House of Commons
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business Before Questions
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
May I start by saying that my thoughts are with those affected by the tragic incident in the river at Haverfordwest at the weekend, where three lives were lost? My thanks go to the emergency services. The Maritime Accident Investigation Branch is currently investigating. Similarly, my thoughts are with everyone affected by the rail incident that took place in Salisbury this weekend. I am grateful to the train crews and drivers, and the services that looked after those who were injured. Our thoughts go to the families of all those affected.
The Great British Railways transition team is designing a selection process for the headquarters and details will be announced shortly.
Matt Vickers
Stockton-on-Tees was home to the world’s first passenger railway. The discussion about building that railway was held in Stockton town hall. The first track of that railway was laid in Stockton. The first ticket was sold in Stockton. Last week, Michael Portillo backed our bid. I understand that Thomas the Tank Engine and even the Fat Controller are on board. Can the Secretary of State think of anywhere better than Stockton to be the home of Great British Railways?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend makes an excellent case. I was not aware of the Fat Controller’s involvement, but that could well nail it. When the competition launches, everywhere with a strong railway connection will be able to apply, so we can find a new HQ for Great British Railways.
Kevin Hollinrake
Putting Stockton to one side, not only does York have a unique railway heritage, but it is home to 10% of the national railway workforce. It is a beautiful and wonderful city. Does my right hon. Friend agree it would make the perfect home for the headquarters of Great British Railways?
Grant Shapps
It is also the home of many beautiful trains of the past, including the Mallard, which I went to see very recently. My hon. Friend makes a very strong case. I can see that the whole House is looking forward to entering the competition to find the new HQ for Great British Railways.
Mr Speaker
I am now tempted to call the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who will reinforce that point.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
But of course, Mr Speaker. York is not just about 200 years of the history of the railways; it is home to some of the leading rail engineers of the future and digital rail, as well as leadership from our operations and rail systems. This cannot just be about hotspots where people have their favoured city; it must also be about bringing the rail community together to ensure we make the most of the future for our rail systems. Will the Secretary of State look very closely at the bid from York?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I should point out that the competition has not been launched yet, but I am very impressed by the extent to which the whole House is in favour of their areas. York, of course, will have a very good bid. There is a serious point to this, which is that it is important we have the right HQ for Great British Railways, as we bring the entire network together. I am sure that York, as well as many other towns and cities, will have an excellent case to make.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Investing £29 billion in transport across the north since 2010 has had a hugely positive impact on levelling up.
Imran Hussain
Building Northern Powerhouse Rail in full with a stop in Bradford city centre will help to transform Bradford’s economy and draw much-needed jobs and investment into the district, yet the Government are now believed to be scrapping the plans for NPR. Will the Minister give me some certainty today and either commit to the plan, or admit that the reality is that the Government have no intention of delivering real, transformative change to the economy and lives of people in West Yorkshire?
Andrew Stephenson
The hon. Gentleman will know that I know Bradford well, as I represent a constituency just down the road, on the sunny side of the hills. The Government are committed to supporting the aspirations of local leaders across West Yorkshire. We recognise that Bradford is an important economic centre in the north, with a growing and young population. We continue to look at the evidence for building a new station in Bradford, and decisions, as he knows, will be outlined in the integrated rail plan in due course.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
My thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the Salisbury train collision and I wish those who have sadly been injured a speedy recovery. We must, in the near future, get to the bottom of how such an incident could ever have occurred.
After the Budget, northern leaders were left even more bemused than before about Government plans for the north. There was no mention of Northern Powerhouse Rail and nothing more on HS2’s eastern leg or the midlands rail hub. There is still no rolling programme of electrification and no sign of the mythical integrated rail plan, which Ministers have kept referring me to for over a year. What a complete lack of ambition for the north. How did this happen? Was it because the Secretary of State could not convince the Chancellor to invest in our country’s railways, or was it because the Chancellor thought that giving tax cuts to already wealthy bankers was far more important?
Andrew Stephenson
Let us not pretend that we are not getting on with the job of investing in the north of England. We have invested £29 billion in northern transport since 2010, and in the Budget that the hon. Gentleman referred to, we announced over £1 billion for Greater Manchester, over £830 million for West Yorkshire and £570 million for South Yorkshire. I am delighted to say that the integrated rail plan is not just coming soon—it is now coming very soon.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
When it comes to investment in the north, I welcome the recent investments in the feasibility work for Ferryhill station and the Weardale line. Of course, I am disappointed with what happened regarding the knock-back for the Leamside line, but I ask the Minister to work with us and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) to look at funding streams and at potentially getting that into the integrated rail plan. Will he also assure the people of Ferryhill that knocking back the Leamside line does not in any way impact the Ferryhill project?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend continues to make a powerful case for his constituency and investment in local transport schemes. As he knows, I have family ties with Ferryhill—my father was born there—and I am very keen to support local people’s aspirations. I know that he has been lobbying the Secretary of State, the Rail Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—and myself on this issue. We will continue to work with him to see what we can do to support local aspirations.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out, the Government have been able to open up international travel and help to make it cheaper to use, with 135 countries and territories now covered by our inbound vaccination policy.
James Sunderland
The aviation and travel sectors are pivotal for my constituents in Bracknell and right across the UK, sustaining many jobs and livelihoods. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what is being done to review testing requirements for passengers and travellers and to regulate the wildly varying and often exorbitant cost of testing?
Grant Shapps
As the House will know, we have reduced the number of tests required to just one single lateral flow test on day two for everybody who is vaccinated, as well as for under-18-year-olds. My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that I spoke to the Health Secretary this morning about the site that it runs to ensure that the prices shown there are accurate for the traveller, so that people can travel as normally as possible as we come to this Christmas and new-year period.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
As announced in the spending review on 28 October, the Government are investing more than £5 billion over this Parliament in highways maintenance, enabling local highway authorities to fill in millions of potholes a year, repair bridges and help to resurface roads up and down the country. The spending review has also fundamentally protected the Government’s plans for RIS2, the second road investment strategy, while adjusting for schemes that are now progressing to a different timetable.
Mark Fletcher
More than 300 of my constituents have already signed my petition backing plans to improve junction 28 of the M1. It has been a constant bottleneck; residents of Pinxton and South Normanton are so often stuck there for a very long time. Will the Minister commit to working with me to make sure that we can deliver plans to improve that junction?
Trudy Harrison
Yes, of course. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his petition. I can reassure him that National Highways has now submitted information on the scheme to the evidence base that will help to inform the next stage of road investments. Thanks to his effective lobbying for his constituents in Bolsover, I can confirm to the House that National Highways has commenced a further study to assess the long-term future of junction 28 of the M1 to consider how planned growth may affect current and proposed schemes.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
The Government will invest more than £3 billion in buses during this Parliament, including a new dedicated £1.2 billion fund for London-style bus transformation deals to improve infrastructure, fares and services.
Andrew Jones
Harrogate has electric buses already, and they are very popular for their ride quality and their environmental benefit. I am keen to see their benefits extended, particularly to Knaresborough, where we have two air quality management areas and the very high-volume No. 1 route. Will the Minister update the House on where we are with the ZEBRA—zero-emission bus regional areas—scheme?
Trudy Harrison
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is a superb champion for Harrogate and Knaresborough and has extensive experience of public transport. I am sure that he will appreciate the recent announcement of £355 million of new funding for zero-emission buses, which is in addition to the existing £120 million for the ZEBRA scheme. On ZEBRA, we also announced last week that almost £71 million of the funding has been awarded to Warrington, Leicester, Milton Keynes, Kent, Cambridge and Peterborough. We continue to work with a further 17 local transport authorities that will submit proposals. One of those areas is North Yorkshire; I understand that Harrogate and Knaresborough are part of the defined area. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on the matter.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to Transport orals for what I believe is her first set of questions.
In April, I raised the devastating impact of Government cuts on rural transport networks, which has led to what CPRE calls “transport deserts”. I asked for
“assurances…that significant investment will be offered”
to support rural bus networks and
“ensure that our rural communities are genuinely connected”.
The Minister of State told me:
“There can be no greater champion of buses than the Prime Minister”.—[Official Report, 29 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 501.]
He then gave assurances that funding was on its way.
Six months on, rural communities are still bearing the brunt of the Government’s failure to act. Many of the funding announcements in the Budget were nothing more than rehashed and repackaged initiatives that will do nothing to tackle the transport deserts that blight the lives of ordinary people in so many rural communities, towns and villages. I ask again: will the Minister offer rural bus networks the tangible and significant investment that they so desperately need? Will she offer a firm deadline for when that will be done?
Trudy Harrison
As the hon. Member will know, in last week’s spending review, we set out an unprecedented level of support for buses, including zero-emission vehicles. This Government are supporting the bus network through manufacturing and through the infrastructure required as we decarbonise, as set out in our transport decarbon- isation plan.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Back in 2017, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) was the buses Minister. As he will remember, we had many discussions about the Bus Services Act 2017 and audiovisual announcements. Incredibly, some four and a half years on, the proposals for audiovisual announcements have still not been implemented. When can I expect to see and hear them on buses in Cambridge?
Trudy Harrison
We are working apace on this, and will be able to update the House in due course.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
We have a slight problem, in that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) is trapped outside because Insulate Britain have blocked access to the House. That is totally unacceptable: it is interfering with democracy, and it is not what should happen. It is a tragedy that his constituents will not be represented by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, but I ask the Minister to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
It is slightly ironic, is it not, that the question is about cycling and walking, and how we can decarbonise transport. While I am sure that those people outside have decent intentions, the way in which they are going about their business is completely unacceptable.
We need to continue our business here, so I can happily update the House with the information that my Department is investing an unprecedented £2 billion in active travel over the course of this Parliament, which is the biggest ever boost for walking and cycling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) would have asked a supplementary question, and I know that he wanted to talk about areas in his constituency, because that is all he ever does. [Laughter.] He wanted to talk about Mini-Hollands and how they can change people’s behaviour when it comes to cycling, and to mention the town of Stapleford. The Department’s publication “Gear Change”, which could be described as a manifesto for cycling, refers to Mini-Hollands. Expressions of interest have been received from more than 30 local authorities wishing to build them—including Nottinghamshire County Council—so they are clearly remarkably popular. We are working on a list in order to progress to the next stage, and will receive a feasibility study in the next financial year.
Mr Speaker
I now call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Ronnie Cowan.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Scotland’s active travel budget will soon amount to 10% of the transport budget, which means that at least £320 million a year—nearly £60 per person in Scotland—will be spent on walking and wheeling. The Department for Transport plans to spend less than £7 per head. When my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) put that to the Secretary of State, he was disbelieving. Now that he has seen the proof, why is the Department short-changing active travel in England?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very pleased about the amount of money that the Scottish Government are receiving for cycling and walking in a devolved settlement via the Barnett formula, but the figures that he has given are not correct. Spending on cycling and walking in England has doubled from a paltry £3.50 per head in 2010 to about £10 per head now, and obviously, given the massive increase in spending on cycling and walking—the largest that we have ever had in this Parliament, as a result of the Prime Minister’s “Gear Change” plans—that will continue to increase.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the Minister, who is also the Rail Minister, agree that a key element of any cycling and walking plan should be better parking provision for cycles at railway stations?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my right hon. Friend—a former Transport Minister—for his question. That is absolutely the case. One of the best gala dinners I have ever attended was the “cycle to rail” gala dinner, where awards were given for the best schemes of that kind. We are investing a huge amount of money in new, secure cycle parking around the country, and I went to see some of it not so long ago in the great city of Hull.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
Glasgow airport is engaged in the airspace modernisation programme, and is working with the Civil Aviation Authority and the Airspace Change Organising Group to develop its proposals.
Margaret Ferrier
With COP26 kicking off this week, the environmental impact of flying is at the forefront of many attenders’ minds. What assessment has the Minister made of the environmental benefits of potential airspace changes?
Robert Courts
UK airspace is among the most complex in the world, but it has not been modified significantly since the 1950s. Airspace modernisation will enable us to have more direct, quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys, and will harness new technologies such as performance-based navigation. As set out in the “Jet Zero Consultation”, the Department’s analysis shows that
“Moving to best-in-class aircraft, operations and airspace modernisation could deliver 25-36% of CO² savings by 2050”,
bringing benefits not only for the hon. Lady’s constituents but for the whole United Kingdom.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that Rolls-Royce is now developing an aviation jet engine that will run on 100% sustainable fuel? When that happens, will it not show that flying can be not only fun but clean?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am aware of that engine that is being developed; in fact, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to see it only this week. There are a number of exciting technologies with new aerospace advancements including sustainable aviation fuel that will deliver precisely the guilt-free flying that my hon. Friend refers to.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
We have an analogue airspace system in the digital age; the Minister is right in what he says. With the better ascents and descents of planes and the elimination of holding patterns, we will not only improve noise abatement but cut carbon emissions by up to 26%, as he rightly said. This is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit when it comes to the climate crisis, so can the Minister tell us what he is personally doing and how he is talking to the industry to unlock the funding we need to enable this programme to continue?
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There are a number of aspects to decarbonising aviation. There are the existing efficiencies as well as sustainable aviation fuel and the £180 million that we have recently announced on that. Then there is the longer-term but still rapidly advancing technology that was referred to earlier. He is also quite right to talk about airspace modernisation, and the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, which was put through in the last Session, was a major part of that. It gives the Government extra powers. After the pause that took place during covid, we have given £5.5 million for the future airspace strategy programme, which is taking place as we speak.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
We are reforming rail guided by the “Great British Railways: Williams-Shapps plan for rail” White Paper. This will improve services for passengers and drive taxpayer value for money at the same time.
Chris Green
After many years of waiting, we have seen the electrification of the Manchester to Liverpool and Manchester to Preston railway lines. We are now looking forward to the electrification of the line between Bolton and Wigan. Can my hon. Friend confirm that this is going to go full steam ahead?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Stepping back in time at the Dispatch Box, Mr Speaker. Steam is not necessarily an option for that particular line, but I am pleased to confirm that on 1 September this year, £78 million to electrify the route between Wigan North Western and Bolton was announced. It will enable greener electric trains—rather than Thomas the Tank Engine—to run along that route, with more seats to serve passengers across Greater Manchester. The scheme is on track and targeted for completion by 2024.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In Bath, we are still waiting for the full electrification of our lines, so perhaps the Minister will take that on board too. The direct line from Oldfield Park station in Bath to London Waterloo will be cancelled in December. Will the Minister reconsider these service cuts, which will make travel into south London nearly three times more expensive for my constituents and force them to use the underground while covid cases are rising?
Chris Heaton-Harris
On the hon. Lady’s last point, using the underground—and other trains—is one of the safest methods of transport in the covid pandemic. I believe that the air on the underground is exchanged every three minutes, and on trains every six minutes. They are perfectly safe. She referred to the consultation that has just finished on South Western Railway services, and she is quite correct: passenger numbers on that service are remarkably low. I will happily meet her to go through that, and we can talk about how we can improve those services.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
The Home Office is currently considering responses to a targeted stakeholder consultation on the level of statutory fees for vehicle recovery.
Peter Aldous
I thank the Minister for that response. The fees paid to the often family-run businesses that provide this service have not risen since 2008, and there are cases of operators receiving less than 50% of the statutory fee. This is both unsustainable and unethical. Will my hon. Friend work with her counterparts in the Home Office to put in place arrangements that properly ensure the long-term viability of this industry, thereby keeping our roads safe?
Trudy Harrison
Absolutely. The Home Office is reviewing the responses to the consultation on the level of statutory fees for vehicle recovery. The purpose of the consultation is to gather evidence to ensure that fees are adequate to meet the current costs and operational needs of a sustainable vehicle recovery service. I welcome my hon. Friend’s keen interest in this area, and I will work alongside our colleagues in the Home Office as we progress this necessary update.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
As I said at the last Transport orals, I would be happy to visit when time allows.
Chris Bryant
I hope it will be very soon because, frankly, the harness is ready. The mines rescue service is ready to dangle the Secretary of State down a hole, and I will be right behind him.
On a serious point, the Rhondda railway tunnel is a disused tunnel that is 3,443 yards long. It belongs, oddly, to Highways England, so it is the Secretary of State’s responsibility. If we are able to reopen it as a cycle path, as many people hope, it would be the longest cycle path in Europe. It would be a major local attraction, which would be good for tourism and jobs in an area of outstanding beauty that unfortunately has terrible financial deprivation. The Secretary of State is welcome.
Grant Shapps
I did a bit of research following our last exchange at the Dispatch Box, and it transpires that National Highways owns the tunnel at the moment. I would be happy to transfer it to a local group, the Welsh Government or the local council, with money for the purpose. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to take that up, and I look forward to taking up his offer of a harness at some time in the future when I can see it fully open.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Our world-leading transport decarbonisation plan sets out how transport will be cleaner and greener, leading to healthier communities and supporting tens of thousands of jobs.
Stephen Hammond
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is a world-leading plan, and there is so much going on in the rail industry. As the Secretary of State well knows, cars are still the biggest emitter and the biggest contributor to air pollution. The key is switching to electric vehicles and hybrids. What is his Department doing to encourage local authorities to put up more charging points so the inflection point can happen sooner?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right. As the House is bored of hearing, I have been driving an electric car for the past two and a half years, and they are fantastic. People need to be convinced that they will be able to fill up and add energy when required, which is why we have put £2.5 billion into the process not just for grants for those cars but for the infrastructure itself.
My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that yesterday I was looking at a new design that will be unveiled at COP26 next week for an iconic electric charger that I hope will one day be as familiar as the black taxi, the red phone box and many other iconic street items in order to encourage that move.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
With COP under way, the Government should be sending the strongest signals on transport decarbonisation. On the one hand we have the chief scientific adviser telling people to fly less, as did a report from the nudge unit that the Government quickly deleted and suppressed, but on the other hand the Chancellor is cutting air passenger duty on domestic flights and the Prime Minister flew back from COP on a private jet for a supposedly urgent appointment that turned out to be a dinner for Telegraph journalists. Does the Secretary of State agree with the chief scientific adviser, or does he agree with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister? He cannot do both.
Grant Shapps
I will tell the hon. Lady who I do agree with: the Climate Change Committee. She may not be familiar with this, but it has said that its “overall assessment” is that our net zero strategy, launched this week at COP26, is “ambitious and comprehensive”. On the transport element specifically, the CCC says that it is very positive, rating our plans for transport decarbonisation as the highest in terms of planning; ours is the only sector with good plans and the funding, with incentives. So I hope she will accept that when it comes to transport we are doing everything we can.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The net zero strategy and the transport decarbonisation plan are full of climate buzzwords but are not backed up by the required investment. We have already heard about the paucity of active travel funding in England, but let us look at another area—buses. The Prime Minister boasted about his 4,000 green bus pledge, but that represents just 10% of the English bus fleet, whereas the Scottish Government have committed to helping fund 50% of our fleet—the equivalent of 20,000 buses. When will this Government’s ambition and investment match their rhetoric?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman points out the wonders of the Barnett formula, which allows our record-breaking funding of electric buses, which the Prime Minister has led, to be carried over into Scotland, where that money is able to be used in a way that is helpful. This does not get around the fact that, as we all remember, the Scottish Government have failed to meet their own carbon reduction targets. So I suggest he looks closer to home before criticising the enormous amounts of money coming through the Barnett formula.
Mr Speaker
We now come to Question 13, and, once again, the Member of Parliament cannot access the House to represent democracy and his constituents. Once again, these people are blocking democracy, and the fact that Members who are actually trying to talk about these issues are being blocked from doing so is totally counterproductive. So what I would expect is for the Minister to answer Question 13, please.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I agree entirely with you, Mr Speaker, and observe that it is not only ironic, but totally counterproductive that a Member of Parliament who wished to ask Ministers about carbon is prevented from doing so by protesters purporting to care about carbon. I will do my best to answer my hon. Friend’s question, anticipating what he might have asked. I anticipate that he would have asked me, on behalf of his constituents in Windsor, about Heathrow expansion. He would have expanded on the carbon cost of a third runway, which is what is set out on the Order Paper. Of course, Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, which will need to meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change. He is right to raise those questions. Clearly, the aviation sector has a big part to play in delivering the UK’s net zero commitment. Were he here, I would hope to be able to reassure him that we are continuing, through technology and aviation, to look for ways to reduce the carbon footprint of aviation, to ensure that we can transition to guilt-free flying. We will be setting out the final jet zero strategy early next year, which will show how we can support the benefits of air travel and the opportunities that aviation decarbonisation can bring to the UK. I say to the whole House and to everyone who is concerned about this issue that it is emissions, not flying, that is the problem.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I regularly meet my ministerial colleagues, and together we have implemented 28 measures to alleviate the HGV driver shortage. So far, these measures are resulting in an extra 1,000 applications every week.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Prime Minister was warned of this crisis way back in June, but it took until last month for there to be a paltry offer of 5,000 temporary visas, to fill 100,000 vacancies. The Government recently told the Select Committee on Transport that this crisis was going to last until the end of 2022—that is more than one whole year of empty shelves, port backlogs and rising prices. This is unacceptable incompetence. What is the Government’s plan to end this now?
Grant Shapps
First, it is important to set this in context. This is a global issue. I met my German counterpart here in Parliament just yesterday and it is estimated that by 2027 Germany will have a shortage of 185,000 HGV drivers. We have been taking action, and not just in the past few weeks, as the hon. Lady suggests; since I became Secretary of State, I have launched 28 measures, which are having a real impact. I mentioned that 1,000 more people are becoming lorry drivers each week—or, rather, are having their applications for a provisional signed through. We have actually got 1,000 a day applying for those forms, so we are starting to see those numbers come through. The Opposition leader tells us what his solution is, which is to issue 100,000 visas, which would completely undercut our own lorry drivers and take us back to square one.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Thanks to our hard-working Mayor, Andy Street, diggers are in the ground for the very first part of the East Birmingham tram line, to Digbeth from the city centre. We just awarded, in the spending review, over £1 billion to the West Midlands for transformative projects such as this, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give all his support to our Mayor in the delivery of this important levelling-up priority.
Liam Byrne
Last week’s Budget was a step forward, but if we strip out the re-announced money, we see that it was actually £1 billion less than the Mayor asked for. That shortfall jeopardises our potential to build the 8-mile tram line through east Birmingham, so will the Minister meet me and other Members from east Birmingham so that we can explain to him the cross-party ambition to build the line? We cannot connect what are the poorest communities in the country with the wealth created by High Speed 2 without the tram line, and we cannot level up what is, in effect, the fifth-biggest city in Britain without it.
Andrew Stephenson
The Minister responsible for trams, my hon. Friend Baroness Vere, would be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that and other local priorities. He will be aware that the £1 billion announced in the spending review is only one part of the transport investment that is going into the region. I hope that more good news will be announced for the West Midlands as part of the upcoming integrated rail plan.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Mr Speaker, you have rightly highlighted the Insulate Britain protests outside the House that are preventing Members from getting into the Chamber, which is completely unacceptable. I therefore thought it would be helpful to update the House: following my requirement that National Highways seek injunctions against the protesters, 475 injunctions have been served to protesters at their homes for contempt of court, of which 32 are due to come to court, nine of them later this month.
When it gets to the point that protests against climate change prevent Members of this House from getting here to hold Ministers to account and be heard, it is clearly counterproductive. Contempt of court can lead to unlimited fines and prison sentences. We will act through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to resolve the gap in the law that has led to this situation.
Mr Betts
Five years ago, Sheffield looked as though it was going to benefit from a whole range of levelling-up measures for rail infrastructure, but then the electrification of the midland main line was abandoned in 2017; a positive 2016 report on a new road tunnel between Sheffield and Manchester seems to have lain in the bottom of some ministerial drawer since; and the high-speed rail line between Sheffield and Manchester seems to have become an upgrade to the Hope Valley line which, however welcome, means that trains will get to the very high speed of under 60 mph. The one thing we have left is the eastern leg of High Speed 2. Will the Secretary of State now commit to that eastern leg going ahead? Or is this simply another example of Sheffield being not levelled up but, together with whole parts of the east midlands, being forgotten about and left behind?
Grant Shapps
I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s lack of ambition. He says that only the east midlands line is left; he is wrong: there are still other upgrades to be considered, such as the midland main line and many others. I am afraid he will have to wait for the integrated rail plan, but I think he will be excited when it is delivered.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Grant Shapps
You will not be surprised, Mr Speaker, to hear me say that my hon. Friend is absolutely on the nail. She has listed a litany of problems that the Mayor has created; I shall add to it. She did not mention the 31% increase in council tax for her constituents through the mayoral precept. Also, the Mayor is now considering bringing in checkpoints for anybody driving into London: it would cost £1,000 a year for non-Londoners at checkpoint Chigwell and elsewhere around the capital. It is completely unacceptable and we will fight it all the way.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
May I begin by sending my thoughts and prayers to those injured in Sunday’s train crash, particularly the badly injured train driver, and, of course, I pay tribute to the emergency responders.
The British people are looking for leadership on climate change. The Budget was the clearest indication yet that the Government lack ambition, urgency and commitment after a wearying 11 years in power. The Government saw cuts to domestic aviation taxes, yet baked in inflation-busting rail fare increases and did nothing to reverse the rapid decline in bus use. Of the 4,000 new zero-carbon buses promised by the Prime Minister two years ago, not a single one is yet on the road. The roll-out of electric charging points is sluggish, and, today, there are 1 million more diesel vans on the road than when the Government came to power. So, next week, when Transport Day meets at COP26, what will change?
Grant Shapps
I note that the hon. Gentleman is not listening to the Committee on Climate Change. I will not repeat its quote, but it did say that the transport sector and our plans are particularly world leading. We have actually reduced greenhouse gas by a quarter since we came to power. We are the first country in the world, as he well knows, to legislate for net zero by 2050. In the Budget, we announced another £620 million for that transition to zero-emission vehicles and £180 million for sustainable aviation fuel. The plan that Labour is proposing—and I notice that the GMB union that supports it is proposing—is to stop people from flying, or to allow them to go on holiday only once every five years, and to prevent them from using their cars.[Official Report, 16 November 2021, Vol. 703, c. 4MC.]
Jim McMahon
With respect, our position on aviation and decarbonisation is absolutely clear. I want to stop the Transport Secretary not from flying, but perhaps from flying his own private plane.
Turning to smart motorways, it has been 10 months since I asked the Secretary of State to reinstate the hard shoulder immediately. No action followed. Instead, he ploughed ahead on smart motorway roll-out. Since then, whistleblowers have come forward confirming our worst fears: broken equipment; a lack of monitoring; and, ultimately, lives being placed at risk. This failure has had a devastating impact on people’s lives. Now that the Transport Committee has published its damning report and the families of those who lost loved ones on smart motorways were forced into Parliament Square this week to protest, will he do the right thing and immediately insist that the hard shoulder is reinstated today?
Grant Shapps
We all share the passion and desire to make sure that our roads are as safe as they can possibly be. Sadly, 1,700 people die a year on our roads. It is important that we do everything possible. The Transport Committee that the hon. Gentleman quotes did not say quite what he said. It actually said:
“The evidence suggests that doing so”—
in other words simply putting the hard shoulder back in—
“could put more drivers and passengers at risk of death and serious injury.”
It was the noble Lord Prescott who started to introduce smart motorways. As far as I am aware, I am the first Secretary of State—there have been 12 since—who has been working consistently with an 18-point plan and £500 million to get them sorted out.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I can assure my hon. Friend that our intention for this consultation is to prevent modifications that negatively impact on road safety, vehicle security and the environment. Department for Transport officials have been instructed to ensure that proposals do not prevent activities such as restoration, repairs or legitimate improvements to classic cars, or do any damage to the motor sports businesses involved in these activities. Motor sport is an important sector for society, our economy and our heritage and I thank my hon. Friend for all that he does in championing this important area, as he is a fantastic advocate.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
There are a whole host of massive improvements going on across our railways. I will happily meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about individual diesel multiple units around the Stockton area and how they can be improved. The massive increase in new rolling stock on our railways is extraordinarily good for all passengers up and down the country, and helps with our decarbonisation targets.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Trudy Harrison
As Scarborough and Whitby is the proud home of Alexander Dennis coaches, I know that my right hon. Friend will welcome the firm acceleration that is supporting thousands of zero-emission buses, thanks to a further £355 million of funding announced in the spending review last week. With £71 million extra for our zero-emission bus regional areas scheme, we are bussing back better with a cleaner, greener kind of horsepower.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The hon. Lady tempts me to speculate on the contents of the integrated rail plan. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), she will have to wait and see. However, the Government recognise the importance of Bradford, and particularly the connectivity of Bradford to Leeds—two incredibly important northern cities. I hope that we will publish the integrated rail plan very soon.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Chris Heaton-Harris
I would be delighted to visit. I am sure that the Secretary of State would as well; he definitely does not need a harness to visit places. We are well aware of the opportunities that exist in this area and the importance of the National Memorial Arboretum to so many people. I look forward to continuing conversations with my hon. Friend in due course.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
My inbox—and, I am sure, those of many other Members—is mounting up with complaints from constituents who have been waiting months for responses from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency about drivers’ applications. Many of them are professional drivers, of whom there is a shortage at the moment. One of my constituents who was renewing his licence has not had a reply in time and now cannot work. Will the Secretary of State assure us that something is being done to catch up with the backlog?
Grant Shapps
I bring the hon. Lady and the House good news. It was reported a few weeks ago that there were 56,000 outstanding licence applications at the DVLA, where there had been a long-running strike during covid. The good news is that that 56,000 is now down to just 16,000, of which 4,000 are returned within five days. Those are the new applications. The remainder are being worked on quickly and do not, in fact, stop anybody from driving. They are largely renewals, changes of address and so on. Drivers are allowed to continue driving while waiting for those to be returned, but we will have even that list down within the next week or two.
Darren Henry
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do appreciate your understanding when I was blocked getting into the House earlier today by the protesters.
Last year, thankfully, the Prime Minister came to Broxtowe to announce “Gear Change”, which provides £2 billion-worth of cycling and walking funding. That indicates that active travel is really at the heart of the Government’s agenda. I have in Broxtowe a town called Stapleford where people have put in an expression of interest for something called Mini Holland, which sounds fantastic. Will the Minister explain what that scheme is all about and how the process will work?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will try to amend my answer from earlier. I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend in his place, as he should be, representing his constituents despite the Tarquins in the world outside. I can honestly say to him that “Gear Change” is an extremely important document that has a whole host of pledges that we would like to happen, Mini Hollands being one of them. Where they have been introduced before—Waltham Forest in London is a good example—we are getting towards nearly 50% of all journeys taken within the area being by active travel. That is a massive change in how people go about their business, and indeed massive acceptance by communities that might have been sceptical about them beforehand. They are really valuable schemes.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State and the Chancellor press-released that the Budget would invest in northern transport, but once again the north-east was entirely overlooked. It costs more for a Geordie to go four stops up the West Road on a bus than it does for a Londoner to traverse the whole of London city, so when will the Secretary of State level down bus prices?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady will be familiar with our enthusiasm for buses and the “Bus Back Better” strategy. I have personally been involved with putting tens of millions of pounds into the excellent Nexus system, which helps to connect communities as well. She will simply not find a Government more keen and excited about levelling up transport and bringing it all the way up the country no matter where hon. Members are from.
Adam Afriyie
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very seldom that I become furious, but I am absolutely apoplectic about missing my question this morning due to those reprobates outside who are doing their cause no good whatsoever. I was sitting in my electric vehicle—I know the Secretary of State has one as well—coming here with the sole purpose of putting pressure on the Government to reduce carbon emissions from aviation from Heathrow airport, so it is absolutely bizarre that they should have blocked that question. My question now, which I will slightly rephrase, is: given that aviation is one of the greatest contributors to CO2 emissions, do the Government have any plans to continue to put downward pressure on CO2 from aviation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I am very glad to see my hon. Friend here fighting for his constituents, as ever. I am glad that he made it in past the protestors to make that entirely forceful and appropriate point on their behalf. He is right to acknowledge that aviation is one of the harder to decarbonise sectors, and clearly it has to make a big contribution. The Government are working very hard to make sure that the carbon emissions in aviation are reduced, through technology and innovation, because we wish to see guilt-free flying. We have consulted on the “Jet Zero” strategy. Next year we will publish the final “Jet Zero” strategy, which will explain how we can keep the benefits of air travel and the opportunities that it has for the UK while ensuring that it is done on a vastly reduced carbon emission basis.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Since City of York Council barred blue badge holders from accessing our city centre, it seems also that the Government are delaying implementing fully accessible transport. We heard earlier about the five-year delay on audio-visual for buses, but also, in commissioning active travel schemes, the Government are not making them accessible either. Will the Minister talk to the companies that are putting in place e-travel active travel schemes to ensure that they have an accessible form of vehicles as well so that we can increase motability for disabled people?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think I completely understood it, but in case I have not, perhaps it is worth us meeting to clarify this. Yes, we are spending a huge amount on active travel. Another pledge in “Gear Change” is to have e-bikes going out across local communities, and they are being rolled out now, as they should be. This is determined by local authorities, and perhaps it is a question of localism, but let me meet her to work out what the problem is and rectify it, because we should be able to give it a good nudge from the centre.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
There can be no better place to Bus Back Better than the great city of Stoke-on-Trent, because, sadly, in a survey of 230 residents from across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, people said to me that fares are not fair, reliability is non-existent and there is not good connectivity for places such as Brindley Ford and the great village of Milton. The Secretary of State joked with me recently that I must have broken WhatsApp, because I kept bombarding him with demands and messages. He should save himself a load of hassle, give Stoke-on-Trent the £90 million it wants for the Bus Back Better strategy, and ensure that we level up in the great city of Stoke-on-Trent.
Trudy Harrison
Absolutely yes, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his championing of Bus Back Better. The Government are absolutely determined that great bus services be available to everyone, especially those in Stoke-on-Trent. Our national bus strategy explains how we will make buses more frequent, more reliable, easier to understand and use, better co-ordinated and cheaper. We are more than doubling dedicated bus funding compared with the previous Parliament.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Making aviation net zero is clearly a big challenge. Earlier, the Secretary of State said that it is not flying that is the problem, but emissions from aircraft that use fossil fuels. Will he meet me to discuss ideas around synthetic fuels that scientists from the University of Leeds have brought to my attention?
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The new agreement between the Department for Transport and Greater Anglia on running the railways in East Anglia has omitted the previous commitment in the franchise to reinstate through-services from Lowestoft to Liverpool Street. Greater Anglia has agreed that it will look at that over the next six months. Will my hon. Friend work with it and me to see whether it is possible to do that?
Business of the House
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Before I begin, I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on this day of legend and song, because it is the second anniversary of your being dragged to the Chair with notable reluctance. The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 8 November—Consideration of Lords message relating to the Environment Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, followed by Opposition day (7th allotted day—second part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced, followed by motion to approve the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 and the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021.
Tuesday 9 November—General debate on giving every baby the best start in life, followed by general debate on the provision of school-based counselling services. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
At the conclusion of business on Tuesday 9 November, the House will rise for the November recess and return on Monday 15 November.
The business for the week commencing 15 November will include:
Monday 15 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security (Up-Rating of Benefits) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 16 November—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Wednesday 17 November—Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 18 November—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators' Liability) Bill [Lords].
Friday 19 November—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 22 November will include:
Monday 22 November—Remaining Stages of the Health and Care Bill (Day 1).
Tuesday 23 November—Remaining Stages of the Health and Care Bill (Day 2).
I would like to mark the retirement of Crispin Poyser, who has served the House as a Clerk for more than 40 years. A good understanding of “Erskine May” is essential for the functioning of Parliament, and Crispin is a great proceduralist. In the House and in his secondment to the Cabinet Office as parliamentary adviser to the Government, his work has underpinned the principle of accountability to Parliament. We should all be grateful. I know that his colleagues will miss his expertise nearly as much as they will miss him. I thank him for his terrific public service.
I am aware that last night’s vote has created a certain amount of controversy. It is important that standards in this House are done on a cross-party basis. The House voted very clearly yesterday to show that it is worried about the process of handling complaints, and that we would like an appeals system; but the change would need to be supported on a cross-party basis, and that is clearly not the case.
While there is a very strong feeling on both sides of the House that there is a need for an appeals process, there is equally a strong feeling that this should not be based on a single case, or applied retrospectively. I fear last night’s debate conflated the individual case with the general concern. This link needs to be broken. Therefore, I and others will look to work on a cross-party basis to achieve improvements in our system for future cases. We will bring forward more detailed proposals once there have been cross-party discussions.
Mr Speaker
I would also like to express the thanks of the whole House to Crispin Poyser for his 43 years of service to the House. We wish him and his wife Krissie well, and send our best wishes for the many things that they will do next. Crispin is known among colleagues for his keen procedural mind, curiosity and kindness. He will be missed by the House, and I thank him for the loyal service that he has given.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I join him and you, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to Crispin Poyser. Clerks are some of the many unsung heroes who keep this place going. We are incredibly grateful to them all; they appear to know absolutely everything. I wish Crispin Poyser a happy retirement from this place. I also wish everyone a happy Diwali. May light shine on us all.
I am frankly astonished by what the right hon. Gentleman just said about separating the review of the standards process from the individual case. Government Members made the choice yesterday to link the two. There is no separating them retrospectively—he has made much of the fact that the Government do not want retrospective rule change. Much was said about the standards procedure not being in line with that in other workplaces, but MPs are holders of public office, not employees. We are subject to professional self-regulation, not employment law.
Government Members cannot pick and choose; if they want to be treated as employees of this House, rather than office holders, then alongside all other employees, they should be wearing masks around the estate and in the Chamber. Unfortunately, unlike when it comes to breaking the rules about paid advocacy, a convivial and fraternal spirit does not protect everyone else. The Government cannot have it both ways. Can the right hon. Gentleman ask his friends to do the right thing and wear their masks—if not for themselves and each other, at least for the staff?
On Monday, the Committee on Standards in Public Life published its 23rd report. More than 25 years have passed since the seven principles of public life were first introduced off the back of a previous escapade of Tory sleaze and corruption, and we and the Government are back there again. Can the Leader of the House confirm whether the Government will endorse the report? Or, if they do not like the recommendations, which I strongly suspect that they do not, will they just abolish the committee? Will they establish another sham Committee, so that the Government can get the answers they want?
Labour will not participate in the sham Committee that the Tories voted through yesterday, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. We will look with interest at his proposals, but we will not participate in a parallel process when the Chair of the Committee on Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting behind me, is doing such a great job with the other cross-party members of the Committee and its lay members.
How will the other Committee be resourced? Has there been a proposal under the estimates process? Considering that the Committee will risk wasting taxpayer’s money, which I know the Leader of the House dislikes intensely, if he cannot get it past estimates, could he ask one of his hon. Friends to contribute some of their lobbying money? Or will he perhaps pay the Chair’s salary?
As the Opposition will not participate in the sham Committee, will the Leader of the House confirm whether it will sit with only Tory members? How will it be decided who sits on the Committee, whether it is the one voted through yesterday or the other one that he has mentioned this morning?
Given the Business Secretary’s frankly disgraceful comments this morning, can I ask whether the Leader of the House agrees with him that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who was properly appointed, should resign? Is that his view—yes or no?
To continue on the theme of standards, I asked the Leader of the House last week about the updated ministerial code. As I said then, six months have gone by since Lord Geidt was appointed as the new independent adviser, but we still do not have that code. The Government seem to think it is okay for MPs to act as paid advocates for private companies, so it is no surprise to me that they do not seem to have much regard to it. Will the Leader of the House please confirm when it will be published, or whether they are just going to get rid of that as well?
This month is Islamophobia Awareness Month. Earlier in the week, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) said that this time a year ago, he wrote to the Prime Minister raising concerns over Islamophobia, and a year on, the Prime Minister has still not responded to my hon. Friend. This is wholly unacceptable. Can the Leader of the House please ask the Prime Minister when he will write back to my hon. Friend? Can he also again remind his other Cabinet colleagues of their responsibilities to this House, because I am afraid that we are still not getting timely—or indeed in some cases any—answers to written parliamentary questions or letters, or from hotlines?
Finally, to avoid any unfortunate coincidences, as Conservative Members have put it, between current cases and other Committees or processes, will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to say whether there are any other parliamentary procedures or Committees that he is likely to want to amend, abolish or duplicate—or will he wait until another one of his friends needs saving?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I join the hon. Lady in wishing people a happy Diwali? I hope that they enjoy their celebrations.
There is a problem with people writing their questions before they have heard what has been said, because I made it quite clear in my business statement that we need to proceed on a cross-party basis, and it is a matter of regret that there was no cross-party agreement yesterday. Obviously, a Committee cannot work effectively without Opposition Members on it, and I think that was absolutely clear from what I said.
We need to ensure that we have standards in this place that are fair and robust, and that are seen to be fair and robust. I would highlight the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, which has an appeal body, the independent expert panel. The independent expert panel has on it a High Court judge—somebody of the highest standing and legal training—but that is not the case for standards cases. This issue has been bubbling away for some time, as people have seen the differential between the two.
Of course, I listened very carefully to the debate yesterday, and to comments made from across the House, and I absolutely recognise that it is important to proceed on a cross-party basis to have the highest standards in this House, but ones that, when implemented, are fair to those they are applied to. That is what we will seek to achieve. I hope that the hon. Lady and others are willing to enter into this in a spirit of co-operation, as we did when we co-operated successfully with her predecessors over the ICGS question, to ensure that the ICGS could be taken out of the Standards Committee while remaining under its umbrella, and become a much more independent process.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the fact that this is Islamophobia Awareness Month, and for asking for a reply to a letter that has been sent. As I have said many times in this House, I view it as my role to facilitate for this House answers to legitimate questions. This is a matter of priority for me, and I regularly remind my hon. and right hon. Friends of the need to respond. I will continue to do that, and I can assure her that I will take up with No. 10 Downing Street the letter that was sent last year.
On the hon. Lady’s question about whether there are any other planned changes, I am always rather with Palmerston: “Change, change—aren’t things bad enough already?”. However, I point out that the Procedure Committee is available to consider alterations to our procedures. It does invaluable work, and at the moment it is considering whether proxy voting should be extended.
The hon. Lady, and all other Members of the House, will know that our proceedings and processes have evolved. There was a lot of talk yesterday about 1695. As I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, that related to a Speaker, Sir John Trevor, who was given 1,000 guineas, I believe by the City of London Corporation and the East India Company, to influence proceedings in Parliament. He was therefore removed as Speaker, but rather oddly remained Master of the Rolls. We are so lucky, on your second anniversary, that no such question should arise with the current Speaker, who is fortunately not Master of the Rolls.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
On Monday I attended a debate in Westminster Hall on research into endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome. I was hoping, indeed planning, to participate, but such were the excellent speeches from female colleagues who had been suffering from that condition, as well as time pressures, that it was clearly appropriate to hear their important words first. The debate highlighted that it can take up to eight years between someone presenting and their diagnosis. Could we perhaps build on Monday’s debate, broadening the subject to consider how long it takes between presenting and diagnosis for someone with certain conditions, and what we can do to improve that?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, which has also been raised with me by constituents. That is the sort of question that may well have come from Sir David Amess in the past, because he was a passionate campaigner for those suffering with endometriosis. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence publishes authoritative evidence-based guidelines for healthcare professionals that help to ensure that the diagnosis, care and treatment of NHS patients is based on the best available evidence. I hope that eight years is not seen as an acceptable length of time for people to wait for diagnosis and treatment. In the spending review an extra £5.9 billion of taxpayers’ money was announced for capital expenditure to support elective, recovery, diagnostic and technology over the next three years, and we are rolling out 44 community diagnostic centres to increase capacity. That could deliver up to 2.8 million scans in the first full year of operation. We aim to deliver up to 100 community diagnostic centres in total by 2024-25, and we will publish the delivery plan for tackling the electives backlog later this year. I will, of course, pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
What an absolute and utter mess, and I am not entirely sure that it has been much helped and assisted by what the Leader of the House said about the process this morning. He is inviting us to capitulate to this Tory kangaroo court Committee, and go along with what the Tories are intending to do on reform. If he wants us to participate, we must return to the status quo. We have to get back to where we were before we voted yesterday, with an intact Standards Committee, and abide by the findings of that Committee. Only on that basis will we enter any discussions or talks with the right hon. Gentleman.
What we have is disgraceful. We effectively have two Committees—perhaps three if the Leader of the House gets his way—that have no legitimacy in the House, no confidence of the membership of the House, and no trust from any members of the public at all. No wonder so many gloomy Tory MPs are kicking around the House this morning—the magnitude of what they attempted to do yesterday is starting to dawn on them. What they did was to legitimise and sanction paid advocacy, and signal a return to cash for questions and grubby brown envelopes stuffed full of cash for doing their paymasters’ bidding. They have effectively dispensed with independent investigation, and they have transferred that to a kangaroo court Committee on which they have given themselves a majority. We will play no part in that Committee of corruption, and I am glad the Labour party will not either.
I heard the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy say this morning that the standards commissioner should review her position. That is akin to giving the referee a red card because we do not like the decision of that referee. It is not too late. Return us to the status quo and to where we were yesterday, and we will enter into discussions. But not on the basis of this ridiculous attempt at reform.
Mr Speaker, I have given up trying to get the Leader of the House to wear a face mask. I have now accepted that he does not care a jot about the safety and security of his colleagues or staff in this House. We now have an outbreak in this House, and we have him, with his weird individualism and arrogance, refusing to do anything about it. Maybe that is something that his Tory kangaroo court Committee could look at, because it will have precious little else to do.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will just add in response to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) that I have had a note to tell me that the party chairman responded on behalf of the Prime Minister to the letter on Islamophobia. That was done earlier this year.
Nobody would wish to defend paid advocacy. I would say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that his pre-prepared fury every week is becoming very much a broken record. It does not matter what the subject is; the fury is enormous. It may be that it is raining outside and the hon. Gentleman is furious. It may be that there has been a debate on standards and the hon. Gentleman is furious. Anything that comes up, he comes here to be cross, and he gets crosser and crosser as the weeks and the days go on.
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, rather than concentrating on his pre-prepared fury, he would have noted that I said that we need to make sure that this happens on a cross-party basis. It would be idle to pretend that there are not concerns about the system. It would be idle to pretend that there are not many people in this House who feel that not having a proper appeals process is a flaw in the system. It would be idle to suggest that there are not people in this House who recognise that the system set up for the ICGS, with the IEP, has, with a High Court judge, a better legal focus than the other system. These things are all true and they all need to be looked at, but of course, to maintain high standards and proper processes, we want to have cross-party support.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I think one of the problems with yesterday was the fact that two issues were being put together; one was the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) and the other was the reform of the system. On what the Leader of the House has said now, I understand the process of going forward on a cross-party basis, but I am not sure how that leaves the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire. Perhaps we could have a statement next week clarifying the Government’s position.
I voted for the Leadsom amendment, as it is called. I listened to the debate and I made up my mind. Will the Leader of the House issue a statement reminding people in the media that all votes in this House are free? I, for one, am never going to be told by someone else not to vote my conscience.
But Sir, the issue that concerns me most—I am sorry to take so long—is that this morning, my office was vandalised because of the way I voted last night. That puts my staff in danger. This is not the way that this should happen. We can have strong disagreement, but I think some of us should remember what happened to Sir David Amess, and perhaps our language needs to be a little temperate. I ask the Leader of the House if we can have a statement next week setting out the Government’s position on what he has said today.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I just reiterate what I said at the beginning of these proceedings? While there is a very strong feeling on both sides of the House that there is a need for an appeals process, there is equally a strong feeling that this should not be based on a single case or applied retrospectively. I fear last night’s debate conflated the individual case with the general concern. This link needs to be broken. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.
As regards the vexed question of whipping, as I understand it, all Whips are attendance Whips. My hon. Friend is well known for his independence of mind, and I am sure his constituents are aware of that, but to vandalise some Member’s property or office because of the way that Member voted seems to me to be potentially a breach of privilege, and it may be something that needs to be looked into with considerable care. As you warned us yesterday, Mr Speaker, we always need to discuss these things in a temperate and sensible manner.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The problem is, we are in a quagmire now. I fully support the comments that have just been made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I am sorry for everything that has happened to his office; I think that has happened to quite a lot of MPs over the last few years. I think the message for all of us is that we need to be very careful when we are talking about standards issues, as I have tried to be.
The Leader of the House is quite right that we should never be changing the rules at the last minute for a named individual. There is a potential solution to that, which is that the Standards Committee, on a cross-party basis, could produce another report next Tuesday, which the Government could then put to the House next week to deal with the case of the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). I think the Committee would say exactly the same thing, but it would be a means of separating that case out from the issue of the whether we should change the system.
On changing the system, as the Leader of the House knows, because he has given evidence to our Committee, we are already reviewing that. There are decent points to be made about things that could be improved in the system. They are not easy things to resolve, but my Committee will do its best, on a cross-party basis and with independent members—a valuable addition to the process and an important part of establishing the trust of the public—to take that forward.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that there are concerns about the system. I think there is a general concern about the investigator and the adjudicator being the same person. It has been suggested to me on a number of occasions that that should be looked at. I am grateful for his suggestion that we should use moderate language, although it has to be remembered that he was the one comparing what happened yesterday to Russia when he was on the wireless this morning, so I hope he will use moderate language not only when he is in this House. As I say, it is important that this is looked at on a cross-party basis, because we need to have robust standards in which Members have confidence.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I was shocked and incredibly disappointed to hear of the Labour west midlands police and crime commissioner’s plans to overhaul the use of stop and search powers across West Midlands police. Yesterday, I wrote to the police and crime commissioner to spell out my disappointment at his proposals. My view, shared by other Members, is that we should be empowering our police officers to use stop and search powers in an appropriate and proportionate way, rather than undermining them and making our streets less safe. Will the Leader of the House make some time for west midlands MPs to debate this issue and ensure that the views of my constituents are represented?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. Police chiefs are absolutely clear: stop and search is a vital tool to crack down on serious violence and to keep people safe. That is why we have announced the relaxation of voluntary restrictions on section 60 stop and search powers in all forces in England and Wales. We are also introducing a new court order to make it easier for officers to stop and search those convicted of knife crime. Every weapon seized is potentially a life saved. Last year, stop and search removed 11,000 dangerous weapons from our streets. I encourage my hon. Friend to seek a Back-Bench debate on this matter. I will share her concerns with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House seemed to indicate earlier that the ICGS system will remain unchanged. Could he now make it absolutely clear that there will not be any changes to the independent system, even if an MP happens to dislike the outcome of a particular case?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I said that in my remarks yesterday. I had a representation from union officials before the debate, which I thought it important to reply to in order to reassure people who work in the Palace that cases relating to harassment and sexual harassment that come under the ICGS are entirely unaffected by what happened yesterday. They have a different process. They have an Independent Expert Panel as an appeal, organised and presided over by a High Court judge, which I think gives those who may come up before the panel greater confidence in its ability to deliver natural justice.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may think, after a £56 million levelling-up fund, a £29 million transforming cities fund, a £17.6 million Kidsgrove town deal and 550 new Home Office jobs in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, that perhaps we would be rather full up in my constituency, but he will not be shocked to hear that we have an appetite for more. Potholes drive us potty in the Potteries, so with the announcement in the Budget of £2.7 billion to fix them, does he agree that Stoke-on-Trent should get a big slice, particularly when taking into account the condition and use of our roads, and that congestion delays drivers by an average of more than a minute for every mile travelled?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is beginning to remind me of Oliver Twist, in that he is always asking for more. I heard him in Transport questions asking for £90 million and now he wants even more money. He is an absolutely terrific campaigner for Stoke-on-Trent and for getting things done there. There is a £2.7 billion fund over the next three years for local road maintenance, and there is this brilliant JCB device that can mend potholes very quickly. I encourage him to keep on campaigning to get rid of the potholes and to lobby his council to ensure that that is one of its priorities. However, I really commend him for his success in ensuring that any available taxpayers’ money always goes to Stoke-on-Trent.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It has just been announced in the media that the Government are U-turning and have ditched immediate plans to overhaul the standards system. First, will the Leader of the House confirm that? Secondly, does he agree that we need an urgent debate on the whole issue?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That was what I said in my statement at the beginning. We wanted to proceed on a cross-party basis and clearly, therefore, the Select Committee not being supported by other parties was not going to be an effective way of doing that. We had a debate on standards yesterday, which took up 90 minutes and was quite comprehensive.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
With regard to yesterday’s amendment to the Standards Committee’s motion and my right hon. Friend’s statements this morning, both initially and in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I welcome this move, but I emphasise the need to move very, very quickly for cross-party involvement and to allay the concerns that have already been expressed by members of the public. Our credibility is destroyed if we do not nip this in the bud very, very quickly.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think we have moved quickly. We recognise that not achieving cross-party support yesterday made it very difficult to get the reforms that we are seeking. We do still seek to have a system that is properly fair and allows a genuine form of appeal, but that cannot be done by the fiat of the Government. It needs broader support than that.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
One of my constituents, Christopher Crawford, recently changed his name by deed poll and has been experiencing considerable delays in securing a replacement biometric residency card. No other details have changed, but he has been told that the process will take up to six months. As he works in the creative industries, without this card he is unable to prove his identity and to apply for a covid pass, which is required in Wales in certain circumstances. I have written to the Home Secretary and no action has been forthcoming, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate so that we can look at the delays in the Home Office and actions that it can take to expedite matters and militate against circumstances such as these?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I view it as my role as Leader of the House to facilitate issues of this kind, when Members bring forward specific issues relating to their constituents who are not receiving an efficient Government service. I will therefore take this up with the Home Secretary after business questions, although perhaps if the hon. Gentleman could email to me further details of his constituent and the new name that he has adopted by deed poll, I will do what I can to try to speed up the process.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As shadow roads Minister, I had spent this week preparing to speak in a Committee on Monday on motor vehicles regulations—that was slightly complicated by the fact that one of the statutory instruments did not seem to have been published. We were told yesterday that that Committee would not go ahead. As a result, I had a conversation with the chair of the all-party group on trailer and towing safety, our neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). It would have saved an awful lot of time and an awful lot of conversation and speculation yesterday if we had been told that the reason why the Committee was pulled was that it would be listed for the main Chamber on Monday instead. To be frank, this has upset rather a lot of people who were hoping that the measures on trailers were not going to go ahead. I would like to know from the Leader of the House why things could not have been tied up and why, when the Delegated Legislation Committee was cancelled, we could not have been told that it was going to be in the Chamber.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is a very good question, but the answer is that the Chamber has to be told first the business of the Chamber. That is a courtesy to the House. I appreciate that when things are being cancelled, it is not helpful that people are not informed of the replacement, but it is absolutely standard practice to notify the Chamber first of business in the Chamber.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
As the Leader of the House may be aware, I have been highlighting since August the unacceptable delays to state pension payments for the newly retired. Despite protestations from the pensions Minister that all payments would be up to date
“by the end of October”,
today the Department for Work and Pensions has admitted that thousands of newly retired people still do not have their rightful pensions, including many in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran. This is causing deep financial distress, not least to the 1950s women who have already had their pension age increased. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out what he will do to ensure that the pension system is fit for purpose and that this mess, which has gone on for far too long, will be sorted out once and for all?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will tell the hon. Lady what I did the last time she raised the matter: I contacted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions within a few minutes of the end of business questions, and was told that it was expected that the problem would be sorted out by the end of October. I note that the hon. Lady says that that has not happened; I will be in touch with the Department immediately after business questions. I know that the Department deeply regrets the delays that have taken place.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
St Joseph’s Catholic club in Birtley in my constituency has been running a 1 o’clock club in recent weeks, bringing together residents in a social and friendly environment with huge success. We all know that tackling social isolation and loneliness is really important, especially in the light of coronavirus, so will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating St Joseph’s Catholic club on its work? Can we have a debate in Government time on progress towards tackling loneliness?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, I would very much like to congratulate St Joseph’s Catholic club on its 1 o’clock club and its efforts to tackle loneliness. I note that loneliness can be greatly helped by spiritual fulfilment, which many people find through their religious practices; I am therefore delighted that the Catholic Church is involved in helping to tackle loneliness. I fear that I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate, but it may be that the Backbench Business Committee would be keen to help.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for all the work that you are doing to ensure that Parliament is kept safe for staff and Members? May I say to the Leader of the House that this place is not safe? Around voting time, the Lobbies around the Chamber are rammed with many of his colleagues who are not wearing face masks, putting us all at risk. I ask him to review that with you, Mr Speaker, and with others in this House.
The housing crisis in York is growing and it seems that the Government’s proposals around planning have run into the long grass. Could we have a debate in Government time to look at housing need and tenure need in order to address the housing crisis that we are seeing in our constituencies?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises a matter that is of concern across the country: how we have a planning system that provides the number of houses that we need and ensures that the right number of permissions are granted every year to achieve the targets and to allow people to own their own home, which is the fundamental aim of planning reform. It was announced in the Queen’s Speech that there would be a planning Bill, and it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to deliver a planning Bill.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the Leader of the House and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who is in her place, will be interested to know that 30 million NHS dental appointments have been lost since the start of the pandemic. Access to urgent treatment is delayed and my constituents continue to struggle to find an NHS dentist. Can we have a debate in Government time on funding and access to NHS dentistry?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady will know that there is a very considerable catch-up plan for the NHS, including £5.4 billion over the next six months, but at the height of the pandemic, the very immediate contact that patients have with a dentist was thought to be a particularly high risk. However, I know that dentists are now very much back to work; indeed, I have visited dentists in my constituency who are extremely busy working through the backlog. We should be grateful to them for the work that they are doing, but the resources are being provided to help with it.
Covid-19 Vaccinations
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on our covid-19 vaccination programme.
It is less than a year since Margaret Keenan made history by becoming the first person in the world to receive a covid-19 vaccination outside a clinical trial. Since then, we have been leading the world with our vaccination roll-out. We should all take huge pride in the progress that we have made. We have now delivered more than 100 million doses across the UK, including more than 50 million first doses, more than 45 million second doses, and more than 8 million booster and third doses. The UK Health Security Agency estimates that our jabs have prevented more than 24 million infections and more than 127,000 deaths.
Winter is always a challenging time for the NHS, but this year it is even more so, with more indoor mixing, the circulation of flu, and a new risk of more covid-19 variants.
We must continue to do everything we can to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our NHS. The vaccine roll-out is our best defence against the virus, and it remains the Government’s top priority. While more than 90% per cent of adults across the United Kingdom have received their first dose, about 5 million adults are yet to come forward, but it is never too late to come forward, and we will continue to help everyone to get their jabs so that no one is left behind.
Data published last week by the Office for National Statistics shows that the risk of dying from covid is 32 times greater in unvaccinated people than in fully vaccinated people. That only underlines what we already knew—the critical importance of vaccination—and we are committed to making getting booster jabs as easy as possible. More than 2,400 vaccine sites are now in operation across England, and people can access a vaccination via a walk-in site or book an appointment regardless of whether they have an NHS number. We recognise that the chance to book a jab early, even before the eligibility date, has the potential to drive up bookings for boosters, and we are considering that carefully.
We will not ease up on vaccine uptake, and will continue to work with clinicians, social media platforms, local authorities, faith groups and businesses—indeed, with anyone who can communicate the benefits of vaccination. We have funded community champions across the country to work with local leaders and communities to encourage people to come forward.
We have also accelerated our vaccination programme for children and young people. All those aged 12 to 15 can now get their vaccinations at school, or by booking an appointment via the national booking service. More than 200 sites are now available for appointments outside school, and school age immunisation teams have visited more than 2,500 schools in England so far, with 800 more due to be visited next week. I am delighted that more than 650,000 12 to 15-year olds have been vaccinated since the programme was launched in September.
We are also rapidly rolling out our booster programme to give people the best protection over the winter and help to reduce pressure on the NHS. Although our vaccines give powerful protection, we know that the levels of protection offered by a covid-19 vaccine fall over time—particularly in older people, who are at greater risk from the virus—and even a small reduction in protection can have a significant impact on hospital admissions. The goal of the booster programme is to top up that protection. More than 8 million people across the UK have now received the vital protection that a booster dose provides. Our brilliant NHS is delivering the biggest vaccination programme in NHS history, administering hundreds of thousands of booster jabs every day, and the pace has been accelerating rapidly, with a record 1.6 million jabs in England last week alone. A further 2.2 million invitations are going out this week.
Doctors, nurses, pharmacists and volunteers up and down the country are playing their part in delivering jabs to protect the country against the virus. GPs in particular continue to be the bedrock of the vaccine programme, delivering more than 70% of all vaccinations so far, and I know that the whole country is grateful for their tireless work throughout the pandemic.
The most important thing that everyone can do to protect themselves, their family and the freedoms for which we have fought so hard is to get their jab and, if they are eligible, their booster dose. We are making it easier than ever to get protected, so please come forward.
People eligible for their booster can already use the NHS online walk-in finder to find the most convenient site to get their top-up without an appointment. There are hundreds of walk-in sites across the country. We have also updated our guidance to make it clear that covid-19 boosters can be given slightly earlier to those at highest risk, where it makes sense operationally. For example, we are allowing care home residents who may have received their second dose at different times to be vaccinated in the same session when the vaccination team are in the home, as long as they have passed the five-month mark.
Covid-19 is not our only adversary this winter. We are also facing the threat of flu, which even before this pandemic, placed a great strain on the NHS at this time of year. Last season, we saw extremely low influenza activity levels globally and as a result, we may see lower levels of population immunity against the flu and more strains in circulation this winter. To combat this, a record 35 million people are eligible for a free flu jab this year, and this provides us with another way that we can keep our country safe.
Finally, it is not just in vaccinations that records are being set. I am delighted to confirm that today we have become the first country in the world to approve an antiviral for covid-19 that can be taken at home. In clinical trials, molnupiravir has been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalisation or death for covid-19 patients who are most at risk by 50%. This treatment has gone through a rigorous assessment for the highest standards of safety by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. We are now working across Government and the NHS to urgently get this treatment to patients, initially through a national study so that we can collect more data on how antivirals work in a mostly vaccinated population. I urge everyone to get their covid and flu jabs as soon as they are eligible, in order to protect themselves, their loved ones, and the extraordinary progress that we have made together. I commend this statement to the House.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement and take this opportunity say a huge thank you to our NHS. Frontline staff are doing a fantastic job continuing to deliver the vaccine programme, which is especially complex and fraught with challenges as they deliver first, second and third doses as well as jabs for 12 to 15-year-olds. They are coping with numerous pressures in the system, but continue to work flat out to get the UK through this pandemic.
Winter is coming, though, and frankly the Government just do not have a handle on covid, going into the busiest season for our NHS. The Government must get a grip on the stalling vaccination programme. Plan B, which contains measures that we already support, such as mask wearing and allowing working from home, is simply not enough on its own. Yes, we support it, but it is not enough on its own. We must turbocharge vaccine boosters, fix sick pay and improve ventilation.
The clinically vulnerable are simply not getting the jabs they need. Local residents are contacting us saying that they cannot get the boosters they so desperately need. One lady in her 70s who has underlying health conditions went to her pharmacy and called 119, just to be told that she was not eligible for her booster. She has now finally got one booked for December, but she had to rely on her daughter to book the appointment for her because she does not use the internet. The system simply is not working, particularly for many of those who need it most.
The Government had a deadline of 1 November for offering booster jabs to all care home residents. Right now, only 23% of care home residents in Leicester have had their booster jab, and the picture across the country is extremely patchy. To be clear, just promoting pop-up vaccine clinics does not help care home residents. We must use all the resources we have, including community pharmacists, retired medics and trained volunteers, to go into care homes and vaccinate residents. The Government are failing and this is putting people’s lives at risk.
In my borough of Wandsworth, the two-dose rate is only 67%, which means that almost 100,000 people do not have the recommended level of vaccination, but this is not an isolated example—people in Wandsworth are working very hard to get the vaccine out—and it is replicated across the country. What are the Government doing to increase the uptake?
Let us be honest, it is largely less affluent areas that have the lowest take-up, proving that vaccine inequalities are alive and kicking. Covid has shone a spotlight on the health inequalities that exist across the country. Why are the Government ignoring them again now? We are tired of issuing the same warnings time and again.
Our rate of child vaccination is shamefully low and slowed during half-term—the rate is still only around 20%. There were almost 250,000 children out of school in the days before half-term. Where is the plan?
On current trends, we will not complete the booster programme until spring 2022. The Government need to get a grip and set a target of 500,000 boosters a day. At the moment, the figure is less than 300,000 a day, which is why we are calling for more pop-up vaccine clinics, greater use of community pharmacies and the mobilisation of retired medics.
As we approach a difficult winter, Ministers have failed to put in place measures such as improved ventilation, proper sick pay and fully resourced local contact-tracing teams, all of which would help to reduce the spread of the virus. We must get the balance right and ensure flu vaccines, covid vaccines and boosters are all delivered at a high pace from now until the end of winter. While the booster scheme is so slow, the Government should never have scrapped mask wearing and working from home. The Prime Minister should never have abandoned those measures.
The Government have failed to plan yet again, and they are putting the country at risk going into winter. We need less bluster from this Government, who seem to spend more time planning to protect their mates than the lives of people up and down the country. We need action now.
Maggie Throup
Ninety per cent. of the adult population have had their first dose, and 8 million people have taken up the opportunity to have a booster jab. That is a successful vaccination programme, so I will take no lessons from the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady talks about care homes and, from a personal point of view, I know how important it is to make sure our most vulnerable are vaccinated, which is why I am delighted that nine out of 10 care homes have had their jabs either delivered or booked. That is a great success.
This Government have already recognised that covid has exposed the disparities across the nation, which is why on 1 October we launched the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities to understand what is important and how we can make real change in our communities that need the most help.
The hon. Lady talks about bringing back retired medics and volunteers, but they are already back. They have been playing their part for months, and I take this opportunity to thank them for all their efforts. Just last week, I met a retired medic who had come back to St Thomas’ Hospital, and he was relishing his role in this amazing vaccination programme. The hon. Lady does those volunteers and returners a huge disservice.
I am always grateful to the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), because throughout this pandemic they have usually been co-operative, helpful and in agreement with us, but the hon. Lady’s remarks today give too little credit to the phenomenal role that the NHS and community pharmacies are already playing in the roll-out of our vaccination programme. They are delivering a booster programme of third doses while delivering the largest flu programme ever, with 35 million people now eligible for a flu jab. I call on people to come forward as soon as they can.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
My apologies, Mr Speaker, for missing the start of the Minister’s statement because you managed to expedite parliamentary business with commendable briskness this morning.
I thank the Minister for her update. Let me say how welcome it is that we have approved the new antiviral, molnupiravir—a new word for us to memorise—which could be immensely significant. When does she think we will be able to distribute it to people who have caught covid who are at home? She says that there is going to be a national study, which is potentially an important step. However, in a pandemic we sometimes bypass these national studies and go straight to distributing medicines that we know are safe to members of the public. Might this not be one of those occasions where we decide to speed things up? I also commend her efforts on the vaccine programme, but, as the shadow spokesman said, one reason we are behind other European countries on vaccinating teenagers is that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation did not give its decision until September, whereas France was able to start vaccinating before the summer holidays. Is she looking at how we could speed up the JCVI processes? I appreciate that her hands are tied.
May I also ask the Minister to look at the booking system, because in parts of my constituency people are not able to book a booster jab until after they have passed the six-month mark? Would it not be better for anyone to be able to book their booster jab after they have passed the five-month mark? Finally, may I ask her when she is planning to tell the House about the very important decision on mandatory jabbing for NHS workers? That is a difficult decision. It is one I would support if the Government brought it to the House. I have read in the press that they are thinking of doing that in the spring, which mi well be the right timing, but this is something that NHS staff want to know about.
Maggie Throup
I thank my right hon. Friend for his questions. I reiterate on the antivirals that we are working across government and the NHS to urgently get this treatment to patients. As he rightly says, it is important that we act very quickly. It was only earlier today that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency gave its approval, so we are already taking rapid steps in letting people know about this issue. He talked about the JCVI, for which I have huge respect. I do not think it is my position to intervene in its processes. We need robust processes to make sure that what we have available and the programmes we have are very safe, as the UK population would expect. He also talked about booking the booster. We always need to look at ways of improving accessibility, but we did open up the opportunity for people to go to walk-in centres for their booster, so that they do not need to book online or call 119. We are looking at ways of making this easier all the time. On the mandating of jabs, the Secretary of State will make an announcement in due course.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for previous sight of her statement. Scotland leads the UK in both first and second vaccination rates: 90% of those aged over 12 have been vaccinated with at least one dose, whereas in England the figure is 85; for second doses, the figures are 81% as against 79%, with booster roll-outs taking place across these lands as we speak. How do the UK Government plan to match Scotland and encourage greater uptake of vaccines among those who are so far unvaccinated?
The Government said in their Budget that they planned to invest responsibly. Does the Minister believe it was responsible to cancel a multi-million-pound contract—threatening hundreds of jobs in Livingston for no good reason— to supply a covid-19 vaccine that phase 3 trials show may be more effective than the Oxford vaccine? Will she rethink that outrageous decision?
Maggie Throup
I thank the hon. Lady for her update on what is happening in Scotland. I commend those involved in the roll-out of the vaccination programme in Scotland. We can all learn lessons from each other in this pandemic and it is only right that we do so. On the contracts the hon. Lady talked about, I will not comment on commercial decisions.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement and the excellent work that she and her team are doing to roll out boosters as fast as possible. I urge her to consider whether bookings for boosters could be made in advance, so that people are already booked in when they become eligible and can immediately have their booster.
Maggie Throup
I reassure my hon. Friend that we always look at ways to make it easier for people to get their booster, as well as for people to get their first and second jabs and their flu jab. We are always open to looking at opening up further opportunities.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Minister said earlier that she will not take any lessons from Labour on this issue but, given we have one of the highest death rates in Europe, perhaps she should.
I want to talk about one of the most vulnerable groups of people who have been left unprotected throughout this pandemic. One in six of the most critically ill covid patients in the UK are unvaccinated pregnant women. What are the Government doing to protect pregnant women now and throughout the ongoing pandemic?
Maggie Throup
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I find it really concerning that one in six people in hospital with covid are unvaccinated pregnant women and it is an issue that I wholeheartedly want to address. I encourage every lady who is either looking to become or is pregnant to talk to their midwife and their GP and get reassurance that vaccines are safe for that cohort of ladies. The best thing they can do is to protect themselves and their babies.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I got my jabs on time, I then managed to get covid—probably from this place—and I have also had my booster jab. I understand from the Minister that there is a new antiviral drug; how would that have been given to me when I was quite poorly with covid? When we have new drugs, can we give them easier names to pronounce?
Maggie Throup
My hon. Friend makes a good point: I do not know why the pharmaceutical companies come up with these tongue-tying names for their drugs. As I said earlier, we need to make sure that we roll out the new antiviral to the right people. The important and exciting thing is that the drug can be taken in people’s homes.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Today marks the day when we have the most covid cases ever, so it is a sad day for the UK.
My concern is schools. The advice is that ventilation works against covid, yet schools are desperately underfunded for ventilation measures. Will the Minister speak to the Minister for School Standards to ensure that the budget for such measures can be refreshed so that all children, staff and families can be as protected as possible from covid?
Maggie Throup
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is so important to protect our youngsters. A lot of investment has gone into making sure that there is ventilation in schools, but I will talk to my counterpart in the Department for Education to see whether more can be done.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I recognise the enormous amount that is going into the booster programme and thank the Minister for that. In Norfolk and Waveney we are already up to nearly 55% of all eligible constituents having had their boosters, but my North Norfolk constituency has a particularly elderly demographic and we have no walk-in booster availability at all. I urge the Minister to put pressure on my local clinical commissioning group, given the worry it causes for the elderly demographic, to make sure that people can access walk-in booster jabs as quickly as possible.
Maggie Throup
I think my hon. Friend has already got his message over loud and clear to his CCG, but we can have further discussions if he finds that has not worked.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for having fixed the problems with the booster booking system that I raised with her two weeks ago, but the system for third jabs for the clinically extremely vulnerable is still in total chaos. Some clinically vulnerable people are saying that their GPs do not know which group they are in and, even if their GPs do know, those people who are eligible for their third dose and their jabs cannot be identified on the online system. Will the Minister commit to fixing the system in the next 48 hours and urgently reinstate the monthly meetings that her predecessor held with patient groups, which have been trying to bring these concerns to her attention?
Maggie Throup
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. However, it is important that, for that individual whose GP is not able to give them a jab, they have words with their hospital consultant who may have more knowledge of their condition. I will definitely look into the system.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. Delivering 8.7 million booster jabs at 2,400 vaccination sites is a great achievement. I agree entirely with the point about making booster jabs as available as possible. On that point though, in North Yorkshire, where we have had fantastic vaccine roll-out and take-up—it has been a great achievement—I am hearing mixed messages about what is happening in schools. The CCG has told me that they should be eligible for visits by the end of this month, but some schools have been reporting that they are not looking at visits until January or February next year by which stage, of course, it is too late. If I look at the website on the location of walk-in centres and tap in Harrogate, it brings up five locations in Halifax, which is about 17 miles away. Are there any problems with vaccine supply, or are we having some difficulties in North Yorkshire at the moment?
Maggie Throup
I can reassure my hon. Friend that there is no problem at all with the supply of vaccines; we have plenty of supply. He talks about schools. The vaccine programme in schools is being carried out by the school-aged immunisation service, which is very experienced in carrying out vaccinations for different conditions in schools. If there is a problem in his area, I will definitely look into it on his behalf.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I cannot accept that the deaths of 217 people yesterday and 293 the day before shows good management of this pandemic. The fact that so many people are now dying of this virus is a call on Government to take urgent action. With the Minister’s own confession that 5 million people are yet to be vaccinated and the fact that my constituents are not able to get access to the flu vaccine either, it is clear that we are heading for a real health crisis. Will she urgently take back the message that we need greater public health measures to be introduced in order to keep our communities safe?
Maggie Throup
No death is acceptable and my condolences go to everyone who has lost somebody in this terrible pandemic. Our best wall of defence is through vaccinations. Vaccinations do work, so my message is: get your booster. If people have not had their first jab, they should get their first jab and continue to build that wall of defence.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Many of my Bath constituents have got in touch to say that they have trouble getting access to the booster vaccines. This is particularly worrying for the clinically extremely vulnerable, as we have already heard. The support for the clinically extremely vulnerable has been woefully inadequate, including the advice that they were given throughout the pandemic. As we head into winter, what guidance is the Minister giving to the 3.7 million people who were advised to shield last winter?
Maggie Throup
I think it is important that everybody takes personal responsibility and makes sure that they protect themselves. As we know, people were shielding last winter, but we did not have this highly successful vaccination programme. The best way for people to protect themselves is to get jabbed, get protected and to protect themselves from the virus.
Committee on Standards
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I now call Wendy Chamberlain to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Member has three minutes in which to make such an application.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the matter of the consequences of the decision of the House on 3 November relating to standards.
This morning, Lord Evans, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life said:
“In my view yesterday’s vote on the report of the Commons Standards Committee was a very serious and damaging moment for Parliament and for public standards in this country.”
We would all do well to reflect on those words.
The consequences of yesterday’s vote are clearly far reaching. Matters referred to and emerging from the Commons Standards Committee should never be a matter for the Government; they should be the business of this House and this House only. The Government’s decision not just to meddle in an independent process, but then to whip Conservative Members to get what they wanted is one of the worst overreaches of Executive power that this House has seen in its history.
It is vital that there are clear and high standards that are upheld, particularly by those in positions of responsibility. For example, as a former police officer, I, and others across the House, have been engaged in recent weeks on the conduct of those within the police service. It is shameful that this Government will not apply the same standards of scrutiny to behaviours within their own party. We have seen an attempted U-turn by the Government this morning, but the fact that the Leader of the House is proposing a different review of processes, without the scope for debate, demonstrates even further the contempt with which this place is being treated. The Government want to silence us.
The remarks by the Leader of the House this morning mean that we do not yet know the full consequences of yesterday’s vote, but we do know that we have already seen a Government Minister on television this morning questioning the future of the current independent Commissioner for Standards. I am hugely concerned that the Leader of the House is leaving the door open for further attacks on this independent process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) talked yesterday about a need for consensus, and there are areas where I agree with the Leader of the House. There must be standards that are fair and robust, and which are seen to be fair and robust, but the Government’s short-sighted intervention to protect a colleague, using a political process to overturn in two hours an independent investigation that took two years is the complete opposite of fair and robust. That is why this House must have a debate on the consequences of yesterday’s vote. The statement by the Leader of the House this morning left far more questions than answers. The system will only be fair and robust when this debate has taken place.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member asks leave to propose a debate on the specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, the matter of the consequences of the decision of the House of 3 November relating to standards. I have listened carefully to the application from the hon. Member and I am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the hon. Member the leave of the House?
Application agreed to (not fewer than 40 Members standing in support.)
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held on Monday 8 November, as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the hon. Member’s application.
Can I just say, once again, that this has not been a good period for the House? It has been a very difficult time for all. I appeal to Members, whether they are Secretary of State or whoever: please—staff members of this House should not be named, as they do not have the right of reply or the ability to defend themselves. I am appalled that Sky News is more important. Please, rein in your thoughts and consider what you are doing to the individuals concerned. They also have to live through this, like the rest of us. Please consider your behaviour and start acting responsibly, in accordance with the position that you hold.
Sanctions
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
I beg to move,
That the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1146), dated 11 October, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.
The instrument before us was laid on 14 October under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the Sanctions Act. It amends the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to introduce new measures in the financial, trade and aviation sectors. The regulations that we are debating today revoke and replace the Belarus sanctions regulations laid in August 2021, which contained an error that had the effect of deleting a prohibition on the transfer of restrictive technology to Belarus—that is, military and interception or monitoring technology and technology used for internal repression. These regulations correct that error. I can assure hon. and right hon. Members that there was no continuity gap between the effects of the two sets of regulations.
The Government, along with international partners, decided to increase targeted sanctions because the situation in Belarus continues to deteriorate. On numerous occasions, Lukashenko and his regime have violated democratic principles and the rule of law and violently oppressed civil society, democratic opposition leaders and independent media. This includes the forced diversion of Ryanair flight FR4978 on 23 May in order to arrest the journalist Roman Protasevich and his partner Sofia Sapega. Lukashenko sent in a MiG fighter jet to force the Ryanair plane to land, endangering not only Protasevich and Sapega but everyone else on board. This also showed a flagrant disregard for international aviation law. The couple remain in the custody of the Belarusian authorities. The UK Government reiterate their call on the Belarusian regime to release them and to release all those held on political grounds. The regime has enforced the arbitrary detention of more than 35,000 people and imprisoned more than 800 people on political charges. The United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe have recorded many credible reports of physical mistreatment, including torture, by the penal and security forces in Belarus.
