House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
We have made £500 million available across the UK to support vulnerable households this winter. It really is for local authorities, which are closer to their communities, to use the funding to support those with needs for food, utilities and wider essentials. They are best placed to design schemes that support those most in need locally.
Greg Smith
The £500 million household support fund is extremely welcome and my local council is busy ensuring that support reaches those who need it through their excellent Helping Hand scheme. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Buckinghamshire Council on ensuring that a comprehensive package is available for those who are sadly unable to put food on the table or heat their homes, and will she set out what more can be done to ensure that those in such distressing circumstances know that local authorities have the resources and should be the first port of call?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to praise Buckinghamshire Council, which was allocated £2.4 million from the fund. It is fair to say that local authorities delivering the household support fund have access to elements relating to health visitors, social workers and housing departments, and access to the benefits system through the Searchlight portal, to identify people who may need help at this time and are most in need. Of course, people should turn to their councils for that support, and they should be warmly welcomed.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
According to the Resolution Foundation, the combined effect of the removal of the £20 universal credit uplift and the Budget measures means that 3.6 million households on universal credit—three quarters of the total—will still be worse off this winter. These measures take £3 billion out of support for the poorest, so how far does the Secretary of State estimate that the £500 million household support fund, which is equivalent to just one sixth of the amount that has been removed, will reduce the level of hardship for people this winter?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady will recognise that some of the announcements made in the Budget recently will, I expect, provide some direct support for people working or, indeed, encourage people into work. However, the £500 million, being a targeted fund, will be a great support, with people identified by local councils that know who to target in this regard. It is also fair to say, as has been said many times, that the uplift was temporary, recognising the situation that we are in, and candidly, it was far more generous than ever happened—or rather, never happened—when we had the 2009-10 financial crisis.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), I pay tribute to Buckinghamshire Council for all that it has done with the Helping Hand scheme. Does the Secretary of State agree that in a place such as High Wycombe, where riches and poverty are often found so close together, it is imperative that we equip councils to provide local people with the local help that they need?
Dr Coffey
I strongly agree. That is why we are working through local authorities, which understand their communities well, without there being blanket schemes. It is important that that is reflected around the country, including in places such as High Wycombe.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I am advised that all delayed claims have been processed, except for those that require further customer information. Some 70% to 80% of claims are now made digitally by Get your State Pension, with over 50% being cleared the same day. We are, however, introducing a new tele-claims service that will supplement the paper applications, which we accept have been lengthy and have incurred delays.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Minister for that answer. Two of my constituents should have started receiving their state pensions at the start of August and were on the verge of destitution when I was contacted in October by the welfare rights officer at Glasgow West housing association. Following the intervention from my office, both have now received what they were due from the Department for Work and Pensions, but they are by no means the only people to be hit by this latest DWP shambles. I am really concerned for people who do not have anybody like a housing association or an MP to advocate for them, so will the Minister tell me how many people he estimates have been affected by this altogether? What more can he do to put it right and make sure that those who do not have somebody advocating for them do not get left behind?
Guy Opperman
We accept that there have been delays, and we have taken significant action in the form of the redeployment of 700 staff to address those. I am pleased that the cases of the two constituents that the hon. Member outlined have now been addressed. The particular problem has been in respect of the receipt of further information from particular applicants, and those matters are being addressed on an ongoing basis.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
People work hard all their lives and pay in to save for their retirement; they deserve to be paid their state pension on time. Colleagues across the House, as we have heard, are reporting more and more cases of delays in payment, some of which are as long as three months. This is a basic service provided by the Government, which we all rely on. How on earth did these delays come about? When will the Government take this seriously, and when will pensions finally be paid on time?
Guy Opperman
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my earlier answer. This matter was addressed by the end of October. The reality of the situation is that the pandemic has caused delays to state pensions, with issues relating to illness, self-isolation, caring, training, location, staffing, equipment, recruiting. I could go on, but these matters are being addressed.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
There are not just delays to the state pension, but underpayments. The British Government are also set to hammer pensioners’ incomes, with a cut of £2,600 on average over the next five years as a result of their plan to break the pensions triple lock, which the House of Lords rejected last week with a majority of 102—led, indeed, by a Conservative. Will the Minister do the right thing and U-turn on his plans to scrap the triple lock on pensions? If not, is it not the case that the British Government just cannot be trusted with pensions, and that the only way to ensure dignity and fairness in retirement for Scots is with independence?
Guy Opperman
I have heard it all. How on earth the Scottish Government, were they in any event to get independence, would be able to pay ongoing state pensions is a mystery that no Scottish politician has ever been able to answer. The factual reality is that the state pension, by reason of the triple lock, is up £2,000 per person, something that would never happen under an independent Scotland—that is for sure.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
The Government have always been clear that the £20 uplift was a temporary measure. Universal credit recipients in work will soon benefit from the reduction in the taper rate from 63% to 55%, with work allowances increasing by £500 a year, meaning that nearly 2 million working households will keep about an extra £1,000 a year on average.
Sarah Olney
My constituent Simon Holroyd lost his mother to covid and is a single father to 10-year-old twins. He worked in the hospitality industry all his life to a senior level, but since the pandemic he has struggled to find work and is reliant on universal credit. His life before the uplift was removed was, in his words,
“a revolving mess of balancing debts”.
Now his situation is desperate. The Minister and the Secretary of State have both referred to the uplift as temporary, but for claimants such as my constituent who were not claiming universal credit before the uplift, the removal of the £20 is experienced only as a loss. Will the Minister commit to reintroducing the uplift?
David Rutley
With 1 million vacancies and above in the UK and with a comprehensive plan for jobs, our focus absolutely has to be on helping people into work, particularly in the hospitality sector, where there are vacancies. I hope that there might be a vacancy for the hon. Member’s constituent.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
May I thank the Minister and especially the Secretary of State for really pushing for the cut to the universal credit taper rate that we saw in the Budget? It will make a real difference to families on low incomes. There are more than 1 million job vacancies right now, plus the Budget measures to strengthen work incentives—cutting the withdrawal rate, boosting the work allowance and increasing the national minimum wage. Does that not all add up to the best opportunity in more than a generation to bear down on long-term unemployment in this country?
David Rutley
Absolutely. I credit my right hon. Friend: I know that he has been a champion of improving the taper rate over many years, and it was a pleasure to work with him as a Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Now is the time for us to take forward opportunities for people, given the Budget measures that have been put in place, and help long-term unemployed people into work through the sector-based work academy programme and the restart programme, which the employment Minister—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies)—is taking forward with her characteristic verve and enthusiasm.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Unemployment support is now at the lowest level in real terms for more than 30 years, even though the economy has grown by more than 50% in real terms over that period. As a proportion of average earnings, it is the lowest ever—lower than when Lloyd George introduced unemployment benefit 110 years ago. Why has unemployment support been set at this historically extremely low level?
David Rutley
It is always important to have a safety net, but it is also very important to make sure that we get people into the world of work, and that is what our focus is, as I have said repeatedly in my answers today. With 1.1 million vacancies and with a plan for jobs, that has to be our focus.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we must look at both money in and money out, and that the cost of living is causing pressures for worse-off families? Will he update the House on the work that the Department is doing in looking at the cost of living, particularly childcare and housing costs?
David Rutley
We have already provided a range of measures. Eighty-five per cent. of childcare costs are covered by universal credit, and extra support has been provided through the increase in the local housing allowance. So steps are being taken, but I understand my hon. Friend’s point about childcare. Clearly, we need to focus on it further, and we will.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Our plan for jobs provides tailored support for people of all ages, helping them to prepare for, get into and progress in work. The additional 13,500 work coaches whom we have recruited are ensuring that people receive the personalised advice that they need, and have access to the employment programmes or training that are right for them.
Margaret Ferrier
Research conducted by the End Child Poverty coalition shows that, in my constituency, 25% of children were living in poverty in 2019-20: that is 4,815 children. Since 2015, poverty has increased by 2.2%: that is 482 more children. I want to see the numbers going down, not up. Does the Minister agree that the best way to make that happen would be to reinstate the £20-a-week uplift in universal credit?
Mims Davies
I think we have heard across the Chamber that the way out of poverty and the way to make progress is through a pay packet, which gives people so much more than just pay: it gives them the confidence that enables them to make progress and move forward. The hon. Lady will be interested in the report from the in-work commission, to which we will respond shortly. In Scotland, our new programme, job entry: targeted support—JETS—has moved more than 1,500 people into employment since January this year. I think that she has visited her jobcentre, so she should feel confident that there is help out there to ensure that no one is left behind.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I recently received a letter from a local bakery which is desperate for 30 people to come and work there. In fact we have hundreds of jobs, in hospitality, agriculture, social care and food processing. While it is disappointing that the Scottish Administration are not creating jobs for people in Rutherglen and Hamilton West, does the Minister agree that those people should come to places in North Yorkshire, such as Scarborough, where they will receive not only a warm welcome, but a great job and a great future?
Mims Davies
Long-term unemployment is a devolved matter for the Scottish Government to attend to, but I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has raised this important matter. We at the DWP are organising Hospitality Rocks events to bring people into the industry. It is possible to earn significant sums in a couple of years with the necessary training and support, and people should definitely be taking those jobs in Scarborough and beyond.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The fact that universal credit is an in-work benefit is commonly overlooked. There will be a great many more claimants in west London, where Ocado Zoom is treating its workforce appallingly. It has not taken them in-house as it promised, and they now have much worse terms and conditions. I know that the Government are ruling out fire and rehire legislation generally, but will the Minister—I know she is a reasonable person, and everyone loved her the other day when she met our all-party parliamentary group on single parent families—look into this case, which the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain has been actively pursuing? The chief executive of Ocado Zoom will not even talk to me.
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady should raise the issue with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, because employee rights are a matter for that Department. However, she has made an important point. We have an employees’ market, with more than 1 million job vacancies, many of them in London. I hope that her constituents will say to that employer, “We are off somewhere else”. Whether that is in hospitality or elsewhere, they will receive a warm welcome, and so they should. They should be well rewarded for the work that they do, which is why the increase in the national living wage is so important.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The universal credit system stood up to the challenge of the pandemic, which meant that people received vital financial support at their time of need. On one day alone we received just over 100,000 new claims, 10 times the average. The old system would not have coped with the unprecedented pressure that we have seen over the past 18 months, and that is yet another reason why universal credit is working.
Claire Coutinho
During the pandemic, the universal credit system proved not only its resilience but its agility in providing people with the emergency support that they needed. Now that the Government are rightly focusing on getting people back into work, could my right hon. Friend set out the timetable for the very welcome changes that she has made to the universal credit taper rate and to work allowances?
Dr Coffey
I was not the only person to cheer loudly when the Chancellor announced to the House that we were increasing work allowances and reducing the taper rate to 55% no later than 1 December. I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the latest information I have is that we intend to try to bring that in from 24 November, which means that an extra 500,000 claimants will benefit, even more than might have been predicted just a couple of weeks ago.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Department for Work and Pensions makes substantial efforts to assure itself that people who are on universal credit and not in work are entitled to that payment, either because of the disabilities that they have or because they have made every possible effort to find work. On that basis, why would the Government reassure themselves that it is okay to plunge those people into poverty, when they have done everything that the Government have asked them to do in terms of trying to find work? Why not just reintroduce that £20 payment?
Dr Coffey
The £20 uplift was a temporary measure reflecting the nature of what happened in the pandemic, and the greatest financial impact was on those who had gone from having earnings to having no earnings at all. We have doubled the number of work coaches and we are striving to help people to get into work, because we know that that is the best way to get on in life. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the change that happened in the Budget, which shows, perhaps even quicker than initially predicted, that work genuinely pays.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is aware that Harrogate has been the location for the pilot work on the managed migration from legacy benefits. Is she able to update the House on how that is going? Before the pandemic, it was going very well indeed. Is she now in a position to recommence the pilot, or to move on to the next stage of the migration?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to point out that we undertook some pilot work in Harrogate on the managed migration element of moving everybody to universal credit. I am pleased to say that there was a considerable amount of learnings from that time in Harrogate, and we have also learned a lot during the pandemic. As such, I am not envisaging a need for the pilot to be resumed in Harrogate, but it has informed our plan, which is still in preparation, on resuming the managed move to universal credit.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
The Department delivers national programmes as well as initiatives in partnership with the health system to support disabled people to start, stay and succeed in employment. These include Access to Work and intensive personalised employment support, which continues to provide that support after work has begun.
Deidre Brock
It is essential to ensure, particularly as we approach the winter, that all workers have access to a liveable sick pay and do not put themselves and others at risk. However, the current earnings threshold disproportionately affects disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. What concrete actions will the UK Government take to finally fix the wholly inadequate sick pay system?
Chloe Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those points, and it is a pleasure to work with her once again; I have done on various topics. The Government previously consulted on reform to statutory sick pay, as she will know, but we did not think that the pandemic was the right time to introduce changes to it, as that would have placed an immediate and direct cost on employers at a very difficult time. Instead, we prioritised changes to the wider welfare system. However, I can assure her that our work on this is ongoing and I look forward to talking to her and others further about this.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I would like to welcome the Minister to her new role. She will be aware that the disability pay and employment gap remains far too large. The figures might appear to show a narrowing in recent years, but academics believe that this has been offset by an increase in the number of people identifying as disabled. Today, on the 26th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, it is clear that urgent action is required. The Government’s strategy for disabled people offers only a consultation on mandatory reporting. Will she be bolder than her predecessor and bring in mandatory reporting now?
Chloe Smith
I look forward to working with the hon. Lady on these vital issues. She is right that our national disability strategy demonstrates our intention to consult on workforce reporting. She asked an additional question about pay gap reporting, but those are two slightly different things. Pay gaps are, of course, caused by a range of factors, and to address them we must ensure that everybody has equal access to opportunities. That will be my passion in this role. I hope she welcomed the disability employment statistics out only last week; they show that some progress is being made, but there is a heck of a lot more to do, and I will be there doing it.
Vicky Foxcroft
I gave the Minister a straightforward policy ask with no additional financial commitment, so it is regrettable that she cannot do it straight away. However, clearly money is required to deliver a fully inclusive society. Can she confirm that the spending review contained no extra funding linked to the strategy, other than for education and employment? Does she have plans to speak to the Chancellor about further funding, and will she now push for a full debate to show disabled people that her Government are giving the strategy the attention it rightly deserves?
Chloe Smith
That strategy and its implementation will be one of my utmost priorities; I look forward to discussing it in a constructive manner with the hon. Lady and everybody else here today, but I think she may have misread the £1.1 billion in targeted support for those with disabilities that was in the Budget and the spending review last week, which covers access to work, more work coaches and the Work and Health programme.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I have seen at first hand how assistive technology can change the lives of young people with disabilities at Treloar School and College in Alton in Hampshire. Can my hon. Friend update the House with any further details on the national centre for assistive and accessible technology, which could do so much to support adults with a learning disability and other disabilities to get into employment?
Chloe Smith
I am really pleased that my right hon. Friend has raised that point, and I agree on the centrality of assistive and accessible technology. That is why our national disability strategy contained a commitment to invest up to £1 million in 2021-22 to develop a new centre for assistive and accessible tech, reporting on progress by next year. I look forward to working with her to do that.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister will know that many disabled people work and receive their personal independence payments, but when someone is given a telephone appointment, they are told that they can only arrange the appointment once. That is hardly fair; if it is scheduled when they are working and the assessments can take up to an hour, that is not possible. What are the Government doing to make it easier for people to be in work and have that access?
Chloe Smith
The hon. Lady raises a good point, which I will be happy to take away and look into. In general terms, I can say that we made commitments in our Green Paper published in July to improve the assessment process overall, across both the work capability assessment and the PIP assessment. She will also know that we have been using telephone methods through the pandemic and are looking to see what will continue to be the best methods. I look forward to discussing that further with her, and I will take away the point she raises and look into it further.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
We can be rightly proud of delivering record disability employment, but to meet our commitment of 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027, we must expand opportunities through disability apprenticeships, a key commitment within the national disability strategy. Will the Minister confirm that she will continue to press our Department for Education colleagues to ensure we deliver that vital commitment?
Chloe Smith
I certainly will. It will be my passion to deliver all the commitments in the national disability strategy, to support more disabled people to be in work, stay in work and thrive in work. I also thank my hon. Friend for the foundational work he did on this, which I look forward to continuing.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is good to hear some of the commitments the Government are making, but unfortunately we have heard them before. Many disabled people, particularly those who are trying to get employment and support allowance or PIP, will struggle through their assessment because their disabilities are hidden. What work is the Minister doing on that, including with providers of those assessments, to ensure that those with hidden disabilities are given a fair chance?
Chloe Smith
Again, the hon. Lady raises a common-sense point, on something that I will want to make sure is working well in our system. As I said in response to a previous point, we have indicated that we are keen to look at how the assessments in general can be improved. We have that commitment to this House in our Green Paper, published in July, which I will be looking forward to developing further. I can let the House know that we have received more than 4,500 consultation responses to that Green Paper, which gives us a very sound basis for hearing the voices of disabled people and acting on what is needed.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
A year since the first placements began, almost 100,000 young people have started a kickstart role. I am delighted that kickstart will now continue through to March next year, offering exciting opportunities and crucial experience to even more young people through this extension. We are also extending our enhanced Department for Work and Pensions youth offer, expanding eligibility to 16 and 17-year-olds, so that all under-25s claiming universal credit or searching for work can benefit from more targeted support, through our youth hubs, mentoring circles and tailored support from youth employability work coaches.
Giles Watling
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. She will know, however, that we have a persistent problem with youth unemployment in Clacton, because I have raised this issue frequently. As we level up and build back better, can she assure me that we will not overlook areas of deprivation in the coastal regions of the south, so that we level up not only up and down, but sideways?
Mims Davies
We are absolutely determined that no region is left behind, and we have invested in and strengthened our support offer, as I have outlined. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that on 18 November we are hosting a kickstart employer day at Clacton Jobcentre Plus, matching employers directly with those young people in need to find them suitable roles.
Tim Loughton
I thank my hon. Friend for coming along to the DWP centre in Worthing and meeting a kickstarter working for the youth hub there, and for joining me in doing a shift working tables at the Fat Greek Taverna afterwards, as a result of which we were both offered jobs—the way things are going, that might come in quite handy. What more can we do to have outreach services, to make sure that young people get into those youth hubs in the first place, where they are given all the support they need on interviews and writing CVs, and that they turn up at interviews when they are given a job prospect?
Mims Davies
I like to think it was tenacious Tim and me together working on the hospitality shift. I know my hon. Friend is passionate about youth employment, and we did enjoy that visit. He saw that youth hub just last week, which shows that vital new link in the community, bringing together local partners. That wraparound support is key for the under-25s, particularly those who are not engaged with the Government at any other level; that is where our youth employment coaches come into their own. We have to remove those barriers to work for all.
Paul Holmes
I am delighted to see a new DWP youth hub open in Eastleigh today. It will make a huge difference to my constituents. Will the Minister set out how youth hubs will help our young people boost their skills and find new opportunities as we recover from the pandemic?
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend is right on this. We have one youth hub opening today in Eastleigh and another in nearby Romsey; crucially, they are working in partnership with councils. Along with training, skills and employment opportunities—the DWP train and progress scheme, the sector-based work academy programme and the kickstart scheme—this means that everyone in this Chamber should know that the answer and the way to progress is through work.
Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
What message does the Minister think the UK Government send to young people with wage rates that discriminate based on their age, with a £5,000 gap between the one for an 18-year-old and the one for a 25-year-old?
Mims Davies
My daughter started her first job today, on £9.50 an hour. She is delighted and she is doing that alongside her studies. I understand the challenge on different wage rates, but the national minimum wage rise really helps people, alongside the taper rate and the skills and opportunities provided through youth hubs and more widely. So I do not think that young people should feel anything other than that there are great opportunities out there, with more than 1 million vacancies and seasonal work, which can be the first step on to the employment ladder and the next stage in their career.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I recently visited Selly Oak jobcentre and have to say that I was quite impressed by what I saw and what I heard about the kickstart scheme, but one thing that surprised me was the number of students who are taking places on the scheme. Does the Minister share my concern that there might be a slight displacement effect, with the students understandably seeking work experience but thereby taking places on a programme that was conceived for young people with fewer qualifications and less access to the job market? If that is the case, what might she do about it?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for visiting that fantastic jobcentre. We have jobcentres doing that work up and down the country, and it is crucial that 100,000 young people are getting that first step on the employment ladder. He is right to point out that there should be no cherry-picking of the easiest people to move into employment. Kickstart is about getting young people on to the first rung on the employment ladder, which is why we have kickstart quick start and direct meetings with employers, so that nobody is left behind. The flexible support fund will address any barriers and we will make sure that everybody is job ready and nobody is left behind.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
In May this year, the then Minister for Disabled People, Work and Health, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), told the Work and Pensions Committee that the Department did not routinely collect information on disabilities from young people who enter the kickstart scheme and that it had no immediate plans to do so. That means it is impossible to monitor how accessible or inaccessible the kickstart scheme is for young people who have disabilities. Will the Minister confirm whether that is still the case? If it is, when is she going to sort it?
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that will be picked up in the evaluation. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned the fact that we should not be cherry-picking; the kickstart scheme is about people with the biggest barriers and the highest likelihood of long-term unemployment, and nearly 100,000 young people have got on to the employment ladder because of it. We will look at the issue the hon. Gentleman raised, but the reality is that with the Access to Work programme and all the other interventions that come alongside a kickstart role, if someone has disabilities, that should not prevent them from being on the programme.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
The Government have always been clear that the £20 uplift was a temporary measure to support households affected by the economic shock of covid-19. Now that the economy has reopened, the Government are giving nearly 2 million working households an increase, on average, of £1,000 per year, thanks to the reduction in the universal credit taper rate from 63% to 55% and a £500 increase in the work allowance.
Paul Blomfield
More than 9,000 Sheffield households, including 4,500 children, have together lost around £10 million as a result of the Government’s decision, and the taper adjustment compensates for just a third of that lost income. There are also deep problems caused by a backlog of work capability assessments. For some claimants, the new-style employment and support allowance is expiring as it has taken more than a year to secure an assessment. Others on universal credit face long delays in getting their correct entitlement. What is being done to clear the backlog and ensure that people with disabilities get the benefits they deserve?
David Rutley
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working flat out to ensure that people get their entitlement as speedily as possible, which is certainly the case for the vast majority of people. We saw during the pandemic that universal credit was particularly agile in responding to a huge number of people—hundreds of thousands—who needed support.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
We have a record 1.1 million vacancies, and we are cutting the taper rate and raising the income threshold; how many families in North West Durham and throughout the country will benefit?
