traffic people for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and the full scale of what is going on would perhaps become clearer. Amendments 181, 187 and 182 and new clause 42 would ameliorate and offer some specific protection to women trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation. I hope the Government will look favourably on these probing proposals.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for setting out, through the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, their case and for putting forward their amendments. I appreciate their consideration of these clauses and their concern for a vulnerable group of individuals. They have raised important issues around identifying victims who have faced the most heinous crimes.
Ensuring that clause 47 enables decision makers to take account of individuals’ vulnerabilities is fundamental to our approach. That is why we have included the condition of good reasons, and ensured that decision makers have the flexibility and discretion to appropriately consider those without prejudging what that should cover. What constitutes good reasons has purposefully not been defined in the Bill: the detail on how to apply good reasons will be set out in guidance for decision makers, as we have already discussed. That will give decision makers the tools to, for instance, recognise the effect that traumatic events may have on individuals’ ability to accurately recall, share or recognise such events, while maintaining a case-by-case approach. Doing so in guidance will also ensure that we have the flexibility to update and add to the range of considerations undertaken by a decision maker in exercising discretion.
To create a carve-out for one group of individuals, as amendments 181 and 187 seek to do, would undermine this approach and create a two-tiered system based on the type of exploitation faced. I am sure this is not the intention of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, but amendment 181 could also incentivise individuals to put forward falsified referrals regarding the specific forms of exploitation, or delay removal action. We believe that the right approach is to provide more detail on the varied and complicated reasons that may constitute good reasons in guidance, where these can be explored in more detail and where we can be more flexible as our understanding of exploitation develops.
Neil Coyle
The Minister has said that the intention is to address some of the issues and concerns raised by organisations and by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in the guidance. Can I request that the Minister meets those organisations and the hon. Member before Report, to make sure that any guidance plans take those concerns fully into account their concerns?
Tom Pursglove
I have made this point several times now, but it is certainly worth repeating: there is a real willingness and desire to engage thoroughly in relation to the development of the guidance. I would of course be very happy to consider any meeting requests that come in the usual way, but I assure the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark that there is a firm commitment here, which I have made several times. As I have said, the hon. Member is a canny parliamentarian, and will take every possible opportunity to hold Ministers to account on that commitment to engage constructively with the shaping of the guidance.
Neil Coyle
There is a real test here, because the Minister is saying that he wants to listen to the sector. The sector is saying that it does not feel particularly listened to up to this point. It is a simple request to meet before Report, and the Minister has not quite said yes.
Tom Pursglove
What I would say to the hon. Member is that if he makes contact with my office in the usual way, with information about who he would like me to meet alongside him, I will absolutely consider that appropriately.
Decision makers’ considerations will include the indicators highlighted in the amendment, but they will also consider a wider range of potential reasons and indicators to avoid focusing specifically on one victim cohort. This approach will allow decision makers to consider each case on its merits while considering all the information relevant to that case without prejudice. To do otherwise would not be appropriate or fair to all victims.
Amendment 182 seeks to insert a specific reference to human trafficking for sexual services into clause 48. We are agreed that this provision must enable decision makers to identify the most vulnerable victims, including victims of trafficking for sexual services. However, to set out a particular purpose of trafficking on the face of the Bill would fragment the types of exploitation victims have faced.
Exploitation for the purpose of human trafficking is defined under section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and that definition includes sexual exploitation. This is supported by the modern slavery statutory guidance in section 49 of the Act, which sets out considerations that may indicate that a person is a victim of human trafficking for sexual services. The existing guidance provides detail on indicators of specific types of modern slavery, including indicators that apply specifically to victims who have suffered from sexual exploitation. I am certain that hon. Members agree that there should be no grading of exploitation, and it is correct that exploitation for any one purpose should be considered with the same severity as exploitation for other purposes. We believe that to set out one particular purpose for exploitation on the face of the Bill would create fragmentation. Our guidance already provides detail on indicators of several types of modern slavery.