Opposition figures have been harassed and forcefully expelled, and this year Belarus introduced new legislation to further suppress media freedoms and peaceful assembly. The UK supports all those working for a more democratic future for Belarus. We were delighted to welcome Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, leader of the Belarusian democratic opposition, to the UK on 3 August. I was pleased to be able to meet Ms Tsikhanouskaya during her visit, as did the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary, and we reiterated our support. Ms Tsikhanouskaya emphasised the need for further sanctions on the Belarusian regime and commended the UK for taking action.
This instrument enshrines in law our increased sanctions measures on the Belarusian regime, showing that we stand with the people of Belarus. Our sanctions are carefully targeted to build pressure on Lukashenko, state institutions, and those around him while minimising any unintended consequences for the ordinary of people of Belarus who are suffering under authoritarian rule. The measures that it introduces prevent any UK business from trading goods and services with Belarus in sectors that are key sources of revenue for the Lukashenko regime. They limit the regime’s access to items that could enable the internal repression of the Belarusian population, including potash, petroleum products, and interception and monitoring goods and technology. They also cover goods used in cigarette manufacturing, dual-use goods, and technology for military use. We have imposed a prohibition on technical assistance to aircraft where this would benefit persons designated for that purpose. This ensures that UK companies cannot provide services in relation to President Lukashenko’s fleet of luxury aircraft.
Financial measures prohibit dealing with transferable securities and money market instruments issued by the Belarusian state and public bodies, as well as those issued by state-owned banks and the provision of loans. This puts additional pressure on the Belarusian regime, including by preventing future Belarusian Government bonds from being listed on the London stock exchange. This comprehensive response also includes prohibitions on the provision of insurance and reinsurance to Belarusian state bodies, and prohibits the export of biathlon rifles by removing a licensing ground under the arms embargo.
The aviation measures prohibit Belarusian air carriers from overflying or landing in the UK, and that continues the temporary measures we put in place after the events of 23 May. Finally, the measures also give us the power to designate persons for providing support for or obtaining an economic benefit from the Government of Belarus. Since those measures came into force, we have made a further designation under the Belarus sanctions regime under this criterion. UK sanctions action, taken together with our allies, aims to encourage the Belarusian regime to respect democratic principles and institutions, the separation of powers and the rule of law in Belarus. The sanctions also aim to discourage the regime from actions, policies or activities that repress civil society in Belarus and to encourage it to comply with international human rights law.
We regularly review our sanctions and would consider lifting them if we saw significant progress. However, in the case of Belarus, we have seen no progress and the situation continues to deteriorate. Sanctions are most effective when implemented in co-ordination with international partners, and our measures were co-ordinated in June with the EU, the US and Canada, and we will continue to work closely with them on Belarus. Similarly, actions work best when combined with other diplomatic and economic measures, and the UK has assisted independent media and civil society organisations in Belarus, which continue to face unparalleled levels of pressure from the regime. By the end of this financial year, our programme of support to Belarus will have almost tripled since 2019.
The UK unequivocally condemns the appalling campaign of repression waged by the Belarusian regime against the rights and freedoms of the Belarusian people. The regime has oppressed civil society, rejected democratic principles and violated the rule of law. The regulations expand our sanctions in response to the situation on the ground. They demonstrate that we will not accept such egregious violations of human rights. They enable us to stand with our international partners and, most importantly, with the people of Belarus in working towards a peaceful, prosperous and democratic future. I welcome the opportunity to hear the views of Members on the regulations, and I commend them to the House.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I welcome the Government bringing forward an amended schedule of sanctions, due to some errors in the laying of the sanctions in the House earlier in the year. Today I am wearing my green and purple, because the Minister and I are both aware of how much women activists in Belarus have suffered in the past couple of years, in particular having many of their partners and husbands locked up. They are therefore now in the spotlight politically. They have not chosen to go into politics in the way that we might, but have been forced to by circumstance.
Across the House, I know that every woman MP, including the leadership we have had from our own parliamentary Labour party women’s group, stands up for those women, their right to be human rights activists and their right to be women in the workplace and defends their right to the Belarus of the future that they wish to see. There is nothing worse than seeing a leader getting out of an aeroplane the day after a sham election dressed in black with a rifle on his shoulder, and the terror those people felt at that moment.
It has been wonderful to see the cross-party approach and the support we have had from trade unions, civil society groups, students and the diaspora here in the UK to stand up against the Lukashenko regime and put on record our anger, concern and sadness at what has happened in the past two years. There have been 35,000 arrests and 800 political prisoners—in Europe.
Members from all parts of the House gather together, despite our differences—and we have had a few in the past 48 hours—to say today that we stand with those women for freedom and for the rights that they and their families want to have. The level of brutality that the Belarusian regime is regularly using on its own people was on show for the world when the Ryanair flight was dangerously hijacked—the Minister has already gone into detail about that. Those two activists are still in prison, and today we send out a message from this House that we are on their side and we will not see this regime continue for too much longer. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and the all-party parliamentary group on Belarus, which is cross party across both Houses, and to the human rights defenders, journalists and trade unions for keeping the issue in the minds of so many across Europe and in the region. It is heartening to see smaller countries such as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine, as well as the Polish Government and many across parties in Poland, standing up for the rights of those women and all those activists who want a fresh start.
On the sanctions, it is vital that we do all we can through our economy and through what we say in this House to stop any use of or facilitation through our legal, banking or accountancy services in the UK that could help anyone who has stolen resources from the Belarusian people to launder them through our system. The people of Belarus are entitled to democracy and free elections and we must uphold those principles.
As such, Labour Members welcome the tougher sanctions. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is vital for our voice in this House to be heard today by the Belarusian people. I hope that we can somehow get the message through particularly to those prisoners of conscience who long for their case to be heard.
As the noble Lord Collins outlined in the other place, we welcome the changes that the statutory instrument outlines to rectify some of the mistakes in previous sanctions, while adopting additional measures in response to the deteriorating behaviour of Mr Lukashenko and his regime. We particularly welcome measures on financial sanctions and measures that seek to remove the ways that the regime has continued to financially sustain itself in the past 18 months. We welcome the inclusion of sanctions on potash exports, which are one of the major exports of Belarus, and which have been continually highlighted as a key way to hold the regime to account.
I have some brief questions for the Minister. First, how will the Government measure the effectiveness of the sanctions, particularly in the light of the ever-diminishing Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budget? Secondly, we know that international co-operation is vital to ensure that our actions are co-ordinated with our allies and partners and to ensure that maximum influence is put on the regime. Will the Minister outline what additional measures she is taking to work with European partners to ensure that our actions are in line with theirs and that there is a global strategy for protecting the people of Belarus?
Thirdly, I would welcome the Minister outlining whether there has been any recent assessment of Russian support for the regime in Belarus. Given that the relationship between the UK and Russia is strained, what levers could she use to try to influence Moscow so that we can see more freedom and justice for all those political prisoners who we in this Chamber want to support?
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It would be wrong for the Minister not to be aware that the sanctions have tremendous support from Conservative and Opposition Members. I speak as the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, where we have taken a strong stand against Belarus; the false presidential election that took place, about which we made a firm statement; and the bringing down of the Ryanair flight. The Minister may be aware that our delegation—I am told—was the first international delegation to issue a condemnation of Belarus at the time and that that did not go unnoticed. I thoroughly approve of the sanctions.
To pick up on the point of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), I am one of several Members of this House and of the other place who is a penfriend, if I can use that term, of Belarusian political prisoners. We write to them to try to provide some comfort and a link to the real world. I know that was mentioned in the other place to great approval, and I hope that mentioning it here will meet equally great approval.
The point to bear in mind and to watch for the future is the crisis of migration on the border of Belarus and the neighbouring countries. The winter is setting in, and I understand that some deaths from cold have already occurred there. Something needs to be done about that very quickly. When I was in Poland recently, I was able to raise this point with various people—not that we came up with a solution, because the solution effectively lies in placing proper sanctions on the Belarusian Government to make sure that this is picked up and dealt with.
In conclusion, I very much welcome these sanctions as a helpful aid in giving us the strength to deal with the Belarusian Government, so that we make sure that we get real change there.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
We welcome the measures by the Government—we have no objections to them whatever—and I do not think there is any point in detaining the House on this any longer than we must.
Wendy Morton
I welcome the support from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and I am very grateful for the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). He takes a really close interest, as do many colleagues from across the House, in Belarus, as I saw recently at an all-party parliamentary group meeting that I attended. I am grateful to all the hon. Members who contributed to our short but very important discussion.
I will briefly address the questions raised. On the effectiveness of sanctions, we obviously continue to monitor all the sanctions that we have in place. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt any future designations, but let me assure the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green that we keep a very close eye on such matters. As I set out in my opening speech, we work very closely with a range of international partners to co-ordinate our sanctions regimes.
As I have said, these regulations give us the power to impose sectoral sanctions that have real impact—an impact that is magnified through co-ordination with our international partners. These sanctions ensure that we can target the sectors of the Belarusian economy and the key figures in the Belarusian regime that generate funds for the regime, including those who provide support for, or obtain an economic benefit from, the Government of Belarus but who have not previously been designated. The regulations also demonstrate that the UK will not stand by in the face of the regime’s unacceptable behaviour; we are ready and willing to act as part of a network of liberty, and will stand with those who believe in democracy.
I sense there is support across the House for the sanctions, for which I am very grateful, and I hope the House will support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Backbench Business
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Afghanistan: Inquiry
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the proposal for an inquiry into the UK’s involvement in the NATO-led mission to Afghanistan.
This could be a very short debate if the Minister intervened and said, “Yes, we are going to have an inquiry”; then we could all go home. However, I suspect we will have to work a little bit harder than that.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate on Afghanistan. This was one of the longest military campaigns in modern history. Over 100,000 armed forces personnel were deployed to Afghanistan, and 435 did not return alive. Thousands did return, but with life-changing injuries, and over 3,500 personnel from other NATO forces were also killed. About 70,000 Afghans lost their lives, although I do not think the true number will ever be known.
The campaign cost the international community trillions, but after two decades we decided to exit before the job was done, handing back the country to the very insurgency we went in to defeat. The country is now run by the Taliban, but they are not in control. It is in freefall, and the freezing winter that is approaching is likely to cause the biggest humanitarian disaster in a generation. The list of challenges we faced, and the lessons to be learned, are huge, yet the Government stubbornly refuse to hold an independent inquiry. Do they think that there is nothing to learn, or—more importantly—to explain to those who served, and to the families of the bereaved? What was it all for?
It is clear that our world is getting more dangerous, and global insecurity is increasing. Our decision to leave Afghanistan added to that. If we have any aspiration, as spelled out in the integrated review, to be a problem-solving, burden-sharing nation, we need to understand how the most powerful military alliance ever formed could not complete its mission after 20 years. If we do not analyse, appreciate and learn from our mistakes, we are likely to repeat them. More critically, this House of Commons is—let us be honest—not so versed in the details, and it will have no confidence in voting to send our troops into harm’s way, fearful of a similar outcome. We will become more risk-averse, and we will end up steering clear of overseas engagements and having no appetite to intervene. Our competitors will enjoy our self-inflicted weakness.
The first rule of war is: know your enemy. That is a prerequisite for any engagement. On my various visits to Afghanistan over a decade, I was always taken aback by the limits of international forces’ local understanding. Yes, they knew their local mission, but how that fitted into the higher commander’s intent was not clear. There seemed to be a national plan to kill the enemy, but that did not knit together with any form of strategy relating to governance, or development programmes outside Kabul. Had we done our homework, checked the archives and visited that famous Foreign and Commonwealth Office map room, we would have reminded ourselves of what and who we were taking on. We would have been in a better position to advise our allies and offer alternative solutions to courses of action that it was, frankly, a schoolboy error to pursue.
Afghanistan gained its independence from Great Britain. We learned the hard way, through three separate engagements over a century, that it is a deeply tribal country, where local loyalty trumps alliances to the centre. Policy cannot be shaped from outside the country. Since Ahmad Shah Durrani founded modern-day Afghanistan in the 1700s, it has not been run from the centre. Warlords enjoyed federated power; tribes and sub-tribes enjoyed autonomy. Why on earth did we, with all our experience of Afghanistan, believe we knew better?
In 2001, in our haste to seek retribution for 9/11, we lost our way. We allowed other agendas to blinker both our historical experience and current military doctrine, and that made a tough mission all the tougher. We ignored Afghanistan’s history, which we helped to shape, and believed that we could once again impose a western model of governance from scratch. The objective of hunting down and destroying al-Qaeda after 9/11 was widely supported, and it triggered NATO’s article 5 for the first time. That morphed into taking on the Taliban, who harboured al-Qaeda. This brings us back to that first rule of war: know your enemy.
To understand the Taliban and its origins, we must understand the mujaheddin; to understand the mujaheddin, we must understand the Soviet occupation; and to understand that occupation, we must understand that it was US foreign policy to remove the Soviets in the 1980s. That is wisdom not from history books, but from events in our lifetime. The last king, Zahir, was overthrown in 1973, and that triggered a power struggle between two diametrically opposed movements: the Communist party and the Islamist movement—the mujaheddin. Both grew in strength, with the former gaining the upper hand, but radical socialist changes sparked significant unrest, which the Soviets eventually sent in troops to try to quash. That prompted the United States, along with Inter-Services Intelligence in Pakistan, with support from China and indeed the United Kingdom, to support the mujaheddin—Charlie Wilson’s war.
From 1980 to 1989, £3 billion of covert military assistance went into east Asia to back a radical insurgency based in the Pakistani mountains. It mobilised tens of thousands of holy warriors who were willing to die for their cause. Out of the disunity of the mujaheddin rose the Taliban. It was not some distant extremist group that we knew little about, but arguably a product of western making.
Of course, the obstacles to success in Afghanistan were daunting: widespread corruption, intense grievances, Pakistani meddling and deep-rooted Afghan resistance to any foreign occupation. However, there was the colossal blanket of NATO security, and a huge development budget often described as an international aid juggernaut; US spending alone peaked in one year at $110 billion. Sadly, however, opportunities to secure long-term stability were squandered, and the west, especially the US, became over-confident following early victories.
In simple terms, where did it go wrong? First, we created an over-centralised model of governance. Secondly, we denied the Taliban a seat at the table in December 2001 at the Bonn talks. How different life would have been had they been included. Thirdly, we made no real effort to start training an Afghan indigenous security force until 2006. Fourthly, we opened up another front in Iraq—an unnecessary and costly distraction. Fifthly, we had no real development strategy to improve livelihoods and leverage the country’s vast resources.
I recall a visit to Afghanistan in 2008, when Mark Carleton-Smith, the current Chief of the General Staff, was in charge of 16 Air Assault Brigade. They took a turbine from Helmand—from Camp Bastion—to the Kajaki dam. A decade later, I flew into Kabul, and I looked out of the window and saw the same turbine lying next to the dam in its bubble wrap. That was analogous to the problems in that country.
Finally, we lost our way. We forgot why we were fighting and who we were fighting for. How could we claim that our intervention was about defending and upholding international standards and the rule of law when we crafted methods to bypass international law, such as creating detention camps, including at Guantanamo Bay?
For the first four years, Afghanistan was deceptively peaceful, as the Taliban retreated across the Pakistani border, but that time was squandered; the Taliban retrained, regrouped and rearmed. Slowly but progressively, they began their attacks, and by August 2009, General McChrystal observed, in his 60-page analysis, that we did not understand the people,
“whose needs, identities and grievances”
can differ “from valley to valley”; that the international security assistance force was “poorly configured” for counter-insurgency operations, designed instead for conventional warfare; that we were killing the enemy but not shielding the people; and that not enough was being done to train indigenous forces.
By 2014, Afghan forces were finally taking on more responsibility, and most NATO combat operations had ended, but still no formal talks had begun with the Taliban. Negotiations began in earnest in 2018, but when a deal was finally signed in February 2020, the agreement was between the United States and the Taliban; this time, the Afghan Government were not at the table. However, a US election was fast approaching, and the President, Donald Trump, wanted an announcement: “Bring our troops home.” Candidate Biden did not disagree.
The deal was done; all the Taliban had to do was wait for US troops to depart. The decision to withdraw was made, and we did not even have the courtesy to inform the Afghan forces when we departed camps such as Bagram air base. As the US forces withdrew, they took with them their contractors, who supported the Afghan forces. Of course, without ammunition, the Afghan army and the Afghan police cannot do their work. It did not take long for the Taliban to exploit the void and rout the country.
It is now clear to see what an operational and strategic blunder it was to retreat at this time. The Taliban are not a Government in waiting; they are not a monolithic organisation, so local reprisal attacks are taking place, which the Taliban themselves cannot control. As societal norms are removed, the banking system collapses and international support flees the country, we are seeing a terrible humanitarian disaster unfold. Once again, Afghanistan is a potential breeding ground for terrorism.
I noticed when I met the Taliban in Doha a couple of weeks ago just how frail they are. They say that because they are not enforcing such a ruthless interpretation of sharia law, many of them are leaving the ranks of the Taliban to join ISIS-K. That is what we have left behind. The decision to withdraw was absolutely the wrong call.
I end by looking at the wider consequences of our departure. What is the US’s commitment and staying power to defend the international rule of law? What of NATO’s function, with or without US lead? Twenty years since 9/11, are we still no better at preventing the radicalisation of individuals who believe they will be rewarded if they kill westerners? What next for those 40 million Afghans that we left behind? How do we work with the Taliban to prevent a humanitarian crisis? Finally, after this humiliation and retreat by the west, should the UK seek to play a more active role on the international stage?
I hope that our departure from Afghanistan is not the high tide mark of western post-world war two liberalism. We are seeing the erosion of western influence, the loss of faith in the idea of a liberal world order, and the rise of a rival superpower, China, which is advancing a competing ideology that could see the world splinter into two competing spheres of influence.
I encourage the Government to see the bigger picture—how on the one hand our world is becoming increasingly unstable, but on the other, the west, including Britain, has become more risk averse. We are in for a dangerous decade, and Britain should have more confidence in itself, in what we stand for, what we believe in and what we are willing to defend. As the last century illustrated, it was once in our DNA to do just that. We have the means, the hard power, the connections to lead. What we require is the backbone, the courage, the leadership to step forward.
I say directly to the Minister that cutting the defence budget last week sent the wrong signal about our commitment and our resolve. This is not the time to cut back on our troop numbers, our tank numbers and our plane and ship numbers, but that is exactly the consequence of what is happening. We have some serious questions to ask about our place in the world and what global Britain means, and that should begin with an inquiry into Afghanistan.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I commend the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for that tremendous tour de force of what has happened over the last few years. I want to comment on some of the aspects that should be brought out in the inquiry, and to share with the House several other thoughts.
The sort of things that I would like to know are these. Others have asked before me, but I need to know: did the Prime Minister know what President Biden was planning before the withdrawal of American forces was announced? If so, was a risk assessment carried out? Only last month, there was a meeting of global leaders about Afghanistan. Macron was there, Merkel was there, Biden was there and Mr Trudeau was there, but the Prime Minister was not. I regard that as unfortunate. As the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East indicated, in so many ways, as the catastrophe unfolded after we withdrew, it was absolutely predictable what would happen. Did the Prime Minister think the same at the time? I wonder.
I want to put on the record my and my party’s thanks, and I am sure those of everyone in the Chamber, for the sterling efforts made by the Secretary of State for Defence to secure evacuation of British and Afghan workers and civilians. I have personal cause to be grateful to the Secretary of State, but it seemed that No. 10 did not move to ensure some sort of EU involvement in Afghanistan to help secure that work after the US withdrew. I have touched before in this place on the actions of the then Foreign Secretary. I expressed my concern then and I will leave it at that.
Aside from an inquiry, one side point I want to make is that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has been calling for a corridor to get refugees out. There has not been so much talk of it of late in the press, but I fully support that, as I am sure we all do. I have friends who served in the armed forces who are still trying to get interpreters out. Good work has been done. I put on record my thanks for a second time to the Secretary of State for Defence, as well as to other Government Members who have been very helpful in securing people’s safety, but there is work to be done. We must not lose sight of the need for a safe corridor.
The scope of the inquiry has to be very wide. I utterly endorse what the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East said about the recent Budget. It was a tax and spend Budget—one with extra money. The 1.4% cut in defence spending over the next four years is deeply worrying. Several times I have expressed my concern at the cut in the size of the British Army. Perhaps the cut has ramifications for the other services as well—I know not. One thing I would like to see from the inquiry is an investigation into what assessment, prior or immediately prior to the intervention in 2001, was made of the military’s capability to intervene and maintain our defences at the level required. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and I have mentioned that point several times. There are states out there, for example China, that are not there for the good of the United Kingdom. What assessment was made into whether we could do that?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of what was done—the inquiry will bring that out—where does it leave our standing as a military power, which I have just touched on with regard to the defence cuts, and as a soft power in the world? We are incredibly lucky that English is one of the great languages of the world. That, via our media—the BBC and so much else—gives us soft power that we can use. On a lighter note, it is astonishing how many people around the world watch “The Crown” of all things, but that demonstrates what we can do as a country. We lose that soft power at our very, very great peril.
The Government’s decisions, as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East said, were too hasty. Yes, they were brought about in part by an American President and the candidate to succeed him, but things could have been done so much better and they were not. What does that leave, in terms of what is happening in Afghanistan? I shall rest that point there.
I want to end with an anecdote I always remember. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was a Member of another place. I do not mean the other place next door to here—that day will never happen—but that I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament. In 2009, the NATO conference took place in Edinburgh. In previous years, I had got to know the then Russian consul general in Edinburgh, Vladimir Malygin. One day his office called me to say, “The NATO conference is on. We have two serving Russian major generals in civvies who are observers at the conference and they would like to look around the Scottish Parliament. Could you organise it? Could you make it happen?” So we showed the two Russian generals, plus an interpreter, around the Scottish Parliament. The generals were taciturn individuals, but when we had finished the tour, I said, “Would you like a glass of whisky?” and they cheered up greatly at that prospect. What I will never forget is that while they were enjoying a drop of Scotland’s finest, they suddenly said to me, “What on earth are you doing in Afghanistan?” This was in 2009, eight years after we went in. One of them said, “I lost three of my best friends there. One was horribly mutilated.” That question—what were we doing there—has always stayed with me.
There is a space for the United Kingdom to do good in the world, provided we work out why we are doing it and, as the right hon. Member said, what our aim is. People in the armed forces I talk to say, “Identify your aim and be sure of it”. I will leave my comments there.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee, on securing the debate, and commend him for the leadership he has shown in the weeks and months since the withdrawal was undertaken.
It would perhaps seem strange if we did not acknowledge the acres of empty Benches around us. Less than three months ago, this House was recalled from its summer recess to discuss the very issue we are discussing now, and today we have started the wind-up speeches only minutes after the Chair of the Select Committee got to his feet. That worries me and speaks to the reason why we need the inquiry that he has come here to ask the Government to instigate—a case he prosecuted forensically.
The SNP supports the right hon. Gentleman’s call for an inquiry. I think he is right that it is important to those who served. It is important to their families. In particular, it is important for those who went to Afghanistan and paid with their lives, whether they were UK armed forces or those who served alongside them. It was fashionable at the time of the initial withdrawal not to acknowledge the international coalition, but I think we should. Above all, we owe it to the people of Afghanistan, not just those who have lost their lives or been maimed or injured over the course of the west’s time there, but those who now face the long dark night of Taliban rule that stretches out before them. Yes, that includes in particular women and girls, minority groups, journalists and academics, but also all who tasted freedom over the past few years and have now had it rather abruptly snatched away.
It is notable that although there have been some other inquiries in different coalition countries, it is only the Norwegians who have set up a fully independent inquiry. That is something we need to do here. Yes, inquiries are expensive, necessarily so. Inquiries are slow, necessarily so. We have not had that many of them, necessarily so. But if the Government will not bring forward an inquiry on Afghanistan, then goodness knows what they will ever bring forward an inquiry on in future. They need to look at the long stretch of the mission, the motivation for why we went there in the first place, and the chaotic withdrawal, which we were recalled for less than three months ago.
I would like to put on record—the Minister and I exchanged on this last night—that I had actually thought this was a Ministry of Defence debate. As my party’s defence spokesperson, I wanted to put on record my thanks to the Defence Secretary for his conduct in the aftermath of the withdrawal. I do not think he and the Government got everything right, and the Foreign Secretary certainly did not, but I do not want to rehearse that this afternoon. It is important to acknowledge that the Defence Secretary seemed to be the only Minister who grasped the issue’s importance at the time—I will rephrase that: the only Cabinet Minister, because I do not want to be unfair on the Minister before us.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth East touched on a broader point about political will and assessing exactly where we are with the implementation of our values. The Minister and I will disagree on much about defence and foreign policy, but fundamentally, our agreements are underwritten with the same kinds of values—on openness, tolerance and solving big issues in alliances with other countries.
I am a committed internationalist. Multilateral fora such as NATO and the European Union are, by a country mile, the best parts of the international architecture for advancing values of tolerance, liberal democracy and openness. If they did not exist, we would want to create them, and I would want Scotland to be in them and all the countries around us to be part of them. They are by the far the greatest vehicles for the kinds of values that we in this House all share. However, we must all reflect, and NATO at large must reflect, on this defeat—there is no other word for it. If there is a failure to do so and to have the kind of inquiry that the Chairman of the Defence Committee is asking the Government to initiate, those who want to overturn our values, as he mentioned, will take heart from that. Within hours, China was talking about the weakening of the west. Russia was in Kabul barely days after it had fallen, while we, in concert with others, were desperately scrambling—and failing in too many cases—to get people out quickly and alive.
Alongside an inquiry, the challenge is this: we must have a political discussion with other capitals that we are allied with about how we renew and reinvigorate the international architecture that underpins and drives the order that we have all benefited from and want to see us continue to benefit from. If we do not do that, who will benefit? It will be those who stand in opposition to our values. So the question is: what does Afghanistan and that withdrawal become? Does it become a low point for the liberal international order that we all believe in, or does it mark the point of no return? The Minister will have to answer that when he gets to his feet. If we do not have a full, independent inquiry, properly funded and properly prosecuted by a judge, with full powers of subpoena and all the rest of it, I fear that this will be a point of return, and I am sure that nobody in this House wants that.
The right hon. Gentleman has the full backing of my party for his proposal for an inquiry. Let us not shrug this off this afternoon. The debate will now, necessarily, be depressingly short; perhaps the acres of empty green Benches scream out that we need the inquiry that he asks for.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. Is it worth his clarifying this point, which I did not? We have in our mind, as a yardstick, that an inquiry looks like Chilcot. Nobody is asking for Chilcot, but we are asking for something that I believe should be the norm: after every long-term military engagement, there is an assessment of what happened so that we can learn for the better. However, it does not need to take the legal approach that Chilcot was all about. That had a very different, complicated requirement.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I believe that the Defence Committee has started its investigation, and we on the Foreign Affairs Committee have started ours. Parliament has a role to play in doing its job and scrutinising what Government have and have not done, and making recommendations for the future. That is right and proper, but he rightly asks for something above that that can do the necessary job. I get entirely why Chilcot provides a rather unhelpful shadow over this discussion, but it cannot be used as an excuse to shrug off what the right hon. Gentleman asks us to do. This is up to the Government and up to us all. What we have shown through the lack of hon. Members’ presence in this debate is that Parliament cannot be left as the only institution to scrutinise the matter.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member is making a most excellent speech. The point made by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) was that, whatever the rights and wrongs, this place will sadly, from time to time, have to commit people to defend or fight, and the whole of the decision making from the Government or this place will be compromised and corroded unless we have a full inquiry that gets everything out in the open and that we learn from. I hope that this is a low point from which we rise again one day.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Indeed. Can the hon. Gentleman imagine what a slap in the face it will be to those who put on the uniform so bravely—for whom we wear the poppy at this time of year—if we do not take the time to learn lessons, as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said we would be expected to after such an enormous military campaign?
Is this a low point or a point of no return? I hope that the Minister will tell us this afternoon that it is a low point from which we will learn—
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
And turn—and even if the hon. Gentleman suggests that we rise again, I suggest that this should perhaps be something from which we learn and get to what we really need, which is the reinvigoration and assessment of what the liberal international order is actually for and how it will lead to change, as it is being contested and challenged like never before.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for securing this important debate and for his commitment and leadership as Chair of the Defence Committee. I also thank right hon. and hon. Members and their staff across the House for the hard work and professionalism that they have shown, given the tremendous difficulties that they have faced in getting their constituents, family members and other vulnerable people out of Afghanistan over the past few months. Parliamentarians and caseworkers alike can be enormously proud of their efforts, which have shown the House at its best.
Of course, the real heroes of Operation Pitting are the British and American servicemen and women, and those from other allied countries, who worked around the clock in unimaginably difficult circumstances to stand up for the values that we as a nation hold dear by evacuating British nationals, along with the brave Afghans who have supported UK operations in Afghanistan and who have stood up and campaigned for the values that we cherish and hold dear. We all saw the harrowing images from Kabul. It is clear that our country, and particularly our Government, owe those members of our armed services and our diplomatic corps a tremendous debt of gratitude for the work of not just the past few months, but the past 20 years.
The right hon. Gentleman made an eloquent case for the need for a wide-ranging inquiry into Britain’s role in Afghanistan. We agree with the principle of the need for an inquiry, but it is our firm view that the failures that need investigating are primarily those of political leadership that started with the Trump-Taliban Doha agreement. Let me set out why.
First, there is broad agreement that the decision for Britain to join the NATO-led and US-led invasion of Afghanistan was utterly just and right as a response to the most devastating and brutal terrorist attacks on liberal democracy in modern times. Those attacks killed 2,977 innocent civilians, including 67 British citizens, and we were right to defend our national security.
We must never underestimate the pivotal role that our armed forces played in ridding Afghanistan of al-Qaeda, in removing the Taliban from power and in succeeding in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. It can never be said enough that while there was a British presence in Afghanistan, there was not a single terrorist attack on the west from Afghan soil. That is a fine collective achievement of which we should be truly proud.
What our servicemen and women did kept the rest of us safe—it is as simple as that. They also gave Afghan women and girls a level of freedom, education and empowerment that they would never previously have imagined. Let it never be said by anyone that those British soldiers died in vain. We must be absolutely clear on their achievements and their contribution.
Secondly, reports by the Select Committee on Defence already cover in detail the events on the ground in Afghanistan prior to the Trump-Taliban Doha agreement; its fourth report, “Operations in Afghanistan”, has proved particularly valuable to gaining insight and learning lessons. Of course, the armed forces may wish to undertake their own investigation into events to learn lessons from a military, operational and tactical perspective, but I believe that this House has a duty to focus on the political leadership and decision making that took place in the run-up to the Trump-Taliban Doha deal and afterwards, up to the present day.
Thirdly, the time and scale of an inquiry spanning 20 years would be almost unmanageable. I know that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East said that we cannot use Chilcot as a yardstick, but the reality is that we are not clear on what other yardstick we would use, which is why Labour proposes a very defined scope, based on the milestone of the Trump-Taliban deal. The Chilcot inquiry into Iraq covered eight years of UK activity, beginning in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq; it took seven years to complete. If a similar model were applied to Afghanistan, an inquiry could take up to two decades to complete.
We cannot wait for two decades. Justice delayed is justice denied, so we must prioritise and use the time as effectively as possible. We know that removing the Taliban and defeating al-Qaeda was the right thing to do, but we know that the Doha agreement and events since have been utterly catastrophic, so let us focus on that important and in some ways deeply regrettable chapter in our history. We know that the Taliban are the root cause of the death and destruction that, unfortunately, has come to define Afghanistan since the 1990s, but we need to understand why they were able to defeat the Afghan army at such a shattering scale and pace.
What should the inquiry into the period from February 2020 onwards focus on specifically? Labour proposes the following. First, it must concentrate on learning the lessons from the Doha agreement up to 31 August. Why was there such a failure of diplomacy and of political leadership? Perhaps, on that point, the Minister can help me with a few of the questions that should certainly form part of the inquiry. We know that the Defence Secretary welcomed the Doha agreement between the Taliban and Donald Trump, but what did the UK Government know about that agreement ahead of time? The then Foreign Secretary said that
“we are following the negotiations”—[Official Report, 4 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 415],
so clearly the UK Government were not at the table, but were Ministers even consulted on what was being discussed in Doha?
Despite our Prime Minister doing everything he could to cosy up to Donald Trump, it seems that our Government were left out in the cold. What does that say about the Prime Minister’s ability to build and maintain relationships with our key strategic defence and security partners?
Why were the Afghan Government not only locked out of the negotiating chamber, but completely blindsided by the result of the negotiations? Imagine an Afghan soldier on the ground in Afghanistan seeing the US sidelining their democratically elected Government to do a dirty deal with a misogynistic and murderous bunch of tyrants. No wonder morale collapsed in the Afghan army from that time onwards.
Did the UK Government challenge President Trump on his decision to fatally undermine the Afghan Government and military? We need to know what communications the UK had in the months before the 31 August withdrawal date and what concerns it expressed about the risks that UK and US forces faced.
On 20 April, Labour’s shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), told this House:
“Now, with the full withdrawal of NATO troops, it is hard to see a future without bloodier conflict, wider Taliban control, and greater jeopardy for those Afghanis who worked with the west and…women”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 853.]
Why were Ministers not listening to our shadow Defence Secretary? On 8 July, the Prime Minister said:
“I do not believe that the Taliban are guaranteed the kind of victory that we sometimes read about.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2021; Vol. 698, c. 1107.]
Complacency was rife. Naivety was rife. The consequences were tragic.
Why did the then Foreign Secretary ignore messages from the UK ambassador to Afghanistan, the courageous Laurie Bristow, that made it clear that the Taliban advance was imminent? Warnings began in early July, but the message of most significance came on 2 August, when the ambassador wrote:
“The gloves are off. We are entering a new, dangerous phase of the conflict.”
Previously, on 22 July, the principal risk report by the then Foreign Secretary’s own Department had warned of rapid Taliban advances. Why did he feel that the most appropriate response to those messages was to go on holiday and refuse to make vital calls to his counterparts in other countries?
Secondly, the inquiry should focus on the immediate aftermath of the withdrawal—the months that we are living through right now. Why have so many colleagues failed to get adequate responses from the Foreign Office and Home Office helplines on behalf of their constituents? How many more vulnerable Afghans do the Government have on their list of people who need to be supported to leave the country? Why is the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme still not open for applications? Is it because the Government actually have no intention of ever opening it for applications? Are they in effect pursuing an operation of tapping on the shoulder, rather than opening the scheme up for applications, because the response would be so overwhelming? If so, the Minister should inform the House. Transparency is vital in this matter—lives are at stake.
Have the Government done enough to engage regional powers such as Pakistan to secure safe passage for those who are attempting to flee? How can we ensure that we direct financial and humanitarian support directly to Afghan services such as hospitals and schools, so that we can bypass the illegitimate Taliban regime? What leverage do we have as a result of the frozen £10 billion of reserves that the Afghan Government would have had in the west? What should we be demanding from the Taliban? What conditions should we be insisting they fulfil in return for the unfreezing of those funds?
Finally, the inquiry must focus on understanding the full implications of the Afghanistan withdrawal for Britain’s place in the world, and how it might affect our defence, foreign policy and national security. The British Government’s actions over the past 18 months have not been befitting of a country that has always been an influential voice at the top table of global affairs and that rightly prides itself on being one of the world’s major military powers. We therefore need to know the impact of the Taliban takeover and of the resurgence and insurgence of ISIS-K on the security of the British people.
What strategy are the Government putting in place to deal with terrorist threats from abroad, in Afghanistan and beyond? We need a laser-like focus on countering terrorism if we are to avoid a return to the days before 9/11.
What impact have the Conservative Government’s actions had on the reputation of Britain internationally, and the levels of trust between the UK and its allies, and how can we rebuild our reputation as an alliance maker rather than an alliance breaker? Are we still a country that is genuinely committed to defending the international rules-based order? Are we happy to see the world descend into anarchy? Will the UK be trusted to stand up for places such as Taiwan as China seeks to further its authoritarian influence?
Britain can still look forward to being a proud internationalist country with a proud internationalist future, but this isolationist Conservative Government appear to be intent on diminishing our great nation and diminishing the alliances that are so important to the status and the voice that we have. We therefore commend the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East for his call for an inquiry, while urging him to look at the possibility of narrowing its scope in terms of the specific timeframe that we are discussing, because we believe that that is the best way to hold accountable those who should be held to account, and to ensure that we use all our resources as effectively as possible, because justice delayed is justice denied.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I am grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for securing the debate, and I pay tribute to his long-standing commitment to Afghanistan, including what he has done in his current role as Chair of the Defence Committee. I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions from other Members, including the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) and, indeed, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). It is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government.
Before I do so, however, I want to record my thanks to all British service personnel who were deployed to Afghanistan over the course of our commitment there, and also to the countless diplomats, development experts and others who served there out of uniform. I want to thank our allies, and I very much want to thank the brave Afghans who worked shoulder to shoulder with us all over the last 20 years.
As a result of our collective efforts and those of our international and Afghan allies—as the hon. Member for Aberavon pointed out—no major terrorist attacks against the UK or, indeed, any NATO country have emanated from Afghanistan over the last 20 years, and that is something for which we should rightly be grateful. As a result of our efforts and those of our allies, secondary school enrolment rose from 13% of children to almost 60%. Over 8 million more children, including 3.6 million girls, were attending school than in 2001. Basic health services reached 85% of the population, and the proportion of people with access to clean water and sanitation doubled. As a result of our efforts and those of our allies, life expectancy rose by an incredible eight years. Over those 20 years, maternal mortality nearly halved, and infant mortality decreased faster than in any other low-income country. In short, our efforts over 20 years made the UK safer, and gave Afghans health, education and a degree of hope. Those achievements should be a matter of great pride to us all, and our focus now is on protecting them.
My right hon. and gallant Friend focused very much on the NATO mission. NATO allies went into Afghanistan together, and they left together. The 11 September attacks were the only occasion in NATO’s history on which it has invoked article 5, its collective “self-defence clause”. The UK played an active role in NATO collective decision making throughout the mission, and that includes the collective NATO ministerial decision on 14 April this year that NATO troops could not stay without American forces.
Since mid-August, we face a new situation, but we have enduring interests, and a continuing commitment to the Afghan people. Today, we have four major objectives. They are, first, to preserve the counter-terrorism gains that we have achieved, and ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a source of threats to the region or beyond, including here in the UK; secondly, to provide humanitarian support for the Afghan people, who are facing extreme hardship—42% of the population, more than 18 million people, are suffering crisis or emergency levels of severe acute malnutrition; thirdly, to press for inclusive politics and respect for human rights, especially the full and equal rights of girls to go to school and women to go to work; and finally, to ensure that the events in Afghanistan do not destabilise the region, for example, through uncontrolled outflows of refugees or the export of narcotics.
Through our presidency of the G7, our role in the Security Council and the G20, and our partnerships with countries in the region, we have helped to build global support for those four goals, and—just as important—we will continue to assist British nationals and eligible Afghans who are trying to relocate from that country. To pursue those goals, we need to have pragmatic engagement with the Taliban. Officials have had a number of meetings with the Taliban leadership since August, for instance, during a visit to Kabul by Sir Simon Gass, the Prime Minister’s High Representative, and meetings with the Taliban hosted in Doha. Thanks to those exchanges, the Taliban are clear about the fact that the eyes of the world are upon them and we are watching their actions closely. They know what they must do if we are to co-operate. That includes allowing girls to go back to secondary school and women to go back to their jobs, and preventing the movement of foreign terrorist fighters.
We are also offering practical support to Afghans, without benefiting the Taliban. The Prime Minister has said that we will double humanitarian and development assistance for Afghanistan this year, to £286 million. On 31 October, he announced the allocation of £50 million of that to fund emergency humanitarian support. The money will help to provide 2.5 million people with life-saving healthcare, food security, and shelter. We are working with other donors and the World Bank to continue the provision of basic services for the Afghan people, through non-state-run channels. Strong primary healthcare is vital if we are to protect Afghan women and children.
My right hon. and gallant Friend has argued that we must learn lessons from the NATO mission, from our broader campaign and from the way that it ended. He is, of course, right. We must, and we will. Our main focus right now is on ensuring safe passage for anyone remaining in Afghanistan who needs to leave, supporting the thousands of new arrivals in the UK, and continuing to provide assistance for the Afghan people who remain in Afghanistan—but, of course, we are always learning lessons: learning lessons from Afghanistan has been a continuous process. That is why, after the conclusion of Operation Herrick in 2014, the Army conducted a thorough internal review. We also incorporated lessons from that in the integrated review that we published earlier this year. Departments are undertaking their own Afghanistan lessons learnt exercises in their areas of expertise and contributing to NATO’s lessons learnt exercise, all of which will inform our defence strategy and future UK military operations.
In addition, the Government welcome the inquiries of this House’s Foreign Affairs Committee and of my right hon. Friend’s own Defence Committee. We welcome the debates in the House and the interest of the Intelligence Security Committee, the International Development Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, among others.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I can tell the House that we are proceeding with our inquiry on this. However, I submitted a number of written questions to the Minister’s Department when the previous Foreign Secretary was still in post. I do not want this to come across as personalised, but it is important for Parliament to understand what Ministers were and were not doing during the month of August. There has been a lot of public debate, particularly about the Foreign Secretary’s movements and actions. I submitted a whole series of questions asking for ministerial engagements on each of the days on which the Taliban were advancing across more and more of the country. The Foreign Office will not give me answers to those questions, so how is Parliament supposed to have any confidence that the Government take Parliament’s inquiry seriously when we cannot even get basic things such as call logs to tell us who Ministers were talking to as the Taliban were getting Kabul ever closer in their sights?
James Cleverly
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office takes very seriously the inquiries from Members from every part of the House, and we seek to answer them in a way that informs Members without compromising security or, sometimes, the discreet work that the Department has to do.
The simple fact is that multiple inquiries are being conducted by the Committees of the House into the functions of the Government. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East is leading the inquiry by the Defence Committee that will cover what happened after the US agreement with the Taliban in February 2020—the exact period of time that the hon. Member for Glasgow South mentions. It will also cover the planning and execution of the withdrawal of UK forces and the evacuation of UK nationals and Afghanistan nationals who worked with the British armed forces.
The Government’s view is that these initiatives offer ample scope to address the most important questions. The hon. Member for Aberavon, who knows that I have a huge degree of respect for him, has suggested a more limited inquiry—one that would be limited to a timescale that would prevent it from looking at the role his party might have played when it was in government. While the final stages of the deployment are important, if his proposal were to be taken forward, I think that people might see it as partisan and cynical. As the Prime Minister told the House on 8 July, we do not think an inquiry in addition to those multiple other inquiries is the right way forward.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. Just to be clear, what I said in my remarks was that there had already been multiple inquiries into the Afghan intervention preceding 2010—some by the Defence Committee. He himself is commending the work of the Defence Committee in making inquiries. We are saying that it is important to prioritise and that we need something that does not take a massive amount of time, as Chilcot did. We are saying this in a genuine spirit of bipartisanship; I am certainly not attempting to be cynical or party political in any way.
James Cleverly
I will take the hon. Gentleman at his word. Being an honourable Member is not just some loose title; he is genuinely an honourable gentleman and I take him at his word.
The Government welcome the close interest in these events that the House has taken. We will study recommendations of the inquiries by the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee and others with great care. The military campaign in Afghanistan over the past 20 years claimed the lives of 457 British service personnel, but we must never forget that it saved the lives of countless others. We can be proud of what we achieved, in step with our NATO allies, and today we are doing everything we can with our partners to protect those gains, to ensure the UK’s security and to help the Afghan people in their time of greatest need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Tobias Ellwood to wind up the debate.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made today on this important issue. I am also grateful to the Minister, who has worn the uniform and who I know takes these matters very seriously indeed. However, we have raised more questions than we have had answers to, which is exactly why we need an inquiry. I believe that there should be a default position that whenever this country goes to war or is involved in a long-term conflict, there should be some form of formal wash-up provided by the Government. If I had a private Member’s Bill opportunity, I would put one forward, but I would be worried that the Government would whip against it and that it would not get through. That is another matter, however.
The Minister talked about terrorist attacks from Afghanistan, and he was absolutely right, but we are no longer there so that threat is now very much back on the cards. The humanitarian assistance was significant, but it has been diminished because we have decided to depart. On NATO, he was right to say that there was an all in, all out approach, but that did not anticipate Donald Trump coming very close to taking the United States out of NATO. That was not the way forward that anybody imagined.
Mr Ellwood
I am not sure. With the indulgence of the Deputy Speaker, I would be happy to give way. I seek her guidance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The right hon. Gentleman is winding up the debate.
Mr Ellwood
Okay, I will continue. I will conclude the debate, because I know another one is following this one.
I would argue that if there were a free vote on whether we should have an inquiry, many Members of this House—particularly Conservatives, but also Members from all parts of the House—would support it. It is the right thing to do. There is work to be done on the special relationship, and we need to show that we understand the world and that we can offer alternative points of view. We will be asked to do something similar in the future, potentially in Mali, Yemen, Lebanon or Afghanistan. A Kurdistan area could develop north of the Hindu Kush, because the Taliban are not in control of the whole country. The music has not stopped there, and resistance will build up in the next couple of years. We need to understand how we can do things better and understand the political decision making that went on.
My final words are to the brave people who served and to the bereaved who still miss the loved ones who did not return. They are scratching their heads—we know that because we have talked to them—and wondering what on earth it was all for. I spoke to the Taliban in Doha, and they know that the societal change that we introduced over 20 years is too much for them to reverse. The country has moved on, and it is too large. It is demanding too many new, modernised things for the Taliban to turn back. If there is a modicum of justice there, it is that we have advanced the country a long way forward. It has been handed over to the Taliban, but the spirit of what is now there in Afghanistan will be bigger than anything the Taliban can do to undo it and turn it back to what we saw in the 1990s. We can say thank you to our troops for achieving that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the proposal for an inquiry into the UK’s involvement in the NATO-led mission to Afghanistan.
Medical Cannabis: Alleviation of Health Conditions
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the use of medical cannabis for the alleviation of health conditions.
I would like to start by paying tribute to the mums and dads, brothers and sisters, grandparents, guardians, extended families and friends who have campaigned diligently, respectfully and passionately to bring about the reform in access to medical cannabis that they so desperately desire. Many are full-time carers, with all the pressure and time constraints that that entails, yet they have found the time and the commitment to energise a campaign—a campaign that far too many politicians and medical professionals have turned a blind eye to.
I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for supporting me in bringing this debate forward today. I would also like to thank those Members who have reorganised their diaries and travelling arrangements to be here today. There are a number of MPs who would normally be here today to debate a subject that is close to their hearts, but for a variety of reasons, not least COP26, they are not. I guarantee they would all support any move by this Government to make it easier to access or research medical cannabis. I have never heard any MP argue against those objectives. There is confusion about drugs in general, which tempers some people’s desire to speak out, but the provision of medicine to sick people is not an issue.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing cross-party support for this debate. On research, does he agree it is encouraging to see the potential curative effects of various elements of this drug, as we call it, in treating very serious forms of epilepsy?
Ronnie Cowan
It is great to see that research has now been undertaken, and I have a list of five or six projects looking at medical cannabis across a range of different medical conditions, but there is still the issue that many academic organisations cannot get access to the cannabis or hemp plants they require because they are graded as category 2, which keeps the plants out of their hands. The paperwork and processes they have to go through to access the raw product are prohibitive, and recategorisation from category 2 to category 4 would aid the research of a host of academic establishments.
Why are we not making it easier for people to access medical cannabis? Why are people who would benefit from medicine derived from the hemp plant being denied that opportunity? Why can some medicines be purchased on private prescription only? Why are we not making medicines that are widely available in other countries available in the United Kingdom?
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is making some important points. One of my constituents lives with progressive myelopathy of uncertain cause that affects his mobility and causes him to suffer brain fog, exhaustion and almost constant pain, which he has described as feeling like “hot wires” being pulled through muscles and skin. Does the hon. Gentleman agree there is real urgency to this issue because of people like my constituent who are suffering on a daily basis?
Ronnie Cowan
Of course I agree, and I understand the difficulty in which the Government find themselves, particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who is new in post. We need solid research that proves the efficacy of medicines, but behind that we have people who are living with these extreme conditions, day in, day out, for an awfully long time. We have been slow to get to this stage, so there is every reason why the Government should accelerate the research in such cases.
Over the last week or so I have met representatives from the Multiple Sclerosis Society and End Our Pain, and over the years I have heard representations from a much wider range of organisations and individuals that see medical cannabis as at least part of the solution to their or other people’s health issues. There are two licensed cannabis medicines, Epidiolex and Sativex, which are both made by GW Pharmaceuticals. There is nothing wrong with these medicines, but they are isolates, or very nearly, and isolates simply do not work as well as full spectrum products, and they have more side effects.
A full spectrum cannabis product contains all the different cannabinoids and terpenes found in that strain, whereas an isolate product contains only one chemical, such as cannabidiol in Epidiolex. There is published evidence that the full spectrum products are twice as good as the licensed Epidiolex in the treatment of seizures.
Then there are the unlicensed cannabis products that account for virtually all privately prescribed products. Unlicensed products are not routinely prescribed by NHS clinicians, but they can be prescribed by a specialist doctor on the General Medical Council’s specialist register. There are now about 10,000 private prescriptions, 60% for pain, 30% for anxiety and similar conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and 10% for other conditions including neurological conditions, such as epilepsy and MS, and some cancer and gastrointestinal disorders such as Crohn’s. It is clear that medical cannabis can aid a wide range of conditions.
All imported products are imported because the Home Office has been slow in granting cultivation licences for high-THC plants in the United Kingdom, and matters are made worse by the cumbersome import process. Three years and three months after the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, while he was Home Secretary, changed the law to allow prescriptions for medical cannabis, we still have only three NHS prescriptions.
As I mentioned in yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate, and it is worth repeating, Hannah Deacon, whose son Alfie is in receipt of one of those NHS prescriptions, has written to the Health Secretary three times to ask him to help, as he promised her he would in writing when he was Home Secretary, but all three letters have been ignored. Why, three years and three months later, are there so few NHS prescriptions?
Basically, doctors are not trained in cannabis medicine, although several teaching programmes are now available. However, the main barrier is the rather unhelpful guidance produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which has looked at cannabis as if it were a pharmaceutical product, but it is not. We need better guidance written by people who understand the plant, not by those who understand only pharmaceutical medicine.
We also need acceptance of the validity of real-world evidence. The British Paediatric Neurology Association recently reviewed its guidance on prescribing medical cannabis in cases of intractable epilepsy, about which I have a number of serious concerns. If a family go ahead with a private prescription for medical cannabis, the guidance appears to say that the NHS paediatric consultant should insist that the private paediatric consultant takes on 24/7 care.
I am extremely concerned that this is a further attempt to make private prescribing so burdensome as to deter private prescribers. No private prescriber will have the infrastructure to provide this level of wraparound care. My concerns are further increased as this appears to have happened to one family already, and I have a letter supporting my concerns. I am pretty sure that washing their hands of patients in this way is not legal. Will the Minister immediately examine this issue and seek clarification from the BPNA that this is not the interpretation, and will she insist that the guidance is removed or changed?
Many barriers would be broken if general practitioners were allowed to prescribe, and a recent survey shows that a quarter of GPs would be happy to do so. That would require a simple change of the necessary statutory instrument under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and would not require parliamentary time. I notice that, as of today, a leading UK insurer is now offering insurance cover at rates not dissimilar to normal cover for doctors prescribing medical cannabis.
To make this easier, there should be a focus on where the evidence lies for prescribing indication-specific, medicalised, pharmaceutical-grade cannabis. We must build on the legitimacy and efficacy of these medicines through the implementation of structured approaches to prescribing, which would help the UK healthcare system to be more inclined to prescribe cannabis sensibly.
In our debates in this place on refusing access to immigrants, health and safety in the workplace, poverty and welfare, I have heard the question many times: “Does somebody have to die before we take action?” Well, people are dying and people are living in unnecessary pain and discomfort.
I have four questions for the Minister. Will the Government recognise the value of real-world evidence, such as the research of Drug Science—including Project Twenty21—as proof of the efficacy of medical cannabis and stop insisting on randomised controlled trials, which are particularly unsuitable for rare forms of epilepsy in children? Do the Government have any plans to conduct a health economics analysis to investigate the cost-effectiveness of medical cannabis? Will the Government meet the costs of prescriptions for children requiring Bedrocan’s Bedrolite or similar products? And if a child was suffering from an epileptic seizure and the Minister had the medicine in her hands, would she administer it? I am sure the answer to the last question is yes, so will she please help to put that medicine into the hands of those who care for these children?
Finally, access to medical cannabis will someday be the norm. We need to confront the obstacles that exist today and clear the path for better access tomorrow.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and have worked with him actively in the past few years on this issue, and I wish we had made more progress. I am delighted to welcome the Minister to her place, answering this debate. I have an interest recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on this, but it is a non-financial interest. It is in recognition of the fact that I chair an organisation that I have set up, the Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group Ltd, whose objective is to find the resources to bring arguments based on science and research into this debate, on all of drugs policy, and to have this academically peer-reviewed, so that the arguments for the huge challenge of a policy change that is required can be put in a proper, calm way, based on all the available evidence and a proper scientific assessment of that evidence.
I say to the Minister at the beginning of my remarks that this issue is not just about medicine from cannabis. That is one element and one casualty of how we have conducted our nation’s drug policy over the past five or six decades, but it is a huge missed opportunity. My journey into this issue arose as prisons Minister, when I saw the impact of taking a criminal justice approach to drug misuse as the first lever, rather than a public health approach. As I saw at first hand, the cost to the criminal justice system is just enormous. Indeed, the Government’s own statistics talk of a cost in the order of £19 billion a year. When one then thinks that half of acquisitive crime in the UK is driven by drug misuse and drug addiction, we see that we should be asking some serious questions about the whole of our drugs policy.
However, that is a separate debate. It was made clear to me when I became the first Conservative to co-chair the all-party group on drug policy reform, when I decided to make this issue one of my central areas of focus, after I ceased to be chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, that we needed to focus on the arguments for medicine, which had not been able to be researched and developed because of our drugs policy. Focusing on the arguments associated with prohibition and criminal justice, and the parallels with alcohol in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s, is not where the discussion is; the Government are completely clear on where their policy sits on those issues. There is now a big global debate on those issues, with a Global Commission on Drug Policy reform, but it was put to me that we must focus on getting medicines from cannabis for the people who are suffering because they are not able to get access to it.
I became co-chair of the all-party group in September 2017 and I took the advice I was given by people who had been in this field rather longer than I had, and we got behind the family of Alfie Dingley. A national newspaper had got involved and a petition was signed by 300,000 people. The family had gone to a holiday camp in Holland in order to access medicine from cannabis, because they could not get it in the UK. The Bedrocan oil that Alfie was getting then stopped his epileptic fits, but the family had run out of money, so they had to come back to the UK and they could not access the medicine here. On the day of the presentation of the petition to Downing Street, I was able to ask an urgent question in the House on the matter. The issue was raised with Ministers and we were given assurances that the Dingley family were going to be helped to find their way through the complicated licensing process in order to enable Alfie to be able to access the medicine. Three months later, of course, they still had not got it. The cost of the licence application process—simply buying the licences to access this oil—was £20,000; we are talking about £5,000 a licence, so enormous barriers were put in the way.
Then we had the case of Charlotte Caldwell and her epileptic son Billy, who had been in the United States getting treatment. When they returned to the UK, wisely doing so via Dublin, because she lived in Northern Ireland, her GP gave her a prescription for the medicine she had brought back from the US. When the manufacturer of that medicine changed and it became a Canadian company, she needed a new prescription, at which point it all fell apart. The doctor was told, “You are not allowed to prescribe that medicine for this epileptic child to stop him having his fits.” With the support of Richard Branson and others, Charlotte went to Canada, collected the medicine, came back and presented it to customs at Heathrow on the Monday, when it was confiscated. By the Thursday the boy was in hospital fitting, and his consultants were on the steps of the hospital saying, “It really doesn’t matter. What is unacceptably cruel is to take a medicine that is working off a child.” The current Health Secretary, to his huge credit, then issued a special licence for Billy Caldwell to be able to get his medicine back from customs. That led to the then chief medical officer being invited to offer an opinion as to whether there was anything in this cannabis stuff as far as medicine is concerned. It only took her two weeks to come back with a strongly affirmative answer, based on the evidence available around the world. That then led to the regulations that the Government passed in November 2018, which have not solved the issue. As the hon. Member for Inverclyde said, only three prescriptions have been made on the NHS.
You will be familiar, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we all are in our constituencies, with the position of multiple sclerosis sufferers. There are about 50,000 people in this country growing their own medicine. They are committing quite a serious criminal offence in the process, but they are trying to treat their health condition. What we have failed to do on the back of the regulations passed in November 2018 is get an evidence-based approach to medicine from cannabis, and educate the health service, prescribing doctors and the rest about the potential benefits and how we should have developed a position from the first go at the regulatory change in 2018.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fascinating case, because I, like many other Members of the House, I am sure, thought that this problem had largely been solved. Why does he think it is that the Government or the Department find it is so difficult to grip this? I recall having back surgery 35 years ago and being very grateful for some pain relief. I asked whether I could have some more, but I was told, “No, you can’t, because it is morphia. It is related to heroin and you might get addicted.” If it was possible properly to prescribe something related to heroin for a proper medical condition 35 years ago, why can something similar by way of the arrangements needed not be sorted out for this particular problem?
Crispin Blunt
My right hon. Friend has alighted on a huge area of interest, which is pain control, not least end-of-life pain management. On the difference between opiate-based medicines, which he had, and cannabis-based medicines, the evidence is now all over the place about how much better the latter are, because people do not then have the addiction issues of the opiate-based medicines and they are not knocked out with what is, in effect, a chemical cosh towards the end of their life. They retain much better control of their faculties. They can enjoy a much better quality of life, even where they are being managed in terminal care, let alone where they are managing pain when they are not terminally ill. That is part of a missed opportunity. We are missing a huge bioscience opportunity for the United Kingdom because we have not got the regulations right, or their implementation has meant that these medicines have not begun to find the place they deserve in the pharmacopoeia and among the treatments available to doctors.
Of course, the private sector has stepped in where the NHS has not, and has used the special licence arrangements in the 2018 regulations, so we now have a two-track system. There have been three prescriptions on the NHS, but if someone has the means, they can pay roughly £2,000 a month for cannabis-based prescriptions. People can access cannabis-based medicines if they are prepared to go private and pay for it. That is an assault on the fundamental provisions of the national health service. Desperate parents of seriously ill epileptic children have moved countries to try to access this vital medicine. Of course, we will not know, because they will not tell us, how many have taken the illicit route and got their medicine from criminal sources. No parent or patient should face a prison sentence for treating a medical condition, and prioritising their health and the interests of those for whom they care and provide.
Access to healthcare in our country is, in principle, free at the point of use. Three years into the current system, that ought to be the case for medical cannabis as well. We should have made much more progress. The NHS’s own report on barriers to accessing cannabis-based medicine highlights the stark inequalities in, and problems with, the current regime. Although progress has been made on some preliminary fronts since the publication of that report, the most important outcome—appropriate, risk-based access to these medicines on the NHS—has simply not happened. We are being held back for a combination of reasons, including the risk aversion of a medical profession that is untutored and untaught in respect of the benefits—the endocannabinoid system does not appear in the syllabus for medical students—so the opportunity to have a cadre of doctors with the expertise to prescribe cannabis-based medicines now sits wholly in the private sector, and that expertise is available only at great expense.
This is not just about children with epilepsy, although they are of course the point of the spear, and everyone has huge empathy for them. Huge credit goes to End Our Pain, which got behind the Dingley family and put together the initial petition that got the issue into the public consciousness. That, combined with the Caldwell family, then got us formally over the line. I thought, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) did, that this was done; but it was not. That is the tragedy: we have built up expectations. Out there in our constituencies, people have legitimate expectations that they can now get this medicine legally—that they do not have to criminally grow it or go to a drug dealer and get God knows what, because trading standards do not exactly apply to the supply of medicine that is criminally delivered.
Behind those children with epilepsy—our hearts go out to the families, and I give them huge credit for the effort they put into the campaign, along with the people from End Our Pain and the associated parliamentary group—there are tens of thousands of people with multiple sclerosis and chronic pain who could, by now, be benefiting from this medicine. The Government have gone to great lengths to try to address the issue of the epileptic children. I pay tribute to the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), for all the time and passion that she put into engaging with this issue, meeting colleagues who represent epileptic children and getting into the detail of the prescribing barriers and the difficulty of moving cannabis-based medicines across international frontiers.
The Department of Health and Social Care also has to work through the Home Office regulations, which is not easy. If a Minister finds it difficult to enable medicines to be got to children who desperately need them, imagine how difficult it is for everybody else. I have huge confidence in the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who has empathy and understanding from her service as a nurse. She faces the challenge of having to grasp this complex issue.
The basis of the problem arose more than half a century ago. When cannabis was banned in the United States and then globally under the 1961 convention on drugs, it was put in the most restricted category of all for a reason that should shock and shame us: because 1950s American law enforcement thought that the principal users of cannabis were black Americans, so “It must be absolutely frightful. There can’t be any benefit in this.” Subsequently, cannabis found itself in schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, which made research almost impossibly expensive. That was utter madness, because the harms associated with cannabis-based medicines are fleeting and it is difficult to find evidence of them. That should be set alongside the potential benefits of treatments that ought to be available to people.
This research vacuum has meant that the Government are caught in a complex situation, and regulators are understandably highly risk-averse. We do not have the necessary skills, understanding or expertise among the medicine and health regulators who currently advise the Government. The medical and research community and the regulatory community are having to play catch-up because of the barriers that we politicians put in place in respect of a policy that has been around for more than 60 years.
Let me suggest to the Minister how we can move this issue forward, do our duty and serve UK citizens who find themselves in the wretched position of having to self-treat their conditions criminally because they cannot access the medicine otherwise. The public expect us to support them, and do not want sick individuals to be prosecuted for trying to obtain a medicine; that is where all registered public opinion sits.
My first suggestion is, of course, on funding for the epileptic children with the most serious conditions. There are so few of them, but the British Paediatric Neurology Association suggested that neurologists assess the parents’ finances before issuing a private prescription, lest they be unable to pay for treatment in future. Is that really the place where we want to be? It is inappropriate and impractical for doctors to make assessments of their patients’ financial circumstances because those patients have been driven into the private sector.
The issue has to do with the public stigma around the word “cannabis”, but that is utterly unrelated to any assessment of the evidence of risk. We have to take ourselves away from coming to a view having seen that word. That is no way for those of us to proceed who are charged with responsibility for legislating, for regulating, and for serving our citizens. If we put our reputation ahead of the evidence and what we ought to enable for our citizens, shame on us.
In the case of Orkambi for cystic fibrosis, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), were prepared to go the extra mile to find different routes to enabling the use of that drug through a managed access agreement. That shows that we can find creative solutions in this space if we are prepared to look for them. I urge the Government to return to this issue in a creative frame of mind to find a solution that will work.
Sitting behind this is the claim that we are a bioscience leader. Cannabis-based medicines should be part of that bioscience development. In the United Kingdom, another set of drugs—psychedelic-class drugs—suffer from similar problems. Some $6 billion has been invested in companies in north America to develop what is seen as the next leap forward in mental health treatment for addiction, trauma and depression. That sum is completely explicable if one considers the scale of those mental health conditions. If we are on the verge of enabling psychotherapy to work effectively for the people with the most difficult and challenging conditions, it is no wonder that the financial markets found $6 billion to invest in that—but by and large, they are not investing in it here, and this nation is a bioscience leader.
It is the experience of many prescribers of medical cannabis and their patients that medicines that contain additional cannabinoids—not just tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol—are the most effective. As a result, children with treatment-resistant epilepsy are benefiting from prescription of those cannabis-based medicines, although largely privately. However, the manufacturers have struggled to respond to the calls for research from the National Institute for Health Research. The NIHR must engage with manufacturers more directly and, again, more imaginatively, and provide sufficient support and detail to help them through the regulatory minefield and over the regulatory barriers that are stopping the delivery of these medicines.
The fact that the research is so immature is a direct consequence of the blanket censorship of scientific inquiry around cannabis, because the attitude to it was formed, racistly, on the basis of who used it illegally. There was no regard to the evidence on cannabis. It is the same with the psychedelic class of medicines. There is very little evidence of risk, or of deaths arising from the misuse of these medicines in their pure form, and we have perhaps put mental health treatment back five decades by not investing in, and exploring, these medicines in the way that their risk deserved.
We must learn lessons from the way that the policy developed in the lead-up to the November 2018 regulations, which failed to deliver the reform and change that we seek in order to treat sick, epileptic children, and those with so many other conditions.
I offer my hon. Friend the Minister the solution, and I hope that she will take it up. I am conservative in the proper sense—in terms of machinery of Government changes, and in terms of uprooting public administration and then replanting it to solve a problem. However, we are in desperate need of an office for drug control to enable all the interested Departments to take counsel together in Government. When the business is led by the Home Office, we find that its job is to protect the nation and to stop things happening. It has certainly succeeded in that, as far as research is concerned. It is the former Home Secretary, now the Health and Social Care Secretary, who opened up progress on this. I have great hopes that we will push on with this when it is on the health agenda, as well as the science agenda, and the agendas of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and, given the amounts of money being invested, the Treasury. [Interruption.] I am not sure about the level of demand for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that everyone would like to get away as soon as they reasonably can.
I am passionate about this, because we can do some real good here. If we push forward with creating an office for drug control, we will bring together all the interests in making progress in this area—for example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with regard to the growing of hemp in the United Kingdom. One begins to see a picture of how some Departments that Carol Black did not mention in her review as engaging in the treatment of those suffering from drug misuse still ought to be involved in the whole drug policy conversation. Opportunities for treatment and for better healthcare are being missed, quite apart from the economic opportunities that should be available for the nation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you want me to bring my remarks to a close. NHS England and NHS Improvement were tasked in 2019 with designing clinical trials appropriate for children who, in many cases, have made significant improvements and cannot ethically have their treatment withdrawn as would be required in a standard randomised control trial. We can and we must be flexible. The urgency of enabling timely access to medicines for these children was made clear, but it has not happened. These trials must happen and must present a route to access.
Sitting behind that are children who naturally tug at our heartstrings, given their conditions and the extraordinary cornucopia of steroid treatment and everything else that has been thrown at them. They deserve our sympathy. Behind them sit tens, hundreds and possibly millions of our fellow citizens who can also benefit if we get the bioscience, the research and the regulatory framework right. I look forward to conversations with my hon. Friend the Minister as we go forward. I recognise her need and that of her fellow Ministers in the Health and Social Care Department to make sure that the advice of the regulatory agencies that advise them is properly taken. In the first instance, though, those regulatory agencies require the right expertise, knowledge and understanding, and they need to acquire it in order to give her and her colleagues the right advice.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I start by congratulating my friend the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), on securing the debate and on his excellent introduction, and my friend the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), my co-chair of the all-party group for drug policy reform, on his wide-ranging assessment of the various complex issues involved in this difficult problem.
It is unusual to have a debate on the same subject on two successive days. The Minister was in Westminster Hall yesterday when we spoke about the slightly more specific issue of cannabis-based treatments for treatment-resistant epilepsy in children. She will have heard the heart-rending stories, which we have heard many times, of the impact of epilepsy on some of those children and their families, with the fear of hundreds of seizures a day, and the way that it completely takes over families’ lives.
We heard very moving testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) about the death of his son as a result of epilepsy. That was all very difficult. We also heard about the incredible transformation of lives that can be possible as a result of cannabis-based medical products that treat treatment-resistant epilepsy, and the impact on families. I am talking not just about Alfie and the fact that he is no longer in seizures and that he is able to behave like a normal naughty little boy, as he is described, but about Hannah and her family and the fact that she is able to get back to a normal life. That reflects not just the importance of the impact on families, but the wider savings to the public purse through the reduction in hospital visits and the ability of carers to return to work and become part of society again.
We heard about the frustrations of families unable able to get NHS prescriptions and the costs of private prescriptions. I have a constituent who is not a wealthy man, but he pays about £700 a month for cannabis-based products for his grandson; the family were able to get a private prescription, but not an NHS one. We need to help not only all these vulnerable young people, but their wider families too. As my friend the hon. Member for Reigate said, those people are the tip of the spear and get the publicity, but epilepsy is not the only condition that cannabis-based medical products can help. There is abundant evidence from around the world about the effectiveness of cannabis-based medicines against all kinds of conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, pain, anxiety and nausea. There are tests on Tourette’s and there are lots of other conditions that can be treated with cannabis.
In June 2018, Dame Sally Davies—who was then chief medical officer and chief medical adviser to the Government—was looking at the issue for the Government. She said that there was “conclusive evidence” in support of the use of medical cannabis for a number of conditions and “reasonable evidence” in others. It is safe and effective to prescribe these medicines and patients are being given prescriptions via the private route. As we heard earlier, 10,000 private prescriptions have been issued in the UK, but we still face a blockage, as a very tiny number of NHS prescriptions have been agreed. It is a great frustration that the public and many Members may feel that this problem has been solved, when it has not.
I appreciate that there are a number of problems. The Minister has already identified one of them to me: the reluctance of clinicians to prescribe. That is a real problem. The question for us is, how do we give them that comfort to prescribe? There are a couple of ways. The first is evidence, to which I will return in a minute. Another is training. We heard from my friend the hon. Member for Reigate about the difficulty of training clinicians on these issues. The endocannabinoid system—I can never pronounce that word—is a very complex system and it is not part of routine medical training. The 147 different cannabinoids that affect that system are difficult to isolate and the interrelation between them is difficult to identify, but there are people who can provide such training. We need to ensure that it is available to the clinicians, GPs and others who would like to be involved.
Even when a specialist consultant—somebody who is on the register of consultants—has agreed to prescribe, there is another barrier. They have to go to the next level for approval by a higher authority, as I think it is called, which means the trust, the clinical commissioning group or sometimes NHS England, although it is usually the trust. A number of prescriptions have been blocked at that stage, and that is a barrier that private prescribers do not have to surmount, which is a real issue. It seems to be a fault that is built into the system, and I am not convinced that it is a necessary barrier.
We have a set of problems to solve. The Minister knows that I have a private Member’s Bill, the Medical Cannabis (Access) Bill, which is due for debate on 10 December. I hope that it might be an opportunity to address the issue. Somewhat unusually, I guess, I have put that at the disposal of the Government and asked if they will work with me to use this legislative opportunity to find a way forward. I have my own thoughts on how a private Member’s Bill might address the problem and I have made some suggestions that have not yet been supported by Ministers, although in fairness they were supported by the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I welcome any suggestions or ideas about how we might frame the Bill to get around the problems. Even if we can only make baby steps, I am happy to work with the Government to find a way forward. I really want to make progress, so I make that offer to the Minister again today. I am grateful to her for saying that she will meet me to discuss the issue in the near future.
Let me return to the issue of evidence. As I have said, there is a lot of evidence out there, from around the world, about the effectiveness of cannabis-based products. Lots of work is going on. As the hon. Member for Inverclyde mentioned, the charity Drug Science has a fantastic, academically robust evidence gathering research project called Project Twenty21, in which 1,800 people are currently being treated. I pay tribute to Drug Science. I should declare my interest as a trustee of that charity—an unpaid trustee, of course. The study is an excellent piece of work to try to create a better body of evidence on the issue.
The matter comes down to the medical approvals system in this country, which emphasises so strongly double-blind randomised controlled trials—rightly so, as they are seen as the gold standards of trials. However, that system is set up to look at pharmaceutical products, not at something like whole plant extract medicines. As I mentioned earlier, cannabis contains 147 different cannabinoids, plus terpenoids and various other elements. It is quite a complex interaction on the nervous system. Sometimes a treatment will only work for a particular individual, and individuals have to work out their best balance of treatment.
It is difficult to have randomised controlled trials for such medicines. Leaving aside the moral issue of taking young people who are being treated off their medicine to take a placebo, if it is even possible to get a placebo—from what I hear, I am not convinced that people can really have a placebo for this kind of trial—it is still just a really difficult thing to do. I am not an expert on pharmacology or neurology, but I have spoken to people who are, and some are doubtful that it would be possible to get effective, useful evidence from such randomised controlled trials on whole plant cannabis. It is quite a unique plant that has a unique set of interactions with the body, so it is difficult to carry out those trials effectively.
Randomised controlled trials are not the only method of approval. I am told that 72 drugs have made it on to the approved medicines list without that kind of double-blind controlled study, so there are ways of doing it. The problem is that none of those drugs are plant-based medicines. As I understand it, cannabis is pretty much unique, given the interaction of the elements within it. We need a unique way of looking at the problem and at the evidence.
I made a couple of suggestions to the former Minister about how we might gather evidence and I was knocked back because they might bypass our current system of medical approvals, but I am afraid I have become convinced that part of problem is the current system of medical approvals when it comes to cannabis-based medical products. As my friend the hon. Member for Reigate said, we need Ministers to be flexible and creative, maybe a bit radical—maybe brave, if that is not a word that has been outlawed after its use by Sir Humphrey Appleby. We need Ministers to look at this in a new way. I appreciate that it is really difficult and quite an intractable problem, but we have to look at new ways of breaking the logjam, assessing the evidence base and making it easier for specialists—and perhaps others, such as some GPs—to prescribe.
I appreciate that the Government do not want to give widespread approval for GPs to prescribe these medicines. They are worried about the pressure that GPs might come under from people wanting recreational cannabis; I think that is overstated. Perhaps with some specialist training by an approved body, we might have a register of GPs who are able to prescribe. Most conditions that can be treated by cannabis are what we might call GP conditions—things like pain and anxiety. A survey said that a quarter of GPs would be happy, with the right training, to prescribe medical cannabis. We need to look at how to give people other than specialist consultants on the register a way of prescribing. That is perhaps one way of tackling this problem. Looking at trying to expand the evidence is so important, because there is so much evidence out there. It may not be through randomised controlled trials, but there are lots of other ways we can gather evidence. There are also a number of ways we can build safeguarding into the system, which I am happy to discuss with the Minister, as that might alleviate some of the concern.
The evidence is all around us that cannabis-based products can help patients. Hundreds of thousands of people in the UK are currently self-medicating. One of my relatives does that to treat their IBS. There are lots of conditions that people use cannabis to alleviate. The problem is that most are buying it illegally. It is probably high-THC skunk that they are getting on the streets, which is not the product that is best suited to them. We need to find a way to enable them to use a safer product. Again, my private Member’s Bill may be part of the solution.
I hope we can find a way forward because, as we heard earlier, this is a problem that ought to have been solved by now and has not been. If we do not have a concerted attack on this issue with some new thinking from Ministers, officials and others, then we are condemning people to continue in a situation where they are paying a fortune for their private product, going to illegal drug dealers, or condemned to pain or ill health from other conditions. We have to find a way forward, and I am very happy to work with the Government to try to do so.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith). I thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for securing this debate on medicinal cannabis.
I am sure I am not alone in this place in often being asked by people, “What is it that makes you want to be an MP?, “What is it about being an MP that is rewarding?”, or, particularly after days like yesterday, “Is it not frustrating?” When I am asked that, I point them to what happened a couple of years ago, when my constituent Karen Gray came to my office with her wee boy Murray, who, up until that point, had been the subject of lots of conversation and lots of letters back and forward to the Scottish Health Minister and to the then Health Secretary about the availability of cannabis oil. She brought him into the office and he sat and explained to me all about why he liked dinosaurs. That might seem unremarkable. But before then—before he had cannabis oil—Murray was likely to have up to 100 seizures in a day. He had spent much of his life in hospital and missed much of his education, and his parents were worried for his future.
Three years ago, when the then Home Secretary, now Health Secretary, made cannabis oil legal, it gave Murray’s family hope that their lives would change, and their lives have changed, Murray’s life most significantly. But it still is not fixed, because now the specialist who was prescribing cannabis oil for Murray has retired. When they did, earlier this year, they wrote to the Secretary of State asking what was to happen, because there would now be only one clinician in the country prescribing cannabis oil for hundreds of children for whom Epidiolex is not appropriate but for whom cannabis oil does change their lives and keep them safe. I have spoken to Murray’s mum about this. She is of the opinion—and says that the specialist was as well—that many GPs and doctors in this country want to be able to help their patients with cannabis oil, and that will be possible only if the Department of Health changes its policy and encourages the profession to do so.
This is the third debate on this subject that I have taken part in in the past couple of months. Each of them was secured by an MP from a different party. Today’s debate was secured by the hon. Member for Inverclyde, who is a Scottish National party Member. Yesterday’s debate in Westminster Hall was secured by a Conservative Member. I secured the other debate, as a Liberal Democrat Member, and we had support from Labour Members. I am at a loss as to how an issue that is so emotive, and has so much support across this House and across this country, has to keep coming back. We have to keep asking the same questions. We have to keep saying that clinical trials will not work because cannabis oil is not suitable for clinical trials. Even the NHS has said so. In its report of 8 August 2019, it recommended that there should be alternative trials. By that I assume it means observational trials.
I wonder what motivated the Government and the then Home Secretary to change the law: I suspect that he wanted to do it in the best interests of a child, and children, who were suffering and could be helped by that change in the law. I also wonder how frustrated he, and other politicians who took part in that decision, including all of us who worked hard and campaigned for it, must now be that despite that significant—in some terms, massive—change by this Government, we have not made the intended progress. People are still in pain in this country. Families are spending, as we have heard, upwards of £1,000, sometimes £3,000, a month to secure legal medication for their children that they cannot get on the national health service—the national health service of which we are so proud and that is supposed to deliver free-at-point-of-delivery care from cradle to grave.