David Rutley
More than hundreds—millions of people are going to benefit, because not only will they see the financial benefit but, as they start to get involved with their work coaches and understand what is available to them through the plan for jobs and in-work progression, they will see massive improvements in their financial situation and gain confidence in the workplace.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
The Government have always been clear that the £20 uplift was a temporary measure to support households affected by the economic shock of covid-19. We believe that work is the best route out of poverty, which is why our comprehensive plan for jobs is supporting people to prepare for, get into and progress in work.
Stephen Morgan
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation finds that the Government’s universal credit cut will affect 21% of working-age families in my constituency and nearly half of those with children. To make matters worse, the Bank of England says that, after tax, which the Tories continue to raise, and inflation, salaries are now forecast to fall by 1.25% this year. What plans does the Minister have to support my constituents immediately, as they will be feeling that the pound in their pocket is worth less this winter?
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will have the opportunity to fill the vacancies that are no doubt in his patch as well as across the country. I can also assure him that we do understand that there will be vulnerable families who need extra support this winter, which is why £1.8 million has been allocated to families in Portsmouth through the local authorities there.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The most recent statistics show that 17,942 people receive the state pension and 1,888 receive pension credit in the Kettering constituency.
Mr Hollobone
Pension credit is a tax-free, means-tested benefit aimed at retired people on low incomes. It can be worth up to £3,000 a year and trigger extra help with heating bills, council tax, free dental care and free TV licences for the over-75s, yet, at a time when many pensioners are struggling with household bills, up to 1 million pensioners are not claiming £1.8 billion in pension credit. What can the Minister do to encourage take-up in Kettering and across the country?
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. We continue to make the case with the BBC, which I have met on two occasions, with the pension credit taskforce, which we specifically set up to address this matter, and with the Local Government Association and energy companies. We have put great efforts into increasing the stats. The stats on valuation and take-up are going up, but clearly more needs to be done, and I welcome his efforts in Kettering and beyond.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
Universal credit is a modern, tailored, resilient benefit responding effectively to economic conditions. It replaces six outdated and complex benefits with one, helping to simplify the benefits system and providing a safety net in times of need and, of course, making work pay.
Sir Edward Leigh
When the Centre for Social Justice originally designed the universal credit system, it was with a 55p taper, so this reform is long overdue and very welcome. The fact remains, though, that there are still record numbers of people on universal credit, 60% of whom are not working at all, yet we have record job vacancies and a labour shortage. Will the Minister tell me what more can we do? How can we get more people back into work?
David Rutley
The thing that has impressed me the most since taking on this ministerial responsibility is the sheer enthusiasm of our work coaches. I definitely recommend that my right hon. Friend’s constituents speak to the work coaches to find out what opportunities are available to them, particularly through skills and through restart, to get involved in new sectors through the sector-based work academy programme. Huge opportunities are available for people, and they need to be explored.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Since 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension has risen by more than £2,050. Latest figures show that 200,000 fewer pensioners are in absolute poverty after housing costs compared with 2009-10.
Patricia Gibson
With women born in the 1950s having their pension age increased with little or no notice, with state pension payments delayed, causing real financial distress, with more than 2 million older people living in poverty, and with the triple lock abandoned with many pensioners set to be £520 worse off next year, to what extent is the Minister proud of this Government’s record of standing up for pensioners?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady will be aware that the triple lock has raised the state pension and that this year’s decision is a temporary one, for one year only. In respect of her campaign for 1950s-born women, that matter was decided in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. If Scotland wishes to take action on this, there are various sections of the Scotland 2016 that she could address herself to.
Ian Byrne
Figures show that one in five pensioners in the UK are living in poverty; 1.3 million retirees are under-nourished; and 25,000 die each year due to the cold weather. With bills rising and in the teeth of a pandemic, the Government want to break a manifesto promise and scrap the triple lock on what is already one of the least supportive state pensions by international comparison. What impact assessment has the Department for Work and Pensions made of scrapping the triple lock, and how many more pensioners in Liverpool, West Derby will be living in poverty and unable to afford food as a result?
Guy Opperman
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, the reality of the situation is that we have taken the state pension—which was languishing under the previous Labour Government and had not been increased in any real way whatever—and massively increased it to £105 billion, with £24 billion on top of that. It has never been higher—never, ever. There has been a £2,000 increase compared with 2010 thanks to the triple lock and the actions of this Conservative Government.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
From next April, the national living wage will rise by 6.6% to £9.50 an hour. This real-terms pay increase will leave more money in the pockets of hard-working people. The Government are taking action to make work pay for low-income households on universal credit by reducing the universal credit taper rate and increasing the work allowance.
Jeff Smith
On Friday, I visited the Fallowfield and Withington food bank. It is as busy as ever and expecting a surge in demand as a result of the recent changes to benefits. If Government support for people on benefits is adequate, why does the Minister think that so many of my constituents are having to rely on food banks?
David Rutley
We recognise that there are people who will require support over the winter period, which is why we have introduced the £421 million household support fund in England. I am sure that the hon. Member will welcome the £6.4 million that has been allocated to Manchester.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Since the last Work and Pensions oral questions, I am pleased to welcome the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) to join our ministerial team. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) on moving to his new role, looking after childcare. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for the great work that he did during his time in the Department; he should be proud of his achievements, including the changes to accessibility of benefits for those with terminal illness, and the national disability strategy.
Last week I was in Glasgow for COP26. I know you were also there at the weekend, Mr Speaker, to have discussions at that important climate conference. I was meeting my international counterparts and leading industry figures to discuss how to unlock the global superpower of pension funds to help us to achieve net zero. The UK is already leading the way. We need to mobilise climate finance, but together—with the resolve and readiness of countries and companies to act—the commitment that we secured in Glasgow will deliver prosperity and protection for people and the planet.
Deidre Brock
My constituent contacted the Department for Work and Pensions several times after her universal credit stopped at the end of July because she had reached state pension age, but she received no response. Three months later, I wrote to the DWP on the matter and received a letter on the same day, admitting the error, immediately depositing the outstanding amount and beginning the pension payments that my constituent was due. I listened to the excuses of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), on this earlier, but I still cannot understand how it could have happened. Will the Secretary of State apologise to my constituent for the very great anxiety that she has suffered because of the DWP’s blunders?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Member just shows her effectiveness as a Member of Parliament in responding to her constituent and taking the issue up with us. If there are specific details that she would like to go into, I think the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), will be more than happy to respond. It is right to say that universal credit is not paid to people who are of pension age, but I flag to her some of the issues addressed by my hon. Friend earlier when considering the backlog in paying out pensions.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
May I add my welcome to the new Ministers on the Front Bench today?
In the year before the pandemic, 380,000 sanctions were handed out by the DWP to the British people. Of course, there must be rules in any system, but since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, there has been a heavy focus on punitive sanctions, often for minor infractions, yet when the Home Secretary breaks the ministerial code by bullying, she gets off scot-free; when the Electoral Commission tries to investigate the Prime Minister’s flat refurbishment, it gets its wings clipped; and last week, when Mr Owen Paterson broke the rules on paid advocacy, this Government tried to do away with the rules all together. These are not one-offs. This is a pattern of behaviour. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that many people are comparing how the DWP operates with how the Conservative party behaves, and are asking, “Why is there one rule for the Government and another for everybody else?”?
Dr Coffey
Well, what can I say? The interests of the British public are best served when the Conservative party is in power and in government. We are seeing a rise in employment. We are seeing a universal credit benefit system that is more generous than the legacy system that was there. We are finally removing a lot of the thresholds that actually prevented people from working more than 16 hours per week. I am proud of not only our policies but our civil servants in delivering an excellent record in trying to make sure that money gets to the people who deserve it the most.
Jonathan Reynolds
People simply want to know that everyone in this country is playing by the same rules, and I think that is reasonable.
Let me turn to another crisis of the Government’s own making—the problems in the labour market we have seen over the past few months that left the pumps dry and the shelves sparse. As we left the single market it was obvious which sectors would be most disrupted: transport, logistics, and social care and the NHS. Regardless of how people voted, we have to make this work, which it clearly does not at the moment because of Government incompetence. This Government often claim they have a plan for jobs, but surely any credible plan would have tackled these shortages head on and got unemployed people the skills the economy needs to keep Britain moving. So, very simply, why was there no plan in place to prevent these problems?
Dr Coffey
Very evidently, the plan for jobs is working. We are seeing more people on the payrolls than was happening pre-pandemic. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about some of the skills that may be required. I am conscious that many people who campaigned vigorously to stay in the European Union are still trying to use the excuse of leaving the European Union for why certain sectors are still under-supplied. The reality is that nearly 6 million people registered for the EU settlement scheme and they have an entitlement to live in this country if they so wish. I think there are some aspects of covid that are perhaps hindering people in coming back into the UK who are considering a return to their native countries. Let me say very clearly that we are working on this right across Government. We have the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee. We are encouraging people to consider swapping sectors, as is happening with aspects such as SWAPs—sector-based work academy programmes—for people who are unemployed. There are also the bootcamps for skills and the incentives to take on apprentices that have given been to employers right across the country. I can honestly assure the hon. Gentleman that the plan for jobs is certainly working.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Jobcentres work directly with local employers using programmes such as SWAPs to fill those vacancies and gaps. We are providing training and work experience, and a guaranteed interview. The Chancellor has announced £1.3 million investment in new technology to better match claimants and vacancies with a new job-matching tool. I can confirm that that is out to tender and we will update the House shortly.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me I will try to get a more detailed answer, but the bottom line is this: he will be aware that there is a regular review of all contracts put out by the DWP, and in respect of Serco the latest data was published on 24 September 2021 and is available on the gov.uk website.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the Government will publish the response to that report by the end of the year. It will help his constituents and all those facing barriers to progressing in work. Almost £100 million was announced by the Chancellor to support a new in-work progression programme.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The British Government’s statutory minimum wage is not a real living wage; in fact, it is a sham. It does not meet the minimum income needed for an acceptable living standard, and the differing rates for young people, including in the Secretary of State’s constituency, are wholly unjust and discriminatory. What action will she take to ensure that all workers, regardless of age, get a real living wage, as set by the Living Wage Foundation in April, that actually reflects the rising cost of living, and not the sham supported by this British Government that Scotland did not vote for?
Dr Coffey
We have a separate body that already makes recommendations. It is called the Low Pay Commission, and the differential in wages is out there. The hon. Member can cite whatever campaigning body he likes; we have seen a huge increase in the national living wage, and that is to be welcomed right across the country as we head towards the national living wage being 66% of median earnings.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
Guy Opperman
I can do that. It is a herculean IT project with 43,000 pension providers, 22 million private pensions and state pensions all coming to your mobile phone, your laptop or your device at home. It will be groundbreaking and will be ready in 2023.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Guy Opperman
The hon. Member will be aware that the pension has gone up by more than £2,000 in cash terms since 2010. There will be a double lock this coming year, subject to the will of Parliament, and there is also the enhanced take-up of pension credit, which I urge her to ensure her constituents apply for.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Mims Davies
The DWP helps fill vacancies directly with work coach support through our plan for jobs programmes, including via the sector-based work academy programmes, and kickstart. We have doubled the number of our work coaches, particularly to support sectors with shortages, and we have a virtual job help platform with job search advice, a showcase of sectors and signposts directly to those vacancies, including in HGVs and logistics.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
We are committed to making sure that the best advice is available to people. We have clearly moved on from the depth of the pandemic, and we are looking at how best we respond. I will come back to the hon. Lady with more detail on how we propose to move things forward.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Dr Coffey
We have been working consistently to try to ensure that for people who receive benefits, for which immigration status is required, we exhaust all avenues to encourage them to apply to the EU settlement scheme to maintain that benefit entitlement. I am pleased to say that the vast majority of people have done so, and we will keep working to try to ensure that, whether people have received letters, UC journal messages, invitations to come to face-to-face appointments, or supportive officers have been sent round to help them with the process, we are taking every action possible to try to ensure they do so. I encourage hon. Members to ensure that people know they must apply for EUSS status so that they continue to be eligible for the benefits.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Like other Members, I welcome the modest reduction in the universal credit taper rate, but it does not come close to compensating for the effect of the £20 a week cut to universal credit, to say nothing of the national insurance hike, rising inflation and soaring energy prices. In a written answer to me in September, the Minister for welfare delivery, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) confirmed that prior to cutting universal credit, the Department had not assessed the effect of the cut or the increase in energy costs on child poverty. Will the Secretary of State act now to correct that omission and conduct and publish an up-to-date assessment of how the cut to universal credit and the rising cost of living will impact on child poverty?
Dr Coffey
Given that it was a temporary uplift, recognising the effect of aspects of the pandemic on people new to benefits, no impact assessment was undertaken. With the removal of the temporary uplift, therefore, no impact assessment has been undertaken either.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The cut to the taper rate from 63% to 55% was clearly a vital measure to support people on low incomes. What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to lowering the taper rate further so that we can ensure that people who go to work continue to work and benefit as a result?
Dr Coffey
I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing the announcement of the reduction of the taper rate from 63% to 55%. He may be aware that that was the original design of the universal credit system. The Chancellor agreed with me and the Prime Minister that, in trying to ensure that work pays, it was the right moment to do it. It recognises the labour market opportunities and makes sure that people are better off working. With my right hon. Friend the Chancellor having already provided for costs of about £2.5 billion annually, I am not convinced that we will seek to change the taper rate further; instead, we will be seeking to ensure that all the current job vacancies are taken up so that work really does pay.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
In answering an earlier question about 1950s women, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), referred to the High Court but not the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report. Given that the report explicitly urged the Government not to drag their feet and to proactively co-operate with the next stages of the investigation, will he assure me that he will break the habit of a lifetime and do just that?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the PHSO was set up under a Labour Government. It has a three-stage process. We are observing the process that his Blair-Brown Government, which he obviously now disowns, set up and insisted that we take.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Motor neurone disease is a cruel and relentless condition. Too many people with MND and other terminal illnesses are struggling to access the benefits that they need. The Northern Ireland Executive have committed to introducing legislation this month to reform the unfair six-month rule. Will the Government follow their lead?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
I share my hon. Friend’s desire to see those changes made as quickly as possible, which is why we are taking a two-stage approach. That will allow us to introduce changes to universal credit and employment and support allowance via secondary legislation in April. Parliament will need to pass primary legislation to amend the special rules in other benefits, which we will introduce as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
Petition
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). The petition states:
That the petition of residents of the constituency of Cities of London and Westminster,
Declares that Chiltern Railways should upgrade their fleet to improve air quality; further that Marylebone is currently the only station in London which uses only diesel trains; and further that this usage greatly increases the noise and fumes in the area, much to the distress of local residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that the new franchise with Chiltern Rail requires that they convert their diesel trains to hybrids and end their lease on Class 68 locomotives.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002696]
David Fuller Case
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the statement, I remind the House that as sentencing has not yet occurred, the case to which the statement relates remains sub judice under the terms of the House resolution. Brief reference to the fact that a guilty plea has been given may be made, but Members should not go into details of the case or speculate about sentencing options. I hope the statement will instead focus on the wider issues.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the appalling crimes committed by David Fuller and the Government’s next steps. In recent days, the courts have heard about a series of David Fuller’s shocking and depraved offences. The legal process is ongoing, as you have just said, Mr Speaker. David Fuller is yet to be sentenced, so there are some things it would be inappropriate for me to talk about at this time. I am sure the House will understand why the majority of my statement will focus on the steps that we are taking in response to those crimes and not the crimes themselves.
Before I do, I will briefly update the House on this shocking case. In December, David Fuller was charged with the murder of two young women, Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce, in the Tunbridge Wells area of Kent in 1987. Last week, he pleaded guilty to their murders. My thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with Wendy and Caroline’s family and friends.
As well as that, the Kent and Essex serious crime directorate has been carrying out an investigation into his offences in hospital settings between 2008 and 2020. As a result, Fuller was charged with a series of shocking offences involving sexual offences committed in a hospital mortuary. He has also pleaded guilty to these offences. As sentencing has yet to take place, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the case, but I will say that, in the light of what has happened, the Justice Secretary will be looking at whether the penalties that are currently available for such appalling sexual offences are appropriate.
It has taken months of painstaking work to uncover the extent of this man’s offending. The fact that these offences took place in a hospital—a place where all of us should feel safe and free from harm—makes this all the more harrowing. This has been an immensely distressing investigation, and I would like to thank the police for the diligent and sensitive way that they have approached it. They have shown the utmost professionalism in the most upsetting of circumstances, and I would like to thank them for their ongoing work. I would also like to thank the local NHS trust—Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust—for co-operating so closely with the police.
Officers have, tragically, found evidence of 100 victims. Of these victims, 81 have been formally identified, and specially trained family liaison officers have been supporting their families. Every family of a known victim has been contacted. We have been working closely with the police, the police and crime commissioner and the NHS trust to make sure that those families who have been directly affected receive the 24/7 support that they need, including access to dedicated caseworkers, and mental health support and counselling.
If anyone else is concerned that they or their loved ones may be a victim, or if they have any further information, they should search online for the major incident police portal, and select “Kent Police” and “Operation Sandpiper”. I know how distressing the details of these offences will be for many people. The local NHS trust has put arrangements in place to support staff who have been affected, and regardless of whether or not someone has been directly impacted by these offences, they can access the resources that are available on the My Support Space website.
This is a profoundly upsetting case that has involved distressing offences within the health service. The victims are not just those family members and friends who have been abused in this most horrific of ways; they are also those who are left behind—people who have already experienced loss, and now experience unimaginable pain and anger. They are victims, too.
Even as we look into exactly what happened, I, as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, want to apologise to the friends and families of all the victims for the crimes that were perpetrated in the care of the NHS, and for the hurt and suffering they are feeling. I know that no apology can undo the pain and suffering caused by these offences, but with such serious issues of dignity and security, we have a duty to look at what happened in detail, and make sure it never happens again, so I would like to update the House on the steps we are taking.
First, NHS England has written to all NHS trusts asking for mortuary access and post-mortem activities to be reviewed against the current guidance from the Human Tissue Authority. Trusts have also been asked to review their ways of working and to take a number of extra steps, including making sure that they have effective CCTV coverage in place, that entry and access points are controlled with swipe access, and that appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service checks and risk assessments are being carried out. NHS England will report directly to me with assurances that these measures have been taken, so that we can be confident that the highest standards are being followed and that we are maintaining security and upholding the dignity of the deceased. Next, the local trust has been putting its own steps in place. It has already conducted a peer review of mortuary practice, and it initiated an independent investigation into those specific offences.
I thank the trust and its leadership for its quick initial work to set up that investigation, but given the scale and nature of these sexual offences, I believe we must go further. Today I can announce that I am replacing the trust investigation with an independent inquiry that will look into the circumstances surrounding the offences committed at the hospital, and their national implications. It will help us to understand how those offences took place without detection in the trust, identify any areas where early action by the trust was necessary, and consider wider national issues, including for the NHS. I have appointed Sir Jonathan Michael to chair this inquiry. Sir Jonathan is an experienced NHS chief executive, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and a former chief executive of three NHS hospital trusts. He had been leading the trust investigation, and will be able to build on some of the work he has already done. The inquiry will be independent, and it will report to me as Secretary of State.
I have asked Sir Jonathan to split his inquiry into two parts: the first, an interim report, which I have asked for early in the new year; the second, a final report looking at the broader national picture and the wider lessons for the NHS and other settings. We will publish the terms of reference in due course, and I have also asked Sir Jonathan to discuss with families and others to input into this process. Sir Jonathan’s findings will be public and they will be published. We have a responsibility to everyone affected by these shocking crimes to do right by those we have lost, and by those still left behind in their shock and their grief. Nothing that we can say in this place will undo the damage that has been done, but we must act to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for its content, and I welcome what he has announced today.
This is an unspeakably vile and horrific crime, and across the House our thoughts and hearts go out to the families of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce, and to the families of those with deceased loved ones. Those 100 victims—we are talking about the corpses of 100 women —were, as has been reported in the press, violated in the most monstrous, vile and sickening way. Will the Secretary of State confirm that all the families impacted will have immediate access to the psychological counselling and support that they need? Will NHS staff at the hospital, many of whom will themselves be devastated, also have access to appropriate counselling and support?
I welcome the announcement of an inquiry, and I pay tribute to local Members of Parliament across Kent and Sussex who have spoken up on behalf of their communities in recent days. In particular, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said over the weekend that authorities and politicians must
“ask serious questions as to how this could have happened and…establish that it can never happen again.”
I agree, and that is why an inquiry is so important.
Will the Secretary of State offer some precision as to when the terms of reference will be published? Fuller was caught because of a murder investigation, which in itself prompts a number of questions about the regulation of mortuaries. The Human Tissue Authority, which regulates hospital mortuaries, reviewed one of the mortuaries in question as part of its regulatory procedures. It raised no security concerns, but found a lack of full audits, examples of lone working, and issues with CCTV coverage in another hospital in the trust. Will the inquiry consider—or perhaps this is the remit of the Secretary of State—the Human Tissue Authority’s standards, the way it reviews hospital mortuaries, and how those standards are enforced? Will the inquiry recommend new processes that the Secretary of State will put in place if it is found that a mortuary fails to meet the high standards for lone workers, for security and for care?
The NHS has asked trusts to review their procedures; I welcome that. Will the Secretary of State ensure that all mortuaries document and record the access of all staff entering a mortuary, and will he ensure that standards for CCTV are enforced and that CCTV is in place comprehensively across all mortuaries? There are, of course, other premises where dead bodies are stored, such as funeral directors, that do not fall under the regulatory remit of the Human Tissue Authority, so will its remit be expanded, or will the inquiry look at regulation for other premises where bodies are stored?
When our loved ones are admitted into the hands of medical care, that is done on the basis of a bond of trust—that our loved ones will be cared for when sick and accorded dignity in death. That bond of trust was callously ripped apart here. I offer to work with the Secretary of State to ensure that something so sickening never happens again.
Sajid Javid
I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s words and his offer to work together on this. I most certainly would like to take him up on that. I think the whole House would want to see us all working together on this.
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there is comprehensive support rightly available to all families and friends that have been affected. As I said a moment ago, every family of the known victims has been contacted directly by family liaison officers. They are in touch, and that support will continue for as long as necessary, including dedicated caseworker support, a 24/7 telephone support line and whatever counselling and support of that nature is needed. That includes support for staff in the NHS and elsewhere, where staff will also be affected.
On the terms of reference, that is something that I and my Department will work on with Sir Jonathan. I have already started discussions with him on that, and I am sure that he will want to have discussions with others, including families, their representatives and the Members of Parliament who represent those families.
The work that Sir Jonathan will do will be broad in its nature. I think it has to be, because, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly alluded to, it has to go beyond just hospitals. There are a number of settings that rightly need to be looked at, including, for example, local authority mortuaries, private mortuaries and other settings, such as undertakers. I think the inquiry should be open to all of that, and I think we would want to see that reflected in the terms of reference.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to recommendations around access, documentation and CCTV. He is right to raise all those issues. I want to be careful not to pre-empt the final outcome of what is an independent inquiry, but I am sure all those issues will rightly be looked at.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I join the Secretary of State in giving thanks to Kent Police for its sensitivity, but also its tenacity in bringing Fuller to justice after all these years. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to the inquiry that my colleagues in the area have called for.