I will now turn to new clause 42. As I have already stated, I agree with hon. Members that the abhorrent crime of trafficking in individuals for the purposes of sexual exploitation should be treated with the utmost seriousness. That is why section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already accounts for human trafficking offences, and makes specific reference to sexual exploitation in section 3. In fact, the Modern Slavery Act allows for a wider provision of the offence. Section 2 makes human trafficking an offence in any part of the world, which includes trafficking to the UK but also trafficking within the UK, which the amendment does not.
Neil Coyle
I think the sector has a concern that the proposal in this legislation undermines the Modern Slavery Act and measures to encourage and support victims who have come forward. I hope that the Minister will hold that meeting before Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
Clause 47 sets out the consequence if an individual who has been served with a slavery or trafficking information notice as discussed under clause 46 provides information relating to being a victim of modern slavery after the specified time period. The clause aims to ensure that possible victims are identified as early as possible to receive appropriate support and to reduce potential misuse of the national referral mechanism system from referrals intended to delay removal action. Under clause 47, the decision maker must decide whether information provided through the one-stop process is outside the specified time limit and therefore is late. This consideration will take into account whether there was a good reason for the late information, such as the impact of trauma, but where there are no good reasons, an individual’s credibility is damaged due to the provision of late information.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister referred to abusing the process but he has not said much about what evidence there is for this problem. What is the scale of it? Much like statelessness, perhaps he could write to us with the evidence of what it is that the Government are trying to get at here. The big problem is the three-year delay for making decisions. Is not that the problem rather than anything that the Minister has referred to?
Tom Pursglove
I recognise the invitation to write with more detail around this and I am happy to do that. That would be advantageous to the Committee. Given that time is getting on and we want to continue to make progress, I am very happy to take that request back to the Department. I will provide that information.
The Government will ensure that any changes to processes as a result of these measures are designed in a way that accounts for the impact of trauma. This includes ensuring that individuals working in the system are aware of the factors that can affect the task of obtaining information such as the effects traumatic events can have on people’s ability to accurately recall such events. This assessment will be set out in guidance for decision makers and we will engage stakeholders as we develop it. We will continue to consider all referrals on a case-by-case basis to ensure that support is tailored to the needs of genuine victims.
Holly Lynch
We intend to vote against clause 47. It is closely linked to clause 46 and I will try to avoid repetition as we are returning to elements that have been well discussed under part 2 on Tuesday.
The number of survivors able to receive support through the national referral mechanism will be reduced as a result of clause 47.
As the Human Trafficking Foundation outlined in written evidence:
“Introducing a trafficking information notice and so converging immigration with human trafficking risks creating another layer of bureaucracy and so would likely increase the length of time survivors must wait in the NRM.”
If we are to ensure that victims with complex psychological and physical needs are not punished by the system or left in limbo while their claims are processed, the clause cannot stand part of the Bill.
As other hon. Members have said, the Home Office’s own statutory guidance states:
“Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder… It is also vital for decision makers to have an understanding of the mitigating reasons why a potential victim of modern slavery is incoherent, inconsistent or delays giving details of material facts… Throughout this process it is important to remember that victims of modern slavery have been through trauma”.
The clause runs completely contrary to that guidance.
The VITA Network explained in its consultation response to the new plan for immigration that:
“Psychological trauma causes profound disturbances to normal brain function and memory, including memory loss and inconsistencies”
in recollection. We know that a high proportion of trafficked people experience violence prior to and during trafficking. Long after they have escaped exploitation, many still fear that harm will come to them and their families if they disclose information about their experiences. It is often those who are most in need of protection who will find it the hardest to disclose such information.
In 2015, the PROTECT programme was established. It was an independent piece of research, commissioned and funded by the Department of Health and Social Care’s policy research programme, and led by King’s College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The programme aimed to develop evidence to inform the NHS response to human trafficking, and it was comprised of surveys and qualitative research, including interviews with trafficked people and with NHS and non-NHS professionals. It found that psychological distress was highly prevalent: four fifths of women in contact with shelter services screened positive for anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder at interview.
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister told the harrowing story of Gloria in his contribution on Tuesday, and demonstrated why the clause will be damaging to those who have been subject to trauma. The clause flies in the face of best practice and runs contrary to all we heard from witnesses in oral evidence. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark made excellent points about how PTSD is just one reason why the approach in the clause will be unworkable and unconscionable for those who really need our help. We do not seek to punish or discredit other victims for late disclosure, so why are the Government seeking to do so in this case? The clause highlights the inconsistencies and the unjust nature of the Government’s approach.