Crispin Blunt
A few of us have constituents with a child with epilepsy and have invested the time to get a detailed understanding of many of the issues. The problem, as alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), is that most of our colleagues think we have done it. After the decision was taken in November 2018—or when the licence was given for Billy Caldwell to get his medicine—the conclusion was that one would not be able to find anyone who was objecting, because if one can have medicine from the Asian poppy, why on earth can one not have medicine from cannabis? There was probably no opposition in this place at all. But the tragedy is that the evidence is that we have not done it. We must get back into the complexity. We will support the new Minister in fighting her corner to ensure that people can get these medicines, along with all the other interests that are engaged here too.
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right; I could not agree more. We all thought it was done, but more importantly, and more upsettingly, so did the families of the hundreds of children, and adults, who would benefit—adults with conditions such as multiple sclerosis for whom it would be life-changing. They all thought it had been done and cannot understand why it is not. I have to be honest: I cannot understand why it is not either, and why it simply cannot be done. Will the Government please consider using observational trials instead of insisting on clinical trials, which are not appropriate?
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The hon. Lady and I have locked horns on a number of occasions on the radio over the European Union, but I would like her to know that she has support on the Tory Benches, particularly when she talks about children and the conditions they are facing. I hope she will take comfort from the fact that she has support from all political parties in the House in trying to change the legislation on this very important issue.
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I do take comfort from that, but more importantly, the many hundreds of families watching to see what we do will take comfort from the fact that they have support on the Government Benches as well as the Opposition Benches. I ask the Government and the Minister to take that on board. Will they consider the suggestions that have been made today, as well as using discretionary funding to support those prescriptions that families are currently paying for until we can resolve this issue? Then we can finally achieve what the then Home Secretary and the Government wanted to achieve three years ago when they made cannabis for medical use legal. They did not intend that we would be here now with only three prescriptions issued.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing this debate, which, as everyone has said, is yet another debate on the same issue. Three years on from when we had such hope, it is disappointing that we find ourselves still here.
I am going to speak yet again about one of my constituents, a very brave and formidable woman who is known to many in the House, because she has been courageously campaigning for the medical use of cannabis by highlighting the problems she has faced in recent years to access the drug Bedrocan. Lara Smith is a wife and the mother of three children. She was a paediatric nurse and a county fencing coach before her health deteriorated because of cervical and lumbar spondylosis. For over 20 years, she has had 35 different medications, as well as a number of operations for her condition. Unfortunately, she has been left with permanent nerve damage, limited mobility and a constant, annoying and debilitating tremor in her right hand. Her quality of life has been completely impaired. That is not just because of her medical condition, but because of the awful side effects of the drugs she has been prescribed over all those years. This has meant that Lara was not able to be the full-time mother that she wanted to be to her daughters and son.
Fortunately, Lara’s pain management consultant in the north-east prescribed Bedrocan, and the transformation was such that she was able to come off all the other medications. Her young family said that they felt they had their mam back. The downside was that for a time, Lara could access the drug only by travelling to a Dutch pharmacy to collect it on a private prescription. I have said it before, so I will not go into it again, but she made that arduous journey every three months, bearing in mind the pain she was in. She had to notify full details of her prescription and her travel to Border Force each time. The costs of the medication and travel were very expensive for her family, but they thought that the sacrifice was worthwhile, because of the difference the drug made to Lara.
A couple of years ago, I was successful in raising the issue at Prime Minister’s questions. I received a response from the appropriate Minister at the time, who said that
“there should be no barriers to patients getting access to the appropriately prescribed medicine. The Department of Health and Social Care…has been working closely with suppliers and NHS procurement pharmacists to ensure that prescribed CBPM are available when needed.”
If only that were the case.
Fortunately, Lara no longer has to travel to Holland for her drugs—they are prescribed on a private prescription—but her consultant has unfortunately been unsuccessful in obtaining an individual funding request for her, which is a great disappointment to us all. That is because unfortunately the Northumbria trust—it is a well-respected and well-known trust in many ways, and I always support our trust for a lot of the good things it does, but I am rather frustrated in this instance—followed guidelines that do not advocate the use of cannabinoids, citing a lack of evidence for effective pain relief, because of the difference in the trials put forward to prescribe the drugs, and we have already heard about that issue. On that score, there has been no progress. Perhaps the biggest irony of all is that the trust advocates and allows the prescription of synthetic cannabinoids. For Lara’s drug, a synthetic cannabinoid is £588 a month and unfortunately leaves her quite ill; she pays £100 less for her private prescription. Such a state of affairs seems ludicrous.
There is nothing much I can add to what has been said today. All the speeches are always passionate, and Members speak with such knowledge on the subject—knowledge that has had to be acquired over all the years there has been the fight to win the case. I know that the new Minister, having worked with her on all-party parliamentary groups, is compassionate and knowledgeable, so we put great hope in her that we will see some progress after today’s debate and the other debates that have gone before. I wish her the best of luck in taking this forward, and I am sure she knows we are all behind her. We hope there will be change for the adults and children whose quality of life needs to be improved and can easily be improved if some changes are made in law.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to close for the Scottish National party in what has been a consensual and informative debate with a great deal of good sense and passion from all parts of the political compass and all points of the House. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing this important debate.
It is important that we take good note of the reality on the ground. Passing laws and changing regulations are easy for a legislature, but effecting change on the ground is deeply important for millions of the people who we represent and serve. I have a personal insight to this issue: nine years ago, I was diagnosed with arthritis. It is a family thing. We knew that it was probably in the post. It is well-managed and I am relatively lucky—Versus Arthritis is a great organisation with a lot of good support and advice—but what it has given me is a keen awareness that pain management and chronic medical conditions are life-defining for millions and millions of the people who we serve. Anything that can help alleviate those conditions surely needs to be properly ventilated and worked through for the benefit of those millions of people. Medical cannabis should not be held back by woolly sentiment and outdated thinking. I think there is still a job to be done to move where the state is on that.
I also have a constituency interest, in that in Stirling we host Sapphire Medical Clinics, which is Scotland’s first and so far only medical cannabis prescribing clinic. Since March this year, it has had great success, with upwards of 1,000 referrals of medical cannabis for people across Scotland with chronic pain, anxiety, insomnia and other conditions. That is not to say that medical cannabis is a silver bullet, but it does work for millions of people worldwide, and it deserves to go further. Those 1,000 patients are all part of the UK medical cannabis registry, which has data on 20,000 prescriptions UK-wide, so there is a lot of data being brought through. Sapphire also collaborates closely with the University of the West of Scotland on analysis and research into the efficacy of the treatments. There is a lot of data building, and that is where we need to evolve the thinking of the state in viewing these things.
Obviously I would prefer to see the devolution of drugs policy to the Scottish Parliament. I think we would make a better fist of it than has been made thus far, but there is a challenge to the Minister: let us do it properly and well. Let us make sure that this technology is brought forward. Pending that, there are a number of action points that could be taken, not least in the NHS’s report into the subject, which contains several good points and deserves to be higher up the agenda than it seems to be.
Does the Minister agree that bringing all cannabis prescriptions into the NHS drug dictionary would allow a much better assessment and analysis of the scale of prescription already in existence? There needs to be a change in tone from the Government about drugs policy. We need to view drugs as a health issue through the health prism, rather than the criminal justice prism. If we look at the issue in the right way, we will surely get better answers. I wish the Minister well and I have high hopes that she will agree that that is the way we need to look at it.
Medical cannabis does not work for everybody. It is not a silver bullet, so calls to put things into the NHS system are perhaps premature in some cases, but we need to ventilate that promising technology properly. It could help millions of people. For the people for whom it does work, it works very well, and it could work for an awful lot more. I wish the Minister well in taking it forward. If she does something useful and sensible for the millions of people who are suffering, she will have our support.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate and the hon. Members for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing it. I also thank the cross-party campaigners in this place beyond that group, including the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for all that they have done over the years to put it on the parliamentary agenda.
Progress in making cannabis-based medical products available to those who need them has been slow, so it is right that we have the opportunity to debate the frustrating lack of progress. As hon. Members have said, this is the second debate in two days, which I hope gives those watching confidence that we in this place are taking the issue seriously.
I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverclyde in his opening speech about the families who are dealing with incredible, unthinkable challenges and who handle themselves with such dignity and make such powerful cases. I hope—I feel—that we have done them justice today and will continue to do so. In particular, I hope that the Minister will touch on his points about the limiting factors in research.
The speech of the hon. Member for Reigate was a characteristic tour de force. I always stop to listen when he is talking about the issue, because he speaks with such power. He made the point that it is unacceptably cruel to take effective medicines away from a child, which we all agree with. He linked that to palliative care, and I share the view that we want people at the end of their life to get whatever treatment might make their final days the best that they can be. Actually, that applies to adults throughout their lives: if people are living in pain and do not have to be, I would want to do anything I could to avert that.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the 2018 regulations and the sense that we thought they had solved it, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) also said. The hon. Member for Reigate gave us a hopeful way forward by concluding that we need to be creative and solution-focused. The Opposition share that view—I do not think there is a lot of politics on this issue—and support coming together to find a practical, effective, safe and risk-aware solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington spoke in that spirit. He is fortunate to have been drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot, which is precious for any right hon. or hon. Member. He is keen to work with the Government. I know him well and know the spirit in which he will work with them, so I hope the Minister will take that up. That private Member’s Bill would be a perfect vehicle to move the issue forward. His point that it is about not just epilepsy was well made. I double underlined the phrase that we need to give clinicians the “comfort to prescribe”, which was elegantly put. I completely support that goal and will come back to it.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West spoke about her constituency case of Murray. Many right hon. and hon. Members will recognise similar cases in their surgeries. The daftness of that story is that the UK’s prescribing could grind to a halt on the basis of a single person retiring. Where else in the health service would that ever be the case or tolerated? It is an absurd set of affairs.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) kindly facilitated the opportunity for me to meet her constituent, who is a doughty campaigner, as she says. To hear the impact on her constituent’s life, it is hard to understand why we are not doing everything we can to make sure that she can live with as little pain as possible. I will get on to the counterargument about the lack of evidence, but she is that evidence, because we know what her life was like before and after, so I find that argument hard to accept.
The common theme of the contributions has been frustration or, more positively, a desire to redouble our efforts in this area, which cuts both ways. There are opportunities in research, which I hope the Minister will talk about, with regards to epilepsy, long-term pain relief and mental health. We also need a stronger position on the regulation of products such as cannabidiol, which proliferate on the internet and can be found in various shops, in all sorts of forms, promising all sorts of things that are hard to establish. We need better regulation in that space.
When the Government accepted the therapeutic use of cannabis, it was met, as we have heard, with much relief from campaigners, such as the families of Billy Caldwell and Alfie Dingley, who has now gone 508 days without an epileptic fit thanks to his medicinal cannabis treatment. It has changed his life, but not everyone has been so lucky.
Bailey Williams has been denied access to medicinal cannabis for his epilepsy and his parents are forced to raise £1,200 a month for his treatment. The mother of 11-year-old Teagan Appleby spends about £2,000 a month to treat her daughter’s Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, as she has not received a prescription. In the time that she has been taking that treatment, she has to go to hospital only once—when it ran out. That is the impact on her life.
I think of my constituents and how few, if any, could spare £2,000 a month. Of course, all of them, and I daresay all of us, would go to whatever lengths necessary for our children—that is the tragic paradox—but it is not acceptable. We are letting people down on an issue that we thought we had resolved.
In 2018, cannabis-based products were rescheduled. Guidelines were produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and three products got through: Epidyolex for rare forms of epilepsy, Nabiximols for multiple sclerosis-related spasticity and Nabilone for side effects from chemotherapy. The regulations said that initial prescriptions must be made by a specialist medical practitioner and, in all cases, would be considered only when other treatments were unsuitable or had not worked.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point. Does he agree that the psychological pressure and stress of having to campaign constantly and raise money at that level is simply unfair? My constituent Lisa Quarrell has had to raise thousands of pounds for her child Cole Thomson and has been under that stress continually for years. It is time for us to work collectively to overcome any hurdles to achieving success.
Alex Norris
I have seen the fundraisers online, as other hon. Members will have. When people have to raise that amount of money each month, they must not be able to do anything else and they must live with that anxiety constantly. We want to relieve people of that as far as we can.
We know that the number getting through has been dreadfully low. The previous Minister said in February that 413 unique eligible patients had been identified, but no estimate had been made of the number who had received prescriptions. End Our Pain believes that only three prescriptions have been issued on the NHS—goodness me, that is not what we thought it would be three years ago. If the Minister has more up-to-date information, we would be keen to hear it, but there is definitely a sense that it is not going anywhere near far enough.
Last year, a Care Quality Commission report found that a meagre 6.5% of cannabis-based items were prescribed on the NHS. Again, that is a paradox because we are told that there is real anxiety about prescribing it, but if people pop it into a search engine, they can find an awful lot of private treatments that do not seem anxious at all—there seem to be fewer shy bairns there. I am not sure that that is quite the defence that those who use it think it is.
It is a matter of justice if people are missing out or are left with the horrendous choice between paying over the odds for medication and suffering. The founding principle—the settled political point—of the national health service is that we do not tolerate that or think that people’s access should be based on their ability to pay, but we are tolerating that here, so I hope we can do better.
Dr Julian Lewis
I have been looking at the Hansard of yesterday’s debate—there is an opportunity for the Minister to refer to it when she makes her remarks—and I see that one of the main points she made yesterday was the fact that there is insufficient evidence on the safety aspects and the possible harm effects. Given that families are paying all this money and finding other ways of getting the cannabis-based products, would it be a way forward if families were asked to sign a waiver if it were prescribed, so that the people doing the prescribing would be protected against any subsequent action if in fact something went wrong? It might be for the family to take that decision on the balance of benefit and harm.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention. I am slightly torn in the sense that I have absolutely no doubt that families would take it on that basis, but as a former trade union official, I would never have advised a member to sign away their rights. I think that is what we are getting at when the hon. Member for Reigate says that we have to come up with something creative that means we can clear this hurdle, and that is one such option.
Let me link that back to a previous intervention by the right hon. Member for New Forest East on opiates—if you will briefly indulge a thought experiment, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the reverse were true and we routinely prescribed cannabis-based products to deal with pain issues, would anybody really be advocating at the Dispatch Box that we should instead swap them for opiates and that they would be a better alternative? I think the answer to that is an obvious one, and that should be guiding our thinking.
Ronnie Cowan
A vital point was made there about who should be prescribing this. Dr Martinez, the retiring private prescriber of medical cannabis, has written to the Secretary of State for Health and, on the group she prescribes for, she said:
“I know that a majority of the GPs dealing with this group of children wish to prescribe, but, in order to do so, this requires a change of policy from the Health Department because it is CBD medication which has been treated differently to other controlled drugs.”
The solution is there. I get the point that parents can agree to a waiver, but they should not have to. This can be changed, and the Secretary of State for Health has been asked to do this by a consultant.
Alex Norris
That is very handy timing from the hon. Gentleman because I was just about to make that point. Following that retirement, Robin Emerson, the father of Jorja Emerson—he is behind the Jorja Foundation and has been campaigning tirelessly—has written to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister asking them to intervene, but my understanding is that he is yet to receive a reply. I hope the Minister will commit to that being immediately addressed because this is very important indeed.
I will make a couple of final points before I finish. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in the debate yesterday—we are in a novel position of having them on consecutive days, which is helpful—and it is clear that the Minister considers it a clinician issue rather than a political one, but that is not working at the moment. We are in a strange situation of there being so much concern about the nebulous long-term effects of these prescriptions that that is seen as better than, say, leaving a child fitting 100 times or more a day. It is rather like not throwing a rope to a drowning person for fear of their burning their hands on it. I find that hard to imagine, but we are in such a situation.
I fear that merely putting this at the door of clinicians is defending the status quo. I feel that we in this place do have agency and, indeed, a responsibility to act. I hope to hear from the Minister that there is going to be a greater drive from the Department to encourage clinicians. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington offered suggestions on the training that I know is out there, and again I am keen to hear what we can do to have that picked up more reasonably.
Across this debate and the debate yesterday, clear themes have emerged: better research, or perhaps creative research, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said; better engagement with clinicians, again with the points my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington made; and, for goodness’ sake, immediate relief for families in the system now. They are going through things we would never tolerate for ourselves or would absolutely hate for ourselves, and I feel we that have a real responsibility to step that up.
I think there is broad consensus on this, and we now need to come together on a flexible solution to do it. Just as the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), said, we will support the Government if they bring that forward. This is something I think we all share, and the families are watching us and waiting for us to do it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on bringing forward this debate. As has been said, this is the second day in a row that we are debating this important issue, and I appreciate the depth of feeling on it. I know there are many Members who wished to speak today but who have not been able to, including the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke)—Teagan Appleby is her constituent—and for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler).
As I said yesterday, I have huge sympathy for the issues, problems and struggles that patients and their families are facing. They are trying desperately to access these drugs. No one wants a resolution to this more than me and the Secretary of State, who, as has had been said a number of times, changed the law when he was Home Secretary to try to resolve this situation.
Yesterday, I confirmed the Government’s absolute commitment to take an evidence-based approach to unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use in order to ensure that there is evidence that they are effective but also safe. A number of colleagues have asked why the Government cannot accept non-randomised controlled trials as evidence. The Government are not involved in the process of licensing the medicines; that is done by the independent regulator. The Government’s responsibility is in changing the law, which has already been done, but I very much take the point that we should be able to influence the speed at which the licensing process can take place. I will point out in my remarks how we are doing that.
I am willing to work with colleagues across the House, whether that is the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), with his private Member’s Bill, or SNP Members. This is a non-political issue that we want to see resolved, but the Government are not the body responsible for licensing medication or assessing the worthiness of the research, whether that is randomised controlled trials or any other form of evidence.
Before I set out what is being done, I want to provide an update on the matter of Bedrocan, because the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and the hon. Member for Inverclyde all mentioned it. The commercial agreement between Transvaal Apotheek and UK specialist medicines manufacturer Target Healthcare is progressing, and the MHRA and the Home Office are working with those companies to ensure that all regulatory standards for manufacturing these medicines are met.
On 16 September, the Home Office granted a six-month licence, which will allow Target to move on to testing its equipment and procedures using cannabis from the Netherlands and validating their production of Bedrocan oils. Departmental officials continue to work closely with the Dutch Government, Transvaal, the Home Office and the MHRA to ensure continuity of supply until domestic production can be established, and I will keep the House updated on progress. I hope that is a little glimmer of hope on that issue.
I am aware that there is huge patient demand for access to medical cannabis, and that many are convinced it is helping them with an array of medical conditions from chronic pain to cancer. To date, however, much of the evidence suggesting cannabis could be effective as a treatment is anecdotal. While that has some strength in observational studies, from the regulator’s point of view it often needs more robust clinical data.
There are two licensed cannabis-based products and one synthetic cannabinoid that mimics the effects of THC, which is the element I think most campaigners are looking for. We do have Sativex to treat severe spasticity in adults with multiple sclerosis, Epidyolex for the treatment of two rare forms of epilepsy and Nabilone for nausea and vomiting, so we are making some progress. I hear from campaigners that the THC element remains outstanding. Those products that are licensed are proof that when manufacturers invest in clinical trials, the potential of cannabis as a medicine can be realised. Clinical trials generate the data needed by our world-leading medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, to assess for safety, and it is then for NICE to approve the NHS funding element of that.
Let me reiterate that this is a multiple-step process. Orkambi has been mentioned; the issue with that was not licensing—it had a licence—but NHS funding. If we get to the licensing stage, the Government can do a huge amount more to fast-track things and be involved in discussions. Licensing, however, is an independent process, and that is the point at which we are stuck.
Crispin Blunt
I used that parallel as an example. I totally respect my hon. Friend’s point about licensing progress—of course she is correct—but this is about thinking imaginatively to work our way through the problems to the right solution. That applies desperately in this situation, as it did with Orkambi.
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely. The Government are committed to trying to resolve the blockage to licensing, which is the main factor hindering the prescription of these drugs. The Health and Social Care Secretary changed the law when he was Home Secretary, but that was not the end of the issue, and that is why we are taking these next steps. It is important not to dismiss the importance of licensed medication. We know from history that when medication that may have a good clinical effect is not tested thoroughly, there can be grave consequences, just as with thalidomide. The safety of a medicine is as important as its efficacy. I am not casting aspersions on cannabis, but the regulator has responsibility for all medicines, and it takes that issue very seriously.
Dr Julian Lewis
That argument would surely carry more weight if the people doing the testing outlined some sort of timeline and plan for concluding a testing programme, rather than apparently letting things drift on aimlessly for years on end.
Maria Caulfield
I take my right hon. Friend’s point. I will come on to that, and to timelines for the research that is in progress. Many of the products that we are talking about have not been licensed by any licensing authority across the world, including the Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency and our domestic MHRA. This is not just a UK problem; it is not the UK Government who are holding this back.
As I said yesterday, I encourage manufacturers of these products to invest in clinical trials. Part of the Department’s work is providing funding for the National Institute for Health Research, which is actively opening its arms to charities, academics, researchers, manufacturers and third-sector organisations. Funding is available for clinical trials, if anyone wants to come forward with one, be it a randomised control trial, an observational study, a randomised control trial without a placebo arm, or a phase 1, 2 or 3 clinical study. The MHRA is willing to provide advice and support to any potential applicants who want to conduct a clinical trial or seek a licence for their medicines. There is funding and support; we need researchers to come forward with clinical trials.
Ronnie Cowan
A lot of research institutes are restricted in what they can do because they are trying to access a category 2 product. If it was category 4, life would be a lot simpler for them.
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and going forward we perhaps need to unblock some of the blockages in that area. I take that point on board.
Clinical trials and the licensing process provide evidence and information that doctors rely on to support their treatment decisions. Many clinicians have fed back that they are reticent to prescribe these products until there is more evidence, because ultimately they are responsible for their patients when it comes to a treatment’s safety and effectiveness. Doctors are particularly unwilling, given the THC element of cannabis products; there is some emerging data and evidence of harm, particularly to children, including effects on the developing brain and heart. That is why the evidence base is so crucial, but I am happy—I say this especially to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, who sponsors the Medical Cannabis (Access) Bill—to consider what blockages could be unblocked to speed that process up.
Doctors are right to be cautious when prescribing any product if they are not confident in the evidence base. As I said yesterday, I am clear that prescription remains a clinical decision, as does prescription of any medication. It would be inappropriate for the Government to force clinicians to prescribe a medicine, but we will try to unblock some of the licensing blockages.
Let me highlight some of the studies that are starting to take off. This might have been mentioned, but from 1 April we have the establishment of clinical trials for NHS England and the NIHR. We have introduced a national patient registry, which will record patient outcomes, with a view to its being rolled out across the devolved Administrations. It is England-only at the moment. We are aiming to record the data of those who receive the medicines, and to consider side-effects, efficacy and a whole range of issues, in order to support clinicians working with patients, and to start to build an evidence base.
In addition, a randomised control trial is being set up. It has three arms, which will include one arm with CBD or THC, and one arm with a placebo. We expect it to open fairly soon. Those looking to access these drugs—children in particular—will be able to do so in a blinded way and can take part in the study. If the data come through relatively quickly, that will open up opportunities to submit evidence to the MHRA.
Ronnie Cowan
Who would offer a child who is on medication that stops them having 100 seizures a day a random test that potentially contains a placebo?
Maria Caulfield
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but many children are not accessing this medication, and this is a route to that. As I explained in yesterday’s debate, clinical randomised control trials with a placebo arm have extremely strict rules, and if one arm of the study is showing incredible progress and doing better than the other arms, the study must be stopped, patients unblinded, and everyone switched to the arm that is doing the best. In some circumstances, that has enabled people to access drugs under clinical research in a much quicker way. It does have some advantages.
Christine Jardine
That is all very well, but it brings us back to the fact that there are children who are already benefiting from the drugs. Even the NHS has asked whether it would not be beneficial to have an alternative trial, such as an observational one, and to use that evidence, rather than having a clinical trial with all these pitfalls.
Maria Caulfield
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but the MHRA, which is the regulator, and other regulators around the world have a tier of research that they will accept. The randomised controlled trial method is the gold standard, and the more randomised controlled data someone has, the more likely they are to get a trial approved quickly. Of course observational studies will be used. That is why, if researchers have a large group, want to do observational studies—we heard about the Sapphire clinic from the hon. Member for Inverclyde—and come forward with observational data, I encourage them to speak to the MHRA to see whether that is the sort of research that would be acceptable. It is important that they have those discussions with the regulating body, because it may well accept some of that evidence.
Until manufacturers, researchers, academics and those using these drugs in practice come forward with whatever research they feel would be acceptable and have those discussions, we will go round in a circle. I am keen that if observational studies are acceptable, we support them to happen. Whatever it takes, in research terms, to get a licence through, the Government are there, providing funding, advice and support. However, ultimately, they are not the body that can make that decision; but I think there is a willingness around the House to try to find a resolution.
It will take time to generate further evidence and see the results of clinical trials. The Health Secretary and I are committed to doing everything in our power to accelerate this work. There have been some helpful suggestions this afternoon that we may need to go away and look at.
I thank everyone again. Although this is the second debate on this subject in two days, I know that it will not be the last; the private Member’s Bill will come forward next month. I want to put on the record my commitment to this issue. It is extremely difficult. In yesterday’s debate, we heard constituents’ stories relayed by their MPs, including the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). They really are very moving testaments, and we want to find a way forward. We have changed the law, but that has clearly not been enough. We need to find a resolution, so that we can get these medications licensed if the clinical evidence is there, and we need to work with the regulator.
Dr Cameron
I know that the Minister is committed to this issue. Could the Government perhaps appoint a lead clinician for this issue, to give clinicians across the United Kingdom confidence, and to drive the issue forward at pace, so that we see movement in the short term?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady makes a good point. If there are clinicians who want to take a lead on this, there is obviously scope to look at that, but we must be clear that we have to license and support research for this medicine in the way we would any other. I have given a commitment today to working with hon. Members on both sides of the House to demonstrate how seriously the Government take this issue.
Ronnie Cowan
I thank everyone who attended the debate and spoke. I want to pull the Minister back to one thing that I asked about. Will she please look at the most recent information from the BPNA? If I am interpreting that correctly, it will make prescribing more difficult. I hope I am wrong, but she has far more medical experience than I have.
We developed a covid vaccine in under a year, and rolled it out across the country to massive numbers of people, and it was free to those who needed it. I ask that we bring the same sense of urgency to this debate. To all the parents and others watching the debate—I know they are watching, because they have been texting me since I sat down an hour and a half ago; many of the questions I put to the Minister came from parents from around the United Kingdom—I say: thank you for driving this campaign forward. I hope that it does not end here, and that the fight goes on—hopefully in an amicable fashion. I hope we can all do better for all of you.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the use of medical cannabis for the alleviation of health conditions.
Adjournment
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 4th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 View all Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 November 2021 - (4 Nov 2021)
The Chair
I have some preliminary announcements. I remind Members that they are expected to wear a face covering, except when speaking or if they are exempt. That is in line with the House of Commission’s recommendations. Please also give each other and staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre on the estate or at home.
Observing the Members present, on the Government Benches at least, only the payroll vote are wearing a mask, although a couple more are putting on masks now as a result of my recommendation. I hope that during the course of today’s proceedings, Government Members give serious consideration to wearing a mask. Obviously, I am not wearing one, because I am chairing the event, and officials either side are at a safe distance.
Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea, coffee and other beverages, apart from water, are not allowed during sittings, so I recommend Members comply with that, otherwise they might not be called to speak.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment takes place when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in the group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on any or all the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know, please.
Clause 1
Quashing orders
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from “order” to the end of line 9.
This amendment removes the statutory power for courts to award prospective only quashing orders and preserves the status quo in relation to the retrospective effect of quashing orders.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 35, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 10 and 11.
This amendment removes the ability to make a suspended or prospective-only quashing order subject to conditions.
Amendment 40, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 15 to 18.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 12.
Amendment 41, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out “or (4)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 12.
Andy Slaughter
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Mark. I hope that we will have some interesting debates over the next few weeks. I also welcome the Minister to the first Bill he is to take through the House. I will also mention—[Interruption.] I was going to mention my own side, but they seem to have temporarily left the room for urgent Chamber business. I will not take that personally—not at this stage. In his absence, however, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, who as shadow Courts Minister will lead for the Opposition on much of part 2 of the Bill. Like most Justice and Home Office Bills, this is a bit of a Christmas tree Bill—we are getting near to Christmas—so while I will lead on part 1, on coroners and employment tribunals, I am grateful for his expertise. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East and for Liverpool, Wavertree, who are current or former members of the Select Committee on Justice, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, who keeps us all in order.
The Conservative members of the Committee are all here, I think, except for the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I am wearing my intermediate glasses, which means I cannot see anything close up or far away. We did not hear a great deal from the Conservatives in the evidence sessions. Other than the right hon. Gentleman, they kept their powder fairly dry, but I will try and provoke them to more animation today.
Amendment 12 seeks to excise the most obnoxious proposal in part 1 of the Bill: prospective-only quashing orders. To give some context, the Government will present the Bill as a moderate, reasonable adjustment to the art of judicial review—no more than a rebalancing. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings gave some cover to that in his questions and comments in the evidence sessions. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but he suggested that it was a rather milk-and-water Bill and could go much further in reigning in judges to allow Parliament freer expression, if I understood him correctly. I disagree. I think that the Bill is a misreading of the purpose of judicial review and has an unhealthy focus on the constitutional periphery of its operation, rather than the practical effect it has on asserting the rights of the citizen against the state.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Would the hon. Member not accept, however, that in the 2019 election those of us on this side of the House stood on our manifesto that said we would look to reform judicial review? The Bill has not just been brought forward; my electorate in Burnley explicitly voted for it because they had seen the chaos in the 2017 to 2019 Parliament.
Andy Slaughter
I always defer to the electorate of Burnley, all of whom, I am sure, had a copy of the Conservative manifesto. I will come back to the hon. Member’s question, because I first want to give some context around the recent history of how we got to this Bill.
We took evidence from a large number of very senior experts. Even the Government-invited experts, if I may call them that, did not really agree with the Government’s view either—not even Professor Ekins, who had innumerable suggestions for other interventions by the legislature to reverse individual decisions but did not suggest codification or enshrining judicial review in statute, which this Bill does not seek to do. We disagree that the Government have been restrained or that the Bill needs more heft, either around the doctrine or individual case examples. We think it already goes too far.
We will argue today in Committee that prospective-only quashing orders strip claimants of their right to remedy and make the unlawful lawful. That presumption is in favour of suspended quashing orders, prospective-only quashing orders, fettered judicial discretion, and, in effect, a judicial process with heavy-footed statutory direction. The collateral damage caused by this interfering with a well-understood process of defining the legal limits of state actors will cause unintended victims and create more uncertainty and satellite litigation.
On clause 2, we will also argue that the use of ouster in Cart/Eba cases will not only leave very vulnerable persons in danger, but will open the door to more frequent incidents of legislation ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court, using the Bill as, in the Government’s own words, a template for further ouster clauses.
I am extremely grateful for the help and suggestions on how to structure these comments—from the Clerks for the way they group and help perfect the amendments, to the House of Commons Library for its excellent briefings and the many organisations for who sent us their thoughts. They are too numerous to name them all, but I must mention those that gave evidence on Tuesday: Liberty, Justice, Public Law Project, The Law Society and Amnesty International UK—all well known in the field of administrative law and human rights. We also received briefs from environmental, educational, equality and immigration non-governmental organisations and charities.
I mention that because the thrust of many of the arguments against the Bill are that it limits the ability of civil society in all its forms and of the individual to challenge the state. That is important because the attempt to characterise judicial review as the creature of lawyers and lefties, which to this Government appear to be two sides of the same coin, could not be further from the truth.
Judicial review is simply the modern name for the centuries-old common-law supervisory jurisdiction of the superior courts to ensure that decisions of public authorities, including statutory tribunals, respect the limits on their powers that are imposed by law. The existence of the courts’ common-law jurisdiction makes it possible for a person to go to court and argue that a decision or action of the state was unlawful. The court can rule that the decision or action was unlawful if it was illegal, irrational, tainted by procedural impropriety or a disproportionate interference with a fundamental right. It is one of the most fundamental checks and balances within the UK constitution to ensure that public authorities act fairly and in accordance with the law. It also gives individuals a route to challenge officialdom where it may have overstepped its powers.
To quote the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), as I may do on more than one occasion:
“Judicial review is a cornerstone of British democracy. It empowers everyday people to challenge decisions made by public bodies. Whether it be central government or local authorities, rule makers are held accountable by ordinary people. This is a small, but important, check on the balance of powers in our democracy.”
Some of the framework rules for judicial review are set out in the Senior Courts Act 1981, but it is important to appreciate that the courts’ power of judicial review is not something judges have been given by Parliament, but an inherent common-law jurisdiction dating back centuries to when the courts first began holding power to account. Therefore, much of the content of these rules are spread across these different cases.
If a court finds that the decision or action was unlawful, it will make a declaration to that effect if it is just and convenient to do so. It has the power to make three specific orders: a mandatory order, which orders the state to do something; a prohibiting order, which prohibits the state from doing something; or—relevant to these discussions—a quashing order, which rules that a thing done by the state is void and has no legal effect. On the other hand, a declaration is simply a formal statement setting out the legal state of affairs. We will see the importance of that when we talk about suspended quashing orders later on. A declaration is non-executory in the sense that it does not command anyone to do anything; it simply declares what the legal position is.
A quashing order is different as it is executory: it orders something concrete and has legal consequences. A quashing order rules that a decision was void and therefore has no effect. Rather than simply declaring, for example, that a planning decision was unlawful, a quashing order would quash that decision meaning it has no continuing effect and has never had any effect from the moment it was made.
The long-established default position in judicial review cases is that where unlawfulness has been established, for example because a public authority has acted beyond its powers, a declaration is insufficient and one of the specific orders must be given. According to Lord Bingham, speaking in a judicial capacity, under the rule of law
“the discretion of the court to do other than quash the relevant order or action where such excessive… power is shown is very narrow.”
The Bill is not the first time in recent years that a Conservative or coalition Government have sought to rein in judicial review. Between 2010 and 2015, various proposals were consulted on and legislated for. In particular, in 2013, changes to the civil procedural laws reduced time limits for bringing claims in planning and procurement cases, introduced new fees and denied some renewed hearings. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 introduced provisions on leapfrog appeals, wasted costs orders and the refusal of some remedies.
However—interestingly—the most controversial proposals on legal aid and standing originally designed to be in that Act were not pursued. It was a case of rhetoric meeting the practice of the courts and the former withering in the gaze of the latter. Perhaps that will happen again with these proceedings—in the other place if not here—because we are again in the territory of crowd-pleasing rhetoric, or Back Bencher-pleasing rhetoric, coming under scrutiny.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Can my hon. Friend think of any reason why a Government or any other body should be afraid of the judicial review process if they think that they got it right in the first place?
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes exactly the right point. He did not hear me paying tribute to him when he was temporarily detained elsewhere. I am pleased that, as an experienced shadow Minister, he is on the Committee.
People in charge of public authorities should welcome judicial review, which, like many court and tribunal processes, is a way to scrutinise and improve decision making either directly through a challenge or because they want to avoid such a challenge. In my humble way, I remember the 10 years or so when I was running a local authority, and unless other members of the Committee were also in that position—there may well have been—I have probably been subject to more judicial reviews than anyone on the Committee. I must say that while we can take a view on the merits of an individual case, the process is generally beneficial for the authority. As my hon. Friend said, what have they got to hide?
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that judicial reviews are a part of the checks and balances on Government?
Andy Slaughter
I absolutely agree. It is an important part of those constitutional checks and balances, and it has become more important. In a country without a written constitution, it is totally appropriate that a common-law process such as judicial review should develop as it has. I do not mean that it is excessive or that it has grown out of control; it has simply moved with the times in a way in which our senior courts in particular are able to do. As I say, the Bill is a clear attempt to reduce proper accountability for state actions.
Antony Higginbotham
The hon. Gentleman seems to be putting forward a narrative whereby people listening to these proceedings, who do not know what is going on, might think that judicial review is going away somehow. Actually, that is not what will happen as a result of the Bill; it seeks to continue the evolution in ensuring that judicial review is used proportionately. Will the he confirm my understanding that judicial review will still be available for people who want to challenge Government decisions? It is really important that the general public do not think that a potential remedy is disappearing.
Andy Slaughter
The hon. Gentleman is being very sharp this morning, because he is always one point ahead of me. I am coming to exactly that in discussing how these provisions were formulated, and I accept entirely what he says. The Bill could have gone a lot further, and there were proposals to go further in the Government’s consultation, but that does not mean that there are not significant changes in the Bill. I do not agree that it simply tidies things up or that the changes are a logical progression, and I will try to persuade him of that slowly but surely.
Under the Bill, claimants and others affected by unlawful decisions made by the state could find that they win their case but get no proper remedy and see no real impact on their lives, or on the lives of anyone else who has been negatively affected. If I am right about that, it is a significant change. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, we were promised—I think in the same 2019 Conservative manifesto—overarching constitutional reviews of criminal law and democracy, but they have not materialised. It may be that wiser heads have prevailed, but it may also be that rather more quick and dirty results are being demanded.
The Government have opted instead for a series of reviews. In this discipline, the independent review of administrative law was established under Lord Faulks. It asked whether judicial review was being abused by creating needless delays and allowing political matters to be litigated through the courts. There was concern from many in the legal community that the review would lead to the courts being sidelined and the Executive being granted too much power without enough accountability. However, IRAL’s recommendations were mainly practical and incremental, and they did not contain the radical proposals that some had feared.
The panel was against codifying the grounds for judicial review. It thought that ouster clauses were appropriate only in limited circumstances, and it disapproved of prospective-only quashing orders. Perhaps for that reason, the then Lord Chancellor took the two IRAL recommendations that he liked—on suspended quashing orders and on reversing Cart—and conducted his own consultation. The consequences of that second bite, or some of them, are in the Bill, though it still has too little red meat for some people. The Bill proposes a range of further reforms that risk weakening the rule of law and narrowing access to justice for vulnerable people.
Clauses 1 and 2 seek to limit the vital check on Executive action and create a statutory presumption that remedies available in judicial review should be suspended or made prospective-only. Clause 1 gives judges the power to issue suspended and prospective-only quashing orders, the latter of which would prohibit future unlawful decisions without invalidating any prior actions based on that decision. The Bill undermines accountability and creates additional and unnecessary barriers to individuals seeking redress when they are affected by unlawful actions of public authorities.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that removing retrospection could mean illegal acts are thus made legal, and that there is very little remedy for those who seek recompense?
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend has put her finger on the main objection, but it is not the only objection. It will cause a great deal of confusion, and I do not think the courts will like it. They will therefore try to find ways around it, as courts tend to do in such circumstances, and there will be uncertainty over whether something was lawful, and whether it was lawful for all purposes. Again, I will come on to those issues, but this just opens cans of worms. The Government also assert that this is a simplifying and clarifying measure, but it will have exactly the opposite effect.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I take issue with the hon. Member’s characterisation of how the courts may work under the new jurisdiction of the Bill, when it is enacted. He also mentioned the expert advice that we heard the other day. Jason Varuhas, professor of law at the University of Melbourne, stated:
“I think these remedies are welcome, because they provide for a greater remedial flexibility for courts—for courts to tailor remedies in their discretion, to the exigencies of the particular facts of the case. It is important to bear in mind that these remedies will be discretionary and the courts will take into account a range of relevant considerations in exercising that discretion. Courts are well versed in exercising remedial discretion—courts can be expected to respond to the justice of the particular case. What the Bill does is to give the courts more options.”––[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2021; c. 10, Q6.]
Andy Slaughter
I am not persuaded by that. I do not want to disagree with the eminent professor, but I am tempted to say, “Two professors, three opinions”, and we had at least six professors. I thought it interesting that they did not all say what I expected them to say. There was some disagreement. The civil liberty organisations did not agree on everything—some supported the suspended order and some did not. I thought the openness of the first panel on that was quite refreshing. It is true that there are views on both sides, and that will always be true.
In the passage that the hon. Gentleman read out, I specifically disagreed with the idea that the Bill gives judges more power and discretion. In a literal sense, if we give someone a new type of order, we could say, “That has given them a wider range of options”. If we constrain how they can use those orders or we give them orders that they have not sought, however, it has exactly the opposite effect. We should be securing fair, accessible and efficient legal processes, in which the individual’s rights are protected, and which reflect this country’s international reputation for upholding and promoting the rule of law, not precluding practical access to public law remedies.
Unless the Bill is amended as we suggest, it will negatively affect the ability of ordinary people to hold the Executive to account and safeguard their own rights. That is the other side of the coin. We are, of course, interested in the respective powers and the balance between Government and the courts, but we are also very concerned—sometimes more so—about the individual citizen’s rights and their ability to get redress. Our laws and legal processes allow ordinary people to challenge Governments and public authorities when they get it wrong. They help us stand up to people in power. We all deserve effective access to justice and a fair hearing. Judicial review is a vital and necessary tool for good, effective and accountable policy making by Government and public bodies, and it is hobbled by this Bill.
Currently, if a claimant wins their case and succeeds in showing that a decision was unlawful, there will be consequences for the public authority. If the claimant was directly affected, that also means justice, in some form, for them and potentially for others affected by the decision. They benefit because when the court delivers its judgment that the decision that is being challenged was unlawful, it means that the decision was invalid and will need to be remade. The normal outcome of a successful claim that the state has acted unlawfully is that the court will confirm its conclusion by issuing an order stating that the state’s decision is quashed. That is a normal remedy for the wrong that has been done. The public authority must face the consequences of its unlawful actions, such as by retaking the decision or deciding it differently, and the claimant benefits from that happening. Sometimes they may also get some other form of remedy, as a result of the recognition that what happened should not have happened.
If the claimant was not affected by the unlawfulness themselves, others will usually have been, and they may also benefit from the judgment and the order. If the policy is found to be unlawful, anyone affected by it will benefit from that finding. The use of our judicial review powers has helped to ensure that equality and human rights law are respected, prompting positive changes in policies and practices. Many public bodies are subject to judicial review claims, and the prospect does not hinder good work, but rather helps to ensure that compliance with the law and good practice are at the forefront of decisions.
Under clause 1, the outcome could be that even when a claimant wins their case, they will not get any benefit; they will be in the same position as when they brought the case. The same will apply to anyone else who has been negatively affected—nothing will change for them.
Alex Cunningham
In his evidence to the Committee, Sir Stephen Laws said:
“In my submission to the independent review of administrative law I drew attention to what I thought were the beginnings of a breakdown in trust between the political world and the judiciary, and the political salience of the issues around judicial review is evidence of that.”––[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2021; c. 14, Q8.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is lamentable that even those who were called by the Government to give evidence have reservations about current relationships between the courts and politicians, and how they could be worsened in future?
Andy Slaughter
It is not unique to this Government to be found wanting or to be challenged by the courts in such a way. Other Governments have not found favour with the courts and may have resented their intervention, but on the whole those Governments have sucked it up, if I can put it that way. However, this Government seem to take the view—we have recent evidence of this—that if they do not like the way that proceedings are going or tribunals are conducted, they can simply change the rules or change the tribunal.
I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not want to be overly dramatic, but these are worrying times. The Ekins view, which I described in the evidence sessions as tit for tat—a decision is taken and if the Government do not like it, they have a ready-made power to change it—is bad enough, but tinkering with the court process is worse.
Alex Cunningham
There was much discussion in the evidence sessions about tit for tat, or whichever expression one wishes to use, and it is lamentable. Surely the Government have always been able to address issues that have embarrassed them, and they do not have to take this broad-brush approach to negate that possibility in the future.
Andy Slaughter
Much of the evidence suggests that the public are quite sophisticated about this. They see that all Governments make mistakes, get caught out and have to change their minds. In the end, the public make a judgment about a Government’s overall record. It is quite wrong for Governments to be, as this one is, so thin skinned that any criticism requires not just a response but, effectively, a punishment of the person or body who does the criticising.
What are the consequences of the changes that clause 1 of the Bill makes to the Senior Courts Act 1981, to provide for quashing orders either not to take effect until a specified date or to come into force without any retrospective effect? As has been said, the usual practice is that the quashing order comes into force immediately and operates as if the decision that has been ruled unlawful had always been null and void. Remedies in judicial review are discretionary and will often result in a declaration that the act was unlawful, with remedial action left to the public body. However, when a court decides to issue a quashing order, it is right that the unlawful decision should stand no longer and that those affected should have proper redress. Because a court can make this remedy after finding that a public body acted unlawfully, the quashing order renders the unlawful act null and void; the act never had any legal effect, and therefore its consequences must be unwound.
Whereas quashing orders have hitherto been made by the courts to confirm that a decision by a public body is of no legal effect, the Bill provides that the effect of such orders may be suspended until a prescribed time, potentially subject to conditions—temporarily validating a decision that has been judged unlawful. In deciding whether to suspend an order or make it prospective-only, the courts must have regard to a range of factors, including any detriment to good administration that may arise from its decision. The Bill requires a court that has decided to make a quashing order to suspend the order or to limit its retrospective effect if doing so offers
“adequate redress in relation to the relevant defect”,
unless the court
“sees good reason not to do so.”
Thus clause 1 would limit the effectiveness of quashing orders.
The quashing order is a powerful tool that ensures that unlawful Government decisions can be overturned, and that those who have suffered the consequences can obtain real redress. The courts have the power to suspend the effect of quashing orders, although the power is rarely exercised. Although the case law on this is not absolutely certain, it is reasonable to argue that courts already have this power. Suspension operates like a time lock on the unlawful action, meaning that the court can delay the effect of its ruling and give the public authority time to sort out its mistake. Limiting the retrospective effect ensures that the remedy has effect only on the date that it is made, rather than affecting things that have already been done. If the court suspends the quashing order or makes it prospective-only, things done before the suspension or things done in the past are treated as if they are valid. The current law strikes the right balance in reserving this remedy for exceptionally rare cases.
As I have said, it is important to remember that all remedies in judicial review are discretionary. In exercising their remedial discretion, the courts will consider a range of factors and will take into account the impact of quashing on certainty and the needs of good public administration. Where significant administrative disruption or chaos could result from a quashing order, the courts have the power to issue a declaration instead, and they often do. Often, the court will simply make a finding that a public body has acted unlawfully and leave it to the public body to determine what action should be taken in response to that finding.
Research by the Public Law Project shows that, in challenges to statutory instruments, a declaration rather than a quashing order is the most common remedy following a successful judicial review. That practice shows that the courts deal very well at the moment with all those circumstances, and it calls into question the need for clause 1. In any event, there are already limitations on a court’s ability to grant quashing orders. For example, section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 requires the High Court to refuse a remedy if it appears
“highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different”
if the public authority had not acted unlawfully, unless there are
“reasons of exceptional public interest.”
Section 31(6) of the same Act also allows the Court to refuse relief on the grounds of undue delay
“if it considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration.”
Claimants’ access to quashing orders is therefore already strongly regulated. However, an immediate and retrospective quashing order is an important tool for righting injustice and ensuring that the Executive acts only within its legal powers. Combined with the existing controls on quashing orders, the proposed reforms weigh the scales of justice too heavily in favour of the Executive. Prospective-only quashing orders would invalidate an unlawful act only from the point of the court order onward, leaving past conduct, including conduct complained of by the claimant, untouched.
Clause 1 goes significantly further than the recommendations made by IRAL. The IRAL panel recommended legislating for a discretion to make suspended-only quashing orders. It did not recommend legislating for prospective-only quashing orders, and it recommended against a presumption of limiting the effects of a quashing order in this way. Subsection (9) of proposed new section 29A, inserted by clause 1, creates a presumption that these weakened quashing orders “must” be made where to do so would provide “adequate redress”—absent good reasons. Such a presumption not only goes against the Government’s stated intention to provide flexibility for judges, but risks encouraging the use of these new orders in circumstances where it would be unjust and unfair to do so. As the Government acknowledge in their consultation response,
“Presumptions were not recommended by the IRAL Panel and generally met with scepticism from respondents to the consultation.”
However, it does not appear to have had any effect.
Suspended and prospective-only quashing orders undermine the rule of law, which requires that no person should be subject to unlawful action and that individuals have access to an effective judicial remedy against unlawful measures. Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights further protects people’s rights to an effective remedy. Although the Bill requires that the court considers whether a provision offers adequate redress before making a suspended or prospective-only quashing order, it does not preclude the possibility of an order being made without adequate redress. We are concerned about the potential for suspended or prospective-only quashing orders to impact third parties affected by an impugned human rights or equality decision and the implications for their ability to access legal aid. It is unclear whether cases likely to result in suspended or prospective-only orders would meet the test of sufficient benefit to the individual, and therefore justify a grant of legal aid.
Most concerning of all is the prospect that either or both types of orders could be mandatory for the judge, as the clause contains an apparent presumption that they will be made where there is “adequate redress”. The Bill does not specify who for, but one of our amendments deals with that. The Bill as it stands will reduce judicial discretion to give an appropriate remedy. I will say more about that later.
Clause 1 risks undermining individuals’ ability to hold the Government to account. The provision could also mean that individuals are found guilty of offences made under unlawful regulation or are unable to be compensated for the impacts of unlawful state action. The point of judicial review is to ensure good decision making by public bodies. It is concerned not with the result in itself, but that the right procedures are followed and that the body is operating within the law. Within the separation of powers that forms our political system, it is an important check by one branch on another, acting in the interests of the public. The Bill does nothing to improve the decision making of public bodies; in many ways it will have the opposite effect. Making challenges harder to bring and remedies less effective may make things easier for Government, but at a cost to the general public.
I will give two or three examples of previous cases. I remind the Committee that the Government’s own election manifesto promised to
“ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state”
and to secure access to justice for ordinary people—laudable aims. These new remedies will not, however, uphold that promise. I will demonstrate that with a short synopsis of some case studies.
In the case of the British Medical Association, the Health Secretary issued the National Health Service Pension Schemes, Additional Voluntary Contributions and Injury Benefits (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which tried to introduce a power to suspend or withhold payments of NHS pensions, where an employee had been charged with an offence. There was no right of appeal from that power, and the suspension did not come to an end when the employee was acquitted or where proceedings were withdrawn.
At the time of the case, that power had never been exercised. The British Medical Association brought the case as a matter of principle: that potentially innocent medical staff could be denied a pension simply for being charged with an offence that they did not commit. Finding the regulations to be unlawful, the judge granted a quashing order.
Given that the case did not relate to an actual use of the power or an individual who was a victim of the power, the judge might have regarded a suspended or prospective-only order as adequate, meaning that under the Bill, the judge would have been expected to suspend the effect of the order or make it prospective-only. However, in the time that it took the Health Secretary to consult on the draft and lay new regulations, there would have been nothing to prevent Ministers from exercising the unlawful powers, as doing so would have been valid under proposed new section 29A(3) to (5) of the 1981 Act, which makes otherwise illegal uses of power legal.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend is giving a series of good examples as to why the Government’s proposals are flawed. In his evidence to the Committee on Tuesday, Dr Morgan said:
“I would take the presumption out altogether. I think what this clause is doing—certainly what it should be doing—is enlarging the power of the courts to tailor relief in a way that they see fit, and removing the obstacle that the Supreme Court laid in their path in Ahmed v. HM Treasury (No. 2). Thus, I just do not see why it is there. The Government say that it is to encourage the courts to use this remedy, but I do not see why we should try and push the courts in a particular direction.”
He went on:
“I also think, if subsection (9) is taken out, subsection (8) could be taken out as well.”––[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2021; c. 24, Q23.]
So there is clearly support for the line that my hon. Friend is taking.
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful for that quote from Dr Morgan, which is far more learned and eloquent than anything I can come up with. His evidence was very measured and showed nothing other than looking at the Bill with a fresh pair of eyes. On some of the decisions he supported the Government, and in some cases he could not see any point or purpose.
There is grave concern about the impact of any changes to the law of judicial review on children and young people with special educational needs and their families. Children and young people with special educational needs often rely on legal remedies such as judicial review to ensure that they receive the special educational provision and wider support to which they are legally entitled. Judicial review is an essential remedy in cases where there is no other way that a complaint can be resolved—for example, by complaining directly to the public body concerned or the local government and social care ombudsman. Any changes to the law on judicial review should take account of the particular factors relating to children and young people with special educational needs.
I will give a few examples of situations that arise quite commonly; Members may well have been involved in some such cases. Local authorities may fail to comply with statutory timescales for issuing or amending an education, health and care plan for a child or young person, resulting in the child or young person missing special educational provision or schooling. A local authority may fail to make the provision set out in a child or young person’s EHC plan, resulting in the child or young person missing education; fail to comply with the order of the first-tier tribunal; or decide to stop providing the home-to-school transport to which a child or young person is entitled, meaning that they cannot get to their place of learning. A school governing body may refuse to admit a child or young person despite the school’s being named in the child’s EHC plan, where there has been no formal exclusion. Those are just a few examples of how judicial review can be used to ensure that children and young people receive the special educational provision and support to which they are entitled by law. It is essential that it remains a meaningful option for them and their families.
The measures, if enacted, will weaken the effectiveness of the remedies available to the courts and will deny an essential remedy to children and young people with SEND and their families. The Bill will deter people from using judicial review as a way of righting unlawful decisions by public bodies. Any change to judicial review should encourage access to justice, not limit it. It will also limit claimants’ access to legal redress for unlawful actions, which will take away any accountability of Government or agencies for unlawful action that has already taken place.
I will make some very specific comments on the first group of amendments. The lead amendment is amendment 12, which is the only one I will press to a vote. Amendments 40 and 41 are contingent on amendment 12.
Proposed new section 29A(1)(b) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 allows for quashing orders to be made including provision
“removing or limiting any retrospective effect of the quashing”—
in other words, a prospective-only remedy. For prospective-only orders, despite a state decision or action’s being found unlawful, the order quashing it would be forward-looking, leaving the individual who brought the case without proper redress for what has already happened to them and, potentially, with no change in their circumstances at all.
Proposed new subsections 29A(4) and (5) set out the implications of that change. The decision or act in question is to be treated as valid and
“unimpaired by the relevant defect”,
for all purposes, for the period of time before the prospective effect of the quashing order. As has been expounded countless times by the courts, the rule of law requires that those exercising public power should do so lawfully. However, the Government would be under absolutely no legal duty to address the injustices caused by the unlawful measure, and there would be no scrutiny as to the effectiveness of such remedies. We do not consider that to be an appropriate or principled solution.
In issuing a prospective-only quashing order, the courts would be determining that an unlawful measure should be treated as if it were lawful retrospectively, which is problematic for many reasons. First, it undermines the rule of law, which at its core dictates that all are subject to the law, that no person should be subject to unlawful action, and that individuals have access to an effective judicial remedy against unlawful measures. Prospective-only orders entail a direct rejection of those principles, allowing unlawful executive acts to stand and, therefore, preventing individuals who were previously impacted by them from challenging them. As recognised by the consultation, that could lead to severe unjust outcomes. By introducing prospective-only remedies, the Government are making another concerted effort to insulate themselves from accountability at the cost of those who have been let down by a public body and anybody who may be in the future.
Prospective-only remedies have the potential to create opportunities for injustice in individual cases, to weaken the rule of law and to introduce unnecessary layers of complexity into an already functioning system. This is another example of the Government wasting time and resources on fiddling with an area that works well, while many other areas of the justice system cry out for attention.
Janet Daby
Does my hon. Friend agree that all sorts of consequences arise from the proposed measures? They are likely to make things much more complicated and less clear, and to provoke further litigation.
Andy Slaughter
Yes, and I am grateful for that reminder. I have a little more to say on the Stonehenge case and I will mention one other case that is familiar to Members. However, my hon. Friend makes exactly the point: there is mischief caused here. However many times the Government say, “This is designed to simplify and extend the powers,” the less credible that seems when one looks at the actual nature and type of decisions that would be affected, and at how they would be affected.
In the Stonehenge case, the likely effect of the order would be to remove the possibility for collateral claims for compensation against the Government for their unlawful decision up to the date of the prospective order. All preceding activity, including expense in performance of any contracts that the judicial review court may not be fully aware of, if at all, are reliant on the unlawful decision would be considered lawful to the date of the order, even though the full contracts could not be completed. This could cause significant loss to contractors who were not present to make representations during the hearing, as they could potentially only claim for losses thereafter.
The other case I will mention is the Unison case, which is another important real-world example. It is worth considering the impact that prospective-only remedies could have had if they had applied in that case, which concerned, as I think all Members know, fees to access employment tribunals. Having found that Parliament could never have intended a clear derogation from the right of access to justice, the Supreme Court quashed the order that required individuals to pay to use the employment tribunal.
The remedial consequence of the quashing order was that the Government were required to retrospectively refund the claimants who had been charged fees. A prospective-only remedy in this scenario would have denied the claimants this refund and therefore would have been a serious injustice to the claimants, whose fundamental right to access to justice had been found to have been violated.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I refer to the evidence submitted by the Independent Provider of Special Education Advice on the impact of the changes on those with special educational needs, highlighting the importance of the ability to appeal at that level. When we look at the effects on individuals and organisations, rather than the dry words, does my hon. Friend agree that this change could have a significant impact on those people who feel that they are not getting justice and are seeking redress?
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I think she is following my argument. What I am trying to do through a series of case studies—some hypothetical, some that are likely, and some that have actually happened—is look at how those cases could have been different had this piece of legislation been in effect, specifically looking at the effect on individuals. That may be hundreds or thousands of individuals, or it may be one individual, but these are often people for whom this is the only form of redress, and it is hard to see how a prospective-only remedy would provide a just outcome to an individual claimant.
Turning back to the Unison case, it arbitrarily distinguishes between people who have been impacted by the unlawful measure before and after the court judgment, undermining certainty, consistency and equal treatment under the law, which was the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East. Individuals who have not litigated but who are impacted by an unlawful measure have just as much need of the law’s protection as those individuals who will potentially be impacted in the future. Some unfortunate people would be denied justice, with no proper remedy even when the court said they were right.
Looking at the position in other jurisdictions, it is notable that courts are usually prepared to hand down a prospective remedy only in cases of constitutional importance, or cases that would have serious economic repercussions for a large number of good-faith relationships. In practice, that happens extremely rarely, and those are very limited categories that have been carefully contained on the basis of subtle judicial reasoning and incremental developments.
The European Court of Human Rights has also held in a very clear judgment that certain remedies which have prospective-only effect cannot be regarded as effective, and therefore would be a violation of article 13 of the European convention on human rights. Judges already have discretion over what remedy to give, but this Bill will increase their focus and attention on limiting the use of full quashing orders and mandate the consideration of factors that undermine successful claimants’ legitimate interests. It will embolden defendants who are found to be on the wrong side of the law to argue that they should not suffer the full consequences of their unlawful actions. Public trust in the system will be undermined where judges are seen to validate or immunise previous unlawful conduct through prospective-only remedies. That, in turn, may disincentivise legal compliance by those in power.
The Government line is that judges are sensible and will strike the correct balance in practice, but that is cold comfort for individual claimants and is not in compliance with international law. In creating a statutory presumption and mandating consideration of these new remedies, judges are being clearly signalled to, and may well be less likely to—and, in fact, may be required not to—award effective remedies for claimants against any common-sense understanding of justice.
The result of limiting retrospective effect would be that a claimant could have the court agree that the decision made by the Government or public body was unlawful, but would not have recourse to a retrospective remedy. That would allow the Government to avoid having to compensate people who are victims of its previous unlawful behaviour. If claimants know at the outset that it is likely that they could win but nothing would happen, why bother going for judicial review at all?
The group that trades under the name Equally Ours, which briefed us, has significant concerns about the likely effect of deterring people from seeking judicial reviews if this clause is unamended. If prospective-only remedies are applied, the effect would be that unlawful decisions or actions would be treated as lawful until the quashing order came into effect. Retrospective quashing orders recognise the unlawful decision or action and provide a remedy.
Bringing a judicial review has many disadvantages to applicants, not least the cost, uncertainty and length of the process. The key motivation for many applicants—for the impact on them to be remedied—will be lost if a prospective-only order is made. With that in mind, it appears likely that the introduction of prospective-only remedies would have a chilling effect upon future potential claimants. With their use not only allowed but encouraged, that sends a strong signal to an individual who has been wronged by a public body that their actions are not worth challenging: even if they win, their situation may not improve.
Paula Barker
I would like to draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the evidence of Louise Whitfield, who stated:
“If you go down the road of these reforms and make remedies harder to get, and there is more opportunity for public bodies to put off the day of giving in—or to know that even if what they have done is found to be unlawful, they will not have to address the wrongs that people have suffered previously—that will just make it harder for individuals to use judicial review effectively. That can only be a bad thing.”––[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2021; c. 51, Q72.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that clause 1 seeks to stifle people’s access to justice?
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful for that intervention, and I hope from what I have said, and from many of the interventions by hon. Friends, that it is clear that what we are most concerned about here is the impact on an individual claimant.
Bringing judicial review is not an easy thing to do; it is not a common remedy. Funding it, finding representation and getting into court are all difficult. I hope when the Minister responds—I do not have much more to say before I will allow him to—he will address some of those points, particularly in relation to what he thinks the effect of the measures in clause 1 of the Bill will be on individuals who currently have the ability to bring a successful claim.
As I said, a chilling effect seems likely. If these measures are not only allowed but encouraged, that sends a strong signal to an individual who has been wronged that the actions are not worth challenging. Even if a prospective-only quashing order is not used in a particular case, its mere availability would serve as a serious disincentive to claimants seeking to bring a judicial review if a claimant cannot be sure that they will benefit from the judicial review even if it is successful.
A further financial hurdle could be placed in front of potential claimants as legal aid would likely become even harder to obtain. Applicants for legal aid must be able to demonstrate that there would be a tangible benefit to the litigant if successful. It may become difficult to satisfy this requirement where the litigant stands a high chance of being awarded a prospective-only remedy, meaning that more prospective applicants could be denied legal aid, forcing them to abandon their claim.
With no legal aid and little prospect of benefiting even if successful, there is seemingly little incentive for someone who has been negatively affected by unlawful action to bring a case. Prospective-only remedies would therefore have a serious chilling effect on the system of judicial review, disincentivising bringing a case in such a way. Moreover, they would have a damaging effect on good governance; the threat of judicial review is a powerful tool in encouraging good decision making by public bodies.
As well as depriving proper redress for individual claimants and others who may have been wronged by unlawful decisions, prospective-only remedies also have the potential to cause more general harm. The impact of a prospective-only quashing order and the transition between a measure being valid and then quashed going forward will be difficult and unwieldy to navigate, including for public bodies.
By way of example, it is unclear whether proceedings to pay a penalty notice could be brought against an individual for breach of an unlawful byelaw if the events occurred prior to the byelaw being quashed prospectively but the charges and/or proceedings are brought afterwards. The introduction of prospective-only quashing orders removes the certainty provided by the position that a measure if found to be unlawful will then be treated as such. Laws should be able to guide conduct to enable persons to be able to act in accordance with the law. A position where a measure is both recognised as being unlawful but is also to be treated as if it were lawful is contrary to this.
As one Department said in its submissions to IRAL—from those that we have been able to see—
“the rule of law requires predictable rules around which citizens, businesses and government can plan their activities and lives”.
Prospective-only remedies weaken the rule of law because they allow the Government and public authorities to act without fear of meaningful repercussions. The Government are effectively encouraged to take risks and act unlawfully, and the only consequence is that the decision will eventually be reversed should it be successfully challenged in the future. That undermines Government accountability, and in turn undermines the quality and effectiveness of decision making.
Marco Longhi
It is a pleasure to be able to follow the hon. Member. Colleagues will be pleased to know that I will be trying to hold their attention for only about three or four minutes.
I am certain that the hon. Member will have regard for the assertion by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), that the Bill is a power grab by Government. Would he not agree that that is an odd thing to say, given that the Bill provides the courts with additional powers around remedies in a way that ensures practicality and efficiency, and enables courts to give consideration to the effect of remedies in a way that is not readily applied in the current framework? That surely serves to evidence the shadow Secretary of State’s lack of understanding of what our courts actually need and of the flexibilities built into the Bill. As the Minister said on Second Reading, far from weakening quashing orders, as the shadow Secretary of State said, these new remedies
“strengthen quashing orders and thereby strengthen judicial review.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 233.]
On prospective remedies, I would like to give two examples that show that this concept is not new but has precedence in our legal system. Judges have limited the retrospective effect of quashing orders in some instances in the past, such as in R (British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors, Musicians’ Union & Ors) v. Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills & Anor in 2015. Therefore, these remedies do not change the position of judges but act to encourage a wider use of the new quashing order modifications.
It is important to state that these remedial modifications are not being pursued to bypass Parliament but are in fact focused on resolving practical issues that arise during judicial review cases. The concept of prospective-only orders is not novel or unique. Under the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006, courts in the devolved Administrations have a power to make such orders where decisions are outside devolved competence. The Government wish a similar concept to be available in all cases of judicial review in England and Wales.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
May I point out that there is no presumption in any of the devolved legislation, and that is primarily what we are arguing about here? It is not about having the ability to do this; it is about the presumption that it has to be a default position.
Marco Longhi
Courts will none the less still have discretion, as I understand it, so they can decide, case by case, what framework they intend to follow.
These are discretionary quashing order modifications, and courts will have regard to the constitutional separation of powers. It is not foreseen that the Government will stop having to work with Parliament to pass retrospective legislation in future.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I will—necessarily, since we are almost at the end of this sitting—keep my remarks extremely short.
I do not think anybody in this room would not trust our judiciary’s knowledge, its significant experience, or its wisdom to make sensible, measured judgments in each case. At present, a finding of an error of law nullifies the decision completely. I will give one example—there are many, but we are short of time—in which a suspended quashing order could have been useful. Despite what the shadow Minister says, it was applied for by the then Labour Government under Gordon Brown. That case, which has already been mentioned, is Ahmed v. HM Treasury (No. 2).
In that case, a number of individuals had their assets frozen because they were believed to be terrorists. The court decided that the decision to freeze those assets was unlawful, which left the Government in an invidious position, because they were concerned about the use of those assets for security. Indeed, over five days, Gordon Brown’s Government passed a law to retrospectively make that asset freezing lawful, before then passing more definitive legislation.
We do not want the Government to be put in that sort of position. Had the judiciary then been able to pass a suspended order, as the Bill proposes, it would have been able to say that the effect of the asset freezing was lawful for a period, allowing the Government to take appropriate national security measures. As others have said, the addition of a suspended quashing order means extra tools in the judges’ toolbox. It is an opportunity for our esteemed and extremely expert judges to make sensible decisions—the right decisions at the right time—for the cases before them.
Anne McLaughlin
If the Minister simply wants to put more in the judges’ toolkit, and does not expect a presumption in favour—or a default position, as I said earlier—will the hon. Lady support one of the upcoming amendments to stop that presumption?
Dr Johnson
I am talking here of a suspended order specifically. Personally, I would trust the judges to have the discretion to look at the case in front of them, the law as it stands and the situation in which they find themselves, and make a measured judgment. Under this clause, they have the discretion to use the orders as they see fit and proper, and I have absolute trust in our judiciary to use them properly.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
Subsidy Control Bill (Seventh sitting)
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we start, may I remind hon. Members about social distancing and mask wearing where appropriate, please? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the Committee 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.
Clause 52
Mandatory referral to CMA
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 52, page 28, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) where the granting authority for a subsidy scheme is the Government department responsible for the operation of the subsidy control regime, or
(d) where the granting authority for a subsidy is the Government department responsible for the operation of the subsidy control regime and the subsidy value is over £2 million.”
This amendment makes provision for situations for mandatory referrals in cases where the department responsible for the operation of the subsidy control regime is a granter of subsidies or subsidy schemes.
Thank you for chairing the Committee today, Chair; we very much appreciate it. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is delighted to see me here. He made very clear this morning that he was worried that the debate might be truncated without my presence. I am here to oblige by standing up and making my first speech of the day.
The amendment is about mandatory referrals to the Competition and Markets Authority. Clause 52 specifically focuses on those mandatory referrals and the criteria under which a subsidy would mandatorily be referred and therefore given an additional level of scrutiny. The mandatory referral considerations in subsection (1) of the clause say that a public authority must request a report from the CMA if it is giving a subsidy or a subsidy scheme “of particular interest” or if it is
“directed to do so by the Secretary of State”.
It goes on to say in subsection (3) that the Secretary of State may
“specify further information that must be included in a request”,
and
“make provision as to the form of a request.”
That is all well and good, but it seems to me that every single criterion for mandatory referral to the CMA relies on the decisions being made by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will decide what is a subsidy or subsidy scheme of particular interest and what class it falls into. That is a decision that will be made, but those details are not in the Bill.
If a subsidy is only mandatorily referred if it is of particular interest, which is defined by the Secretary of State, or if the Secretary of State chooses to refer it, there is a gap in terms of a conflict of interest, where the subsidy may be given by the Secretary of State’s Department and, given the limited criteria we have for interested parties, for example, which have not yet been expanded on—we will discuss them later on in the Bill—it would make sense for large grants made by the Secretary of State’s Department to mandatorily be referred to the CMA for a report. That would not cause a huge amount of additional work for the CMA, but it will provide an additional check and balance to the system. We do not want the Government marking their own homework on that; we would rather there was an additional level of scrutiny here.
Amendment 28 says that
“where the granting authority for a subsidy scheme is the Government department responsible for the operation of the subsidy control regime, or”—
that should be “and”, not “or”—
“where the granting authority for a subsidy is the Government department responsible for the operation of the subsidy control regime and the subsidy value is over £2 million.”
Once again, I do not feel I am being unreasonable. I am not asking for a mandatory referral every time. Sorry—I just reread the amendment, and it is right, it should be “or”. It is about a subsidy scheme that is made by the Secretary of State’s Department, so scrutinising all the subsidy schemes made by the Secretary of State’s Department, or the scrutiny of an individual subsidy where that is more than £2 million. I apologise to the Clerks for doubting them; this is how I intended the amendment to be.
This is not an unreasonable ask, but it is an extra check and balance, ensuring that the Government are appropriately scrutinised and that there is a look at all those subsidies. It is just an additional look; it will not delay the granting of the subsidy or mean that it will take longer. The subsidy will still be able to be granted fairly quickly and subsidy schemes will be able to be set up fairly quickly. However, it means that the CMA will look at those with an inherent conflict of interest because the Secretary of State’s Department is granting or setting up the subsidy scheme.
Later in the clause is a provision for the Secretary of State to make changes by regulations, but that specifically relates to the form of the request and the further information that may be included in the request. It does not relate to further criteria as to which public authorities must request a report from the CMA. If there were such a provision, I would push for the Secretary of State to make regulations and ensure that the criteria were widened. As that has not been included in the clause, I feel that I have to move the amendment.
If the Minister could give me some level of comfort, that would be very helpful. I think that that check and balance needs to be there to get rid of the inherent conflict of interest.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her remarks. She raises a number of important and pertinent issues around scrutiny, in particular about subsidies introduced by the Secretary of State.
The clause deals with the mandatory pre-award referrals to the CMA. It outlines that:
“A public authority must request a report from the CMA…before giving a subsidy, or making a subsidy scheme, of particular interest, or…where directed to do so by the Secretary of State”.
We have highlighted our concerns about the definitions of subsidies “of particular interest”. It is a glaring gap in our debates on the detail of the legislation. We think that the definition should be included in primary legislation, and I hope the Minister has listened to our concerns. I am sure that the issue will come back at future stages and, at the very least, our expectation will be that the definition is published very soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Things that we could be dealing with now should not end up delaying the ability to make decisions and implement the regime.
Although we are concerned about the definition, we support the overall importance of the measures outlined in the clause and the function of mandatory referral to the CMA, in the interests of checking compliance with the principles, bringing assurance on value for money and confirming that there will be no distortion or harm to the economy.
On amendment 28, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North makes an important continuing reference to the Government marking their own homework. Although we recognise the intention and some of the arguments behind the amendment, we do not think that producing a report on a subsidy every time one is given by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—as a sort of blunt tool—would necessarily be the most effective use of the CMA’s time.
Rather, we have argued very strongly for all subsidies, regardless of whether they are below a particular amount or given to a certain recipient, to be posted on the database to ensure sufficient transparency. We will also seek to ensure that there are greater rights on call-in powers or that the CMA can investigate itself, if it deems that there a reason to do so. We think that any assurances, which are, in part, the intention behind the amendment, could be better delivered through the Bill in other ways. On that basis, we will abstain on amendment 28. We support clause 52 standing part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. Before I begin, I would like to make a general point about today’s debate and address a question raised during our discussions on Tuesday. Throughout the discussion of clauses in part 4 of the Bill, Members will hear me refer to the subsidy advice unit, which will be a new sub unit of the Competition and Markets Authority established by this Bill. Technically speaking, the provisions in part 4 confer various responsibilities on the CMA, and it is for the CMA to decide which of its responsibilities it will delegate to the SAU. The mechanics of that process will be discussed later when the Committee considers clause 67. While the decision on how to organise its work rests with the CMA, in practice it is likely that most if not all of the responsibilities under part 4 will be delegated to the SAU. Therefore, for consistency and ease, I will be referring to the SAU throughout these debates.
Clause 52 sets out that two categories of subsidy and scheme will be subject to referral to the CMA. The first is subsidies and schemes of particular interest, which we discussed in the context of clause 11 on Thursday 28 October, and the second is the subsidies and schemes that are referred by the Secretary of State under the provisions that we will shortly discuss under clause 55. Amendment 28, as we have heard, would add to that list of subsidies subject to mandatory referrals, requiring the Department responsible for the subsidy control regime to refer individual subsidies above £2 million and all subsidy schemes to the SAU. In practice, the BESI, my Department, is the Department with responsibility for subsidy control. I can reassure hon. Members that BEIS takes its subsidy control commitments very seriously. BEIS subsidies, like those of all other public authorities in the UK, will be subject to the “subsidies of particular interest” regime. There is no special treatment in this regime for my Department: indeed, BEIS can already ask advice of the CMA where necessary, using the powers in the Enterprise Act 2002.
The Bill establishes the two categories that we have talked about: subsidies and subsidy schemes of interest, which can be voluntarily referred to the SAU, and subsidies and schemes of particular interest, which must be referred to the SAU. The Government will set out in regulations definitions for both of those categories, and those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there will be opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of them. Those definitions will capture subsidies that are more likely to give rise to trade disputes, as well as subsidies that are more likely to distort UK competition and investment. BEIS subsidies and subsidy schemes will be subject to the same requirements and procedures as all other subsidies. I assure hon. Members that my Department really will not get any special treatment on this issue.
However, routinely requiring BEIS to be referred to the SAU when it offers subsidies and subsidy schemes would be a disproportionate approach to managing the risk of those highly distortive subsidies. It is important for the SAU to focus its attention and casework on genuinely distortive subsidies, not to focus unduly on subsidies and schemes made by BEIS in particular. The Government fully agree that subsidies and schemes of particular interest merit a proportionately higher level of scrutiny than other less distortive subsidies and subsidy schemes, but those subsidies are, in principle, better captured through a robust and well-evidenced set of thresholds and criteria. Those criteria will be set out in regulations defining the subsidies and schemes of particular interest, rather than placing a discrete requirement on a single public authority on the face of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
Specifically regarding the process, and what might happen in terms of subsidies of interest and subsidies of particular interest, does the Minister agree that this is going to be a movable feast? The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but things may change, and therefore there will need to be a change to the interests and particular interests. I am just asking the Minister to give me comfort that if the Government agree there is a particular issue with something, and it needs to be added to the group of “interest” or of “particular interest”, it will be added.
Paul Scully
Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. Those schemes will be set out rigidly and subject to the affirmative procedure, so we can have parliamentary scrutiny, but none the less—as she rightly says—we need to retain flexibility, which is exactly why those definitions are in regulations in the first place, rather than on the face of the Bill. Of course, we look to provide as much parliamentary scrutiny of those regulations as possible. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I will not press this amendment to a vote at this stage, but I might bring it back at a later stage. 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 requires that public authorities refer certain subsidies and subsidy schemes to the subsidy advice unit before they are given or made. Two types of subsidies or schemes must be referred: those defined as being of particular interest in clause 11 and those that are called in by the Secretary of State under clause 55.
Seema Malhotra
We support clause 52. I am not concerned about the detail of the clause, but how it will be effective as part of the regime. This comes back to why the rules around what can be referred under the definition of a subsidy of particular interest and who has what call-in powers will be a fundamental question to come back to. It would be a shame to have a good clause and not use it to best effect to support the best outcomes of the regime.
Kirsty Blackman
I agree with the hon. Lady. My concern, which I mentioned briefly when talking about the amendment, is that subsection (1) is not flexible enough. It mentions particular interests and
“where directed to do so by the Secretary of State”,
but I would prefer to see an additional category that says, “other reasons”, with regulation to follow if that is what the Minister suggests. There are probably more reasons why things could be referred mandatorily to the CMA without having to go through the affirmative process of changing the particular interest subsidy section in clause 11. There could have been a little more flexibility in that clause, and it would be useful if the Minister agreed to think about that.
Paul Scully
I am always happy to think about flexibility.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
CMA reporting period for mandatory referral
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 53 sets out the timeframe within which the subsidy advice unit must publish its report on a subsidy or subsidy scheme once a mandatory referral has been made to it by a public authority. The subsidy advice unit has an initial five-day working period in which to tell the public authority whether it has provided the information required by clause 52. It then generally has 30 working days in which to publish a report on the subsidy or subsidy scheme. That is the reporting period.
There are a couple of situations where it might be extended on a case-by-case period, whether by mutual agreement with the SAU and the public authority or directed by the Secretary of State following a request made by the SAU. Extensions are intended to be used sparingly—for example, when the SAU has been asked to report on a particularly complex case.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to respond to the Minister’s comments. The clause sets out the CMA’s reporting period for mandatory referrals. It specifies that the CMA has 30 working days to issue a report, unless the reporting period is extended under subsections (4) or (6). There is also the important five-day period for the CMA to respond to a request for a referral.
Labour Members recognise the importance of a relatively quick reporting period to give public authorities the confidence they need when granting subsidies under what is designed to be a quicker and easier system. However, it should not be without safeguards and, sometimes, extra safeguards, bearing in mind that pre-notification brings checks earlier in the process. We have to continue to be very mindful of that. We want subsidies that are given for the right reasons to be granted, without an extra onerous delay from the reporting taking too long, so it is important that some targets and mandatory deadlines are in the legislation.