It is important that the House understands the need for the inquiry. As well as brutally murdering two young women, Fuller raped the dead bodies of over 100 girls and women. Their identities are known, and that means that their families have been informed. The shock and desolation that those families are going through is beyond imagination. That is why the inquiry is so important—because this can never be allowed to happen again. It does go beyond the local. In the last four years, there have been over 30 incidents of unauthorised people entering mortuaries in NHS hospitals. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry will do three things? First, will it allow victims’ families to give evidence on the impact the crimes have had on them? Secondly, will he make public recommendations for the whole of the NHS, as well as the local NHS trust? Thirdly, will he publish the assessment of the risks for other sectors in which people have access to human dead bodies? We can never take away the horror and the grief that is being suffered by the families, but we can do one thing, which is to protect other families from having to go through this nightmare.
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with all the words of my right hon. Friend, especially when he talks about the shock, hurt and pain of all the families, many of them his constituents. He asks specific questions on three points: whether the victims will be allowed to give evidence to the inquiry; whether the recommendations will be for the whole of the NHS and be public; and whether the inquiry will publish its findings on other sectors beyond the NHS. Absolutely, the inquiry will do all three things. I can give him that assurance.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
This is truly one of the most horrific things any of us will have heard of or encountered. Our thoughts are with the families and those conducting the investigations. Following on from the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) who highlighted that access has happened elsewhere in the country, the Secretary of State said in his statement that he has written to NHS England to ask all NHS trusts to report directly to him on what they find in terms of compliance. Will he outline how he will share the information from NHS England with local communities who are now very concerned about that and with us as their representatives?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I am very happy to expand on that. The NHS has, first, written directly to all trusts and asked them to look into the issues of mortuary access and other post-mortem activities, and to judge them against current guidance to ensure that it is all being applied. In the first instance, that information will go back to NHS England. It will then be shared with me and I will certainly want to find the best way of sharing it with both the House and everyone who is interested.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the extremely sensitive tone with which he is approaching this incredibly difficult issue. He is absolutely right to put the concerns of families and staff first. He is also right to say that this issue will not be resolved by one evil man facing justice. The big question everyone is concerned about is this: could this happen elsewhere and why did this horrendous series of crimes happen over such a long period of time without being detected? I welcome the call for an independent inquiry and the Secretary of State’s decision to do that. May I ask him to praise the work of the vast majority of morticians throughout the country who do an incredibly difficult job extremely well? I met some of them after the Manchester Arena bombing and I know that he would not want this terrible, terrible series of acts to cast a cloud over their fantastic work.
Sajid Javid
I agree very much with my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to raise those points. As he said, these appalling crimes have taken place over a number of years. I am certain that the independent inquiry will get to the bottom of that and that we can learn not just about mortuaries in hospital settings, but much more broadly. He is also right to draw attention to the vast majority of people who work in mortuaries, the morticians and those who support them, for the very difficult and important work they do.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
This is a truly harrowing case and I think many people will be shocked not just by the horrific nature of the crimes, but by the fact that many of the extra steps announced today were not already in place. Will the Secretary of State give an indication of how quickly he expects hospitals to adopt the extra steps of CCTV coverage, swipe access and DBS checks in every single hospital and mortuary?
Sajid Javid
I would expect that many of those steps may well be in place in many NHS trusts. The purpose of the NHS writing to all trusts is to ensure that the kinds of steps that I set out earlier, and others, are in place, so they are following the current rules and guidance that are set out by the Human Tissue Authority. What we also need to do is determine whether the current rules and guidance are right in the light of these appalling crimes and whether we need to go much further than that. That is also the purpose of having an independent inquiry.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Fuller’s vile and depraved acts are hard to comprehend, especially taking into account the number of victims and the fact that the crimes took place over such a long period of time. My thoughts are with the families of Fuller’s victims as they come to terms with the news that they have been told. I am grateful for the inquiry; we need to understand how access was made available to Mr Fuller. May I push the Secretary of State a bit further, especially on family liaison officers? Will he provide assurances that all the victims’ families have that access for as long as they need it and can access mental health services for as long as they need to? Will he provide some assurances that, as far as he is aware, all the families of the victims have been contacted to date? And perhaps he can offer some assistance to the staff of MPs who are dealing with constituents going through this, so that we can make sure that we are offering the most sensitive advice and support possible.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make those points, and I can give those assurances. The police have informed my Department that all the families of all the victims have been contacted. They all have family liaison officers. That support and other support, such as counselling and mental health support, if required, and the 24/7 telephone line that I referred to, will remain in place for as long as is necessary. Indeed, if she and other Members of Parliament who have constituents who are affected think that there are other ways to provide support, of course we would be willing to do that.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his words and his action; it is much appreciated, as is the solidarity shown by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for leading the local MPs on this difficult matter.
The nation has been absolutely appalled and horrified by the actions that we have heard about, and none more so than the people in Heathfield, where Mr Fuller was arrested at his family home. They are good people who have been shocked by what they have found out. My constituents use the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. It is an excellent hospital, run by some brilliant management and fantastic staff. Will the Secretary of State make sure that those staff and management have all the support that is needed to ensure that patients receive their ongoing care?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. His local hospital does some excellent work in supporting local people in all their health needs and has done so for a long time. I have no doubt that this news will be incredibly distressing to all the people who work in the hospital, and they will get the support that they need. The other support that is necessary for the hospital to continue with its good work and care will remain, and will remain very important.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Nothing can undo the horror that the families of victims are going through, but I am pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend has said. Could he provide some further and better details on the timescale for the final report that will come out of the inquiry? He mentioned an interim report early next year, but what about the final report? When does he anticipate that the recommendations that might be made in that report will be implemented?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I am happy to provide more information on that issue. I have asked Sir Jonathan to provide the interim report from his inquiry early next year. As my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will understand, it will take some time to get the terms of reference in place and make sure that the review is done properly, but it is important to learn some early lessons, especially around the local hospital trust. I anticipate that the interim report might take about three months, but I will wait to see Sir Jonathan’s final analysis. I hope that the final report will come some time next year; I do not want to set a timetable now without knowing the full terms of reference.
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the work that I have asked for from the Human Tissue Authority as well as the independent inquiry. I have asked it to do an independent review of its own advice to me on the current regulations.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
This horrific crime has shocked many in Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Malling who use the hospital. I associate myself entirely with the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark).
I thank the Secretary of State for announcing the inquiry that many of us have been seeking. May I ask him to provide some resources locally for the trust to reassure patients and staff of the actions that it is taking and make sure that they are communicated to all the towns and villages that rely on and place so much importance on the hospital? We need to ensure that trust is returned to the establishment if we are to have the care needed for all our communities.
Sajid Javid
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. This will, of course, be a very difficult and distressing time for the local trust. I have already discussed the matter with my colleagues in NHS England, and it will be provided with the resources that it needs.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for agreeing to the inquiry. For my constituents who have been affected, nothing will ever take away the pain and the trauma, but I hope that it will at least provide them with some comfort and assurance that this will never happen again.
When David Fuller was first employed, DBS checks did not exist. Subsequent checks failed to pick up his previous convictions. Can the Secretary of State assure us that that issue will be looked at as part of the inquiry? Will he look at the wider NHS and ensure that people with convictions do not have access to sensitive areas of NHS trusts?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. As other colleagues have done, she raises a very important point: it is clear from this case that the issue of employment checks, especially DBS checks—not just in hospital settings, but in mortuary and undertaker settings—needs to be looked at afresh. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the independent inquiry, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the issue will absolutely be looked at.
Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
From time to time, we talk about the House being at its best. I regret to say that I do not think that the House has been at its best in the way in which it has handled standards issues over the past week. I would like to make a few points about where we are now and where we might get to if we can approach the issue in a genuinely constructive and non-partisan spirit.
In my role as Speaker, I am required to maintain strict impartiality. That includes, for example, responsibility for giving the House the opportunity to consider orderly amendments that attract considerable support, whatever my own view of them may be. But I also feel a weighty responsibility to ensure that the House deals with these issues effectively and fairly, and that its reputation reflects that.
One issue is clear. Owen Paterson has resigned as an MP, so it no longer falls to the House to decide whether he should be suspended, although I note that the House has not reached a decision on the report of the Select Committee on Standards. I understand that the Committee is nearing the end of its review of the code of conduct. After that report has been published, there may be some way of working with the Committee to build on its work.
On Thursday, the Leader of the House indicated that he believed that there was cross-party support for reform of the standards process, and particularly for looking at a mechanism for appeals. He also said that
“a Committee cannot work effectively without Opposition Members on it”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 1056.]
I agree. If the House wishes to review the system, it must do so on a cross-party basis. Opposition parties have made it clear that they will not participate in the Committee established on Thursday. We therefore need to find a different way forward. I would also expect the Chair of the Committee on Standards to be invited to have a role in any process, given the extensive work that his Committee has already undertaken.
In finding that way forward, I want to remind the House of two things. First, I repeat what I have said before about the importance of not criticising officials in this House who are not able to respond. Of course it is possible to make proposals to improve processes and practices, but please do not criticise the Commissioner for Standards, who is doing a job that we have appointed her to do. Secondly, I know that there have been concerns about what recent events mean for the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. Let me be clear: the decision taken last Wednesday did not in any way affect the operation of the ICGS or that of the Independent Expert Panel. Let me say to those people who feel that they are not going to come forward because the ICGS will not be there that it is there: do not think that there is a barrier to people coming forward.
Finally, and again in a spirit of finding the best way forward, I say to the House that I will do everything I can to help to ensure that all Members feel confident that we have an effective and fair system, and that those who follow our proceedings feel the same.
I granted the debate today because I thought it was essential to sort out the mess that we are in. We can start to do that today, but it requires two things: for us all to tone down the party political sniping and focus calmly on making sure the system is as effective as it can be, and for everyone to recognise that, if we are going to achieve progress, we will only do so on a cross-party basis. I also want to remind the House that it is not in order to make allegations of impropriety against other named Members, unless the House is considering a substantive motion dealing with the issue directly. There are other routes for raising such claims. So please, use the routes that are available.
I sincerely hope that all Members will take the approach I have recommended, and that by the end of this debate we will have a clearer sense of how we can move forward together on this important subject. Please, let us see the House at its best, as we have certainly seen it at its worst.
Committee on Standards: Decision of the House
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the consequences of the decision of the House on 3 November relating to Standards.
First, I want to place on the record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating this debate. I also want to record my thanks for the work done by all members of staff in this place.
I must agree with you, Mr Speaker: I was horrified to learn that the Commissioner for Standards had received death threats. That is appalling. No one should receive death threats for doing their job.
The role of Commissioner for Standards provided one of the key ways in which we moved beyond previous scandals which had rocked the House. The role is not political The Commissioner was appointed by the House to do a job, and that is what she has done and continues to do.
The actions of the Government last week have tarnished this House’s reputation. Last week was UK Parliament Week, a time focused on engaging citizens in the work that we do here. Well, Mr Speaker, if I had been tuning into Parliament last week for the first time, I would probably have turned the television right off again.
I have been a Member of this place for less than two years, and most of the time I am proud to have been chosen to represent North East Fife to be able to act for my constituents and to fight their corner. I was proud to do the right thing last week by opposing the Government and voting to uphold the standards procedure. It is hard to be proud to be a Member of Parliament when, as a body, we are all tarnished with the Government’s brush and when in the eyes of the public we are tainted by allegations of sleaze.
The Government’s actions last Wednesday have rightly been condemned across the board. Sir John Major said that
“the way the government handled that was shameful, wrong and unworthy of this or indeed any government.”
Lord Evans, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said that the proposed reforms to the Standards Committee were
“deeply at odds with the best traditions of British democracy.”
My inbox and, I am sure, those of others are full. One example of the many questions I have been asked is:
“What gives the Government the right to have a vote to change the process just because it has adversely affected one of their own? This is an appalling message to the wider public.”
My constituent was right: what gives this Government the right to think that they can change the rules when a decision does not suit them, that they can ignore judgments that are not in their favour and that they can whip their own MPs to achieve the outcome they wanted, in violation of the conventions of this House?
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this has been a distraction from one of the most important sets of debates going on at the moment, at COP26? When our constituents were tuning in to this place, that is where the focus of Parliament should have been. Instead, the focus was on the shenanigans of this Government, and that is the real tragedy here.
Wendy Chamberlain
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. COP is the last-chance saloon for this country and for the planet, and to have such distractions in this place is reprehensible.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for securing today’s debate on standards. When I was first elected to this House, the mother of all Parliaments, I was incredibly proud because I thought that Members conducted themselves with honour and integrity, and that we were not ruled by a Prime Minister who was a tinpot dictator and who is himself now mired in sleaze—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have just said that we want to show the House at its best. I do not think that the term “tinpot dictator” aimed at an individual is going to bring unity. I want to see us at our best, to show that we take this seriously. We want to show the House in the best way possible, so please, let us moderate our language and moderate our thoughts. Let us do this right.
Wendy Chamberlain
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I think there is a point here: this is the kind of behaviour we would expect to see in the Duma in Moscow or the National People’s Congress in Beijing, not in the House of Commons. Previous Prime Ministers and previous Governments have all had their failings, but it is a long time since we have seen issues such as these and an absolute lack of resolve to do anything about them. They say that a fish rots from the head down, and I am disappointed to see that the Prime Minister has chosen not to turn up today to answer our questions, given that the Leader of the Opposition is in his place. I cannot help but feel that he thinks the rules do not apply to him.
The Government have recently failed to properly investigate allegations, failed to declare relevant meetings and, arguably, attempted to rig the system to cover their own back. This is the Prime Minister who flew to Afghanistan to escape a vote on Heathrow when he was Foreign Secretary, and he has driven to the north-east to escape questions today.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. As one of those who defied the three-line Whip of their Government last week on this issue, I think she will agree that it was patently wrong to try to reform the system at this point. We have had years to reform it, but does she agree that we need cross-party support for this, and that, given that the Committee on Standards is already looking at the issue, we should wait for its findings before making any further decisions?
Wendy Chamberlain
I am sure that the hon. Member was present at the debate last week, and he will know that that is exactly what those of us on this side of the House were calling for. We were calling for consensus and for the goalposts not to be moved. We were also proposing that we look at our processes and procedures on an ongoing basis, as we should be doing, and hold ourselves to account as our voters would expect us to do. I have had correspondence from lifelong Conservative voters who have been appalled, not just by last week’s actions but, sadly, by this Government’s actions over the past two years and the alarming frequency with which scandals befall them.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government have been playing a ridiculous game with the public’s trust, not only through the foul play in last week’s vote, but through a string of corrupt dealings over the past two years?
Wendy Chamberlain
I will go on to detail some of the things the hon. Lady is referring to. Back in May 2020, it was Dominic Cummings’s trip to Barnard Castle, in flagrant breach of covid regulations; then it was the Home Secretary, found to have breached the ministerial code, but let off; and then it was the then Health Secretary breaching covid guidance he had been instructing others to follow. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It has been said in the media that some MPs are now walking through the corridors of Westminster feeling invincible. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are accountable to our constituents and that they are our boss?
Wendy Chamberlain
I agree, and that is one of the challenges. This is not an ordinary job. We are not in a line management structure; we are accountable only to our constituents.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As the longest-serving Member on the Opposition Benches, may I say to the House that I was appalled at what happened last week? However, as a long-serving Member, I must also say that that behaviour is not typical. I have worked with people in this House of all parties for a very long time, and most of their behaviour is good. It is excellent—it is cross-party. This case has done something to damage our reputation, but please let none of us undermine the fact that normally, most hon. Members on all sides act honourably and work together, and I am proud to be a Member working with them.
Wendy Chamberlain
As an MP elected in 2019, one of the great losses as a result of covid has been the lack of opportunity to meet people in real life and engage across the House and across parties. As we move through covid, I hope there will be more opportunity to do that, so that we can see the good behaviour on all sides.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She is absolutely right. In recent weeks, we have mourned the loss of two great men, who served their communities well in this House and were decent people. We have talked about how important it is that we conduct ourselves with grace and forgiveness on all sides and that our tone is different from that which the public expect. Does she agree, though, that being gracious does not mean ignoring the reality when one side behaves especially badly? We do not need to be soppily neutral. The reality is that the Government made a decision last week to do something that undermined trust in democracy at every level, locally and here in Westminster. That is why her debate is so important.
Wendy Chamberlain
We on these Benches are the Opposition. It is our job to oppose the Government unless they can behave otherwise. I will try to make some progress.
Over the past 20 months, my constituents have had to follow more rules than they have ever had to deal with before, while sadly we are governed by Ministers who seem to care far less about the rules than any predecessors in living memory. That is why we are here today. It has been reported over the weekend that Ministers are focused on pleasing their boss, not on doing what is right for this country. We have seen story after story break, including cash for honours and undeclared interests.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On that point about cash for honours, does my hon. Friend agree that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory footing, to ensure that any recommendations made to the Prime Minister cannot be ignored in the same way that the Prime Minister ignored advice given to him by the previous independent adviser on ministerial interests, recommending that the Home Secretary be sacked for bullying?
Wendy Chamberlain
These are all things that need to be looked at on an ongoing basis, and there are potentially areas where the different processes are in conflict. However, I will now make some progress.
Who is influencing our politics? How is taxpayers’ money being spent, and what is being done to hold those in power to account? Those questions are why we argue that we need a public inquiry, with the powers and resources to get to the depths of the situation we are in. People around the country who play by the rules deserve answers, but instead they are being let down by this Government and by a Prime Minister who will not take even the most basic of steps to turn up to this debate.
It is a great shame that the Prime Minister has not graced us with his presence this afternoon, because there is still a huge amount that we do not know about the events of last week. There are many questions that demand answers, many of them involving the Prime Minister’s personal role in this affair. This is a Prime Minister, after all, who has been under investigation more times than any other Member in recent years. The question is: who stands to benefit from getting the current standards processes out of the way? Members of the public will have to draw their own conclusions on that, with the Prime Minister not being here today.
However, the questions do not stop at the Prime Minister; they extend to all those involved in the whipping operation last week. First, why was there a whipping operation in the first place? This was House business and it should not have been whipped. The Government tried to change our procedures without our consent; and then they U-turned and tried to walk it back. But they cannot walk back the events of last week—that is why we are here, looking forward.
We have heard serious, concerning allegations today that Members breaking the whip were threatened with a removal of funding for projects in their constituencies. I ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to address that point and whether it is this true, as the matter deserves further investigation. The idea that communities should suffer because their representative did the right thing is, frankly, abhorrent. Despite all those alleged threats, the whipping operation was only a partial success. I thank those Members on the Conservative Benches who stood up for what was right and those Members, including the Father of the House, who last week supported my application for this debate.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I just wish to make it clear that at no stage were any threats of that nature made to me when I broke the whip last week.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for providing us with that clarity—it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister is not here to do that.
The final set of questions is for us, in this place, to answer; they are not for Ministers and the Government, but for Members of this House. How do we go about rebuilding trust and confidence in what we do here?
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
On that point—
Wendy Chamberlain
I will not give way, as I am going to make progress. I hope that we will be able to discuss that issue further today.
No system is perfect. There is always room for improvement. Whatever I previously thought of our process for investigating complaints against Members, what I saw last week made it abundantly clear that changes need to be made. I find it hard to believe that Owen Paterson was able to vote on his own suspension last week, while the votes of Members currently under investigation were critical in the passage of the amendment that saved him. That looks like the equivalent of the defendants in a court case also taking part in the jury. It is wrong, and if we are to make changes, that must be top of the list of reforms.
There has been much discussion of a right to appeal—this is something we have heard a lot from the Government as they try to justify their actions. I would point out that, through the Nationality and Borders Bill currently going through Parliament, the Government are attempting to take the rights of appeal away from asylum seekers. No matter what changes are proposed, one thing is clear: those with a vested interest in tearing up Parliament’s anti-sleaze rules should not be given the power to do so, and any amendment to these rules must be done fairly and with the proper amount of time taken and consideration given by this House. It is this House that invests the authority in the Committee on Standards to act on its behalf in considering the Commissioner’s reports, and considering whether or not to uphold those reports and the sanctions attached to them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is Chair of the Committee, will use time today to speak about the steps that the Committee is taking, to which you referred earlier, Mr Speaker.
As a new MP elected in 2019, I did not vote on the current rules, but I accept them, because they are the rules in place. I am a member of a smaller party. We do not have representation on the Standards Committee, but those are the rules and we accept them. If the processes are to be changed, that needs to be done properly and with consensus across the House. That is what the Leader of the House should have been looking to do last Wednesday: to act on behalf of the House, instead of his own party. That is what he should be doing today: listening to Members’ contributions and responding to them—I understand that he is not doing so. Instead, we have the Minister for the Cabinet Office responding to us. Can he let us know what exact involvement the Cabinet Office has in this House’s standards procedures? Certainly, wherever we go from here, without a cross-party consensus, reforms will simply have no legitimacy.
Like you, Mr Speaker, I hope for positive and constructive contributions from those in all parts of the House this afternoon, as we work out how to move forward from this scandal. I hope that the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister will engage with this process. One of my constituents wrote to me saying:
“Mr Paterson’s resignation is not the end. It must be the beginning of an uncompromising campaign to end the corruption of our politics.”
I hope that we can begin that campaign, in this place, today.
Mr Speaker
Order. To those who are shouting, “Where is the Prime Minister?” I say that the Prime Minister phoned me this morning, as did the leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and they told me that neither of them could be with us. They have given their reasons and whether they are right, wrong or indifferent, I do not make judgments. I can only say on the behalf of the two people concerned—both leaders—that one is at COP26 and the other is visiting hospitals in the north-east. That is where the Prime Minister is, so I do not need to hear “Where is he?” all the way through the debate. I have explained it and Members can make their own decisions.
Steve Barclay
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing and opening this debate. The Government have been listening carefully to the legitimate concerns raised by right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House, both during and since last Wednesday’s debate. These matters are vitally important to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House.
Before I set out the Government’s position, I would like, first, to express my regret and that of my ministerial colleagues over the mistake made last week. We recognise that there are concerns throughout the House about the standards system and the process by which possible breaches of the code of conduct are investigated.
Steve Barclay
I will in a moment.
Although sincerely held concerns clearly warrant further attention, the manner in which the Government approached last week’s debate conflated them with the response to an individual case. This House shares a collective interest in ensuring that the code of conduct reflects and fosters the highest standards of public life. The Government fully recognise that the Standards Committee is critical to that, including in respect of the important role performed by its Chairman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
Peter Kyle
The Minister has already offered one apology; will he give another to residents who live in constituencies with MPs whom his Front-Bench team and Whips threatened with the withdrawal of spending in their communities to punish them for thinking about not voting for the amendment last week? Will he apologise to those residents, who are innocent bystanders? It is not their fault that money can be taken out of their communities simply because of something their MP does on a matter of conscience.