It is also deeply worrying that the Government have offered no clarity in subsection (2) on the timescales within which individuals would have to provide that information. Will it be days, weeks, months? I would be grateful if the Minister gave us an indication of his thinking on that. As things stand, the clause will put barriers between victims and the support that they need to recover and secure prosecutions against the real criminals, who we all want to see brough to justice. On that basis, we cannot support clause 47.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 48, page 42, leave out line 38.
This amendment would ensure that the threshold applied (in the Modern Slavery Act 2015) when determining whether a person should be considered a potential victim of trafficking remains at its present level.
The amendment would leave out line 38 in clause 48, which moves the threshold from someone “may be” a potential victim of trafficking to someone “is” a potential victim of trafficking, to ensure that the threshold applied in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 when determining whether a person should be considered a potential victim of trafficking remains at its present level. It is our view that we should seek to build on the commitments in the Act, not undermine the hard-fought progress that it achieved. As I have raised already, the Government are seeking to tear up what were at one time world-leading principles in the Act, and to do so via an immigration Bill, conflating two very different processes.
The reception that clause 48 has had from across the sector should have stopped the Government in their tracks. The amendment is essential to ensure that we can identify victims effectively, rather than creating additional barriers to the national referral mechanism. Currently, around nine in 10 of all reasonable and conclusive grounds decisions are positive. In 2020, the Single Competent Authority made 10,608 reasonable grounds decisions and 3,454 conclusive grounds decisions. Of those, 92% of reasonable grounds decisions and 89% of conclusive grounds decisions were positive. Additionally, in 2020, 81% of all challenged negative reasonable grounds decisions were overturned.
Judging by the Home Office’s own data, we can conclude that the current threshold is set at an appropriate level, so why are the Government seeking to raise it? Referral into the NRM is possible only when made by a designated first responder who has identified someone as a potential victim of trafficking and secured their informed consent to make a referral. That means that there should already be a very high level of positive reasonable grounds decisions at the threshold of “suspect but cannot prove”, as the referral should not have been made if that threshold had not been reached.
It is important to remember that currently we are identifying only a small fraction of the estimated number of victims of trafficking. The Centre for Social Justice has estimated that the number of people trapped in modern slavery in the UK might be in excess of 100,000. Furthermore, there is still no pre-NRM specialist support available in the UK, despite the Government recognising the need for it to facilitate disclosure through having time in a safe space to receive information and advice in their 2017 announcement of places of safety. I would be grateful if the Minister told us why there is no mention of places of safety in the Bill—a point that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East made earlier.
With the Government failing to deliver on their own promises, initial identification is therefore an even bigger priority. Every Child Protected Against Trafficking made the valid point that for someone to just fall short of the new threshold will make certain victims vulnerable to being re-trafficked. Would we not all be more satisfied knowing that professionals have had a proper look at a situation that gives first responders cause for concern by staying with a “may be” rather than an “is” threshold, when the data speaks for itself on that? The amendment is therefore essential in maintaining the threshold at a level where victims who have built up the courage to seek help are identified and admitted to the NRM.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for their interest and valuable contributions to the debate. They have raised important issues around identifying victims who have faced the most heinous crimes. Under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—ECAT—to which the UK is a signatory, certain obligations flow if there are
“reasonable grounds to believe that a person has been a victim of trafficking”.
The amendment seeks to leave the reasonable grounds threshold as it stands, which is where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of trafficking.
It is crucial that decision makers are able to quickly and appropriately identify possible victims. That is why we have proposed this minor change to the reasonable grounds threshold to closer align with our international obligations under ECAT and with the devolved Administrations. To not make that change would undermine the clarity on decision making. Additionally, as the amendment relates specifically to the provision of assistance and support to persons, it would create a different threshold from that applied when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking. That would create significant ambiguity around the reasonable grounds threshold and create further separation from our international obligations. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Halifax to withdraw her amendment.
Holly Lynch
I am not entirely satisfied with that response, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.