We are concerned about whether the CMA will have the necessary capacity to produce the initial response within five days, and then the report within the 30 working-day period. Can the Minister offer reassurances about how the Government will monitor, review and work with the CMA on whether it has the capacity? There may be a spurt of requests, particularly perhaps earlier on in the process, as public authorities are starting to feel their way through it. They may even request, for good reason, voluntary referrals. What process is he putting in place to ensure that the CMA has the necessary resource to carry out its reporting adequately and in a timely manner?
We want that reporting to be to the required standard. Corners should not be cut in order to meet a deadline. We need the work to be done effectively and with the confidence of all interested parties and the public. We would also like clarity on what exactly would constitute an exceptional circumstance to allow the Secretary of State to extend the reporting period. Will the Minister provide further clarity on what might fit that definition? Despite those concerns—there may need to be some tightening up later—the clause lays out the necessity of the measures for the effectiveness of the regime. We will therefore agree that it stand part.
Paul Scully
The purpose of the referral process is not for the subsidy advice unit to duplicate the public authority’s assessment of whether the subsidy complies with the subsidy control requirements. The SAU provides the evaluation of the assessment based on the information that is already provided by the public authority, so it is not duplicating work. We therefore believe that 30 working days is reasonable, given that specific role, but for exceptional or complex cases where more time may be necessary, as I said, the SAU may extend the reporting period, either through agreement with the public authority or by a request to the Secretary of State.
When that extension is agreed by mutual consent, the SAU has to publish a notice stating how much the reporting period has been extended by and why that has happened. If it cannot be agreed by mutual consent, the SAU can request that the Secretary of State directly extend the reporting period. That can be requested and, in turn, granted only in exceptional circumstances. We chose the CMA in the first place to host the SAU because of its expertise and experience in protecting competition and investment, making it a natural fit for those broad aims. We are already working closely with the CMA to plan for the delivery of the new SAU, ready for the implementation of the regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Cooling off period following mandatory referral
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 54, page 30, line 8, leave out “on or”.
This amendment ensures that a public authority may give a subsidy after the reporting period expires, but not on the final day of that period.
The amendment consists of a very minor change that is nevertheless necessary to ensure the public functioning of the mandatory referral process. Clause 54 requires that the public authority waits for a cooling-off period to elapse following the subsidy advice unit’s report on a mandatory referral before giving a subsidy or making a subsidy scheme. That is intended to ensure that public authorities have a minimum window for considering the contents of such a report before giving the subsidy or making a scheme. Subsection (3) applies where the subsidy advice unit has not produced a report before the statutory reporting period of 30 working days. The reporting period is usually 30 working days. Here there is no need for a cooling-off period since there is no report for the public authority to consider. Instead, the public authority should be able to give the subsidy or make the scheme any time after the reporting period has expired.
As currently drafted, subsection (3) allows the public authority to make the subsidy on the last day of the SAU’s 30 working-day reporting period, before it has technically expired. That gives rise to the theoretical possibility of a public authority being able to give a subsidy or make a scheme on the last day of the reporting period, when there is still a short time left for the SAU to publish its report—that is not the intention. This amendment clarifies that the full reporting period must have expired before the public authority can give a subsidy or make a scheme without having to wait for a cooling-off period to elapse.
Seema Malhotra
We support Government amendment 3, which provides clarity as to exactly when the cooling-off period ends. I will reserve my other comments on the clause for the next stages.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 54, page 30, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “CMA”.
This amendment provides that the power to extend the cooling off period should sit with the CMA rather than the Secretary of State.
The Labour party accepts the necessity of the cooling-off period to ensure that appropriate consideration is also given to the CMA’s report. However, we do have some concerns about subsection (4) of the clause. We believe that the power to extend the cooling-off period should lie not with the Secretary of State but with the CMA. Given that the extension of the cooling-off period could have a significant effect on the granting of the subsidy and the effectiveness of its intended purpose, we should not risk it being seen as a politically charged, or political, decision. As such, we believe that it would be better for the CMA, an independent organisation whose judgment is trusted, to make that decision. Amendment 48 would make that change.
Paul Scully
As we have heard, clause 54 provides for a cooling-off period of five working days that have to expire before the authority can give a subsidy or make a subsidy scheme that has been subject to the mandatory referral process. The clause further provides that the Secretary of State may direct an extension to that cooling-off period if they judge that the report published by the SAU at the end of the mandatory referral process shows serious deficiencies with the public authority’s assessment against the subsidy control principles. Amendment 48 would remove that power from the Secretary of State and give the SAU the power to direct an extension to the cooling-off period. However, that would be at odds with the advisory role of the SAU, as laid out elsewhere in the Bill. We will discuss that in a more holistic way in the context of other amendments, particularly amendment 58 and new clause 3.
For now, I emphasise the Government’s view that the SAU is not a regulator or a gatekeeper, but rather acts as that impartial adviser for the most potentially harmful subsidies and schemes. Its reports are non-binding, and it will provide an important way of scrutinising the underlying assumptions in the design of subsidies and schemes, as well as identifying potential weaknesses. Granting a power to the SAU to extend the cooling-off period after it has published its report risks muddying the water between the role of adviser and enforcer.
Seema Malhotra
If there is a concern, does the Minister envisage the CMA being able to recommend extending the cooling-off period?
Paul Scully
Part of the CMA’s regular reporting on how the system works will look at the scheme holistically, and it may wish to look at that period as well. Ultimately, it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for the subsidy control system and its consequent effects on competition and investment across the UK. Although the SAU will be created to help facilitate the effective operation of the regime, it does not have the same overarching responsibilities as the Secretary of State, so it is right that the Government bear the responsibility for intervening in the subsidy control regime where necessary. In drawing the SAU into the space for that decision making and matters of public spending, even in a limited way, the amendment would risk the CMA’s hard-earned reputation for independence and political neutrality.
Kirsty Blackman
I have spent years looking at education reports and care inspectorate reports. There are criteria for giving marks and a particular language is used—something is good, poor or dreadful. Is the Minister expecting that “serious deficiencies” will be used by the CMA in the report? Will it say, “We consider there to be serious deficiencies”, which the Secretary of State would consider to be a red flag, resulting in the potential extension of the cooling-off period? Does the Minister think the CMA will do that explicitly, or will the Secretary of State have to read between the lines and try to work out how bad things are? We do not know how the reports will be structured, so it would be helpful if the Minister could make clear whether the Secretary of State is going to understand the meaning of the reports and whether the SAU would seek an extension to the cooling-off period because it believed there were serious deficiencies.
Paul Scully
There is not going to be a rating, because the SAU is not a regulator or enforcer, but it is responsible for making sure that the situation is made as clear as possible so that people, not least the Secretary of State, can understand it. That is why we have left this matter to the CMA—its staff are experts and have great experience of doing exactly that.
Seema Malhotra
This has been a very helpful debate. The Minister is right: we will discuss some contextual powers in the debates on later clauses and new clause 3. Clarifying the roles, expectations and powers for the CMA, the Secretary of State and other bodies, such as devolved Administrations, is an important point to come back to, but I will not press the amendment at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 54, page 30, line 18, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations define ‘serious deficiencies’ for the purposes of this section.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to define “serious deficiencies” for the purposes of directing that the cooling off period is extended.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 51, in clause 54, page 30, line 26, after “subsection” insert “(5A),”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 50.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to move amendment 50 and, with that, to speak to amendment 51, to which it is related.
Clause 54(4) states that the Secretary of State can extend the cooling-off period if he or she considers that the CMA’s report has identified “serious deficiencies”. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has referred to that point. Yet again, the Bill is lacking a key detail—namely, what would constitute a serious deficiency. We have had a brief discussion on this point. Clarity is necessary for public authorities, the CMA and interested parties, in order to have confidence in the new regime and the timing of subsidies.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to define serious deficiencies for the purposes of directing that the cooling-off period is extended. It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could confirm how and where we will reach a definition of serious deficiencies and when we are likely to get that definition. My comments apply to both amendments 50 and 51.
Paul Scully
The meaning of the term “serious deficiencies” is intended to mirror the common understanding of those words, so we do not believe the requirement to define it further is necessary. Defining it further, either in the Bill or through regulations, risks leading to a situation where the Secretary of State judges that there is a serious problem with a public authority’s assessment, but is prevented from taking action because the specific problem is not exactly set out in those regulations.
Seema Malhotra
I am slightly surprised, because serious deficiencies is being used as a trigger for the Secretary of State to be able to use a power. I would be very surprised if there was a common understanding that was so common that even the members of this Committee, if they were to secretly write it down on a piece of paper and compare notes, would have exactly the same definition of serious deficiencies. I am not sure that suggesting there is a common understanding, as if that is fact, is the right way to address this particular point. We need this defined, and we need to know when and where it will be defined.
Paul Scully
One of the problems is that, if we define it in the way I think the hon. Lady is after, we then lose some of the flexibility. I was just about to say that the exact situation will vary on a case-by-case basis. A serious deficiency could arise, for example, if the subsidy advice unit identified that the proposed subsidy or scheme might have significant negative effects on UK competition and investment but the public authority had not considered any of the options for mitigating those effects. Another example might be if the SAU identified significant technical flaws in or omissions from the public authority’s assessments of compliance with the requirements of chapters 1 and 2 of part 2, such as the analysis of how the subsidy incentivised a change in the beneficiary’s behaviour or the impact on international trade.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the Minister agree that it is likely that the SAU will have internal working definitions of what is “acceptable” or “deficient”, and that it is likely to say that to the Secretary of State in giving its recommendations and possibly asking for any extensions?
Paul Scully
Absolutely—that is exactly what I was going to come on to. The hon. Lady has obviously seen the next paragraph I was going to read. The Secretary of State would not be taking that view on his own. It would not be an arbitrary judgment; it would be acting on the basis of a published report by the SAU, which is obviously independent.
As the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston said on Second Reading and has reiterated this week,
“the new system will work only if it provides transparency, oversight and scrutiny”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2021; Vol. 701, c. 341.]
This amendment only serves to undermine those aims slightly—unintentionally, I am sure—by limiting the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can act to extend the cooling-off period and ensure that a public authority has more time to consider the SAU’s comments. I therefore request that she withdraw her amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I want to repeat this point. In light of what the Minister has said, some of the examples or scenarios that he has started to outline suggest that there is more that can be done to scope out, set out some expectations or perhaps put something in guidance so that there starts to be a sense of scope around what sorts of scenarios could result in a consideration of serious deficiencies.
I say that not because I am trying to create an issue that is not there, but because where we have something in legislation that is a basis on which a power is to be exercised, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that there is greater clarity about what the expectations might be. That might not be a complete list, defined A to H, but it may be a broad set of guidance, for use both by the subsidy advice unit in making assessments, and by the Secretary of State in making a clearer and more transparent decision that could also be open to scrutiny. I hope the Minister will confirm to the Committee that he would be prepared at least to look at some of those areas he has outlined—perhaps there will be more and we might need to come back to this in the regulations—to provide clarity on what could be quite an important use of the power. We would hate for the use of the power to be challenged on the basis of people not agreeing that something was a serious deficiency. We do not want the process to be subject to unnecessary delays that could be dealt with by planning ahead for different interpretations. There is perhaps not the common understanding that the Minister thinks of “serious deficiencies”.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 54 establishes the cooling-off period that must elapse before a public authority may give a subsidy or make a subsidy scheme that has been referred to and reported on by the subsidy advice unit, following a mandatory referral.
Seema Malhotra
We have no further comments other than the issues we have raised already. We support clause stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Call-in direction
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 55, page 30, line 29, after “Secretary of State” insert
“, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland”.
This amendment extends the call in powers under this section to the Devolved Administrations.
It is great to see you back in the Chair, Ms Nokes, bright and early this time.
The amendment addresses the call-in powers as they relate to the devolved Administrations. We think that the power to call in is a good power to have in the Bill, but it needs to be consistent and apply to the devolved Administrations, not just to the Secretary of State.
Clause 55 allows the Secretary of State to request an assessment of a subsidy or subsidy scheme if the Secretary of State believes it could be breaking regulations or having negative effects on competition and investment in the United Kingdom. As we have said a number of times, it is important that the First Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department responsible have those same powers. It makes no sense that the Secretary of State should be empowered to call in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish subsidies that may damage English interests, but the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish leaders cannot call in subsidies that may damage the interests of their own nations. That is what we heard in the evidence sessions.
I start with the evidence from Thomas Pope, deputy chief economist at the Institute for Government, who told us that subsidy control
“affects devolved competence and the operation of policy in all four nations of the UK. I therefore think it is appropriate that there be better devolved representation.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 31, Q43.]
Simon Baynes
In the previous discussions on this issue, the opinion of the Bill Committee seemed to be that these matters were the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. It therefore makes no sense to me to devolve those responsibilities to the devolved Administrations. In some of their comments, Opposition Members have fully accepted that these matters are the responsibility of the Secretary of State, because it is a reserved power.
Bill Esterson
Just because the Government keep winning the votes, which they always will do because they have a majority in Parliament and therefore on the Committee, that is not a reason for us to not make valid arguments. This is a slightly different point on our concerns about the failure to reflect the devolution settlement in the Bill. Call-in is a slightly different aspect of the powers needed for a functioning subsidy regime, and it is right that we are raising it at this stage of the deliberations.
Robin Millar
Is it not precisely the point that this does reflect the devolved agreement, because the Secretary of State has those reserved powers?
Bill Esterson
I think the hon. Gentleman missed the point I was making, but there we go. It is entirely appropriate, given that the regime is a four-nation regime, that the four nations have the powers of call-in to the CMA in the way that our amendment sets out.
Robin Millar
This is an important point, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again so soon. There is no four nations concept within our constitution. We have one United Kingdom Government and three devolved Administrations. Four nations is something reserved for rugby matches and the vernacular—[Interruption.] Indeed, the rugby is six. It is not something within our constitution. He has referred to the four nations on several occasions, and on this occasion I feel it is important and relevant to make that point.
Bill Esterson
I suspect that more than one party would be very interested in repeating those remarks multiple times, certainly in two of the nations of this country. They are called nations within the devolved settlement; we have a devolution settlement that has “four nations” within it. It will be interesting to see how many times the hon. Gentleman is quoted saying that.
I will quote what George Peretz told us about why it matters that there should be a call-in power for all four nations:
“In a situation where an English local authority, the Secretary of State or another UK Government body acting as an English Department does something that is designed to benefit England but causes serious concern in Scotland or Wales, why should the Welsh or Scottish Ministers not be able to do the same thing if the concern is with competition or investment within the United Kingdom? I find it slightly hard to see what the argument against that is.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 44, Q63.]
I have not heard from either the hon. Member for Clwyd South or the hon. Member for Aberconwy an argument against what he told us last week.
Rachel Merelie, senior director for the Office for the Internal Market at the CMA, noted:
“It is really important that all granting authorities are treated fairly and equitably, regardless of whether they are in the devolved nations or in England.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 69, Q98.]
I am not the only one talking about the devolved nations by any means; we have it from the CMA.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Bill Esterson
The hon. Gentleman does not have a mask on, so I will not. He will be able to make a speech afterwards, as I think one of his colleagues said.
The devolved nations of the United Kingdom cannot be treated as second class when it comes to economic matters that could have potentially monumental impacts on the proper functioning of their markets. The devolved Administrations must have equitable powers with the Secretary of State to call in subsidies where they could be damaging to their own economies.
Kirsty Blackman
I stand as a proud representative of the nation of Scotland to make a brief speech on amendment 52. The powers that are suggested under clause 55 are limited powers. They are not unlimited powers to call in anything on a whim of the Secretary of State or of anybody else. They can only be called in in relation to subsidies or subsidy schemes of interest, or subsidies or subsidy schemes in which the Secretary of State considers there is a failure to comply with chapters 1 and 2 of part 2, or there is a risk of negative effects on competition or investment within the United Kingdom.
The amendment proposed by the Opposition does not affect that. It would still apply only in the case that the devolved Administrations wanted to call in something that was a scheme of particular interest, or something that the Secretary of State had presumably already called in that was against chapters 1 and 2 of part 2 or where the Secretary of State agreed there were negative effects on competition or investment within the United Kingdom. Those are not, as the Government members of the Committee have suggested, unlimited powers parallel to those of the Secretary of State; they are limited powers. The only time the power would be exercisable is if the schemes were of interest—rather than of particular interest, because they are mandatorily referred—and the three devolved Administrations would be able to call those schemes in. It would be a limited power that would only apply for schemes of interest. I absolutely support the amendment—it makes sense—and we would obviously like it to go further. We have a devolution settlement and this is a proportionate amendment that makes sense in the context.
Paul Scully
Under the powers in the Bill as drafted, when the Secretary of State decides to exercise the call-in power, that direction has to be published. In addition, the SAU has to provide annual reports on its caseload, including any subsidies and schemes that were called in by the Secretary of State. That transparency will help ensure that the powers are used appropriately and that Parliament has oversight of how and when the powers are being used. Amendment 52 would allow those referrals to the SAU under the terms of clause 55 to be made by devolved Administrations, whereas the Bill provides the power for the sole use of the Secretary of State.
In the majority of cases, the most potentially harmful subsidies will be those that meet the criteria for subsidies of particular interest, which will be set out in regulations, but it is inevitable that there will be some subsidies or schemes that fall outside those boundaries. They will still benefit from the additional scrutiny offered by the SAU.
The call-in power provides a mechanism to catch potentially highly distorted subsidies that may not be caught within the “subsidies of particular interest” definition. It will also provide a safety net where there is a risk of failure to comply with the subsidy control requirements or there is a risk of negative effects of competition and investment within the UK. This is a reserved power and as such the Secretary of State’s responsibilities and interests in making referrals are UK wide. As a member of the UK Government, they are responsible for subsidies granted in all parts of the UK being compliant with our international obligations.
Kirsty Blackman
I have two questions. I would have expected that “particular interest” would cover anything that does not meet chapters 1 and 2 of part 2 anyway, so it would be nice if the Minister could clarify that point. Secondly, if any of the devolved Administrations request a meeting with the Secretary of State because they are concerned and want the Secretary of State to call something in, would the Secretary of State grant that meeting?
Paul Scully
On meetings, I am not the Secretary of State, but effectively, yes—we want to engage with the devolved Administrations. We do that on a regular basis, and have done in the formulation of this Bill, as we have discussed many times, and we will continue to do so as we go through guidance and the working of the Bill.
In the event that one or more of the devolved Administrations has serious concerns about a subsidy given or a scheme made, of course they can request that the Secretary of State use that call-in power. The Secretary of State would carefully consider any request from their counterparts in the devolved Administrations, just as they would on any other policy matter. As I say, we have met the devolved Administrations a number of times since July 2020 on the formulation of this Bill. We continue to meet and engage with them regularly, and listen to their views as the Bill progresses through Parliament, and we will do so in the lead up to implementation. I request that the hon. Member for Sefton Central withdraws the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
My other question was about the definition of “particular interest”, or “interest”. Subsidies of particular interest will be mandatorily referred, as we have already agreed, but subsides that risk to fail to comply with the requirements of chapter 1 and 2 of part 2 could be referred by the Secretary of State. It would concern me if compliance was not part of schemes of particular interest, or schemes of interest. I understand that some schemes of particular interest would be defined on the basis of the sector they are in and the specific details of the subsidy, but I would expect that lack of compliance with the rules would cause a scheme to be of particular interest anyway. I hope the Minister understands what I am trying to get at here. If a subsidy does not comply with the subsidy control principles, surely it is either not a subsidy—it is not allowed—or it is a scheme of particular interest that would need to be looked at mandatorily, or perhaps optionally, by the CMA.
Paul Scully
I think I get the general gist of where the hon. Lady is going with that point. That is why, rather than trying to define them as not complying, we are trying to define them specifically at the outset, hence the regulations that we will be putting forward, but there is plenty of opportunity to have that discussion.
Bill Esterson
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North correctly made the point that the amendment asks for a limited set of powers. I set that out using the evidence. We should follow the evidence of people who are experts on these subjects. We had a range of very good witnesses, who set out why there should be the sorts of powers that we are proposing. I cannot help think that there will be occasions when the Secretary of State is making awards. If he, as it says in the Bill, is making those awards, is there not a potential conflict of interest if there is not another way of providing that call-in if there is perceived damage in the other three nations? The Minister might want to respond to that point.
The amendment makes a limited request. The Minister talked about requests to the Secretary of State for a call-in, but a request is not the same as a power. Unless there is that power—potentially in the case of a conflict of interest where the Secretary of State is the awarder—there is a limit to the way the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations can ensure there is a fair application of the system in terms of call-ins. I would be grateful if the Minister could come back on this point about the potential conflict of interest where the Secretary of State is the awarder in relation to the use of call-in powers.
Paul Scully
As I say, the Secretary of State will be acting on behalf of the UK Government. Subsidy control is a reserved power, as we established in the debate for the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 that we had at length at the end of last year. None the less, there is no special treatment for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. There was plenty of opportunity through the publication of the advice and the reason for call-ins, and any enforcement that may need to be done through the Competition Appeal Tribunal to highlight that potential. None the less I think there were enough checks within the structure to avoid that. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.
Bill Esterson
I do not think that we got an answer to my question. There is still the concern that if the Secretary of State says no and there are legitimate concerns in the three nations, there needs to be the additional limited opportunity of call-ins. We will push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
Clause 55 gives the Secretary of State the ability to direct a public authority to request a report from the subsidy advice unit on a proposed subsidy or subsidy scheme. That may be made in relation to a subsidy of interest or any other subsidy or scheme that the Secretary of State considers to be at risk of failing to comply with the subsidy control requirements or of negatively impacting competition or investment in the UK. It is not intended to be used routinely, but it is a necessary safeguard. It is there to ensure that an additional layer of scrutiny can be applied to subsidies that might risk creating market distortions but would otherwise not be subject to mandatory referral to the SAU.
Kirsty Blackman
I was going to ask a question about this clause, and the Minister has managed to make me even more confused. Subsection (1) states:
“A public authority may request a report from the CMA before giving a subsidy, or making a subsidy scheme, of interest.”
It does not state that, additionally, any other subsidy may be referred to the CMA under a voluntary referral. It might elsewhere in the legislation, but it does not at this point.
My concern was that it relates only to subsidies “of interest”—subsidies of particular interest are covered by mandatory referral, and that is fine—but for subsidies that fall outside the category of interest, perhaps because interest is narrowly drawn by the regulations when interest is set, there seems to be no way for those public authorities to refer them voluntarily to the CMA, as the legislation is drafted. It would be good if they could.
Let us say that “particular interests” and “interests” are defined by the Government, that goes through the affirmative procedure, we have a discussion, and the definitions are agreed. Accidentally, however, something is left out of the category of interest—because we do not think of everything—and a local or public authority discovers the anomaly and thinks to itself, “Do you know what, I should refer this to the CMA voluntarily, because I think it probably should be included in the schemes of interest, but in the way that the legislation is written, it does not fall under that”, so it tries to make a voluntary referral. It cannot, however, because it may make a voluntary referral only in the case of something that is of interest.
There is a bit of a gap. Authorities should be able to make that voluntary referral, whether it is a scheme of interest or not. There is a concern. As to what the Minister said, absolutely, if the Secretary of State has a concern additional to the interest section, that would be fair enough and make a difference, or if the authority itself decides that it should be referred to the CMA. I do not think that that will be a huge amount of extra work. Authorities will not refer themselves to the CMA for fun; they will do so when they feel that there is a reasonable chance that what they are considering doing is contentious.
I will not vote against the clause, because voluntary referrals are a good thing, but I do not think that it goes as far as the Minister suggested it goes—unless I have missed something.
Bill Esterson
I was not entirely clear which clause the hon. Member for Aberdeen North was speaking to. We are still on clause 55 stand part—but it was a very good speech on the next clause, so we now know what she will say.
We expressed our concerns in the debate on our amendment. I hope that the Minister will reflect on those concerns and consider whether greater strength is needed in this clause and, similarly, I suspect, in clause 56—when we get to that debate.
Kirsty Blackman
It is no wonder that I was confused by what the Minister said. He was speaking to clause 55 and I was looking at clause 56. Apologies.
Paul Scully
We will hear the hon. Lady’s comments again.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56
Voluntary referral to CMA
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause—wait for it—allows public authorities voluntarily to refer certain subsidies or subsidy schemes to the subsidy advice unit before they are given or made. Those are known as subsidies or schemes of interest, and the criteria will be set in secondary legislation, as set out in clause 11.
To make that voluntary referral, the public authority has to provide certain information about the subsidy or the scheme that will be referred, including an assessment by the public authority of whether its proposed subsidy or scheme would meet the principles, the prohibitions and the other requirements set out in chapters 1 and 2 of part 2 of the Bill.
The Secretary of State is also given the power to make new regulations specifying the form in which that information must be provided to the SAU, as well as any additional information that must be provided beyond that which is already set out in the clause. That will enable the content and the form of the request to be adapted based on operational experience of whether the SAU is getting the information it needs to report back effectively.
Openness, transparency and a risk-based approach to scrutiny will ensure confidence in the new UK subsidy control regime. The voluntary referral process provides an additional avenue of scrutiny for public authorities seeking to grant some of the more potentially distortive subsidies and schemes. To answer the question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who may want to ask it again, the process gets the balance right by ensuring a flexible system with enough information for the public authorities to get it right in the first place. A lot of that will be done through guidance, and the SAU is there to be helpful and give advice; it is not an enforcer or a regulator.
Kirsty Blackman
Let me just imagine that I made an excellent speech.
The concerns that I raised a few moments ago still stand. I think there should be more flexibility in the first part so that it is made clear to public authorities that they can refer something should it not fall under the specific definition of “schemes of interest”. I would appreciate it if the Minister considered tabling an amendment to that effect. I do not feel that that would make additional work.
I genuinely feel that public authorities would use that flexibility only in circumstances where they feel that “schemes of interest” has been defined too narrowly to cover the scheme that they would like to refer to the CMA. That flexibility would not be overused; nobody would be daft enough to overuse it. There seems to be no ability for public authorities to refer anything unless it is classed as a scheme of interest or particular interest, or is something deemed by the Secretary of State to meet various criteria. I would appreciate it if the Minister looked at that.
Seema Malhotra
The clause does indeed allow public authorities to
“request a report from the CMA before giving a subsidy, or making a subsidy scheme, of interest.”
We have had some interesting and helpful discussion so far, but our main concern remains the lack of clear definitions in the legislation, particularly the definition of “interest”. Such clarity would provide some necessary assurance to public authorities, the CMA and subsidy recipients about how the regime will work in practice.
We could have pre-empted this issue and had clearer definitions to ensure that more was done upstream by public authorities, meaning fewer referrals. More referrals will create more burden on the subsidy advice unit. Referrals will be made for good reason, however, so we absolutely need the provision. It is likely that there will be greater demand for referrals in the earlier stages of the regime’s implementation, but as people become familiar with the process and judgments become clearer, and the CMA gets some case studies to use, the system will improve.
It is important that there is clarity from Government. We may come back to some of this, but the referring public authority will also need clarity on what it will and will not get back. Guidance on that would be extremely helpful to make the legislation work effectively.
Paul Scully
I take on board the hon. Lady’s point about guidance and ensuring that public authorities know what to provide and what to expect back. That is absolutely fair. In terms of where we go and how wide we make this, it is not our intention to replicate the needlessly complicated and slow processes under the state aid scheme; this will be focused on the most potentially distortive subsidies, to provide scrutiny where it is most needed, so it would not be proportionate to have the extra step for every subsidy regardless of size or impact.
The SAU itself will have discretion on whether to accept voluntary referrals based on the CMA’s existing and published prioritisation criteria, because we want to ensure that it can do its job effectively, but none the less offer that advice.
Seema Malhotra
The Minister is starting to go a little bit further in implying that there will be, perhaps not trade-offs, but decisions that will need to be made about whether to have the review done by the subsidy advice unit and what that might be intended for. What the clause might be intended for may not be the same as what public authorities may feel in wanting to seek a voluntary referral. Can he perhaps clarify whether, for example, undertaking a voluntary referral may be used to seek to provide reassurance so that there is less likelihood of a challenge later on? Decisions that are taken will bear some relationship to other parts of the Bill and the ability to bring challenges. What status would receiving a report back from the subsidy advice unit have? Could that be used if, for example, there was a challenge later on?
Paul Scully
Indeed, that is exactly the reason for the SAU not to be the regulator or the enforcer but to provide expert, independent advice. Even in the more distortive schemes, as I have always said, there is nothing stopping a public authority from giving the subsidy even if there is advice not to. However, since that advice is published, it would be available to people looking in on the matter, and in any referral to the CAT that would be taken into account. One of the reasons for putting it under the CMA is that it already has the expertise and the ability to give good advice and robust assessment and analysis.
Rightly, where the SAU itself considers appropriate, the public authority can get advice on the design of its subsidy or scheme, but the SAU will base that on its own criteria, such as the overall impact on competition, strategic significance and the available resources.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
CMA reporting period for voluntary referral
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 57 sets out the timeframe within which the SAU must publish its report on a subsidy or subsidy scheme. Once it has accepted a voluntary referral made by a public authority, it has an initial period of five working days to tell the public authority whether it will produce a report in response to the request. It will then generally have a reporting period of 30 working days in which to publish its report on the subsidy or subsidy scheme.
The clause also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend either the period of five working days or the reporting period itself, which will allow the Government to amend those periods, should longer or shorter periods prove to be necessary based on experience of how the regime is working in practice. Any regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore would need to be approved by Parliament in draft.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments on clause 57 stand part. The clause outlines the CMA’s reporting period for subsidies and schemes that are voluntarily referred to it. We have no issues with this clause, but I wanted to raise one small point in relation to subsection (6).
I would be grateful for clarity about how the Minister expects any extensions of the reporting period to be reported, because we do not just need to know that it is taking longer because there is complexity: we need to know whether it is taking longer because there is a resourcing issue, or because public authorities are not completing the paperwork correctly and there is some confusion over some information that might be provided. Understanding those reasons would inevitably be useful when seeking improvements to the system and making the process more efficient.
More efficiency also means less cost and better value for money, because it is public money that goes into the CMA and the subsidy advice unit, so we need to make sure those resources are used effectively and improve the quality of both the applications and the process. I would be grateful to understand how the Minister envisages that being done.
Paul Scully
It is in the interests of the SAU and everybody else that this system works. If the quality of evidence that public authorities are giving is causing complexities, feedback to those public authorities would be incredibly helpful in making sure the framework works, but it is also the kind of thing that would be covered in the CMA’s reporting when it says how the framework is working in itself.
Seema Malhotra
Would that be in the annual report, or in the five-year review? Five years is rather a long time.
Paul Scully
It would be in both. That reporting is there to say what subsidies exist and how the framework is working, but those conversations would also be happening all the time through the advice to public authorities and BEIS’s communications with the CMA on a regular basis, making sure that the framework works. As I said, it is in everybody’s interests that we get that exchange right.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Call-in direction following voluntary referral
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 58 sets out what would happen if the subsidy advice unit agreed to report on a subsidy or scheme that has been voluntarily referred, and that subsidy or scheme is then called in by the Secretary of State. The clause streamlines the pre-award reporting process that would apply when the subsidy is called in following a voluntary referral, because the SAU should already have some familiarity with the subsidy or scheme that has been called in, due to its already having been voluntarily referred.
Three scenarios are dealt with within this clause. The first is where the SAU has not published its report on a subsidy or scheme that was voluntarily referred, and the statutory time limit for doing so has not yet expired. The second is where the SAU has not published its report on a subsidy or scheme that was voluntarily referred, and the statutory time limit has expired. The final scenario is where the SAU has already published its report on a subsidy, but that subsidy has not yet been given or made. This clause ensures that the processes for scrutinising subsidies and subsidy schemes by the SAU are as efficient and timely as possible.
Seema Malhotra
We agree that in such cases, the subsidy or scheme in question should be treated as if it were part of a mandatory referral to the CMA. We have no issues with this clause, and will vote for it to stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
CMA report following mandatory or voluntary referral
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 59, page 33, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment removes the power for the Secretary of State to amend this section by regulation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 54, in clause 59, page 33, line 17, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is a consequential amendment linked to Amendment 53.
Bill Esterson
We have concerns about the way the clause allows the Secretary of State to use regulations to affect the content and form of CMA reports. This is a question of the CMA’s independence. On the Competition and Markets Authority website, it describes itself as
“an independent non-ministerial department”.
The CMA’s work
“is overseen by a Board, and led by the Chief Executive and senior team. Decisions in…investigations are made by independent members of a CMA panel.”
In contrast, the clause would empower the Secretary of State to amend, by using regulations, the content of the CMA’s reports. It is very hard to see how this is anything other than a direct contradiction of the principle of independence, baked into the CMA’s set-up.
The timing of the change, given the shameful proceedings in the Commons Chamber yesterday, leaves the suspicion that it is, again, about removing the principle of independence from the heart of the CMA’s role. We saw this with the Prime Minister’s own adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Alex Allan, resigning because of the breach of the ministerial code, and we saw it yesterday with members of the ruling party scrapping the rules or attempting to scrap the rules on MPs’ conduct because one of their own was found guilty of what the Standards Committee described as an “egregious” breach and then wanting to scrap the role of the independent standards commissioner.
The Chair
Order. May I remind hon. Members to stay within the scope of the Subsidy Control Bill?
Bill Esterson
Thank you, Ms Nokes. On that basis, it will probably not be wise to take the interventions. I am using these things as an example of the ruling party’s attempts to remove independence. The CMA is also supposed to be independent. We have seen a desire to break the rules and then just remake the rules in the main Commons Chamber, and I fear that now we may be seeing something similar—we need to ensure that we do not see something similar—when it comes to the independence of the CMA in its role with regard to the subsidy control regime.
Without amendment, the clause will allow the Government to rewrite the contents of an independent report if there is any warning that it will say something that they do not like. That is not how independence works, and it is not good government. Our amendments would remove the power for the Secretary of State to do that. It would remove the power to edit reports published by the CMA, and it would ensure that the independence of the CMA stays as it is.
Kirsty Blackman
I have just a brief question. This clause lays out things that reports following mandatory or voluntary referrals “must” include and some things that the reports “may” include. Can the Minister confirm that the reports may also include things not mentioned here and that the additional things that would be included would be at the discretion of the CMA? If it can include only the musts and the mays in the clause, it will not be able to include anything else that the CMA considers would be relevant in the report. Given that the Minister has stressed the independence and expertise of the CMA, it would be sensible to confirm that it can include matters that it feels are relevant, whether or not they are explicitly mentioned in the Bill.
Paul Scully
The CMA is independent and will use its expertise. I think that we have crossed wires here, because actually the clause allows the Secretary of State to talk about the content of the report but not to textually amend an independent report. That is not what we are talking about here, which is what is within scope of the report—to ensure that it can actually do it. This is to be able to give additional transparency and scrutiny in the regime itself. The clause allows him to make provision about the content and form of the report, but, as I said, not to change the text of an independent report.
Any changes to the content of the report must be made by the affirmative procedure. That is core to the subsidy control regime, because if the Government believe that the process needs to be refined, it is only right to have parliamentary scrutiny of it. By contrast, any specification as to the form of the report would be a technical regulation, for which the negative procedure is appropriate. Amendments 53 and 54 remove that possibility, except by future primary legislation.
As I say, removing the mechanism for amending or enhancing the baseline for SAU reporting that is set out in clause 59 would unnecessarily tie the hands of the SAU and future Governments seeking to improve the referral process based on the experience and expertise that is gathered over time through the functioning of the new regime. As set out in clause 67, the power to change the content of the report may be exercised only for a period of one year following the publication of SAU’s first report under clause 65.
As I have set out, however, changing the form of the report is a technical matter, so it is appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the negative procedure. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Sefton Central withdraws the amendments.
Bill Esterson
Clause 59(4)(a) uses the phrase
“amend subsection (1), (2) or (3) to make provision about the content of the CMA’s report”.
The Minister used the terms “text” and “content” interchangeably, which highlights our concern. Using secondary legislation, the Secretary of State is able to give himself the power to amend CMA reports. That is the problem—that is what overturns the power.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister did not answer my question about additional information that the CMA may include in a report that is outwith the scope of the Bill. It does not fall under part 2; it falls under something else that the CMA thinks is relevant and should be in the report. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Bill Esterson
The Minister did not answer the hon. Lady’s question, so maybe he can do that after I finish my summing up, which will not take much longer.
We will push the amendment to a vote, because the Minister did not address our concerns about removing the independence of the CMA.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Thursday 4th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month 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 4 November 2021 - (4 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We enter the final lap. I have the usual announcements: electronic devices off, please, and no food or drink. Mr Speaker requests that Members wear face coverings as a courtesy to others; they are for the protection of others, not for the protection of yourself. I am not a terribly good example, but I cannot breathe with a mask on. Hon. Members are also asked to take covid lateral flow tests twice a week if coming on to the estate. I do not know whether hon. Members have done that; it might be a good thing to do before we depart for a week. Finally, Hansard would appreciate speaking notes.
New Clause 6
Expedited appeals: joining of related appeals
“(1) For the purposes of this section, an ‘expedited section 82 appeal’ is an expedited appeal within the meaning of section 82A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (expedited appeals for claims brought on or after PRN cut-off date).
(2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘related appeal’ is an appeal under any of the following—
(a) section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (appeals in respect of protection and human rights claims), other than one which is an expedited section 82 appeal;
(b) section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 (appeal against deprivation of citizenship);
(c) the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/61) (appeal rights in respect of EU citizens’ rights immigration decisions etc);
(d) regulation 36 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/1052) (appeals against EEA decisions) as it continues to have effect following its revocation.
(3) If a person brings an expedited section 82 appeal at a time when a related appeal brought by that person is pending, the related appeal is, from that time, to be continued as an appeal to the Upper Tribunal and accordingly is to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal.
(4) If an expedited section 82 appeal brought by a person is pending, any right that the person would otherwise have to bring a related appeal to the First-tier Tribunal is instead a right to bring it to the Upper Tribunal.
(5) A related appeal within subsection (3) or brought to the Upper Tribunal as mentioned in (4) is referred to in this section as an ‘expedited related appeal’.
(6) Tribunal Procedure Rules must make provision with a view to securing that the Upper Tribunal consolidates an expedited related appeal and the expedited section 82 appeal concerned or hears them together (and see section 82A(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002).
(7) Tribunal Procedure Rules must secure that the Upper Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice in the case of a particular expedited related appeal to do so, order that the appeal is to be continued as an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal and accordingly is to be transferred to that Tribunal.
(8) For the purposes of this section, an appeal is ‘pending’—
(a) in the case of an appeal under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (including an expedited section 82 appeal), if it is pending within the meaning of section 104 of that Act;
(b) in the case of an appeal under section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981, during the period—
(i) beginning when it is instituted, and
(ii) ending when it is finally determined or withdrawn;
(c) in the case of an appeal under the Immigration Citizens’ Rights Appeals (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, if it is pending within the meaning of regulation 13 of those Regulations;
(d) in the case of an appeal under the regulation 36 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, if it is pending within the meaning of Part 6 of those Regulations (see regulation 35).
(9) In section 13(8) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (decisions excluded from right to appeal to the Court of Appeal), after paragraph (bza) (inserted by section 21) insert—
‘(bzb) any decision of the Upper Tribunal on an expedited related appeal within the meaning given by section (Expedited appeals: joining of related appeals) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2021 (expedited appeals against refusal of protection claim or human rights claim: joining of related appeals),’.”—(Tom Pursglove.)
This new clause (to be inserted after clause 21) provides that where a person brings an appeal under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that is subject to the expedited procedure under the new section 82A of that Act, certain other appeals brought by that person are also to be subject to the expedited procedure.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would be inserted after clause 21. It forms part of a package of measures that will enable the swift removal of those who have no right to be in the UK. It complements clause 21 by ensuring that individuals cannot utilise the appeals system as a tool to delay their removal from the UK.
Frequently, those facing removal or deportation from the UK utilise delay tactics, such as late claims and repeated appeals, to thwart removal action. That leads to unnecessary costs to the taxpayer and an increased burden on the court and tribunals system. Clause 21 addresses that issue by creating a new expedited appeal for late human rights or protection claims brought by recipients of a priority removal notice, as provided by clause 18. Expedited appeals will be determined quickly, and the decisions of the upper tribunal will be final. Therefore, clause 21 removes the incentive for bringing claims late and protects the appeal system from abuse.
However, there may be additional appeal rights generated by other claims that individuals may seek to exercise in parallel with an expedited appeal. Such additional appeals would usually be heard in the first tier tribunal. Consequently, an expedited appeal may conclude while an individual has an outstanding appeal in the first tier tribunal, which would prevent their removal from the UK.
New clause 6 enables other appeals in the first tier tribunal brought by a person with an expedited appeal to be heard and determined by the upper tribunal alongside the expedited appeal. That will ensure that, following the conclusion of the expedited process, final determination will have been made on the appellant’s right to remain in the UK and, where the upper tribunal decides that they have no right to remain, removal action can take place.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I welcome the Minister back to his place. I do not follow the logic of the new clause at all. If somebody is trying to play the system—and I do not like talking in those terms—surely all they need to do is not make a late claim in terms of the PRN notice; then, their existing appeal would proceed normally, with onward rights of appeal and so on. This proposal just does not make sense, even if we accept the Government’s logic, which I do not.
Tom Pursglove
The point is exactly as I have set out: in the immigration system, we see repeated appeals deliberately designed to frustrate the system, and the new clause is an appropriate way, with appropriate safeguards, to ensure that the tribunal process can handle those appeals appropriately. It makes sense for appeals to be considered together so that attempts to frustrate the removal process cannot happen and cases are determined as quickly as possible. As I say, there are appropriate judicial safeguards in place in the tribunal process to ensure that appeals are heard appropriately and are directed through the appropriate tribunal. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Stuart C. McDonald
Briefly, there are two reasons why I do not think this new clause makes any sense at all. First, there is the point that I just alluded to. The danger is that if someone who has a PRN served on them is contemplating disclosing further information or making a claim and the deadline passes, and they are acting in the way that the Minister wants to get at here and trying to “play the system”, they will simply not make that disclosure. Their existing claims will proceed to appeal through the normal channels, to a first tier tribunal with onward appeal rights. So the proposals do not make sense, even by the Government’s own logic. Can the Minister address that?
Secondly, we object to the new clause from a point of principle. The rare occasions when I would accept that an expedited appeals process can be justified are where the justifications relate solely to manifestly unfounded or repeat claims, but that is not what this is about; this is about expediting appeals and rights to appeal, but not because of the substance of the appeal—it has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the claim or the related appeal at all. So the proposals make no sense from the point of view of principle, as well as being rather illogical.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Again, briefly, I agree with everything the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, has just said. We do not know at what stage the other appeal will be; it may not be ready to be heard. One problem we have in this country is the delay in the appeals processes because of severe underfunding in our court and tribunal systems, so it seems that the new clause will not work.
The new clause will also cause more problems than it solves. I am not sure that there is a huge problem with multiple outstanding appeals in any event, but the new clause could actually make things worse. If the intention in the Bill is to provide fairness, the new clause will not achieve that, because speeding up an appeal could cause unfairness. So for the reasons outlined by the SNP spokesperson we will not support the new clause.
Tom Pursglove
The bottom line is that we simply disagree on this matter. Clause 21 ensures that appeals relating to late human rights or protection claims are dealt with expeditiously, with decisions by the upper tribunal being final. This provides appellants with a swift determination of their claim. It also disincentives late claims and seeks to prevent sequential or multiple appeals from being utilised as a tactic to thwart removal.
However, the Government recognise that in certain circumstances an individual may exercise other appeal rights, in parallel with their expedited appeal. This could give rise to a situation whereby a person has an appeal in a first tier tribunal and an expedited appeal in the upper tribunal. Consequently, the expedited appeal may conclude while an individual has an outstanding appeal in a first tier tribunal. If the appellant was unsuccessful in their expedited appeal, the ongoing appeal in the first tier tribunal would prevent their removal from the UK. This outcome is undesirable and undermines the Government’s intention to disincentivise late claims by ensuring that appeals relating to such claims are determined quickly and conclusively.
The new clause ensures that where a person has an expedited appeal, any related appeal will also be subject to the same expedited process. Therefore, following the conclusion of the expedited process, the appellant’s right to remain in the UK will be determined with finality and, where an individual has no right to remain in the UK, removal action can take place. That is the logical and sensible approach that we propose to take.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Chair
Let me explain the process from now on for about the next 10 minutes. We now come to a sequence of Government new clauses, all of which have been debated already with other clauses or amendments. I shall say to the Minister, “Will the Minister move formally?” The Minister, being obedient, will say, “Moved formally.” The Clerk will then read the title of the clause and I will put the questions that it be read a second time and that it be added to the Bill. I gently suggest to the Opposition that there is not much point in calling a Division on both those questions—you can, but it will take a lot longer. Let us see how we get on.
New Clause 7
Accelerated detained appeals
“(1) In this section ‘accelerated detained appeal’ means a relevant appeal (see subsection (6)) brought—
(a) by a person who—
(i) was detained under a relevant detention provision (see subsection (7)) at the time at which they were given notice of the decision which is the subject of the appeal, and
(ii) remains in detention under a relevant detention provision, and
(b) against a decision that—
(i) is of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and
(ii) when made, was certified by the Secretary of State under this section.
(2) The Secretary of State may only certify a decision under this section if the Secretary of State considers that any relevant appeal brought in relation to the decision would likely be disposed of expeditiously.
(3) Tribunal Procedure Rules must secure that the following time limits apply in relation to an accelerated detained appeal—
(a) any notice of appeal must be given to the First-tier Tribunal not later than 5 working days after the date on which the appellant was given notice of the decision against which the appeal is brought;
(b) the First-tier Tribunal must make a decision on the appeal, and give notice of that decision to the parties, not later than 25 working days after the date on which the appellant gave notice of appeal to the tribunal;
(c) any application (whether to the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal) for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal must be determined by the tribunal concerned not later than 20 working days after the date on which the applicant was given notice of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.
(4) A relevant appeal ceases to be an accelerated detained appeal on the appellant being released from detention under any relevant detention provision.
(5) Tribunal Procedure Rules must secure that the First-tier Tribunal or (as the case may be) the Upper Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice in a particular case to do so, order that a relevant appeal is to cease to be an accelerated detained appeal.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a ‘relevant appeal’ is an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under any of the following—
(a) section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (appeals in respect of protection and human rights claims);
(b) section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 (appeal against deprivation of citizenship);
(c) the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/61) (appeal rights in respect of EU citizens’ rights immigration decisions etc);
(d) regulation 36 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/1052) (appeals against EEA decisions) as it continues to have effect following its revocation.
(7) For the purposes of this section, a ‘relevant detention provision’ is any of the following—
(a) paragraph 16(1), (1A) or (2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);
(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);
(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);
(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).
(8) In this section ‘working day’ means any day except—
(a) a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or 26 to 31 December, and
(b) any day that is a bank holiday under section 1 of the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of the United Kingdom where the appellant concerned is detained.
(9) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.”—(Tom Pursglove.)
This new clause expands the categories of immigration appeals that can be subject to the accelerated detained appeals process that was introduced by clause 24.
Brought up, and read the First and Second time.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 1 would lift the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme’s limit of 5,000 people per year. The Labour party wants to see the removal of the 5,000 person limit and the opening of safe routes for refugees fleeing the Taliban. In the summer, the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan captured the world’s attention, as images of thousands of Afghans, desperate but also determined to escape the Taliban’s grip on the country, dominated the media. As the UK has been one of the countries most directly involved in Afghanistan for the last two decades, the British public’s reaction to the refugees’ plight was one of compassion and benevolence. Hundreds offered hospitality, and many more donated support to arriving newcomers.
The Government reacted instantly to the public’s demand for welcome and refuge by announcing the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, offering refuge in the UK to 5,000 Afghans, up to a total of 20,000 in the long term. The Prime Minister also promised to house a town’s worth of refugees, while the Home Secretary rushed to Heathrow airport—along with news camera crews—to receive some of those airlifted out of Kabul, as the Government launched Operation Warm Welcome.
The Government believe that Britain’s bespoke scheme for Afghan refugees is one of the most generous in the country’s history, and the Home Secretary has argued that it is not possible to take in any more refugees. In truth, the Government’s response to the Afghan catastrophe is hardly generous. The idea of a fixed quota for refugees in such emergencies is meaningless. The figure of 5,000 meets the Government’s political needs rather than the needs of those on the ground in Afghanistan. I note that in the new plan for immigration, the Government seem very happy to welcome up to 5 million Hongkongers via the British national overseas scheme, which I will address later.
Although we welcome the commitment to provide 5,000 places to Afghan refugees through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, the scheme appears to be a carbon copy of the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. The difference is that while the Syrian scheme placed people who were already in refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan—a position of relative safety that made it easier to process and admit them—in this case, many have fled Afghanistan to neighbouring countries in fear for their lives, or are in hiding in Afghanistan, where they live in fear.
Just yesterday, a constituent of mine, whose sister had run a school teaching girls and had campaigned for free elections and women’s rights in Afghanistan, told me that her sister’s friend had been found and murdered, and that her sister was in hiding with her husband, petrified about what could happen to her. Despite being told by the Foreign Office to go to Kabul airport, some Chevening scholars and people who had helped the British military were prevented from getting on any flights out of the country. The problem is that some of those people who are trapped in Afghanistan are at high risk and may not survive until the end of the year, let alone the four years the scheme is meant to run. The scheme is not even open yet; two months down the line from the fiasco of the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, we are no closer to finding out any details of the scheme.
From what I understand, the Government control who does and does not have access to the scheme, so they will choose who makes it on to the scheme. They also control the numbers, but an arbitrary annual cap of 5,000 people is meaningless and could cost lives if stuck to rigidly. In the Government’s response to the new plan for immigration consultation, the section entitled, “Protecting those fleeing persecution, oppression, and tyranny”, states:
“The Government will pilot an Emergency Resettlement Mechanism, starting in the autumn, to enable refugees in urgent need to be resettled more quickly so that life-saving protection is provided in weeks rather than months. Beyond this, the Government will provide more flexibility to help people in truly exceptional and compelling circumstances by using the Home Secretary’s discretion to provide rapid assistance.”
The Government have failed to live up to those words because life-saving protection was not provided in weeks, but months, and there is no sign of rapid assistance.
If the arbitrary annual limit of 5,000 people is reached, Afghans who helped the UK military and who have been able to escape Afghanistan could arrive seeking protection in the UK only to be treated like criminals for how they have arrived. It is worth noting that the Government’s advice to Afghans was to leave Afghanistan when they ran out of time for flights to the UK in August. Under the Bill, they would be penalised if they came to the UK via irregular routes. That would plainly be wrong and inhumane, and the Government could avoid that by having no cap on the resettlement scheme.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Halifax for tabling new clause 1 and providing the Committee with this opportunity to consider placing the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme on a statutory footing and lifting the 5,000 person limit for the first year.
The UK has a proud history of supporting those in need of protection, and I understand the concerns that Members of the House have about the plight of people from Afghanistan. During Operation Pitting, the Government and military worked around the clock to airlift about 15,000 people out of Afghanistan—the biggest airlift from a single country for a generation. The Government have relocated thousands of people who loyally served our military in Afghanistan, and we continue to help more.
In addition, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is one of the most ambitious resettlement schemes in our country’s history. It will give up to 20,000 people at risk a new life in the UK. Our current schemes are non-legislative, operating outside the immigration rules and on a discretionary basis. Operating in this way has seen us resettle over 25,000 vulnerable people since 2015. Placing the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme on a statutory footing would make it less flexible and less able to respond to changing circumstances internationally.
A huge programme of work, called Operation Warm Welcome, is under way across the whole of Government to ensure that Afghans evacuated to the UK receive the vital support they need. This work, overseen by the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), spans different Government Departments, charities, non-governmental organisations, local authorities and communities. The aim is to ensure that Afghans can be properly supported as they rebuild their lives in the UK, while also ensuring that local services are not put under undue strain. The support being provided is similar to that of the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme in response to the conflict in Syria, to ensure that people get the vital healthcare, education, support into employment and accommodation they need to fully integrate into society.
There are many who need our protection, and the UK plays a leading role as one of the world’s largest refugee resettlement states. However, regrettably the UK is not able to provide protection to everyone, and it is essential that any decisions regarding the number of people we resettle take into consideration our capacity to support people to rebuild their lives in the UK. We are clear that the number of people we can resettle depends on a variety of factors, including local authorities’ capacity.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I just want to pick up on the Minister’ point, which he has made time and again, about the UK leading on resettlement. Does he accept the figures that show that since the start of 2020, the UK has resettled 1,991 refugees, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? That is less than France, less than half the number for Germany, and about a quarter of the number for Sweden. In what way is that a leading role?
Tom Pursglove
I think it is fair to say that this country historically has had a leading role in resettling refugees, and the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have debated this many times during the course of this Committee’s proceedings, and I have referred to the figure of 25,000 people on several occasions. I am confident that that proud tradition will continue. I am not privy to the figures that he has just cited, but I make the point that we have also been in a pandemic, which clearly has had knock-on effects across life and society in our country and in the international environment.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It sounded as though the hon. Member for Sheffield Central was asking for unfettered, uncontrolled, open-border access to this country. We have already had 20,000 illegal economic migrants crossing the English channel. I was down in Dover yesterday with Baroness Hoey, the former Labour Member of Parliament, and saw with utter shock the situation regarding the illegal attempts at crossing. Does the Minister agree that the hon. Gentleman’s words show that the Labour party is out of touch with what people want?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and no doubt we will have a conversation about his visit to Dover.
Bambos Charalambous
As I mentioned in my speech, the Government chose who came into the UK through the voluntary resettlement scheme and they will do so under this scheme as well. Remarks about giving unfettered or unlimited access to everyone are therefore ludicrous, because the Government will be in control of who can enter the UK from Afghanistan through this scheme. To make such aspersions is clearly wrong and misleading.
Tom Pursglove
The shadow Minister interrupted me while I was responding to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, and, of course, I was happy to take his intervention. The scheme we intend to bring forward is structured and it should not be seen in isolation in relation to Afghanistan. It is important to consider it in the context of the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, which has been invaluable and plays an important role in our efforts to provide sanctuary to those fleeing Afghanistan. That is very important to consider.
To continue with my point about the participation of civil society in community sponsorship, we have been working around the clock to stand up support with local authorities and to secure accommodation for the scheme. There is a huge effort under way to get families who have already been evacuated to the UK into permanent homes so that they can resettle and rebuild their lives. Clearly, we do not want families to remain in bridging accommodation for long periods, so it is sensible to have a limit on the number of places we offer on the scheme.
The new clause seeks to bring the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme into force within 30 days from the date of Royal Assent. We are working at pace to open the scheme, and the new clause would likely result in significant delays in resettling individuals under the scheme.
During the passage of the Bill, we have had many debates relating to Afghanistan. I said previously that I would ensure that the Minister for Afghan Resettlement was made aware of the Committee’s comments, and I will endeavour to do that again. It is important that all views are heard as we work at pace to shape this scheme and to make sure that we get it right, so that we are able to provide sanctuary to those to whom Members across the Committee and across the House want to provide it.
Previous schemes have not been delivered through legislation. I would argue that it is best to be responsive and flexible, and that not putting the scheme on a statutory basis has that effect. The shadow Minister used the word “rigid”. I would argue that not going down the statutory route ensures we can be flexible as to the evolving situation, and provide proper care and support to people who come here.
We want coming to the UK to be a positive and life-changing experience, and we want to provide sanctuary and care for those individuals. I am confident that that is precisely what we will do in delivering this scheme and that our country will be able to be incredibly proud of it. We owe it to those individuals to provide them with sanctuary, and that is precisely what we will do. With that, I ask the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I am not convinced by the Minister’s arguments, which clearly amount to a new cap on immigration. I will repeat the number for the benefit of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North: there are 5 million people potentially eligible to come to the country via the British national overseas visa scheme; we are just asking that more than 5,000 people are able to come from Afghanistan. If that limit is rigidly applied, people’s lives could be in danger.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Opposition urge the Government to adopt a mandatory dispersal and asylum accommodation scheme that will require all local authorities to contribute towards supporting asylum seekers and the Government to fully fund any additional expenditure for those authorities. Having listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North speak about his local authority taking its fair share of asylum seekers in dispersal asylum accommodation, I can honestly say that, on this and this alone, I agree with him, and I know he will have no difficulty in supporting our new clause.
Local authorities currently volunteer to participate in dispersal arrangements. The Home Secretary has reserve powers to ensure that local authorities co-operate in the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers through sections 100 and 101 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The current dispersal system is unfair and inefficient, with the majority of asylum seekers housed in disadvantaged local authority areas while dozens of councils support none. This has led to some councils that have been incredibly generous and kind in taking asylum seekers, such as that in the great city of Stoke-on-Trent, feeling undermined by councils that have not and threatening to leave the Government’s voluntary scheme.
In the Committee’s evidence session on 21 September, I asked the leaders of Kent County Council and Westminster City Council, Councillor Gough and Councillor Robathan, whether they thought that all councils should have to take their fair share of asylum seekers. Both agreed that they should as they spoke about the pressures on services for their local councils. In August, the Local Government Chronicle ran a story about council leaders demanding a fairer distribution of refugees, in which Coventry City Council leader George Duggins said:
“All local authorities need to take their fair share of the dispersal programme—no opting out, no excuses”.
It also included Walsall Council leader Mike Bird saying that the dispersal of asylum seekers was
“an issue for the whole of the country, not just the urban areas”,
and Stoke-on-Trent City Council leader Abi Brown, whom I am sure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North will be familiar with, saying that it was “really sad” that many councils had still not pledged to take any Afghan refugees, adding:
“How do we counter this if there isn’t some national scheme?”
Jonathan Gullis
The hon. Gentleman rightly quotes the leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and I agree that other parts of our United Kingdom should step up to the plate and do much more. I reiterate and put on the record that I support Stoke-on-Trent City Council, which is currently looking to withdraw from the voluntary dispersal scheme because it is unhappy with how it works at present. Therefore, while I have a lot of empathy with what the hon. Gentleman’s new clause seeks to do, I will—reluctantly, in some ways—not vote for it. However, I would absolutely like to work with the hon. Gentleman and Opposition and Government Members to make sure that the scheme becomes much fairer and works for other parts of our United Kingdom.
Bambos Charalambous
I look forward to having that conversation with the hon. Gentleman after the debate, because we need a fairer system; too much of the burden is clearly being put on some local authorities and not enough on others.
Local authorities are vital partners in providing suitable accommodation and support for people seeking asylum. The system works best when central Government, the devolved Governments and local government work together, alongside the voluntary sector and community groups. This requires local authorities to be fully on board with plans to accommodate people in their area. However, figures have shown that more than half of those seeking asylum or who have been brought to Britain for resettlement are accommodated by just 6% of local councils, all of which represent areas with below average household incomes.
Stuart C. McDonald
I have said a lot about asylum accommodation in previous years and months. I agree that there are huge problems with the asylum accommodation system, such as over-concentration, too often poor-quality accommodation, a lack of funding for the local authorities that actually step up to the plate and volunteer to undertake the task, and a lack of control and power for those local authorities. Too often they play second fiddle to the companies and organisations contracted to the Government.
I support broadening dispersal, but I am not on board at this stage with mandating it. Repeatedly, local authorities, whether in the west midlands, Glasgow or elsewhere, and other organisations such as the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit—we have had a couple of reports on this issue—have listed all the things that the Home Office could engage with and undertake to improve the system. I know from speaking to authorities that if the Home Office did those things and increased the powers and financing of local authorities, more would come on board. If the Home Office did that, I do not think that mandation would be required.
If the Home Office fixes its end of the bargain and local authorities are still not getting on board, at that stage I would have no choice but to support mandation, but I do not think that we are at that stage yet. I, too, will quote Abi Brown, who was very measured in her comments when local authorities from the west midlands were writing to the Home Office. She said:
“This is about trying to open up a discussion about how the asylum dispersal system works. So far it’s been very frustrating trying to get the Home Office to engage with us on this issue. We want them to talk to us about how the system can be improved, and we’ve made a number of suggestions in the letter.”
She went on to say:
“This isn’t about party politics, it’s about parity.”
I absolutely agree with that. There is a growing consensus that the Home Office has to up its game on how the dispersal system works. That is what we have to look at, rather than mandating local authorities.
Tom Pursglove
I agree with some of the intention behind new clause 2. It is right that all parts of the UK make a reasonable contribution to ensuring that adequate accommodation is available for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, but it is important to recognise that not every area of the UK has appropriate services or affordable accommodation to appropriately support them. Additionally, some local authorities have very few asylum seekers accommodated by the Home Office in their areas but support large numbers of other migrants. For example, the Home Office does not accommodate many adult asylum seekers and their children in Kent or Croydon, but both local authorities support large numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
It is also important to note that not all asylum seekers are accommodated by the Home Office. The proportion varies over time, but historically around 50% find accommodation with friends or family. That group often live in areas where there are few supported asylum seekers, but they still require access to the same health and education services. It is not therefore sensible to have a rigid set of rules that require destitute asylum seekers to be accommodated in areas in direct proportion to the population of those places. The other factors that I have described must be taken into consideration.
Since the introduction of part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, successive Governments have employed a policy of seeking the agreement of local authorities prior to placing asylum seekers within an area. However, the legislation does not provide local authorities with a veto on the placement of asylum seekers in their areas. If a local authority objects to proposals by our providers to use accommodation not previously used to house asylum seekers, the Home Office can consider and adjudicate on the matter.
A lot of work has none the less been done on increasing local authority participation in asylum dispersal since 2015. Prior to 2015, there were around only 100 local authorities participating. There are now around 140. We have established the local government chief executive group to bring together senior representatives from local authorities, with the aim of expanding the dispersal system and improving the process for the people who use it. We are planning a wider review of the dispersal process and will be consulting local authorities and others.
The local government chief executive group is working collaboratively to evidence any additional costs to local authorities by the dispersal proposal and to identify the appropriate funding mechanism. In light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate will withdraw the motion.
Bambos Charalambous
I am sorry, but I suggest that we vote on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We believe that new clause 3 is necessary because of an issue relating to comprehensive sickness insurance, which has been affecting EU citizens and babies born in the UK to EU parents. The issue is preventing naturalisation or automatic access to the right to be registered as British born. We believe that that is unfair and incorrect. Historically, access to the NHS for European economic area and Swiss citizens was free at the point of use, on the same terms as residents who are British citizens, without the need for any further insurance.
The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 included a requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance, but this requirement was not routinely communicated to EEA and Swiss citizens, and was only required at the point of applying to the Home Office. This has led to a situation where individuals have been refused permanent residence documents, naturalisation applications and citizenship at birth, and have lost family reunion rights under the separation agreements following a discretionary grant of naturalisation. Not only was the requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance not made clear prior to applying to the Home Office, but CSI might not have been relevant to EEA or Swiss citizens, such as during periods of study or self-sufficiency.
I will set the issue in a wider context. The UK has set up the EU settlement scheme, which allows EU citizens to acquire settled status, but many want to become British. They want the right to vote and the security of the nationality of their adopted home, the United Kingdom. However, the requirement to have an obscure health insurance policy is putting applications at risk of refusal and is discouraging many from applying. The British Nationality Act 1981 requires applicants to have not been in breach of immigration laws for any period relied on in the application. While a lot of EU citizens need only to have been living in the UK, students and those who are self-sufficient must also be in possession of comprehensive sickness insurance. However, the possession of CSI has never been a requirement for EU citizens to live in the UK or use the NHS, so most people do not and never have had it.
More concerning is the fact that the Home Office never communicated clearly to EU students and self-sufficient people that they would need to have CSI to become British. The Home Office, which is in charge of decisions relating to applications for citizenship, has maintained the policy despite questions from various organisations, including the3million. In May 2020, updated guidance to caseworkers confirmed the policy, changing the application process to ask for CSI and directing caseworkers to check for it. The guidance introduced a vague power of discretion, but no details were provided as to how that discretion should be applied.
In the Opposition’s view, it is clearly unfair that this anomaly relating to CSI has led to historical and ongoing injustices. It is not fair that what appears to be an additional random requirement for one group of citizens—not communicated prior to application—has, in effect, defined people’s ability to naturalise or claim citizenship.
We therefore believe that the new clause is needed to make the law fair. The historical requirement demanding that individuals hold CSI should also be satisfied by them having had free access to the NHS at the point of use without further insurance. The addition of historical access to the NHS as a satisfying condition would be much fairer. I will give some examples to further illustrate the need for this.
Roberto is Portuguese and arrived in the UK in 2006. He did an undergraduate degree in the UK, where he met his wife. During their university years, they studied full time and did not have CSI as they were never made aware of that requirement for full-time EU students in the UK. They had a son in the UK in 2011 and applied for his British passport, believing that he would automatically be born British.
However, when Roberto and his wife contacted the Home Office for information about the passport application, they were told that as they had not had CSI in the five years preceding the birth, he was not considered to be British. This new clause would address this problem, as the parents’ CSI requirement would have been met by their having had access to the NHS. Consequently, the fact that the child should have been born British can now be addressed by registering for British citizenship at no charge.
I would like the Committee to consider another example illustrating the need for this new clause. Lara is a Brazilian-Italian citizen who has been living in the UK since 2014. Between 2014 and 2017, Lara was in work, but she started a full-time degree at the University of Cambridge in September 2017. In July 2019, Lara was granted settled status under the EU settlement scheme and was looking forward to applying for naturalisation as a British citizen in 2020 after holding settled status for a year. Lara has since started working again, and has been made aware that she should have held CSI while she was at university—a requirement she was never made aware of by either her university or her GP.
If Lara applies for naturalisation, she may fail the lawful residence requirements due to the absence of CSI and may have her application refused. Since late 2020, caseworkers have had the discretion to grant citizenship when there are compelling grounds, although those are not clearly defined in any Home Office guidance. Therefore, like many other EU citizens, Lara is afraid of taking the risk of paying the £1,330 naturalisation fee and not obtaining a positive outcome.
Our new clause would mean that the period of residence that led to the grant of settled status would be considered to be lawful residence, and that the good character requirement could not be failed for a lack of CSI. That would give EU citizens like Lara the confidence to apply for naturalisation, knowing that they would meet all the criteria.
It is important to note that if Lara applies for citizenship and is granted it through caseworker discretion, the CSI issue is likely to still affect her in the future. If she then wished to be joined by a family member in the UK, the complex appendix EU immigration rules, which define the EU settlement scheme, mean that she would fall outside the definition of “qualifying British citizen” due to her historical lack of CSI, and therefore lose the scheme’s right to family reunion. If Lara does not become a British citizen, she would have that right through having settled status.
The new clause would mean that for future decisions taken under the immigration rules, the CSI requirement would be met by access to the NHS, meaning that EU citizens like Lara would not unexpectedly lose the rights they had before naturalising. We believe that this new clause is needed to address this unfair anomaly around CSI.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for tabling the new clause, which relates to the requirement, in certain circumstances, for EEA nationals to have had comprehensive sickness insurance to have been residing lawfully in the UK. Regulations set out the requirements that EEA nationals needed to follow if they wished to reside here lawfully on the basis of free movement. In the case of students or the self-sufficient, but not those who were working here, the possession of CSI has always been a requirement.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is useful that guidance exists, but does the Minister appreciate that if somebody is considering spending more than £1,000 to make an application and there is no clarity—nothing stronger—they almost certainly will not take the risk? Is it not possible to put something firmer into the guidance for caseworkers to say that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the lack of CSI should be ignored?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this matter falls within the portfolio of the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration, so if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall take away that suggestion and ask the Minister to consider it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to follow up in writing with the Minister, I am sure my hon. Friend would consider that and come back to him. I will certainly make sure that he is aware of the suggestion the hon. Gentleman raises.
The new clause would amend the naturalisation requirements for EEA nationals who did not have CSI and so had not been in the UK lawfully before they acquired settled status. We cannot accept that, as all applicants are required to meet the same requirements for naturalisation in terms of lawful residence and it would not be right to treat certain nationalities differently.
The third part of the new clause would amend the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 such that a person is treated as having had CSI if they had access to the NHS in practice or held a CSI policy. However, there is no mention of CSI in the rest of that Act, nor is there any mention of CSI in residence scheme immigration rules. The EU settlement scheme does not test for CSI and there is no need to have held it in the past, or to hold it now, in order for EEA nationals to obtain settled or pre-settled status. As such, that part of the new clause would have no practical effect. I therefore ask the hon. Members to withdraw their new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Acquisition by registration: Descendants of those born on British Indian Ocean Territory—
“(1) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 17H (as inserted by section 7), insert—
‘17I Acquisition by registration: Descendants of those born on British Indian Ocean Territory
(1) A person is entitled to be registered as a British Overseas Territories citizen on an application made under this section if they are a direct descendant of a person (“P”) who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of P’s birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory or, prior to 8 November 1965, in those islands designated as the British Indian Ocean Territory on that date.
(2) A person who is being registered as a British Overseas Territories citizen under this section is also entitled to be registered as a British citizen.
(3) No charge or fee shall be imposed for registration under this section.’”
This new clause would allow anyone who is descended from a person born before 1983 on the British Indian Ocean Territory to register as a British Overseas Territories citizen. They may also register as a British citizen at the same time. Both applications would be free of charge.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Chagossians who spoke to the shadow Minister and myself, and Fragomen solicitors for facilitating that discussion and drafting the new clauses. As Members, and particularly Conservative Members, will know, the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), in whose constituency we find the UK’s largest Chagossian diaspora, has championed Chagossians for many years. On Second Reading I asked the Government to consider introducing a clause to rectify some of the injustices that Chagossians have faced for more than half a century. I understand that they will bring in an amendment on Report to do that, but today we seek to probe their initial thinking.
We could speak all day about how outrageously the Chagossians were treated by the UK and the US. They were removed from their islands simply to make way for an airbase, dumped in Mauritius and elsewhere and basically forgotten about. There are myriad injustices that are still to be put right. The new clauses do not fix everything, but they would fix significant injustices in relation to nationality—exactly what part 1 of this Bill was supposed to do—and family. Some Chagossians would benefit from provisions in part 1 of this Bill, which is welcome, but the Bill needs to go much further if they are to have access to the citizenship that is rightly theirs and that has been denied them only by the outrageous events of the late 1960s and the early 1970s.
As we touched on during debates on part 1, citizenship by descent in British and British overseas territories’ nationality law usually stretches to only one generation. If someone moves abroad, the children they have there will be British by descent, but if those children remain abroad and later have kids they would not be able to pass on that British citizenship. That reflects the idea that the family have made a voluntary decision to loosen their links to the UK and to build a new life elsewhere. Therefore, citizenship of the country where they now live is probably more appropriate.
Exceptions are made—for example, if the only reason the person was abroad was Crown service or if the parent who could not pass on citizenship has actually lived in the UK for three years previously or goes on to do so. All of that illustrates the point that reflecting the idea of a voluntary link to the UK justifies continued transmission of UK citizenship.
None of that can apply to the Chagossians; the situation there is obviously manifestly different. The only reason why Chagossians cannot pass on their British overseas territory citizenship is that they were forcibly removed from their islands. Nobody chose to make a new life in Mauritius or anywhere else—far from it. Nobody can say that they have voluntarily chosen to take on a new identity elsewhere. Any undermining or breaking of the link was completely forced on them in quite the most outrageous circumstances; that in itself should be enough to justify new clause 15.
The knock-on effect is that when the law was changed in 2002, while some Chagossians became British citizens as well as British overseas territory citizens, others missed out. They are now in the horrible situation where some have the right to rekindle their British identity and return here, but others do not. If I was a Chagossian whose parent was born just before being forcibly removed from the islands, and was therefore BOTC by birth, I am likely to be in a far better position than, for example, my cousin whose parents were born just days after being forced from the islands, and therefore cannot transmit their BOTC or British citizenship. When introducing the Bill, the Home Secretary said that it would mean children unfairly denied British overseas territory citizenship will finally be able to acquire citizenship, as well as British citizenship. What happened to the Chagossians, and what they still face today, is an absolute scandal. The least that we can do is ensure that all of them can access the nationality that the UK and US action deprived them of.
New clause 4 would fix another unfairness. I absolutely detest the restrictive rules that the Home Office has put in place on family visas, which say that someone must be earning certain sums of money before they can bring their non-national spouse or children here. Putting that to one side for the moment, even accepting the Government’s own logic, these provisions should not apply to the spouses and family members of Chagossians. Essentially, the Government logic is that if people choose to build a family life elsewhere and then come back to the UK, they should have certain financial means to support themselves and knowledge of the UK. However, again, Chagossians did not choose to make their family life outside British overseas territories—that was forced on them. It would now be totally unfair to restrict the right to come to the UK by imposing those rules on the families as if this was a choice they made.
It was a step in the right direction to provide British citizenship to some in 2002, but it is cruel to deny effective access to these routes by denying family members the right to come here. It is particularly cruel, given that the reason many will not be able to meet the financial threshold is the horrendous way they have been treated for decades and the extraordinary deprivation they have had to endure. I hope the Home Office will look to fix two of the many injustices that have been visited on the Chagossians.
Bambos Charalambous
I will speak to new clause 15, which is grouped with new clause 4. I fully endorse what the spokesperson for the SNP said.
New clause 15 seeks to rectify a long-standing issue in British nationality law that affects a relatively small number of people—the Chagossian people, descendants of the Chagos islanders, who were forcibly removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory in the 1960s. Between 1968 and 1974, the UK forcibly removed thousands of Chagossians from their homelands on the Chagos islands. The removal was done to make way for a US military base on Diego Garcia. The Chagossians were a settled population on the islands. Their origins trace back to 1793. They were removed and deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles, more than 1,600 km away from the Chagos islands, and have faced extreme poverty and discrimination in those places.
Because of the removal, many descendants of the Chagos islanders, despite being the grandchildren of people who were British subjects in the British Indian Ocean Territory, have been denied rights to British citizenship. The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 granted British citizenship to resettled Chagossians born between 1969 and 1982—the children of those born on the British Indian Ocean Territory. However, many Chagossians have still been denied citizenship, including second-generation Chagossians born outside those dates.
The grandchildren of those born on the British Indian Ocean Territory, third-generation Chagossians, do not have rights to British citizenship, as citizenship has not automatically passed to them, even if in some cases they migrated to the UK with their British parents at a very young age. That group therefore often become an undocumented presence in the UK once they reach the age of 18, and are denied access to jobs, housing and healthcare, despite having lived in the UK since a very young age.
The Chagossian community is divided between Mauritius, the Seychelles and the UK. Broken and divided families are therefore a direct consequence of this injustice in British nationality law. For 60 years, the Chagossian people have faced dispersal, poverty and separation. That has severely limited their life chances and damaged the health and wellbeing of generations of people.
The Bill in its current state does not cover the British citizenship and immigration issues that the Chagossian community faces. That is why the Opposition are introducing this new clause and why we wish to raise the issue today. It is worth exploring this unfairness in more detail, and the reasons why legislation has failed to rectify it to date.
Under British nationality law, citizenship is normally passed only to one generation born abroad. However, the situation of the Chagossians is fundamentally different from that of other inhabited British overseas territories, and applying that restriction to the Chagossians is unacceptable. As we know, their parents and grandparents were forcibly removed from their homeland and deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles. Since then, the Chagossian people have been born outside the Chagos archipelago and receive citizenship from Mauritius or the Seychelles, with no recognition of their long-standing ties to British nationality.
It is not possible for the descendants of the Chagos islanders to be born on the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory due to the Order in Council since 2004, which bans any Chagossian from living on their native land. That is deeply unfair. They have not severed links with their British citizenship voluntarily; they have been excluded by the UK Government. At this point I would like to share the personal experiences of those affected by that injustice. Like many in Committee, I have been contacted by members of the community, and I pay tribute to their campaigning efforts in incredibly distressing and difficult circumstances, including groups such as Chagossian Voices. Pascal Francois is one of those affected. He resides in Mauritius and is Chagossian. He says:
“For years we have suffered from the separation of our families, through no fault of our own. We are as British as you and the next person. We wish to be known as British, we belong to the UK & her territories. The Chagossian people in exile no longer want to live in the shadows of others. We want to belong and be British by descent.”
The battle for Chagossians’ rights has been raging for decades, and this group of people have been badly let down by the UK. Most Chagossian families, already financially impacted by their enforced exile, are paying—and have paid for many years—huge and increasing visa, immigration and citizenship fees, health surcharges and legal expenses for spouses and children with pending or rejected applications. This process has significantly damaged their health, wellbeing and livelihoods. It has caused immense stress. There is understandable frustration at the lack of support from the Home Office.
Tom Pursglove
I appreciate the positive intent behind new clause 4, which seeks to create a means whereby, in the future, British citizens who were born on, or descended from a person born on, the British Indian Ocean Territory will be able to bring their foreign national spouse or partner to the UK, without their being subject to the current financial and English language requirements for family migration.
I remind hon. Members that the minimum income requirement is based on in-depth analysis and advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee. The purpose of the requirement, implemented in July 2012 along with other reforms of the family immigration rules, is to ensure family migrants are supported at a reasonable level so they do not become a burden on the taxpayer and can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society. Family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense and family migrants must be able to integrate if they are to play a full part in British life.
The minimum income requirement was set following advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee, at £18,600 for sponsoring a partner, rising to £22,400 for also sponsoring a non-qualifying child and an additional £2,400 for each further such child. There is no flexibility in the level of the minimum income requirement, which must be met in all cases subject to the requirement; it is right and fair it should be consistently applied in all cases. Expecting family migrants and their sponsors to be financially independent is reasonable, both to them and the taxpayer.
In February 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the lawfulness of the minimum income requirement under the family immigration rules. The Court found the minimum income requirement is not a breach of the right to respect for a private and family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights and is not discriminatory. The Supreme Court endorsed our approach in setting an income requirement for family migration that prevents burdens on the taxpayer and ensures migrant families can integrate into our communities. The Supreme Court agreed that it strikes a fair balance between the interests of those wishing to sponsor a partner to settle in the UK and of the community in general.
Being able to speak English is also fundamental to successful integration into British society.
Stuart C. McDonald
I would just gently say that the response is slightly tone deaf. First, the Migration Advisory Committee has asked the Government to revisit the financial thresholds the Minister mentions. Secondly, we are talking about Chagossians who were forcibly removed from their islands. Consistency is fine, but these are truly exceptional circumstances. Surely most taxpayers would perfectly understand that different rules have to apply in these outrageous circumstances.