Steve Barclay
I think the hon. Gentleman prepared that intervention before he heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), who said that, despite his voting against the Government, that was a misrepresentation of the conversations he had.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he is speaking in this debate rather than the Leader of the House, whose job it is to deal with the standards decision? Is this not adding insult to injury and showing that the Government really do not understand the issue?
Steve Barclay
With due respect, first, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is in the Chamber with me and, secondly, the right hon. and learned Lady well knows, not least as the Mother of the House, that the Cabinet Office overseas the Government response across Departments, including on a number of the issues covered by this issue.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s apology on the behalf of the Government and am sure that other Members will, too, but will he commit to the House that future disciplinary matters are matters for the House, not for the Government?
Steve Barclay
As has been set out by the Prime Minister and other colleagues in the Government, we are committed to working on a cross-party basis, including with the Chair of the Standards Committee, which is why I recognise the important role he performs and had just picked that out in my remarks. We thank him and, indeed, the Committee’s lay members for their service, as we do the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I reiterate that the Government have previously taken and will continue to take a cross-party approach to issues around standards in this House.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), I received no pressure whatsoever in terms of the way I voted last week.
My right hon. Friend has set out a gracious apology for what happened last week, but will he concede that one thing that was not right with the amendment the Government supported was that the members of the proposed Committee were hand-picked? If the standards of this House are to be reformed, would it not be better for such a Committee to be chaired by somebody who is elected by this whole House and for the Committee members also to be elected in the normal way for Select Committee members?
Steve Barclay
As I just set out, we are committed to working on a cross-party basis and we regret that many hon. Members did not feel that they had been sufficiently consulted on the proposals last week. I simply refer to the article in The Times by the Chair of the Standards Committee, who said:
“I’m sure we need to review both the code of conduct and the way it operates.”
He went on to say that
“there are good arguments in favour of a more formal additional process, whereby a member could appeal against the sanction either to an outside body or to a sub-committee of the standards committee”.
It was to that that the debate turned last week.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for giving way. Last week was UK Parliament Week, but it was not our finest hour. Does he agree that, at the very least, a message from this debate must be that we work in our constituents’ interests and in the public interest, and that the use of this House to work in the private interest to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds will not be tolerated?
Steve Barclay
I did not see that the Chair of the Standards Committee was seeking to grab my attention. We are committed to working on a cross-party basis and, with that in mind, of course I will give way to him.
Chris Bryant
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and acknowledge the apology that he has given on behalf of the Government. None the less, the whole of Parliament is still in a bit of a hole. We still have a motion that was carried last week, which leaves the question of Mr Paterson’s conduct hanging in the air. Earlier today, I gave a draft of a motion that, were the Government to table it tonight, could be considered by the House tomorrow. I think that it would have the support of the whole House in clearing up the fact that, as you referred to, Mr Speaker, we have not actually decided whether Mr Paterson’s behaviour was inappropriate. I think the whole House now accepts that it was. Secondly, we have created a Committee which, I think, even the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who is meant to be chairing it, does not want to be on any more.
Chris Bryant
It would be quite a good idea if we could clear this up tomorrow before we go into recess. I hope the Minister will say now that he will table that motion later on today.
Steve Barclay
I have been very clear that we will listen to the House and listen to the debate. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) just let me address the point made by the Chair of the Committee on Standards? Mr Paterson has now resigned, so it would not be possible for the House to endorse a sanction of suspension. I simply remind the House that he has suffered a serious personal tragedy. He has now resigned. In his statement, he said that he wants to continue his politics outside public life, and we should respect that. I hope, through your office, Mr Speaker, that there will be a way for us to engage on a cross-party basis, and that is what the Government will now redouble their efforts to engage on in the days ahead.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. There is not anybody in this House who does not have the utmost sympathy for Mr Paterson’s plight, but we do have to remember that he said he would do exactly the same if the opportunity presented itself. I am grateful that the Minister has rendered his apology, but does he not think it more appropriate that the Prime Minister attends and gives his apology rather than being in the north-east of England defending the conduct of his police and crime commissioners, one of whom has had to resign over inappropriate remarks and another of whom is under investigation?
Steve Barclay
With respect, Mr Speaker dealt with that at the opening of this debate and made it clear that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the SNP had discussed with him the debate today.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I abstained last week, so I thank the Government absolutely for the apology; it is completely the right thing to do. I want to put on record that, despite the fact that I abstained and I occasionally have the misfortune to vote against this Government, they continue to be nothing but supportive of both myself and the people of the Isle of Wight.
Steve Barclay
It is helpful to get that on the record.
The Government will now redouble our efforts to engage on a cross-party basis—and, indeed with you, Mr Speaker—in the days ahead, because we know what we can achieve when we do so. For example, in collaboration with others, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) worked hard when she was Leader of the House to establish the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. The scheme, to which the Government are wholly committed, is a model with many strengths. It includes an appeals process and an ability to adjudicate complex cases by virtue of its independent expert panel that is led by a High Court judge. Overall, the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme brings with it the expectation of rigour, impartiality and fairness for both the complainant and respondent.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It would be of enormous help to the House if we could understand the Government’s thinking on the issue to which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) alluded. The amended motion last week was passed; I voted against it, but it was passed. What is its status now? There seems to be a general consensus that the rules that we deploy with regards to standards should be reviewed. Are they to be reviewed under the current auspices, or under the auspices of the amended motion last week, with some shadow or secondary standards Committee looking at them? I think the House would find it helpful to know that we are going to work through the procedures in existence today and effectively expunge the amended motion from the record of last week.
Steve Barclay
It is clear that the Committee agreed by the House last week will not be able to develop proposals without cross-party participation, which is why we are continuing discussions and listening to views from across the House about the best way forward.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Let me attempt to help the Government. Is not the root cause of all this MPs trying to get paid even more than the £82,000 a year that they already get? I should not have to remind the Government that 95% of the public get paid less than MPs, nor that being an MP is a full-time job. Chasing corporate cash is, quite simply, short-changing the public. Will the Minister agree to help to clean up politics by backing my Bill to ban second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh jobs for Members of Parliament?
Steve Barclay
I am not sure whether all Members on the Opposition Benches would support that proposal, because there is value in MPs having a continued connection with the world outside of politics. Banning all second jobs would have captured some in this House who work, for example, as doctors or nurses, and have supported the NHS through the pandemic. It makes sense to build on the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire and the procedure that she developed when she was Leader of the House.
We share a commitment to a system that encourages and communicates the right values, attitudes and behaviour, and that makes it clear to Members that in performing their parliamentary duties, they are expected always to act in the public interest, with courtesy, professionalism and respect.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his apology, as far as it went. Last week, it was quite clear that the Government did not agree with the recommendations in the Standards Committee’s report, so I am not clear today: are the Government saying that they now agree that Owen Paterson behaved badly and incorrectly, or are they just apologising for the process that they imposed on us last week?
Steve Barclay
What I am saying is that Mr Paterson has left Parliament; he has resigned, and therefore suspending him from the House would no longer be applicable.
It is the work of every Member to safeguard Parliament’s reputation by upholding its principles and abiding by its rules. Moving ahead, our shared responsibility is to identify and seize opportunities to improve the system—to ensure that it is robust and fair, that is commands the confidence of Members and our constituents, and that it is aligned with the fundamental principles of natural justice. To that end, I welcome forthcoming contributions from colleagues. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that the Government will be listening carefully to the insights and views of Members from across the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I see that the Leader of the House is in the House, so it is a surprise to see the Minister for the Cabinet Office at the Dispatch Box today. He and I have faced each other across the Dispatch Box many times, and it is always a pleasure, but I am sure he, like me, wishes that his days as the nightwatchman were a thing of the past. Defending valiantly against hostile bowling on a sticky wicket of his Prime Minister’s creation—it is as if 2019 never ended.
That is because last week the Prime Minister damaged himself, and, despite the bravery of some Conservative Members, he damaged his party; but most importantly, he damaged our democracy. We are fortunate in this country: voters may not always agree with politicians—they often do not—but they do trust that disagreements are sincere, that their representatives are acting in the way that they think is in the public interest, and that we can resolve our disagreements in debate and at the ballot box. But when the Prime Minister gives the green light to corruption, he corrodes that trust; when he says that the rules to stop vested interests do not apply to his friends, he corrodes that trust; and when he deliberately undermines those charged with stopping corruption, he corrodes that trust—and that is exactly what the Prime Minister did last week.
Now, today, the Prime Minister does not even have the decency to come here either to defend what he did or to apologise for his action. Rather than repairing the damage that he has done, the Prime Minister is running scared. When required to lead, he has chosen to hide. His concern, as always, is self-preservation, not the national interest. It is time for everyone in this House, whatever their party, to draw a line and to send a message to the Prime Minister: enough is enough; we will not stand by while he trashes our democracy.
The case of the former Member for North Shropshire is simple. Everyone in this House has enormous sympathy for the tragic circumstances in which he lost his wife. His pain and his anguish are unimaginable. I wish to express my condolences to him, as I did at the time. The Committee on Standards rightly took those awful circumstances into account when considering his conduct. There was a serious and robust process. He had prior notice of the charges against him. He had legal advisers with him. He was invited to appeal against the commissioner’s findings in writing and in person, and he did so. The findings were clear—
“an egregious case of paid advocacy.”
He took money to lobby Ministers. That is against the rules, as it is in any functioning democracy, and it is corrupt. The Prime Minister should have told the former Member for North Shropshire that the right thing to do was to accept his punishment. His duty of care demanded that he do that. His duty to defend standards demanded that he do that. Basic decency demanded that he do that. Instead, the British people were let down, and the former Member for North Shropshire was let down, used as a pawn in an extraordinary attack on our commissioner for standards. We had threats to have money taken away from schools, hospitals and high streets unless Members voted to undermine the commissioner; Ministers sent out on the airwaves the morning after the vote to call for her to consider her position; and a sham committee proposed so that the Government could set the judge and jury for future cases. This was a deliberate course of action, but the Government were caught off guard by the public outcry and they have climbed down.
This was not a tactical mistake or an innocent misjudgment swiftly corrected by a U-turn—it was the Prime Minister’s way of doing business, a pattern of behaviour. When the Prime Minister’s adviser on the ministerial code found against the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister kept the Home Secretary and forced out the adviser. When the Electoral Commission investigated the Conservative party, the Prime Minister threatened to shut it down. When the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looked into the Prime Minister’s donations, the Prime Minister tried to take her down. Government corruption—there is no other word for it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the Leader of the Opposition give way?
Keir Starmer
I will in just a moment. It is said that the Prime Minister does not believe that the rules apply to him, but it is worse than that. He absolutely knows that the rules do apply to him; his strategy is to devalue the rules so that they do not matter to anyone any more and to go after those charged with enforcing the rules so that breaking the rules has less consequence. That way, politics becomes contaminated. Cynicism replaces confidence and trust. The taunt that politicians are all in it for themselves becomes accepted wisdom and, with that, the Prime Minister hopes to drag us all into the gutter with him. No way. It only serves to convince people that things cannot get better, that Government cannot improve people’s lives, and that progress is not possible because politics does not work.
In the right hands, used in the right way and for the right reasons, politics can work, because politics can be a noble cause to build a better country and a better world. For some, it is also a great personal sacrifice. The plaques in this House to Airey Neave and Jo Cox, and the empty seat where just weeks ago Sir David Amess sat, are testament to that price. If we are to honour their memory, we have to defeat the politics of cynicism propagated by this Prime Minister.
Mr Carmichael
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. One of the rules we have always observed in this place is that we do not whip House business. Just about everything that has happened since last week can be traced back to the determination of the Government to whip that. Does he share my concern that we have heard nothing from those on the Treasury Bench today to say that, if we on this side of the House participate in future exploration of the rules, there will be no repetition of whipping the votes either for or against when those measures return to this House? Indeed, without that undertaking, it would be very difficult for anyone on this side to accept that what we hear from those on the Treasury Bench is a good faith exercise.
Keir Starmer
I do share that concern. That would be a very easy thing for the Government to say today, and we have another two hours to run in this debate, so there is plenty of time to say it.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I could not agree more with the Leader of the Opposition that House business should never be whipped. Can he say whether he whipped his Members last week?
Keir Starmer
No. Our Members did not need whipping to know what the right decision was.
There are good ideas across the House about how we can improve standards to restore the trust that the Prime Minister has broken. There has been talk about cross-party working this afternoon. We are willing to work cross party and with the expertise of the Standards Committee to make that happen, but let me be loud and clear: we are not willing to work with the Government on their plans to weaken standards. There will be no cross-party agreement on weakening standards.
There are other ideas. The Labour party has long called for the MPs’ code of conduct to ban paid directorships and consultancy roles. The current code of conduct recognises that those roles are a potential conflict of interest but does not ban them. We voted to fix that in 2015, but we were blocked by the Government. A change along those lines has been recommended by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life, but there has been no action by the Government. It is time to put that right.
In addition, the revolving door between ministerial office and the private sector is still in full swing. Ministers can regulate a company one minute and work for it the next. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is too weak to provide the check and balance. It is time to shut the revolving door by banning those job swaps. This weekend, we were reminded of the appalling inevitable pattern: a large donation to the Conservative party, a stint as party treasurer, then an appointment to the House of Lords. The regulator has been ignored by the Prime Minister and broken in the process. There is no doubt that the House of Lords needs fundamental democratic reform, but we can act now to toughen the rules over appointments.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition is a former Director of Public Prosecutions. In 2003, under a Labour Government, the Committee on Standards set up the investigatory panel that contained rules of natural justice if it were to be implemented, which it was not in this case. As a former Director of Public Prosecutions, would he agree that the rules of natural justice could be avoided where an investigatory panel could have been set up but was not?
Keir Starmer
I understand the point, but let us remind ourselves of the process. The independent commissioner examines the complaint and comes to a finding. The charge is known and the individual can be legally represented and advised; I understand that the former Member for North Shropshire was legally advised throughout the process. The finding of the commissioner can then be appealed to the Committee, which can agree or disagree with the commissioner. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but on occasion, I think the Committee has disagreed, and therefore the appeal has been allowed and the individual has not faced a sanction.
Before that Committee, the individual can be legally advised, and I think the former Member for North Shropshire had two legal teams in the process. He was able to make a statement setting out his case and his defence. Every point that was made in his defence last Wednesday had been made by him to the Committee, as anybody who has read the report will know. It was rejected by the Committee. He was then questioned for a number of hours by Committee members. That is an appeal. That is due process. That is a much stronger position than millions of working people up and down the country face if they are disciplined in their workplace. We owe it to them to recommend it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will make some progress.
On all the areas where we can improve, we can work together to restore trust and strengthen standards, but instead we have been invited into a sham process that is designed to force out the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We are told that the main problem is that there was not a right of appeal, when there clearly is. That is why we have no interest in talking to the Government about how to weaken the current system.
The lack of common ground is fundamental. The Government want to weaken the system because the system keeps investigating and finding against them. The best solution is the simple one: they should change their behaviour. The Prime Minister should show some leadership. He should send a clear message that the rules apply to everyone, and that those enforcing the rules to prevent corruption will be supported by the Government, rather than forced out.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that the sham is continuing even today? Not only is the Prime Minister not here, despite the importance of this issue, but the Leader of the House—who is here, which is right, because it is a House issue—is completely silent and the Minister who is in the place where the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister should be cannot even answer the basic question, from either side of the House, about how we proceed now and whether the Government will accept the recommendation from the Chair of the Standards Committee.
Keir Starmer
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister should be here. Leadership is about taking responsibility, and if there is an apology to be made, that apology should come from the top, just as the direction came from the top last week to engage in this business in the first place.
Keir Starmer
I will just make some progress, and then I will give way.
The Prime Minister could start by making three simple commitments. First, he should work with us to ensure that the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) faces a recall petition. It is completely unacceptable for a Member to be found guilty of sexually harassing junior staff, yet avoid the judgment of the electorate on the basis of a loophole. The Government have hidden behind that loophole. It is now time to come out of hiding.
Secondly, the Prime Minister needs to agree that no Member found guilty of egregious breaches of the MPs’ code of conduct can be recommended for a peerage. The Government cannot reward bad behaviour and corruption with a job for life making the laws of the land.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister must commit to a full and transparent investigation into Randox and the Government contracts. What do we know? We know that Randox has been awarded Government contracts worth over £600 million, without competition or tender. We know that the former Member for North Shropshire lobbied for Randox. We also know that he sat in on a call between Randox and the Minister responsible for handling the health contracts. Against that backdrop, there is obviously a concern that the use of taxpayers’ money and the effectiveness of our pandemic response may have been influenced by paid advocacy from the former Member for North Shropshire. If the Prime Minister is interested in rooting out corruption, he needs to launch a full investigation. If the Prime Minister is interested in restoring trust, we need full transparency, with all the relevant correspondence published—no ifs and no buts.
Last week, the Prime Minister damaged himself, he damaged his party and he damaged our democracy. He led his party through the sewers, and the stench lingers. This week, he had the chance to clean up, apologise to the country and finally accept that the rules apply to him and his friends, but instead of stepping up, he has hidden away. Instead of clearing up his mess, he has left his side knee-deep in it. Instead of leading from the front, he has cowered away. He is not a serious leader, and the joke is not funny any more.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It would be tempting for each of us on all sides of the House to get into a mud bath and start throwing things at each other. We could go back in time—I have got a little list as well—but I do not think this is the right time. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on requesting this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for saying last week that he thought we ought to have it. I think there is cross-party support for what we are doing now. The only positive thing I can say to the Government on this is that if they think they are going to make a mistake in future, they should talk to me first and we can make it together.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on acknowledging on Thursday that things had been done wrong and need putting right. I am sorry to speak in advance of the Chair of the Committee on Standards because I would like to know what are the terms of his motion that could restore the consequences of the vote that we ought to have taken, and the way we ought to have taken it, on Wednesday. It is clear that the House should have backed the Committee, and we need to find a way of showing that. We ought to acknowledge that in future, those who resign from Parliament, whether they are a Government or an Opposition Member, should not leave without making a decision on a firm recommendation from the Committee on Standards, with Members of Parliament and with independent members. We must find a way of making that plain. My right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say that there is widespread support for reforming the system. I am not part of that support. I believe the system does work, can work, and should work. I would be interested to know what the Committee on Standards wants to recommend, and I will look at that with an open mind. Just because it was right for me 18 years ago when I sat on the Committee with Martin Bell, does not mean it cannot be improved.
As well as responding to what we ought to have done on Wednesday—that is the point of this debate—I would like to hear how the Government will respond to Lord Evans’s report that came out this week. It has four and a half pages of recommendations. This afternoon is not the time to go through those, but we ought to have a coherent approach that helps to ratchet up our observance and recognition of standards. Some have introduced the question of whether MPs should have outside jobs, besides being Members of Parliament. We have 100 or so who are Ministers, so they have an extra job as well as being a Member of Parliament. One example I often use is Peter Thurnham, who when made redundant set up his own business and became a successful engineering business owner. Should he have had to give that up? Should Michael Foot have given up his writing or his royalties when he was here? I think we should take great care about that.
I believe that any Member of Parliament who declares outside earnings should do so not just in writing, but face to face with the registrar. They should explain what they are doing, and could be reminded what the limits are of what they do. The one thing I would say to the face of my former colleague, Owen Paterson, is that if we take on a consultancy with a business, the one thing we know is that we cannot do anything that could be interpreted as lobbying or in the interests of that business.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I declare a small earning as a musician outside this House—[Interruption.] It is very small. Should an additional point about public appointments perhaps be part of this debate—we could add it to the excellent list put forward by the Leader of the Opposition? Is there real concern that the Government’s attitude towards public appointments is straying away from the rules as overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments? In particular, with the forthcoming appointment for the chair of Ofcom, the whole process is being run, rerun, truncated and, frankly, there are suspicions that it is being tricked up to favour a particular candidate.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I am biased in favour of Paul Dacre because he and I were working to get the killers of Stephen Lawrence charged and convicted. If I was asked whether he is the right person to chair Ofcom I would say no, but I have not been asked.
Many will want to speak in this debate, Mr Speaker, so I will try not to repeat myself. I believe that the present system can work if we make it work. Those of us who find that others have taken a different view to the propriety of what we have done ought to trust their judgment more than we trust our own, and not just go on saying, “I thought I was right at the time.” We can each do things that are wrong. If we do we should say so, say sorry, and try to let the House move on. That way we can ratchet up the standards of our achievements, as well as of our behaviour.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
As always, it is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the Father of the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate. She introduced it in a means and a manner significantly different from what we had last week, and I welcome her comments.
What a few days this has been. What a week we have had to endure as politicians who serve in this House. Our politics has been taken to a very dark place indeed, with the sense that rules have been torn up and the feeling that we have returned to the worst days of Tory sleaze—sleaze that we thought had been buried and was gone, never to return. There is a sense of outrage among the public that I have never seen in the 20 years that I have been in this place. That is palpable and tangible in our bulging email boxes, with angry constituents demanding to know what an earth is going on, and demanding that we put it right and sort this mess out.
One has to ask, what on earth were the Government thinking of? What were they trying to achieve? What did they want to do? What did they think was going to happen, introducing that motion the way they did? I almost feel sorry for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If there was a short straw for turning up to try to defend this Government’s action, he most certainly picked it today. It should be his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House leading this debate. It was him that brought that grubby motion to the House last Wednesday, it was him that defended it to the hilt, and it was him that took up nearly half the time that we were allowed to have that debate. He should be standing at the Dispatch Box today defending the Government’s action and telling us what he is going to do. He always likes to remind me of battles past; today, he is like the brave Sir Robin from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, bravely running away from doing his duty at the Dispatch Box.
We know that this was a plot hatched between the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip, designed, approved and orchestrated through No. 10, with the weight of the whipping operation that we saw last Wednesday. This goes all the way to the very top. What the two of them did was open the Tory Pandora’s box marked “sleaze”—and what a grubby, rotten receptacle it has turned out to be. They are a Government prepared to reinvent the rules if they do not like them—a Government so arrogant and entitled that they believe they can get away with whatever they want.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
My hon. Friend mentions the Pandora’s box of sleaze. He will be familiar with the corruption allegations that appeared in The Sunday Times yesterday following an investigation by openDemocracy. Does he not believe, as I do, that that is a matter not just for this House and for Parliament but for the police?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I want to get round to that particular case. I did note that yesterday. I was here for cash for honours mark 1; this is cash for honours mark 2.0, and I will refer to that specifically.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
As the hon. Member is on the topic, does he not agree that another aspect that has created great anger and concern in our communities is the funding of political parties? Let us look particularly at the Russians and how they are funding the Conservative party: Lubov Chernukhin has given £2.1 million; Alexander Temerko—a part-owner of a company that is trying to build an underwater cable—has given £1.3 million; and Viktor Fedotov, who also owns that company, has given money to the Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), the Minister for corporate social responsibility, the Secretary of State for International Trade and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Is this right?