Tom Pursglove
In fairness, the hon. Gentleman has intervened early in my remarks on the new clauses. Let me continue, but I hear the point he raises, and I of course take it on board, in the way I take all comments from hon. Members on the Committee on board.
We expect those coming to the UK on a family visa with only basic English to become more fluent over time, as a means of encouraging better integration into our society, to make it easier for families to access vital public services and to enable parents to support their children’s education.
New clause 4 would undermine the sound basis on which family migration to this country has been placed in recent years. It would circumvent the need for family migration to be on a basis whereby families are financially independent and able to contribute to the UK. It would also remove the English language requirement, which is fundamental to a migrant’s successful integration into British society. There is no justifiable reason to give preferential treatment to family members based solely on their sponsor’s nationality. Without a clear justification for doing so, that would also likely constitute unlawful discrimination.
The immigration rules on family migration, which new clause 4 would undermine, are designed to prevent burdens on the taxpayer, promote integration and tackle abuse, and thereby ensure that family migration to the UK is on a properly sustainable basis that is fair to migrants and the wider community. The rules are helping to ensure public confidence in the immigration system and, well intended as the new clause may be, it has the potential to reverse that.
In the same way, the introduction of a dual family migration system as required by the new clause would not be seen in a uniformly positive way by British citizens and persons settled here. It would lead to an undesirable two-tier system of family migration in which a group of family members whose sponsor is a British citizen with a connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory would be given preferential treatment over other sponsors. Furthermore, the Government have the power under the Immigration Act 1971 to set out the requirements for entry into and stay in the UK in immigration rules, which are laid before Parliament. The rules allow flexibility to amend policy as appropriate, and the Government continue to review them regularly to ensure that they are fair and effective. Work is ongoing on simplification of the rules following the Law Commission’s recommendations. The new clause would have the effect of undermining that process and prescribing the rules in primary legislation for one particular cohort.
I turn to new clause 15. We are already making changes through the Bill to address historic unfairness so that all those born on the British Indian Ocean Territory and their children are either automatically British citizens or have the right to acquire British nationality. The new clause, tabled by the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Halifax, seeks to go much further and would address what is seen as the consequences of historic unfairness. Although I am sympathetic with the aim, I am concerned that that is not the correct approach. The new clause would offer British citizenship in perpetuity to those born outside the UK and overseas territories regardless of their connection to the UK as long as they are descendants of someone born on the islands making up the British Indian Ocean Territory.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am not entirely surprised that the Minister’s first point is about the lack of any limit. Would the new clause be more amenable to him if there was a limit on the degree of relationship there had to be with a Chagossian?
Tom Pursglove
If the hon. Gentleman lets me conclude my remarks, I hope that that will give him a little comfort on that point. The approach proposed by the new clause cannot be right and would undermine the long-standing principle of British nationality law that nationality or entitlements to nationality are not passed on to the second and subsequent generations born and settled outside the UK and territories.
I recognise, however, that the Chagossians present a unique case. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, who has long campaigned on behalf of the Chagossian communities both in his constituency and throughout the UK as vice chair of the Chagos islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group, has indicated his intention to table an amendment on this issue on Report. I would like to reflect further on the complex issues faced by Chagossian communities in the UK and those in Mauritius and the Seychelles that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—I am mindful of the cross-party view—before making any significant changes to nationality law.
Hon. Members from different parties have expressed views, and I have taken on board the points raised. I say to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that there is a willingness to look closely at the Chagossian issue. With that, I hope that hon. Members will be willing not to move their new clauses.
Stuart C. McDonald
As the Minister said, we will consider what has been said before we revisit this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Former British-Hong Kong service personnel: right of abode
‘(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 2(1) insert—
“(c) that person is a former member of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Hong Kong Royal Naval service, or
(d) that person is the spouse or dependent of a former member of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Hong Kong Royal Naval service.’—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would mean that all former British-Hong Kong service personnel, plus their spouses and dependents, would have right of abode in the UK.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is on a cause championed by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for many years: the 300 or so Hong Kong servicemen who seek UK citizenship in recognition of their service in the UK-Hong Kong Army before the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997. With family included, we are talking of about 1,000 people.
Hongkongers served in our armed forces from 1857 right up to 1997 through world wars and numerous other conflicts. Hong Kong servicemen are recognised by the Ministry of Defence as veterans. In the early 1990s, the British nationality selection scheme allowed certain British nationals—rather than citizens—who were permanent residents of Hong Kong with a right of abode and who met a number of other eligibility criteria to apply for full UK citizenship. Of 654 British-Hong Kong servicemen who applied, only 159 were granted citizenship. Until now, the Home Office has resisted the campaign, but surely recent developments mean that it is now irresistible and that the Home Office must think again.
The Home Office previously refused to budge on the grounds that veterans are deemed to have Chinese citizenship and that some were locally recruited staff, who could not have reasonably expected the right to British citizenship. However, those recent developments, which we understand and know only too well, have seen the Home Office introduce the really welcome scheme for British nationals overseas. It could have refused to establish any BNO scheme for precisely the same reason they have refused the campaign of the hon. Member for Romford. However, it rightly put those arguments aside. It should also put them aside in relation to these veterans, 97 of whom qualify for the BNO scheme. Let us build on that excellent work through a new clause such as this, which would ensure that all British-Hong Kong service personnel, plus their spouses and dependents, would have the right of abode in the UK. In the circumstances, surely it is the right thing to do.
The Chair
Before we adjourn the Committee, may I thank hon. Members for the courtesy with which they have conducted proceedings? These are contentious issues, and the Committee’s conduct has been commendable. I am grateful. I also offer my thanks on the Committee’s behalf to the staff and Officers of the House.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Subsidy Control Bill (Eighth sitting)
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we start the meeting, may I make a humble request? Everybody is advised to wear masks.
Clause 59
CMA report following mandatory or voluntary referral
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
As always, Mr Sharma, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Clause 59 specifies the contents of the report that must be produced by the subsidy advice unit on subsidies or schemes that are referred by public authorities or the Secretary of State. The SAU’s report must contain an evaluation of the public authority’s assessment of whether the subsidy or scheme complies with the subsidy control principles, prohibitions and other requirements. This will provide an additional layer of independent and impartial scrutiny of the most potentially harmful subsidies and schemes, shining a light on the public authority’s underlying assumptions and justifications for giving a subsidy or making a scheme.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked what would be in these reports, and whether the Competition and Markets Authority or the subsidy advice unit itself could add extra things. As long as those things are relevant, clearly, the subsidy advice unit can add more information. What it cannot do is directly comment on the legitimacy of a subsidy, because it is not an enforcement body: it is an advice unit, so there is a distinction there.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Post-award referrals
The Chair
We come now to amendment 55 to clause 60. Happy Diwali to Seema Malhotra and every other Member.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 60, page 33, line 20, after “Secretary of State” insert
“, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland”.
This amendment extends the post-award referral powers under this section to the Devolved Administrations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. You beat me to it: I wish you, and all who might be celebrating, a happy Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas today. It is a very auspicious day, and it is a pleasure to be debating the Bill on such an auspicious day.
Clause 60 gives the Secretary of State the power to refer subsidies or schemes to the CMA after they have been awarded. Although Labour supports the general principle of post-award referrals, there are key problems that we wish to raise about this clause, not least the asymmetry of powers between the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations, as well as some other key details. Amendment 55 has been tabled because, in our view, the Bill fails to provide the devolved Administrations with the proportionate and fair symmetry of powers that they should have, given that the Bill will operate across the UK.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Is that not the point, though? The hon. Lady said “across the UK”; this is a UK-wide scheme, so we have to have somebody in overall charge of the scheme, which is why we cannot have symmetry of powers for all the devolved regions. The Secretary of State is Secretary of State for the entire United Kingdom, so does it not have to be the case that he holds some powers that the devolved Administrations do not?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. He will see from the contributions of Opposition Members that we are not saying that exactly the same powers should be given in all circumstances to the devolved Administrations, but that there are areas in which arguments for the devolved Administrations having similar powers make sense within the context of how the regime may operate. With a view to how issues could be raised and dealt with, there may be very good reason for doing that. We propose this not for political purposes but because we seek a regime that will work effectively and with some symmetry of powers relating to the opportunity, where it would be helpful, to challenge subsidies. I will lay out a couple of reasons why.
The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make post-award referrals to the CMA but does not extend this power to the devolved Administrations. The specific purpose of the amendment is to extend the post-award referral powers in the clause to the devolved Administrations. As it stands, the Secretary of State can refer to the CMA subsidies granted in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that may be perceived to damage the interests of enterprises in England. However, the devolved Administrations cannot bring forward an argument. They may in time have good reason to refer subsidies—English or others—to the CMA that they may perceive damage interests within the devolved Administration areas.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I do not intent to speak to the amendment, but I want the Opposition spokesperson to know that she has my full backing for it.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution in response to the challenge to us from the Government side, which I do not think is at all fair, because we have not at any point argued against this being a reserved power or the overall structure of the Bill. We have genuinely sought to amend the Bill to make sure that there is a fair and sustainable settlement that commands the confidence of all our nations.
Powers on subsidies and the regime overall should reside in Westminster, and we understand that it is crucial that subsidies under the regime do not distort the UK’s internal market—we would raise little concern on that, and we think it is vital that that is the case—but as such, devolved Administrations, such as the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Senedd, should have the opportunity to receive the CMA’s advice on subsidies that they consider could damage their national interest. It is not only Labour that thinks that. During the evidence session on 26 October, George Peretz QC, a barrister specialising in state aid, said:
“In a situation where an English local authority, the Secretary of State or another UK Government body acting as an English Department does something that is designed to benefit England but causes serious concern in Scotland or Wales, why should the Welsh or Scottish Ministers not be able to do the same thing if the concern is with competition or investment within the United Kingdom? I find it slightly hard to see what the argument against that is.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 44, Q63.]
Could the Minister share his reflections on those comments? Perhaps he will offer a robust argument for not allowing the devolved Administrations to make post-award referrals, because we fail to see a valid argument for that exclusion. Instead, it feels more like a lack of a fair distribution of powers, and something we should consider as the Bill makes progress. We therefore propose the amendment.
We hope that the Committee sees its importance in ensuring that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland feel that they have a fair role in the subsidy regime. I will await the Minister’s remarks before deciding what we shall do on this amendment.
Paul Scully
The amendment would extend the Secretary of State’s post-award referral power, set out in the clause, to the devolved Administrations. The debate is similar to one we had earlier. The Government intend to use the power in exceptional circumstances and it will be fully transparent, as a direction will be published in an appropriate place, which is usually gov.uk.
It is worth my being absolutely clear that the power simply allows for additional scrutiny and transparency of the public authority’s assessment that took place before it gave the subsidy or made the scheme in question. The measure does not make the subsidy unlawful after the fact, nor does it block the public authority from giving more subsidies under the scheme in question. I reassure the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston that any use of the post-award referral power will be transparent. When the Secretary of State exercises the power, the direction must also be published in an appropriate manner. That will make it clear that the power is being used appropriately and only in those exceptional circumstances.
Turning to the amendment, I believe that the call-in power should remain a matter for the Secretary of State only. Subsidy control is a reserved policy area, as we have heard. As I said when speaking to amendment 52 to clause 55, the Secretary of State’s responsibilities for subsidy control are UK-wide and, as in all matters, he will act in the interests of the whole of the UK. That includes responsibility for overseeing the system as a whole and ensuring that subsidies granted across the UK are compliant with our international obligations.
In the event that one or more of the devolved Administrations had serious concerns about a subsidy given or a scheme made, they would of course be able to request that the Secretary of State use the call-in power, as I said earlier. The Secretary of State would carefully consider any request from his counterparts in the devolved Administrations on that, as in any other policy matter. I stress again, as I said on the formulation of the Bill and as we will on the guidance for and the running of the regime, we will continue to engage as closely as we can with all our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I believe, therefore, that it is neither appropriate nor necessary for the devolved Administrations to have the same ability to trigger a post-award referral. For the reasons that I have provided, I request that the hon. Lady withdraws the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. I fail to see an explanation. I understand the restatement of his position, but I feel that the argument was missing. This area is important to the effectiveness of the regime as a whole and over time, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 60, page 33, line 27, at end insert—
“(c) that there is a risk of negative effects on competition or investment between the United Kingdom and a territory or country outside the United Kingdom.”
This amendment provides that a post-award referral can be made where the Secretary of State considers that a subsidy or scheme risks competition or investment between the UK and a third country.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 57, in clause 60, page 34, line 1, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“the day on which the subsidy is given or the scheme is made.”
This amendment would provide the Secretary of State with 20 working days beginning on which a subsidy is given or a scheme is made.
Seema Malhotra
It is my pleasure to move amendment 56 and to speak to amendment 57. We would like to address some further important gaps that we think exist in clause 60. First, as the clause stands, the Secretary of State cannot make a post-award referral on the basis that a subsidy may distort competition between the UK and a third country. In an article on 5 July entitled “UK Subsidy Control Bill—a brief summary”, George Peretz QC said that
“oddly, the Secretary of State does not appear to have that power if the possible subsidy only affects foreign countries, though such subsidies could well cause difficulty at international level.”
Labour is therefore proposing amendment 56, which would allow the Secretary of State to make post-award referrals on the basis that a subsidy or scheme is distorting international competition. We hope the Committee can understand why this is an important amendment. If the Government choose not to support it, will the Minister outline what the reason is and why the Government do not feel the need to refer subsidies that distort international competition to the CMA?
Secondly, we are proposing amendment 57, which would change the Secretary of State’s time to refer a subsidy or scheme to the CMA from 20 days after it is published on the database to 20 days after it is granted. The amendment is not intended to be used as a tool for reducing the time for post-award referrals; rather, it is intended to ensure that the Secretary of State can refer to the CMA grants that public authorities have incorrectly not categorised as a subsidy and that have therefore not been posted on the database. We hope the Minister recognises that, as the Bill currently stands, there is a loophole whereby subsidies incorrectly not identified can escape scrutiny and transparency. Amendment 57 is an attempt to close the loophole, and I therefore hope that the Government will work with us and support it.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you for chairing this afternoon’s meeting, Mr Sharma. I have a brief comment about the omission of the power set out in amendment 56. I would appreciate it if the Minister could let us know what assessment he has made of its compatibility with the trade and co-operation agreement and the World Trade Organisation rules if the Bill does not contain the power that the Opposition are suggesting should be put in via amendment 56.
Paul Scully
Clause 60, as we have heard, provides a power for the Secretary of State to direct a public authority to refer a subsidy or scheme to the subsidy advice unit after it has been given or made. The power can be used where the Secretary of State judges that there is risk of failure to comply with the subsidy control requirements, or of negatively impacting on competition and investment within the UK. The purpose of the power is to ensure that there is an opportunity for the subsidy advice unit to provide independent scrutiny and evaluation of the public authority’s assessment of compliance with the subsidy control requirements in circumstances where the subsidy or scheme was not subject to mandatory referral before the subsidy was given or the scheme was made. That independent analysis will increase transparency and provide useful information to the Secretary of State and any potential interested parties, if they are considering a judicial review challenge to the subsidy or scheme. In circumstances whereby the subsidy is given in multiple instalments or further subsidies will be given under the scheme, it may also give the public authority advice that allows it to make adjustments for future instalments or subsidies.
Amendment 56 would add a further scenario that would permit the Secretary of State to direct a referral where they were concerned about a subsidy or scheme’s potential impact on competition and investment between the United Kingdom and other territories. Clause 60(2)(b) explicitly underlines that a referral may be made where
“there is a risk of negative effects on competition or investment within the United Kingdom.”
That is important, because it reflects the domestic character of the new subsidy control regime and emphasises our commitment to protecting our vibrant free market economy.
However, as we have heard, the subsidy control regime is also concerned with impacts on international trade and investment and, in order to comply with our international obligations, this is enshrined in the subsidy control principles. In particular, principle G requires that the benefits of a subsidy or scheme outweigh the negative effects, including those on international trade and investment.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister is attempting to explain why the Government have explicitly included one of the principles, but not the other principle. It seems to me, if one principle is included, they all need to be included, or none of them. Giving extra importance to one principle suggests that the other principles are less important, and therefore amendment 56 makes a huge amount of sense to me.
Paul Scully
I will come back to that in a second, but let me finish talking about principle G. If the Secretary of State has concerns that a subsidy does not comply with principle G, or any other subsidy control requirement that is connected to international trade or our international obligations, then they may already direct a referral under subsection 2(a) of this clause, meaning that this amendment is redundant.
I also want to point out that the Bill deliberately refers to “trade or investment” between the UK and other territories, rather than “competition or investment”. The Secretary of State does not have any role in managing the balance of competition between nations. That is enshrined in those obligations.
Amendment 57 concerns the time limits for the referral power in clause 60. The Bill limits this power to within 20 working days from either the day in which the subsidy or scheme is entered onto the transparency database, or, where a subsidy or scheme is exempted from that requirement, 20 working days from the date the subsidy is given or made. These timeframes mean there is a significant window during which a post-award referral may be made. Most subsidies and schemes must be entered on to the database within six months of being given or made, while for tax measures, as we have discussed, the period is within a year.
Amendment 57 removes the ability to issue a post-award referral following entry on the transparency database, and would only allow a referral within 20 days of the subsidy being awarded or made. There is no loophole, as was suggested, but 20 days after the upload of the database is the end of the time period when the referral needs to be made. It does not start with the date of the upload on the database.
Kirsty Blackman
On the point the Minister made in relation to “competition or investment” and the disparity between that and “trade or investment”, if the Opposition amendment referred to “trade or investment”, would it be acceptable to the Minister?
Paul Scully
Again, the principles are enshrined, and it is the principle that complies with those international treaty obligations.
Going back to the timeframes, amendment 57 would have the effect of curtailing the power and reducing the opportunity to provide transparency on the most concerning subsidies. That would mean, in some circumstances, the deadline could have expired before the Secretary of State or any interested party had any news of the subsidy at all. The additional scrutiny and transparency offered by this measure will undoubtably be lost in some cases which may have benefited from the use of this power, and risks undermining confidence in the system as a whole. I therefore request that the hon. Member withdraw amendment 56.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for their comments.
The Minister referred to principle G in schedule 1, which I was going to refer to in my final comments. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North highlighted, there seems to be an asymmetry between G (a) and (b) and what is reflected in clause 60(2). I take the point that using the word “trade” better reflects the wording in principle G, but the asymmetry issue remains. It might end up causing confusion because, on one hand, there is what is implied under principle G (a) and (b), but on the other clause 60(2)(b) says
“there is a risk of negative effects on competition or investment within the United Kingdom.”
It seems almost to imply that this power covers G (a) but not G (b), and I would hate for there to be confusion about this that was not intended.
I will not push the amendment to a Division, but I would be grateful if, perhaps in writing, the Minister could clarify this, and provide a more detailed note about how and where those powers may apply to risks of negative effects on international trade or investment. It is important that there is integrity in the Bill. If we have misunderstood something, that is absolutely fine, but if there is a gap or an area that could perhaps lead to confusion about what is and is not subject to a legal challenge, it would be helpful to resolve that earlier rather than later.
Paul Scully
I think that it is a misunderstanding, but I am happy to write to clarify that.
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
Clause 60 provides a power for the Secretary of State to direct a public authority to refer a subsidy or scheme to the subsidy advice unit after it has already been given or made.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
CMA reporting period for post-award referrals
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 61, page 34, line 23, after “section 60” insert
“, or makes a decision to investigate under section [Post-award investigations],”.
This amendment is a consequential amendment linked to NC3.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Post-award investigations—
“(1) The CMA may decide to conduct an investigation in relation to a subsidy that has been given or a subsidy scheme that has been made.
(2) A decision under subsection (1) may be made in relation to any subsidy or subsidy scheme in respect of which the CMA considers—
(a) that there has or may have been a failure to comply with the requirements of Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 2, or
(b) that there has or may have been a failure to comply with the transparency obligations set out in Chapter 3 of the Part 2.
(3) Where the CMA makes a decision to investigate under subsection (1), it must direct the public authority to provide it with—
(a) any assessment carried out by the public authority as to whether the financial assistance fell within the meaning of “subsidy” or “subsidy scheme” for the purposes of this Act, and the reasons for that conclusion;
(b) any assessment carried out by the public authority as to whether the financial assistance if assessed to constitute a subsidy or subsidy scheme would comply with the requirements of Chapter 1 and 2 of Part 2 and the reasons for that conclusion;
(c) any evidence relevant to those assessments;
(d) in a case where such assessments were not provided, the reasons for the assessments not being provided;
(e) any information that the public authority failed to enter in the subsidy database in accordance with Chapter 3 of Part 2; and
(f) such other information as is specified in regulations under section 60(8)(a).
(4) Where the CMA decides to conduct an investigation under subsection (1), the direction given under subsection (3) must be made before the end of 20 working days beginning with the day on which the subsidy is given or the scheme is made.
(5) The CMA must send a copy of the direction given under subsection (3) to the public authority and the Secretary of State.
(6) The public authority must provide to the CMA the information required under subsection (3) before the end of the information period as defined in section 60(7).”
This new clause provides the CMA with the power to conduct a post-award investigation where the public authority has or may have failed to comply with its requirements.
Seema Malhotra
It is pleasure to move amendment 58 and to speak to new clause 3. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so, because we think that this is quite an important area in which to seek some wider changes to improve the Bill.
In relation to post-award referrals, new clause 3 says that the CMA must publish a report on the subsidy or scheme within 30 working days. That reporting period may be extended by agreement between the CMA and the public authority, or the CMA may in certain circumstances request an extension from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may also make regulations that amend the length of the reporting period.
We support clause 61 overall and will vote for it to stand part. However, new clause 3 would extend the CMA’s powers with regard to post-award referrals. This is an issue that George Peretz outlined in his evidence to us. New clause 3 would allow the CMA to conduct post-award investigations into subsidies or schemes on its own initiative. The aim of the new clause is to ensure that, as mentioned in our previous discussion, subsidies that are, perhaps incorrectly, not categorised as subsidies and that therefore avoid scrutiny and transparency are able to be scrutinised should they come to light. George Peretz told us:
“There is an issue about the position of subsidies that are not recognised by the granting authority as subsidies.”
He added that
“it will be true under the definition of subsidy in the Bill, that there is room for considerable disagreement and argument about whether certain types of measures are subsidies at all.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 42, Q61.]
Will the Minister enlighten the Committee as to his reflections on that? It is a genuine area of concern for someone who is a distinguished lawyer in the field. Does the Minister recognise that the Bill therefore appears to contain loopholes with regard to subsidies that may deliberately not be defined as such, and are therefore not formally recognised as such?
Paul Scully
Clause 61 sets out the process for the subsidy advice unit’s report following a post-award referral by the Secretary of State under clause 60. Amendment 58 provides for a new clause to be inserted after clause 61, seeking to establish a power for the subsidy advice unit to initiate a post-award referral of its own accord. The amendment inserts a reference to the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston.
I will start by setting out the policy rationale behind the specific role for the new subsidy advice unit set out in the Bill. The Government believe that subsidy control is far more than a box-ticking exercise. It is essential to protect UK competition and investment and to ensure that we are compliant with our international commitments. However, some commentators, and perhaps some hon. Members, seem to believe that the highest form—the gold standard—of subsidy control is the EU state aid regime. I entirely reject that view. Public authorities controlled by all parties have faced delays, unnecessary bureaucracy, and disproportionate prohibitions.
The Bill will establish a strong subsidy control regime that safeguards our vibrant free market economy. It also makes the most of the opportunities of exiting the EU by avoiding the complex and stifling rules and regulation that are a hallmark of EU state aid.
Seema Malhotra
In relation to the debates on Second Reading and others that we have had in good faith in relation to the Bill, it is important not to draw on arguments that are not relevant or pertinent to the clear point being made. There may well be public authorities that, for all intents and purposes, are granting subsidies—spending public money—without categorising them as subsidies. In doing so, they avoid being held publicly accountable and being challenged and scrutinised in relation to the subsidy control principles. If that is the case, what happens, and who can act if a challenge should be brought?
Paul Scully
I was just about to turn to enforcement. The role of the subsidy advice unit is one of the most important pillars of our new approach. It strikes the right balance, as part of an enabling regime that is none the less robust in its protection of competition and investment.
The unit will enhance the scrutiny and transparency of the subsidies that are most likely to lead to distortive or harmful effects. In doing so, it will provide reassurance to public authorities giving subsidies that they have appropriately considered the subsidy control requirements. I welcome that—it speaks exactly to the hon. Lady’s point.
The subsidy advice unit is not a regulator. It does not have investigatory or enforcement powers. The mechanism for enforcement of the new domestic subsidy control regime set out in the Bill is the process of a judicial review challenge in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
I start from the position that most if not all public authorities take their statutory obligations very seriously, as they do their obligations to spend taxpayers’ money effectively, and to balance the positive effects of their interventions against the costs to UK competition and investment. Of course, there is a need for safeguards and enforcement mechanisms and, as hon. Members have emphasised, for transparency and opportunities for public scrutiny, but a statutory obligation is none the less a powerful tool.
Under the UK constitution, the normal way to challenge the actions of a public authority in respect of their statutory obligations is through judicial review in UK courts and tribunals. We have taken that path in the Bill, broadly replicating the judicial review process in part 5 of the Bill, so that cases can be brought to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, with some adjustments and additions to account for the specificities of giving subsidies. Most notably, that means that we have provided for a recovery mechanism.
New clause 3 would give an investigatory role to the subsidy advice unit that is at odds with the specific and limited role set out in the Bill. We want an agile and responsive regime that firmly places decision making and responsibility with the public authorities. That allows space for innovation and creative solutions to local policy problems, while protecting competition and investment through a measured risk-based approach to enforcement.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston may or may not agree with that vision, but we do not believe that the new clause represents a viable or credible alternative. It does not establish how the SAU may come by information directly that may lead it to launch an investigation. It does not establish any incentive for a public authority to comply with any such investigation, nor any consequences for failing to do so. It does not provide the means for the SAU to compel a public authority to co-operate with any such investigation, nor does it suggest in what way the SAU should analyse the information it gathers through its investigation. It does not offer any meaningful improvement to the Bill.
The hon. Lady asked what would happen with a subsidy of particular interest that has not been sent to the CMA. It is then a prohibited subsidy. That is covered in the Bill. The appropriate avenue is through the Competition Appeal Tribunal, if it has caused harm.
Seema Malhotra
There is a lot to work through and to disentangle about what exactly would happen. The first question that would need to be asked in such a situation is, “Is this a subsidy?” Which body does the Minister consider is the right body to confirm whether it is a subsidy within the definitions and the regime in the Bill? Is it the Competition Appeal Tribunal? Or would it be, in normal circumstances, the CMA? It would be helpful to know.
Paul Scully
It is the public authority. That is the whole point of the permissive approach in the Bill. The guidance that will be published and the principles that are set out in the Bill, alongside the ability to refer to the subsidy advice unit, will give the public authority the knowledge it needs.
Seema Malhotra
I understand that point—it is a fundamental part of how the regime will operate. In a circumstance where, either deliberately or mistakenly, a public authority does not categorise its subsidy as a subsidy and it is not entered on the database, and therefore it is not subject to the same opportunity for scrutiny and challenge, but it is then identified and raised through some other means, one of the first questions will be whether or not it is a subsidy. I do not think that in that circumstance we can go back to the public authority and have it mark its own homework, so would the institution responding to the challenge answer whether it is a subsidy, or would it be the Competition Appeal Tribunal, or would it be the CMA?
Paul Scully
It would be the Competition Appeal Tribunal, because the enforcement is done through judicial review.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for that. That is helpful for us to take away and reflect on within the context of the flow of functions in the Bill, and I think we will come back to it. He talked about some questions that our new clause might give rise to. If the Government change their mind, and consider that there might be a gap and a different way of addressing it, we would of course be very happy to make some suggestions in addition to new clause 3. Somehow this needs to be more clearly defined within the context of the whole regime. It is important for transparency, value for money and to ensure that where public authorities may, deliberately or otherwise, seek to avoid the scrutiny of the regime, it is easier to bring that back in, and for there to be transparency. 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
Clause 61 sets out the timeframe within which the subsidy advice unit must publish its post-award report on a subsidy or subsidy scheme once it has been referred to by the Secretary of State.
Seema Malhotra
We will support clause stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
CMA report following post-award referral
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 62, page 35, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment modifies the content of the CMA’s post-award report to ensure consistency with the content of the pre-award report required under clause 59.
Paul Scully
Amendment 4 is a minor change to clause 62(4), which sets out the requirements for the SAU’s report following post-award referral. The amendment ensures clarity and consistency between the reports produced by the subsidy advice unit for both pre-award and post-award referrals. The effect of the amendment is to remove provision for the subsidy advice unit to offer optional advice on changes required to mitigate the distortive effects of a subsidy or scheme as part of its report following the post-award referral of a subsidy or scheme. On reflection, and having worked closely with SAU colleagues on the design of their functions, the Government decided that a separate provision was unnecessary for both pre-award and post-award reports.
Clause 62(4)(a) already provides for the SAU to offer optional advice on how a subsidy or scheme might be modified to better comply with the subsidy control requirements under chapters 1 and 2 of part 2 of the Bill. The subsidy control requirements include the obligation to ensure that subsidies are consistent with the principles, including principle F, which provides that subsidies should minimise
“any negative effects on competition or investment within the United Kingdom.”
Subsection (4)(a) therefore already enables the subsidy advice unit to advise on how any adverse impact on competition and investment could be mitigated to ensure consistency with the subsidy control principle. Subsection (4)(b) is therefore unnecessary. The amendment removes the redundant paragraph for the clarity and consistency that I talked about, with the pre-award referral reports detailed under clause 59, where there is no separate provision of that kind.
Kirsty Blackman
I am baffled by this Government amendment. It seems to be directly opposite to what the Opposition moved. The Opposition were concerned that one of the principles was mentioned in the post-award referrals clause, but the others were not. With amendment 5, the Minister concedes that one of the principles should not be mentioned and is therefore asking for it to be taken out of clause 62 but not of the post-award referrals clause. To clause 60, he argued, I think, that it was okay to include one of the principles, but not the others. I am confused about why he made one argument at one point in the debate but is now arguing the opposite—for the removal of one of those principles.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Sharma. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North makes a good point, which we reiterate, about amendment 5, which we will come to because of its relation to our amendments to clause 64.
Paul Scully
On the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, in the previous sitting we talked about UK competition and investment. It simply emphasises the point about UK competition and investment. It does not have any significant effect, because it is already captured in the guiding principles. We want to make sure that there is absolute clarity for businesses and public authorities with clause 62.
Kirsty Blackman
So the principle has been removed from clause 62 but is being kept under clause 60? Is that correct? There is no Government amendment to remove that provision from clause 60, but the Government felt it was so important that they need to remove it from clause 62, even though it is literally the same—whether it is post-award referrals or CMA reports following a post-award referral. I am just baffled by the inconsistency, to be honest.
Paul Scully
There is no Government amendment to clause 60.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 62 specifies the content of the subsidy advice unit’s report on a subsidy or scheme that is referred by the Secretary of State after being given or made. The subsidy advice unit must evaluate any assessment that the public authority has provided as to whether the subsidy or scheme would comply with the subsidy control principles, prohibitions and other requirements. If an assessment was not provided, that fact must be recorded in the report, along with any reasons provided by the public authority as to why an assessment was not provided. If the subsidy or scheme is ongoing, the subsidy advice unit may also provide advice about how the subsidy or scheme might be modified with a view to ensuring compliance with the principles, prohibitions and other requirements. Finally, the Secretary of State may make further provision by regulation as to the content and form of the post-award referral report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Referrals in relation to subsidy schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 63 excludes individual subsidies granted through the mechanism of a subsidy scheme from being capable of referral to the subsidy advice unit under part 4. That aligns with the approach taken throughout the Bill. Public authorities may create subsidy schemes providing for the giving of individual subsidies. It is the scheme itself that must be assessed for its compliance with the subsidy control requirements, rather than the individual subsidies granted within the scheme. It is likewise the scheme that falls to be challenged in the CAT for failure to comply with the subsidy control requirements. Ultimately, it is not necessary to refer subsidies given under a scheme because they can be given only within the set parameters of that scheme, and the scheme itself is capable of being referred to the subsidy advice unit.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Michael Tomlinson)
Very good.
Bill Esterson
I say to the hon. Member who spoke from a sedentary position that it was not very good. As we have said throughout the—
Bill Esterson
I think he is trying to intervene. I would not take an intervention from him anyway, because he does not wear a mask.
I rise to reiterate our concern about the lack of transparency throughout the Bill and how subsidies cannot be called in when they are under schemes. That is a continuous thread. The real concern is that potential abuses can be missed as a result of that approach. The clause exempts subsidies under schemes from a review, from post-award referrals and from voluntary referrals. We agree that schemes provide a quicker and easier route to provide subsidies, but that should not mean that subsidies awarded under those schemes should escape due scrutiny. If there is not a problem with a subsidy, there is nothing to be concerned about, but if there is a problem with a subsidy awarded under a scheme, there needs to be a mechanism, and I hope the Minister will explain what that mechanism will be, because I do not think we have heard during our deliberations about the scrutiny of potential problems with subsidies awarded under schemes.
There is the potential for a back door of free, unscrutinised public cash being opened up. We have seen problems throughout the pandemic where scrutiny was removed. I will not go over them in too much detail. We have heard about them already, such as the Health Secretary’s pub landlord, advisers to the Board of Trade, and the problems of Randox and the now former right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson)—I understand, hot off the press, that he has resigned. Some £3.5 billion-worth of covid-19 contracts were awarded to firms with links to the Conservative party, according to Government procurement data. That is an example of why we need adequate scrutiny.
Bill Esterson
It is an example of why scrutiny is required in this legislation.
Bill Esterson
There is a monumental lack of scrutiny in the clause that should not be allowed to continue, so we will oppose it.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a few questions. Are there any circumstances in which a subsidy given under a subsidy scheme could be considered of interest or of particular interest where the scheme itself is not considered of interest or particular interest? If that is the case, is it possible to ensure that a subsidy scheme in which any of the potential subsidies are considered as possibly of interest or particular interest is subject to the mandatory or voluntary referral, rather than the subsidies given under those schemes not being subject to any referral, despite the fact that some of them might tick the boxes and some will not? Does the Minister see what I mean?
I understand that the question is complicated but, specifically, I am concerned about the lack of ability to refer individual subsidies. Only subsidy schemes may be referred to the mandatory or voluntary referral process; the subsidies made under those schemes may not be referred. However, if we had a scheme that seems to tick all the normal boxes to make it acceptable as a subsidy scheme—it is given under clause 10 and all makes sense—but one of the subsidies given under that scheme is something that is of interest or particular interest, will the Minister confirm that that scheme will therefore be subject to mandatory referral, even if only one of the subsidies given under the scheme is of interest or particular interest?
Even from reading clause 10, I am not sure quite how tight “subsidy scheme” is drawn. Subsidy schemes—given the schemes we have seen in relation to covid, for example—can be incredibly wide and apply to a significant number of industries, whereas the Secretary of State might have made it clear that any subsidies given under agriculture, for example, are considered as particular interest. A scheme could apply to everything in a certain area—widely drawn—but might not be challengeable in its own right.
Paul Scully
If a scheme can contain a subsidy of interest or particular interest, that scheme becomes a scheme of interest or particular interest, depending on the circumstances. That is therefore very much the case.
In answer to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central on hiding subsidies and distorted payments, we have the basic level of how to treat public money—the statutory obligations on those public authorities that we discussed earlier—but the schemes themselves do not provide a back door for potentially multiple subsidies; public authorities have to consider the principles of the scheme, in the same way as they would for individual subsidies. They must not make a scheme if they judge that any subsidy within that scheme conflicts with any of the principles.
The decision to make the scheme has exactly the same risk-based scrutiny of the potential challenges as the decision to award a subsidy—especially those schemes of particular interest, which are called in by the Secretary of State and must be referred to the subsidy advice unit.
Bill Esterson
I want to tease out some information from the Minister. He used the phrase “risk-based scrutiny”, but I get no sense of what, if there is abuse of a scheme, the mechanism is to ensure that the subsidies within the schemes are not applied in a distorted way or in a way that misuses public money. That is the bit that I do not get.
Paul Scully
The scheme itself will be challengeable.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 64, page 36, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
This amendment removes the exemptions in relation to the CMA’s referrals and functions, for streamlined subsidy schemes and minimal financial assistance.
We are all having fun changing our minds this afternoon—well, maybe the Government are not changing theirs too much. We have tabled amendments 59 and 60, and the combined effect of those amendments would be to remove
“the exemptions in relation to the CMA’s referrals and functions, for streamlined subsidy schemes and minimal financial assistance.”
We understand that it may well be appropriate to exempt certain subsidies from review. During a natural disaster or a national or global economic emergency, it makes sense that subsidies designed to alleviate those emergencies should be exempt from the regulations. The same goes for a national security emergency; matters related to Bank of England monetary policy; legacy and withdrawal agreement subsidies; tax measures; special public economic interest assistance; and large cross- border or international co-operation projects. However, Government amendment 5 acknowledges that it would not be appropriate for subsidies in relation to nuclear energy to be exempt from due scrutiny, so this is about being consistent. That goes to the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has made a number of times today alone, about whether subsidies awarded in unexceptional circumstances—namely, streamlined subsidy schemes and minimal financial assistance—should be free from appropriate transparency and scrutiny. We are being consistent by continuing that point.
During the debate on clause 63 stand part, I did not get an answer to my question about why the Minister believes that those subsidy schemes should be exempt from regulations. I go back to what Professor Rickard told us in Committee:
“The benefits of transparency, and more of it, outweigh the costs…I would encourage Members to think carefully about the ways in which we could further increase the transparency to ensure that the UK was a world leader in transparency in subsidies and so as to help to provide consistency and certainty for business and accountability to taxpayers.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 19, Q22.]
The Minister—and, from memory, the Secretary of State on Second Reading—talked about this domestic subsidy scheme being an opportunity to demonstrate a new way of operating a state aid regime, having left the EU system behind us. Indeed, some of the questions that hon. Members asked during the evidence session were of a similar nature: they were about what we could learn and what we could do in order to have the best possible system and lead the world. That is what the spirit of this amendment is about: improving transparency to deliver the best quality of regime possible. As Thomas Pope said when summed up his evidence:
“My view is that there is a benefit to more transparency.”—[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 20, Q24.]
We have made the point multiple times about the importance of transparency in public expenditure and what a good thing it is, because without it, there is a danger of public finances being spent recklessly without consideration of value for money. Our amendments would ensure that when a subsidy is awarded in unexceptional circumstances, there is adequate transparency. Again, I have to ask the Minister why he is so resistant to increased transparency in this part of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to raise specific concerns about the first part of this amendment—I am not concerned about the amendment, but I have concerns relating to the first part of it, which is about taking out paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) relates to streamlined subsidy schemes, which were discussed in clause 10. In clause 10, the streamlined subsidy schemes are allowed to be made only by a Minister of the Crown, rather than by anybody else. I understand the Minister’s desire for an ability to make streamlined subsidy schemes—that makes sense. Unfortunately, the amendments that were tabled to widen that out to allow the devolved Administrations to make streamlined subsidy schemes were not accepted.
The exemption of streamlined subsidy schemes from the whole of chapter 1 of part 4 bothers me. If the whole point of the streamlined subsidy schemes is in order for things to happen quickly, I understand that the Minister would not want the mandatory or voluntary referral process to apply in respect of them. However, I do not understand how he can justify the post-award referrals not taking place specifically for streamlined subsidy schemes. It is completely reasonable that, should a streamlined subsidy scheme be about a subject of interest or particular interest, a post-award referral should take place.
I understand completely that the subsidy scheme needs to go before Parliament in order to become a streamlined subsidy scheme, but Parliament is not always right. Sometimes Parliament is wrong, and sometimes it bears scrutiny from experts such as the CMA, which should have the ability to look at this as a post-award thing. I would probably not have gone quite as far as the Labour Front Bench, although I will support this amendment, but I have particular concerns about the lack of post-award scrutiny for streamlined subsidy schemes. If we have a parliamentary process, we are not getting the benefit of the CMA’s advice or its consideration.
It is the case that mistakes were made during the course of covid. Things were done too quickly, and errors were made as a result. An after-the-fact examination to find out what went wrong and whether it is possible to do better next time would be helpful, particularly around streamlined subsidy schemes. Once again, that is not about trying to remove the speed of the process—I understand why the Minister wants that speed—but about a post-award or post-subsidy scheme set-up check to ensure that things are going the way the Government intend them to go.
Paul Scully
Clause 64 provides for a limited number of exemptions from some or all of the provisions on the referral of subsidies and schemes to the SAU. The objective of subsections 1 and 2 is to list the types to which it is inappropriate for the SAU referral provisions to apply.
In some cases, the substantive subsidy control requirements do not apply, so it is not possible to evaluate a public authority’s compliance with those requirements. In other cases, the subsidy needs to be given so quickly, as we have heard, that it would not be appropriate to add an additional process that could delay the subsidy.
In the case of streamlined subsidy schemes, the subsidy or scheme will already be subject to additional scrutiny and transparency through other means. They will be developed by the Government through engagement with experts and other public authorities and, once made, they will be laid before Parliament. I take the point of view of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but it is the development beforehand that will provide the scrutiny, input and engagement that will then come to this place.
Amendment 59 would bring streamlined subsidy schemes and minimal financial assistance subsidies into the scope of part 4, chapter 1, and therefore make them subject to referrals to the CMA. Of course, the CMA’s role in this regime is to help public authorities to make assessments against the subsidy control requirements, so that subsidies do not unduly distort competition. It is not necessary for streamlined subsidy schemes or minimal financial assistance subsidies to be referred to the CMA, because these types of subsidy are those that are less likely to distort competition in the first place.
We as a Government intend to use streamlined subsidy schemes for low-risk and non-contentious subsidies, to ease the administrative burden for other public authorities of giving subsidies within those terms. The streamlined schemes are available for public authorities to use, if they choose to, when granting commonly used subsidies. As such, streamlined routes will be carefully designed to minimise distortive effects on competition. Streamlined subsidy schemes will be developed and publicised as part of the subsidy control regime. As I have already said, we will continue to engage with experts, public authorities and subsidy recipients as we prepare for implementation, and that engagement will cover streamlined subsidy schemes. If necessary, the Government will also be able to obtain advice from the experts in the subsidy advice unit in developing the schemes under existing powers. Once made, they will be laid before Parliament, so that Members will be able to examine the schemes for themselves. Finally, I should emphasise that the schemes are still subject to the subsidy control requirements. In the very unlikely event that there are grounds to think that they may not comply with the subsidy control principles, they can be challenged in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
The subsidy control requirements do not apply to the exemption for minimal financial assistance, simply because small subsidies are not generally capable of causing serious distortions of competition. We have previously heard from the Opposition that MFA exemptions should not exist at all, but that position is fundamentally at odds with the Government’s intention that the new subsidy control regime should enable public authorities to award subsidies more quickly and easily in order to meet local needs and drive economic growth. Although the subsidy control requirements are not burdensome, they would still constitute an unnecessary barrier to giving small, less distortive subsidies, and I would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Sefton Central to the consultation, in which 92% of respondents agreed with the Government’s proposal that subsidies below the threshold of £325,000 special drawing rights, which approximates to £336,000, should be exempted from the subsidy control requirements. We have therefore proposed a threshold of £315,000 in the Bill, to account for exchange rate fluctuations.
I have already made the case for exempting minimal financial assistance from the subsidy control requirements. As I have said, the role of the subsidy advice unit is to advise public authorities in assessing subsidies against the subsidy control requirements. When those requirements do not apply, as in this case, it is illogical for there to be a possibility of referrals to the subsidy advice unit. As such, I believe it is unnecessary for streamlined subsidy schemes and minimal financial assistance to be subject to the referral provisions in part 4 of the Bill. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member for Sefton Central to withdraw the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a quick question for the Minister, which he does not have to answer now. I would appreciate it if he could consider when a streamlined subsidy scheme is being published and set before Parliament. He has made it clear that a number of people will be consulted and that it will be drawn up in parallel with thinking from experts and potential recipients of the subsidy scheme. That is fine, but when we are assessing those streamlined subsidy schemes, it would be helpful for Parliament to have that information, and particularly to have a view from the SAU, or from the CMA more generally, about the streamlined subsidy scheme. Even if the SAU just says, “We think this looks good,” that is at least more information for Parliament. It would give me more comfort to know that the scheme fulfils the principles, or at least that the SAU thinks the scheme fulfils the principles as they are laid out. Therefore, it would be much more reasonable for clause 64(1)(a) to be included if we were given that level of comfort.
Bill Esterson
Again, we just are not getting from the Minister certainty about the creation of the regime, and this is a common problem all the way through. We are waiting and it is uncertain exactly how this will operate, which makes it very difficult for us to judge whether what we will end up with will provide a degree of scrutiny and transparency in the use of public funds. That applies both to streamlined subsidy schemes and to minimal financial assistance. Although I think the Minister is right about the broad point that smaller payments are unlikely to have the potential to distort in economic terms, they can still be misused. As part of the regime, we are still missing an adequate way to scrutinise, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North gave some good pointers on how that might be addressed. For those reasons, we will push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
Clause 64 provides for a limited number of exemptions from some or all of the provisions on the referral of subsidies and schemes to the subsidy advice unit. Subsections (1) and (2) exempt from the provisions of chapter 1 of part 4 various subsidies or schemes where either the subsidy control principles, prohibitions and conditions do not apply or it would otherwise be inappropriate for the provisions on referrals to apply. Subsection (3) confers a reserve power on the Secretary of State to exempt subsidies or schemes from the mandatory referral requirements where there are urgent and certain exceptional circumstances that mean that it is in the public interest that the scheme or subsidy can be given without the delay that would result from a referral. The power does not exempt the subsidy or scheme from the subsidy control requirements under part 2 of the Bill. It will still be necessary for the public authority to comply with the duty to apply the principles and other requirements.
Bill Esterson
We have debated the amendment and the need for the change to this clause. We have tested the will of the Committee already and will not oppose clause stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Tomlinson.)
Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 4th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 View all Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 November 2021 - (4 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 35, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 10 and 11.
This amendment removes the ability to make a suspended or prospective-only quashing order subject to conditions.
Amendment 40, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 15 to 18.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 12.
Amendment 41, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out “or (4)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 12.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again today, Sir Mark. I welcome all members of the Committee. I hope we can look forward to an interesting and robust debate on this important Bill.
I welcome the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, to his position. He is returning after six years, I think, to a similar post. While he obviously looked in significant detail at the Bill, he almost strayed into political caricature, suggesting somehow that we, as a party, thought all lawyers were lefties—I think that is the phrase that was used. That is quite interesting, not least if one thinks of the Secretary of State, for example, who is a lawyer by background, but not, I think, a leftie. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is a solicitor and is certainly not a leftie, and neither was the late, great Baroness Thatcher, who was a barrister by training and one of the greatest Prime Ministers in our history—a victor in the cold war, no less.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for Dudley North were not as chronologically comprehensive in their contributions as the Labour spokesman, but they made some extremely important points. Both of them stressed the point about trusting the judiciary. We certainly do not see lawyers as lefties, nor are we engaged in any kind of conspiracy or attempt to somehow engineer a confrontation with the judiciary. On the contrary, the whole basis and premise of the Bill is to trust in the ability of judges to use their discretion to reach judgments that reflect the most appropriate remedy, given all the factors in a specific case at hand. That is the underlying principle.
The amendments in this group relate to the measures on so-called prospective-only quashing orders—those being quashing orders with limited or no retrospective effect—and the ability of the courts to apply conditions when using either a prospective-only or suspended quashing order. Amendment 12 attempts to remove entirely the ability of the court to permanently limit or remove their retrospective effect. The belief behind the amendment seems to be that limiting the retrospective effect of a quashing order will always unfairly affect the claimant—the person who has brought the judicial review. We wholly reject that argument and take the contrary view.
I believe there is significant benefit in providing powers to limit or remove the retrospective effect of quashing orders, obviously in specific cases. Normally, when a decision is quashed, the effect of that quashing is retrospective, in that it deprives the decision of ever having had legal effect. As such, regulations and decisions are deemed never to have been made, and therefore a person undertaking what they thought was a lawful act on the basis of those regulations or decisions may in fact have been relying on something that had no legal effect whatsoever. That is particularly problematic for certain regulations that many people rely on every day in good faith.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith said that the sort of cases where there would be wide-ranging side effects from a quashing order, particularly of an economic or social kind, would be rare. They are certainly not huge in number. The Public Law Project—an organisation that we all recognise has significant expertise in this matter—did a study in 2015, which found that, of a sample of 502 judicial reviews, 18% related to procedure and policy and 8% to wider public interest. These judicial review cases that have much wider impact are not insignificant in number, but there is a much more important point to be made. Even if the number is small, the number of persons affected is likely to be many thousands. That is why it is so significant.
I raise again the real case study that I brought up on Second Reading. I will keep coming back to it because, while there are many other examples one could use, it neatly summarises where one would use one, if not both, of the remedies we are introducing, and do so not to undermine the rights of the claimant or the victory in court that they obtained—far from it—but to avoid detriment in the real world to our constituents.
I gave the example on Second Reading of general licences for the control of wild birds and the chaos that was caused when those licences were revoked, leaving farmers unsure whether actions they had taken in the past on the basis of those licences would suddenly land them in trouble. I remind the Committee that it was Natural England that immediately decided to revoke the licences, through fear of a judicial review. The case did not go through; it was the fear of one that meant Natural England was given advice that it should withdraw the licences.
As a rural MP, I received the correspondence at the time, so I know that that caused great concern, frustration and, as I quoted the National Farmers Union saying on Second Reading, anger among farmers and others. It is all about this point of good faith.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Minister is right, and of course the fact of the matter is that judicial review is available to responsible and sensible people who are pursuing a grievance, but it is also available to vexatious and irresponsible people who are pursuing an argument that has been settled elsewhere, but that they seek to perpetuate through the process of law. That is why it needs to be redirected to its proper purpose in the way the Minister is outlining.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has considerable expertise in these matters and speaks on them very well. By the way, I am not suggesting that the Natural England case—it did not go to court, but there was a threatened judicial review from an organisation called Wild Justice, which I think Chris Packham is associated with—was vexatious. I make no comment on that. The point is that it would have achieved its aim, which was to have those particular licences declared unlawful, so the claimant would have been successful.
As I said at the time, had the remedies in the Bill been available, the legal advice could have assumed that at least one, or both, would have been used. If the prospective remedy, which we are debating in respect of these amendments, had been used, it would have made the many thousands of farmers, gamekeepers and others who were using those licences for shotguns far more certain that there would not be some kind of action, which from their point of view would be essentially retrospective, regarding the way they had used those licences that could undermine their rights, even though at the time—this is always the key thing about retrospectivity—they would have been using them both in the belief that they were lawful and in good faith. That is why this point is so important.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Minister is talking about giving judges the right to use suspended or prospective-only quashing orders, but that is not what the Bill is about. The Bill is about the presumption that they will use those orders unless they can demonstrate good reason not to. Why not do what he is saying this means, and what other people seem to think this means, and just allow judges to use these orders?
James Cartlidge
We will debate the presumption in more detail, because there are a number of amendments to it in the later groups. With the greatest respect for the hon. Lady, I would simply say that that is an erroneous interpretation of the presumption. First, the Bill does bring in those new remedies, irrespective of the presumption, but the presumption is there. It does not force the judge to use them; yes, it highlights the fact that they are there and that we would expect them to be used were it appropriate, but what it ensures is that, whether they are used or not, the reasons and the thinking are written down. In a nutshell, this is about encouraging and expediting the accumulation of jurisprudence, which is incredibly important in a common-law system.
I understand the concern that such orders should not be used to prevent claimants from getting just outcomes. That very point was made on Second Reading by the Chair of the Justice Committee. However, I submit that the clause as drafted already protects against that. The list of factors for the court to consider in using the new remedies, which is set out in subsection (8), includes at paragraph (c) a requirement for the court to have regard to
“the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing of the impugned act”.
In other words, it must consider the interests of the person or persons who has brought the judicial review.
In addition, the presumption at subsection (9) requires the court to use the new modifications for quashing orders only where it would offer “adequate redress”. Furthermore, subsection (2) allows the court to impose conditions on any remedy it gives, which is another way that the court can tailor any remedy to ensure it properly serves the interests of justice.
I therefore submit that the ability to limit or remove retrospective effect does have a clear purpose and that there are already sufficient safeguards in the provisions before the Committee to ensure the interests of the claimant are fairly balanced against the interests of good administration. The clause gives the courts the necessary flexibility to tailor its remedies appropriately.
Amendment 35 seeks to remove the subsection that states:
“Provision included in a quashing order under subsection (1) may be made subject to conditions”.
However, the whole point is that the ability to set conditions is very important, so that the court can strike the right balance in how it gives a remedy. For example, to avoid detriment to a claimant or those in the same situation, the court might specify that the defendant cannot take any new action to enforce the impugned decision, but is nevertheless afforded time to amend or correct it by virtue of a suspended quashing order. Removing the court’s ability to set such conditions would not be in the interests of justice or flexibility.
The final two amendments in the group, amendments 40 and 41, were originally connected to amendment 39, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith has withdrawn, and now relate to amendment 12. They are consequential amendments that remove elements of the clause that seek to provide further clarity in respect of the ability to limit or remove the retrospective effect of quashing orders. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we were to accept amendment 12, those amendments would logically follow. However, for the reasons I have explained, we do not accept the rationale of amendment 12 and, as such, we also oppose amendments 40 and 41. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Welcome back to the afternoon sitting, Sir Mark. I can reply fairly briefly to this short debate.
The hon. Member for Dudley North said that a power grab by the Government was not what was happening in this Bill. However, whatever language is used, the Bill does alter the balance of power. In that sense, it is a movement of power from the courts to the legislature, for reasons I will explain more under the next group of amendments. He said that it adds powers to the judge’s armoury. Technically that may be true, but if the net effect in reality is to create uncertainty and fewer protections for claimants, that is not a welcome development.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The hon. Member referred earlier to his leftie lawyers. In describing them in such a way, he is implying that he does not have confidence in these people doing the right thing. What we are doing is giving them the ability to use their discretion.
Andy Slaughter
I think it is actually the senior judiciary, and I would never ascribe any political motivation to them whatsoever. I take the point that the Deputy Prime Minister may well not be a leftie lawyer, but it is the Prime Minister, I think, who coined the phrase rather than me. I do not know who he had in mind exactly; I hope not the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, but there it is. People move around the political spectrum all the time these days.
The main issue I take from what the hon. Member for Dudley North said is that there remains an element of discretion. Up to a point, Lord Copper, is the answer to that. Why have a presumption at all? We are coming on to that debate, so perhaps we went off at a slight tangent a few moments ago, but it is a relevant point to make. If Government Members wish to emphasise the discretion that is available to judges, why are they supporting a clause that inserts conditions?
Andy Slaughter
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Provision under subsection (1) may only be made if the court considers that it is in the interest of justice to do so.”
This amendment would limit the remedies in subsection (1) to where the court considers it is in the interests of justice.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 14, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Provision under subsection (1) may only be made in exceptional circumstances.”
This amendment would limit the use of the remedies in subsection (1) to exceptional circumstances.
Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment would make clear that the factors which the court considers are a matter for its judgment.
Amendment 32, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(aa) any detriment to the environment that would result from exercising or failing to exercise the power;
(ab) whether exercising or failing to exercise the power would constitute an effective remedy for the claimant;”
This amendment would require the court to have regard to any detriment to the environment that would result from the use of any suspended or prospective-only quashing order.
Amendment 36, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 14 and 15.
This amendment removes one of the factors to be given consideration by the courts when deciding whether to award a suspended quashing order or quashing order with limited or no retrospective effect. The removal of this factor is intended to rebalance the factors to be given consideration so as not to disadvantage the claimant unfairly.
Amendment 33, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 14 to 22.
This amendment would reduce the requirement to consider non-legal factors in assessing the legality of decisions made.
Amendment 37, in clause 1, page 2, line 17, at end insert “including, but not limited to, the interests and expectations of a claimant in receiving a timely remedy”.
This amendment would make an addition to one of the factors to be given consideration by the courts when deciding whether to award a suspended quashing order or quashing order with limited or no retrospective effect. This amendment would make it clear that the provision of a timely remedy to the claimant is a factor to be given consideration.
Amendment 38, in clause 1, page 2, line 19, at end insert “which are to be identified by the defendant”.
This amendment would require the defendant to identify what the interests and expectations of persons who have relied on the impugned act are and to explain these to the court.
Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out “or proposed to be taken”.
This amendment would remove the requirement to take account of actions which the public body proposes or intends to take but has not yet taken.
Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(8A) In deciding whether there is a detriment to good administration under subsection (8)(b), a court must have regard to the principle that good administration is administration which is lawful.”
This amendment would clarify that the principle of good administration includes the need for administration to be lawful.
Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 32 and insert—
“(9) Provision may only be made under subsection (1) if and to the extent that the court considers that an order making such provision would, as a matter of substance, offer an effective remedy to the Claimant and any other person materially affected by the impugned act in relation to the relevant defect.”
The amendment would remove the presumption and insert a precondition of the court’s exercise of the new remedial powers that they would offer an effective remedy to the claimant and any other person material affected by the impugned act.
Amendment 24, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 32 and insert—
“(9) If—
(a) the court is to make a quashing order, and
(b) it appears to the court that an order including provision under subsection (1) would, as a matter of substance, offer an effective remedy to the Claimant and any other person materially affected by the impugned act in relation to the relevant defect, the court must exercise the powers in that subsection accordingly unless it sees good reason not to do so.”
This amendment would require an effective remedy to the claimant and any other person materially affected by the impugned act.
Amendment 22, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 32.
This amendment would remove the presumption in favour of using the new remedial powers in clause 1 and protect the discretion of the court.
Amendment 34, in clause 1, page 2, line 27, leave out “adequate redress” and insert “effective remedy to the claimant”.
This amendment would specify that the remedy should be for the claimant.
Amendment 27, in clause 1, page 2, line 29, leave out from “court” to end of line 30 and insert “may exercise the powers in that subsection accordingly”.
This amendment would remove the requirement for a court to issue a suspended or prospective quashing order when the provisions of section 1(9)(b) apply.
Andy Slaughter
The amendments in this group are principally in my name, although amendment 27 has been tabled by the SNP. They lead on quite conveniently from the short debate we have just had. It is a large group and I intend to speak to all the amendments, although for most of them I can be fairly brief. The common theme is that they propose ways of mitigating the introduction of prospective-only quashing orders, and in some cases suspended quashing orders, which, as I think we have made clear, we do not believe should be in the Bill at all. If they are to be in the Bill, we want to ensure that they are appropriately caveated and mitigated.
However, the crucial amendment here is amendment 22, which would remove the presumption from the Bill. Various Members have commented already on the presumption, which is perhaps the most controversial provision in part 1. I look forward to hearing the Minister justify it, particularly as the comments from the Government side so far have emphasised the retention of discretion. Sir Mark, we will seek a vote on amendment 22 if the Government persist in their support for the presumption.
By way of background—I will be a lot shorter than I was with the first group, because I have already laid out our concerns about clause 1—the rule of law requires compliance with the law, which means that everyone in the state, including public authorities, must act in accordance with the law. Judicial review, as we discussed this morning, is a fundamental way that these rule of law principles are vindicated. If the state does not comply with the law, an individual can bring a case to court in order to force the state to comply with the law.
The current law on remedies in judicial review also vindicates these principles. The default approach is that if the state does something unlawful, that decision will be quashed and have no legal effect. People generally do not bring cases to court for declarations; they bring cases to court to right a wrong, for a tangible result, and to actually achieve something. If I am injured in a car crash, I bring a case so that the court can rule that I am not at fault and so that the judge will award me damages.
As ever, there is nuance, and it is possible that there would be some instances where it would be appropriate for an unlawful action to retain its validity in some way. That was the outcome in the Gallagher case, where the Supreme Court held that ruling a statutory instrument void would introduce a discrepancy in the statutory scheme. This is very much the exception, but it is a course of action open to a judge in making a decision on the remedy to be awarded in judicial review.
However, proposed new section 29A(9) of Senior Courts Act 1981, as set out in clause 1, flips that principle on its head. The new default position will be that where a court issues a quashing order, it must suspend it, or limit any retrospective effect, unless there is a good reason not to. This undermines the rule of law, because judicial decisions are not effective or are less effective.
Consider a hypothetical case where a homelessness charity challenges a decision on the availability of social security benefits. The default remedy will be prospective- only, meaning that those who have missed out on their benefits in the past due to an unlawful action will not be entitled to back pay of those benefits. The remedy will help people in the future, but will do nothing to help those who have already suffered. What is the point in going to court in such a case, when the remedy granted will be of zero help to the applicant?
Proposed new section 29A(9) and (10) contains a presumption in favour of the use of suspended quashing orders and prospective-only quashing orders, which will favour the assurances of the Executive over other important considerations, particularly the impact on claimants and third parties of suspending a quashing order or making it prospective-only. Proposed subsection (9) sets up a presumption in favour of suspended quashing orders or prospective-only remedies. It says, in effect, that if the court considers that if such an order would offer “adequate redress”, it has to make one unless there is a good reason not to. It is a convoluted provision that introduces several steps and several terms that will lead to increased arguments and submissions at the remedy stage of litigation, increasing the costs and length of that litigation to the detriment of parties and the courts. It is also unclear how the subsection accords with the list of factors that courts are directed to consider in proposed subsection (8).
The Lord Chancellor has argued that while we quite rightly have judicial checks on the Executive, they have to be applied
“in a constructive and sensible way which allows the Government to deliver the projects that it’s tasked and mandated by Parliament to do”
and ensures that
“taxpayers’ money is not being squandered because projects are being harpooned.”
That argument is self-contradictory, because it states two quite different things—first, that there ought to be judicial checks on Government, and secondly, that the Government must be allowed to do things they have been mandated by Parliament to do. The whole point of judicial review is to prevent the state from acting unlawfully. The Lord Chancellor’s argument seems to be that even if the state is acting unlawfully, it ought to be allowed to continue to act unlawfully. A presumption in favour of suspending a quashing order is precisely that—permission for the state to continue to act unlawfully. In most cases, the “constructive and sensible” thing to do with an unlawful Government decision is to rule that it has no effect.
Professor Tom Hickman has called proposed new section 29A(9) “muddled” and suggested that it would be best to omit it altogether. Jonathan Morgan, who we heard from earlier this week, welcomed clause 1 generally but also argued that the proposed subsection is wrong. Liberty has said that it is
“entirely opposed to any presumption in favour of suspending a quashing order”.
The Public Law Project’s conclusion is that clause 1
“should be amended to remove the presumption and make clear that remedies should only be restricted in this way in exceptional circumstances.”
Creating a further barrier to getting an effective remedy is wrong in principle. There are already substantial hurdles to citizens bringing a successful judicial review: they have to show standing, get past the preliminary hearing, have the money to pay large legal fees, bring the case very promptly, and then show that a public authority has acted unlawfully. After all that, it is unfair to place another hurdle in their way. Proposed subsection (9) means that even after all those hurdles have been cleared and the court has ruled that the public authority is in the wrong, the presumption is that the effect of the quashing order will be limited. It undermines the principle of legality if the default is that an unlawful action is still valid and that a quashing order ought normally to be suspended or have only prospective effect. The presumption in the subsection ought to be reversed so that it is in favour of quashing orders taking effect immediately.
In its report, the independent review of administrative law did recommend legislating for suspended quashing orders, but it did not presume that such a remedy would be mandatory. The panel suggested that the courts are best placed to develop remedies that work in practice, and that rather than giving judges increased flexibility, imposing this presumption would limit their ability to provide redress to claimants.
Instead of preserving judicial discretion over whether to suspend a quashing order or remove or limit its retrospective effect, proposed new subsection 29A(9) and (10) in clause 1 introduces a statutory presumption in favour of doing so if it would “offer adequate redress”. We are strongly opposed to the statutory presumption. It is a long-established and fundamental principle in judicial review that remedies are discretionary. As no two judicial reviews are the same, it is necessary to ensure that there is a fair outcome that fits the circumstances of the case at hand. The Government’s response to their consultation on their judicial review proposals showed that the overwhelming majority of responses that they received were clearly against the introduction of statutory presumption and in favour of preserving judicial discretion. We are concerned that the Government have chosen to disregard the expertise and opinions of their stakeholders and to push forward with a statutory presumption that has little or no support, particularly as there is no evidence to suggest that without the presumption, the courts would not use the additional remedial tools at their disposal where appropriate.
Sir John Hayes
I have no desire to prolong the hon. Gentleman’s oration, but he says that the statutory presumption has little or no support. The witnesses that we heard from when we first met as a Committee said the exact opposite, however. They said that the reform was necessary because of the change that has occurred to judicial review over time. As I said earlier, this Bill is an attempt to affirm the sovereignty of judicial review by reaffirming its proper purpose. Does the hon. Gentleman discount the views of those expert witnesses when he says that almost no one supports it?
Andy Slaughter
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point very seriously. We touched on that point this morning, although I know he was not in Committee. I gave a little thumbnail of some of the witnesses and indicated that their views were—as one might expect from senior academics and practitioners—free from bias and prejudice, and what they said was quite interesting and variegated.
If the right hon. Gentleman were talking about suspended quashing orders, I would have some sympathy with him, because I think the balance was probably in favour of those, with some reservations. Even on prospective-only orders, there was a degree of support, and that may be what he is referring to. I thought that there was very limited support for the statutory presumption, however. Some people think it is okay and some wish to go further than what is in the Bill, but I would say that the balance of opinion, in the responses to the previous consultation—let us remember that in addition to IRAL, the Government have had their own consultation—and in the written evidence submitted to the Bill Committee, has been overwhelmingly against the presumption, for some of the reasons that I am giving.
We do not believe that a statutory presumption is in keeping with the Government’s own stated commitment to pursuing incremental change. It is not yet clear in what cases a suspended or prospective-only quashing order would be appropriate, and there remains some apprehension about the possible consequences of those orders. They should, therefore, be used with caution. A statutory presumption could force the court into using these provisions in circumstances in which they would not be appropriate.
Any legislation will lead to debates in court as to the meaning of terms, but it is not justifiable unnecessarily to introduce new processes and concepts for the courts to grapple with. The Government state that proposed new section 29A(9) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 can
“direct and guide the court’s reasoning to certain outcomes in certain circumstances”,
notably, whether remedies under new section 29A(1) can provide adequate redress. However, the courts already seek to craft the most appropriate remedy for the circumstances that are before them. A court will issue a prospective or suspended order if it is the most appropriate remedy. There is no need for a convoluted legislative provision telling the courts to do so.
The presumption also conflicts with the Government’s stated aim of increasing remedial discretion, as it requires particular remedies to be used in certain circumstances. We oppose prospective-only orders for the reasons set out in the earlier debate, but if they are to be used, it should be at the court’s discretion. Suspended orders should also be used only in exceptional circumstances, as determined by the court.
It would greatly undermine the protective constitutional role of judicial review and risk incoherence if proposed new section 29A(9) constrained the courts to issue a suspended order or a prospective-only order when a straightforward quashing order would be more suited to the circumstances of the case. I therefore submit that proposed new section 29A(9) can be removed. In applying the presumption, proposed new section 29A(10) requires the court to
“take into account, in particular”
anything under proposed new section 29A(8)(e). This directs the court to give special consideration to anything that the public body with responsibility for the impugned act, which may or may not be the defendant, has done or says it will do. However, there are difficulties with making a prospective-only quashing order on the basis of statements made, or even undertakings given by the defendant.
First, only the claimant would be able to enforce, if at all, the undertaking or statement, even though others will also be impacted by the defendant’s non-compliance. Further, claimants may not have the funds, ability or resources to bring the case back to court. Secondly, the recourse would only be against the defendant public body, not against other public bodies who have said they would act. Thirdly, in rejecting the introduction of a conditional quashing order, the Government recognised the practical difficulties with deciding whether a condition has been complied with—the same concerns apply equally to court orders made on the basis of public body assurances, including the potential for further protracted and costly litigation.
The courts do already take into account steps that the Executive or Parliament are intending to take or have taken, as well as now being required to by proposed new section 29A(8)(e), and generally accept that the defendant will comply with the court’s ruling on lawfulness. However, it should be for the courts to determine in the circumstances of the case what weight should be given to public body assurances, to ensure that the most appropriate remedy is made, considering the difficulties with relying on assurances. The courts should not be required to preference these assurances at the expense of other considerations, in particular the impact on the claimant and other third parties.
Suspended and prospective quashing orders both have a significant impact on the ability of individuals who have been subject to state wrongdoing to receive a full and timely remedy. Furthermore, they allow, to varying degrees, an act that has been found to be unlawful to remain valid and untouched. The courts must remain alert to the potential impact of these provisions in particular cases, and a statutory presumption would hinder their ability to do so. At a minimum, we believe this presumption must be removed.
Clause 1 stands to weaken the effectiveness of remedies available to the courts. The Government claim that they are giving extra tools to judges—as we heard earlier—but by imposing a presumption in favour of their use, they are in fact restraining the freedom of the courts to rule as they see fit. That is the key point that the Minister needs to answer. This presumption restricts the remedial discretion of the courts and should be removed.
As a less preferable alternative to removing the presumption altogether, our amendment 23 seeks to remove the presumption in proposed new section 29A(9) and insert a precondition of the court’s exercise of the new remedial powers, that they would offer an effective remedy to the claimant and any other person materially affected by the impugned act.
Amendment 24—less preferable than both 22 and 23 —leaves the presumption and would require an effective remedy to the claimant and any other person materially affected by the impugned act. The Committee cannot say that we are not trying, at least, to meet the Government halfway on this matter. I have set out a smorgasbord of alternatives, from which the Government can select what they wish.
The phrase “adequate redress” in proposed new section 29A(9)(b) should be amended to “effective remedy” to increase certainty, and it should be made clear that the redress or remedy must be adequate both for the claimant and for any other person affected by the impugned act. The proposed new section 29A(10) should also be removed in its entirety.
With amendments 13 and 14, the power to suspend quashing orders and prospective-only quashing orders would be limited to exceptional circumstances where it is in the interests of justice through an amendment to proposed new section 29A(1). I do not think I need go into any detail on those amendments; they speak for themselves. Again, they are not ideal, but it would be good if in the Bill it was indicated that where these—in our view—undesirable remedies are to be available, that they should be limited to where there are acceptable circumstances or it is in the interests of justice.
Amendment 20 seeks to address the issues caused in proposed new section 29A(8)(e), which states that the court must consider
“any action taken or proposed to be taken, or undertaking given, by a person with responsibility in connection with the impugned act”.
I am particularly concerned with the requirement on the courts to consider any action proposed to be taken. This provides little or no legal basis to require the public body to act, especially if only said during submissions and not reflected in the court’s judgment. The reality of public body decision making, Executive action and the legislative timetable is that priorities and policy positions change, and resources and time may have to be diverted. In the meantime, the judicial review claimant and all others adversely impacted by the measure must wait—potentially continuing to be detrimentally impacted—with limited, if any, legal recourse against the defendant or other relevant public body. There is too much uncertainty in the actions a public body proposes to take to form a legal basis for suspending a quashing order or making it prospective-only. Any intentions indicated to the court could change in the light of subsequent developments, leaving those affected potentially without any recourse. The words
"or proposed to be taken”
should be removed from proposed new section 29A(8)(e) so that it refers only to undertakings.
Amendment 36 provides clarity that the principle of good administration includes the need for administration to be lawful. This requires clarification. There are five main reasons why greater recourse to these weakened remedies, and especially any presumption in their favour, should be resisted. I will conclude my comments when I have gone through those five reasons.
First, these remedies place victims of unlawful actions in an unfair position; remedies which are prospective-only may leave individuals without redress at all. Secondly, they insulate Government from scrutiny and make it more difficult for decision makers to be held to account. Prospective-only remedies would be particularly likely to have a chilling effect on individual claimants bringing judicial review claims. Why, as we have already said, would someone spend money, time and effort to challenge an unlawful decision made against them if that decision cannot be rectified in their specific case? The proposed changes risk creating a situation where unlawful actions go unopposed and individuals’ ability to defend their rights against an overbearing state is undermined.
Thirdly, the remedies make it more—rather than less—likely that judges will be forced to enter the political realm. The effect of a suspended or prospective-only quashing order may be to grant legal validity to an action that, on its face, contravenes an Act of Parliament. It creates a judicial fix for an unlawful Government act, when such an action would ordinarily be the exclusive domain of Parliament. Further, when deciding whether to issue a weakened remedy, judges must consider the likely future actions of public bodies, something that judges have previously described as a job they are ill-equipped to undertake. That would be an especially regrettable and ironic consequence when the Government’s avowed aim is to prevent judges stepping into the political realm.
Fourthly, and as senior judges have acknowledged, one of the benefits of the current system of quashing orders is its simplicity. While being presented as a measure that promotes certainty, the new remedies in fact generate significant uncertainty about how they will operate and are likely to result in expensive post-judgment satellite litigation. That uncertainty, together with an increase in costs, will create yet another practical barrier to individual claimants bringing judicial review claims in the first place. Fifthly, proposed new section 29A(5) undermines a person’s right to bring a collateral challenge following an illegal public act. That is a point we will deal with more fully when we come to the third group of amendments.
Anne McLaughlin
Suspended quashing orders and prospective-only remedies will not apply in Scottish courts, but because they can and will affect UK-wide laws, the people of Scotland, who remain subject to UK-wide laws until they are independent—I have just disenfranchised myself from everybody on this side, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East—are also impacted.
Our primary objection is that there is a statutory presumption written into the provisions. In other words, the default position for judges is expected to be that quashing orders are suspended and prospective-only. Government and Opposition Members, both today and in previous debates, have suggested that the presumption does not curtail a judge’s discretion to use the full suite of available remedies. They are wrong—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Can I ask those who are playing with electronic devices to turn the sound down or off? Sorry, Anne—go on.
Anne McLaughlin
Thank you, Sir Mark.
On the power to issue a suspended quashing order with the option of prospective-only effect, the Bill says:
“the court must exercise the powers in that subsection accordingly unless it sees good reason not to do so.”
Our amendment 27 seeks to remove the word “must” and replace it with “may”. Given that Government Members are claiming that that is what they really mean, they ought not to have any problem supporting the amendment.
The word “must” clearly directs a judge’s reasoning and interferes with judicial independence and discretion, and the Government claim they do not want to do that. It is not just members of this Committee who have said so. The Secretary of State for Justice, the Lord Chancellor himself, said on Second Reading that the Bill
“gives judges greater flexibility in judicial review”.—[Official Report, 26 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 195.]
As the Public Law Project pointed out, however, the inclusion of the statutory presumption contradicts that stated aim by tying the hands of judges so that they are required to use the new remedies in certain circumstances. If the powers are to be created, they ought to be the exception and not the norm, as the report of the independent review of administrative law suggests and as a number of Government Back Benchers, including the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) also suggested.
The PLP helpfully goes on to say why a statutory presumption is harmful, which is that it sets modified quashing orders as the starting point in all cases, which the judge then deviates from only if the court sees a good reason to do so. Even those who support that statutory presumption can list only a small number of cases in which such remedies might be appropriate. From what hon. Members have said this morning, however, they do not support the statutory presumption aspect, so they will have no difficulty in supporting amendment 27.
I do not know whether this is the appropriate time to say so, Sir Mark, but as the hon. Member for Hammersmith is pressing amendment 22 to a vote, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment and to support his instead.
James Cartlidge
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady. I would not characterise the comments of my hon. Friends about judicial discretion as implying that they would therefore willingly see the presumption removed. I will not quite call it cheeky, but that is certainly a presumption of its own about our position on the matter and not entirely correct, as I hope we will discover should the amendment be pushed to a vote—it sounds as if it will be.
In her intervention on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North, and in her speech now, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, although she clearly has a strong view on presumption, did not deny the point, which is significant in terms of the previous group of amendments, that under the Scotland Act 1998 the Scottish Government—and, under other legislation, the other devolved Administrations too—have a power to make prospective-only orders. That is important. I am not suggesting that the power is used frequently, but it exists, although admittedly without the presumption.
Anne McLaughlin
But the Minister’s last point was that it is without presumption, and only in certain circumstances. As I understand it, in certain circumstances in England and Wales those orders can be used anyway. Basically, we are trying to turn things on their head so that judges are told, “This is what you will do, unless you can convince us otherwise.” That is not comparable with the Scottish system at all.
James Cartlidge
I entirely accept that the hon. Lady disagrees on the point of presumption, which I will come to in a moment, but in terms of the first group of amendments, which were primarily about the important changes to quashing orders—that is, the prospective-only remedy—all of this underlines the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North said, these things far from unprecedented in our constitution.
Before I turn to the specific amendments, one of the most interesting points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith—which he made early on—was that people who bring a judicial review do not do so because they want a declaration; they want a quashing order. They want, as it were, the full bifta, rather than a relatively toothless outcome. On that point, an extremely important case to draw on is Hurley and Moore v. the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. That was an important decision regarding university tuition fees. Lord Justice Elias, one of the key judges, basically made a declaration against a quashing order—I quote the reasons why—saying that it
“would cause administrative chaos, and would inevitably have significant economic implications, if the regulations were now to be quashed.”
In my view therefore—this is important—the very presence of the new remedies, which as Conservative colleagues have said give more flexibility, makes it more likely and, dare I say, easier for a judge to issue a quashing order, rather than being restrained to the extent that the judge would otherwise simply issue a declaration. That is from the perspective of the best interests and the desire of the claimant to get their pound of flesh—their remedy—and to see their justice served. It is important to remember that point.
I turn now to the many amendments in the group. They deal primarily with the presumption, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North East was just talking about, in proposed new section 29A(9) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and the factors that the courts must consider when deciding whether to use the new modifications—the quashing orders—at subsection (8).
There are two general points to stress. First, the Government’s intention in including both the presumption and the list of factors that the courts must consider is to assist in developing the jurisprudence around the new remedies. As the courts begin to consider cases where such remedies might be used, they will build up a body of case law about when the presumption is or is not rebutted and when the relevant factors apply. That will increase legal certainty, which is to everybody’s benefit. Secondly, I remind the Committee that we consulted both on the presumption and on which factors might be relevant in applying the new remedies. We reflected on the responses to that consultation. Respondents’ suggestions were helpful, particularly in allowing us to come up with the list of factors at subsection (8).
I turn now to amendments 22 and 27, tabled respectively by the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Glasgow North East, which seek to remove the presumption at subsection (9). The amendments are based on a flawed assumption that the presumption is somehow intended to force the courts into using the new remedies where they are not appropriate. That is not the case. The Bill encourages the courts to use the remedies only where appropriate. It will be entirely up to judges to decide whether they offer adequate redress. If judges consider that they do not or that there is some other good reason not to use them, the court can rebut the presumption.
Anne McLaughlin
While the subsection says that
“the court must exercise the powers”
and amendment 27 asks for it to say that the court “may” exercise them, the Minister’s interpretation is that courts may exercise them. Does he understand why we want to amend the subsection? What he describes is what we are trying to amend it to.
James Cartlidge
That is a fair point. The words “must” and “may” often have significant meaning in Bills. The Bill’s wording does not seek to force a court’s hand but provides a clear message that Parliament expects to see the new powers used where appropriate. With respect, I think that clarity comes with the Bill’s wording.
However, the presumption also plays another important role in ensuring that the principles and practice around the new remedies are developed quickly. Jurisprudence can be a slow-moving beast, and the presumption will expedite the process and bring greater legal certainty. While removing the presumption from the Bill would not necessarily prevent the new modifications to quashing orders from operating effectively, we continue to believe that there is merit in providing this indication to the courts that they should properly consider the use of the new remedial options available to them, and to develop the case law as to their usage more quickly.
I turn now to amendments 24 and 34, the central purpose of which is to change the wording of the test that the court must apply when considering the presumption. The hon. Member for Hammersmith proposes “effective remedy” as an alternative to “adequate redress”, which he argues would be a more stringent test. I fear that we are getting pretty close to what we call semantic arguments. The Government’s intention is that the remedies are used only in circumstances where it is appropriate. We are not seeking to deny or restrict justice to claimants. I am not, therefore, persuaded that his wording would result in a higher test or make any material difference to the clause.
Amendment 24 also seeks to ensure that, in considering the “effective remedy”, the court considers the interests of not just the claimant but other affected persons. The way in which our “adequate redress” test is framed in no way prevents the court from considering the impact on persons other than the claimant. Indeed, when it is considered in conjunction with paragraph (c) of the list of factors at subsection (8), I contend that that is already captured by the clause.
Turning to amendment 23, which would remove the presumption contained at subsection (9) and replace it with a precondition—I think we are moving into smorgasbord territory—I submit that that would constitute a significantly more restrictive approach, which would limit the court’s flexibility to adapt the remedies to the situation before it. The amendment is redundant since the current presumption and list of factors provide an appropriate guide to the use of the new remedies. I do not see how it would make the situation clearer than the current drafting.
Let me turn now to a series of amendments that relate specifically to the list of factors at subsection (8), which is crucial to the operation of the new remedies. Amendments 13 and 21 seem to suggest that we need to tell the courts that the remedies that they use in judicial review cases should be used in the interest of justice and add a vague direction that
“good administration is administration which is lawful.”
The problem here, which confuses me, is that the implication of what the hon. Member for Hammersmith is suggesting appears to be that the courts would not otherwise act in the interests of justice or consider that lawful administration is a good thing. I do not think he necessarily trusts the courts to understand those rather fundamental concepts.
I argue that these amendments would add nothing of value to the Bill, as judges will retain the ability to use remedies in a way that they feel offers adequate redress for the claim brought. Our new remedies do not seek to change that. We are also struggling to find a clear justification for why a theoretical inquiry into the relationship between “goodness” and “lawfulness” needs to be made. Those concepts are very open to interpretation, and the amendment gives no indication as to their meaning in this context, while, in contrast, the current drafting makes the meaning clear and focused on practical issues.
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East for her comments, and for withdrawing her amendment, which was essentially the same—or would achieve the same effect—as our amendment 22. We will, therefore, push that to a vote in due course.
As far as the Minister’s comments are concerned, I mentioned the administrative chaos point already; I will return to that briefly on clause stand part because, as I think some of his comments conceded, there are ways around this at the moment. My view is that if the courts can find a route to resolve difficulties, they should be left to do that themselves, and there is no need for us to interfere, but that is specifically around suspended orders—I will come back to that.
The Minister calls it semantics or language; well, I agree with him, but I just think our language is better. By that, I mean it is more precise and more familiar: concepts such as “exceptional circumstances”, “the interest of justice” or “effective remedy” more correctly sum up what we are intending to do here, and will be more familiar to the court in applying its jurisdiction. That is also why we wanted to say that good administration must be lawful.
The central point, which the Minister just has not persuaded me on—that is why I will persist with amendment 22—is, “Why is the presumption in there?” I am not at all persuaded by the non-exhaustive list of matters to which the court must have regard in subsection (8) either. They are not well drawn. Whatever the Minister says, he cannot get away from the fact that the presumption is a heavy-handed way to give a steer to the judiciary about how to operate, and it does not actually need to be there at all. He and the Government should trust the judiciary on the presumptions that it wishes to put forward.
There is a simple disagreement here, as sadly must happen sometimes between Government and Opposition. We cannot see any reason or logical argument in favour of the presumption, so we will exercise our right to press amendment 22 to a Division, although I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 13.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Andy Slaughter
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after “subsection (2)” insert “and to subsection (5A)”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 15.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, after “subsection (2)” insert “and to subsection (5A)”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 15.
Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (5A),”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 15.
Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(5A) Where the impugned act consists in the making or laying of delegated legislation (the impugned legislation), subsection (4) does not prevent any person charged with an offence under or by virtue of any provision of the impugned legislation raising the validity of the impugned legislation as a defence in criminal proceedings.
(5B) Subsection (4) does not prevent a court or tribunal awarding damages, restitution or other compensation for loss caused to the claimant by the impugned act before the date on which the quashing takes effect.”
This amendment would protect collateral challenges by ensuring that if a prospective only or suspended quashing order is made, the illegality of the delegated legislation can be relied on.
Andy Slaughter
This third and final group of amendments deals with one specific point that causes us concern, but it is a matter on which I can be relatively brief. I give notice that, subject to what the Minister has to say, we will seek a vote on amendment 15, which is the substantive amendment.
Proposed new section 29A(5) provides that
“Where…an impugned act is upheld”—
either until the quashing takes effect in respect of a suspended quashing order, or retrospectively in respect of an prospective-only quashing order—
“it is to be treated for all purposes as if its validity and force were, and always had been unimpaired by the relevant defect.”
We have significant concerns about the impact of that provision on collateral challenge, which this group of amendments would address.
Ordinarily, where a court has found a measure unlawful, even if it has not been quashed, it is possible to rely on that finding of unlawfulness in other proceedings—that is called “collateral challenge”. A person who has had to pay a tax under unlawful regulations, for example, would normally be able to bring a claim against HMRC to be refunded the money. However, new section 29A(5) requires an unlawful measure to be treated as lawful. That would preclude relying on the unlawfulness of a measure in other proceedings. That raises the possibility of people being charged with a criminal offence under unlawfully made delegated legislation, for example, but not being able to raise as a defence the fact that the legislation was subsequently found to be unlawful. As IRAL recognised, that position would leave the law in a “radically defective state”. A further subsection should be included to protect collateral challenge and third- party rights and defences where a remedy under new section 29A(1) is ordered.
New section 29A(5) states:
“Where...an impugned act is upheld by virtue of subsection (3) or (4), it is to be treated for all purposes as if its validity and force were, and always had been, unimpaired by the relevant defect.”
Imagine if one of the statutory instruments issued by the Health Secretary during the coronavirus crisis, which created imprisonable criminal offences, were declared illegal by a court. If a court granted one of the new remedies, this subsection would make it as though that imprisonment were always legal. A person could therefore not argue as a defence in the magistrates or Crown court that the statutory instrument was invalid, because this subsection requires a judge to pretend that it was valid.
As IRAL noted in paragraph 3.66 of its report:
“We readily acknowledge that the law would be in a radically defective state if such collateral challenges to the validity of administrative action were impossible.”
We agree and believe that collateral challenges should be expressly preserved in the Bill.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Successive Tory-Lib Dem coalition and Tory Governments have made much of wanting to do away with red tape and simplify the law, but we have seen quite the opposite in practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation is yet another example of that? The sentences that he has just voiced are perhaps the best illustration of it. There will be all sorts of consequences to these particular measures. They are actually making things more complicated, less clear, and will provoke further litigation in time.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and makes it better than I did. When one starts down this tinkering route—as the Government have in the Bill—and starts trying to nudge judges one way, putting in lists of qualifications and conditions with matters that have to be taken into account, altering the time period over which orders will take place, there are bound to be consequences. We have already said that there is likely to be uncertainty and satellite litigation, but genuine harm could also be caused in this way. I agree, as well, about red tape. It is all very well to try to cut through in that way—and it sounds very good when Ministers say it at the Dispatch Box—but unfortunately it leads to tragedies such as Grenfell Tower. Without the protection given by legislation and regulation on issues such as health and safety, the public are put at risk.
Even where a case has been brought and a decision has been found unlawful, the Bill stands to threaten the ability of people to bring collateral challenges. Proposed new section 29A(5) states that when a prospective-only or suspended quashing order has been made, the unlawful act is
“to be treated for all purposes as if its validity and force were, and always had been, unimpaired by the relevant defect”,
either retrospectively or until the quashing comes into effect. That situation, in which the court pretends that an unlawful decision was valid for a period of time, would appear to inhibit the ability of the person to rely on its unlawfulness in other proceedings. In other words, a person could be arrested under a regulation ruled unlawful by a court, but they would not be able to use that in their defence. The IRAL report quotes Professor David Feldman, whom we heard from, on the “intuitive revulsion” felt against that state of affairs, and concludes:
“We readily acknowledge that the law would be in a radically defective state if such collateral challenges to the validity of administrative action were impossible.”
Clause 1 fails to protect the ability of individuals to rely on the finding of unlawfulness of a measure in other contexts—for example, as a defence to criminal proceedings. A further subsection should be included to protect collateral challenge and third-party rights and defences where a remedy under proposed new section 29A(1) is ordered. The possibility of collateral challenges should be expressly protected by proposed new section 29A(5A), which is what amendment 15 seeks to do by ensuring that if a prospective-only or suspended quashing order is made, the illegality of the delegated legislation can be relied on.
That is really the only point I need to make on this group of amendments; of course, the other amendments are consequential on amendment 15. I hope that the Minister has taken the point. I ask him, in responding, to say first whether he supports amendment 15; if he cannot, as I say, we will press it to a vote. Would he then accept that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with? It clearly is. It may be unintended, but it is nevertheless a consequence of what the Government have set out to achieve in clause 1. Before the Bill comes back, it really needs to be dealt with.
James Cartlidge
The amendment aims to ensure that illegality of decisions can be relied upon when using the new remedies. I am also responding to amendments 16, 17 and 18, as they are dependent on the adding of proposed new section 29A(5A) and would require courts to consider proposed new section 29A(5A) when considering the effect on validity.
This new addition seeks to address concerns regarding claimants relying on the illegality of rulings as a defence in criminal proceedings or prejudicing their access to compensation. I would argue that we have already factored in such considerations and given the court ability to make special provision in such a case.
I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 1(1), in which proposed new section 29A(8) lists a number of factors that the court should have regard to when considering the use of our new measures. These importantly cover the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing. One would presume that the ability to raise a defence would be one such benefit. Fundamentally, proposed new section 29A(8)(f) states,
“any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant”,
ensuring that such factors can be covered in any eventuality
I would argue that the factors listed, or any that the court feels adequate, would be used in good faith to ensure that the rule of law is upheld. Having considered those factors, the court can use its powers by virtue of subsection (2) to add any conditions to its order, for instance that the defendant does not take any further action to enforce the unlawful decision, such as bringing forward criminal proceedings. With the powers in the Bill the court can make clear, to its satisfaction, the precise effects of the order that it makes. That ensures that there is greater flexibility for the courts to arrive at a positive outcome for all those affected.
The list of factors and the ability to add conditions already allow what the hon. Member for Hammersmith is suggesting. Therefore, the amendment would make no useful change to the Bill. I urge him to withdraw it.
Andy Slaughter
The Minister has made my point for me in drawing attention to proposed new section 29A(8) in clause 1, which does not deal with this point other than under the non-exhaustive provision—
“any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant.”
It is too serious and too specific to be left to be casually dealt with in that way. Therefore, I wish to press amendment 15 to a vote.
I would ask the Minister to go back and look at this provision, and whether we need further, specific qualification of the kind that I have outlined that could be introduced at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Andy Slaughter
We have had a good debate on the clause and I do not want to try the Committee’s patience by making a long speech. However, I would like to speak about suspended quashing orders, which we have danced around but not really touched on. I will explain why it is more appropriate to do so in this clause stand part debate. While I do not want to give away the denouement of my remarks too soon, our view is that although there are elements on both sides in relation to suspended quashing orders, we do not think, on balance, and certainly given our hostilities to the rest of clause 1, that there was enough in that to preserve clause 1. It is therefore our intention to vote against clause stand part. It depends on what the Minister has to say.
Proposed new section 29A(1)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 allows for the use of suspended quashing orders, which would delay the imposition of a quashing order until a specified date. Up until the date was reached, the unlawful decision or policy would be treated as if it were valid. In the case of suspended orders, the public body would effectively be permitted to continue taking the same approach, despite that approach having been found to be unlawful, until a certain future point in time.
Fundamental to the principle of justice is that if an action of a public body is found to be unlawful, the victim can expect that unlawfulness to be rectified in a timely manner. As it is currently drafted, the clause fails to do that and dilutes the effectiveness of judicial review as a necessary means of holding public bodies accountable for their actions and as a means of offering fair redress to victims. Through the use of suspended quashing orders, judges will be capable of allowing the unlawful conduct that led to the legal case in the first place to remain in effect.
There are some exceptional cases where it may make sense to suspend the effect of a quashing order, when neither immediate quashing nor a declaration of unlawful action seems appropriate. For example, earlier the Minister mentioned the case of Hurley and Moore, where the court found the Secretary of State to have breached his public sector equality duties in making regulations that allowed tuition fees of up to £9,000 without properly assessing the policy’s potential discriminatory impact, but declined to quash the regulations due to the expected logistical difficulties. Instead, the court just issued a declaration.
The report of IRAL, which as we know was established to feed in to the Bill, says of that case:
“As a remedy, a suspended quashing order would have had more teeth. Such an order would have indicated that the Regulations would be quashed within a couple of months of the Court’s judgment unless the Secretary of State in the meantime properly performed his ‘public sector equality duties’ and considered in the light of that exercise whether the Regulations needed to be revised. Such a remedy would have ensured that the Secretary of State was not left free to disregard his statutory duties in regard to the Regulations.”
That may be a legitimate use of this power, but there are concerns that the possibility of making such an order was ruled out by the UK Supreme Court in Ahmed (No. 2), which was also mentioned earlier today. In that case, the court readily concluded that it has the discretion to suspend the effect of an order that it makes. The difficulty was that the court had already made a concrete decision, which held that the provisions were void, and did not want to undermine that decision.
The making of these orders remains at the courts’ discretion, although they have usually declined to do so, on the basis that doing so will often conflict with the fundamental principles of administrative law. It is recognised that there is debate on this point, so clarifying that suspended quashing orders are available is not an illegitimate aim.
Professor Jeff King agrees with the default approach that substantial orders for relief are much better than a declaration only, but he recognises that in exceptional cases it might be justifiable to depart from that presumption. That is why the pragmatic approach of the courts, occasionally issuing declarations in lieu of quashing orders with attendant justification, is defensible in principle as well as evident in practice. This is intuitively correct; if something is unlawful, it ought to be invalid. However, there may be some unusual cases in which a court may feel that a quashing order ought not to be made. The court has the discretion to do that.
For example, if a quashing order would cause what I think the Minister called administrative chaos in a range of public actions, or indeed with many individuals, the court may instead simply make a declaration. Alternatively, it may make a quashing order but suspend its operation, allowing the public authority some time to fix the legal problem itself. That means that the order is made, but there is a delay before it comes into effect. For example—I think we have used this example before—if a quashing order means that the rules on entitlement to social security benefit would be void, the court may suspend the quashing order to allow the Government time to make new rules that do not break the law.
Quashing orders give teeth to the court’s power to vindicate the rights of citizens. The ability to suspend a quashing order is helpful, as it makes a more nuanced remedy available. This avoids a binary choice between simply refusing a remedy and opposing a remedy, which causes administrative problems. Any uncertainties can be clarified by future decisions and not via primary legislation.
We have said already, and I will not go back over old ground, that in any event we are against any presumption in favour of a suspended quashing order. Proposed new section 29A(9) says that if it appears to the court that a suspended quashing order was a matter of substance, offering adequate redress in relation to the relevant case, then it must make one. Again, as has been said before, that was not recommended by IRAL. Imposing a presumption is not handing the judge additional tools, despite what Government Members say; it has the potential to hinder them from making use of the rest of their toolkit, even when it may be more appropriate to do so.
The imposition of the list of factors to which the court must have regard in proposed new section 29A(8) likewise serves to hinder flexibility and discretion still further. It should be noted, that while IRAL did not suggest a presumption, a list of factors also goes against the panel’s report, which said that
“it would be left up to the courts to develop principles to guide them in determining in what circumstances a suspended quashing order would be awarded”.
While undermining the “flexibility” that the Ministry of Justice has held up as a justification for this measure, suspended quashing orders also have the potential to introduce greater complexity and uncertainty into the currently simple system of quashing orders, and they are likely to give rise to satellite litigation. If the Government are determined to legislate to clarify that courts may suspend the effects of a quashing order, there must not be any presumption in favour of their use.
It is useful to illustrate examples of injustices that might not have been addressed if this clause were in place. In 2015, new Government guidance said that non-religious beliefs could be excluded from religious education curriculums in secondary schools. Three humanist families successfully challenged the guidance, in a groundbreaking judgment that established that non-religious beliefs such as humanism should be treated with equal respect in the curriculum. Had these reforms been in place then, it could have meant that the curriculum would not have had to change for the pupils affected, and justice would not have been served.
To give one other example, in the case of Save Our Surgery Ltd, the claimant was a group dedicated to preventing the closure of a clinic in Leeds that provided surgery to children with serious cardiac problems. The court held that the NHS committee’s decision to authorise the closure was unlawful due to procedural unfairness and omissions of key considerations in the consultation leading to the closure. The decision to close the clinic was quashed and paediatric heart surgeries resumed at the Leeds clinic in early 2013, shortly after the quashing order was granted. In the span of just 12 days in which the clinic was shut for surgeries due to the closure, it was reported by the BBC that 10 seriously ill children were forced to be transferred to other hospitals as far away as Newcastle and Birmingham, causing considerable difficulty to children and parents.
A suspended order could have been granted in this case for two reasons. First, at the time, the Health Secretary was already conducting a full merits test review into the faulty consultation process, which was considering the issues afresh and was set to make new recommendations regarding clinic closures. Given that that second review might still have recommended the closure of the clinic, a suspended order might have been thought appropriate at the time of the report. Secondly, the claimant was neither the actual Leeds clinic, nor a child denied surgery there, so a suspended order might have been adequate redress for the claimant. If a suspended order had been granted, the clinic closure would have been far longer than 12 days, putting more families through those difficulties.
In his speech on Second Reading, the Minister stated that the Bill supports
“very important principle of judicial review”,
namely
“better public administration of the law in the best interests of our constituents.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 233.]
Judicial review is indeed extremely important in upholding high standards of public administration. It is an excellent incentive for public bodies to make decisions lawfully. As the Government submission to IRAL acknowledges, judicial review ensures that
“care is taken to ensure that decisions are robust”,
which “improves the decision”. If claimants are discouraged from bringing legitimate cases, there is a risk that standards of decision making may be lowered as a consequence of these changes.
When deciding whether to issue a weakened remedy or to grant an ordinary quashing order, judges would have to consider the likely future actions of a public body and would have to speculate on what administrative consequences the order would have. It is difficult to see how those judicial assessments are within the judicial expertise and experience. Indeed, some judges have previously described these assessments as a job they are ill-equipped to undertake. That would be especially regrettable and ironic, given the Government’s aim with this Bill.
Despite the Government’s reference to political cases, these remedies will harm the role of individual judges in judicial review, which is to uphold the will of Parliament, ensuring that the public bodies and Government Ministers exercise their powers within the four walls of the empowering statute. If the court issues a prospective-only quashing order, it is effectively saying, “Even though the public authority acted outside the powers granted it, we must pretend that its past action was lawful and we are only going to do something about it going forward.” The power to issue quashing orders that have only prospective effect, or that have limited retrospective effect, is a power that goes well beyond what IRAL recommended. The Government have yet meaningfully to justify with evidence why that additional and more radical proposal was needed.
Anne McLaughlin
As I said earlier, suspended quashing orders and prospective-only remedies do not apply in Scottish courts, and will not apply, but because these are UK-wide laws to which the people of Scotland are subject, they will be affected. Because Scottish courts can hear cases of UK-wide law, there will inevitably be an increase in the number choosing to be heard in the Scottish courts. After all, if someone knows that they are more likely to get some remedy for winning their case, why would they not choose the court system offering that? I am always happy to showcase all things Scottish, including our legal system, but who will pay for the increased capacity that the courts in Scotland will need if our system is to be clogged up with UK-wide hearings?
I have already explained why we are concerned about statutory presumption, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith has been very clear, so I will not take up time repeating him or myself. I do not imagine that any Bill Committee has a massive audience at home listening to us—although the hon. Member seemed to think differently earlier—but I think this is something that we should be encouraging people to tune into. After all, it is their lives we are talking about. While I do not think we can rival “Loose Women”, I do know that a number of people will be watching, and I think it is always worth explaining, in language that is as accessible as we can make it, what is going on.
So what do suspended quashing orders mean and why are we so opposed to them? On Second Reading, others and I raised the landmark judicial review that took place in 2017, which I think is worth talking about again. The Supreme Court found that Parliament could never have intended to limit people’s right to access justice by charging them fees to use the employment tribunal. It found in favour of the claimants and the quashing order had immediate effect. That meant that the fees were immediately abolished and the Government were required retrospectively to refund anyone who had paid in the past—and quite right. People had been charged up to £1,200 to access this form of justice. The Supreme Court ruled that they should not have been and they were rightly refunded.
However, if clause 1 had been in place, those extortionate fees could have stayed in place until a date determined by the court, so that everyone who required to ask for an employment tribunal between the date of the ruling and the date decided by the court—say, six months hence—would have to pay those unlawful fees of up to £1,200. The Government would then be given the time to rectify the unlawful policy, although this legislation allows the deadline to be varied if they do not rectify it on time; however, the rectification is the interesting bit.
What that means is that the Government would in effect be able to change the law so that the thing that had just been judged to be unlawful—in this case by the Supreme Court—was suddenly lawful. How can that possibly be? The effect in that case is that everyone who had paid the unlawful fee would be out of pocket, never to be refunded. Everyone who then paid in the intervening six months, or however long the Government were given to make the changes, would also be out pocket, never to be refunded. The Government would then change the law so that everyone in future is required to pay those fees of up to £1,200 or miss out on their access to justice, which is most likely the outcome for many people. We are talking about people losing their jobs, possibly wrongly, and being unlawfully dismissed, losing their entire income, and losing their right to access benefits—people who are sacked do not get support for the long term, because it is deemed to be their own fault.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. Thus far throughout our proceedings, on Tuesday and today, we have heard much discussion about “three bites of the cherry” and the notion that people are enjoying some advantageous aspect of the process. What we have not heard about is real cases where individuals have had the right to take cases to this stage and have them challenged, and where the Government have been held to account for their policy. The case that my hon. Friend has raised is a prime example, so does she agree taking away this mechanism will only further inhibit those who need that protection from the Government’s policies?
Anne McLaughlin
Yes, and that is what we are talking about—ordinary people who ordinarily do not have the access to justice that people with perhaps a little more money do. The tribunal system, which we will come on to later, is primarily about more vulnerable people, I would say. We have been talking about the people who had the landmark ruling, whom it affected. Even if they had managed finally to access benefits after losing their job unfairly and waiting to access justice, we all know that benefits are not enough to live on. They do not even cover things like the mortgage. Being wrongfully dismissed has a massive impact on someone’s life. Thank goodness for the Supreme Court judgment and thank goodness it happened in 2017 and not 2022, because if it happened in 2022, it would not make a blind bit of difference to anyone’s life, regardless of the outcome. Despite the effort and cost of going to court, a victim is left without an effective remedy, and the Government or public body, although acting unlawfully, faces no real consequences. We must not underestimate the chilling effect that this will have. For that daytime TV audience not used to legalese, what that means is that it will put people off attempting to access justice in the first place, because who would put themselves through all this for no tangible outcome?
The clause creates a perfect storm, with claimants having no incentive to challenge the Government or other public bodies, while said public bodies and Government proceed safe in the knowledge that they can do what they like. It is the risk of being held to account, the potential for challenge, that drives good decision and policy making. That point was made by a number of Opposition colleagues, at least, earlier today.
The measure also undermines judicial discretion. I know that we have already argued about this today, but it is imposing a statutory presumption in favour of suspended quashing orders. The Minister, in trying to reassure us that the statutory presumption does not mean, “This is what judges must do,” while ruling out removing the provision that says, “This is what judges must do,” did nothing to reassure us.
As Liberty points out in its evidence, IRAL considered prospective-only remedies and chose not to recommend them. It also chose not to recommend a statutory presumption for suspended quashing orders. What was the point of the independent review if the Government were simply going to ignore its conclusions? Therefore, we will vote against clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
It is an interesting thought that the way we are going to measure the success of our debates is whether we can compete with “Loose Women” on the viewing figures front. I think that that is highly unlikely, no matter how wonderful our language and discourse, but if there is someone who has watched all the way through—good luck to them—I think that it would be hard for them to refute the idea that we have had a pretty thorough debate on the key issues of clause 1, which is very important.
I will answer one point from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, and this is really where the disagreement, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith was referring, exists about the extent to which we put our faith in judicial discretion. Yes, there is the point about the presumption, but as I said, that is about jurisprudence, from our point of view. To go back to what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said about, I think, the case to do with tribunal fees, she was arguing in effect, “They would not have been refunded if these remedies had existed, because they would have applied prospectively,” but that would be only if the judge chose to use that remedy. That point is absolutely fundamental. There would be absolutely no requirement for them to do so.
Anne McLaughlin
The Minister keeps saying that, and I keep saying this, so I will just keep saying it. The legislation says that judges must—they must—use those orders unless they can demonstrate otherwise. Why not just say that they “may” do this, and give them the opportunity to do it? Otherwise, they will have to dig deep and find lots of reasons that are acceptable to the Government for not using it.
James Cartlidge
I did address that point in some detail in my speech on the last batch of amendments but one, but I will repeat the point. We want there to be certainty that judges should be considering these remedies, but that does not mean they have to use them. Rather, they should state the reasons, whether they do or do not, so that we build up that log of jurisprudence, which, as I said, is very important in a common-law system.
There has been an in-depth debate on this clause, so I do not intend to go much further. I just want to make one more important point. As far as Government Members are concerned, these measures strengthen quashing orders by giving judges more flexibility and more tools in the judicial toolbox, and thereby strengthen judicial review. On the question of whether they should be used, of course that is a discretionary matter.
Perhaps the issue is this: we see the glass as half full. We do not feel that the new measures would be used detrimentally for our constituents. On the contrary, we think that they would be used in ways that support better public administration while still protecting the right of the claimant to obtain their justice, but ensuring that quashing orders do not have detrimental side effects when used. That is why I say that we are not forcing the judges’ hands.
Andy Slaughter
I have been very restrained with the Minister. He puts his case in a moderate and reasonable way: he believes that the clause will improve not just the armoury of the courts, but their performance. Why does he think that, in bringing judicial review claims, almost every claimant, organisation and practitioner does not think that, but thinks it will hamper them? Would it not be quite perverse if they were saying that without actually believing it from their own experience?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He obviously was not listening to the same experts as I was on Tuesday, when we heard some strong support for the remedies. There is recognition from the experts that the remedies give more flexibility. I have explained the sorts of circumstances in which they may be used, but if they are not appropriate, they will not be used. However, we would at least understand the reasoning. I do not want to put the horse before the Cart, which we are about to come to. [Laughter.] It is a very important matter on which I am sure colleagues want to speak.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andy Slaughter
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) Notwithstanding subsection (1), subsections (2) and (3) shall not apply where the party refused permission (or leave) to appeal by the Upper Tribunal was the appellant before the First-tier Tribunal and—
(a) that party was without legal representation and the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal was not within legal aid scope;
(b) that party was not of full age or capacity;
(c) the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal was not an in-country appeal;
(d) the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal was subject to any accelerated procedure;
(e) the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was subject to any statutory restriction or direction concerning how that tribunal was to evaluate the credibility of the appellant or the evidence before it; or
(f) the application to the Upper Tribunal raises a point of law concerning the construction of any statutory provision for interpretation of an international agreement.”
This amendment is contingent on the interpretative provisions in Amendment 44. This amendment would provide a further list of exceptions to the ousting of the High Court’s jurisdiction that is proposed by Clause 2.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 3, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert—
“(c) that decision or the decision against which the Upper Tribunal has refused permission (or leave) to appeal is vitiated by any—
(i) bad faith, or
(ii) fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice.”
This amendment would expand the current exception in Clause 2 to ensure it applies to any bad faith or fundamental breach of natural justice.
Amendment 44, in clause 2, page 4, line 8, at end insert—
“‘accelerated procedure’ means any procedure for which procedure rules permit or require that less time is provided than is the case for another party before the tribunal bringing an appeal under the same statutory right of appeal; and includes an accelerated detained appeal under section 106A(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
an appeal is ‘not an in-country appeal’ if the appellant is only permitted to bring or continue the appeal from outside the United Kingdom;
a party is ‘not of full age or capacity’ if that party is—
(a) a child, or
(b) requires the assistance of a third party to understand the procedure or decision of, or issues before, the First-tier Tribunal and communicate effectively with that tribunal (whether or not that assistance is provided save to the extent to which the person requires an interpreter and one is provided)
an appeal is ‘not within legal scope’ if representation before the First-tier Tribunal does not fall within civil legal services under section 9 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012;
‘interpreter’ means a person whose sole function in proceedings before the tribunal is to translate between the English language and another language spoken by the appellant;
‘legally represented’ means having legal services as defined by section 8 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which services must be provided by a person who is not prohibited from providing them by any statute, court order or decision of any relevant professional standards body;
‘relevant professional standards body’ means a designated professional body as defined by section 86 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or such other body in England and Wales as may be designated by the Lord Chancellor, in Scotland as may be designated by the Scottish Ministers or in Northern Ireland as may be designated by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland;
‘an international agreement’ includes the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.”
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 43. This amendment would provide interpretative provisions for Amendment 43.
Andy Slaughter
We are making splendid progress. I will again disappoint those who like cliff-hangers by saying right at the beginning what our attitude is towards clause 2. We find it concerning, both of itself and on its own merits. We believe that reversing decisions in Cart, and subjecting Cart judicial reviews to ouster, is wrong on its own merits. We also think, as the Government have perhaps unwisely said, that the clause may serve as a template for further or wider use of the ouster, possibly including in more controversial areas further on. We have an issue of practicality and an issue of principle, and are therefore very likely to vote against the clause.
This short group of amendments is an attempt to improve, ameliorate and mitigate clause 2. Frankly, we found it very difficult. There is very little to recommend in clause 2, unlike in clause 1, where we at least sought to find some imaginative ways of improving it. It is difficult; nevertheless, I will in a little while speak specifically to the amendments that we have tabled. However, I will start as I did with clause 1 by setting the background so that it is clear where we are coming from on the amendments and on the clause as a whole.
An ouster clause is a clause in legislation that seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the courts. The desired effect is that the subject matter of the ouster clause cannot be challenged in the courts. If given effect by the court, this would mean that the decision or action of an official in relation to that subject matter is final and cannot be challenged legally.
Rule of law objections to ouster clauses have often been made in Parliament. For example, in relation to the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords objected to an ouster clause, stating that
“the Rule of Law is diminished if an aggrieved citizen is barred from challenging an allegedly unlawful decision taken by a public authority.”
It is reasonable to say that ouster clauses are at odds with the rule of law. The orthodox view is therefore that courts will give effect to them only if the statutory language introducing them is absolutely clear. The courts have said:
“It is a principle not by any means to be whittled down that the subject’s recourse to Her Majesty’s courts for the determination of his rights is not to be excluded except by clear words.”
In reality, courts are adept at reading even very clear words which purport to establish an ouster clause as not actually having the effect of creating an ouster clause.
The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 contained an ouster clause relating to decisions of the upper tribunal. The upper tribunal deals with appeals from the administrative appeals chamber, the immigration and asylum chamber, the lands chamber and the tax and chancery chamber. In the case of Cart, the Court of Appeal stated that
“the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, well known to Parliament as one of the great historic artefacts of the common law, runs to statutory tribunals both in their old and in their new incarnation unless ousted by the plainest possible statutory language.”
There is no such language in the 2007 Act. The Supreme Court confirmed this approach. This has led to what are known as Cart judicial reviews, whereby a decision of the upper tribunal can be judicially reviewed.
There has been an on-going debate about how effective Cart judicial reviews are in catching errors of law made by the upper tribunal. The Independent Review of Administrative Law panel found that there were errors of law in only 0.22% of cases. The Public Law Project has questioned the empirical evidence for that and suggested that Cart judicial reviews are much more effective, with an actual figure between 2.3% and 9.2%. It is difficult to know what the true figure is, but it is conceded that the 0.22% figure is a significant underestimate. I will say more about this later. However, I felt that that there was a degree of consensus around some of the evidence we heard on Tuesday that the figure was certainly about 3%, and possibly around 5%. I will come on to what I think the significance of figures of that kind may be.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Whether it is 0.2%, 3% or 5%, we are still talking about a figure at least 10 times lower than the average success for other types of judicial review, which is 40% or 50%. Surely that is a significant point to consider?
Andy Slaughter
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. We did hear a number of different figures. I am now stretching my memory to recall exactly who said what. Was it Professor Feldman who said 30% to 50%, and Dr Morgan who posited 5%? I cannot quite remember. However, yes, there are different success rates for different types of judicial review. The point is that, even if the figure is small, Cart judicial reviews are important—I will come on to that more fully. However, if it is 5%, that is not a negligible figure. One in 20 is still a lot of cases. I am going to give some case examples to show the type of case that we are dealing with here. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded that there are sufficient by way of number and variety or that the compelling facts of the cases are such that he would want to retain Cart reviews. We will see.
The Government said they would introduce legislation to reverse the law on Cart judicial reviews. They said that they would seek to widen ouster clauses to other areas, although accepting that they would be rare. They also said they would legislate for modifying quashing orders so that they could be suspended or have limited effect. The proposals announced by the Government appear to be more radical than those envisaged by the independent panel—I think that is true.
The Lord Chancellor recently suggested that there may be more reforms to come on judicial review. His view was that judicial review meant that public money was being squandered, as courts are overturning Government decisions. However, as the commentator Joshua Rozenberg recently put it, commenting on a decision of the Transport Secretary on the Stonehenge case, which I have already referred to today, if the Transport Secretary
“had got it right the first time, taxpayers’ money would not have been squandered.”
Rather than a Minister complaining about a court rectifying unlawful decisions, it would be better to make lawful decisions in the first place.
The clause would take away proper, full judicial oversight in a specific area of public decision making, leaving vulnerable individuals affected by decisions more at risk of injustice. It does so in a way that the Government explicitly state is a test run for other ouster clauses—trying to get rid of judicial oversight in other policy areas. We have been left with a Bill that is bad for claimants bringing cases, disincentivises others who have been wronged bringing their own, fetters discretion while dragging courts into matters of policy, and jettisons a vital safeguard for very little gain. There is nothing in this part of the Bill to help improve the quality of decision making. It simply risks making it worse. The judicial review aspects make up only a small amount of the Bill, but there is very little that we think can be salvaged.
Clause 2 introduces the ouster in respect of decisions of the upper tribunal. That means that some decisions will now be final and cannot be appealed to another court, because the clause would abolish the Cart judicial review. The upper tribunal deals with a host of appeals from various tribunals. The context is the importance of scrutiny and accountability mechanisms to hold public authorities to account.
Cart judicial review is used in cases where no other right to appeal exists. This type of judicial review is a crucial safeguard against errors in the tribunal system in decisions of significant importance for the people concerned, which often involve the most fundamental rights.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The hon. Member is making some interesting points about why we need to keep the system as it is, which allows for three bites of the cherry. Will he set out whether he thinks that process should extend to lots of other areas, and has he considered how much that would cost and how much judicial time would be taken up?
Andy Slaughter
I am not sure I have bought into that. I know it has become a mantra in the Bill, but I am not sure I have bought into the cherry analogy. I would rather say it is horses for courses.
Andy Slaughter
Bolting the stable door—whatever. If the hon. Member for Burnley gives me a few more moments, he will see that my argument is that the way the Supreme Court has configured this is sensible, because it works. There is a problem with Cart and Cart cases. Far from being otiose or an extravagance, the ability to review these cases is very necessary.
Antony Higginbotham
I do not think anyone is saying that it does not work. What we are saying is that it is a different process, and we are talking about whether it is efficient and fair for this one cohort of cases to be treated in a very different way. It is not about whether it works or does not work; it is about whether it is the right process and whether we should operate on a consistent basis.
Andy Slaughter
I have said, and I am coming back to the issue, that it is right and just to maintain Cart judicial reviews, but I will come on to the issue of cost shortly and whether that is appropriate. I hope that will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Alex Cunningham
I am glad my hon. Friend is going to get on to costs. In the evidence session earlier this week, the Minister spoke about having the privilege of attending the Lord Chancellor’s swearing in. He said:
“One of the things he swears is that he will ensure that resources are provided to the judiciary. This is not just about public money per se; it is about time”.––[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2021; c. 30, Q32.]
Should cash get in the way of justice, as it is here?
Andy Slaughter
Everything has a cost—it is a question of whether it is a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, we have seen the justice system of this country and every aspect of the budget of the Ministry of Justice cut more than any other Department in the last few years. Even the much heralded uplifts over the next few years will take us not much further than restoring half of the money that has been cut. I think it sits rather ill in the Government’s mouth to start talking about money, having done so much damage.
There is not an infinite amount of money, although the Government seem to discover various money trees around the place, and it is a legitimate factor to consider. What I am going on to look at is whether, in the case of Cart, the cost is a justifiable cost, either because of the remedy it provides or per se.
As I have said, Cart judicial reviews are used in cases where no other right to appeal exists. This type of judicial review is a crucial safeguard against errors in the tribunal system in decisions of significant importance for the people concerned, which often involve the most fundamental rights. It is usually used in asylum and human rights cases, in which the stakes are extremely high. In many cases, these are life-or-death decisions. It is unacceptable to insulate such decisions from judicial scrutiny.
In most cases, it is true that these are asylum and human rights cases, but not all of them are. One of our witnesses—Dr Morgan, perhaps—mentioned that Cart itself was not an asylum and immigration case. It would be wrong to categorise Cart judicial reviews as being for asylum and human rights cases. There are others as well.
Clause 2 would severely restrict Cart judicial review. The Government have not made the case for removing this vital safeguard against serious errors in the tribunal system in cases of the utmost importance. With this clause, the Bill would set a precedent for removing certain cases or areas from the scope of judicial review.
The desire to get rid of judicial oversight in any area should be of the utmost concern to those who care about the rule of law and the separation of powers. There is simply no evidence that judicial review is currently so prejudicial to good administration that it needs to be significantly restricted, and there was no conclusion to that effect in the Government-sponsored independent review. That is wholly unsurprising. That Governments find judicial review at times to be inconvenient is no justification for attempting to avoid judicial scrutiny, in this or other areas. It is particularly concerning in this specific instance.
The Bill will largely extinguish the power of the High Court to oversee decisions of the upper tribunal relating to permission to appeal first-tier tribunal decisions. This will affect all four chambers of the upper tribunal, and individuals will no longer be able to apply to the High Court. The removal of this safeguard is likely to impact some of the most vulnerable people in the system, taking away their protection from errors made by public authorities. These include refusals of asylum and, where human rights are engaged, decisions to deport someone, including where that person may have lived in this country for much, most or even all of their life.
It is important to understand that removing the normal supervision of the High Court in this area is particularly problematic given the existing constraints in the asylum and immigration system for the tribunal, and in the context of the Nationality and Borders Bill, which threatens to exacerbate those constraints. The danger is that those passing through this system will be at heightened risk of failing to receive a fair and full hearing of any appeal whatsoever. If so, the administrative decision to refuse asylum to, or deport, a person will go without any effective or independent oversight. That will be exponentially harmful, because it will tend to insulate the original administrative decision making from the degree of scrutiny that is necessary to have any prospect of improving and maintaining its quality.
The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that public bodies make lawful decisions. The provisions in this Bill would do nothing to improve that, such as by ensuring access to high-quality legal representation from an early stage in proceedings, or by improving guidance. Instead of reducing need, the Bill simply removes access to Cart judicial review, which allows individuals to challenge decisions to refuse them a right of appeal where those decisions are made unlawfully. Doing so narrows access to justice and means that people who are subject to unlawful decisions have less opportunity for redress. Cart judicial review is a vital remedy of last resort for people subject to unlawful decision making, and should be defended.
Turning to the statistics and costings, unlike prospective-only remedies or a presumption in favour of suspended quashing orders, it is right to say that reversing Cart was a recommendation of the independent review of administrative law. The counter-argument in favour of clause 2 is primarily said to be the cost of Cart cases and the use of valuable judicial resources. The costs of Cart JRs are described as a “disproportionate and unjustified burden” on the system. The Bill’s impact assessment estimates that between 173 and 180 High Court and upper tribunal sitting days will be freed up each year through clause 2, representing savings of between £364,000 and £402,000 a year. That figure is not high—it is less than some Members can pick up in their alternative jobs over a period of a few years—especially when considering the important role of Cart JRs in preventing serious injustice and ensuring that key decisions of the upper tribunal are not insulated from challenge.
A High Court judge can consider at least five applications for Cart judicial review in a single sitting day, an assumption that may be overstating the time taken to consider a single case. That figure of £364,000 to £402,000 is also inflated, because it considers the costs of the upper tribunal rehearing the case. That will occur because an unlawful upper tribunal permission decision has been identified by the High Court, so including those costs in the impact assessment is to include savings that result from allowing unlawful decisions to stand. That position cannot be acceptable.
Further, the average number of hours per Cart judicial review in the High Court that the impact assessment provides is 1.3 hours—again, that means up to five Cart JRs per day, which could easily be overestimating the time it takes a High Court judge to consider a single Cart judicial review case. That is especially true because there is a specific streamlined procedure for Cart JRs, which includes that if permission for the Cart JR is granted, unless a substantive hearing on that judicial review is requested, the court will automatically quash the upper tribunal’s refusal of permission. Moreover, that figure is inflated because it includes the cost of the upper tribunal rehearing the appeal in a successful case. That would constitute a cost saving resulting from allowing unlawful decisions to stand: those costs would only be saved because the upper tribunal’s unlawful refusal of permission to appeal was immunised from challenge.
There is already a high threshold for the use of Cart judicial reviews. In order for permission to be granted, the case must be shown to be arguable with a reasonable prospect of success. Lawyers must also show that there is an important point of principle under consideration, or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Applications for Cart judicial review of a decision must be submitted within 16 days of the initial decision having been sent, instead of the usual three months available in other types of judicial review. Unlike other judicial reviews, there is no right to an oral hearing: Cart judicial reviews are dealt with by paper application only, thus requiring minimal judicial resources.
As we have already touched on, IRAL’s recommendation to reverse Cart judicial review was based on the 0.22% figure, but I think it is now generally accepted that that figure was seriously flawed. The criticism of that figure attracted the support of the Office for Statistics Regulation, and the Government have now accepted it: their own analysis suggests that at least 3.4% of cases are successful, a figure 15 times higher than IRAL originally estimated. However, that figure is also not universally accepted, with the Public Law Project estimating that success rates for Cart JR are considerably higher. I know that there are a number of figures flying around, but I think quite a persuasive case was made for the figure of around 5%. I think the variation stems from IRAL’s misunderstanding of how to calculate success in Cart JRs, as well as procedural complexities that mean that they are rarely accurately reported.
Further, the Government’s definition of success does not reflect the purpose of Cart JRs and is unduly narrow. The analysis in the consultation response and impact assessment adopts an unduly narrow definition of success, which artificially deflates the success rate and artificially increases the projected cost savings. The Government define success as not only success in a judicial review, but also a finding in favour of the claimant at a subsequent substantive appeal in the upper tribunal. That is because the Ministry of Justice assumes that a Cart JR is successful if not only the upper tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal is overturned, but permission to appeal is granted and the appeal against the first-tier tribunal’s decision is allowed.
That excludes all the cases in which Cart judicial review played a vital role in correcting an error of law in the upper tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal, but the subsequent appeal was dismissed. That is not the normal approach to defining success in judicial review. It ignores the benefit that flows from a case that meets the Cart criteria being heard in the upper tribunal, allowing that more senior tribunal to consider important points of principle or practice and opening up the possibility of appeal to the Court of Appeal, thus preventing the upper tribunal from being insulated from the general courts system.
A Cart judicial review should be regarded as successful if it results in the refusal of permission to appeal being overturned. If we adopt that definition, the success rate is more like 5.5% or 6%, which is some 25 times higher than the IRAL panel thought and means that more than one in 20 cases are successful. That might be regarded as a reasonable and appropriate success rate for challenges to decisions by a senior tribunal, but that view is surely fortified by the nature of the issues at stake.
In any full assessment of the proportionate use of judicial resource, account needs to be taken of the weight of the interests. In the administrative appeals chamber, many appeals concern access to benefits that are designed to prevent destitution and homelessness, or to meet the additional living costs of disabled people. In the immigration and asylum chamber, almost all cases involve asylum and human rights appeals. The potential injustices at stake concern the most fundamental rights and may literally be a matter of life and death. The cases that succeed in a Cart judicial review will also, by definition, involve important points of law or practice, which would otherwise not be considered, or compelling reasons such as the complete breakdown of fair procedure.
Cart JRs have several purposes, including the identification of errors of law in upper tribunal permission decisions where important issues of principle or practice are raised. That will be achieved if the upper tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal is quashed. The impact assessment states that of a total of 92 cases, out of 1,249 applications, 48 were remitted to the upper tribunal for permission to appeal decisions. That is in the context of immigration Cart JRs for 2018-19, minus cases pending an appeal decision in the upper tribunal. Therefore, based on those figures and a more accurate definition of success, which still does not account for settlement, the success rate is 7.37%—more than double the 3.4% that the Government now rely on, and more than 30 times the original figure cited by IRAL. In addition, there is required to be an arguable case that has a reasonable prospect of success.
In short, the streamlined procedure for Cart judicial reviews, together with the high test for permission in Cart cases, provides a proportionate means of achieving the aim, which the Government commend, of ensuring some overall judicial supervision of the decisions of the upper tribunal in order to guard against the risk that errors of law of real significance slip through the system. An entirely appropriate and proportionate amount of judicial resource is used in identifying and correcting errors of law that would have potentially catastrophic consequences for the individuals concerned.
As I have said, it is not just the number of cases but their nature that is concerning. Many relate to immigration and asylum. Many of the remainder concern access to benefits for the disabled and others facing destitution. The result of these appeals may decide whether someone has the means to live and to be housed, or whether they may be deported, separated from their family and face potential mistreatment, and the Government are not unaware of that.
Alex Cunningham
As we are looking at this whole issue of scrutiny, which is so important, I cannot quite understand why the Government or anybody else would not want greater scrutiny of what they do on a day-to-day basis. Does my hon. Friend understand my feelings on that?
Andy Slaughter
I do understand, and I think that quite a lot of our witnesses understood that as well and could balance the relatively small numbers and the particular provision for Cart, which the Supreme Court upheld, against the very serious nature of these cases. I will go on to outline some cases. I will not do all 57, but I will give a handful of cases that will perhaps indicate the variety and the seriousness of the cases that we are dealing with here. It is very easy to deal with the law in the abstract, but we need to look at the type of individual who is affected and at the profound effect that it has on their life.
In addition to the equality implications, the fact that Cart JRs primarily relate to immigration and asylum decisions means that the human rights consequences may be particularly severe, impacting the right to life and the absolute right to freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, which are protected by articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights, as well as the right against return to persecution, which is protected by the refugee convention. An unchallenged, erroneous tribunal decision could also lead to long-term family separation, engaging article 8 of the ECHR, on the right to respect for a private and family life. Cart JRs prevent serious injustices. The Government recognised in the consultation that the removal of Cart JRs “may cause some injustice”. Almost all the cases in the immigration and asylum chamber of the first-tier tribunal relate to asylum and human rights appeals, which engage the most fundamental rights, including, in some cases, the difference between life and death.
I mentioned the 57 cases that were cited by ILPA, and there were also 10 cases identified by IRAL. Each involved a person’s fundamental rights and the upper tribunal incorrectly applying the law. Those examples included: parents’ applications for their child to be reunited with them; a child’s application to remain in the UK to receive life-saving treatment; the asylum claim of a victim of human trafficking and female genital mutilation; and many other deportation and asylum decisions where, if deported, the individuals faced persecution, their lives were at risk and/or they would be separated from their families. So let me briefly go through a handful of the cases that were cited.
In one case, the right to a Cart appeal saved a humanist asylum seeker who would have been wrongfully deported to Egypt to face state-sponsored persecution and vigilante violence. He relied on Cart to demonstrate that the tribunal judge erred in his case. It is also worth noting that the Home Office conceded his claim before it went to a full hearing at the Court of Appeal, which meant that his case will not show up on official statistics regarding Cart. Then we have the case of Nadeem, a young Afghan man who came to the UK as an unaccompanied minor and was in the care of social services. He was tortured by the Taliban as a child. His case was dismissed because, even though it was accepted that he was at risk in his home area, no medical evidence had been obtained to show that he was traumatised as a result of that torture. The trauma he had experienced and its impact on him made it unreasonable for him to relocate to Kabul. His brother, who had come here in the same circumstances, had that medical report, and his appeal was allowed. The day after Nadeem’s appeal decision was sent out, the country guidance showing that it was possible to safely relocate to Kabul was ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal. Nadeem was urgently referred to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which used Cart JR to enable him to bring his appeal. This appeal was subsequently allowed on the basis that the original decision was irrational. He was then recognised as a refugee and is starting to build his life in the UK with his brother, safe from the Taliban.
Then we have the case of Tania, who was a child victim of trafficking. Her asylum appeal was dismissed by the first-tier tribunal, which found that she was not trafficked and would not be at risk on return. She was 15 years old when she was transported to the United Kingdom to work with the family in question. Permission to appeal to the upper tribunal was sought, because, as a question of law, she could not “voluntarily” undertake such work as a minor. As a victim of trafficking, and given her profile, the objective evidence demonstrated that she would be at risk of persecution on return. Permission to appeal was refused by both the first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal, but a Cart JR of this decision was successful, with the judge finding that the tribunals had failed to address the fact that Tania was a child victim of trafficking in their reasoning. The decision of the upper tribunal to refuse permission to appeal was quashed and permission to appeal to the upper tribunal was granted. Tania was subsequently recognised as a refugee and is no longer at risk of trafficking and forced labour, thanks to the successful intervention by way of Cart JR.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman must know that only about 3% of these kinds of judicial review succeed, and that the huge number of them, 750 or so a year, are taking up enormous amounts of time. It would be good to have a debate in the House, perhaps even urgently, on the backlog of court cases, as then we can hear him say that he supports our attempt to clear that backlog. Why not have a debate about it on Monday? We can talk about why the Bill is so helpful in dealing with that problem.
Andy Slaughter
I am going to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman by not taking responsibility for this Government’s court backlog, which is continuing, in the Crown court at least, to grow and to which we have precious little solution at the moment. Nor am I going to put the burden of that on to this type of case. The reason why I am going through a few of these case summaries is to show, on their facts, that these are compelling cases.
The right hon. Gentleman could possibly have said 0.22%, which was the figure that the Government sought to rely on. That was a very low figure. I think he said 3.4%, but I think it is higher than that. I think this is a significant number of cases. I also think they are very compelling cases. He may not want to hear the facts of these cases, but to rebut that with the current Crown court backlog—I will put it politely, I think there is an element of non sequitur there. I do not want to get into a big debate about the MOJ’s finances, but I did mention that any extra money that has been put into the MOJ, or will be over the next three years, is a recognition of the ridiculous levels of cuts that have been made since 2010 and does not begin to address them
Sir John Hayes
But by definition, given the success rate, these changes will take out considerably more than 700 cases. That may create room for others, I do not deny that, but it is pretty hard for someone to argue that they want to free up more resources for the courts and then to argue against provisions that do just that.
Andy Slaughter
With respect, it is not. We are talking about a sum of between £300,000 and £400,000. I do not think that will make a material difference to the Crown court backlog. That is partly—mainly—a result of underfunding, but also of mismanagement by this and previous Governments since 2010. Those listening to the debate can make up their own mind about whether that was a sensible rebuttal of the type of cases that, as a result of getting rid of Cart judicial review, will no longer have a remedy—will no longer be able to come before the courts. It is not unique; it does happen and it can be justified, but it is a very serious step to engage an ouster clause. It is for the Government to make that case, and I am sure that, when I finish today, or when we resume next Tuesday, the Minister will try to make the case. To put the onus on the Opposition is, shall we say, chutzpah.
Let me, in the time I have left, go through perhaps just half a dozen cases. I do not want to take up Members’ time, but I do want to put these cases on the record, because I think that this type of case is exactly what we are dealing with and when one hears about the victims and the potential litigants in Cart reviews, that makes a difference to how we regard them.
Jared is a Tamil who had supported the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as a teenager and was tortured by the Sri Lankan state as a result. His body was covered in more than 100 scars typical of torture methods used by the regime. Despite that, and a country expert report, his appeal was dismissed. Despite his trauma and the risk that he faced on return, he was detained pending removal. He lodged a Cart judicial review challenging how the tribunal had treated the expert evidence supplied in his case. The case was successful before the Court of Appeal, and he was then recognised as a refugee. It was accepted by the Court that he would have been at real risk of further torture and persecution if returned.
SR, a Sri Lankan national, feared persecution, in part because of his involvement in diaspora activities in the UK. His appeal was dismissed by the first-tier tribunal, and he was refused permission to appeal. Following his application for a Cart judicial review, the refusal of permission to appeal was quashed on the grounds that the first-tier tribunal had failed to consider the evidence of the applicant’s diaspora activities in the UK and whether, in light of the evidence and the arguable change in conditions in Sri Lanka since 2013 when the upper tribunal had given country guidance, he would be at risk on return. The upper tribunal found that the first-tier tribunal had made an error of law and decided to hear the case to give new guidance on risk on return for those involved in diaspora activities. Before the hearing in the upper tribunal, the Home Office conceded the appeal, accepting that SR was a refugee. Without the possibility of a Cart judicial review, SR could have been sent to Sri Lanka, where he had a well-founded fear of persecution.
Andy Slaughter
I will in a moment. Under clause 2, that crucial and focused review will be lost, and with it the potential for fundamental injustices to be prevented. I am coming on to talk briefly about amendments 43, 42 and 44, but I will give way.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman used the phrase “faulty statistical reasoning”. In 2004, when the current shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), was a Minister, he tried to bring forward a similar measure. Can the hon. Member for Hammersmith remind us of the percentage reasoning used to justify that measure at the time?
Andy Slaughter
Along with “bites of the cherry”, I cannot comment on the shadow Justice Secretary’s activities before I was elected to the House. It might be approaching lèse-majesté for me to intrude on that, particularly given that he dealt with it effectively on Second Reading.
James Cartlidge
In a Bill Committee, the statistic that the right hon. Member for Tottenham, as Constitutional Affairs Minister, used to justify getting rid of Cart JR was 3.6%—an incredibly similar statistic, which suggests that there is some merit in that figure.
Andy Slaughter
We have heard every figure from 0.22% up to 9.6%, and some of the experts made the case for it being substantially above 3%. I am making a separate case, however, which is why I wanted to read into the record some of those case summaries of complex cases. They indicate: first, that they are compelling cases; secondly, that there are a significant number, even if they are a minority; and thirdly, that the figures that we are talking about—I wish we could get more accurate figures; perhaps the Minister could go away and help us with that—are likely to be substantially above 3.6%. I know that the Government have moved only that far at the moment, but perhaps they can be persuaded to move a little further.
I fear that I will not finish today, but hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I am near finishing. I will say a few words on what are essentially probing amendments 43, 42 and 44. As I said at the beginning, they are our way of making the best fist of improving clause 2—they are not our finest hour.
We would like to understand why it is proposed to exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to consider upper tribunal decisions to refuse permission to appeal, where it is arguable that the statutory appellate process is tainted by bad faith or fundamental breach of natural justice, unless that question is one of bad faith or breach of natural justice by an act of the upper tribunal itself. Clause 2 permits very limited exceptions to the ouster of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over the statutory tribunal appeals system.
Proposed new section 11A(4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 sets out the limited exceptions. Proposed new section 11A(4)(c) provides for an exception where a question arises as to whether
“the Upper Tribunal is acting or has acted…in bad faith, or…in fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice.”
That restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court when the bad faith or a breach of natural justice is on the part of the upper tribunal in refusing permission to appeal. If, however, the statutory tribunal appellate process has been otherwise tainted by bad faith or a fundamental breach of natural justice, whether before the upper tribunal or in the first-tier tribunal, the High Court’s jurisdiction would continue to be excluded. That might, for example, be on the part of the tribunal below or on the part of a party to the appeal.
Any appeal that is tainted by bad faith or a fundamental breach of natural justice would therefore not fulfil Parliament’s purpose in establishing a statutory appellate tribunal. Therefore, in the interests of both justice and parliamentary sovereignty, any appeal tainted by either of those factors should not be excluded from the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. The amendment could expand the current exception in clause 2 to ensure that it applies to any bad faith or fundamental breach of natural justice.
I pause to catch my breath before I go on to amendments 43 and 44, just in case the Chair was about to interrupt me. If not, I will begin. It is unclear what is proposed by clause 2 having regard to the existing and pending limitations of the tribunal system in securing access to justice for appellants before it, particularly in relation to the function of that system as guarantor of the safety and fairness of administrative decisions. The Bill could be amended to provide a further list of exceptions to the ousting of the High Court’s jurisdiction proposed by clause 2. I propose an amendment that gives examples of circumstances in which there must be special concern about the capacity of the first-tier tribunal to deliver an effective appeal for the appellant for reasons beyond the control of the tribunal.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Thursday 4th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month 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 4 November 2021 - (4 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for tabling new clause 5, which provides the Committee with the opportunity to consider granting the right of abode in the United Kingdom to former British-Hong Kong service personnel, their spouses and dependants.
The Government remain extremely grateful to former British-Hong Kong service personnel. Under the British nationality selection scheme, a limited number of personnel who were settled in Hong Kong could apply to register as British citizens. All veterans would have been eligible to acquire British national overseas status between 1986 and 1997. Therefore, many should hold BNO status. Those who hold BNO status may be eligible for the BNO visa that was launched in January this year and which provides a route to settlement in the UK, meaning that many former British-Hong Kong service personnel, their spouses and dependants will already have, or be on the path to having, settlement and subsequently British citizenship, which would confer on them a right of abode in the UK.
We must consider the impact on public services both of increased usage generated by the right of access granted by expanded citizenship, and of the additional costs in granting such rights, such as casework resource and resettlement resulting in lost income that is not budgeted for and is therefore not affordable. Additionally, although I recognise the significant contribution made by this group, it may be difficult to justify why this specific cohort should be granted the right of abode when others from former colonial garrisons are not. For these reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I do think there are very specific reasons why this cohort should indeed be granted what this new clause is looking for, and I suspect we will be looking at this again on Report. In the meantime, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Reporting to Parliament in relation to the prevention of death
“(1) The Secretary of State must within 12 months of the commencement of this section, and thereafter within each successive 12 months’ period, lay before Parliament a report concerning the deaths of people subject to asylum and immigration powers.
(2) A report required by this section must state the number of people subject to asylum and immigration powers who have died since—
(a) state the number of people subject to asylum and immigration powers who have died since—
(i) the commencement of this section (in the case of the first report laid under this section); or
(ii) the previous report laid under this section (in all other cases); and
(b) set out the support arrangements that the Secretary of State has implemented in that year to assist those directly affected by the deaths, and what changes in these arrangements are planned for the next year.
(3) Subject to subsection (5), the report required by this section must—
(a) in relation to each death to which subsection (2) refers, identify—
(i) whether the deceased was at the time of death detained under immigration powers,
(ii) whether the deceased had an asylum claim outstanding,
(iii) whether the deceased was in receipt of accommodation or support from the Secretary of State,
(iv) whether the deceased was a relevant child or young person,
(v) whether the deceased was under the control of any person acting under the authority of the Secretary of State,
(vi) the age, nationality and gender of the deceased,
(vii) any protected characteristic of the deceased,
(viii) the steps taken by the Secretary of State to support any family member of, or other person directly affected, by the death,
(ix) such further information as the Secretary of State shall consider relevant; and
(b) include a statement by the Secretary of State in relation to each such death concerning the impact, if any, of any relevant function, power, decision or discretion upon the circumstances causally connected to that death; and
(c) set out any changes to legislation, policy or practice that the Secretary of State proposes or has made to prevent the occurrence or continuation of circumstances creating a risk of death or to eliminate or reduce that risk in those circumstances; and
(d) describe the Secretary of State’s policy and practice in providing assistance to or receiving assistance from statutory bodies with responsibilities relating to the investigation or prevention of death.
(4) In making any statement to which subsection (3)(b) refers, the Secretary of State shall take into consideration both acts and omissions in relation to the exercise of any function, power or discretion and the making of any decision (including any omission to make a decision).
(5) Where the Secretary of State is unable to fulfil the requirements of subsection (3) in relation to any particular death by reason of there being insufficient time to compile and consider the relevant circumstances relating to the person who has died, the Secretary of State shall state this in the report and shall fulfil those requirements in the next report required by this section.
(6) In this section—
a person is “subject to asylum or immigration powers” if that person—
(a) is detained under immigration powers;
(b) has made an asylum claim that remains outstanding (including where it is being treated as inadmissible but the person remains in the UK);
(c) is in receipt of accommodation or support provided or arranged by the Secretary of State;
(d) is a relevant child or young person; or
(e) is under the control of any person acting under the authority of the Secretary of State in pursuance of asylum or immigration functions;
“relevant function, power, decision or discretion” refers to functions, powers, decisions or discretion in relation to asylum or immigration functions that are exercised or may be exercised by the Secretary of State, an immigration officer or a person to whom the Secretary of State has delegated that exercise;
“protected characteristic” has the same meaning as in the Equality Act 2010;
a “relevant child or young person” means a person who is subject to immigration control and—
(a) is in the care of a local authority; or
(b) is receiving support from a local authority as a result of having been in such care;
a person (P) is “under the control” of another person (A) where—
(a) P is being escorted by A within or from the UK,
(b) P in the custody of A,
(c) P is reporting (including remotely) to a designated place (including remotely) in compliance with a requirement imposed by A, or
(d) P is residing at a designated place in compliance with a requirement imposed by A;
“young person” means a person below the age of 25 years.” —(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would seek to ensure there was transparency and accountability about the deaths of people subject to certain asylum and immigration powers, and policies designed to prevent them.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Everyone in this Committee has expressed concern at the loss of life in the channel when people make dangerous journeys to seek asylum here. This new clause brings us to loss of life among people already in the immigration and asylum systems. It asks: what do we know about such deaths, what do we do in response to prevent other deaths from happening, and what do we do to ensure dignity in death? I am grateful to Amnesty International, Migrant Voice, Bail for Immigration Detainees, the Scottish Refugee Council and Liberty Investigates for all their work on this.
I particularly want to mention the Da’aro Youth Project, which was established in 2018 by members of the Eritrean community in London in response to the suicides of several unaccompanied teenage Eritreans who came to the UK to seek asylum, and supports the wellbeing of young people in the UK asylum system from countries in the horn of Africa. Its research found that at least 12 teenagers who arrived in the UK as unaccompanied children seeking asylum have died by suicide in the past five years, most of them Eritrean, including several in recent months. All had either been children in the care of local authorities or care leavers, while one was subject to an age dispute, one had been denied family reunion, and several had been waiting for significant periods for an asylum decision or had in fact been refused asylum.
More recently, Scottish Refugee Council freedom of information requests initially identified 51 deaths in asylum accommodation between April 2016 and June 2021. A slightly different set of FOIs from Liberty Investigates received a different number from the Home Office: 95 in the period to August 2021. Alarmingly, 69 of those deaths—about three quarters—were in the period from 2020, so there has been a significant increase. By August this year, nearly as many people had died in the asylum system as in the whole of last year.
The first issue is why it is only through the work of Da’aro Youth Project, the Scottish Refugee Council and Liberty Investigates that we know this. Surely the Home Office should be reporting regularly on the deaths of those in its system. Can lessons be learned from these deaths, what could be done to prevent further deaths, and do the deaths have implications for broader policy? For example, there has been a significant increase in deaths over the past couple of years, suggesting that moving to institutional accommodation is a dangerous policy, but are there other reasons? What about new policies, including those in this Bill? What impact might they have on deaths in the asylum and immigration system? We cannot do very much of that analysis because it does not seem that the Home Office gathers information never mind publishes it. Which other Government Department would get away with it if deaths of those in its care and caught up in its processes were not being thoroughly investigated and responded to? It should be absolutely no different here.
The second issue is: what happens in response to every individual death? I am not even sure whether there is in existence a proper Home Office policy on this. Is any effort made to find and contact family members, or even to return the body to the family? What is done to support friends and family here in the UK, particularly those who are in the asylum system or local authority care?
Since Windrush, we have been told repeatedly that the Home Office is undergoing a culture change to see “the face behind the case”. I suggest that a vital starting place could be taking much greater interest in those who have lost their life while within the Home Office’s own asylum and immigration systems and being transparent and accountable about what has happened. The new clause simply asks for what really should have been happening for years. It is a simple matter of human decency and proper accountability.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. I note his concerns around transparency and accountability in relation to deaths of people subject to immigration powers. I can assure him that transparency and accountability remain a key priority for the Department. We currently publish data every year on the number of deaths of people under our care in immigration detention. I recognise the importance of transparency in these circumstances to ensure that there is accountability and that we can develop effective policies and processes to prevent such instances from occurring in future. One death of a person in our care in one death too many. We must do everything in our power to ensure that these do not occur. Thankfully, deaths in detention are rare. There were no deaths in detention in 2020 and just one in 2019, where the individual died of natural causes.
We regularly review the statistics that we publish as a Department and, where it is clearly in the public interest to do so, it is our duty to consider the feasibility of publishing new statistics. We must weigh that up against other considerations. While we have a duty of care to all of those in our remit, there are many people in the asylum and immigration system who are either not required to, or choose not to, maintain regular contact with us. Some may even leave the UK without informing us while they have an open immigration claim. That means that there may be instances where we are not informed of the person’s death or we do not have all the relevant facts.
Additionally, it can take months and even years for inquests to reach conclusions. It is important that we know the facts before we publish the information. This highlights the kind of practical and deliverability challenges that we face and which affect the scope and accuracy of any information in this space. However, I acknowledge the importance of transparency. We regularly review the information that is published by the Department on the context of transparency, but also in line with the changes that the Bill will bring about. I note the interest of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in this particular area and will ensure that it is considered in line with the wider and ongoing review of statistics published by the Department. I trust that that addresses his concerns and I encourage him to withdraw the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I appreciate the Minister’s answer and the sentiments that he expresses. I am concerned that what he says does not always necessarily reflect exactly how things are operating on the ground. On the gathering and publishing of information, that is something that we will watch very closely. What he has not done is set out anything in relation to how the Home Office responds and whether there is a policy in relation to individual deaths—for example, those issues around returning the body, trying to approach family and friends, and the duty of care that we have to those individuals as well. That is something I will need to return to and raise with him again. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Immigration health surcharge: exemption for international volunteers
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 38, insert—
“38A Immigration health surcharge: exemption for international volunteers
(1) A charge under section 38 may not be imposed on persons who have leave to enter, or to remain in, the United Kingdom through a visa to work voluntarily for a period of no more than 12 months, or for such period as may be prescribed by regulations, for a registered UK charity advancing the charity’s primary purpose.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”.’ . —(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would ensure that international volunteers, including those working in health and social care, will be exempt from paying the immigration health surcharge.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would introduce an immigration health surcharge exemption for international volunteers. On this occasion, I am particularly indebted to Camphill Scotland, which does fantastic work to support around 600 people with learning disabilities and other support needs, ranging from children to older people. It has built a formidable alliance of almost 50 organisations across the UK that support this new clause, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and many, many more which, unfortunately, I do not have time to mention. All members of the Committee will have received briefings and representations directly on this issue, and I urge them to consider it carefully.
My party objects to the immigration health surcharge altogether, but that debate is for another day. What we do welcome, as do the organisations behind this new clause, is the Government’s decision to exempt health and social care workers from other countries from paying it. The new clause seeks to ensure that those who want to come to work as volunteers in the charitable sector, including in health and social care, are also exempt. We believe that charging this surcharge to volunteers working in health and social care in charitable settings is unfair, inequitable and counterproductive. Volunteers from the EU and beyond make a significant contribution to the work of charities across the UK; Camphill Scotland currently has about 215 international volunteers, helping it to support people with learning disabilities and other support needs.
These young people have chosen to stay in the UK to provide social care to UK citizens during a national health emergency, displaying considerable dedication to and compassion for the people they support. It would be an injustice if the immigration health surcharge exemption was not extended to international volunteers working in the charitable sector. It is all the more essential that this change is made post Brexit, with volunteers from the EU and Switzerland now being caught by visa fees and other expenses. If we cannot continue to attract volunteers, the people who will suffer will be those who benefit from their care, including those with learning disabilities and support needs in the care of Camphill Scotland. The logic of the Government’s immigration health surcharge is that everyone should contribute but, just like the health and social care workforce, the volunteers are already doing just that, so surely the same logic applies. Given that such volunteers cannot have a salary here and will receive a subsistence allowance at most, there is even more reason to exempt them altogether. They are already facing considerable costs to take up these posts. It cannot be right that we also charge them a surcharge to support the very system that they are currently voluntarily supporting. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the representations made by the almost 50 organisations that have contacted him, to consider meeting them and to look carefully at these proposals.
Tom Pursglove
The Government recognise the important contribution that international volunteers make to our communities, and are committed to attracting people from overseas who wish to gain experience of our voluntary sector. The temporary work-charity worker visa is available to those who wish to undertake unpaid voluntary fieldwork for up to 12 months, where the work contributes directly to the achievement or advancement of the sponsor’s charitable purpose. The route offers volunteers the chance to experience life in the UK while making a valuable contribution to the aims of their chosen charity. At the same time, the involvement and contribution of these individuals has benefits for the UK charity sector and the wider community, and the UK Government welcome this involvement.
This is not an economic route and it should not be used to fill gaps in the labour market. Volunteers using the charity worker visa must not receive any payment beyond being reimbursed for expenses incurred during their duties. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect costs to be considered and planned for before they apply for a visa. As this is a temporary work category, the cost of a visa is already significantly less than any other work and study routes, at a rate of £244, and sponsors pay a lower licence fee, which reflects their own charity status. The immigration health charge, which applies to this route, ensures that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a direct contribution to the comprehensive range of NHS services available to them during their stay. Income from the charge is shared between the health administrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, using the formula devised by Lord Barnett. The charge is an essential part of income for the NHS and has raised almost £2 billion in much-needed income since it was introduced in 2015.
Those who make an application to come to the UK for six months or less do not pay the charge, and we know that a sizeable number of volunteers come for less than the 12 months the route allows. If they opt to stay longer than six months, however, it is right that they pay the charge, as is consistent with others who base themselves in the UK for extended periods. I understand that there are concerns about the financial impact of the charge on volunteer workers, alongside visa fees and other payments that a person may make when they choose to come to the UK. However, the Government are clear that the charge is great value, considering the wide range of NHS services, free at the point of use, for charge payers. From the moment they arrive in the UK, charge payers can use the NHS in broadly the same manner as a permanent resident, without having made any prior tax or national insurance contributions. They may access health services as often as they need, including treatment for pre-existing health conditions, and do not need to worry about unexpected health charges or obtaining appropriate health insurance.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister knows that I do not support the idea of an additional surcharge but, even if we accept his logic, the Government have exempted health and social care workers from the surcharge because they contribute to the healthcare system. Should that same logic not apply even more so to volunteers who are working in the health and social care system?
Tom Pursglove
In relation to the approach taken for health and social workers, the view widely felt across the House, which was subsequently reflected in policy, was that, given the enormous contribution made by those working directly in this sector during the pandemic, it was appropriate to try and put in place a form of recognition of that work, as well as other measures we have talked about, for example the pay rises that have quite rightly been afforded to NHS workers. It was seen as one means of recognising the enormous contribution that some of those who had come from overseas to work in our health and social care settings had made and rewarding them for that. There were particular circumstances that meant that it was felt that that was appropriate.
Charge payers pay only those charges a UK resident would pay, such as prescription charges in England. They may, however, be charged for assisted conception services in England, should they wish to use them. We welcome talented individuals to the UK and are immensely grateful to them for the important contributions they make, but if a person chooses to come to the UK as a worker, student, family member or volunteer, it is fair and reasonable to expect them to contribute to the high-quality NHS services available to them.
It is vital, particularly given the challenges posed by the pandemic, for the NHS to continue to be properly funded. The immigration health charge directly benefits the NHS and plays an important role in supporting its long-term sustainability. The Government are confident that the charity worker visa provides an attractive offer to voluntary workers. Individuals on some other routes can also volunteer their time to help others, and, depending on the route, they either pay the immigration health charge or may be charged by the NHS for their healthcare.
The youth mobility scheme, for example, is subject to the charge. Those on this route are free to take up work in any sector, paid or unpaid. The standard visitor visa allows people to volunteer for up to 30 days with a registered charity. The visit rules allow visitors to stay for a maximum of six months, which means that they are not subject to the immigration health charge but may instead be charged for NHS care, in line with the rules set by the relevant, devolved health administration.
The Government believe that it is right for the health charge to apply to the charity worker visa. Many nations expect newly arrived individuals to contribute, in some form, to the cost of healthcare. It is right we do the same. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw the new clause, but I take on board the passion with which he made his case in relation to this issue and the various representations he referred to that have been made to me as Minister with responsibility for this Bill. I will certainly ensure that they are shared with the Minister with responsibility for this area of policy in the Department as part of their consideration of these matters.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and those assurances. He is quite right about the reasons for the recognition that was given to health and social care staff. We are just calling for the same recognition for volunteers as well. I would be interested to know more. I get the impression that this would be a tiny hit for the Treasury, but it could have real benefit for charities. Before we think about that and make the case again before we reach Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Duty regarding rights to British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship
“(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to encourage, promote and facilitate awareness and exercise of rights to British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship among persons possessing these rights.
(2) In fulfilment of that duty, the Secretary of State—
(a) must take all reasonable steps to ensure that all persons with rights to British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship are able to exercise those rights;
(b) must make arrangements, including with local authorities, to ensure that all children in a local authority area are aware of their rights to British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship and of the means by which to exercise those rights;
(c) must, when considering any application for confirmation or registration of British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship, have regard to information held by or available to the Secretary of State that would demonstrate the applicant to be a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen or entitled to that citizenship; and
(d) shall have, and where reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons are able to exercise those rights shall exercise, the power to waive any requirement to attend a ceremony or in connection with biometric information.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“rights to British citizenship” means rights of acquisition of British citizenship by birth, adoption, commencement or registration under the British Nationality Act 1981;
“rights to British overseas territories citizenship” means rights of acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by birth, adoption, commencement or registration under the British Nationality Act 1981; and
“to exercise those rights” means to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen on the making of an application under the British Nationality Act 1981 or to obtain documentation from the Secretary of State confirming British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship (including by receipt of a passport) on the making of an application to the Secretary of State.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new Clause would require the Government to encourage, promote and facilitate awareness and exercise of rights to British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would place on the Government an obligation and a duty to undertake promotion of British citizenship rights and British overseas territories citizenship rights.
If there is one thing that members of the Committee can all agree on, it is that nationality law is complicated, and British nationality law is particularly complicated. As I have said, nationality law is also absolutely fundamental to people’s identity, and their ability to fulfil their potential and to exercise so many other rights. That is why it is enshrined in the UN convention itself. It is much superior to any form of immigration leave, which is no form of substitute for holding nationality. The very need for the Bill indicates, however, that lots of people miss out on their entitlements. That is terrible for them as individuals, and it is terrible for the country as a whole—bad for social cohesion—if people are missing out on rights of citizenship that they could have and that are set out in law.
An example is looked-after children. During the registration process for the EU settlement scheme, it was clear that a number of local authorities might have been signing children up for EU settled status when in actual fact they were probably entitled to register as British citizens. The new clause therefore simply calls for the Government to take a more proactive approach and to work with organisations such as local authorities and others to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of and know about their right to register or to access citizenship in other ways, so empowering them to do so.
One welcome thing about the EU settlement scheme was that the Home Office caseworkers did not say, “This or that is missing, so I am going to refuse the application.” There was a concerted attempt to work with people to ensure that all the necessary evidence was found. A lot of the time, the Government took it on themselves—by liaising between Departments—to track down the necessary evidence to allow that person to achieve the status to which they were entitled. We call for the same approach on the more fundamental right to nationality.
That is the reasoning behind the new clause. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for their new clause. I understand their thinking behind it: people who are entitled to citizenship should be able to find the information that they need and that the process should be simple and straightforward. That is a sentiment I would echo.
The measures the new clause proposes represent best practice, much of which already exists in the nationality and passport processes. For example, both UK Visas and Immigration and Her Majesty’s Passport Office publish information and guidance on gov.uk, and use information that is already available on their systems when processing applications. As part of considering Windrush applications in particular, UKVI caseworkers have demonstrated a proactive approach, helping people to locate the information needed and consulting internal sources.