Pete Wishart
That was a long intervention but a necessary one. The right hon. Lady is spot on. The way that donations have been going into the Tory party needs to be properly investigated, and I am going to suggest a way that that should be done.
We are on day six of this. For six days, it has dominated political discourse in our media, in the public and in our communities and our constituencies. Nobody—no Minister who has presided over something that goes on day after day—usually survives that. It shows no sign of abating or going away.
I do not know whether the public will accept the apology made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; I suspect not. I do not think that was what the public wanted to hear. I do not think they were saying, “Yes, we want to hear this Government standing there saying, ‘Sorry, we’ve got this totally wrong.’” I think the public want to hear this Government being just that little bit more contrite and just that little bit more accommodating with the feeling and the sentiment out there in our constituencies. Our constituents are angry. Our constituents are fed up. I think the right hon. Gentleman has to do a little bit better than that.
Wera Hobhouse
We have established that the corrupt and bad behaviour of some MPs damages all of us, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is needed now is the commitment of every single Member to strengthen, rather than weaken, the standards process and the rules around it?
Pete Wishart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right and spot on. That is exactly what is required. When I hear Conservative Members talking about reforming some of the rules and regulations to replace what we have in place, I am not hearing an attempt to strengthen them to make them better and more accountable. What I am hearing from them is, “Let’s weaken them. Let’s make sure that people can get off and get away with things. If we don’t like them, let’s rewrite them and do them all again.” That is what we are hearing from them.
I feel sorry for Conservative Back Benchers. The way they have been treated by the Government Front Bench almost approaches cruelty. They have been marched all the way to the top of the hill by the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset—the grand old Duke of York—and marched all the way down again. They have not just been marched all the way down, however. They have been met with a barrage, a volley of bad constituents’ emails and the consternation of the people they represent. I feel sorry for the Conservative hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen here today for having to take that. I hope they know who is to blame for what they have to endure.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Of course, this is not the first time we have seen this Prime Minister do things that have shocked our constituents. The last time I had a mailbag similar to this weekend’s was for the illegal Prorogation of Parliament a couple of years’ ago, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) took to the Supreme Court and exposed. The level of outrage over that incident is similar to the level of outrage over this issue. The Government have learned nothing.
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. There are spikes of interest from our constituents about the business of this place and my hon. Friend is right to mention that one. That was a busy, busy week for Members of Parliament. The other one, of course, was Barnard Castle. I do not think we have quite reached the heights of Barnard Castle yet in terms of the response from the public, but we are getting very close. As this matter goes on and we find it unresolved, we will start to get into that territory.
I listened very carefully to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire. I sense he is not listening very carefully to me, but I listened very carefully to him and I still do not know the Government’s position. Maybe he could help us. I do not know if there is summing up today, but we need to hear from the Government about what they are going to do now. What I think I heard was that they are sorry for this mess. Fair enough, they are sorry for this mess. That’s great, we will accept their apology. But now tell us what you are going to do.
The motion setting up the kangaroo court committee of corruption is still in place. That is the policy of this House. We need to hear the Government say clearly that they are removing it, and are finding some means and method to ensure it is no longer a part of the business of the House. We need to hear them say that they are prepared to accept independent investigation and that they will support the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Committee on Standards, and his Committee in doing its work. We need to hear them say that. We also need to hear them say that they are going back to that moment just before the Division Bell rang last Wednesday and back to the position we were in before any of this nonsense started.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I have a concern about my hon. Friend’s proposition. Last week, regardless of whether one agreed with the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), the Government utilised it as a motion of confidence in themselves. I therefore have no confidence, and I am sure my hon. Friend has no confidence, that any of this is going to change.
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. That is why we need clarity and we have to hear it today. The suggestion, I think from the Chair of the Committee, was that we need a motion to be tabled for tomorrow so that we can deal effectively with the former Member for North Shropshire. We have to have that before the House, so we are able to ensure our judgment is passed on what we believe are the consequences of his actions.
Another issue is the disgraceful attacks on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. They were co-ordinated—there is absolutely no way we can get around that. They came from the top. They were directed. You do not attack the credibility of the Standards Commissioner by saying disrespectful things about her if you do not have the permission to do that and say that. What they had in mind was a softening-up exercise, because they know that the Prime Minister is going to be investigated again. They know that a number of issues still have to be resolved about his personal behaviour and conduct. I think the undermining and neutering of the Standards Committee was a deliberate process and it has to stop—it has to end.
For the Prime Minister, it is almost like a revolving door of investigation, whether it is for breaking the ministerial code, acting unlawfully or soliciting dodgy donations for luxury holidays and home refurbishments. One thing we can commit to today is saying that this House has full faith and trust in our Standards Commissioner and that we will allow her to do her job. The undermining and disgraceful attacks must now end.
But the true shocker of the past couple of days is cash for honours 2.0. I really did not think, following Tony Blair being questioned under caution by the Metropolitan police 15 years ago, that we would be back to this place so quickly. It was only a couple of Parliaments ago that Tony Blair had to face questions about donations and the House of Lords. The only difference that I have seen in the course of the past couple of decades is that the price to get into the House of Lords has gone up from £1 million under new Labour to £3 million under the Conservatives. There is Tory inflation for you.
It now seems that nearly all the past treasurers of the Conservative party of later years are in that place, wearing their ermine and taking part in the legislative decisions of this country. The only characteristic they seem to have—the only defining feature that seems to get them a place in that House—is that they are able to give several million pounds to the Government. The Environment Secretary said yesterday that they were in the Lords for their philanthropy. I think the public will probably assess that the accounts of the Conservative party are just about the worst and least deserving good cause that there is in this land.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Does he think that it is a coincidence that the 22 largest donors to the Conservative party now hold peerages and sit in the House of Lords?
Pete Wishart
I do not, I have to say, because I think that place is just so corrupted. It is a receptacle in this place for donors to either of the big parties, and I have to include the Liberals in that, too, because some of their activities around the House of Lords are just as bad as those of the two main parties.
What I have done today is ask the Metropolitan police to investigate these appointments under the provisions of section 1(2) of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. That Act states:
“If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour”.
I have now asked the Metropolitan police to investigate the activities of the Conservative party and the awarding of places in the House of Lords.
I will say ever so gently to my friends in the Labour party: stop putting people in that place. Stop giving it legitimacy and credibility. We do not need a Gordon Brown commission. We just need you guys as the Opposition party to say that you will abolish it. It is a corrupt circus, and it is the high point of deference in the class system. To think that a Labour party would defend that place and put people in it is beyond ridiculous. Grow up, get a sense of this and help us get rid of that appalling circus down the corridor.
Last week, the Tories royally cocked up and have had to beat an embarrassing, hasty retreat. Their next move might now define the rest of their parliamentary term. Accept this. They have to do more than apologise. They have to show contrition. They have to show that they really mean this. That is the task and job for this Conservative Government. They have to take us back to the point before the Division bell rang last Wednesday. We do not want to “reform” the standards process; we want it to continue its work, but nothing will happen until we get back to that point. They must stop rewarding donors with places in the House of Lords. It is now up to them to show the contrition that the public want, show that they are really sorry, and get us back to where we were.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the amusements of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who I am sure would be delighted to have the title of Lord of Perthshire. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing the debate; I work with her on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and have a great deal of respect for her.
I am one of the longest-serving Members of Parliament on the Committee on Standards. Probably very few hon. Members know that, because I very rarely raise any issue in this Chamber about standards matters, but I frequently raise my concerns with the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who will speak very shortly. He will no doubt inform the House that I have consistently and regularly made known, at every opportunity and every Committee meeting, my deep concerns about the process by which the Committee operates. As the only lawyer member of the Committee until very recently, I would like to share with the House where the problems lie.
There are two principal issues at fault, both caused by the House of Commons and its Standing Orders. First, the principal duty of the Committee on Standards, as outlined in Standing Order No. 149, is
“to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner”.
That is my primary duty as a member of the Committee, but a few pages along, Standing Order No. 150 states that one of the
“principal duties of the Commissioner shall be…to advise the Committee”.
We are in the odd position where the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, acting with the utmost integrity, presents her findings to the Committee; we listen to her findings; we then invite Members to give their submissions; and at the end, during our deliberations, we have the commissioner back in without the MP in the room who has been complained of.
The commissioner is put in that unenviable conflicting role because of us, and she attends the Committee as the principal adviser to it. There am I, sitting in the Committee, having heard her submissions and then heard the other side—the MP’s submissions—only to have the commissioner back in the room ready and willing to answer, wearing that second hat that we have given her. That puts the commissioner in an unfair position, and it is where I have long argued that there is the potential for a breach of natural justice.
Let me go further. The Leader of the Opposition said that many of our constituents would be envious if they had the process that we have for adjudicating complaints, but let me say this very clearly: our Committee is a Committee of 14 people. There are seven excellent laypeople, who are of the utmost integrity, and seven MPs, who I would also like to say are of the utmost integrity, but none of us, myself included, has any judicial experience—none. I cannot think of any private or public body that adjudicates on, regulates or disciplines its members that has a committee of 14 people.
Alberto Costa
Not just now.
In the real world, where I used to advise as a lawyer, it is common for the HR process to have a panel of three. It is so common that only last year, this House approved setting up the independent expert panel by which all claims of bullying or sexual harassment against any of us are adjudicated. They are adjudicated not by me and my 13 colleagues on the Committee on Standards, but by former High Court judges and others with the highest level of legal experience, in—guess what?—a panel of three, not a panel of 14.
Sir Stephen Irwin, who set up the Independent Expert Panel on our behalf, has created, as one would expect a judge to create, a very simple set of appeal rules. For Members who come before that sub-panel and feel that they have not been treated in a manner that they think is in accordance with natural justice, and have a ground, Sir Stephen has set up a system of appeal to a further body of three, a body that he chairs. Why is it good enough for claims of bullying or sexual harassment against MPs, but not for claims of paid consultancies against MPs? It is inconsistent that we have this split system of adjudicating on MPs.
Kevin Brennan
Is it that novel a concept to be judged by a jury of one’s peers—or by seven lay people, for that matter?
Alberto Costa
I will tell the House what is most certainly not novel. Let us imagine that in any normal court of law, whether civil or criminal, there are two parties, a claimant and a respondent, and at the end of the trial the judge and the jury invite one of those parties into the room to deliberate with them. That is the system that we currently have, and it caused by us—by our allowing this conflicting, unenviable role of the commissioner, in which she is the investigator and presenter of the case to the Committee, and then comes in wearing a second, adviser’s hat. That is unfair on her, and we need to change the system.
Sir William Cash
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case, and wrote an excellent article in The Times today. Could he let me know whether, at any stage in this inquiry, he expressed to the Chairman of the Committee on Standards his view that the procedure being followed in the Committee failed the test of natural justice, and what, if he did, was the Chairman’s response?
Alberto Costa
Yes. I consistently argue across the Chamber to the hon. Member for Rhondda that our current system must be improved. I will go further, and repeat a phrase that I used during one of the Committee’s meetings earlier this year. I said that the way in which we were dealing with this—the process, not the integrity of any of the parties involved—was, in my opinion, repugnant to the principles of natural justice. I later received a call from the hon. Gentleman, explaining to me that members of the Committee were uncomfortable with the comments that I had made. Let me say to the House again that it is imperative that in the interests of all our constituents—
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a member of any Select Committee to make a lengthy public statement about proceedings of that Committee which have been conducted entirely in private? I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I have listened to the hon. Member because I want to call the Chair of the Committee next, and I am sure that he will also inform the House of his views on what has gone on.
Alberto Costa
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The reason I am saying this—and I understand why the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) has made that comment—is that I have tried my very best, for almost two years, to consistently raise problems not with any individual case but with the process that we have in this system, and it is the process that needs to change.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alberto Costa
I want to move on, as other Members want to speak.
I believe that there is an important role for the Committee on Standards, in particular with its lay people. I think that it ought to be a Committee that drafts and amends the code of conduct and the associated rules. I do not think that the Committee on Standards is the appropriate body for me or my 13 colleagues to adjudicate on Members against whom a complaint has been brought. But I would go further: I think that the commissioner needs to be empowered and that the rules need to be clarified. The commissioner should have the same role as she does with the independent expert panel, which is that she investigates and presents her case to the panel, but importantly, she does not advise the judges on that panel. Also, we need to amalgamate the IEP and bring in more former High Court judges to help us in this process, to ensure that Members of the highest governing body of the United Kingdom—this House of Commons—are disciplined by people who have the requisite judicial experience when it comes to regulatory and disciplinary matters.
Mr Carmichael
I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the independent complaints and grievance procedures. Does he now think, with the benefit of hindsight, that he was wrong to vote against them?
Alberto Costa
I want this process to move forward. I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman; we have worked together on a cross-party basis on a number of things. I am trying to give the House the benefit of my experience. I was the only lawyer on that Committee until recently. If Members do not want a system that is adjudicated upon by the best people in our land, they are not just doing themselves ill service; they are doing their constituents ill service as well.
I want to wrap up, because I know that many Members want to speak. I say once again that the lay people on the Committee on Standards and the commissioner are people of the utmost integrity, but being of the utmost integrity does not mean that they are suitable for adjudicating on disciplinary matters affecting Members of the House of Commons. Mr Speaker, I invite you to assist this House in coming together and moving towards the process that we rightly adopted for the IEP, in amalgamating the IEP and in having a panel of very senior people with judicial experience, so that we never again have the situation that we had last week, when a Member felt that he did not receive the proper system that he felt entitled to receive. I stand by the comments I made in the report—my name was on that report—and I look forward to coming back to the House with a draft of an amended code of conduct and a new process. I also look forward to hearing the Chairman of the Standards Committee finally confirming to this House that, at almost every Committee meeting, he has listened to my concerns about process.
Mr Speaker
I now call the Chair of the Standards Committee, Chris Bryant.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this debate. Secondly, I want to thank all the members of the Standards Committee. As the House can tell, we do not always agree on everything in the Committee. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) is absolutely right to say that he has often raised process issues. I think he would also confirm that, quite often, the legal advice that is provided to the Committee by the House has disagreed with him very strongly. There are legitimate issues that we have to address, and that is why we are engaged in a code of conduct review. I take his points very seriously, and I have spoken to him many times on the phone, as he has said. He sounded a bit angrier with me in the debate just now than I think he really means. I am grateful to everyone on the Committee.
Let me start with a very simple point. I do not think we do ourselves any favours if we say that voters do not care about standards in public life. I do not know whether they care or not; I suspect that they do, but I do not know for certain and the opinion polls vary on this. We have always prided ourselves as a country on not being corrupt, unlike some other countries in the world, but that is not really the point. The question is not whether Mrs Jones at No. 32 cares about standards in Parliament; it is about whether we care about standards in public life and in Parliament. Every time we say that this does not really matter or that voters do not care about it, we give another excuse for bad behaviour.
I might also say that those of us who are MPs at any one time only hold our place here on trust. Sorry, this is going to sound a bit pious, but I think it is true none the less: we have a duty, not just to our constituents, but to the nation, and not just to this generation of voters, but to future generations of voters, to protect the reputation of Parliament rather than undermine it. Parliamentary democracy based on universal suffrage has not been around all that long; it has not even managed 100 years yet. It is a precious thing, and we need to defend it.
My second point is that independence is central to any standards system for the House. Anyone involved in a disciplinary process, either as a defendant or a complainant—we must remember that quite often there are complainants, many of whom are victims—needs to be completely assured that those involved in adjudicating the matter will always approach the decision with a fair and open mind, without fear or favour. That is what all 14 members of the Standards Committee seek to do.
That is why it is a breach of the code for any Member of the House to seek to lobby a member of the Standards Committee. We must be allowed to do our work without any interference. Sadly, as I have told you before, Mr Speaker, over the past 12 months I have been lobbied repeatedly by a significant number of hon. Members about their own or other Members’ cases. I have always sought to be polite, but extremely robust in response. I apologise if I have seemed rude, but this is an important part of maintaining the independence of the House and of the system.
The same applies to Whips. Some of my best friends are Whips—to get the confession in early—but I gently urge Whips to exercise a self-denying ordinance when it comes to Standards Committee reports, as has always been the case in every single instance in the past. Of course there are matters on which the Government have an understandable interest—matters of policy and finance—but it is inappropriate for anyone to whip House disciplinary matters. By definition, that turns our decision into a political one rather than a quasi-judicial one. Government should serve the House in standards matters, not the other way around.
The independence of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is also vital. She must be able to get on with her work without being repeatedly attacked, briefed against, lied about, shouted at, bullied, threatened or generally undermined. I think I am quoting a former Government Chief Whip when I say that the recent campaign against her has been very unedifying. It has been worse than that—it has been cowardly and unfair.
I honestly think the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should have apologised not just for last week, but to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. That would be the right, gentlemanly thing to do. May I, on behalf of, I think, the whole House, apologise to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for what she has been put through in recent days?
I want to address the question of due process and ensuring a fair hearing. It is an important distinction that we on the Standards Committee are not a court of law. Indeed, there would be dangers if we were to become a court of law that we would all have to be legally represented. That might lead to a process that benefited the wealthy, who could afford lawyers, over those who could not. We are a Select Committee of the House, and sometimes we deal with matters that are really rather minor and that we would not want to bother a judge with, such as the use of parliamentary stationery.
I want to make it absolutely clear, however, as Speaker’s Counsel did repeatedly as we went through both this investigation and every other investigation since I have been Chair of the Committee, that we have bent over backwards to ensure that any hon. Member gets a fair hearing. Due notice of the charges has always been ensured, as has a full opportunity to put one’s case in writing and/or in person, a chance to make arguments in defence or in mitigation and the right to appeal the commissioner’s findings to the Committee. There is a right of appeal—it is an appeal to the Committee. Every lawyer I have seen comment on our process who has read the report has said that it was an entirely fair one, and of course we have taken legal advice throughout. Let me just quote from one—
Chris Bryant
I will give way, but before I do, let me say that the hon. Gentleman made a speech last week, and he has repeated this point today, about the additional measures available to us in the Standing Orders, but he should understand that those panels are there only where there are disputed facts. In this case, there were no disputed facts at all. So the point that I suspect he is about to make is completely otiose.
Sir William Cash
First, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to appendix 2, set out before the Committee by Mr Paterson. Secondly, let me make the simple point that when the Committee in 2003, which was composed of only three Conservatives, six Labour and two Liberal Democrats, decided on the investigatory panel, this was what was said:
“The proposal for an Investigatory Panel—
which is for serious, contested cases, as this one clearly is—
“is designed to deal with cases (expected to arise only infrequently) which…meet both the following criteria:
proof of the complaint would be likely to lead to the imposition of a serious penalty on the Member; and
there appeared to be significant contested issues of fact which would not properly be decided unless the Member was given the opportunity to call witnesses and/or to cross-examine witnesses supporting the complaint.”
The hon. Gentleman obviously does not agree with me on that, but the facts speak for themselves; there are seriously contested facts and they are disputed.
Chris Bryant
I make two points. The first is that the hon. Gentleman basically just agreed with me wholeheartedly, because the whole point of these panels is that they are there only where there are disputed facts and there were no disputed facts in this case. The second point, where I would wholeheartedly agree with him, is that the facts speak for themselves—they certainly did in this case. Mr Paterson at no stage denied that he had engaged in the various different meetings with Government Ministers and officials. So I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s argument falls on both counts.
Let me just read the words of Thomas de la Mare, a highly respected lawyer at Blackstone Chambers, who reviewed this matter. He did not do so for the Committee; he has published this himself. He says:
“If the decision-maker has had the 17 witness statements, read them and rightly found them to be irrelevant there is no conceivable breach of natural justice in not calling them in…The idea that this pretty exhaustively conducted 2 stage case of inquiry by the commissioner and then full review by the Committee evinces a broken system or justifies the egregious step of changing the rules mid game is absurd.. All in all the Cmtee decision looks pretty bomb proof: balanced, fair once you understand how relevance of material works, carefully reasoned (and probably carefully lawyered) and the very appeal/review of the Commissioner OP”—
Owen Paterson—
“wanted. Given this what has happened next is tawdry”.
So what next? In the end, the Standards Committee exists only to serve the House and to try to protect the reputation of the House. First, we are already reviewing the code of conduct. There are perfectly legitimate arguments to be made about how we should change various different elements. MPs are now regulated by so many different bodies that it is sometimes difficult for right hon. and hon. Members to understand exactly what the rules are that affect them. I hate the idea that a right hon. or hon. Member will be tripped up by a rule that they simply did not understand through some inadvertent action. So I do want to make sure that we have greater clarity in the way that the whole of our code of conduct and guide to the rules is available to Members.
Chris Bryant
I think we gave Owen Paterson a fair hearing; in all honesty, it is very difficult to argue that we did not. I have wracked my brain as to measures that we might evince, but I am only the Chair of the Committee and want to allow the Committee to come to a view on reforms that we might suggest, although I have suggested in the newspapers over the past few days a few things that I personally would like to see.
The important point is that we are reviewing the code of conduct, as we are required to do in every Parliament. We did not manage to do it in the 2015 or 2017 Parliaments because we kept on having general elections, so it would be great if we did not have a general election for a while so that we could finish our work on the code. It is worth saying that we published the terms of reference for our code of conduct review on 22 September 2020 and have been engaged in the review since then. We took evidence from the Leader of the House earlier this year.
There is an argument for improvements to some of the process. As the hon. Member for South Leicestershire knows, I personally favour clarifying what we do about appeals. There is currently an appeal, and a Member can appeal to the Committee on any basis whatsoever, whereas if we were to have a de jure appeal instead of a de facto appeal process, we would need a set of criteria against which a Member could appeal, which might actually restrict Members’ rights of appeal rather than enhance them. That is a difficulty that we have to deal with.
There is an issue in respect of whether a Member should be able to appeal against the sanction rather than the findings, and I am quite happy to listen to what the Committee eventually decides on that, as I am sure the House will want to do as well.
Chris Bryant
I think the hon. Member came into the Chamber only recently, but if he has been present, I am happy to listen to him.
Craig Mackinlay
I have just been outside the Bar of the House.
The hon. Member is making a point about sanctions; I wonder whether this might be helpful. I am interested to hear that there is progress on a new code of conduct. If we put the specific case aside, does he appreciate that there is a world of difference between a sanction of nine days and a sanction of 11 days, for obvious reasons? Therein might be the reason for an appeal, because of the changes and outcomes that could flow from it that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) so ably put forward.
Chris Bryant
I am not inimical to that view—there is a perfectly decent argument that perhaps there should be an appeal against sanctions—but in the Committee we try to stand by precedence, because otherwise we would be unfair. We list all the mitigating and aggravating factors in each of our reports and, at the end, come to a conclusion based on the precedents we have met. My suspicion is that any appeal body would do exactly the same, so I am not sure that it would necessarily change things, but there is an argument for bringing in such a thing. I note that the hon. Member referred to leaving this case aside, which is the most important thing for me: in the words of the Leader of the House, we cannot conflate one case with change of the system. In the end, that is the precise, polar opposite of justice: that is injustice and has brought the House into disrepute.
I have only a couple more points to make—
Mr Baron
I am grateful to the hon. Member, who is speaking with great eloquence, as usual, on this subject. I suggest to him that reform is a natural, evolving process—of course it is; no system is perfect—but, by and large, the system works quite well, so whatever the hon. Member does, will he make sure that it is transparent, as far as he is able to, and that it progresses as speedily as possible? What I take away from this debate and from last week’s vote is that the right thing to do is to let the Committee produce its recommendations and for the House to consider them in full debate.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for that point. It is true that the right way for the House to progress, on a cross-party basis and with the advice of independent members of the public, is for us to complete our job of work, which we will have done by Christmas, I am sure, and perhaps even by the end of this month—I do not want to prejudge what the Committee will decide—and to publish that. There will then be an opportunity for the whole House to consider the matter. We would probably want then to produce a further report, which would be our final report on the draft code and its operation.
Incidentally, the current system has not been in place for very long. The mixture of the independent expert panel for ICGS cases and the Standards Committee has been in place, arguably, only since 7 January 2019 when the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) introduced really important changes to the House, which were much valued by staff and Members across the House and by the public. In fact, the independent expert panel started its work only in January of this year, There is this idea that we should suddenly tear it all up and start all over again, but if I had only one thing to say to the House, it would be: let us just slow down. Let us consider this properly in the round, taking all the different issues together.
None the less, we do still need to tidy up what happened last week. I can see a lot of Conservative Members agreeing with that. I gently say to the ministerial team here that, if we want it, there is an opportunity for us tomorrow. We have two outstanding issues: one is the creation of the Committee, which the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) does not want to serve on, even though he is meant to be the Chair. I certainly hope that he is better from his covid.
Chris Bryant
Secondly, of course, we all accept that Mr Paterson has left the House; he is no longer a Member. We cannot impose a sanction on him, as you said yourself, Mr Speaker, but, unfortunately, the House took a view on the report last week, which was basically to suspend it in mid-air. The motion, I suggest, would be a very simple one that we could consider tomorrow. It will be in all of our interests—the whole of the House —to get this sorted tomorrow. It would say that notwithstanding the practice of this House relating to questions already decided in the same Session, this House, first, rescinds the resolution and order of 3 November 2021 relating to the third report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797) and the appointment of a new Select Committee; secondly, approves the third report of the Committee on Standards; and, thirdly, notes that Mr Owen Paterson has been disqualified as a Member of this House. I think that would be in the best interests of the whole of the House, and then we could move forward.
One final point: we really struggled to create the ICGS and the independent expert panel. The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire did a magnificent piece of work in trying to get cross-party support for all of that. We promised that the standards system would be independent, because that was the guarantor for the staff who felt that they had been bullied or sexually harassed. We cannot do anything that undermines that. Independence, fairness and justice should be the bywords not just of the Standards Committee, but of the whole of the House.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Committee on Standards. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this debate.
I hope that, as a member of the Committee, I can contribute to this discussion with the benefit of knowing both the details of the specific case that we discussed last week and the wider issues about the rules that are enforced for MPs.
This debate today is not another case of parliamentarians arguing among themselves. This is about the integrity of this House, which is one reason why the Standards Committee has such an important role to play in ensuring that the rules are clear, that the processes are fair and that decisions are made in a way that make sense to those in this House and to those who elect us to serve here.
It is important that we recognise that the overwhelming majority of Members who serve in this House—in all parts of this House—are hard-working and will do their best to uphold the highest of standards. Indeed, Members of all parties have fallen foul of the rules, so it is important that all parties contribute to these debates.
I will come on to discuss how some of the current processes could be improved, but before that, following on from some of the comments made by the Chair of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), I would like to address a couple of matters raised last week when we debated the amendment, when I could not speak, and in some of the subsequent commentary that I have seen in the newspapers. I feel that there is some misunderstanding around the work of the Committee and how it reached the decisions that it did.
Having spent many years sitting in court as a magistrate, and in Crown courts listening to appeals, I can say that it is rare for anyone to agree with every decision that is made by a member of the judiciary. 1 try to apply the same approach to my role on the Standards Committee as I do as a judicial office holder—making decisions without fear or favour, affection or ill will, and treating everyone the same regardless of their position or party.
First, I read that the decision reached in relation to Mr Paterson lacked legal supervision. I can tell hon. and right hon. Members that, all through the hearings and when Committee members were discussing the specific case, Speaker’s Counsel was present and gave legal advice on a number of matters, including the application of human rights legislation. Some Members have commented that witnesses were not called to provide testimony. As Members will know, 17 witness statements were provided by Mr Paterson. I read them all, as I believe every member of the Committee did. Indeed, the Committee discussed numerous aspects included within them. However, I do not believe that the Committee would have gained any additional insight from hearing directly from those witnesses, and I do not believe that the Committee would have reached a different decision.
Sir William Cash
I am sure that my hon. Friend knows of the six criteria of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which are the minimum requirements for the maintenance of natural justice in relation to the examination of witnesses. Without that and without the investigatory panel, does he not agree that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know what the outcome would be until such a panel is heard with a legal assessor, and with the legal assessor himself deciding whether the rules of natural justice had been complied with?
Andy Carter
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will go on to discuss more about natural justice in a moment, so if I may, I will continue.
In no previous case that I have seen on this Committee have witnesses been called to give verbal evidence. The Committee was right to maintain a consistent approach in its process. Had we not, very quickly people would have been asking, “Why are you changing the rules?” There is also a route for questioning individuals such as witnesses in writing should the Committee feel that that is necessary, and we have done so recently.
Thirdly, I have heard some say that the commissioner is prosecutor, judge and jury, but I am afraid that that is not quite the case. The Standards Committee makes the final determination on all of the evidence and only the Committee decides on the sanction—the commissioner makes no decision on the sanction. Should the Committee feel that, on balance, the commissioner has not satisfactorily made the case that a Member has breached the code, as was recently the case with my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the Committee can reject the commissioner’s findings.
In early 2020, the House charged the Standards Committee with conducting a review of the code of conduct and how the code should be upheld through sanctions. Without going into the detail of the Committee’s findings—because they are not yet ready to be published—I can tell the House that we have held numerous evidence sessions, including with the Leader of the House and with the Chief Whips from both the Government and the Opposition. We have also received evidence from similar bodies who regulate professions, and from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and senior members of the judiciary. All of that is feeding into our report, which will be made public later this year.
I would, though, like to share one or two of my personal views on a number of issues that have been raised. Having served on the Committee for some time now, I have concerns that the current set of rules and codes is complicated, although, I am afraid, not the system related to paid advocacy—that is very straightforward. As the Chair of the Standards Committee has just mentioned, a number of different bodies are involved in giving advice and investigating breaches. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority makes decisions on spending and can take action if claims are made incorrectly. The independent expert panel deals with bullying and harassment. Advice on using the portcullis and letterheads comes from the House authorities. The registrar gives advice on what can and should be recorded. The Standards Committee deals with some sanctions, but not others. It is confusing. I am a Member of the Standards Committee and I get confused. I touched earlier on the role of the commissioner as investigator and adviser. I do think that the system would benefit from some changes to separate those roles, with the commissioner investigating and legal counsel advising, so that we are absolutely certain that we are following the right legal roles.
I worry that good behaviour and time served in this House may work against someone if they are found to have breached the rules. We need to look carefully at that. I also worry that Members are prevented from speaking to anyone about cases raised against them. Indeed, they are specifically warned not to discuss their cases. Now, there is value in not having a war in the press, but it does not stop reporting. Being able to discuss cases would help to ensure that MPs are given the right support that they may need, particularly when dealing with vexatious claims.
Finally, I worry that Members do not recognise the value that lay members bring to the current Standards Committee. Those seven individuals provide a vital check on the Committee. The mix of both elected members and lay members with no political involvement ensures very robust challenge. The current mix of members brings genuine expertise, and I welcome their involvement and input.
I do believe that there is a need to look at the appeals process in order to check that process is being followed and that a Member has had a fair hearing, and that could be achieved within the current standards system, with some small changes to Standing Orders.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting contribution. His point about the involvement of the laity seems to me, as a former justice of the peace, to be very important. When it comes to the workings of the justices, the fact that the general public see an ordinary person like them involved gives them more faith in the judicial process. However, if we go down the wrong road—where the Committee on which he serves does not protect the reputation of Members—the faith of the public in those Members decreases, the turnout in elections drops because they will say, “It is simply not worth it”—and that is bad for democracy.
Andy Carter
I absolutely agree. This is about the integrity of this House and preserving democracy; it is really important.
As Members of Parliament, we are expected to uphold the values, principles and rules of the code of conduct that we all sign up to and that we should all act on, in accordance with the public trust that is placed in us. There will be times when it is right to make changes to the code and to update the Standing Orders. We should do so as one House, once we have considered all the options, to ensure that we protect the democracy and reputation of all who serve in this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
There are quite a lot of Members who wish to speak and we have an hour and seven minutes remaining. Jess Phillips is going to set a great example.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I shall start with an apology to you, Mr Speaker. As I have already mentioned to you, I have to leave the debate straight after my comments because I am due in Westminster Hall to talk about people spiking drinks, which I am sure concerns the whole House. After I have made that apology—I am aware that this might sound slightly backward—let me say that I tell my children when they apologise that “sorry” is just a word, and changing our behaviour is the way that we prove that we are sorry. I ask my children not to say sorry to me very often, although they are called on to do it quite a lot; I wish to see changed behaviour.
It is an absolute pleasure, actually, to follow the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). He is not a Member who I have had much interaction with, but I can see that he is going to be an interesting and independent voice on the issue of standards in this House. He might not recognise some of the fanfare that we have had today, because there are normally only about 10 or 15 people in debates about how we are going to look at the code of conduct, but this one seems to have piqued considerably more interest.
There are changes that might need to be made; I do not think that the system is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. On appeals, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) was insistent about the ICGS and how it works. I hope that Members are aware that such a system means that both parties can appeal a decision, so if that system were in place and on one occasion it went the way of a Member, that would mean that the complainant, who may very well be vexatious, could keep on appealing. A system like that of the ICGS is not necessarily a perfect one.
Alberto Costa
The point is that the former member of the judiciary, Sir Stephen Irwin, has created a set of appeal rules that are very clear in outlining when a complainant or an MP can appeal from the sub-panel to his own panel, and they are broadly the same grounds that we might use in judicial review, where the matter is either being dealt with improperly or unlawfully, or it is manifestly unreasonable.
Jess Phillips
I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman defending judicial review. I absolutely love a bit of judicial review. I have taken the Government to court on a number of occasions—for example, when they sort of stopped victims of domestic violence being able to move across councils. I have always welcomed a judicial review.
I very much welcome the considerable efforts that people here are now going to make, as they advocate for themselves, to advocate for the kind of people in my constituency who have no legal representation in any way, whether as domestic violence victims in the family court, or in employment tribunals. I am also interested to hear that Members really want us to have employment rights in this place. I remember when disabled Members in this building were saying that it would be against the Equality Act 2010 for them to come in during covid, and we were told that the Equality Act does not apply to us because we are not employees. It is an interesting turn of events that we have seen in the last few days.
I care deeply about the standards in this building, not because I am actually that interested in Standing Orders—I know that some hon. Gentlemen here love them, but I am not all that bothered by getting bogged down in the numbers, and this and that—but because I am interested in politics mattering to people in this country and those people feeling they can change it. If I could thank the Ministers on the Treasury Bench for anything, it would be that this week the people in our country felt they could change something that they did not like, when the Government had to undo their deeply unpopular decision.
The more that we degrade this place—for some of us, that is considerably more dangerous than it is for others. For some of us, it every day screams in our faces that democracy has been undermined. It is dangerous if we do not get the standards in this place right and if we do not do it together collegiately, through the proper process, which has, up until last week, largely been my experience. It is a shame that on this occasion, that was not the case.
I have to go and talk about other things in another part of the House, but I will finish by mentioning one more issue. On the point about there being one rule for the people outside this building and different rules for the people inside this building, it has been phenomenal for me this week to see the different contracts that organisations such as Randox have been given without a tender process. I speak as somebody who has spent hours and hours of my time working in charities, filling in tender process after tender process for amounts of money like £25,000 for a children’s sexual exploitation service that would last for a whole year. I had to include information on what sort of locks were going to be on the doors in the office and how we would lock the filing cabinets.
Hour by hour is accounted for. I have worked on Home Office contracts where the staffing hour is literally given out in 15-minute blocks, and I am monitored on that and it is accounted for—and I find that what I needed was hundreds of thousands of pounds to pay somebody in here to make that a little bit simpler. We can blame covid all we like, but I sat and filled in the Government paperwork for grants for organisations that were offering refuge accommodation during the covid-19 pandemic, and there were pages and pages where they had to reply to multiple different organisations and Departments. I helped lots of charities to do it and I did not charge anyone a single bean.
I will finish by saying that there is one rule for the people in our country, and seemingly another for enormous, friendly companies who are willing to pay the people in here.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this debate and very much welcome it. I, too, am a member of the Standards Committee. Usually, by precedent, we do not comment on the cases that we deal with: we put everything into our report and allow the report to speak for itself. However, last week left us in slightly unusual circumstances where we felt the need to try to clarify some things around our work, our processes and our motivations.
I have served on the Committee since February of last year. It is usually senior Members of the House who serve on the Committee, but I have had the great privilege of doing so. With respect to the Chairman of the Committee, it is, in many ways, a horrible Committee to sit on, because there is a huge amount of work to do and very little link back to the constituency, and we sit judgment on colleagues, some of whom we have tremendous respect for. I joined the Committee at a time when there was great change within the processes around the ICGS and the new things that we were creating, but also questions around the rules that we were upholding, oversight of the commissioner, and the processes that we were trying to apply as a Committee. Yet I joined up willingly, because perhaps the greatest threat to our democracy is when people outside this building point to us all and say, “They are all the same—they are all on the take.” It is true that anyone in this House can make a mistake, but the vast majority of colleagues in all parts of the House are desperate to stay within the rules and are well-intentioned. But for those who do break the rules, the punishment must be fitting. I had no problem voting for the report that was discussed last week; I would do the same again today.
I have only three points that I wish to place on the record. The first is around process. Many hon. and right hon. Members have said that the process of standards cases needs improving. I agree. I think every member of the Standards Committee would say they agreed. They would probably disagree over which parts of the process should be improved, but nevertheless there is a commitment among all members of the Committee to try to improve the process and ensure that it is as good as possible. The process under which we currently operate was agreed before I became a Member of this House. The Committee had been set the homework of trying to uphold the existing process and make a success of it. If the assignment is now to come up with a different and improved process, I am sure we will undertake that as happily as possible. I do, however, caution that I think that Mr Paterson would have been found to have broken the rules under any process that we create, and we should not kid ourselves on that front. I appreciate that he has many friends in this House, and the tragic events that have impacted him and his family deserve all our sympathy, but this is a separate point to his conduct. Equally, I caution some colleagues on their desire to rush towards a pseudo-legal adversarial process to replace the current system: be careful what you wish for. I think that path will lead to more antagonistic cases and, as the Chairman of the Committee set out, a greater role for external counsel, which I fear will create inequality among Members in terms of those who have particular private wealth, and potentially create a significant loss of parliamentary privilege.
Secondly, it has been suggested by some senior colleagues on the Conservative Back Benches that as I have only been here for two years, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), I, and we, do not know how this place really works. I say with the greatest of respect to those colleagues that I think that two years here is more than enough to know the difference between right and wrong. Many senior colleagues have made comments and suggestions regarding the Committee’s work. If any of those colleagues wish to replace me on the Committee tomorrow, I will happily stand down.
Thirdly, I wish to strongly defend the lay members of the Standards Committee. I know that very few Members have interacted with them or had the experience of sitting on a Committee with lay members. Those I have served with on the Standards Committee are conscientious, hard-working and fair. I have learnt a tremendous amount from them, and I hope that they would say the same in return.
Kevin Brennan
I have been a Member of the House for 20 years, and the maturity and the balance of the speech that the hon. Gentleman is giving makes we want to intervene on him to thank him for serving as a member of the Committee, because I can certainly say that it is something that I have never been willing to do. I thank him, the Chair and other members of the Committee for the service that they give to this House.
Mark Fletcher
If ever an intervention killed a career, Mr Speaker!
It is the untold story of last week’s situation that absolutely none of the points raised by Mr Paterson and his various supporters were not discussed by the Committee at length. The report that was produced contained many of the responses and corrections. Everyone is entitled to disagree with what the Committee decided, but it is desperately unfair to suggest that it did anything other than forensically examine all the evidence presented to it and reach the appropriate decision. The Committee so often has diverse starting points, but we work incredibly hard to reach a consensus, which I think is the very definition of fairness for Members whose cases appear in front of us. If we change the process to remove the lay members, our standards system will be all the poorer for their loss.
It was only a matter of weeks ago that this House was united in grief for the loss of a great colleague. That was us at our very best. Today’s debate, with the mistakes that have been made, the opportunism of some Opposition Members—I hate to point it out—and the rush to create a new system without full consideration is us at our very worst. I am a proud member of the 2019 intake that came to this House determined to deliver a better politics for my constituents. I want a free and fair standards process that allows me to look my constituents in the eye and say, “No, we are not all the same.” Improvements can be made, but rushing things through risks creating a bigger mess. Let cooler heads prevail. Our duties as Members of this House are wide ranging. We represent our constituents, we create laws, we hold the Government to account, and we work to further many issues, but we are also role models held to high standards. When we fall short of those standards, as any Member can do, we should remember our duties to this House, to our colleagues and to our democratic system.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this debate.
It saddens me that we find ourselves here today having to debate the consequences of the decision that the majority of those on the Government Benches took last week regarding the former Member for North Shropshire. Such a debate should be unnecessary, but sadly, due to the actions of last week, the consequences beyond this place are very clear: further erosion of public trust in our politics and its representatives, a real anger that it is one rule for the hard-working majority and another for politicians, and a growing sense of apathy that weakens our democracy and our institutions and makes us all poorer.
I have since wondered what my own constituents would think—indeed, do think, because many have contacted me—such as those facing fire and rehire, those struggling to make ends meet on universal credit, and those waiting on access to decent social care. The adage that yesterday’s news will be today’s chip paper will not hold true. So long as this Prime Minister remains in place, I fear that we will return to this dark place again and again. The substantial majority that the Government won at the last general election does not make them beyond reproach, it does not make the Prime Minister beyond reproach, and it does not make any hon. or right hon. Member in this place beyond reproach. The younger, newer intake on the Government Benches probably understand that. Like me, they probably thought they had entered a 1990s-time warp last week. When it came to the crunch, the old boys’ network reigned supreme. Frankly, I am fed up with this place lurching from one scandal to another. So too are my constituents, who expect better. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand.
In my opinion, we should prioritise two things, along with those outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. First, we should make corruption in public office a criminal offence that applies to any MP who falls short of the standards expected of them. Secondly, we should ban any MP from having a second job, unless that is required to maintain professional accreditations.
From where I come from and for the people I represent, an MP’s salary is more than enough to live on and, frankly, it is a full-time job if we are doing it properly. If the salary is not enough for the privileged class of MPs such as the likes of the former Member for North Shropshire—on any of the Benches but particularly the Government Benches—then to quote Lord Tebbit, “Get on your bike,” find another job and leave, because no one is forcing you to stay. If we do not all act, I fear that public hostility towards all Members will only get worse. After all, it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel. In the public’s eyes, everyone in this place is in the barrel.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I commend you, Mr Speaker, for the statement you made before this debate started? I agreed with every word. I also commend the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing the debate.
Usually I start by saying, “It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate…”, but on this occasion, it is not, really. I regret that we are here today, and it is most unfortunate. Let me say a brief word about the specific case of Mr Owen Paterson. I read the Standards Committee report in full and I listened to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) last week. The report was clear and unambiguous, and I fully support what he said. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench can resolve the matter tomorrow in the way that he set out. That would be helpful for the reputation of the House and for Mr Paterson to put this matter to bed, rather than its remaining an issue of continuing controversy. I also note speculation in the press about a peerage for Mr Paterson, and I hope Ministers can rule that out. That would be a mistake and most regrettable.
On the process, I commend the members of the Committee who have spoken. They spoke very well. A lay member of the Committee, Tammy Banks, did an interview at the weekend in some detail. If it were listened to by members of the public, it would reassure them that there is a robust and independent process to hold Members of this House to a high standard. I thank the commissioner and the Committee—the Members of the House who are members and the lay members—for the work they do, generally un-thanked and unappreciated, but which I think is very important.
Personally, I think that the process that the Committee follows is pretty fair. I am sure there could be improvements, and I look forward to the Committee’s investigation into the code of conduct and any suggestions it may have. I hope those can be taken forward in a cross-party way.
As a former Government Chief Whip, I may be permitted, I hope, a couple of points about whipping. The decision we took last week was on a House matter, and in my view House business should not be whipped—it should be a free vote. I made that position clear privately. It is how I conducted myself in the vote last week. I voted against the amendment because I thought it important to uphold the standards of this House for everyone in it.
My second point on whipping is that politics is a team game; it is essential to work with one’s colleagues to deliver anything. If the team captain is to expect loyalty and Back Benchers and Ministers to listen to the direction of the team captain, they deserve decisions that are well thought through and soundly based. If on occasion, as on this occasion—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set it out very well, and he was a very valued member of my Whips Office, and he did apologise on behalf of the Government—the team captain gets it wrong, he should come and apologise to the public and to this House. That is the right thing to do to demonstrate leadership.
Finally, it is important, when this House debates standards in public life, that every Member remembers that we are judged on the decisions we make. I was elected in 2005, so I was in this House when we had to live through the expenses scandal, which enveloped Members on both sides. Despite the fact that I was never caught up in that and had a completely clean bill of health, it is the only time in my 16 years as a Member of Parliament that when I was at a social function and someone asked me what I did, I was ashamed to say I am a Member of Parliament. I am not going to do anything or allow anyone to do anything that takes us back to those dark times. I will do everything I can to avoid us getting there. No one is going to stop me conducting myself in a way that keeps us free of that reputation-damaging era. We have to have high standards and improve them. That is what every Member of the House wants to achieve.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate. I have been a Member of the House for only six and a half years. I do not have an in-built affection for this place, its traditions or anything to do with it, but I do have an in-built sense of justice, fairness and how things should be done correctly.