The existing legislation already contains discretion to excuse or exempt a person from attending a citizenship ceremony or to enrol their biometrics. The Home Secretary can disapply the requirement to attend a ceremony in the special circumstances of a case and, if it would be too difficult for an applicant to enrol their biometrics in the form of a facial image and fingerprints, an authorised person such as an official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State can defer or waive the requirement to enrol some or all of the biometrics. I am happy to listen to the thoughts of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East about the areas where we could do more.
I do not think that we can accept the new clause, however. It would impose a statutory requirement that I am not sure is measurable. For example, while we could take steps to ensure that local authorities have information about citizenship and are encouraged to pass on that information to children in their area, I do not see that we could fulfil a statutory requirement to ensure an awareness for every child—that would be outside our control.
Similarly, the new clause is not specific about the steps that the Home Secretary would be expected to take—the lengths she would be expected to go to, for example, to obtain “available” information when considering an application, without being in breach of such a statutory duty. I take on board the sentiment of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but I ask him to withdraw his new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for his constructive approach to the issue. Perhaps we may continue the conversation in the weeks and months ahead. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 23
Safe and legal routes
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter, publish a report on—
(a) all current safe and legal asylum routes to the United Kingdom,
(b) the eligibility criteria for legal entry into the United Kingdom, and
(c) details of the application process.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report on its resettlement target of refugees per year, and report on this every year.”— (Paul Blomfield.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a summary of safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK each year, alongside their eligibility criteria and application process. It would also commit the UK and Secretary of State to publishing its resettlement targets, and reporting on this annually.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause raises an issue central to the Bill and tests the Government’s commitment. Ministers here and elsewhere have consistently argued that their objective for this legislation is to break the business model for the people smugglers, to stop dangerous journeys across the channel and instead to offer those fleeing war and persecution safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK. As the Opposition side have said many times, we endorse those objectives. What we have been doing over the past few weeks is looking at how the Bill achieves them.
We know that the Government’s own assessment of their proposals suggests that they will probably fail; the impact assessment they conducted went so far as to point out that they would probably be counterproductive. Obviously, the Government have brushed that evidence aside, but there is a real concern that there is a fundamental deceit at the core of the Bill, which is that the Government are not serious about offering the safe and legal alternatives.
The new clause is not particularly radical or ambitious; it simply requires the Home Secretary to publish a report on all current safe and legal routes, who is eligible and how people can apply. It would provide transparency and help the Home Office, because it would be able to point to a credible alternative to the dangerous journeys that we all want to discourage. Currently, however, that is not the case: the schemes that the UK has open—the UKRS and the Afghan citizen resettlement scheme—have little detail in the public domain and little guidance on the eligibility criteria or the process for application. I remind the Committee of the point I made earlier: in the first half of this year, only 310 people were resettled under the UK resettlement scheme. The recently published details of the Afghan scheme frankly offer little hope for those to whom the Prime Minister made grand promises about “every effort” and “open arms” back in August.
I remind the Minister that, while the Government promote the generosity of the UK and, as we have touched on previously, we should welcome every effort that has been made to support those fleeing war and persecution, in 2019, Germany resettled more than three times as many refugees as the UK; 1.5% of Germany’s population are refugees, in comparison with 0.65% in France, 0.45% in the Netherlands and 0.19% in the UK, according to the World Bank. We are not middle ranking, as I think the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said at one stage; we have traditionally been middle ranking, but under this Government we have been falling behind.
By accepting the new clause and publishing information about resettlement routes, the Home Office can at least be honest about the resettlement it is prepared to offer, and to whom. We as a Committee have read the evidence shared from Safe Passage International, which included some examples of people such as Jabir and Ahmed. Jabir is an unaccompanied child in northern France who is desperate to rejoin his family in the UK. He is willing to risk the channel to be reunited with his loved ones. His family have already lost a young family member to the treacherous crossing, so they are desperate to find a way for Jabir to be reunited with them, but it does not exist. While he would have had a clear case under Dublin III, there is no clear route for him now.
Meanwhile, 15-year-old Ahmed is stranded alone in France after fleeing Afghanistan. He desperately wants to be reunited with his brother, who was granted asylum in the UK and is now a young business owner. Under the UK’s current rules, the brothers would find it extremely difficult to reunite. If Ahmed’s parents were in the UK, the process would be straightforward, but tragically his brother is his only remaining family member. Ahmed is in an extremely vulnerable situation; he suffers from trauma and struggles enormously with the loss of his family. Being reunited with his brother is his only option to feel safe and to build a better future. I hope that in responding to these comments, the Minister will outline specifically what options for safe passage are, or are planned to be, available for those two boys.
Paul Blomfield
The hon. Member endorses my comments, I am pleased to hear.
If the Government are serious about their words, they need to be honest about where our ambition lies in this area and how we will provide sanctuary for those who need it. As I say, that leadership and transparency on resettlement targets would not only allow safe and legal routes to ensure that those in great need can come to the UK for protection; it would also, taken alongside the discussion we had earlier about more equitable arrangements for distribution, inform local councils, our healthcare system, schools and social services how they can plan effectively to receive and welcome and integrate into our country those seeking refuge. I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for tabling new clause 23, which would require the Government to publish an annual summary of safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK, including eligibility criteria and application process, and to report on their resettlement targets for each year. The UK has a long history of supporting refugees in need of protection and we are a global leader in resettlement.
Paul Blomfield
I am curious to know how the Minister sustains that line about the UK’s being a global leader when all the statistics published by the Home Office and others demonstrate that we are not—we are a laggard.
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I simply do not concur on this point. The simple truth is that this country is generous in the opportunities that it provides for people seeking sanctuary, and that will continue to be the case. We have had many debates on that point in this Committee, and I personally believe that that is beyond any doubt whatever.
Our resettlement schemes have provided safe and legal routes for tens of thousands of people to start new lives in the UK. Overall, since 2015, we have resettled more than 25,000 refugees direct from regions of conflict and instability, more than any EU member state. We can be proud as a country of our ambitious commitments and achievements.
On 25 February 2021, we completed our commitment to resettle 20,000 refugees under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. That achievement was made possible because of the outstanding commitment of local authorities, the devolved Administrations, non-governmental organisations, our international partners, community and faith groups, and individual members of the public.
The UK continues to welcome refugees through the global UK resettlement scheme, as well as through the community sponsorship and mandate resettlement schemes. That commitment, alongside a fair and firm asylum system, will ensure that we continue to offer safe and legal routes to the UK for vulnerable refugees in need of protection.
Through the new plan for immigration, we have been clear that this Government will continue to provide safe refuge to those in need, ensuring that our resettlement schemes are accessible, fair and responsive to international crises. This has been evident with the Home Office being at the heart of the UK’s response to the Afghanistan crisis, including supporting, under intense pressure, the biggest humanitarian airlift in the history of this country.
On 18 August, the Prime Minister announced a new and bespoke resettlement scheme to relocate 5,000 people at risk in its first year, rising to up to 20,000 over the long term—one of the most generous schemes in our history. Ultimately, the number of refugees that we resettle every year depends on a variety of factors, including local authorities’ capacity for supporting refugees, the extent to which the community sponsorship approach continues to thrive, and funding. We work closely with our partners to assess the capacity for resettlement and will continue to welcome those in need of protection in the years to come. Committing to an annual public target would remove the flexibility that this approach provides.
Additionally, we have announced plans for a pilot to support access to work visas for highly-skilled displaced people that will run in addition to existing safe and legal routes. Furthermore, the Government also provide a safe and legal route to bring families together through the family reunion policy, which allows a partner and children aged under 18 of those granted protection in the UK to join them here, if they formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country, and can demonstrate a genuine and subsisting relationship.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that in many cases under the Dublin regulation, children were placed with quite distant relatives here in the UK who they had never met, when their families and parents were in the country from whence they had fled because it was they who had paid the people traffickers to get the children to the UK?
Tom Pursglove
As I have said, it is very important that those established relationships exist. As we have debated on many occasions in the course of this Committee, we do not want anybody to place themselves in the hands of evil people smugglers and criminal gangs. We should all be very concerned about that particular issue, as I know colleagues on the Government Benches are.
Paul Blomfield
It is welcome for the Minister to reference the importance of family reunion visas, as they are clearly a vital safe route. He will be aware that more than 90% of visas are given to women and children. Will he, then, explain why in clause 10 the Government are taking away reunion rights from the majority of refugees?
Tom Pursglove
On the issue of safe routes for children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe with family members in the UK are able to apply to join eligible sponsors, such as those with refugee leave or British settled status. The immigration rules make provision for children to be reunited with their parents. Paragraphs 319 and 297 of the immigration rules are extremely flexible and allow for children to apply to join adult family members if requirements are met, and if there are serious or compelling reasons that make the exclusion of a child undesirable and suitable arrangements are needed for a child’s care. Again, these matters are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking proper account of all the circumstances at play.
Let me finish the point that I was making before I took the interventions. Under the family reunion policy, we have granted reunion to over 37,000 partners and children of those granted protection in the UK since 2015; that is more than 5,000 a year. Our policy makes it clear that there is discretion to grant visas outside the immigration rules that caters for extended family members in exceptional and compassionate circumstances—for example, young adult sons or daughters who are dependent on family here and who are living in dangerous situations. Refugees can also sponsor adult dependent relatives living overseas to join them, when, due to age, illness or disability, that person requires long-term personal care that can only be provided by relatives in the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald
I suggest the Minister goes away and does some investigations into just how frequently these types of application are granted. My recollection is that some of the thresholds are so high—exceptional and compassionate circumstances, and so on—that in reality, it is almost impossible for some of these applications to be successful. I do not think it is an answer at all to what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central is advocating.
Tom Pursglove
I hear the hon Member’s point, which again I will take away and reflect on with colleagues in the Department.
In the light of the Government’s track record and commitment to safe and legal routes, I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central agrees that the new clause is unnecessary. In particular, I highlight that information on our safe and legal routes is readily available on gov.uk including, where relevant, details about eligibility and the referral or application process.
The Home Office is committed to publishing data on arrivals in an orderly and transparent way as part of the regular quarterly immigration statistics, in line with the code of practice for official statistics. We already publish statistics on the numbers arriving through safe and legal routes. A statutory requirement to publish targets would therefore be unnecessary and unhelpfully limit the flexibility of future Governments in responding to emerging situations.
For all those reasons, I invite the hon. Member not to move the new clause. Given what has been said on family reunion, it might be helpful if I write to the Committee with more information to address some of those points, having reflected on Hansard.
Paul Blomfield
I would certainly welcome a letter on family reunion. However, I must disappoint the Minister, because he has failed to convince me about the balance in the Bill, which is central, on the Government’s commitment to develop safe and legal routes as an alternative to dangerous channel crossings. I must therefore press the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would extend the current 28-day “move on” period for newly recognised refugees to 56 days. According to the British Red Cross, the London School of Economics and others, that could benefit the public purse by more than £7 million annually and address the profound human costs of poverty and homelessness. I thank the British Red Cross for its help with the new clause and its broader research and work in the area. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I receive support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project in this policy area.
Currently, someone who has claimed asylum and been given refugee status will see their asylum support and section 4 support stop 28 days after that decision, which is out of sync with Government welfare and housing policy and insufficient time to move on with affairs. At that point, refugees stop getting their cash allowance and have to move house. While they get permission to work, they need both a bank account and a national insurance number for that. There are potential pitfalls to opening a bank account. Zikee, an ambassador for the Voices Network said:
“The biggest problem I faced when I received my refugee status was that I was asked to move out of my Home Office accommodation within 28 days…this affected me so much as I did not have my…biometric resident card due to a Home Office error. I had to wait weeks for this…and this meant I couldn’t open a bank account.”
It can be problematic to open a bank account within 28 days and, as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), confirmed in June, it can take weeks to access a national insurance number. The average wait for a new national insurance number is 10 to 12 weeks, not the 28 days found in measures for refugees. The current 28-day “move on” period is incompatible with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which gives local authorities a 56-day period to work with households at risk of homelessness and to provide alternative accommodation.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark for tabling his new clause. In simple terms, the longer successful asylum-seekers remain in asylum accommodation, the fewer the beds available for those newly entering the asylum support system, including those temporarily accommodated in hotels at great expense to the taxpayer. We are aware of reports that some refugees do not access universal credit or other benefits, or adequate housing, within 28 days. The reasons for that are complex, but the available evidence to date does not show that the problem can be solved by increasing the 28-day “move on” period.
I also reassure the hon. Member that we have implemented several initiatives with the aim of securing better outcomes for refugees in the 28 day “move on” period. These include ensuring that the 28-day period does not start until refugees have been issued with a biometric residence permit—the document that they need to prove that they can take employment and apply for universal credit—and that the national insurance number is printed on the permit, which speeds up the process of deciding a universal credit application.
We also fund Migrant Help, a voluntary sector organisation, to contact the refugees at the start of the 28-day period and offer practical “move on” assistance, including advice on how to claim universal credit; advice on the importance of an early asylum claim and the other types of support that might be available; booking an early appointment at their nearest Department for Work and Pensions jobcentre, if needed; and advice on how to contact their local authority for assistance in finding alternative housing.
We evaluated the success of the scheme that books an early appointment with the local jobcentre for those who want one. That showed that all applicants for universal credit in the survey received their first payment on time—that is, 35 days from the date of their application—and that those who asked for an earlier advance payment received one.
Asylum accommodation providers are also under a contractual duty to notify the local authority of the potential need to provide housing where a person in their accommodation is granted refugee status. Refugees can also apply for integration loans, which can be used, for example, to pay a rent deposit or for essential domestic items, work equipment or training.
The UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who need it, and I reassure the hon. Member that the Government are committed to ensuring that all refugees can take positive steps towards integration and realising their potential. Although we keep the “move on” period under review, we must also consider the strong countervailing factors that make increasing that period difficult. I therefore invite him not to press his new clause.
Neil Coyle
I am almost sorry, but the Minister’s answer ignores the reality and the situation in which people find themselves. He does not have an answer about the anomaly in housing or social security policy, and he has not even tried to explain why the Government are ignoring the potential savings to the public purse. I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 26— Right of appeal against France asylum visa refusal—
‘(1) If an application by a person (“P”) for entry clearance under clause [Asylum visa for persons in France] is refused by the appropriate decision-maker, P may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the refusal.
(2) The following provisions of, or made under, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have effect in relation to an appeal under these Regulations to the First-tier Tribunal as if it were an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State under section 82(1) of that Act (right of appeal to the Tribunal)—
(a) section 84 (grounds of appeal), as though the sole permitted ground of appeal was that the appropriate decision-maker was wrong to conclude that P was not a relevant person;
(b) section 85(1) to (4) (matters to be considered);
(c) section 86 (determination of appeal);
(d) section 105 and any regulations made under that section; and
(e) section 106 and any rules made pursuant to that section.
(3) In an appeal under this section, the First-tier Tribunal—
(a) shall allow the appeal if it is satisfied that P is a relevant person; and
(b) shall otherwise dismiss the appeal.
(4) In an appeal under this section, in deciding whether there are good reasons why P‘s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the First-tier Tribunal shall apply section [Asylum visa for persons in France] (3) as though for the words “appropriate decision-maker” there were substituted the words “First-tier Tribunal”.’
This new clause would allow a person whose application for entry clearance under clause [Asylum visa for persons in France] has been rejected to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
Neil Coyle
New clause 25 proposes a humanitarian visa route, and new clause 26 grants a right of appeal—something that made Tory MPs very excitable yesterday. I do not intend to push the new clauses to a vote; they are aimed at opening dialogue, and they link back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.
If the Government are serious about finding solutions to people smuggling and trafficking, they should consider providing practical routes for people seeking sanctuary, in the way that they do for Syria and Afghanistan, and undertake to review humanitarian routes and how they could work. I thank Bella Sankey of Detention Action for her work on these clauses. There are some fantastic people working on these issues.
The purpose of the new clauses is to offer the Government a constructive solution for safe routes. They would have the benefit of cutting smuggling and potentially saving money in the long term. If they are serious about safe and regular routes, the humanitarian visa option would create them. The new clauses also make use of the border anomaly in Calais.
The Government should commit to exploring safe routes if they are serious about preventing dangerous options. The example from Detention Action is of Dylan Footohi, an Iranian refugee who says,
“I came to the UK seeking asylum. I came irregularly simply because there was no legal way for me to do so. My journey to the UK took two years; two years of exploitation and abuse and life-threatening experiences.”
He felt that that way was the only option. If there had been an alternative, he would have taken it. These new clauses offer that alternative.
The new clauses provide for certain persons in France to be granted entry clearance to allow them to claim asylum in the UK. The new clauses set out who qualifies: they have to be in France; they cannot be an EU national or a national of Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway or Switzerland; they have to intend to make a protection claim in the UK; their protection claim, if made in the UK, must have a realistic prospect of success; and there must be good reasons why their protection claim should be considered in the UK.
The first three criteria are self-explanatory. The fourth criterion—the realistic prospect of success—is a well-established test in UK immigration law. It is used in paragraph 353 of the immigration rules, which deals with a person who has been refused asylum and has later made further submissions on asylum grounds and says that they have a fresh right of appeal against the refusal of their further submissions. Home Office officials, courts and tribunals are well used to applying that test. The leading case on the realistic prospect of success is WM (DRC) [2006] EWCA Civ 1495.
To give an example of how the criterion could work in practice, applicant X applies for a France asylum visa. She is from country A and claims that she is wanted by the authorities of country A for a political offence. The applicable country guidance accepts that if a person is detained for political offence in country A, they are likely to be subjected to serious ill-treatment, so if applicant X’s claim is found to be credible she would be entitled to asylum. The appropriate decision maker believes that applicant X is credible. Applicant X’s claim is likely to have realistic prospect of success, so the criterion is likely to be satisfied. I will keep examples brief in the interest of time.
The fifth criterion is about good reasons and is intentionally open-ended. It allows the appropriate decision maker to make a fact-sensitive evaluation of the merits of the case. In considering whether there are good reasons, the decision maker will take into account the relative strength of their family or other ties to the UK and France; their mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities; and any other matter the decision maker thinks is relevant.
To give a brief example, applicant X applies for a France asylum visa. She is street homeless in France due to a shortage of available accommodation. She has PTSD and depression as a result of being tortured and has not been able to seek treatment due to her insecure living situation. She has no family and friends in France but has a brother in the UK with whom she has a close relationship and who could support her if she were here. She speaks good English but does not speak French. There are likely to be good reasons for her claim to be dealt with in the UK, so the criterion is likely to be satisfied. That is an illustrative example, but decision makers would make up their minds on the facts of each individual case, having regard to all relevant factors.
The procedure for making the application would be to the appropriate decision maker—an entry clearance officer authorised by the Secretary of State—and they would be required to waive biometric and other procedural requirements if satisfied that the applicant could not be reasonably expected to comply. There would be no fee for the application.
The successful applicant would be given leave to enter for a period of not less than six months, prescribed by the Secretary of State, who would also prescribe the conditions of such leave. On arrival, they would be deemed to have made a protection claim in the UK and go through the normal asylum process. They would have access to legal aid and there would be a right of appeal in the first-tier tribunal against the refusal of a France asylum visa application. That would be a full merits appeal and would not be limited to a review of the original decision-maker’s decision. The tribunal will decide for itself whether the criteria are met.
That appeal process utilises the existing machinery of immigration appeals under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. There would be onward rights of appeal to the upper tribunal and Court of Appeal under sections 11 and 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, as with other types of immigration appeal.
I ask that the Government consider those practical solutions that could take the power away from people smugglers and traffickers, who the Minister routinely calls evil, with which I agree, while honouring our commitment to the refugee convention. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clauses; it is fair to say that during the course of the Committee we have had many debates around many aspects of what they refer to. The Government’s position is clear: we are trying to stop dangerous journeys wholesale—in relation not just to the channel, but to the Mediterranean. We believe in upholding the long-standing principle that people should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. Of course, people should also avail themselves of our safe and legal routes. With that, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Neil Coyle
I do not think that even the Home Office impact assessment of the Bill accepts what the Minister has just said, because it says that Bill compels some people to take dangerous routes. As I said at the start, however, this is just a probing set of new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 27
Asylum dispersal strategy
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 2 months of this Act gaining Royal Assent, publish a strategy on the accommodation of asylum seekers under a relevant provision.
(2) The strategy must cover, but need not be limited to, the following—
(a) ensuring an equitable distribution of accommodation across the regions of England, Scotland and Wales;
(b) the suitability of financial provision provided to local authorities relating to costs supporting accommodated asylum seekers;
(c) the suitability of financial provision provided to local authorities relating to costs incurred supporting individuals after they receive a decision on their asylum application;
(d) the provision of legal advice to accommodated asylum seekers; and
(e) the provision of support from non-governmental bodies.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “relevant provision” means—
(a) section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
(b) Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
(c) Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016.’—(Neil Coyle.)
This new clause would require the Home Secretary to publish a strategy within two months of the bill gaining Royal Assent on the accommodation of people seeking asylum who are accommodated by the Home Office.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil Coyle
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I thank the British Red Cross for its help with the new clause, which is very simple and is line with what the Government have said they are committed to elsewhere. It would simply entail publishing a strategy to cover Home Office accommodation, and it aims to ensure an equitable distribution of people across England, Scotland and Wales, that financial support is provided to local authorities in areas where people are seeking asylum in Home Office accommodation, and other elements.
Although the Committee has heard that the Government’s intention is to move towards the use of reception centres, it is fundamentally unclear where accommodation is aimed to be and what the Government consider accommodation to be. I intend to table an amendment on the specific issue of what is and is not an accommodation centre on Report, especially with some of the sites being used as contingency accommodation, including a hostel in my constituency that Public Health England suggested should not be used for accommodation for the Everyone In scheme. The Home Office chose to override that advice and use it for refugee and asylum seeker accommodation. The Government now seem to think that dispersal is broken, and they want to open a parallel system of accommodation, but they want to use what they refer to as “reception centres”. I hope the Minister can provide some clarity on that and on whether the Government feel that they need to use the 2002 Act. Perhaps the Minister can clear up this messy situation.
Napier barracks has become synonymous with this issue. Its use has just been extended for five years, with the Home Office using a special development order to do so. In his letter to the Committee on 21 October, the Minister said Napier is not classified as an accommodation centre. I think that is a mistake, and I hope the Minister can explain why the Home Office is using a special development order, when the High Court has ruled that the standards and operational systems at Napier barracks are unlawful.
As things stand, we do not know what is and is not accommodation according to the Home Office. We have reports and court rulings on unlawful and unfit accommodation. We do not know where reception centres will be or the types of accommodation that the Government intend to provide while seeking to move away from dispersal in communities where service providers have argued that it is better for integration. That is why a strategy is required, and I hope the Government accept that they need to move towards a more co-ordinated approach.
On dispersal, the British Red Cross has said there is currently nothing in legislation that says people supported under sections 95, 98 and 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 have to be accommodated in any particular way. Dispersal is not underpinned in the current legislation, so a strategy would help clarify the situation for the Home Office and the rest of us.
Like hotels, Napier and Penally barracks were seen as contingency accommodation—temporary measures because of a lack of suitable dispersal. The Government need to get the dispersal system in place. We do not know what the Government reception centres would look like or where they would be located, nor have the Government said whether people would be accommodated for the entirety of their asylum process. It is proposed that the centres would “provide basic accommodation” and
“allow for decisions and any appeals following substantive rejection of an asylum claim to be processed”,
but we are conscious of the delays in the asylum system, and it is possible that people could be living in the centres for several months, potentially in remote locations. I hope that the Minister will outline whether children are intended to be placed in those centres.
Tom Pursglove
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my comments on earlier clauses, when I confirmed that children would not be placed in those accommodation centres.
Neil Coyle
That is helpful, but it has been brought to my attention this week that a 16-year-old is in a Home Office accommodation hotel in my constituency. I do not know whether that is an age-disputed case for the Home Office, but there is clearly a mismatch between the Government’s intent and what is actually happening.
Rewan has been living with his two sons, aged 11 and 18, in a hotel room for 10 months. His sons cannot study, and although he is desperate to get work, their living circumstances do not allow for that. Umar was told in October 2020 when he moved into a hostel with his wife and four children—aged 7, 9, 13, and 14—that they would be there for a matter of weeks. They are still there. That is what is happening on the ground and why a strategy on dispersal is required. Dispersal is better in the local community: through work with the local community, and by using dispersal accommodation, people are better able to make connections and start feeling part of a city. As Asylum Matters states:
“Providing support for people seeking asylum, including finding suitable accommodation, should be carried out in partnership with local government and local community groups.”
That is not what we are seeing.
For the almost 700 recent arrivals in Southwark, there was absolutely no in-advance co-ordination with the council; the Home Office alerted the council only after opening accommodation. Bearing in mind that accommodation would have been commissioned and procured in advance, there was ample opportunity for discussions to ensure that support was in place, but the Home Office failed to engage. In fact, when I asked the Home Office what resources the council would receive to support the hundreds of new people, it wrote back saying, “We have given some money to the clinical commissioning group.” That is not part of the council.
I had a really useful discussion with the Local Government Association, which said that it would welcome a dispersal strategy and that it wants people to be able to work. There are workplaces that are desperate to take people on, but they cannot get them in. A proper dispersal strategy should look at employment levels in certain areas. Moving people into areas with high levels of employment, rather than into the cheapest accommodation across the country, would actually benefit the workforce and the economy. That strategy would be adopted by any sensible Government, so I do not hold high hopes.
I will give some background stats: in December 2020, around one in five people in Home Office accommodation were living in a hostel, B&B or hotel—triple the December 2019 figures. In Southwark, there were 1,022 people in dispersal accommodation in June, but, as I have just said, hundreds have arrived since then. The Red Cross suggested:
“The Home Office should, as a matter of urgency, address the supply of suitable asylum accommodation, and work with local authorities, devolved governments”,
and it pointed out an increase in the demand for asylum accommodation and a rise in the number of people living in inappropriate places. The increase in decision-making delays since 2018—prior to the pandemic—has resulted in people staying in asylum accommodation for far longer, which is something the Minister has just said he is determined to tackle, so a strategy should be welcome. The situation is unsustainable and only a strategy to build out of it will address the problem.
In April, we had a Backbench Business debate on accommodation, focusing on the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports into asylum accommodation. The NAO reported last July that the system the Government have adopted caused costs to escalate by 28%, and saw a 96% increase in short-term and more expensive accommodation. In November 2020, the Public Accounts Committee warned of a system in crisis, and it recommended:
“The Home Office should, within three months, set out a clear plan for how it will quickly and safely reduce the use of hotels and ensure that asylum seekers’ accommodation meets their individual needs.”
It would be great to hear from the Minister on how that clear plan is being developed. The new clause would help to address the problem that the Government have created.
The time involved comes with escalating costs to the Home Office and the taxpayer. Will the Minister update us on average times and what he is doing to tackle them? I have two examples from Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I have raised the cases of an Eritrean woman and a Mongolian man who have both been seeking asylum since 2017. Not only do they not have decisions four years later, but the Home Office cannot even give a timeframe for when their cases will be concluded. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today when and how the Home Office will cut the horrific backlog that his Government have created.
At the end of September 2020, there were 3,621 Sudanese, Syrian and Eritrean nationals who had been waiting longer than six months for a decision on their application. The grant rate across those countries was 94% in the most recent stats. That is an incredibly expensive waste. A strategy, as outlined in the new clause, would help address the underlying costs and focus Ministers’ and civil servants’ minds on cutting delays and lowering the cost to the public purse.
Earlier this year the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) asked the Home Office what the Government were doing to engage with local authorities to understand why offers for dispersal were not matching demand, and to ensure that there was true collaboration. He received a letter in response from the Home Office that stated:
“We remain fully committed to working towards the agreed change plan once we have been able to move people out of hotels and into more appropriate Dispersal Accommodation.”
I hope the new clause helps the Minister with that aim. I commend it to the Committee.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I want to pick up on a few of the points that he raised. In relation to Napier, as I have said previously, we have seen several improvements recently: offering all residents covid vaccinations and personal cleaning kits, the introduction of NGOs on the site to provide assistance and advice, free travel to medical appointments and dentistry services or for meetings, sports and recreation. Those significant improvements have been made since the court judgment was handed down.
Hotels are provided as a contingency because of the lack of availability of other accommodation, but it is important to make the point that those are not accommodation centres. On the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children situation, it is difficult to comment on individual cases and a hotel in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—I do not have the specifics to hand—but I can say that, broadly, the UASC, but not other children, would be accommodated in a hotel. That is my understanding of the situation.
On a broader point, we had a significant debate on new clause 2 and dispersal accommodation, where I set out the steps that the Government are taking to try to address that. That is being considered, and I refer Members to what I said before.
Neil Coyle
The Minister says that things have improved since the court judgment and that, for example, NGOs now have more routine access. The hostel accommodation in Bermondsey and Old Southwark was open for three months before the first visit of Migrant Help on site. I am just not convinced that the Minister has given an accurate portrayal of the current picture and the real situation in a real building affecting hundreds of people in my own constituency.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making excellent points. The Minister says there have been changes at Napier barracks since the High Court judgment, but those changes happened because of the High Court judgment, and they perhaps would not have happened had the Government not been taken to court over the use of Napier barracks and the conditions there. That is why we do not trust the Government to make the right judgment calls on the quality of accommodation, and why my hon. Friend’s new clause is important.
Neil Coyle
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government routinely dodge using the term “accommodation centre” because they do not want to set up an advisory group. If they went through the formal process of designating something as an accommodation centre, an advisory group would help to resolve some of the problems that we have seen at Napier and in the hostel accommodation in my constituency, where they had an almost inevitable covid outbreak.
The Minister has not committed to a strategy. We are seeing a longer process, with routine delays for applications and appeals. We are seeing damage to people’s lives. We are seeing damage to the economy because people cannot get a job and make more of a contribution as quickly as would be possible if there were a strategy and a plan. We are leaving the taxpayer with a massive bill for the Government’s failure. Therefore, we will press new clause 27 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 44—Independent Child Trafficking Guardians: inspection—
‘(1) The Education and Inspections Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After Clause 145 insert—
“145A Inspection of independent guardians’ performance
(1) The Chief Inspector must inspect the performance of independent guardians.
(2) On completing an inspection under this section, the Chief Inspector must make a written report on it.
(3) The Chief Inspector must send copies of the report to—
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) Independent Guardians.
(4) The Chief Inspector must arrange for the report to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.
(5) In this section, “independent guardians” means those appointed under section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”’
This new clause sets out the duty for OFSTED to inspect the performance of independent guardians.
Holly Lynch
Before I start, I draw hon. Members’ attention to the Red Box article written by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, and published in The Times today. Entitled “Rushed borders bill will fail victims of modern slavery”, it is damning. Against that backdrop, I will have another go at mitigating the worst elements of part 4 with new clause 43. I start by paying tribute to ECPAT UK and the Children’s Society, which have shared their insight and invaluable expertise in helping us to shape these new clauses.
New clause 43 would amend section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, to ensure that an independent guardian was provided for all child victims of trafficking and separated children. For clarity, I point out that when I refer to “separated children”, I am referring to migrant children who are unaccompanied. The independent guardian would be a central part of a child’s life, acting as a connection to all the support services that they required, having the ability to instruct solicitors on their behalf and representing their best interests throughout. These guardians would be experts on trafficking and modern slavery, whose purpose was to safeguard and improve the wellbeing of trafficked children, as well as ensuring that statutory services could function more effectively, securing a route both to recovery and to prosecution of those ultimately responsible for their abuse. As specified in the functions laid out in the new clause, an independent guardian would ensure that the child was informed of any relevant legal proceedings, clearly communicate the views of the child and promote the future welfare of the child based on what was in the child’s best interest.
I have cited the numbers previously, but I will remind the Committee. In 2020, 47% of referrals to the national referral mechanism were children, and of the referrals for UK-based exploitation only, 57% were children. It was the case that 51% of the referrals of children were for child criminal exploitation. According to the National Crime Agency, the increase in referrals to the NRM of British children has been driven largely by so-called county lines criminality.
A great deal of the provision in new clause 43 should already be happening and be provided for between international laws, including the UN convention on the rights of the child, the EU trafficking directive of 2011 and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, as well as domestic provisions. However, the measure has been only partially adopted across the UK. The Children’s Society has supported calls for it to be enshrined in statute, stating that a guardian’s role should be independent from the state, have legal authority and have adequate legal powers to represent the child’s best interests, as well as being respected by an existing regulatory body.
As the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner highlighted in her annual report for 2020-21, despite clear evidence of good practice she remains extremely disappointed that six years on from the Modern Slavery Act 2015 the independent child trafficking guardian service is not yet a national provision.
There has been very much a staggered approach to roll-out, with the service still not in operation across around a third of all local authorities, several years after it was adopted in three early adopter areas in Greater Manchester, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. That shows a real lack of urgency on the Government’s part and we echo the statement by the anti-slavery commissioner that
“access to this specialist support for children should not be a postcode lottery”.
In the year ending June 2021, the UK received 2,756 applications for asylum from unaccompanied children. The majority of unaccompanied children are cared for on a voluntary agreement under section 20 of the Children’s Act 1989, rather than under a section 31 care order, whereby the local authority has full parental responsibility for the child.
Although I pay tribute to the dedicated social workers up and down the country, in reality many social workers will not have received training on the asylum and immigration system, and may lack the skills to aid children with their immigration applications. Therefore, the new clause will provide much needed consistency and security for children who have had some of the worst possible starts in life, supporting them towards recovery and through their relationship with the relevant agencies, in the hope that we can secure child victims a degree of restorative justice, which would be a service for both migrants to the UK and UK nationals.
The report conducted by the Home Office evaluating independent child trafficking guardians supported the argument that they provide a sense of stability and continuity:
“Investing time in trafficked children’s lives by a single trusted, well-informed, reliable adult became a distinct early feature of the ways child trafficking guardians stood out from other professions.”
This is demonstrated by one young person who responded to the evaluation. Speaking about their guardian, they said:
“She is so amazing... I don’t know if they’re all like that, but for me it was different, because I told her things that I haven’t told my social worker and that was beneficial. I think that’s because of her personality...she seems really open, I can talk to her about anything.”
Police offers working to combat exploitation and help young people told me recently that they were becoming aware that the drive to keep young people out of police cells for all the right reasons had led to instances where children were arrested in possession of, say, drugs and cash. Rightly, the police would have taken those items from the children before they were released, pending further inquiries, but before proper consideration of their circumstances could be made.
Officers identified that children and young people were having to go back to serious criminals to inform them that they no longer had their drugs or cash, without any of the risks to them having been identified and without safeguarding support having been wrapped around them. Thankfully, those officers were working through the best practice alternatives, but those are the types of scenarios where guardians would be able to play an invaluable role.
It is notable that the devolved nations have been far more proactive in this area, with Scotland having made greater progress and Northern Ireland introducing a comprehensive independent guardians model, which provides an individualised service for all separated children. If we are to consider the UK a world-leader in combating modern slavery, I ask the Minister to put into primary legislation what should already be happening, as a means of addressing the gaps in provision, which will help us to do what is right for these children as well as assisting the authorities in identifying and apprehending perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes.
New clause 44 would ensure that the provision of independent child trafficking advocates is subject to an inspectorate regime. As colleagues may be aware, the measure is currently not subject to an inspection framework, which is applied to other services for children under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. We believe than an inspection framework is necessary to ensure that Ofsted can inspect the quality and effectiveness of the service.
In conclusion, I find it hard to believe that any colleagues do not support the aims and objectives of the new clause, which builds upon the commitments in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. As the campaign group Every Child Protected Against Trafficking UK has highlighted, those who are eligible under new clause 43 may have had to flee their country due to conflict and may have faced exploited en route to the UK. Others may be British children in the care system, who have been let down by the adults around them. There is a breadth of vulnerability here and we believe that the new clauses better acknowledge and cater to all child victims’ physical and psychological needs. I hope that the Minister shares the ambition behind the new clauses and understands the need for all trafficked and separated children to be recognised and supported within primary legislation.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for tabling their new clauses. They have raised important issues about the support available for child victims who have faced the most heinous crimes. Independent child trafficking guardians are an independent source of advice and support for potentially trafficked children, irrespective of nationality, and somebody who can advocate on a child’s behalf. Provision for the independent child trafficking guardian already exists in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, as does the requirement to make regulations.
The Government have developed detailed policy for the provision of this service, which is set out in the interim independent child trafficking guardians guidance, published under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. This guidance is kept under review through consultation with stakeholders. The correct place for the detail regarding the function of the service is in guidance, rather than, as new clause 43 suggests, the legislation itself. That enables the Government to respond flexibly to best practice and victims’ needs. The guidance is clear that acting in the child’s best interests must always be a primary consideration for the service.
New clause 43 would also ensure that an independent child trafficking guardian can continue to provide support to a child until the age of 25, to the extent that their welfare and best interests require such an appointment. Following a recommendation from the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act, the Government are currently trialling the provision of support, when appropriate, to individuals beyond the age of 18 in London, West Yorkshire and Warwickshire. An independent evaluation will look at the added value of implementing that change and consider appropriate next steps. The new clause would expand the scope of the independent child trafficking guardian service to all separated children when there are already existing provisions for separated children to receive support and assistance through other means.
I assure the Committee that the Government take their responsibility for the welfare of unaccompanied children extremely seriously. We have comprehensive statutory and policy safeguards in place for caring for and safeguarding unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the UK, including those who are victims of trafficking. When an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child becomes looked after by a local authority, they are entitled to the same level of support and care from their local authority as all looked-after children. Under these arrangements, a looked-after child must be provided with access to education, healthcare, legal support and accommodation. They will be allocated a social worker who will assess their individual needs and draw up a care plan that sets out how the local authority intends to respond to the full range of those needs. Our record demonstrates the Government’s determination to ensure that unaccompanied children and child victims of modern slavery are appropriately safeguarded and have the support they need.
Tom Pursglove
I am conscious that we need to make progress, but I will take a quick intervention.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful. I do not dispute that the provision already exists in legislation for independent child trafficking guardians; my dispute is that, as we have heard, they are not available in reality for a third of the country. If the Minister is saying that we do not need a requirement in legislation to do this, how does he plan to ensure that those guardians are available right across the country?
Tom Pursglove
If I may, I will write to the Committee. I have undertaken to write to the Committee with more information in relation to another matter we discussed earlier, and I am very happy to provide more information to the Committee in answer to that question.
Turning to new clause 44, I appreciate that appropriate methods of assessing the effectiveness of independent child trafficking guardians are required. The current independent child trafficking guardian service model is informed by the findings of the evaluation of early adopter sites, published in July 2019, and the evaluation of the regional practice co-ordinator role, published in October 2020. The provision of independent child trafficking guardians in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides the Secretary of State with a duty to make such arrangements considered reasonable to ensure that specialist independent child trafficking advocates are
“available to represent and support children who there are reasonable grounds to believe may be victims of human trafficking.”
Section 48(6) places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations about independent child trafficking advocates, which must include the circumstances and conditions under which a person may act as an independent child trafficking advocate, arrangements for the approval of the appointment of such advocates, the timing of appointment and the advocates’ functions. As mentioned earlier, the roll-out of the independent child trafficking guardian service is being informed by the findings of the evaluation of early adopter sites. As such, regulations will be brought forward in due course.
Independent child trafficking guardians are now operating in two thirds of all local authorities in England and Wales, as the hon. Lady said. It is important that the provision is able to support those vulnerable children appropriately, and it is precisely for this reason that a staggered approach has been adopted, with built-in evaluations along the way. We will continue to monitor closely the independent child trafficking guardian service to ensure practitioners are acting in the child’s best interests and that resource is being allocated appropriately. We will adjust guidance as needed to ensure that these vulnerable victims are protected and supported to recover from their exploitation. For the reasons I have outlined, I invite the hon. Lady not to press her new clauses.
Holly Lynch
I live in hope that anyone who can run a marathon for Justice and Care would understand the value of the independent child trafficking guardians and the victim navigators, and with that in mind, I very much look forward to the Minister’s further commitments in writing. If we are not satisfied, we will come back to this issue on Report, but I trust that he will do everything he can on those two fronts. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Permission to work for people seeking asylum
“(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3(2) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—
‘(2A) In making rules under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must make provision for persons seeking asylum, within the meaning of the rules, and their adult dependants to have the right to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment, including self-employment and voluntary work.
(2B) Permission to work for persons seeking asylum and their adult dependants must be granted if—
(a) a decision has not been taken on the person’s asylum application within six months of the date of that application, or
(b) a person makes a further application which raises asylum grounds and a decision on that new application, or a decision on whether to treat such further asylum grounds as a new application, has not been taken within six months of the date on which the further application was made.
(2C) Permission for a person seeking asylum and their adult dependants to take up employment shall be on terms no less favourable than the terms granted to a person recognised as a refugee.’”—(Bambos Charalambous.)
This new clause amends the Immigration Act 1971 to allow people seeking asylum to be granted permission to work after 6 months.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will try to be brief in the interests of time. I thank the Lift the Ban campaign for its sterling work on why this new clause is so necessary and why it would be so beneficial. Current immigration rules dictate that asylum seekers can apply for permission to work only if they have been waiting for a decision for over 12 months and only for jobs that are on the Government’s highly restrictive shortage occupation list, which includes professions such as classical ballet dancer and geophysicist. That has not always been the case. Until 2002, people were able to apply for permission to work if they had been waiting for a decision for more than six months. Only in 2010 was the right to work restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list.
Today, 76% of people waiting for a decision on their asylum claim have been waiting for more than six months, according to the Government’s latest immigration statistics. During the long waits for claims to be processed, people seeking asylum are unable safely to protect themselves and provide for their families. They are forced to depend on the pitifully low asylum support payments of £5.66 a day, and people must often choose between essential items of food, medicine and cleaning products while being prohibited from using their skills and experience.
Work provides a route out of poverty, and there would be a big economic benefit from lifting the ban. The Lift the Ban coalition has calculated that, if 50% of those currently waiting more than six months for a decision on their claim found work, the net economic benefit from increased tax and national insurance contributions and from lower asylum support payments would be £178 million per year. Lifting the ban also has widespread business backing. In 2019, the Lift the Ban coalition polled 1,000 businesses for their views on whether people seeking asylum should have the right to work, and 67% of the businesses polled agreed.
In addition, lifting the ban would bring the UK into line with policy in all other comparable countries. Lifting the ban also makes sense in the covid-19 pandemic or post-pandemic context in which we find ourselves. The skills and desire to work possessed by many stuck in the asylum system could have been invaluable during the recent covid-19 crisis. Very importantly, lifting the ban would support integration. It stands to reason that early access to employment increases the chances of smooth economic and social integration by allowing people to improve their English, acquire new skills, and make new friends and social contacts in the wider community. Crucially, it enables them to be self-sufficient. The policy is also popular with the public. According to Lift the Ban coalition’s research conducted in 2018, 71% of the public support lifting the ban.
Holly Lynch
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I intended to speak in full in favour of new clause 46, but I will just make an intervention. On that 71% figure, he will be aware that Lift the Ban conducted research in every constituency across the country. Bearing in mind that 73% of the people of Eastleigh, 72% of the people of Calder Valley and 66% of the people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North support ending the ban on the right to work, does my hon. Friend share my hope that the hon. Members for those areas will reflect on the public’s support for new clause 46?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I hope beyond hope that hon. Members will support our new clause.
In December 2018, the then Home Secretary stated that a Home Office review of the policy would be taking place. Subsequent contributions in 2019 from the Prime Minister and Home Office Ministers confirmed that the review would continue under the new Government, but to date no detail has been provided regarding the content or methodology of that review. The Government have appeared divided in their own ranks on the issue. In recent months, senior Cabinet Ministers have expressed disquiet about the Government’s position. Surely, it is therefore time that the Government listen to voices from across the political spectrum on this issue and do the right thing by adopting our clause on lifting the ban on work for people seeking asylum.
Tom Pursglove
I should start by noting that, as hon. Members know, the Government’s current policy does allow asylum seekers to work in the UK if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months, where the delay was caused through no fault of their own. Those permitted to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list, which is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee.
I should like to set out the rationale for that policy position. The policy is designed to protect the resident labour market by prioritising access to employment for British citizens and others who are lawfully resident, including those granted refugee status, who are given full access to the labour market. That is in line with wider changes we have made through the points-based immigration system. We consider it crucial to distinguish between those who need protection and those seeking to come here to work, who can apply for a work visa under the immigration rules. Our wider immigration policy would be undermined if individuals could bypass the work visa rules by lodging unfounded asylum claims in the UK.
Tom Pursglove
I have been very generous throughout the duration of the Committee, but I am afraid I need to make some progress at this point.
It is also the case that unrestricted access to employment opportunities may act as an incentive for more migrants to choose to come here illegally, rather than claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. While pull factors are complex, we cannot ignore that access to the UK labour market is among the reasons that an unprecedented number of people are taking extremely dangerous journeys by small boat to the UK. I trust that hon. Members would agree with me that the UK cannot have a policy that raises those risks, and that we must do everything in our power to put a stop to those journeys.
Relaxing our asylum seeker right-to-work policy is not the right approach in this respect. Indeed, in an article earlier this month, the French newspaper Le Figaro noted the perspective in France that the “economic attractiveness” of the UK is a reason migrants attempt to cross the channel in small boats. In addition, removing restrictions on work for asylum seekers could increase the number of unfounded claims for asylum, reducing our capacity to take decisions quickly and support genuine refugees.
I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear that I do acknowledge the concerns of hon. Members. The Government are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay to ensure that individuals who need protection are granted asylum as soon as possible and can start to integrate and rebuild their lives. It is important to note that those granted asylum are given immediate and unrestricted access to the labour market.
I absolutely agree with hon. Members that asylum seekers should be allowed to volunteer. That is why we strongly encourage all asylum seekers to consider volunteering, so long as it does not amount to unpaid work. Volunteering provides a valuable contribution to their local community and may help them to integrate into society if they ultimately qualify for protection.
We have been clear that asylum seekers who wish to come to the UK must do so through safe and legal routes. Where reasons for coming to the UK include family or economic considerations, applications should be made via the relevant route: either the new points-based immigration system or the refugee family reunion rules. We absolutely must discourage those risking their lives and coming here illegally.
The Nationality and Borders Bill will deliver the most comprehensive reform in decades to fix the broken asylum and illegal migration system, and our asylum seeker right-to-work policy must uphold that wider approach. There is, of course, a review of the 2018 report currently under way and I reassure hon. Members that the findings of the updated recent report will be built into this. For all those reasons, I invite the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Halifax to withdraw the new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I am not convinced by the Minister’s response, so I will be pushing this to a vote. Hopefully, we will be joined by other Members across the Committee.
Question put,
That the clause be read a Second time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I appreciate that the issue of safe routes has been explored fairly extensively already today, but I just want to make a couple more points. I think pretty much everyone on the Committee has agreed that we want to stop people from making dangerous journeys. Members would agree that part of that work involves tackling gangs through police work and so on. Fundamentally, where we have different points of view is over the role that disincentives have.
The Bill is all about disincentivising people from making journeys by putting them in the criminal justice system—breaching their human rights, breaching the refugee convention and using all manner of methods that would be regarded as completely and utterly inappropriate. Indeed, in the last debate we heard about the right to work, which exemplified that approach. The answer from the Minister, with all due respect, was totally devoid of any sort of evidence and reasoning. It is hugely frustrating. The so-called review is still ongoing three years on.
The final way to tackle these journeys is through safe alternatives. Again, I think that across the Committee there is a degree of agreement that safe routes do have a role to play. It is important that we have safe legal routes. In a sense, there is an element of justice about it, which is that we have to play our part in supporting those who suffer persecution; we cannot just leave it all to neighbouring countries, notwithstanding the fact that 80% or 90% of refugees are often in neighbouring countries—developing countries and so on.
I still do not get whether the Government totally appreciate the important role that such safe routes have in reducing unsafe journeys. To me, it is obviously significant. That is why EU countries, previously including the UK, have in place the Dublin rules. Those are far from perfect, but they recognise that if a person seeking asylum has family members or links in another member state, that is an appropriate place for the asylum case to be heard. Almost certainly, if there is no official route for an individual to use to come to the UK, whatever their ties are, an unofficial journey on an unofficial route will follow. That is why we find that many people in France who do consider, and do make, these dangerous journeys actually have relatives here in the UK. The immigration rules as they stand—I raised this in my intervention on the Minister earlier—are not fit for purpose. They include hugely demanding tests. Grants outside the rules are few and far between. I welcome the fact that the Government have indicated that they will take a look at that.
The end of the Dublin rules has almost certainly—definitely, in my view—exacerbated what is going on across the channel. Of course, the fact that there are no safe legal routes across the channel does not mean that there are not people attempting these dangerous journeys: other reasons and other ties exist that motivate people to do that. There is no doubt that providing some form of visa for those who require it would result in some reduction in those dangerous crossings.
As the situation stands, the Government are trying to secure agreements with other countries, but so far as we can see those are entirely one-sided and one-way agreements seeking only to secure the right to remove people from here. To secure deals, to encourage countries to get on board and to ensure a reduction in unsafe journeys, we also need to negotiate safe routes to here. That is why the Dubs scheme was so successful and important. It is important that we put in place something similar for the future, which is what the new clause is all about.
Tom Pursglove
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is imperative that we think carefully about the issue. Expanding our family reunion policy as proposed by the new clause would significantly increase the number of people who would qualify to come here and to seek protection. Indeed, the new clause is global in scope, meaning that any asylum seeker in the world with extended family in the UK could qualify to claim asylum. That could easily run to the hundreds of thousands.
To give just one example of how that could have challenging consequences, foreign nationals already illegally present in the UK could potentially be incentivised to claim asylum to circumvent immigration rules in order to bring their family over. We need to ensure that our limited resources are focused on helping refugees who are in the UK to reunite and integrate with immediate pre-flight family. We have a proud record of helping those facing persecution, oppression and tyranny, and we stand by our moral and legal obligations to help innocent civilians fleeing cruelty from around the world, but we cannot help all the people displaced worldwide and who want to come to the UK.
Allowing extended family members to come to the UK for the purpose of claiming protection under new clause 47 might simply create further incentives for more adults and children to be encouraged—even forced—to leave their family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK in order to later sponsor qualifying extended family. That plays into the hands of criminal gangs who exploit vulnerable people and goes against the main intention of the Bill. We must do everything in our power to stop that dangerous trend. The new clause would also result in chain migration, where granting entry to each family member has the potential to bring in even greater numbers of their family members to claim protection under the rules. That is simply not sustainable.
We recognise, however, that families can become fragmented because of the nature of conflict and persecution, as well as the speed and manner in which those seeking protection are often forced to flee their own country. That is why the Government strongly support the principle of family unity. We already have a comprehensive framework for families to be reunited here safely. I will add, because this will be of interest to both Government and Opposition Members, that we are committed to reviewing the family refugee reunion rules, as we set out in the new plan for immigration. At all times, as the Committee would expect, we will be fully compliant with our international obligations.
Given that and the issues raised in Committee, everything will be taken into account when looking at the policy.
Stuart C. McDonald
First, that was not a fair interpretation of the new clause: it was certainly not advocating for an unlimited number of people to have access to that route. Nevertheless, it is surprising that we are expected to be encouraged about family reunion at a time when this very Bill is proposing to strip the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers and refugees of those family reunion rights. At the end of the day, the issue is one we will have to revisit on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 48
Six month time limit for determining asylum applications
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations providing for—
(a) a six month time limit for determining applications for asylum; and
(b) an officer of Director level or above to be required to write to the Home Secretary a letter of explanation on a quarterly basis in the event of any failure to meet the six month time limit.
(2) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament any failure to meet the six month time limit.”—(Bambos Charalambous.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause could be a silver bullet to solve a lot of the ills in the immigration and asylum system. We believe that, were it to be adopted, it would have many beneficial social and financial effects. It would obviate the need for some of the other clauses we have proposed, such as lifting the ban on working. The new clause would undo a host of negative consequences that arise because of the current endemic delays in the asylum system, which are creating huge social and financial costs.
During the course of this Committee, we have heard testimony from people trapped inside the system for years. We have heard about the toll on mental health and the re-traumatising of people who have fled abuse and torture. We have heard about the way in which being trapped in limbo prevents integration and how being banned from working enforces poverty. None of these negative effects would exist if our six-month time limit for processing cases were adopted. Furthermore, costs to the taxpayer, such as those currently spent on long-term accommodation and subsistence benefits, would all be hugely reduced.
Let us not be under any illusion: the current asylum system is broken. According to the House of Commons Library, as of June 2021 the total “work in progress” asylum case load consisted of 125,000 cases—57,000 of those were awaiting an initial decision at the end of 2020.
Jonathan Gullis
I was in Dover yesterday, where I spoke to people from Border Force about the situation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with them, and with me, that one big issue putting pressure on the system is that tens of thousands of illegal economic migrants are crossing the English channel right now? That is leading to our having to speed up and process people as quickly as possible, while not having the facilities available in detention centres. We are therefore having to use hotels, which is taking up a huge amount of taxpayers’ money. That is where the real strain is. This Bill, which Border Force backs, will go a long way towards helping, as we are going to a six-month process with a one-time appeal, rather than multiple appeals, which are currently being exploited by certain lawyers.
Bambos Charalambous
There is so much to respond to in that. I question the hon. Gentleman’s facts first of all, but clearly we are talking about the situation as it is now, which has been built up over the past decade, and not as he would like it to be. In any event, I disagree about what this Bill does. It does not solve the problem; it keeps people here for longer.
As I was saying, what is masked by these numbers are the hundreds of people who have waited nearly 10 years or more for a decision on their asylum claims, left in limbo while they wait for an answer. In August, a freedom of information request from The Independent newspaper revealed that there were more than 1,200 asylum seekers in the system who had been waiting more than five years for a decision, with 399 people who had been waiting more than a decade. Separate figures obtained by the Refugee Council through an FOI request earlier this year revealed that the number of applicants waiting for more than a year for an initial decision, not including appeals, increased almost tenfold between 2010 and 2020, from 3,588 to 33,016. More than 250 people had been waiting for five years or more for an initial decision on their case, with dozens of children among them. As of December 2020, 36,725 asylum seekers had been waiting more than a year for a decision.
Those kinds of figures just smack of a broken system. Having tens of thousands of people waiting for more than a year for an initial decision is just totally unacceptable. I am sure that most MPs can think of asylum cases they have been dealing with that have stretched on and on, sometimes for years. I can cite the case of a constituent—I shall call them F—who came to the UK from Afghanistan as a child and applied for asylum in August 2013. It took seven and a half years, and my involvement as his MP, for the matter to be resolved in February this year. It really should not take an MP’s involvement to reach such a conclusion.
The human cost to people’s mental health and the cost to the taxpayer of these endemic delays in the system is high. We know that people in the asylum system become increasingly mentally unwell as the years of uncertainty, trauma and demonisation erode their mental and physical health. The Refugee Council reported earlier this year that this has led to an increase in the numbers of individuals self-harming and reporting suicidal thoughts. The Children’s Society report “Distress Signals” also outlined serious concerns about the damage done to children’s mental health in those conditions— this is damage done at a formative age that will last a lifetime.
Beyond the human cost of these delays is the financial cost. The backlog adds considerably to the overall cost of the asylum process. The Refugee Council has calculated that for every month of delay the additional cost to the Home Office per person is at least £730.41, equating to £8,765 per year. The delays make absolutely no financial sense. Not only that, but on the Home Office’s own figures more people are being employed but they are processing fewer cases. Paying more for less productivity is not acceptable. If this was a business, it would go bust.
A commitment to a six-month target as set out in the new clause would therefore save a huge amount of money to the Treasury and taxpayers, improve the mental health of those caught in the system, and help with integration.
Tom Pursglove
I have been clear throughout Committee proceedings that the Government are committed to overhauling the current asylum system, which is obviously broken and in critical need of reform. The number of non-straightforward cases awaiting a decision has grown rapidly, meaning that in October 2018 it became clear to us that the service standard of six months from the date of claim no longer best served those who used our services. For those reasons, former Ministers agreed that we should move away from the service standard.
Although I cannot accept the new clause, as we consider it too restrictive, Members will have detected from what I have said throughout the proceedings that we want to see the faster processing of cases. I entirely recognise the shadow Minister’s point on the financial costs of delay, and the impact on individuals of delay. That is why I and my ministerial colleagues want cases to be dealt with more speedily. That is, of course, the right objective to be working towards. We are working to reintroduce a service standard that will align with changes brought about by the new plan for immigration. I encourage the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I will push the clause to a vote; we are not convinced by the Minister’s response.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Through new clause 49, we hope to shed light on some of the murkiness that has existed in the Home Office in relation to agreements reached with agencies and other Governments to prevent unlawful border crossings and dangerous journeys. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to disclose the contents of any agreements with any international Governments or agencies reached in order to prevent unlawful border crossings, and for this information to be laid before Parliament within three months of any such agreement being entered into. This would mean that, for example, information pertaining to the UK-French agreement to tackle dangerous crossings in the English channel in July could be properly understood and scrutinised, including the use of £54 million of taxpayers’ money.
Information about that agreement and its impact has been limited, and although information has been limited, the confusion has been clear for all to see. There have been conflicting briefings between the British and French authorities regarding the use of £54 million of British taxpayers’ money. There have been reports, for example, that the UK is threatening to withhold the money. The Home Secretary appeared before the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee last week and this question was asked. The Home Secretary stated that the agreement is “based on results”, and includes preventing people getting to beaches, intelligence sharing, policing operations around the Belgian-French border, and technology.
For more than two years, the Home Secretary has repeatedly committed to stopping channel crossings in small boats by making the route unviable, yet unprecedented numbers of people have made the journey in this period, including a staggering 20,000 this year alone. Clearly, if we are working with the French authorities to disrupt people smuggling gangs and prevent dangerous crossings, it does not seem to be working very well, and parliamentary scrutiny of how taxpayers’ money is being spent is important if we are to learn more about the Home Secretary’s plans and why they have once again failed to deliver. For example, has anything been paid to France? Is the agreement for payment by results? If so, what are the metrics? How can we scrutinise whether this is value for money, or whether that money could be better spent elsewhere? It seems astonishing that the Home Secretary can just be given £54 million of public money to spend, but we do not know what on. There must be some accountability for that to Parliament.
Jonathan Gullis
I reiterate that, having gone down to Dover to meet the Kent intake unit in Dover docks, having met in the joint control room with deputy director Dave Butler of the clandestine threat command, and having been to Tug Haven and western Jetfoil on a cross-party parliamentary visit, it was fantastic to learn and understand. I share concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate about the use of this money by the French, and I have been quite open in my view that the French are simply not doing enough, but it was great to hear from Dave and others in the control room that what the French are doing inland is quite substantive. Dave was very happy to share the details.
I can only implore the hon. Gentleman, rather than pressing this new clause, to go on down and visit, and have a chat with Dave and the gang down there to hear what is going on in France. They were trying to say to us that the French are operating inland and trying to stop people from coming over to France and travelling through. The local Parisian community, for example, were getting very angry about being a path route towards Calais. That was a fascinating conversation.
That is why the new clause is unnecessary; we saw, after the threat of no payment was made, that suddenly we could not stop being inundated with video footage and photography of what was being done. I thought it was absolutely brilliant. The one thing the French are not doing is their job at sea. They need to step up and support the British Border Force and other British services in stopping boats once they have already launched into the English channel—not just by tracking them, as they currently do, but by tugging them back to France. They are simply not doing their job.
While I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about money, ultimately I believe the Home Secretary has a firm grip of this, and as we are seeing, the results are starting to pay dividends. However, I agree that more can be done, and the Bill goes a long way to achieving that.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his proposed new clause. He will appreciate that there is always a balance to be struck in these matters, and I should add that we have published joint statements that set out the nature of our work with France following arrangements made in July 2021 and November 2020. The content of the Sandhurst treaty, which underpins our illegal migration relationship with France, is also published.
Those arrangements are underpinned by additional administrative and operational documentation. However, it is not possible to publish that material where it includes sensitive details relating to the UK and our international partners. To disclose that information would hinder our operational response and our ability to target criminals driving illegal migration and ultimately protect the public. We must do nothing that aids their evil work—we simply must not entertain that, and that is something I am exceptionally mindful of in responding to the proposed new clause.
Paul Blomfield
If the Minister is concerned to see that we do nothing to aid the evil work of people smugglers, what consideration has he given to the impact assessment by his own Department, which said:
“There is a risk that increased security and deterrence could encourage these cohorts to attempt riskier means of entering the UK.”?
According to his own Department, these proposals are counterproductive.
Tom Pursglove
What is being sought is further detail on the relationship that we have with France in particular to tackle these dangerous channel crossings. As I say, we must put nothing in the public domain that risks undermining that constructive collaboration through the arrangement that we have with the French, which is vital to stopping these dangerous crossings and protecting lives at sea. To do so would also result in a betrayal of trust with our international partners, who own some of this information, and could prevent us from reaching future agreements with international partners, impacting our ability to prevent illegal migration and small boat crossings. That is why the Government feel unable to support the new clause and I encourage the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate to withdraw it.
Bambos Charalambous
There is not enough scrutiny, so we wish to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would shorten the route to settlement from 10 years to five years for children and young people who have grown up in the UK and know no other home. This issue has a big impact on a relatively small number of people. These are bright young people who want to contribute to society but face a long, uncertain and financially demanding journey before their futures in the country they call home are secure.
I pay tribute to the brilliant charity We Belong, which is led by young people who themselves have been impacted by the unforgiving immigration rules. The Greater London Authority estimates that more than 330,000 children and young people who came to the UK as children have precarious immigration status. The young people who face this predicament are mainly Commonwealth citizens who are bright and want to contribute, but they have to wait 10 years before they reach settlement, at a cost of £12,771, through applications for leave to remain every 30 months.
Costs for leave to remain applications have risen astronomically in recent years, increasing by 331% since 2014. Often, more than one family member will be going through the process at the same time, so there are multiple fees to pay. That means that in many families, for at least a decade, earnings that could otherwise go towards securing a decent home or be invested in a child’s education instead have to be funnelled out of the family and paid to the Home Office. Before we even start to consider legal fees, we are asking families and young people to save more than £1,200 per year per person just to remain in the UK, when 30% of people in the UK have less than £1,000 in total savings and the average low-income family has just £95 in savings.
Each time they have to apply for leave, we raise the bar for these young people, asking far more of them than we ever would of those fortunate enough to be born with a British passport. Each time, they meet these almost impossible hurdles, often working several jobs to keep themselves and their families on this long and narrow 10-year path to security. These are clearly exceptional individuals, but it is not fair that we keep asking this of them.
For Arkam, who came to the UK aged 10, the 10-year route has meant being stuck in unsuitable accommodation. His family has lived in a one-bedroom house for 10 years because, he says
“the rent is so low and it has to be low because the Home Office fees are so high and our quality of life was non-existent.”
For Andrew, it has been the trigger for a string of evictions. His family were left without enough money to pay their rent and lost their home several times.
My own constituent, Tashi, arrived in the UK when she was seven and has since lawfully resided in the UK for almost two decades. When Tashi was just 10 years old, she was held unlawfully in immigration detention, and that experience has traumatised her ever since. Each limited leave renewal ignites the uncertainty and precarious nature of her status. If she makes a mistake on an application form, she could be back in detention and face deportation, even though she knows no other home. Living with limited leave to remain means decades of living with unrelenting uncertainty.
The more times that young people go through the LLR application process, the more they have to lose. If applicants are unable to afford the fee or fail to renew on time, they will have to begin the 10-year process from the very beginning.
That happened to Natasha, who came to the UK from Nigeria at the age of seven. Natasha was granted limited leave to remain when she was 18. When it came to renewing her visa, her family could not afford to renew due to the high fees and Natasha fell out of legal status. Unable to work, Natasha became homeless. Living in the shadows of society, it was only when she was 26 that she was able to raise enough money from family and friends to apply for LLR again and restart the 10-year route. She must renew this status every 30 months over a 10-year period. She will be 36 before she can apply for settlement and 37 years old when she can finally apply for citizenship.
How is this fair? For all this Government’s rhetoric about the importance of social integration, they continue to preside over an immigration system that isolates and stigmatises young migrants who have no other home but the UK. As highlighted by We Belong, many young people will undoubtedly be driven into poverty or lose their lawful status as a result of these high costs.
Speaking in July 2019, during his campaign to become leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister said:
“I want everybody who comes here and makes their lives here to be, and to feel, British—that’s the most important thing”.
Across this Committee, I think we all agree with that sentiment. We should be proud of our country and encourage our residents to seek British citizenship, so why are we putting every hurdle in the way of ambitious young people who are already integrated into the fabric of our society? We Belong’s experience with young people on the 10-year route reveals how the demands of this process can reverse years, even decades, of integration.
The unforgiving 10-year route sows division and fear among young people, damages mental health, limits life chances and condemns even the hardest-working families to at least a decade of intense financial strain. The instability and onerous demands created by the limited leave to remain route serve nobody, and certainly not employers, educators or communities.
The financial and other constraints imposed by the 10-year process mean that many young migrants reaching early adulthood are denied the opportunity to realise their ambitions, causing prolonged financial and emotional stress. Ten years of multiple applications and multiple fees only increase the likelihood that young people will inadvertently fall out of status and have their lives ruined as a result. A five-year LLR path to settlement would be fairer and give them parity with other migrant groups, which is what this new clause aims to do.
We welcome the Home Office’s recent published guidance to case officers, which opens up a narrow discretionary five-year route for some young people. It shows that the Home Office acknowledges that there is a problem here. However the guidance is limited to those between 18 and 25, among other limitations. Many of the people in the case studies I mentioned, and many others who came to the UK as young children, are now over the age limit and will not be able to benefit from this scheme. Can the Minister tell me when the Home Office plans to rectify this anomaly?
Tom Pursglove
I hope I might be able to satisfy the Committee by saying that both this proposed new clause and the related proposed new clause 45 are commendable, but we are already doing what they seek. We will consolidate our actions in the immigration rules as part of the simplification of the rules in the next 12 months. Home Office officials have discussed the proposed changes with the We Belong group of young migrants, who have indicated that they are supportive of the way the changes will be implemented. With that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw this proposed new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments, and I look forward to having more information. Based on what he has told me, I am willing to withdraw the new clause, and I look forward to progress being made in this area. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Safety plan for child victims of human trafficking
“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 22, after subsection (3C) insert—
“(3D) In respect of a suspected child victim of trafficking who is looked after by the local authority, the duty of a local authority under subsection (3)(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child shall include in particular a duty to consider and take all reasonable steps to ensure that arrangements of accommodation and support to meet the child’s needs and takes account of and addresses the child’s safety with a view to preventing the risk of re-trafficking.”
(3) In section 22, after subsection (4)(d) insert—
“(e) independent guardians (within the meaning of Section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) as a relevant person who the local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult with before making any decision with respect of a child who they are looking after and who is entitled to an independent guardian.”
(4) In section 22C, after subsection (7)(c) insert—
“(d) where accommodation is arranged for a suspected or identified child victim of trafficking, due regard shall be paid to the potential risks of harm and re-trafficking and the child’s safety shall be a primary consideration.””—(Holly Lynch.)
This new clause seeks to provide child victims with a safety plan to prevent retrafficking.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In the same spirit as new clauses 43 and 44, new clause 51 sets out the duty for local authorities to make arrangements for child victims of modern slavery, with a view to prevent their retrafficking, by amending section 22 of the Children Act 1989. As things stand, an unaccompanied child will become looked after by the local authority if they have been accommodated by the local authority for 24 hours under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. This will mean that they will be entitled to the same local authority provision as any other looked-after child. The Care Leavers (England) Regulations 2010 set out duties regarding care leavers and require that those duties are fulfilled with regards to the child’s circumstances and needs as an unaccompanied or trafficked child. The regulations apply to all children, regardless of their immigration status, nationality or documentation.
As we have heard previously, child victims of modern slavery are at increased risk of going missing and being retrafficked. In 2017, as many as one in four identified trafficked children were reported as having gone missing. The average missing incidents for each trafficked child have increased from an average of 2.4 times to 7.4 times between 2014-15 and 2017. The new clause therefore seeks to bring clarity to the duty on local authorities to protect victims, particularly those at risk of retrafficking. Subsection (2) highlights that there is a need to ensure that accommodation is a serious consideration for child victims. We know that concerns have been raised about the lack of agreed safety standards for accommodating child victims of trafficking, which can include the use of residential homes, shared flats and houses, bed-and-breakfast emergency housing and foster care.
In 2017, the Home Office and the Department for Education commissioned a report that found that there was
“limited availability of specialist provision”
and
“a lack of resources and specialist knowledge within local authorities and partner services.”
The report identified the placement of non-EEA migrant children in “semi-independent accommodation”, such as
“supported accommodation and/or shared housing”,
as being a cause for concern. Since the report was published, the Government have outlawed the provision of accommodation without care and supervision for under-16s, but they have continued to allow such provision for 16 and 17-year-olds.
A recent serious case review has further highlighted the problems of local authorities arranging inappropriate placements for children, and the impact of failing to conduct full risk assessments for both the needs of the child and the accommodation itself. Sarah was a looked-after child in the care of Worcestershire social services, and she died in independent accommodation away from her home borough in June 2019, at the age of 17. From an early age, Sarah had suffered from epilepsy, which had been managed by medication. In 2017, Sarah became a looked-after child under a voluntary agreement between the local authority and her parents, which meant that both Sarah’s parents maintained parental responsibility. Sarah became looked after and was accommodated with foster carers, but when these placements broke down, she resided in residential accommodation and then had semi-independent living arrangements.
Over a period of time, there were numerous occasions where Sarah was reported as missing from the placements. There were concerns regarding Sarah’s vulnerability and the effect of her medical condition. There were also concerns regarding Sarah’s relationships with older men, particularly her relationship with one man. Sarah was considered to be at risk of being criminally and sexually exploited. Sarah tragically died, having suffered a seizure at the home address of the older male in question in 2019, aged just 17. It is an incredibly sad case study and serves as an example of what can happen if the needs of vulnerable victims are not thoroughly assessed.
Currently, there is statutory guidance that outlines a local authority’s duties, such as the Department for Education’s guidance for local authorities, which was updated in 2017, entitled “Care of unaccompanied migrant children and child victims of modern slavery.” It states that:
“Local authorities have a duty to protect and support these highly vulnerable children. Because of the circumstances they have faced, unaccompanied migrant children and child victims of modern slavery, including trafficking, often have complex needs in addition to those faced by looked after children more generally. The support required to address these needs must begin as soon as the child is referred to the local authority or is found in the local authority area. It will be most effective where this support is provided through a stable, continuous relationship with the child.”
We unequivocally support the sentiments and measures incorporated in the guidance, but it should be strengthened through the adoption of the new clause, which would create a duty for local authorities to consider the risk of retrafficking and safeguard against children going missing. I have already made the case for the need, highlighted in subsection (3), for local authorities to work closely and consult independent guardians before making decisions on behalf of the child.
There is a clear, urgent need for the new clause, given the vulnerability of such children. There is also a practical requirement, given that, for multiple local authorities, missing, trafficked or unaccompanied children account for a significant proportion of the children they look after—in the case of one local authority it was as high as 15%. The new clause seeks not only to raise awareness of the needs of child victims but to provide greater definition on the role of local authorities in meeting such needs.
As this is likely to be the last time that I will be on my feet in the Committee, with your permission, Ms McDonagh, may I put on record my sincere thanks to the Children’s Society, ECPAT UK, the British Red Cross, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, and all the hard-working, dedicated frontline police officers disrupting modern slavery? I am eternally grateful for all their expertise. Finally, I thank Isabelle Bull from my team, who has worked like a trojan in preparation for the Bill, as well as the incredible Clerks of the House.
Tom Pursglove
I, too, am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive way in which she has gone about her work on the Committee. I know how passionate she is about these issues.
Support for potential victims, including children, is a fundamental pillar of our approach to assisting those impacted by the horrendous crime of trafficking and modern slavery and reducing the risk of such victims being retrafficked. As the Committee may be aware, independent child trafficking guardians are an independent source of advice and support for potentially trafficked children, irrespective of nationality, and they can advocate on a child’s behalf. So far, the Government have rolled out the service to two thirds of local authorities across England and Wales. We have developed detailed policy for the provision of the service, which is set out in the interim independent child trafficking guardians guidance published under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The guidance is kept under review through consultation with stakeholders.
Within the guidance, the Government are already clear that acting in the child’s best interests must always be a primary consideration for the independent child trafficking guardian service. We are also clear that independent child trafficking guardians must be invited and provided with the opportunity to take part in all agency meetings and discussions that relate to and impact on the children that they are supporting. That is the correct place for detail on the function of the independent child trafficking guardian service. By keeping that detail in guidance—rather than putting it in legislation, as the new clause would—the Government can respond flexibly to best practice and victims’ needs.
Local authorities are responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children in their area, including child victims of modern slavery. The “Working Together to Safeguard Children” statutory guidance is clear that the individual needs of children, including the risk of re-trafficking, should be taken into account when determining their recovery needs. That is to ensure that safeguarding processes and multi-agency support can be put in place to protect and prevent harm to children at risk of a range of exploitation harms and abuse. The approach enables us to focus on a range of exploitation harms, whereas the new clause would stipulate that we focus specifically on the risk of retrafficking. Although I am sure that that was not the new clause’s intention, prioritising safeguarding against the risk of retrafficking could consequentially lead to the prioritisation of action against specifically the risk of retrafficking in place of other risks, which would inherently pose a risk to individuals whose risk of retrafficking may not be the primary consideration. With that, I encourage the hon. Lady not to press her new clause.
Holly Lynch
I think I followed what the Minister said and that he heard my concerns about some of the gaps in the provision. I will look to that statutory guidance for further detail. I will not press the new clause, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 52
Effect of British National (Overseas) visas
‘(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must commission and lay before Parliament an independent assessment of the effect of British National (Overseas) visas and the Government’s implementation.
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an Independent Chair to conduct the assessment.
(3) The assessment must consider such matters as are deemed appropriate by the said Independent Chair.’—(Bambos Charalambous.)
This new clause would require the Government to publish an independent assessment of the effect of the British National (Overseas) visa scheme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We believe that the new clause is needed because there is clear evidence that the British national overseas scheme may not end up working as it was intended. That is particularly the case for young Hong Kong nationals. As everyone on the Committee knows, the BNO scheme has, in theory, been designed to offer a path to citizenship for Hongkongers. This was particularly designed in the wake of Beijing’s national security law being imposed last year, which has led to Hongkongers facing police brutality and severe repression. Although we in the Opposition therefore very much welcome attempts to support all those facing repression in Hong Kong, we believe that there is a need to examine how the BNO visa scheme is operating in practice and whether it is having the desired effect.
As the Home Affairs Committee pointed out in July, there are reasons for concern about individuals and groups who may be missing out on offers of support. There remain worrying gaps in the offer of support, and loopholes in the way that the BNO scheme may be implemented. That is particularly the case for younger pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. It is evident that people under the age of 24 cannot benefit from the BNO visa scheme because of how it has been defined. That is because younger people do not hold BNO passports, which were issued in 1997. The BNO scheme requires that applicants hold a BNO passport. Those documents were issued to citizens following the handover of Hong Kong from the UK to China in 1997. Obviously, that means that a lot of people will be excluded from the scheme even if their parents or older siblings would qualify for it.
As a result of that, some people who have fled police brutality are now battling with the sclerotic and inefficient UK asylum system. That is simply because they are arbitrarily excluded from the Home Office settlement route due to their age. It has nothing to do with the validity of their claims, the severity of the oppression that they have experienced or the danger that they face in Hong Kong. All of those would have qualified them for a BNO visa had they been lucky enough to have been born a little earlier.
As we know, there are huge problems with the UK asylum system. We know that the average waiting time for an initial decision on an asylum case in the UK is between one and three years. Last week, some young Hongkongers told The Independent newspaper that they have been waiting for a year or more for a decision. Of course, the current inhumane rules of the Government’s hostile environment also mean that these same young people are banned from working, and often prevented from studying, while waiting for a decision. As Johnny Patterson, policy director of Hong Kong Watch, said, these Hongkongers in the asylum system are subjected to an “agonising wait”. Furthermore, the ban on them being able to work is undermining their chances of integrating in the UK.
The problem is only going to get worse unless it is tackled head on. Home Office figures show that there were 124 asylum claims from Hong Kong nationals in the year to June 2021, compared with 21 the year before and just nine in the 12 months to June 2019. It is even more concerning that 14 of those claims in the past year were unaccompanied minors, marking the first time on record that the UK has received asylum claims from children from Hong Kong.
We believe that the BNO visa scheme should be independently assessed to take account of the realities on the ground in Hong Kong. The truth is that it tends to be young people who were at the forefront of demonstrations to defend democracy and who are therefore likely to face the most repression. As well as that, people who are here under the BNO visa scheme have raised a number of concerns, such as their qualifications not being recognised, access to work, formal access to English language classes, and access to housing and banking services because they do not have a credit or renting history. There are also concerns about the lack of co-ordination between Government and local authority services. There are lots of reasons, therefore, why a review is needed.
It may well be the case that older parents wish to remain in Hong Kong while their children need to flee because they are in greater danger. Although the scheme allows applicants to bring relatives, including adult children, with them to the UK, the reality is that many young people will need to flee alone. They cannot rely on the parents coming to the UK who would have made their claim valid under the BNO scheme. We think it would be worth the Government exploring a revision of the scheme so that a child of a BNO Hong Kong citizen could make an application independently of their parents.
If such anomalies remain unaddressed, it will be deeply unfair on young Hongkongers. It is those young people who have often been on the frontline of the pro-democracy protests opposing the Chinese Government’s unlawful power grab. If they remain excluded from the BNO route for reasons entirely beyond their control, they will face an agonising wait in the UK asylum system, which we all know is beset with huge delays.
Given the UK’s deep connection to Hong Kong, should we not be offering a life raft to all Hongkongers who need one? The Opposition believe that the Government should accept independent scrutiny of the BNO scheme, with a view to exploring such steps as allowing children of BNO visa-eligible parents to make independent applications, provided there were evidence of their parents’ status, of course.
Tom Pursglove
The Hong Kong British national overseas route was launched on 31 January 2021, and the route has already been a success. As of 30 June, approximately 64,900 applications to the route have been made by BNO status holders and their family members who have chosen to make the UK their home. An impact assessment was published on 22 October 2020, setting out the projected impacts of the BNO route on the UK. As well as the direct impacts for the Government of operating the route, the impact assessment sets out the expected net benefit to the UK of between £2.4 billion and £2.9 billion over five years.