It was an appalling day in the House last week and, unfortunately, I was acting Chief Whip of my party. I had to handle what was happening with the old boys’ network in this place and try to think on my feet—I do not think I acquitted myself terribly well. I do not want to go on about everything that has already been mentioned, but I have to say that one of my children was present in this House when the expenses scandal was on. I never thought I would be standing here speaking in any case, but certainly not about corruption, the old boys’ network and double dealing. I find it appalling.
What I have found even more appalling since last Wednesday is the attack on the commissioner for standards. It is absolutely egregious. Now, “egregious” was the word used of Owen Paterson, the former MP, because of what he did. It pains me that I am seen as a Member of this place when people think it is right to ride roughshod over the rules, to take part in bringing this place into disrepute and then to have their Government say, “Right, everybody on our Benches, vote for a new commission that we will make up and run.” That is not how any Parliament should be run. I find the Leader of the House to be a polite, affable gentleman, but I think he is squirming in his place today. He brought forward the motion last week, and he should be standing answering questions about why he did that and why it was in such ridiculous terms.
I said at the start I have been here only six and a half years. I do not want to be here much longer; I want to move to an independent Scotland. This kind of behaviour is not allowed in the Scottish Parliament. I do not want—[Interruption.] I do not want people in Scotland to think that because I am a Member of this Parliament, I would back such things.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
My hon. Friend clearly made quite a comment. Does she agree that it would bring many things forward if this place came into line with the Scottish Parliament where that sort of behaviour is a criminal offence?
Marion Fellows
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend; yes, it would.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly pointed out that that is not allowed here. What would not be allowed and would not happen in an independent Scotland are the kind of shenanigans that took place last week to protect one of the Government’s own and increase the old boys’ network, which they then sent a junior Minister to defend.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing the debate, which has been a necessary corrective to what happened last week.
I will talk about friendship, which is a key part of this place. We spend so much time together here, and it would be intolerable if everything were about politics. Our friendships are vital for mutual support and relaxation, and to remind us what truly matters in life. Although we refer to Members on our own sides of the Chamber as our hon. Friends, many friendships are forged across the Chamber. I will come back to that later.
Loyalty to one’s friends in times of great difficulty is among the most admirable of traits, but I fear that it was an overzealous application of that principle that helped to lead the House to its extremely unfortunate decision last Wednesday. Mr Paterson’s friends understandably wished to stand by him and protect him, especially given the tragedy that had struck his family—of course, our sympathies are still with him. As he is no longer in this place, I do not wish to dwell too long on the findings of the report from the Committee on Standards, but I share the hope expressed by its Chair that we will get a say on that report.
I studied the report carefully, both its conclusions and source material, particularly Mr Paterson’s emails contained in it. In the light of its contents, and particularly what has happened since last Wednesday, I gently wonder whether his friends took the wisest course of action in trying to protect him. Sometimes, friendship means counselling somebody out of a fixed position, rather than reinforcing it. There is kindness in giving friends advice that they may not want, but need, to hear.
I am proud to be part of the 2019 Conservative intake of MPs, often called “the 109”, and I have made many new and firm friendships within that group since I arrived in this place. There is nothing like a shared experience to bond people together, and we have all been through quite the experience in the last two years. Many of my friends within that group have endured a miserable time since last Wednesday’s vote. Many wish that they had chosen to vote differently and are beating themselves up about it. I say to them that loyalty to one’s party is also an admirable trait—this place, indeed our entire political system, could not function without that—but the reality is that they should not have been put in such an invidious position.
The 109 subsequently acquired an additional member, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer). I hope that she will not mind me quoting her WhatsApp message to our group, given that it subsequently leaked to the press:
“This was a colossal misjudgement, it should not have been whipped. You should have been allowed to vote with your conscience on this.”
I could not agree more and I hope that Treasury Ministers are listening. Let us return to the convention that House business is not whipped. I praise her courage in voting against the motion last Wednesday, having only been in this place for six months. I am proud to call her my friend.
I praise my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who are also from the 2019 intake. They sit on the Committee for Standards and gave splendid speeches earlier. They have handled themselves with the utmost dignity and integrity in the face of some totally unacceptable briefings, and I am proud to call them my friends as well.
I thank friends from both sides of the House who took the time to check on me last Wednesday. Breaking the Whip is not straightforward: it churned me up beforehand and left me a little shellshocked afterwards —perhaps it will be easier next time. I was deeply touched by the number of Members—friends—who stopped to simply ask whether I was all right. I see some of them here today, but there were many more besides, including some outside this Chamber.
Friendship, especially cross party, is needed more than ever in this place, particularly in the light of the terrible murder of our colleague Sir David Amess. I recognise that cross-party trust on standards was badly broken last Wednesday, but I hope for all our sakes that the damage can be repaired as soon as possible.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The catalyst for today’s debate is the case of the former MP for North Shropshire, but it is not just about that. It is about the relevance of ethics to how the Government conduct the duty of governance. It is about cash for contracts, cash for honours, allegations of bullying by Ministers being swept under the carpet, and a former Prime Minister privately texting Ministers to further his financial interests.
In 2007, the then Member of Parliament for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, now leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price, tabled a private Member’s Bill to make lying in politics illegal by making it an offence to knowingly mislead the public. His proposal was an attempt to restore faith in an age on the cusp of fake news, fake views and fake figures. We manipulate the truth at our peril. Now more than ever, such radical ideas are needed.
Last week, Conservative MPs made much of the argument that MPs should be treated like other employees. I put it to them that if a doctor wilfully misleads a patient, if a company wilfully misleads its customers or if a teacher wilfully misleads a pupil, there are consequences enshrined in law. Yet although it shows blatant disrespect to Parliament, and more importantly to our constituents, a Minister can break the ministerial code, give contracts worth billions of pounds to friends and mislead the House without consequences.
Faith in Westminster politics is at an all-time low thanks to this Government. Major reforms are needed to regain trust. We need to have independent oversight of the ministerial code; to ban MPs from having second jobs, except for public service for which we are paid; to force Ministers to correct the record after giving misleading information in the Chamber; and to scrap the House of Lords and replace it with an elected upper Chamber. In the meantime, Adam Price and I are writing to the Metropolitan police to ask it to conduct an investigation to determine whether offences have been committed by the Conservative party under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.
If the system cannot be reformed to stop corruption, perhaps the system is the problem. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke very well, fluently and capably about the process.
At the end of such a debate, we tend to get drawn into a conversation among ourselves and forget how it appears to people outside. The people of Wales will have their representation here reduced from 40 to 32 Members; they see a Government with a robust majority able to ride roughshod over perfectly normal, accepted ethical standards; and they will ask whether this is the system that serves them best or whether they could do it better themselves.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to what the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), the former Government Chief Whip, said earlier, I understand that the Prime Minister arrived back in London, to King’s Cross, at 5 pm. Would it be in order for him to come to the House before the end of the debate or, if that is not possible, to make a statement to the House to personally apologise as the former Chief Whip advised he should?
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). The former Member for North Shropshire, the right hon. Owen Paterson, served his constituency for 24 years and held some of the highest offices in Government. By any standards, what happened to him is a tragedy: he lost his career but, much worse, he lost his wife in the most distressing circumstances. On a human level, there cannot be a Member of this House who does not feel at least some degree of sympathy for him.
I have heard the proposal of the Chair of the Committee on Standards on how to deal with Mr Paterson’s case, but in reality, the specific issue of his personal conduct is closed as a consequence of his resignation last week. However, his case has highlighted issues that deserve the continued attention of this House. In retrospect, everyone agrees that it was wrong of the Government to conflate the specific issue of Owen Paterson’s conduct with the important wider issue of the regulation and enforcement of standards in this House, and I was glad to see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster issuing what I thought was a very full apology for that.
What the case has thrown into focus are questions of natural justice that are not adequately addressed in Standing Orders Nos. 149 and 150. For example, Mr Paterson wanted to call no fewer than 17 witnesses to give evidence in support of his case, and he was not afforded the opportunity to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) has expressed his concerns on the issue of natural justice. For my own part, I find it hard to see how the denial of a right to call witnesses and for those witnesses to be examined and cross-examined—a right that is taken for granted in civil and criminal proceedings in this country—can be compatible with natural justice.
Chris Bryant
I do want to correct this point. We did hear the witnesses in writing. Their witness statements are all available online. We considered the matter. As happens in every single court in the land, we considered the matter, as judges would and as many tribunals would.
I would just say to the right hon. Member that he voted for a motion that, I am afraid, did not close the matter on Mr Paterson. It left it completely and utterly open—deliberately so—and, indeed, Mr Paterson still asserts that he is innocent and that, if he were a Member, he would do the whole thing all over again, so I am afraid we will have to tidy this up.
Mr Jones
I hear what the Chairman of the Committee has to say, but, frankly, it is one thing to read written evidence, and it is another thing for that evidence to be tested in examination and cross-examination, and that was not allowed.
Furthermore, there is no provision for an independent appeals process under Standing Order No 150. I do not believe that that can be right either. Provision should be made for a proper appeals procedure under the Standing Order No. 150 process, as indeed there is under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, where an appeal panel is chaired by a High Court judge.
There should also be greater legal input into the entire process. Standing Order No. 150 does provide for the establishment of an investigatory panel, with a legally qualified assessor and counsel, but only at the behest of either the commissioner herself or the Committee. That, of course, was not done in Mr Paterson’s case. Indeed, ever since the procedure was first put in place, no such panel has ever been established. That is a matter of regret because the legal assessor has a duty under Standing Order No. 150(10) to
“report to the Committee…his opinion as to the extent to which its proceedings have been consistent with the principles of natural justice”.
That is the only occasion in which the words “natural justice” appear anywhere in Standing Orders Nos. 149 and 150, which, I suggest, is also a matter that needs to be rectified.
In the debate last week, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), whom I am delighted to see in his place, made the important point that, while he was sympathetic to the proposition that the rules do need reform, this could only be done with consensus. I believe that Mr Paterson’s case, despite its wholly regrettable outcome and, frankly, the way it was handled last week, has highlighted deficiencies in the process that do need to be addressed by the House. I very much hope that, now that the sting caused by the conflation of the individual case with the wider issue of the need for reform has been removed, the House can proceed on the basis of consensus and seek to make improvements to a system that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the Paterson case, is so clearly in need of reform.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this very important debate.
Never in my short time in Parliament have I witnessed such naked corruption as I did last week in the botched attempt by the Tories to save their mate from being held to account for his serious misconduct. That the Prime Minister has not even showed up today shows once again that he thinks he can duck the consequences of his actions, particularly as we have just found out that he is sitting down the road having a cuppa. He is making an absolute mockery of his office and of our democracy.
Three Conservative Members who are currently under investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards voted in favour of ripping up the rules. We have heard reports that the Prime Minister threatened his MPs with losing funding for their constituencies if they did not back his plans on Wednesday. Blackmail to cover up corruption—what an utter disgrace! We should call it what it is: the Government’s attempt to rewrite the rules was unashamedly corrupt. That it was done in an attempt to cover up the kind of corruption we have seen throughout this pandemic tells us everything we need to know about the depth of contempt the Tories have for the constituents and the country they are supposed to serve.
The Member in question was found guilty of breaking cash-for-access rules after he received £100,000 from two firms that then went on to win hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of covid contracts, despite evidence they were not up to the job. How many more crony contracts have this Government allocated? Over the last year, we have seen the previous Health Secretary agree a covid test contract with his pub landlord via WhatsApp; we have seen revelations that a fifth of UK covid contracts raised red flags for corruption; and £2.1 billion for 27 PPE or testing contracts was paid by the taxpayer to firms with connections to the Tory party. Enough is enough.
Eye-watering amounts of public money have been funnelled into the pockets of Tory donors and their rich mates under the guise of the pandemic, while our public services have been systematically defunded for over a decade. It is beyond parody that this Government are trying to reposition themselves as the party of public services when that is the reality. We need a full and transparent investigation into how these crony contracts were awarded and their outcomes.
Not only do the Tories think it is okay for MPs to take on lucrative second jobs, which clearly creates conflicts of interest between the constituents they serve and their paymasters in big business who buy influence through the back door, but—
Kim Johnson
No, thank you. I will not give way. I am going to carry on.
The Tories also clearly think it is okay to give a green light to cash for access, a practice that places the interests of MPs squarely with those of the highest bidder and obliterates their obligations towards those they were elected to serve. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to take this opportunity, right here and now, to commit to going back to the Government and appealing to them to take action to ban second jobs for MPs, unless they need to retain professional recognition.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I should start by declaring my interest as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The only other Member of this House who is also a member of that committee, the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), is not able to speak in this debate, but having spoken to her, I know she would agree with the criticisms I am about to make.
The amendment passed last week that we have been discussing sought to do a number of things that were wholly wrong. It sought to link the determination of an individual case to proposals for reform of our disciplinary system more broadly. It sought to establish a Committee of the House that did not and would not have cross-party support to consider reforms that could succeed only with cross-party support. It sought to do all that by whipping Government Back Benchers on House business that should not have been whipped at all, with some unfair and gratuitous attacks on the competence and integrity of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who, as you pointed out, Mr Speaker, has no right of reply.
For all those reasons, I could not support that amendment, but it seems to me that this debate should not focus on rehashing last week, but instead consider what we do now. On that, I speak for myself, not for my Committee or for any member of it. For all that some objectives of the amendment were illegitimate, not all of them were illegitimate. For example, I do think it is right to consider a clear and effective appeal mechanism for those initially found to have committed misconduct.
One frustrating aspect of last week is that the noise created by the rest of the amendment has made serious conversations about reform in that respect harder. I also think that the understandable public reaction to the events of last week means that we will have to think more extensively about reform to our disciplinary processes. Perhaps we should do that anyway.
Sir William Cash
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir William Cash
I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend, who was the Attorney General, the simple question that I put to the Leader of the Opposition: if the investigatory panel could have been set up, but was not set up, it was impossible for the rules of natural justice, as applied by Standing Order 150, to be brought into effect. Does he accept that that puts the Member in question at a severe disadvantage?
Jeremy Wright
I regret that I do not think there is a simple answer to that question, but I disagree that the problem is a breach of the rules of natural justice. I do not think that is our issue. I will come on to what I think the issue is, but I do not think it is that. My view is that last week reminded the public that they do not trust this House to discipline its own Members. I say “reminded” because not only have we been sent that message before, but we have acted on it before. The expenses scandal led to an independent body to determine our expenses claims, and only last year, as others have pointed out, we agreed an independent expert panel to determine claims of bullying and harassment. We now need to follow through on the logic for independent determination of other forms of serious misconduct.
Although I accept as a matter of democratic principle that it is necessary for Members of Parliament to authorise a sanction involving suspension or expulsion from this House, it does not follow from that that it is either necessary or desirable for Members of Parliament to judge the merits of disciplinary proceedings against other Members of Parliament. If we needed a demonstration of how that can cause problems and undermine confidence in our rules, we surely had it last week. We must have reform, but reform must be undertaken with a clear head and in a balanced way.
There is a strong case for a clear appeal procedure. I have heard the argument, made particularly forcefully and well by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), that consideration of a case by the Committee on Standards is, in effect, an appeal from the commissioner. However, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman—I generally agree with what he says—I do not think that is quite right. An appeal is a means of challenging a decision. The commissioner makes a recommendation, not a decision. The decision is made by the Committee on Standards, and it is that decision that would be subject to any appeal that we added to the current architecture. Again with great respect to the hon. Gentleman and his Committee—I think he and they do a good job—we will have to face the need for a greater independent element in deciding cases of serious alleged misconduct by other Members of the House.
To return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I do not entirely go along with the view set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) that what we have is a fundamental breach of the rules of natural justice. That does not appear to be what is happening. Instead, we have a failure to meet the test of public confidence. That is a different test, but one we must take seriously. As a result of that—again, I take the points by the Chair of the Committee on Standards that we are engaged in a process of reform, and about the pace of such reform—we must expect and establish due process, and these cases should be largely determined independently of us. If we do not do that, I fear confidence in us will continue to fall, with consequences for Parliament and the acceptance of the laws we pass. The pandemic has shown us how much that can matter. The lesson of last week is not to back away from reform of our disciplinary process; it is rather that we have to get on with it and go further in it, and do so in a wholly different way to the way we approached it last week.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for accepting the application for today’s debate from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). It is, unfortunately, very timely and necessary, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing it, and on the manner in which she introduced it.
I listened to your statement before the debate, Mr Speaker, when you spoke about the best traditions of the House, and my mind went back to a conversation that I had with a colleague not long after I was elected to this House. It was basically to the effect that the day anybody found me standing here making a speech about the best traditions of the House, they could take me out and shoot me because my useful life would be over at that point. The House will therefore appreciate, I hope, that I have picked my words and what I am about to say with extreme caution.
I do not think that the convention of not whipping House business is the best tradition of the House, but it is certainly a very important one. I do not know whose decision it was to whip the motion and amendment last week, but it was a seriously colossal error of judgment. They have damaged the authority of the Prime Minister, they have damaged the credibility of the Leader of the House, and they have seriously undermined the ability of the Government Whips Office to do the job with which it is charged. Some might say that that is a silver lining, but the cloud, which is the damage to Parliament as a whole, is otherwise impenetrably dark.
As others have said, we now need to move on and look at what we do to go ahead. I take the point of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) that we need to consider questions of process. I remain to be convinced about the need for an appeal, but given that this is a committee and not a court, and the process is not informed by legal practitioners, I see the argument for there being a fresh pair of eyes on such matters. If, however, all we do in the process about which the Leader of the House was speaking last week is tinker around with a few procedural matters, we might as well not bother. That is simply not equal to the task before us of restoring public confidence in the House’s ability to deal with its own standards and discipline.
On those right hon. and hon. Members who have outside interests or second incomes, I do not favour an outright ban on second jobs, as that would have the unintended consequence of making more people see this as an occupation from which there would never be any departure. The idea that people can come here for a term or two and then return to whatever profession or occupation they had beforehand is good and sensible, but this weekend I saw reports about the time given by some right hon. and hon. Members, and the money they received in return, which I think is simple indefensible. As we look to what we do in future, we must consider that, and at very least we must have a cap on such matters.
Let me return to the point that I made in my intervention on the Leader of the Opposition. If the Government are approaching this as a good faith exercise, we should hear a commitment from the Treasury Bench that not only will there be no repetition of whipping House business, but that when any proposals are brought forward they will give us a cast-iron guarantee that Members will not be whipped. When you are in a hole, stop digging. The Government look as if they have stopped digging, but I still get the sense that somehow they cast rather envious and wistful glances in the direction of the shovel.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I bring in Sir William Cash, I remind the House that I have to bring in Wendy Chamberlain at four minutes past 7.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I have still not had an answer to the question I asked at the beginning of the debate, which is at the heart of this issue: why did the Committee not convene—it had the power to do so—and require the commissioner to hold an investigative panel? No answer is given to that. It is no good people saying, “Oh, it doesn’t matter”, because only by having the rules of natural justice applied, as set out in that part of the Standing Orders, is it possible to achieve the examination of witnesses and the fairness and criteria of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.
Kevin Hollinrake
Someone did give my hon. Friend an answer to that. It was the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who said that the facts were not in dispute, which is one of the conditions of setting up such a panel.
Sir William Cash
That is a very interesting response, because it still does not answer the question. The reality is—[Interruption.] No, with great respect, if we look at appendix 2 of the Committee’s report, there were 17 witness statements on Mr Paterson’s behalf set out in rigorous detail. In relation to milk and food safety, there was witness evidence from the chief vet, National Milk Laboratories and the former chair of the Food Standards Agency. That confirmed that within the framework of exemptions for Members’ actions in the public interest, the former Member’s actions made milk safer. On the question of the contamination of a ham product, Professor Chris Elliott, in unchallenged evidence, made it clear that what the former Member revealed was the worst case that that professor had seen in 35 years. On both matters, those witnesses’ genuinely expert opinions were not followed in establishing the facts and in justification of the former Member’s defence.
On the question of natural justice and of witness statements and evidence, it has been established over and again in the courts that every court or tribunal is obliged to accept and follow unchallenged witness evidence.
Sir William Cash
No, I do not have time and we need to move on.
It is established in the recent Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme that a judge must be—and now will be, as far as I can judge—embedded in the procedure. An investigatory panel would be set up only infrequently, in cases of serious contested issues of fact that would not and could not be properly decided, and where the test of natural justice would be failed unless the Member was given the opportunity to call witnesses and/or to cross-examine witnesses supporting the complaint.
That is made abundantly clear by the 2003 Committee report that I have already referred to—that Committee actually had eight Lib Dem and Labour members and only three Conservatives—so why a panel was never set up is a complete mystery. I heard the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) say that he was a stickler for parliamentary procedure and due process in Parliament, so why did he decline to invoke the natural justice provisions, including examination of witnesses, under his own Standing Orders and, furthermore, consistent with the tests of fairness set out by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege?
Not only does every disciplinary committee in the land and other courts of justice and tribunals of every kind have rules of natural justice, but they have the right to appeal to the courts for judicial review. Members of Parliament cannot do so because of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which includes things such as equality of arms, examination of witnesses and no delay. The reality is that in this instance—in this serious, contested case—there has been a failure of natural justice.
I do not know, and now nobody will ever know, what the investigatory panel would have discovered, because it was never invoked. It is most regrettable and a deep contribution to this tragedy—it is the centre of gravity of this problem—that the rules of natural justice, which are prescribed under the Standing Orders, were not applied. I stand by that, because it is evident on the face of the facts and the law.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank all Members for their presence today and all those who made contributions. Mr Speaker, I hope the tenor of the debate met your expectations. Let me be clear that my intention in applying for the debate was simply what it says in the motion: to make an initial assessment of the consequences, far beyond the case of the former Member for North Shropshire. I was also compelled to act by the comments made in relation to the future of the current independent standards commissioner. I reiterate many of the comments made from throughout the House in support of her.
There are obviously a number of things already under way, including the review of the code of conduct that the Chair of the Standards Committee referred to, but the variety of standards and codes that have been raised in today’s debate suggests that they need to be aligned and streamlined. A number of issues have been raised, such as the work of the Committee, the commissioner and appeals, as well as issues outside the direct scope of the debate, such as cash for honours, the awarding of contracts and ministerial codes of conduct. All those things need to be looked at.
Last week’s vote had direct consequences that need to be addressed. I note the suggestion by the Chair of the Standards Committee, which seems to fit the suggestions of both the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I agree that we should take them forward.
Last week’s actions by the Government were a clear Executive overreach, and the Prime Minister has serious questions to answer. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster suggested that there was regret on the Government side and among ministerial colleagues, so I am disappointed that the Prime Minister is not here. However, when he has had the opportunity to apologise, such as in comments he made to the press today, he has chosen not to do so.
This is about trust. It is about trust in the Government that they will represent the House and not the Government in House business, and it is about trust in us as our constituents’ representatives. That trust, once eroded, is very difficult to regain. Trust in our politics has been eroded in this past week. That includes all of us here in this House. On behalf of all our constituents, we must do all in our power to do our best to rebuild that trust as we take the next steps on standards.