We believe that a review is not necessary. The policy is generous and barriers have been minimised. As the shadow Minister said, the Home Affairs Committee recently published a report on the route, and we have responded in full. I encourage him to withdraw the new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I will not press new clause 52 to a vote, but I do hope that the Government will keep monitoring the system and provide the protection for young Hongkongers that I outlined. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 53
Electronic monitoring: conditions and use of data
“(1) Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (3)(a), leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.
(3) In paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (3)(b), leave out ‘by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) or (7)’.
(4) In paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
‘(3A) If immigration bail is granted to a person subject to an electronic monitoring condition, the electronic monitoring condition shall cease to apply on the day six months after the day on which immigration bail was granted to the person, unless sub-paragraph (3B) applies.
(3B) This sub-paragraph applies if the Secretary of State or the First-tier Tribunal (as the case may be), when granting immigration bail to the person, has directed that the electronic monitoring condition shall not cease to apply in accordance with sub-paragraph (3A).
(3C) But the Secretary of State or the First-tier Tribunal (as the case may be) shall not make a direction under sub-paragraph (3B) unless the Secretary of State or the First-tier Tribunal (as the case may be) is satisfied that there are very exceptional circumstances which make the continued application of the electronic monitoring condition necessary in the interests of—
(a) public protection; or
(b) national security.’
(5) In paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (7) insert—
‘(7A) Sub-paragraph (3)(a) does not apply to a person who is granted immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal if the Tribunal considers that to impose an electronic monitoring condition on the person would be—
(a) impractical, or
(b) contrary to the person’s Convention rights.
(7B) Where sub-paragraph (7) or (7A) applies, the First-tier Tribunal must not grant immigration bail to the person subject to an electronic monitoring condition.’
(6) In paragraph 4, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must not process any data collected by a device within the meaning of sub-paragraph (2) which relates to the matters in sub-paragraph (1)(a) to (c) except for the purpose of, and to the minimum extent reasonably necessary for, determining whether P has breached a condition of his bail.
(2B) In sub-paragraph (2A), “processing” has the same meaning as in section 3(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018.’”.—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would place certain safeguards and restrictions on use of electronic monitoring.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 53 is really just to probe the Government on a new issue that has started to arise this year: the significant increase in the use of the GPS monitoring of certain people on bail for immigration purposes, largely foreign national offenders awaiting deportation. I am not for a moment suggesting that such monitoring does not have its role. It absolutely does; indeed, there would be occasions on which I would be upset with the Home Office if it did not use it. There is a genuine concern, however, about the lack of safeguards and limits on its use, and on how data from GPS tracking is being used. Indeed, even compared to the criminal justice system, it seems that the safeguards and limits are somewhat light touch. Cases have arisen where it seems that use was totally inappropriate.
New clause 53 suggests putting in place some appropriate safeguards and restrictions. It is designed to prompt the Minister, if not today then in due course, to answer certain questions. First and foremost, how will data be used in practice and in what circumstances will it be used in relation to somebody’s article 8 claim? That is an area of controversy, in that the use of tracking goes way beyond the original intention in previous relevant legislation, which was to prevent people from absconding.
Secondly, the criminal justice system imposes strict limits and safeguards on how long electronic monitoring is used for and in what circumstances, with limits on collection, processing, storage and use of data. Why, therefore, are those electronic monitoring safeguards absent in the immigration system?
Thirdly, why have the Government not made the data protection and equality impact assessment for such an intrusive scheme available to the public? Fourthly, what guarantee can the Government give that they will not expand their use of this technology and use it on people who have come to the United Kingdom to seek asylum? Can the Minister give us assurances on that today?
Finally, the Government’s own data suggests that absconding rates are exceptionally low. A recent FOI response found that of people granted bail between February 2020 and March 2021, there were 43 cases of absconding out of 7,000, so what evidence does the Home Office have that this intrusive measure is really necessary on anything other than a very limited scale?
Tom Pursglove
Our immigration system must encourage compliance with immigration rules and protect the public. Electronic monitoring of foreign national offenders using satellite tracking devices was a Government manifesto commitment, which the public voted for, and the measure which enacts it was passed into primary legislation under the Immigration Act 2016. It has already been subject to parliamentary scrutiny and debate during the passage of the 2016 Act.
Electronic monitoring is a condition of immigration bail. During the debate on the Immigration Act 2016, it was open to Parliament to set a limit on how long a person can be made subject to electronic monitoring, but it chose not to do so. However, I want to be clear that a person’s electronic monitoring conditions are already automatically reviewed on a quarterly basis as a minimum. Compliance with bail conditions, including electronic monitoring, will be a major factor in deciding whether it will remain a condition of that person’s bail. Any representations regarding the person’s electronic monitoring conditions or a breach of those conditions will also generate a review.
Prior to being placed on electronic monitoring when released, a person is given an opportunity to advise the Department as to why electronic monitoring may not be appropriate for them. That includes where there is strong evidence to suggest that an electronic monitoring condition would cause serious harm to the person’s health. A person can also make representations at any point while wearing a tag and those representations will be considered promptly.
Currently, there is a duty on the Secretary of State to consider electronic monitoring for those who are subject to a deportation order or deportation proceedings, known as “the duty”. The proposed clause makes the consideration of imposing an electronic monitoring condition discretionary. However, there is already a caveat within current legislation that electronic monitoring will not be applied to a person who is subject to the duty where its imposition would be impractical or contrary to the person’s convention rights. The proposal to remove the compulsory consideration of electronic monitoring for all those subject to the duty could lead to a scenario where serious offenders who should be electronically monitored are not considered for electronic monitoring and are granted bail without that condition.
I turn to the new clause’s reference to the use of data. Any data that is gathered from the devices will be processed automatically and will not be routinely monitored by the Department. We have undertaken a data protection impact assessment in relation to the introduction of GPS tagging, which sets out the specific permitted circumstances where data can be accessed, and any access outside those circumstances is considered a data breach. Those who are subject to electronic monitoring are made aware of the circumstances as to when their data can be accessed during the induction process.
Restricting the data in the way the new clause sets out will impact on the ability to use data to try to locate a person after it has been identified that they have breached their immigration bail conditions and are viewed as an absconder. The inability to share data with other law enforcement agencies where a lawful request had been made would be out of alignment with the agreement on sharing data for the purposes of preventing or solving crime. In the broadest terms, only knowing that a person had breached their bail conditions and not being able to use the data for any other purpose would greatly limit the efficacy of electronic monitoring.
I do not consider that the new clause would have the effect that hon. Members intend. Rather, it would impair our ability to monitor and deport those who had committed crimes and were not entitled to remain in the UK. Foreign criminals should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them. We make no apology for keeping the public safe and clamping down on those who have no right to be in the UK.
In summary, the restriction of the use of electronic monitoring as proposed in new clause 53 would significantly impair our ability efficiently to remove foreign national offenders who have no right to be here. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised a number of questions at the outset. I have covered quite a lot of ground, but if there are any matters that he feels I have not addressed and he would like to follow up, I of course invite him to please do so.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I will have a look through everything that has been said and consider whether any follow-up is necessary. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 54
Instructions to the Migration Advisory Committee
“Within two months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must instruct the Migration Advisory Committee to undertake the following work—
(a) a review of the minimum income requirements for leave to enter and remain as a family member of persons who are British citizens or settled in the United Kingdom;
(b) a report making detailed recommendations on the design of a work visa for remote areas.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to seek further advice in order to take forward certain recommendations made by the Migration Advisory Committee in recent reports.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the final new clause. On that note, I should start by thanking all the organisations that have been incredibly helpful in providing briefings, draft amendments and so on; thanking the staff of the House for their incredible patience in dealing with millions of amendments and new clauses; and thanking you, Ms McDonagh, and Sir Roger for the way you have chaired the Committee.
This new clause asks the Government to commission from the Migration Advisory Committee two incredibly important pieces of work. One relates to family visas, and the other to a possible remote areas pilot scheme. The first issue, which we touched on earlier in relation to the Chagos islanders and the family visa rules, gives me the opportunity to reiterate our passionate view that currently the UK family visa rules are absolutely atrocious and indefensible. In the grand scheme of things, the UK is an absolute outlier in this regard and has been for about a decade. The rules are incredibly restrictive on families. When the then Children’s Commissioner for England did a report on the matter back in, I think, 2015, she wrote in considerable detail about the dreadful impact that this has on children in particular, but also on spouses—British citizens and British settled people—who end up separated from their other halves or from their kids, and all for absolutely unevidenced policy reasons on the part of the Government.
Research shows that in large parts of the country—Northern Ireland in particular, but elsewhere as well—close to and above 50% of the population would not be able to meet the requirements to allow their spouse to come and join them in this country. That is absolutely extraordinary. Even on the Government’s own terms—the Minister spoke earlier about the policy goal being to make sure that folk can stand on their own two feet without having to rely on public funds—all of this is contested.
There is academic research that suggests that, in fact, the way the rules operate means that some families have to place more reliance on public funds. For example, a person who is here with a child and is not able to bring their spouse in ends up having to work fewer hours or not at all, because of childcare. Some institutions have calculated that this actually costs the taxpayer money rather than saving the taxpayer money. In any event, it is totally unjustified and a deeply horrible intrusion into people’s family lives.
In its last annual report, the Migration Advisory Committee said:
“We also think now would be an opportune time to reconsider the minimum income requirements associated with this route. The MAC are concerned that previous analysis may have given too much weight to the fiscal contribution of such migrants and insufficient attention to the benefits that accrue, to both the family and society, from the route. In addition, it is a considerable time since the current income requirements were introduced, so more evidence should now be available to review the impact of these requirements.”
I absolutely endorse that. We must now revisit these anti-family rules. Even if the Minister is not prepared to look again at the financial thresholds, he should look at the rule that means that the Home Office almost never takes into account the earning capacity of the spouse applying for a visa to come in. It seems absolutely absurd that we could have somebody who could earn £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000, yet that is not taken into account in the application process. I just gently ask the Home Office to look again at this.
The second bit of work that this final new clause would ask of the MAC is to look in a little more detail at the possibilities of a remote areas pilot scheme. When the MAC prepared its report to the Government on salary thresholds for the new points-based system, it expressed a sympathetic view about the problems faced by more remote parts of the UK, and recommended that the Government consider a remote areas pilot scheme. In the Government’s response to the review, they noted that the pilot was an idea that they were intending to pursue. Indeed, the words of the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who was then Home Secretary, were that this was “an idea worth pursuing”. The MAC is quite clear that it hopes that the Government will still carry through with the pilot, and that it should involve all devolved Administrations. Part of the scheme could involve a lower salary threshold for those areas.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has gone about his work during the course of proceedings, and for pursuing a number of angles with great tenacity and vigour.
The Migration Advisory Committee is an independent, non-statutory, non-time limited, non-departmental public body that advises the Government on migration issues. The minimum income requirement was implemented in July 2012, following advice from the MAC and has not changed since its introduction. We will consider whether to commission the MAC to review the minimum income requirement within the next three months.
In addition, the MAC considered the issue of work visas for remote areas in is January 2020 report, “A Points-Based System and Salary Thresholds for Immigration”. The MAC recommended a pilot for remote visas, but the Government did not accept this. The UK has a single, flexible immigration system that works for the entirety of the UK. Applying different immigration rules to different parts of the UK would overly complicate the immigration system and would cause significant difficulties for employers who need the flexibility to deploy their staff across the UK. As the MAC itself has said, when considering sustaining remote communities we need to consider why people leave these areas. This is more important than bolstering local communities with migration. I therefore do not consider re-reviewing this issue to be a good use of the MAC’s time or public money.
It is not appropriate to put an amendment such as new clause 54 into primary legislation, as the commissioning of the MAC is done on a priority basis. The Secretary of State retains the power to change the topics, which the MAC reviews at short notice, if a more pressing matter becomes a priority. The Secretary of State should be able to respond flexibly to any new priorities. For those reasons, I encourage the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his answers. He is certainly candid, as he has been throughout Committee proceedings. I am bitterly disappointed about the answer in relation to the remote areas pilot scheme. Those areas are really suffering, not just in terms of labour shortages and the accompanying economic challenges, but even with depopulation.
I will hang on and finish on an optimistic note in that there is a possibility that the Government will commission a review of the salary threshold for family visas. I very much hope that that does happen and they look at how that route operates all together. I cling to that little bit of silver lining. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
Prisoners returning to the UK: Modifications of Criminal Justice Act 2003
‘This is the Schedule to be inserted after Schedule 19A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003—
“Schedule 19B
Prisoners returning to the UK: Modifications of Chapter 6 of Part 12
Modification of dates for referral to the Board
1 Paragraph 2 applies where section 244ZC(2), 244A(2) or 246A(4) (when read with section 260(4A)) would require the Secretary of State to refer a person’s case to the Board on a day falling before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the person is returned to custody.
2 The applicable provision is to be read as requiring the Secretary of State to refer the person’s case to the Board at any time up to the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the person is returned to custody.
3 For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, a person returns to custody when the person, having returned to the United Kingdom, is detained (whether or not in prison) in pursuance of their sentence.
Person removed after Board had directed release but before being released
4 Paragraphs 5 and 6 apply where, before a person’s removal from the United Kingdom—
(a) the Board had directed their release under section 244ZC, 244A or 246A, but
(b) they had not been released on licence.
5 The direction of the Board is to be treated as having no effect.
6 The person is to be treated as if—
(a) they had been recalled under section 254 on the day on which they returned to the United Kingdom, and
(b) they were not suitable for automatic release (see section 255A).
Person removed after referral to the Board but before disposal of the reference
7 Paragraph 8 applies where—
(a) before a person’s removal from prison their case had been referred to the Board under section 244ZB(3), 244ZC(2), 244A(2) or 246A(4), and
(b) the reference lapsed under section 260(4B) because the person was removed from the United Kingdom before the Board had disposed of the reference.
8 Section 244ZC(2), 244A(2) or 246A(4) (as applicable) is to be read as requiring the Secretary of State to refer the person’s case to the Board before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the person is returned to custody.
9 For the purposes of paragraph 8, a person returns to custody when the person, having returned to the United Kingdom, is detained (whether or not in prison) in pursuance of their sentence.
Person removed after having been recalled to prison
10 Paragraphs 11 and 12 apply where, at the time of a person’s removal from prison under section 260, the person was in prison following recall under section 254.
11 Any direction of the Board made in relation to the person under section 255C or 256A before their return to the United Kingdom is to be treated as having no effect.
12 The person is to be treated as if—
(a) they had been recalled under section 254 on the day on which they returned to the United Kingdom, and
(b) they were not suitable for automatic release (see section 255A).”’—(Tom Pursglove.)
This new schedule inserts a new Schedule 19B into the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to make modifications of that Act in relation to prisoners who have returned to the UK after their removal from prison. It is introduced by section 261 of that Act, which is amended by NC12.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 3
Working in United Kingdom waters: consequential and related amendments
‘Immigration Act 1971
1 The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
2 In section 8 (exceptions for seamen etc), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a member of the crew of a ship who is an offshore worker within the meaning of section 11A.”
3 In section 11 (references to entry etc), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) See also section 11A (additional means by which persons arriving in United Kingdom waters for work can enter the UK).”
4 In section 28 (proceedings for offences)—
(a) before subsection (1) insert—
“(A1) Proceedings for an offence under this Part that is committed in the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom.”;
(b) in subsection (2A), for “section 25 or 25A” substitute “this Part”.
5 In section 28L (interpretation of Part 3) —
(a) in subsection (1), at the beginning insert “Subject to subsection (1A)”;
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In this Part ‘premises’ also includes any artificial island, installation or structure (including one in the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom).”
6 In section 28M (enforcement powers in relation to ships: England and Wales), in subsection (2)(a)—
(a) for “section” substitute—
“(i) section 24B,”;
(b) for “, and” substitute “, or
(ii) section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and”.
7 In section 28N (enforcement powers in relation to ships: Scotland), in subsection (2)(a)—
(a) for “section” substitute—
“(i) section 24B,”;
(b) for “, and” substitute “, or
(ii) section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and”.
8 In section 28O (enforcement powers in relation to ships: Northern Ireland), in subsection (2)(a)—
(a) for “section” substitute—
“(i) section 24B,”;
(b) for “, and” substitute “, or
(ii) section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and”.
9 (1) Schedule 2 (administrative provision as to control on entry etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words from “who have” to “United Kingdom)” substitute “within sub-paragraph (1A)”;
(b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) The persons are—
(a) any person who has arrived in the United Kingdom by ship or aircraft (including transit passengers, members of the crew and others not seeking to enter the United Kingdom);
(b) any person who has arrived in United Kingdom waters by ship or aircraft who the immigration officer has reason to believe is an offshore worker.
(1B) In sub-paragraph (1A), ‘offshore worker’ and ‘United Kingdom waters’ have the same meaning as in section 11A.”
(3) In paragraph 27—
(a) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) also applies to the captain of a ship or aircraft arriving in United Kingdom waters if—
(a) there are offshore workers on board, or
(b) an immigration officer has informed the captain that they wish to examine any person on board in the exercise of the power under paragraph 2.
(1B) In sub-paragraph (1A), ‘offshore worker’ and ‘United Kingdom waters’ have the same meaning as in section 11A.”
(4) In paragraph 27B—
(a) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) This paragraph also applies to ships or aircraft—
(a) which have offshore workers on board, and
(b) which—
(i) have arrived, or are expected to arrive, in United Kingdom waters, or
(ii) have left, or are expected to leave, United Kingdom waters.”;
(b) after sub-paragraph (9A) insert—
“(9B) ‘Offshore worker’ and ‘United Kingdom waters’ have the same meaning in this paragraph as in section 11A.”
(5) In paragraph 27BA—
(a) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may also make regulations requiring responsible persons in respect of ships or aircraft—
(a) which have offshore workers on board, and
(b) which—
(i) have arrived, or are expected to arrive, in United Kingdom waters, or
(ii) have left, or are expected to leave, United Kingdom waters,
to supply information to the Secretary of State or an immigration officer.”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (2), after (1) insert “or (1A)”;
(c) after sub-paragraph (5) insert—
“(5A) For the purposes of this paragraph, ‘offshore workers’ and ‘United Kingdom waters’ have the same meaning as in section 11A.”
10 (1) Schedule 4A (maritime enforcement powers) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(2), after the opening words insert—
“‘the 2006 Act’ means the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;”.
(3) In paragraph (2)(1)(a), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(4) In paragraph (3)(1)(a), for “25, 25A and 25B” substitute “24B, 25, 25A or 25B of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(5) In paragraph 4(1), for “25, 25A or 25B” substitute “24B, 25, 25A or 25B of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(6) In paragraph 12(2), after the opening words insert—
“‘the 2006 Act’ means the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;”.
(7) In paragraph 13(1)(a), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(8) In paragraph 14(1)(a), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(9) In paragraph 15(1), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(10) In paragraph 23(2), after the opening words insert—
“‘the 2006 Act’ means the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;”.
(11) In paragraph 24(1)(a), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(12) In paragraph 25(1)(a), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(13) In paragraph 26(1), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006
11 In section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (offence of employing a person who is disqualified from employment by their immigration status), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Proceedings for an offence under this section that is committed in the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom.
(3B) Section 3 of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878 (consent of Secretary of State for certain prosecutions) does not apply to proceedings for an offence under this section.”’—(Tom Pursglove.)
This new schedule makes consequential and related amendments in NC20.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Bambos Charalambous
I want to put on the record my thanks to the Clerks, in particular Sarah Thatcher and Rob Page, for their amazing work in getting our new clauses and amendments into some form of legible parliamentary-type wording. I also thank the other staff, those in the room in particular, the Doorkeepers and those keeping a record of our sometimes very long speeches. I also thank you, Ms McDonagh, and Sir Roger, for the excellent way in which you chaired proceedings of the Committee.
I thank the members of the Committee—the Minister and all members, but in particular my friends and colleagues in the Opposition for their support and for helping us get to where we are today. I put on the record my thanks to my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, for Sheffield Central and for Coventry North West, and to the hon. Members for Glasgow North East and for—I will attempt to say the name—Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East.
Finally, I thank my staff, Katherine Chibah, Giulia Monasterio, Cian Fox, Charlotte Butterick and Tashi Tahir, for all their hard work on the research and the speeches, and for their general support. It has been a challenging Bill Committee and I am pleased that we have got to the end of it in one piece.
Tom Pursglove
Before you adjourn the Committee for the final time, Ms McDonagh, I also take the opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved, in particular the Opposition spokesmen of both parties, who have put an awful lot of work into their preparations. I know that it is not just them involved in their work, but their teams, who go to extraordinary lengths and really look at the detail of the measures that the Government are proposing to draw up suggested new clauses. It is a herculean effort, so I thank the spokesmen and those working with them.
I thank you, Ms McDonagh, and Sir Roger, for your firm but fair chairing of the proceedings. That is always much appreciated, and you have done a brilliant job at keeping us all in order in—I think it is fair to say—a controversial Bill, which Members come at with very strong opinions on all sides.
I also thank my colleagues and in particular our departmental Whip, who as ever has done a fantastic job and stood in at very short notice for my absence on Tuesday. It was extraordinary.
Tom Pursglove
He did very well. I was concerned that I would not be wanted back. I also thank our standing departmental Parliamentary Private Secretary.
I also thank my officials, without whom it simply would not be possible to do this, for all the work they put in behind the scenes. I thank the Clerks of the House, too, who do a fantastic job in structuring the proceedings and ensuring that everything runs in an orderly fashion.
To finish, Sir Roger’s comments as he departed the Chair this morning put it rather well. These are controversial matters that people feel strongly about. Passions run high, but it is fair to say that the Committee has considered the matters in great detail and, I would argue, has done consideration of the Bill great justice.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the Minister, because everyone else has been thanked. He had not been long in his position when the Committee started, and he has shown tremendous skill and adeptness. I am pleased indeed that he recovered from the dodgy prawn he had the other week, which caused the Whip to have to stand in. The Minister started his career as my PPS, and I like to say that I taught him everything he knows, but not everything I know.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
bACKBENCH BUSINESS
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tackling the Digital Divide
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking in the debate. This is in line with the Government’s guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have covid lateral flow tests twice a week—I am sure you all have. You can do that at home or on the parliamentary estate, and you can pick up tests here to take home. Please also give each other enough space when seated and when entering and leaving the Chamber.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling the digital divide.
I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Ali. It strikes me, and I am pleased to see, that with you, me and the Minister, we have strong east London representation in the Chamber today. I am also pleased that the Work and Pensions Committee is strongly represented in the debate. I think there is a significant crossover between the digital divide and the concerns the Committee has been engaged with.
Let me begin with a tribute to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who is chair of the all-party parliamentary group for broadband and digital communication—I am the vice-chair of that group. Before her recent well-deserved promotion, she was the sponsor—the initiator—of this debate. She is not able to lead on it, given her current position, but I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so as a rather poor substitute.
As we all know, there has been dramatic progress in getting people online since March of last year. Lloyds Bank’s UK consumer digital index, published in May, reported:
“In the last 12 months, 1.5 million more people have started using the Internet, resulting in 95% now being online… We have made five years’ worth of progress in one”.
It has been a pretty dramatic change. The report makes the point that it is
“well evidenced that people using digital tools and services have a real advantage”.
It also points out that digital skills have moved from being an advantage to being a necessity during the pandemic.
The fact that so many have come newly online is an opportunity for us to build on. But 2.6 million people still are not online. Ofcom reported in July that 2 million households struggle with the cost of broadband or smartphone services, with some staying offline as a result of those cost barriers. Ten million people also lack basic digital skills.
I am sorry to say that the Government’s digital inclusion strategy has not been updated since 2014. It is high time that it was. The topic has not had the priority in Government that I hope it will have in the period ahead. I warmly welcome the Minister to her post, which she took up relatively recently. I hope that in winding up the debate she will be able to hold out the prospect of new priority being given to digital inclusion and of policies enabling real progress on it in the period ahead.
The Good Things Foundation focuses its impressive range of programmes on the digital divide. Its document “A blueprint to fix the digital divide”, published in September, identifies three requirements. No.1 is digital skills, No. 2 is community support and No. 3 is affordable internet, and I will use those three headings in my remarks.
First, on digital skills, progress is very important for levelling up. The Lloyds Bank report pointed out that people using digital services are
“more likely to build their savings reserves, find new ways to save money and can more easily find and access new information, plus manage their well-being”.
We might add that they can also more readily look for a job, apply for universal credit and manage their universal credit account online.
There is a real levelling-up challenge here. Whereas, according to Ofcom, fewer than 21% of people in London are limited internet users, that proportion is almost twice as high—38%—in the north-east, the region represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who is the shadow Front Bencher for this afternoon’s debate. The other nations and regions fall between those two figures, and within regions levels of engagement are much lower among benefit claimants than among other people. I hope that digital inclusion and the development of digital skills will be supported by the UK shared prosperity fund, and that the Government will support local initiatives to tackle the problem, such as Andy Street’s digital catch-up programme in the west midlands to help those who cannot use the internet to learn digital skills, and Andy Burnham’s ambition for Greater Manchester, which is to help all people who are 25 and under, over 75 or disabled to get online.
The Government’s entitlement for people to get full funding for essential digital skills qualifications is welcome, but we need to go further. Level 1 qualifications are not meeting the needs of local employers, while those who stand to gain the most are least likely to engage if they do not first get informal, community-based help. Age is the biggest determinant, with older people less likely to have digital skills. Age UK reports that in the first quarter of this calendar year 40% of over-75s and 12% of 65 to 74-year-olds had not used the internet in the previous three months. However, there is also a big group of younger people who need help. Ofcom’s 2021 technology tracker research found that among school-aged children—those aged between four and 18—eight in 10 had access to an appropriate device at home all of the time, enabling them to connect to the internet for online schoolwork or learning as needed. Of the remainder, 13% had access some of the time, but 2% rarely had access and 2% never had access, meaning that a significant group of school-age children are fully excluded.
Over a fifth of the respondents to a survey quoted in a Vodafone report on the UK’s digital divide last month did not have the software in their household to complete their work, education or leisure pursuits. We also need to reflect on the digital skills that more and more people in work are going to have to acquire, and the Government’s lifetime skills guarantee needs to address that issue directly. techUK has highlighted the gap between, on the one hand, the upsurge in demand for digitally skilled workers in areas such as coding and, on the other, the limited opportunities to retrain in those fields, with a need for immediate action to close that growing digital skills gap. By 2030, it is estimated that nine out of 10 workers are going to need to learn new skills to do their job, at a cost of well over £1 billion a year.
That brings us to the second area, community support. Helen Milner, the chief executive of the Good Things Foundation, has called for support to develop
“a national network of at least 10,000 trusted places where people can get community help with digital inclusion—reaching into villages, towns and cities, and supporting COVID-19 recovery.”
A very good example of such a place is Skills Enterprise, a charity based in Bonny Downs Baptist Church in my constituency and founded in 2006 by the energetic social entrepreneur Malathy Muthu. It is a small but very effective training provider, which quickly reorganised for the pandemic to stop people who were already digitally excluded being further isolated. The Good Things Foundation helped by providing devices that Skills Enterprise could distribute through its DevicesDotNow partnership with FutureDotNow, which raised over £1.5 million nationally to supply devices and data. Skills Enterprise used those devices to ensure that people who would not otherwise have been able to get online could do so during the pandemic.
The number of service users Skills Enterprise supported increased by 50% during the pandemic, and it is now supporting 160 people. I presented certificates to a number of them on a visit last month. It has helped people who were setting up businesses, who were home-schooling, or who were simply having to self-isolate—showing them how to download and use things such as Zoom. Skills Enterprise has helped people with online shopping and banking, and it has helped a large number of people to apply for universal credit, as applications became online-only during the pandemic. It found that virtual form-filling sessions typically lasted around three hours over the telephone for applicants who were not digitally confident and who needed to be talked through the process of applying for universal credit. I am pleased to say that Skills Enterprise has worked with Jobcentre Plus as well. Two people were able to save £300 a year after Skills Enterprise helped them to switch energy providers online, and 23 people it has worked with have found jobs during the pandemic thanks to the acquisition of new digital skills.
Skills Enterprise is an example of exactly the kind of place that the Good Things Foundation rightly says we need across the country. It is having a positive local impact, but there are not enough centres like that around. Funding from central Government is needed urgently to deploy digital champions around the country and to support grassroots organisations to address the divide.
The third area is affordable internet. The scaling back of the Government’s ambitions for connectivity has been a big disappointment. The Government started with a target of 100% fibre by 2025. That was downgraded to 100% gigabit by 2025, and then down again to 85% gigabit by 2025. We are now falling further behind the rest of Europe, and we really should be doing better. Some £5 billion has been provided, but I understand that only a fraction of that will now be invested by 2025; the rest will not be invested until later.
Openreach has estimated that a nationwide full-fibre deployment could add £59 billion to the UK economy by 2025. With growth so elusive in the economy and the Chancellor forecasting that it will be down to 1.3% by the end of his forecast period, that sort of growth is a prize that we cannot afford to forgo.
The Government’s shared rural network scheme aims to provide 4G coverage to 95% of the UK by 2025. I think Vodafone has announced coverage of two Welsh villages under the scheme, but I do not know of any other announcements on increasing coverage that have been made by UK mobile operators as part of this initiative. Will the Minister update us on its progress and on whether there are prospects for more such projects in the near future?
The universal service obligation, launched by the Government in March, which I welcome, allows rural households to demand connectivity from BT, but some of that connectivity might have a very high price indeed, with reports of 60,000 households being charged up to £100,000 each in order to gain the access being provided. Will the Minister give us some reassurance that the access that the USO ensures will be affordable, and will she give an indication of the extent to which the USO has been effective in extending access in the first six months or so of its operation? I commend the work of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, which has set out a range of ideas for steps that the Government can take to increase access in the hardest-to-reach areas, and I hope Ministers will take those ideas forward.
The price to users is a major issue. Households with the lowest incomes spend nearly four times more as a proportion of their disposable income on fixed broadband than the average. Ofcom reports that at least 100,000 households, and possibly many more, are unlikely to gain internet access in the next year because of the price they would have to pay to get it. Ofcom research also found that 4% of families with school-age children relied solely on mobile devices during the pandemic.
I welcome the efforts of telcos and others with innovative partnerships and new social tariffs. TalkTalk’s partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions provides eligible jobseekers with an uncapped broadband service for six months to help them search for jobs, with the DWP paying the fixed cost of the connection and TalkTalk offering the service on a not-for-profit basis. I welcome that imaginative approach and the partnership that has been established.
Vodafone has a buy one, give one scheme in partnership with the Trussell Trust, which I also welcome. BT, Community Fibre, Hyperoptic, KCOM, Virgin Media and VOXI each offer at least one targeted tariff with unlimited internet access, priced with varying degrees of affordability. Some are priced at £10 per month, which is very good, and some at rather more than that. Is the Minister keeping under consideration the possibility of imposing a requirement for social tariffs on all providers?
There is clearly a great deal more to be done on this front. After the pandemic, there can be little dispute about the central place of digital inclusion in any programme for levelling up. The pandemic has rapidly accelerated take-up, but it has also deepened the disadvantage experienced by those who do not yet have digital access. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the Government recognise the crucial importance of this issue and that she will prioritise making progress on it in the spending review period ahead.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for his kind words and for standing in to take over this debate. As the original sponsor and the chair of the APPG on broadband and digital communication, I am delighted to speak in the debate.
I also speak as the MP for North Devon, a part of the country where our broadband speed lags behind not just the rest of the country but the rest of the south-west. That is why I have committed myself to the APPG to see what more can be done to roll out better broadband to north Devon and beyond. While I warmly welcome last week’s announcement that more rural properties will be reached through Project Gigabit, it is still over two and a half years away.
Gigabit broadband is available to 28.7% of the population in the UK as a whole, but to just 20.3% in North Devon. Superfast broadband across the UK is at 95% coverage, whereas in North Devon we are at just 86.7%. Our average download speed is just 42.1 megabits per second, compared with a south-west average of 64.8 megabits per second and a UK average of 72.9 megabits per second. Some 3.1% of rural areas are unable to receive decent broadband, compared to 0.4% in the UK and 0.6% in the south-west, and 6.3% of my constituents are unable to receive 10 megabits per second. After Brexit, broadband was the No. 1 issue on the doorstep in the election campaign of December 2019. With those figures, it is no wonder.
The challenge of the digital divide, when it is as extreme as it is now in rural parts of the UK, such as my constituency, is that people have no idea what they have, could have or should have. After all, what does gigabit capable mean? If people have had under 10 megabits per second, they find superfast broadband exciting—do they need to go faster? They do not know what they are missing out on because they have no way of accessing it. Smaller companies, such as Jurassic Fibre, have installed gigabit-capable fibre, but take-up has not been high, as lack of understanding, awareness, cost and the inconvenience of changing service provider—these are not wholesalers—is holding back our speeding up.
I want to put on record my thanks to Openreach for connecting up Tawstock primary school and Umberleigh primary school during the pandemic, but how do we still have schools that are unable to access the web? Children as young as six have explained to me how lessons are interrupted with a “circle of doom”. Is it any wonder that local employers complain of a skills gap? How are students going to learn digital skills with the circle of doom as their learning companion?
Given how far behind we are in connectivity, parents are often also in no position to assist with technical challenges. Our schools, parents and students have all done a fantastic job getting through the pandemic despite the connectivity challenges they have faced, but the situation has gone on for far too long. Parish councillors—many of mine doing a sterling job now in their 80s—may not be best placed to decide on the right broadband solution, as they are being asked to. We now see some villages with multiple operators putting up poles and promoting their services, while others languish with nothing.
It is not just our broadband speeds that needs accelerating, but the roll-out. I thank Openreach for tackling the Lynton and Lynmouth rural build project, which has generated dramatic photos of the fibre passing down the funicular railway; but that project came to fruition due to a chance meeting between me and the chief executive. While I am grateful for that, what would have happened without it?
I recognise that Connecting Devon and Somerset is doing its very best in difficult circumstances to connect up North Devon, but it too needs speeding up. The approach of connecting up one or two remote properties at a time does not seem joined up or a good use of vital engineers or taxpayers’ money. This week, it took my intervention to prevent the Building Digital UK programme from over-fibring in one village that Openreach has already connected up as a commercial build. It keeps putting up additional poles in beautiful North Devon, rather than using existing assets, which is creating so much extra work. I hope that more can be done to effectively manage the programme; with so much still to connect, having some places connected by multiple providers does not seem a good use of taxpayers’ money.
I urge the Minister to rethink what more can be done to help rural constituencies such as mine to join the digital revolution before we move into yet another phase, with landlines potentially to be switched off, when we have no mobile service either. If I move my head during a call at home, I lose my connection, on both wi-fi and mobile calls. I say to the Minister, please do not turn my landline off. What will I do if there is ever an emergency?
I am not on commission with Openreach—if CityFibre wants to rebrand as RuralFibre, I am happy to welcome it instead—but we need one wholesale company to come and connect the whole of Devon, rural or not, commercially viable or not. We are falling behind not only the rest of the UK, but the rest of the world. To my mind, hard-to-reach, remote rural constituencies such as mine need better digital connectivity than more well-connected urban areas.
Across the south-west, connectivity is poor in terms of both transport and digital infrastructure. In Cornwall and Devon, the number of jobs that are reachable within 60 minutes by car is two times lower than the UK median, and the number of jobs that are reachable within 90 minutes is five times lower than the median. When we talk about levelling up in North Devon, it is primarily digital infrastructure that we seek. We have been left behind for too long with poor transport infrastructure, and our geography means we will never get any closer to the nearest city, but the technology is available to connect us digitally. I hope the new Secretary of State will bring the drive she has shown in addressing other inequalities in our society to bridging the clear rural digital divide.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this time for what is, for my constituents, an important debate.
We have had an interesting contrast in two different definitions of what constitutes the digital divide. They are both very legitimate cases but, with absolutely no disrespect to the right hon. Member for East Ham and in no way wishing to belittle the very important issues he identified, I would love to have a lot of those issues in my constituency. The problems of access to software and so on are only really problems if we have the necessary hardware. Unfortunately, I am afraid that the experience of my constituency is rather closer to that of the hon. Member for North Devon and her constituents than to the—apparently very well-represented—east end of London.
To explain the scale of what we are talking about, in Orkney we have 65.93% superfast coverage—that is 30 megabits—and 1.48% full fibre. In Shetland, the comparable figures are 75.26% and 1.5%, and for Scotland as a whole they are 94.8% and 28.01%. When we talk about digital divides, I do not think there is a better illustration of the nature and extent of that divide than in these figures for the Northern Isles.
I do not think my constituents have ever been unreasonable on this. We always knew that there would be issues, given our geography, but it has now got to the point where it was revealed today, in The Press and Journal, that the Scottish Government’s Reaching 100% target is being put back to the end of 2026 and into 2027 for completion. The target was set in 2017, and it was originally to be completed by 2021. That allows us—or would allow us, were it ever to be completed—to catch up and to get what other people already have. That means that it will have been a full 10 years before we get that level of connectivity.
I will say two things about this news. First, I do not think that it demonstrates a great deal of respect for the communities I represent, or those around the highlands and islands, for this to come into the public domain because a newspaper has put in a freedom of information request to get that data. The reason for the delay should be something that is open and transparently disclosed by Government Ministers, but when asked by The Press and Journal, a Scottish Government spokesperson refused to comment. We do not even know why we are running up against this extension to an already over-extended deadline.
However, I must also say—this touches on something that the right hon. Member for East Ham said—that our experience regarding the USO has been less than fruitful. For a connection under the USO, my constituents are quoted exactly the sort of figures that the right hon. Member spoke of: tens of thousands of pounds. There are ways in which properties can pool together and share that burden, but when we spoke about the creation of a “universal service”, I do not think anybody imagined that it would be open only to people with tens of thousands of pounds for something that people in urban conurbations take for granted.
My frustration is that in Scotland, we have two schemes running: the universal service obligation and the Reaching 100% scheme. Nobody knows whether they should take the bird in the hand that is the universal service, which would guarantee them 10 megabits, or wait for the bird in the bush that Reaching 100% may be, whenever we reach the Reaching 100% target, which would give 30 megabits. To be quite honest, I do not really care which route people take.
We have two Governments in Scotland both spending taxpayers’ money, and the two schemes surely could be made to work better than this. There surely is no reason why they should be set up effectively in competition. Surely, for the benefit of the people who are paying the taxes and requiring the service, it ought to be possible to do something with one scheme that would actually deliver. At the end of the day, I do not care which flag is on the box that eventually arrives; all we care about is that we have meaningful connectivity.
In July of this year, we had encouraging news about the shared rural network and were pleased to see progress, but it has all been very quiet since then. The shared rural network and the availability of mobile phone connectivity are major frustrations of constituents in the communities that I represent, and it is something on which we would like to see faster progress. We were pleased to see the progress. However, when things are going well, Governments are always very quick to have announcements, press conferences and photo opportunities; when things go quiet, being the nasty, cynical, suspicious person I am, I am inclined to wonder whether there might be problems somewhere. An update from the Minister on the shared rural network would be most welcome.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. This is my first Westminster Hall debate since I was elected, so it is a pleasure to be here to talk about this important issue.
We have seen from the contributions so far that this is a really wide-ranging issue that has many impacts. We see that in our communities. I do not share many of the experiences of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) or my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), but I sympathise a lot with what they say.
I have a few points to press with my hon. Friend the Minister, particularly on how we build this digital infrastructure. We saw the target for premises being fitted for fibre by 2025 reduced from 100% to 85%. It is vital that we hit that, and as part of that we must ensure that we get the processes right, particularly by ensuring that procurement deadlines are met by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. There have been delays in some of the procurement processes and, having spoken to officials, I know that the Department is working on them. However, it is important that we streamline those processes.
I have been heartened by the importance the Minister’s Department is placing on ensuring that the delivery, which will be really important as we build this digital infrastructure, actually happens. From a process point of view, it is important that we hit those benchmarks. I know that the Department has said it is confident that it can hit that target. It is good to see that confidence, but we need to see it translate through.
I think we can all agree that the other issue the Minister and her Department need to address is the reform of access issues. Particularly when it comes to construction and installation, access issues have been really prominent. Whether that reform relates to things such as wayleave or to broader access issues—for example, access to residential blocks, working with housing providers to ensure that no one is left behind and we can truly roll out this new network—it is going to be vital. We must ensure that everyone can see the benefits of the new network.
These are real operational issues; they are not particularly controversial. It is clear that we all have an aim, which is to see the roll-out happen. We just have to ensure that, operationally, it can. It is really important, therefore, that we solve the procedural anomalies to ensure that we can get the systems fitted. Obviously, I welcome the overall £5 billion that was provided for this. I know that £1.2 billion has been identified as part of the spending review so far. It is obviously important that we follow through on that. I think the Minister would agree that it is vital to ensure that that investment follows through and that we see its benefits. That is going to come down to the internal processes around procurement, contracting and relationships with the commercial sector in terms of delivery.
I should say that I sit on the Public Accounts Committee, and we have looked at this issue recently. The role of, and the relationship with, the private sector on the delivery has been an interesting one; it has enabled this to be delivered in the way that we wanted. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned. There are also lessons to be learned about how we get this right more broadly. I am not going to give it a 10 out of 10 for delivery. There are definitely things we can learn for the other broader public infrastructure projects that we will have to do as part of levelling up.
I want to turn to what the digital divide actually means. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) touched on what it means more broadly. I could not do justice to the way that he articulated it; he talked about access to the universal credit system, pensions, education and work—we know how important those things are. The example that was felt most in my community, particularly at the height of the pandemic last year, was that of education and access to digital devices for some of the most vulnerable young people in society. I pay tribute to Summerhill Primary Academy in Tipton, which went above and beyond to ensure that vulnerable young people could get devices. We know from the research that around 105,000 devices were dispatched to schools.
While that was a great initial response, there is clearly a bigger issue here: people in deprived communities, a lot of the time, do not have access to a basic digital device. As the right hon. Member for East Ham touched on, as we progress, and as the world of work develops and things change, it is going to become so important that we get this right. We must enable people to access those devices so that they can do basic things like homework and access the important public services that they depend on.
We heard about the skills work that has been done, particularly in the west midlands with our Mayor, Andy Street. Again, that happened because it was identified that we had pockets of deprivation where people did not have that skillset. It all intermingles with the underlying social issues that we have to tackle. The digital divide has highlighted the vulnerabilities in our society. We must not just see the provision of infrastructure as one step; we must look at the underlying issues that mean the infrastructure is not there in the first place. I think that there is an opportunity, in the work the Minister and her Department are doing to tackle this, to examine why communities like mine have for so long been excluded in this way.
I cannot touch on this issue in the same way that many hon. Members have in their comments. I will say that the fibre roll-out is a great opportunity, but the process has got to be right. I implore the Minister to get the internal processes right to realise that. On the digital divide more broadly, and the vulnerabilities that it has uncovered, there has to be a holistic approach. It is not just about the provision of devices and broadband, important though they are; it is about the underlying issues that this has uncovered. By addressing those, we can ensure that we finally plug the divide that people, particularly in my community, have had to deal with for so long.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate. The right hon. Member for East Ham made an extremely well-informed and helpful contribution. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), someone does not have to be in an outlying constituency, such as North Devon or the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—the most outlying in the United Kingdom—to realise that there are problems. The digital divide is UK-wide.
The hon. Member for North Devon said that it is really important that people are online. I think we have all come to that consensus here. Several Members mentioned education, work opportunities and actually being able to access Government services, all of which is important. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) pointed out that the two Governments in Scotland are, it would be fair to say, doing their utmost to make sure that people across their governing areas are covered. However, there are difficulties with geography and, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West said, processes.
I want to update the Minister on what the Scottish Government have been trying to do. They are trying to eradicate digital exclusion as best they can. They have made huge moves to get 88% of Scotland online, but serious discrepancies remain. Access sits at only 82% in the most deprived areas and 96% in the least deprived. Access is at 66% for over-60s, whereas it is at 99% for 16 to 24-year-olds, so there is work to be done, and that has been recognised. Across the UK, superfast broadband availability averages 86% in rural areas and 97.2% in urban areas. In Scotland, it averages 73% and 97.5% respectively. Again, there is work to be done.
The picture for gigabit broadband is more positive in Scotland, with 45.4% of households having such speeds compared with 37.5% in England, 71% in Northern Ireland and 29% in Wales. However, the rural-urban divide persists for gigabit broadband in Scotland, too. That needs to be addressed. The Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—COSLA —have a joint digital inclusion strategy to try to help tackle the digital exclusion in Scotland. They are investing in 4G notspots to ensure greater coverage and investing £463 million in the Digital Scotland superfast broadband programme, which has extended fibre broadband access to more than 950,000 homes and businesses across Scotland.
The Scottish Government and COSLA are also promoting the digital participation charter, which has been signed by 673 organisations. That is important. Each organisation has committed to supporting their employees and people across Scotland to develop the essential digital skills needed to do their jobs, live their lives and use digital services with confidence. Other Members referred to the fact that we need to educate people on how to use digital services. It is as important as rolling out broadband and tackle the other fibre optic issues we have been talking about.
The digital divide may have existed before the pandemic, but it has been exacerbated by it. That is why the Scottish Government have invested in several digital inclusion programmes throughout the pandemic. So far they have invested £25 million for digital inclusion among school-ages children. More than 72,000 devices and over 14,000 connectivity packages have been distributed to learners across Scotland via this funding. That goes over and above the Connecting Scotland programme, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned. He has pulled something out of a hat, because I have not read The Press and Journal, but I absolutely get his point. The Scottish Government were aiming to have everything done by the end of the year.
Mr Carmichael
I did not honestly expect that the hon. Lady would know the details. I say to her colleagues, perhaps through herself, that the frustration that we have felt in our communities at the moment is from not knowing. It comes from not being told in the first instance and then not being given the explanation. There may well be a reasonable explanation, but not knowing it just leaves us wondering.
Marion Fellows
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I assure him that I will try to find out, if I can. I make no guarantees or promises, but I will try. I do not think I can say any fairer than that.
Local authorities in Scotland also bear the responsibility for laptop and digital device provision to students, which is hugely important. In many cases, it is easier to do such things in Scotland through the 32 local authorities and COSLA, because it is more joined up. There has been investment in the Connecting Scotland programme, which helps to provide low-income households with digital devices and support, and the Scottish Government have now increased funding to more than £48 million.
In less than a year, Connecting Scotland has reached 9,000 people who are at clinically high risk, or extremely high risk, from covid-19. That was really important, because of the sense of isolation. As the Scottish National party’s disability spokesperson here at Westminster, I can vouch for the importance of helping deprived people who also suffer from extreme loneliness and physical disabilities to feel part of the community, even if that is done digitally. The Scottish Government are committed to tackling the digital divide in Scotland, and they will continue to do so.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the R100 contracts. It is now largely a full-fibre programme, delivering full-fibre connections on the ground while the UK Government are still planning to do so. Will the Minister tell us how far they are getting along? If I talk about what is being done in Scotland, it is not because I think that everything is better in Scotland—though often it is—but because it is useful for other parts of the UK to learn from what we are doing and not to have to start reinventing wheels. The R100 contract delivery will extend beyond the end of 2021. The Scottish broadband voucher scheme will ensure that the 100% superfast commitment is met. The main voucher offers up £5,000 to obtain a superfast broadband connection, and the £400 interim voucher is available to those for whom a R100 contract bill will be delivered after 2021. Again, this work is ongoing.
The SNP is going far beyond the commitment to deliver access to superfast broadband, and a significant proportion of connections are being delivered as full fibre. Such technology will future-proof our connectivity, but Scotland’s topography means that the build is complex and will take time. We all recognise the different geographies and topographies across the UK, but if we are to move forward, it is really important that we get broadband out to everyone as soon as we can.
Despite broadband investment remaining fully reserved to the UK Government, which is where we get the two-Government approach, the SNP Scottish Government have taken by making substantial investments in Scotland’s digital infrastructure in order to improve coverage. The Scottish Government are committed to tackling the digital divide and will continue to do so. Will the UK Government do more to match Scotland’s digital ambitions and deliver key funding to tackle the digital divide? Will the Minister confirm that Scotland will receive its fair share of the £5 billion earmarked by the UK Government for investment in gigabit-capable infrastructure in order to carry out these ambitions? The SNP Scottish Government have chosen to focus on delivering technology that will underpin economic growth and connectivity for decades to come.
I have quoted several figures, but it is really important to think of the people behind the digital divide—the people who suffer because of it and who cannot be as ambitious as some of us are. It sometimes seems like a first-world problem when we complain about things such as not being able to get superfast broadband, but it is very difficult when someone is disabled and housebound and does not have the cash to buy digital equipment. If the UK Government are serious about levelling up, they must look at this issue in full, and commit to ensuring that those who have suffered throughout, before and after the pandemic have access to proper, good-quality broadband and digital equipment to help them grow and prosper.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for having secured this debate with the support of the APPG. He has long been an exceptional champion for digital inclusion.
I welcome the Minister to her position: this is the first time we have met on this brief, as it were. I hope that when addressing this critical issue, she will show similar passion to that of my right hon. Friend, and indeed the other Members who have contributed to today’s interesting and well-reasoned debate. From the hon. Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), we heard what I can only describe as damning examples of the digital divide in their constituencies, about which they feel very strongly, and rightly so.
The Labour party believes that technology can change lives for the better, and it already has. Families separated by geography are now connected online, and a world of experiences, advice and memes are available to everybody from their smartphone. In 2020, the pandemic placed technology firmly at the heart of our working and social lives: last year, the average UK adult spent about a quarter of their working life online. We are all digital citizens now, but that is a truth that cuts two ways, given the digital inequalities that so many face.
I start from the position that access to the internet should be a right, not a privilege, and I ask the Minister directly to tell us whether she believes that as well. Ensuring that access is a right and not a privilege means providing people with the skills and confidence to use the internet, as well as the necessary infrastructure, and ensuring that no one is priced out of important digital products and services. Unfortunately, digital skills, digital confidence and digital infrastructure are exactly what the Government have been getting wrong for the past 10 years, overturning the world-leading position they inherited from the last Labour Government.
Let me take each in turn. On digital skills, all I need to say is that the Government’s last digital inclusion strategy was published in 2014. That included a target of 90% online, which has largely been achieved. Is the Minister’s position then “job done”? Is it okay that 10 million people still lack the basic digital skills needed to function in today’s digital world, according to the Good Things Foundation? Is it acceptable that families have to choose between food and mobile data, and saw their children left without access to education every time there was a covid case at their school? Is it fine and dandy if small businesses cannot compete online? Will the Minister say when we will have a digital inclusion strategy?
A lack of digital skills can have wide-ranging implications, as we heard during this debate. Professor Arpana Verma found that digital inequalities have been increased by the digital revolution, and has noted an inextricable link between health literacy, digital literacy and financial literacy. Digital illiteracy also leaves people excluded from employment, and lower-income households are one of the groups most likely to face digital exclusion. I agreed with the Scottish National party’s spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), when she said that we have to think about the people behind these statistics and examples. The cost to society and individuals could not be greater, but the Government’s investment in digital inclusion is ad hoc and limited. Also, digital inclusion must include businesses, who must be able to do business in digital markets.
During the pandemic, many small businesses could survive only if they moved online. Grainger Market in my constituency—a historic and iconic covered market with many stallholders, none of whom were online when lockdown started in March 2020—moved online within three weeks, offering all kinds of produce and services to my constituents across the city, but it did not follow from that that they had the necessary digital skills, cyber-skills in particular, to maintain a sustainable and secure business. Yet the Government’s flagship Help to Grow digital scheme provides only £8.30 for each UK small and medium-sized enterprise. That is a missed opportunity to empower small businesses and workers to succeed in the digital age.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham mentioned the call for greater help in the community, and closing and reducing the opening hours of so many libraries has not helped there. Will the Minister say whether we will have a digital strategy for small business inclusion as well?
Digital skills and confidence are related, but are not quite the same thing. As a chartered engineer, I have been deeply disturbed by the way in which so many of my constituents are now fearful of technology. They are forced to claim benefits online when they cannot afford broadband, and required to sit on hold for hours as an algorithm determines their future. They see their children bullied online and their favourite footballers trolled online. They see public figures, particularly women in the public eye, attacked and often threatened online. They see their phone used as an instrument of surveillance by their employers and their employment cancelled by text message.
Ensuring digital confidence means supporting and empowering our digital citizens. It means introducing legislation that protects people online, but for 11 years that is exactly what successive Tory Governments have failed to do. Even now, four years after they finally promised legislation, we have the online safety Bill only in draft form, and that is inadequate on so many levels.
The Nominet Digital Youth Index, published today for the first time, highlights that nearly three in five young people in the LGBTQ+ community have experienced hate speech online. Nearly half of young people feel isolated, and one third of 17 to 19-year-olds say the internet has a negative impact on their mental health, but the online safety Bill does not prioritise action against racism, misogyny or homophobia. The draft Bill also manages to shift—this is quite an achievement—more power to the tech platforms, allowing them to mark their own homework without giving their executives any legal liability. It does give plenty of power to Ministers, but does not give the regulator the resources or powers necessary to guard against tomorrow’s future harms such as algorithmic control—a harm that is very much here, but is growing is scale.
Finally, I come to digital infrastructure. As we have heard, we have had another wasted decade. Internet access is an essential utility but, again, many households in this country do not have reliable broadband. The Prime Minister promised full fibre for everyone—I hope the Minister will tell us what happened to that promise—and then in 2019 that was downgraded to nationwide gigabit broadband coverage by 2025. Two years on, we now have a target of 85% gigabit broadband by 2025, but the actual plan shows that the Government will spend only £1.2 billion of the promised £5 billion to achieve that. No doubt the Minister will mention the rural broadband scheme, but the number of times it has been announced is, I think, greater than its number of users.
We need infrastructure to be affordable. A third of adults who are not online cite cost as a reason, according to research carried out by Lloyds. Two million households struggle to afford their internet bills. We have also heard that the universal service obligation is an obligation to provide service at whatever ridiculously high price it may be calculated at. To deliver a high-skilled, high-wage economy, all corners of the UK need to be able to access world-class digital infrastructure at affordable rates. Without it, we are pricing out a significant proportion of the population from the digital world.
As we have also heard today, charities and some businesses are working to address data and device poverty. The Good Things Foundation has built a national data bank to provide free mobile data for people on low incomes who need it, working with local community partners and mobile network operators. However, I hope that the Minister will appreciate what I mean when I say that it should not be up to charities to ensure digital equity, and I think the hon. Member for West Bromwich West highlighted that.
Labour decided, because of the lack of action from this Government, to take matters into our own hands. After months of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders— including businesses, platforms, individuals, charities, citizen organisations, trade unions and other groups—we published our report, “Our Digital Future”, in the summer. It set out the ways in which we can beef up digital skills, confidence and infrastructure, and improve digital public services to ensure digital inclusion.
Labour wants Britain to be the best place to grow up in, to work in, to raise children in and to grow old in. We want empowered citizens who do not merely have access to the internet as passive consumers but who are equipped with the skills and tools to make the most of technology, and who are protected from those who use technology to cause harm. To achieve this aim, we support a robust regulatory framework that protects users, and enhances individual and national security. Labour will consider whether we need a Minister whose portfolio is entirely focused on digital inclusion, to ensure proper digital access and bring everyone online. That is what closing the digital divide requires.
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I hope that my voice holds up today. I have done my test and thankfully I do not have covid. However, I have a very tickly throat, so I hope that I do not have a conference whatever-it-was—2018?—moment. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this incredibly important debate, and I am grateful to other hon. Members for their useful and heartfelt contributions.
Improving digital connectivity for everybody across the UK is a priority for our Government, for all the reasons that have been cited. If we knew before the pandemic that digital services, infrastructure and skills were important, our experience during covid has really deepened that understanding, in ways that I do not think any of us could have imagined. The moving of so much economic activity online, as well as so much of our social lives, and even schooling and healthcare services, in the past 18 months to two years means that the challenges arising from any existing digital divide have been amplified. And just as our eyes are open to the huge opportunities presented by a more digital world, as set out by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), we have to be aware of the risk that people who do not have the confidence, the capability or the tools to access that world could be excluded from those opportunities. So, I am very grateful to hon. Members here in Westminster Hall today for highlighting that risk. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) really brought the issue to life in his contribution; I must say it was an excellent first contribution by him in Westminster Hall.
In my previous role, in the Cabinet Office, I looked closely at how we could improve online Government services for the citizen and tried to put accessibility, inclusion, trust and good customer services at the heart of the system that we are designing for a new Government app. A lot of work has also been going on about how easy it is to fill out forms online and how to streamline things on gov.uk, so I hope that reassures the right hon. Member for East Ham that I will want to apply similar principles to my new role as the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure. I want to know how our interventions are working on the ground for people. Are we getting people the connectivity they need? Are we equipping them with the right digital skills? Are we creating the right environment for companies to deliver? Are we putting resources in the right places?
There is a lot of work to do here and we are ambitious in what we want to achieve. But as we have discovered here today, there will be challenges along the way, which is why debates like this one are helpful to me as a Minister, because they give me intelligence about what is really going on on the ground, rather than just the official view.
On the pandemic, of course there were challenges, but the superfast infrastructure that was already there has held up pretty well. Huge amounts of work were done between telecom providers and Government on social tariffs and I want to try to build on some of that progress, because there was excellent working between some of the providers—thousands of laptops were provided.
In terms of isolation, when I spoke to some of the charities in my constituency, particularly those for disabled people, I found that they were able to innovate and introduce new ways of connecting with the people whom they were serving with quiz nights, meetings and different kinds of outreach which, for some people, was a new and beneficial addition to their life—notwithstanding all the other problems of isolation that, obviously, the pandemic brought.
Addressing the digital divide means that we make sure that everybody in the UK can access and use digital communication services. That means getting the right infrastructure in place to deliver connectivity for everybody. It means making digital skills training available to everybody who needs it. I will set out what we are doing in each of those areas. Some of those issues are covered by other ministerial colleagues, so I will take away the things that I am unable to cover in this debate. I also assure hon. Members that meetings are taking place between DCMS Ministers and ministerial colleagues in DFE and DWP, because we think there is a lot of overlap here and we need to get this policy right.
On connectivity and infrastructure, we are in the midst of the biggest digital build in UK history in the form of Project Gigabit, which aims for nationwide gigabit coverage. One of my concerns in this area is whether people understand why they should want gigabit speeds over superfast speeds—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. It is important to say that Project Gigabit is as much about future-proofing against the needs of tomorrow as it is about giving constituents lightning-fast speeds today. As we start to understand and anticipate a world where more and more applications depend on having reliable digital infrastructure, it is important that we have the highest quality infrastructure in place.
The best way to achieve gigabit coverage and eliminate the digital divide is to create a competition-friendly environment where deployment is commercially viable, and then to focus Government funds on that 20% of the country where we think commercial deployment is unlikely. This approach is working. In January 2019, 6% of premises had access to gigabit-capable networks. That figure is now 58% thanks to our thriving market of 80 providers. We think that will reach 60% by the end of this year, but we are targeting a minimum of 85% gigabit coverage by 2025.
To address the right hon. Member for East Ham on our targets, we have been transparent that delivering nationwide gigabit coverage by 2025 will be challenging. There are various different issues, including skills, where some of the commercial roll-out means that there is a challenge in trying to incentivise providers to want to provide for the very difficult, hard-to-reach areas. Our manifesto explicitly acknowledged how difficult it will be, but 85% coverage would still be a huge jump on 2019, when the coverage was 6%. That is not the limit of our ambitions and we want to keep going so that we get as close to 100% as possible by 2025. The Prime Minister is extremely passionate about that target and we want to make sure that he is not disappointed.
By listening to industry and working closely with Ofcom, we have made a number of policy and regulatory changes to stimulate the market, including instructing Ofcom to create a pro-investment, pro-competition regulatory system for telecoms. We are introducing a 130% super deduction on qualifying plants and machinery investments, which means that millions more homes are expected to receive coverage without any Government subsidy.
We want to change the law to make it easier to connect premises and blocks of flats. We are piloting innovative new approaches to streetworks, which we think will speed up build by 10% to 40%. We are working with industry to set up a gigabit take-up advisory group with the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses, so that we can increase consumer demand for gigabit and incentivise further investment from the private sector.
Stephen Timms
I am listening with great interest to what the Minister is saying. She has explained a little about why the target was downgraded from, I think, initially 100% fibre by 2025 to 85% now. Surely it would be possible to do better if more of the funding was available earlier, rather than much of the £5 billion being postponed until after 2025. Could it not be brought forward again?
Julia Lopez
It is all part of the Treasury gating process. The money is available, but there needs to be confidence of success. We will have to iron out some difficulties in the way that we procure contracts, and learn some of the lessons that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon referred to in relation to the superfast roll-out and other parts of the gigabit coverage. There will be a bit of testing to see what works best before the Treasury is confident to release the next funds. However, the funds are available. I am happy to explore that further with the right hon. Gentleman if he would like more details.
Since 2018, we have provided gigabit coverage to more than 600,000 rural premises, so that the same commercial and other opportunities reliant on connectivity can be provided for those living in the countryside as those living in towns.
Chi Onwurah
On the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) about the holding factors in rolling out superfast broadband, the Minister mentioned skills. I understand that the skills necessary to dig up so many roles may be limited at the moment. What is she doing to increase the number of skilled engineers needed for the roll-out?
Julia Lopez
That is one of the issues that we are talking to the DWP about. We are also working very closely with the likes of Openreach and others to try and get that skills pipeline going, because it will be critical to the success of the roll-out.
Those 600,000 rural premises are just the start. In Devon and Somerset, 66,000 further premises now have gigabit coverage through the gigabit-capable delivery as part of the superfast broadband programme. I have been pressing officials on some of the previous challenges of that programme further to discussions that I have had in the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon.
We have a number of interventions to address the part of the build that we think the market will not cover, including broadband vouchers. We are funding full-fibre networks at 1,084 schools that were previously stuck in the digital slow lane, and we want to connect 6,800 public buildings by the end of the year, including hospitals, GP surgeries and fire stations. That was another important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon.
We are also bringing forward procurements to provide coverage to as many of the remaining premises as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West raised some incredibly important points about some of the issues that the Public Accounts Committee looked at in relation to procurement, which are very much on my mind. I want to make sure we get this right, but there will be challenges.
The first procurement for Cumbria got under way last month, and further procurements will begin shortly for areas including Cambridgeshire, Durham, Northumberland and parts of Dorset. We will then continue with the pipeline of procurements to cover the rest of the UK as quickly as possible. I note the points raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about Scotland. I am exploring BDUK’s relationship with the Scottish Government and what more we can do to help people in the devolved nations. I am talking to my officials about that.
Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I want to make sure I have understood the point she is making. Is she saying that the constraint is the industry’s capacity to deliver the infrastructure?
Julia Lopez
I think there are challenges with that; yes. As I say, it is something that I am discussing closely with industry. There are some questions about where we want to target resource because, looking at the final percentages, those will be the hardest to reach. It will require a different kind of manpower and skill, and it will require much more resource and time. We have to decide whether to go for the hardest-to-reach areas or to focus resource on getting as many people covered as possible. Those are some of the tricky choices that have to be made. I am fairly new to this brief, so I am trying to work my way through all these questions with officials.
Stephen Timms
If the industry comes forward with proposals with capacity to deliver this more quickly than achieving 85% coverage by 2025—and the funding could be brought forward, as the Minister said—would she be open to looking at possibilities along those lines?
Julia Lopez
Yes, we certainly would. I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making.
Since the launch of the broadband universal service obligation, which has been raised by a number of Members, BT has already delivered USO connections covering more than 3,700 homes, and it is in the process of building more than 2,500 more. Ofcom now estimates that just 134,000 premises—or 0.4%—do not have access to a decent broadband service and they may therefore be eligible for a USO connection. However, to address the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, we know that some premises have received very high quotes and may therefore be very hard to reach, potentially requiring a different approach to deliver cost-effective upgrades. That is why, in March, we published a call for evidence on delivering improved broadband to very hard-to-reach premises.
In addition, Ofcom announced in July that as a result of its investigation, BT has provided assurances that it would use Ofcom’s approach to calculating excess cost quotes. I therefore encourage anybody who had previously been given a universal service obligation quote to speak to BT, if they have not already been contacted.
The progress that we are making with gigabit builds on the earlier success of our superfast broadband programme. The final independent evaluation of superfast by Ipsos MORI concluded that the programme met its objectives to reduce the digital divide and have significant local economic impact, including through the creation of 17,000 jobs and an increase in the annual turnover of local businesses by approximately £1.9 billion, which underlines the importance of connectivity.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon mentioned the telecom industry’s plans to look at a landline upgrade by 2025. I appreciate the importance of landlines, particularly to older people. I want to be clear that nobody is having their landline taken away or removed. The way that landlines work in the UK is changing. Providers are moving from the old public switched telephone network to the new voice over internet protocol technology.
The PSTN is a privately-owned telecoms network and the decision to upgrade it was taken by the telecoms industry. What people often miss about the issue is that the industry’s decision to upgrade the PSTN is due to necessity, because that network is increasingly unreliable and prone to failure, with some telecoms companies finding it very hard to source certain replacements or spare parts to maintain or repair connections. That makes it very unreliable for consumers long into the future.
The VOIP technology is expected to offer consumers clearer and better-quality phone calls, but I assure hon. Members that we are working extensively with Ofcom, the emergency services and others to ensure that all consumers and sectors are fully prepared for the migration in 2025.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for giving way and making such efforts to communicate with us. With regard to her comments about the public switched telephone network, while it is true that they will not be ripping the lines out of people’s homes, as I hope she knows well one of the features of the PSTN is that it carries power down the lines, which is not a feature of VOIP. People will find that some aspects of the reliability of their telephones will change—if there is a power outage, for example. What proportion of people are aware that the PSTN will be switched off?
Julia Lopez
I will be looking closely at that issue. I am fairly new to my brief, so I have not explored it in as much detail as I would like, but I will take away the hon. Lady’s points and get back to her. She is a telecoms engineer herself, so her expertise far outweighs mine in that field.
We have an ambition to look at 5G signal and ensure that the majority of the population have access to it by 2017, because that can also help with bridging the digital divide and dealing with some of the issues of connectivity for those who are slightly behind on the gigabit roll-out. I am pleased that all four network providers have now launched 5G services and that 5G service availability has risen tenfold since December 2019; but there is still a long way to go.
While the vast majority of investment in the roll-out is being made by the private sector, my Department has launched the £200 million 5G testbeds and trials programme to prove that demand for 5G service is a reality. Once we have established the demand, we need to move into the next phase, which is driving the roll-out and adoption of 5G to level up and boost the economy across the Union.
A number of hon. Members have raised the shared rural network, which is incredibly important and tries to deal with the issue of notspots. The agreement on the shared rural network will see the Government and industry jointly invest over £1 billion to increase 4G mobile coverage throughout the UK, to 95% geographic coverage by the end of the programme.
The electronic communications code plays an integral part in delivering our digital networks, and we reformed it in 2017 to make the roll-out faster and more cost-efficient, but we recognise that further changes need to be made. We are looking at some reforms, which we will be bringing forward shortly.
Before I finish, I want to talk about some of the digital skills inclusion issues that have been discussed today. DCMS works closely with the rest of Government to ensure that all Departments are considering the needs of digitally-excluded people when making policy. I talked earlier about the nascent one log-in for Government project and the funding for that. When I was in the Cabinet Office, we made sure that included digitising the Home Office’s births, deaths and marriages register, so that people with a smaller footprint do not find themselves digitally excluded as more and more services move online. I want to apply some of the principles of the work that I did in the Cabinet Office to my new role, particularly when it comes to digital identity and ensuring that people are not excluded as digital identity becomes more of an everyday part of their lives.
The pandemic has highlighted the importance of digital access and digital capability for connecting with family and accessing vital services online. Digital skills are required across all sectors of the economy, but are now more important than ever. Our tech industry is also continuing to grow and create a vast amount of jobs, so we do not want people to be excluded from those.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I hope that she will not finish without addressing my question about a digital inclusion strategy. The vast majority of her speech has been on infrastructure but, as we know very well, skills and confidence are going to drive the take-up of digital services and digital inclusion.
Julia Lopez
As I said, I am working with Ministers in DWP and DFE to look at some of those issues of digital inclusion, but I will take away the hon. Lady’s specific point.
Over the past three years DCMS has supported the development of seven local digital skills partnerships, in Lancashire, the heart of the south-west, the west midlands, the south-east, Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and, more recently, West Yorkshire. We are going to launch the eighth in Hull and East Yorkshire in mid-December. Those partnerships bring together large employers, regional academia, the local public sector and training providers from the region to collaborate and develop digital skills programmes that help build capability in the regions and reduce the digital divide. That was very evident in the early stages of the pandemic lockdown, when all seven regions worked with multiple stakeholders to ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities had access to the internet and were supported with relevant digital skills training to get online.
We have also funded the fast track digital workforce fund, a £3 million digital bootcamp based in Greater Manchester and Lancashire. The fund aims to move those in low-skilled and low-paid jobs into better-quality digital roles that meet the needs of the local economy.
In response to covid, and in partnership with social change charity the Good Things Foundation, we also launched the digital lifeline in February 2021. That is a £2.5 million fund that aims to reduce the digital exclusion of people with learning disabilities in particular, by providing free devices, data and digital support to over 5,000 people with learning difficulties who cannot afford to get online. In September, we also partnered with industry leaders to launch the digital inclusion impact group to tackle digital exclusion. One of the pilot programmes, Dell donate to educate, will support children with the right access to technology at school and at home. As I said, progress of all of those items will require a lot of cross-Government work with colleagues in other Departments.
Once again, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for securing the debate, and also the all-party parliamentary group on broadband and digital communication for its work. As everyone recognises, improving digital connectivity for everybody across the UK is a priority. We are working with energy to deliver fantastic digital infrastructure across the country. We are trying to design accessible online Government services. We are investing in digital skills. Those are big tasks, and we will of course encounter challenges along the way. The pandemic has made the online world ever more integrated with the offline one, and I hope that hon. Members will work with me to ensure that every citizen can be taken along on this journey, so that people from every part of our country and from all walks of life feel that technology is ultimately an empowering force.
Stephen Timms
Thank you for the opportunity to say a few remarks by way of concluding, Ms Ali. I am grateful to the Minister and to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
I particularly welcome the Minister’s offer that if the industry proposed to extend the fibre and gigabit infrastructure at a faster rate than is projected to meet the current target of 85% by 2025, it would be possible for some of the £5 billion that has been earmarked for that to be brought forward before 2025, and hopefully to get a higher level of penetration than the current 85% target. If that is possible—and I want to pass on a message to the industry to look at what they could achieve if additional funding was available—I would hope that that would really help in Orkney and Shetland, North Devon and elsewhere around the UK.
I hope as well that the Minister will be updating the digital inclusion strategy, which we last saw in 2014. I welcome a number of the points that she made towards the end of her speech about that, and I particularly welcome the work that she described the Department undertaking with the Good Things Foundation. However, if that was all set out as a strategy, that would be encouraging and would help achieve the goals that we have all agreed are so important.
I am very grateful for the opportunity we have had to air the matter of tackling the digital divide this afternoon. I hope that we shall be able to review it regularly over the months ahead, given its importance to the inclusion of all our constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling the digital divide.
Written Statements
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Concordat on Statistics Between UK Government and Devolved Administrations
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
I welcome the UK Statistics Authority publishing the new concordat on statistics between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. This concordat represents a significant milestone in our work to put data at the heart of decision making in Government and build on the successful collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations not least as we have seen in response to the covid-19 pandemic.
Collecting and analysing data that is easily comparable UK-wide helps us to share learning. It gives us the power to understand and learn from each other on the success of policies in order that we can collectively deliver the best for citizens across the UK. This concordat sets out the agreed framework for co-operation between the UK Government, including the UK Statistics Authority, and devolved Administrations, in relation to the production of statistics, for and within the UK, statistical standards and the statistics profession.
In conjunction with wider agreements on inter-governmental relations, this concordat reflects the commitment of each Administration to work together towards a more coherent statistical picture across the UK while recognising that the policy context will not always be identical.
Access to UK-wide data will help to empower leaders across the UK to make the best decisions for their citizens, providing greater insight and opportunities to improve our public services. The covid-19 pandemic is a prime example of how using UK-wide data can help us tackle common challenges and deliver the best outcomes by working collaboratively with one another.
This concordat represents a renewed commitment to work together to tackle shared challenges. I am grateful for the work of UK Statistics Authority and devolved Administrations to agree to this framework. The concordat is signed by the national statistician, Sir Ian Diamond and the permanent secretaries to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Department of Finance, Northern Ireland, the second permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office, and the chief statisticians of the devolved Administrations.
The concordat will be made available on gov.uk and a copy deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS374]
Treasury Updates
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Today the Government are publishing the Finance Bill 2021-22 which will include a clause to increase the normal minimum pension age from age 55 to age 57 from 6 April 2028. This increase in the normal minimum pension age was announced in 2014 in the response to the consultation on “Freedom and Choice in Pensions” and the draft clause was published in July 2021. The normal minimum pension age is the lowest age at which the majority of members can take benefits from a registered pension scheme without incurring tax charges, except in cases of ill health.
This change will not apply to members of certain uniformed public service schemes, nor to those whose scheme rules provide an unqualified right to take benefits before age 57. Members with these rights will have a protected pension age.
The draft clause included a window of time during which people could either join or transfer into a scheme which can offer a protected pension age. The window was designed to ensure that those in the process of transferring a pension could complete their transfer and not unexpectedly lose the right to a protected pension age. Stakeholders have subsequently expressed their concerns about this window running until 5 April 2023 as originally proposed, including possible adverse impacts on the pensions market and on pension savers.
The Government believe it is right to offer a protected pension age to those whose scheme rules give them an unqualified right to take their pension before age 57. The Government also believe it is right that those in the process of transferring their pension do not unexpectedly lose the right to a protected pension age. However, after listening to stakeholder views on the draft clause, the Government has decided to shorten the window. The window closed at 23:59 on 3 November 2021. Those who have already made a substantive request to transfer their pension to a pension scheme with a protected pension age of 55 or 56 will still be able to keep or gain a protected pension age assuming the transfer is completed in accordance with the current regulations. This shorter window will help address the issues raised by stakeholders while also being fair for pension savers.
Ordinarily this change to a Finance Bill clause would have been announced at autumn Budget 2021. On this occasion, giving prior notice of the shorter window ahead of its closure on 3 November 2021 could have led to unnecessary turbulence in the pensions market and led to some consumer detriment. Some pension savers could find themselves with poorer outcomes (or even be the victim of a pension scam) if they were rushed by rogue advisors to make a quick transfer in the short time period before the window closed.
A tax information and impact note for this clause is also being published today.
[HCWS373]
Avian Influenza: Enhanced Biosecurity Measures
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
High pathogenicity H5N1 avian influenza has been circulating in Europe in recent weeks. There have now been three confirmed cases in kept birds in Great Britain: one in a wild bird rescue centre in Worcestershire, one in a small backyard flock in Wales and one in kept birds in Angus in Scotland. There have also been several findings in wild birds in north Wales, Lancashire and the east coast of Scotland. The risk of further H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza incursions in wild birds across Great Britain has recently been raised to high, to medium for poultry where biosecurity is poor and remains low where biosecurity is stringent. We will continue to undertake comprehensive disease surveillance over the coming weeks and months.
The UK Health Security Agency advises that the risk to public health is very low and the Food Standards Agency has said there is no food safety risk for UK consumers. The current strain is the European strain of H5N1 and not the Asian strain that has had human health impacts.
In response to the increased risk to poultry and other captive birds, the Department has put in place a statutory avian influenza prevention zone. The zone requires keepers across the country to take additional steps to implement enhanced biosecurity measures and to protect poultry and other captive birds from contact with wild birds. Some of these measures apply to all keepers, including those with small flocks or pet birds. They include:
cleansing and disinfection of equipment, vehicles and footwear when moving between bird premises;
effective vermin control;
reducing movements of people to the essentials for the birds’ welfare, collecting eggs and feeding;
keeping records of poultry, captive birds and egg movements;
ensuring that buildings are maintained and that repairs are carried out without delay where water or other contamination may penetrate.
There is no published end-date and the zone will remain in place until the risk levels change. The zone will be kept under regular review and amended as necessary in the light of any changes in circumstances.
Given that outbreaks are occurring across Europe and we now have confirmed cases in England, Wales and Scotland, the introduction of this zone has been agreed and co-ordinated with the devolved Administrations, and Scottish and Welsh Governments are introducing similar measures. Northern Ireland officials, who have been involved in the discussions, are considering their next steps.
We have tried and tested procedures for dealing with such animal disease outbreaks and a strong track record of controlling and eliminating previous outbreaks of avian flu in the UK. Our actions are in line with established practice and with the processes followed in previous years. Avian influenza prevention zones, for example, were introduced in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland in winter 2020-21. We are working closely with delivery partners, devolved Administration colleagues and the industry.
The detections of H5N1 in poultry and captive birds have been dealt with effectively by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. We have taken robust action, imposing zones of up to 10 km (six miles) around infected premises to limit the risk of disease spreading and implementing a stamping out policy, humanely culling birds, biosecurely disposing of the carcases, cleansing and disinfecting the site and undertaking tracings to check for possible source and spread.
Looking forward, the Department will keep the avian influenza prevention zone under review and will consider amendments to reflect any changes to the level of risk of incursion to wild birds and poultry as well as any further scientific, veterinary and ornithological advice. We are also considering options on bird gatherings such as shows, sales, auctions, markets, multi-pick-up couriers and hen “hotels”.
We have not yet required mandatory housing of all poultry and captive birds as part of our response to the disease risk. This measure was last used in winter 2020-21 and had also been used in winter 2016-17. However, such a measure remains under active review as a potentially important step.
We continue to urge bird keepers to be vigilant for any signs of disease, ensure they are maintaining good biosecurity on their premises, seek prompt advice from their vet and report suspect disease to APHA, as they must do by law.
We strongly advise keepers to register on the poultry register so as to receive notifications and disease alerts. This is mandatory for all those with flocks of over 50 birds. Registration is easy and can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/poultry-including-game-birds-registration-rules-and-forms.
[HCWS375]