Mr Speaker
I was just going to put the Question, but yes—John Whittingdale.
Mr Whittingdale
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I of course understand why it was not possible for you to call me in the debate. However, I am left in something of a dilemma. As I understand it, the House has still passed a motion that establishes a new Committee, which I am supposed to chair. I agreed to chair it on the basis that it would be a cross-party Committee that would have support from both sides of the House. It appears that that is not possible. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) indicated, I would not wish to chair a Committee that had support from only one side, but I am not clear what is the status of the Committee, given that the motion that the House passed last week, as I understand it, is still in place.
Mr Speaker
I am going to have to put the Question, but my quick answer is that we do need to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. No Committee can go forward—everyone has accepted that—but we need to draw a line under it, because at the moment there are too many questions that need to be answered. It is in the Government’s hands to resolve that, and I am sure that they will want to do it as quickly as possible, in which case this House can then begin to move on.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the consequences of the decision of the House of 3 November relating to Standards.
Environment Bill
Monday 8th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 8 November 2021 - (8 Nov 2021)
20:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 163 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendments 31A and 31B and disagrees with Lords amendment 31C.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 33B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 45B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Government motion that this House insists on its amendments 75A and 75B, Lords amendment 75C, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 85D and 85E.
Rebecca Pow
I am delighted to be here in the House for what I really hope will be the final time discussing the Bill, even though I have quite relished my involvement with it. It has been quite a journey, but here we are with a Bill that does so much to set us on a sustainable trajectory for future challenges: tackling air, water, and waste pollution; improving our environment on a scale never before done; and stemming the tide of biodiversity loss and restoring nature. The sum of all these parts is groundbreaking.
I turn first to Lords amendments 31C and 75C, tabled by the noble Lord Krebs and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick in the other place, and amendments 31A, 31B, 75A and 75B, which the Government are insisting on today. I wish to put a number of points on the record in the knowledge that ministerial statements in Hansard could be drawn on by the courts as a legitimate aid to statutory interpretation in the future.
The office for environmental protection is and must be an independent body capable of holding public authorities to account for their environmental responsibilities, including through the use of its enforcement functions. That is why the Government have given the OEP a remit and powers of unprecedented breadth in the Bill. For the OEP to work effectively, it must act strategically and take action only when there is an environmental and public interest in doing so. On that point, everyone is agreed.
As the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable for the OEP’s performance and use of public funds, the Government consider that the accountability power in clause 24 is necessary to ensure that the body continues to use public resources effectively to achieve the greatest public good. However, I must be clear that the content of guidance is limited to the areas of the OEP’s enforcement policy listed in clause 22(6). It cannot be used to direct the OEP as to the content of any report it might produce or any advice to the Government. Indeed, it cannot be used as a power of direction at all. It would also be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on specific matters relating to the enforcement of environmental law against the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, given that there would be a conflict of interest. I do not want to be disingenuous: the OEP would be expected to have regard to any guidance issued, but it will retain the ability and discretion to make its own decisions, and will not be bound to act in accordance with the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Rebecca Pow
I am going to rattle on. We have one hour only, but I will respond in my closing speech as much as I can to any issues that arise.
Many in this place and the other place have previously raised concerns that the Secretary of State might be able to use guidance to preclude the OEP from investigating a broad category of individual cases or subject areas, such as a nuclear power station. I must say, unequivocally, that it is our view that the power could not lawfully be used in that way. Any guidance issued must be consistent with the duty in paragraph 17 of schedule 1 for the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to protect the independence of the OEP. Any guidance that diverted OEP scrutiny away from entire policy areas, outside of existing statutory steers on prioritisation, would not be in keeping with that duty. This is not a power that could be used simply to divert the OEP away from investigating issues that could be in some way inconvenient to the Government. The provision for guidance on how the OEP intends to exercise its functions means that the guidance will, by its nature, be on the OEP’s approach to those issues, rather than defining specific areas to prioritise or deprioritise.
The OEP will operate with a very high degree of independence, especially when it comes to making individual enforcement decisions. In exercising its discretion in individual cases, the OEP would need to have regard to all relevant factors, but must ultimately take all its decisions objectively, impartially and independently of Government. Furthermore, the Environment Bill already provides that the OEP should focus on cases that have national implications. Guidance could not be issued that went against the existing provisions, but it could instead add further detail. However, it will remain up to the OEP, within the framework provided by the Bill and any guidance, to determine whether cases that have a discrete local impact also have national implications, or for some other reason have sufficiently broad or widespread impact to be considered serious, or to be prioritised for the purposes of its enforcement functions.
It is important to note that the Secretary of State is also able to offer guidance on how the OEP should respect the integrity of other bodies and existing statutory regimes. With such a broad remit, the OEP will be able to scrutinise all public authorities, including many expert scientific bodies. This ability will be important for it to be able to take a broad view and identify systemic issues.
I am sure the OEP will be extremely effective, but it will be a relatively small body with a broad remit. The decisions of organisations such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which employs hundreds of world-leading marine scientists, will be based on deep expertise and often highly technical scientific data. The OEP will need to be mindful of that in its own decision making when scrutinising such bodies. It is important to get the balance right to maintain confidence and integrity within existing regimes, and guidance could help to address that. We believe the power is important to ensure accountability, so that the OEP can contribute to delivering environmental improvements in the way I think we all agree it should: by acting strategically not just in the short term, but long into the future.
Rebecca Pow
I hope that might answer the point the hon. Member was going to ask.
Draft guidance will need to be laid before both Houses for 21 days. During that time, either House will be able to review the guidance and make recommendations or resolutions to which the Government must respond. Select Committees, such as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee, may also wish to take the opportunity to scrutinise the guidance, and Ministers would be obliged to respond to them in the usual manner.
I turn now to Lords amendment 33B on environmental review, tabled by the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu that I am tabling today. On environmental review, the key area of debate has been the remedies available in the event a breach of environmental law if that is confirmed by the court. At the heart of the issue has always been the fact that through environmental review the OEP will have the ability to bring cases to court outside standard judicial review time limits, potentially long after the decisions in question have been taken. For that reason, the Government have maintained that bespoke provision is necessary to ensure certainty and fairness for third parties who have acted in line with decisions made by public bodies, and to protect good administration.
The OEP may pursue cases for enforcement action only if it considers that the conduct in question would constitute a “serious” failure to comply with environmental law. Clause 22(7) states that the OEP must have regard, among other things,
“to the particular importance of prioritising cases that it considers have or may have national implications.”
The OEP will have discretion to interpret those criteria, setting out its approach in its enforcement policy, but it follows, in the Government’s view, that cases which have only a local concern, for example most individual planning and environmental permitting decisions, are unlikely to have sufficiently broad or widespread impact to be prioritised. The OEP could pursue such cases if it considers they are indicative of a broader or more systemic issue or failure, or if especially serious harm has or may result from the potential failure. The OEP, for example, could consider it in relation to the destruction of a nationally important population of a rare and protected species, but it should not be the norm.
However, we have listened to and carefully considered the views and concerns raised in this House and in the other place, and agree it is important that the protections are balanced with the need to prevent or mitigate serious environmental harm. As such, I am pleased to be able to propose an amendment in lieu, which strikes that important balance. In introducing it to the House, I must repeat my earlier acknowledgement that ministerial statements in Hansard could be drawn on by the courts as a legitimate aid to statutory interpretation in future. The amendment will ensure that a high bar is still set for the granting of remedies where third parties may be affected. This is set out in condition A of our amendment. But, critically, it will also provide that, even where condition A is not met, if the court is satisfied that it is necessary in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or human health, and there is an exceptional public interest reason to do so, the court will be able to grant a remedy. This is set out in condition B. It gives the court discretion to undertake a real and meaningful, albeit weighted, balancing exercise. It means that there would no longer be a blanket prohibition on the granting of remedies where third parties are likely to suffer substantial hardship or prejudice.
In the rare cases where third parties may be affected, however, I would like to illustrate how this provision could operate with an example. Potentially, on an environmental review, the court could rule that an environmental permit had been granted to a factory operator with such inadequate conditions that it was unlawful. If the court concluded that condition A was not met, because substantial hardship to the factory operator would be likely to result from quashing the permit, it would turn to condition B. If, in the absence of a quashing order, it is likely that the factory would continue to release harmful air pollutants with serious impacts for the health of the local population, the court may conclude that it is necessary to grant a remedy in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or human health. At this point, the court would need to weigh the public interest in preventing serious harm against the public interest in preventing substantial hardship occurring to the third party. In order to grant a remedy, the court would need to be satisfied that the public interest in preventing this serious harm substantially outweighed the interest in preventing hardship, thereby constituting an “exceptional public interest reason” to grant the remedy.
In such cases, where severe damage to the environment or people’s health could occur or continue if no remedy was granted, the court may choose to grant a remedy. Given the types of serious cases that the OEP is likely to bring, we consider that this test strikes the appropriate balance. I have every faith that it will do so and that the amendment will therefore be a valuable addition to the OEP’s enforcement framework as a whole. I hope that the amendment provides reassurance that the Government are thoroughly committed to protecting against environmental harms through the OEP’s enforcement functions, and that the House will support it today.
I turn to what I believe most people are waiting for: the issue of storm overflows. I hope that colleagues will bear with me while I set out our position, because I believe that this is extremely important. So many people have spoken to and contacted me constantly about this whole process and I will take questions at the end, if that is okay, because we are so tight for time.
I have been clear that the frequency with which sewage is discharged from storm overflows into our waters is absolutely unacceptable. It is a credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and the campaigning of many others that the phrase “storm overflow” is now used 47 times on the face of the Bill. However, I recognise that many hon. Members wanted to see more, and I am pleased to have tabled a further amendment that says that water companies “must” secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impact of discharges from their storm overflows. In this legal drafting, the word “must” means that we are placing a direct legal duty on water companies to do this. That is really crucial. Water companies will have a simple choice: reduce sewage discharges or face the consequences—that is, strong enforcement action.
Turning back to the specific amendment from the Duke of Wellington, we have redrafted it to ensure that it has proper legal effect and there is more effective implementation, and we have gone further in places. I have had much discussion with the Duke of Wellington —I greatly respect and value that—and I would like to clarify a number of points. This amendment places a clear legal duty on water companies to deliver improvements —something that the Duke particularly pressed for. Indeed, ours is a stronger duty than in his wording. Our amendment will ensure that they have to take the necessary steps relative to the size of the problem. We have taken the “progressive” reduction wording from the Lords amendment. “Progressive” means that water companies must continue to take action even after the next price review period and even after they have achieved a significant reduction and tackled high-priority sites, as required in the draft policy statement to the regulator, Ofwat.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
Rebecca Pow
I will not take any interventions, because I just want to get this on the record, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind—I know that he is passionate about this whole environmental issue.
I am aware of some wildly inaccurate claims that have been circulating online for the past so many days that we are somehow legalising the dumping of raw sewage—we are not. Our amendment goes further than the Lords amendment by legally specifying that “adverse impacts” includes impacts both on the environment and on public health—for bathers, canoeists and so forth. Enforcement was a key part of the Duke’s amendment and our version goes further, because it will dock in with the existing enforcement regime in the Water Industry Act 1991. Ofwat can issue enforcement notices that can direct specific actions or fine companies up to 10% of their annual turnover, running to millions of pounds. If we do not see sufficient progress from water companies, Ofwat and the Government will be able to take enforcement action, and we will not hesitate to do so. Not only that—under other provisions in the Bill, the OEP will be able to take enforcement action against the Environment Agency or Ofwat or, indeed, the Government, should it feel that any of us are not adequately discharging our duties.
There has been much debate about the costs required to eliminate sewage discharges from storm overflows. Last week, the Storm Overflows Taskforce, which I set up, published research on this issue. It estimated that the complete elimination of sewage discharges through storm overflows in England, which many are calling for more broadly, is likely to cost between approximately £350 billion and £600 billion. That could mean up to £1,000 on bills every year. There are important discussions to be had about the best way to address this important issue while protecting bill payers, and this very morning, I called the CEOs of all the water companies in to a meeting. They assured me that they recognise the need for urgent action. We must see better performance from them and I will be watching the progress closely, as indeed, will the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I would much very like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and the Duke of Wellington for their tireless efforts on this issue. Today, I am asking the House to vote in support of the Government: you will be voting directly—
Rebecca Pow
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—that is a pity. My fault—I got carried away. Today, I am asking the House to vote in support of the Government, and this means a vote directly to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, with greater protection for our waters than ever before.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Here we are again—it is 648 days since the Environment Bill was first introduced to Parliament and we are still here debating it, trying to get bolder action from Ministers on the environment, climate and nature. Ministers, I am afraid, are still dragging their heels in not introducing the bold action that we need—particularly against the routine discharge of raw sewage into rivers—still favouring a weaker watchdog than they should be.
In the middle of a climate and ecological crisis and at the very time that the UK is hosting COP26, this is generational injustice in action. We need to see bolder action. There was no mention from the Chancellor in the Budget of climate or nature. In fact, there were cuts to domestic flying duty, coupled with the Prime Minister flying from Glasgow to London on a private jet. I am sure that the Minister will have joined me when we came back from COP in travelling by train, rather than flying, and the Prime Minister should have done so as well. It is a wrong, bad, outdated message to say, “Do as I say. Don’t do as I do”, but I am afraid that that is what we are used to. It sets an appalling example for the world that the Prime Minister did not take the train instead of taking the plane, and it is up to us here to sort that out.
Britain is, again, the dirty man of Europe. Not one English river is in a healthy condition; not one meets good chemical standards.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The hon. Member will no doubt be aware that I am seeking water bathing status for the Thames along Port Meadow. One reason why that is so important is the dire state of our rivers: none of them is chemically sound. The illnesses that my constituents have reported, when they just wanted to get into the river for the sake of their mind and body, are atrocious. Does he agree that this is a national issue that is not adequately addressed by the amendments, and we need to go further?
Luke Pollard
As a keen wild swimmer, I want bathing water quality in our rivers to improve massively, not just for swimmers but for the natural world, so I support the hon. Lady in her efforts.
Water quality in our rivers in England is not good enough. In the past year alone, raw sewage was discharged into UK rivers and seas more than 400,000 times. The Government’s response was to whip their MPs to vote against an amendment that would have stopped raw human sewage pouring into our precious rivers and seas. I am afraid that the message that that vote sent was a poor one.
Then came the rightful public outcry, which shamed the Government into a U-turn after days of digging in their heels. They have now adopted much of the amendment that they voted against, which is welcome, but they have not adopted it all. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their time speaking to the Opposition about the issue, and I am grateful for the Minister’s words today putting our concerns on record, but I have to say that publishing an amendment at 5 pm last Friday did not really build trust, either among Members on both sides of the House who wanted to see the detail or among the stakeholders who were looking forward to scrutinising carefully what the Minister had to say.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Trust is paramount for the communities up and down the great rivers of this country, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned. Reading is downstream from Abingdon; London is further downstream. We are all deeply concerned about the state of our rivers. Although the Government have given some concessions and have listened to some extent, the way they have behaved still leaves a lot to be desired. The public remain deeply concerned about the issue.
Luke Pollard
I believe that the public are seriously concerned about what has happened in the House over the past few weeks. They have been alerted and awakened to the volume of raw sewage discharged into their rivers and seas; they want faster and bolder action from Ministers now that they are aware of this absolute outrage in our environment. That is why we need to build trust again.
In her speech and in earlier remarks, the Minister has cited a figure of more than £600 billion, but the maths is disputed, to say the least. It is not sufficient to say, “To deal with this properly will cost £600 billion, but to deal with tinkering around the edges will cost hardly anything on the side,” and pretend that those are fair options to choose between. We need a much bolder approach, with honesty and clarity rather than threats about bills and about how the process works.
We also need to look at how to build trust with the public again, because they are very concerned. I share the Minister’s concern about fake news online and do not wish to see wildly inaccurate claims made, so such a large figure needs to be backed up with clear evidence. I have tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister for the working behind it; I hope she will be able to confirm the answer in due course.
Labour wants a stronger amendment. The Minister’s amendment in lieu of the Duke of Wellington’s amendment is confined to storm overflows rather than addressing the sewerage system as a whole—a really important point. There is no specific duty on Ofwat or the Environment Agency to ensure compliance, but there should be. We need to focus on reducing harm, rather than just on the adverse impacts. The amendment in lieu looks like the Government looking busy without making a real difference, so I want to set out three things that I hope the Minister will confirm today that could make a difference.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
We all want to clean up the rivers. Could the hon. Gentleman give some idea of the timetable and cost that he thinks would be appropriate?
Luke Pollard
Funnily enough, that is a point that I was going to refer to the Minister, because there is no timetable—a really glaring hole in what has been published today. A progressive reduction in discharges sounds all well and good, but I would like to progressively reduce the amount of cake I eat, and yet there is a big difference between doing that over a day and doing it over a year. I am a big fan of cake, as some in the House may know.
Let us get down to the detail. There are three things that I would like the Minister to confirm; otherwise, I fear that we will not be able to support her amendment. First, will she commit to reviewing the scale of fines so that water companies that continue to routinely discharge raw sewage face higher penalties?
Secondly, Labour wants the guidance in the strategic policy statement for Ofwat to be super-strengthened so that there is a clear direction to water companies to target the most polluting discharges now, with a plan to address the rest urgently against a clear timeframe. Progress by DEFRA, Ofwat, the EA and water companies should have proper parliamentary scrutiny annually via the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, or potentially the Environmental Audit Committee.
Thirdly, will the Minister set out in detail what she means by “progressive reduction”? That means answering two very simple questions: by when, and how much? If that cannot be set out, it is just spin. I fear that water companies could say, “We are meeting our progressive reduction with these two tiny projects over here,” and not set out a clear commitment. By when and how much will discharges be progressively reduced?
Luke Pollard
I will keep going, just because of the pressure on time.
It is not just the Opposition who have concerns. Water UK and water companies tell us that they have concerns about the Government’s amendment and favour the Duke of Wellington’s. Green groups, environmental groups, angling groups, fishing groups and swimming groups also say that they favour the Duke of Wellington’s amendment over the compromise amendment, so there is widespread concern.
There is a lesson for Tory Back Benchers from the sewage vote and from what happened last week with parliamentary standards and corruption. It is now a brave Tory Back Bencher who will listen to their Whips on unpopular votes, because after dragging their MPs into the gutter, the Government are likely to U-turn a week later and make them look foolish. However, let us be clear about the agency that each Member of Parliament has. The last vote on sewage was a disaster for the reputation of many Members of this House. They knew what they were doing: they were putting the party Whip ahead of the environment, and voters will judge them on it. Doing it once was a mistake; doing it twice is a pattern that voters will recognise and will vote on accordingly next time round.
It is vital that we rebuild trust on the issue. The sewage scandal has been a shameful episode for the Government. There is real cross-party desire to make our approach stronger. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether she will support the three elements that I have outlined so that we can support her amendment; if we do not get that reassurance, I am afraid that we cannot.
Labour wants the OEP, instead of being a lapdog, to be a strong, robustly independent watchdog. The Minister has tried to put reassurances on the record that the Government will not seek to frustrate the OEP if it needs to hold them to account and take enforcement action against Ministers. In the past week, however, we have seen exactly what happens when the rules no longer suit the Government, so we want them in the Bill—not just a statement from the Dispatch Box that may or may not be used in future court cases, but clear rules in the Bill.
What the Minister set out about having regard to the guidance is welcome, but the experience with budget-setting powers and with the Electoral Commission, where Ministers have threatened a public body on receiving bad news from it in another investigation, is a bad precedent that needs to be removed.
We want the Bill to be better. There are good things in it, but on the whole it is just a bit “meh”: it does not reach the scale of the action we need for the scale of the crisis we face. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out whether she will support the three things that I mentioned. If not, I am afraid that Labour will not be able to support her compromise amendment on sewage and will vote against it so that we can secure a vote on the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, which is far superior.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I am very conscious of time, so I will be brief. I rise to discuss Lords amendment 45 and the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 45B. I thank the Minister for the time that she and the Secretary of State have taken to engage with me and with the Duke of Wellington in relation to his amendment, which I supported at the last stage. I particularly thank the Minister for her clarification today that the Government amendment in lieu places in the Bill a clear duty on water companies to reduce the impact of sewage discharges. That issue was at the heart of my private Member’s Bill and is included in her amendment.
What the Minister’s amendment adds, which was not in my private Member’s Bill or, frankly, in the Duke’s amendment, is the commitment to include a reduction in harm to public health, which will be of great benefit to the increasing numbers of people who use our rivers for swimming, canoeing and other activities that involve actually getting into the water, rather than just touching it with a fly or a leaded weight to catch a fish. The public health impact is something that we should not forget.
There have been comments about how effective the Minister’s proposed enforcement regime will be. I think that locking the enforcement regime into the existing Water Industry Act regime is potentially a more effective method than the one proposed in the previous Lords amendment. Of course there will have to be enforcement, and one of the big problems that we have had with the Environment Agency over the last 30 years is that its powers have not been rigorously enforced. I strongly encourage the Minister, as she engages with the consequences of the spending review, to urge the agency to increase its enforcement efforts in respect of the water companies.
There have also been comments—a few moments ago from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), with whom I have also engaged on this matter, and from outside—to the effect that the concept of a progressive reduction could be trivial. The hon. Gentleman gave some examples. I think that that is to fundamentally misunderstand how the amendment will lock into the other measures in the Bill. Before my private Member’s Bill emerged, the Government had already indicated that they would introduce for the first time in statute a requirement for sewerage undertakings to produce a drainage and sewerage management plan to last five years. Every five years, it would be updated. Within that plan, there is a requirement to reduce the impact of the activities on the environment.
The proposed new clause locks the duty into those plans, and the plans are subject to a Government power to rewrite them if the Secretary of State of the day does not believe that they are good enough or go far enough. So there is, in my view, a clear link between the amendment and requiring water companies to make a progressive reduction in sewage discharges of materiality. That seems to have been missed by many of the commentators who have been complaining about whether the Bill has teeth.
In addition—as the Minister said—to this set of requirements on water companies, the office for environmental protection will have the power to investigate poor behaviour on the part of companies that do not meet their statutory duties in the Bill, which include a progressive reduction in sewage discharges and their impact. It will be able to consider whether the Environment Agency is doing its job in regulating the companies’ progressive reduction of those discharges, and, as we have just heard, it can also investigate Ofwat.
For all those reasons, I think that the Bill provides a clear direction to water companies that they must reduce sewage discharges, which, as Members in all parts of the House agree, have got to stop. I will be supporting the amendment.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I will not speak for very long. I am aware—as always—that the Bill is largely concerned with English environmental matters, as environment is for the most part devolved to Scotland, and I have to say, thank goodness for that! The Lords amendments serve to highlight some of the progress that Scotland has made in environmental protection.
In respect of the amendments on the OEP, I should point out that we have already established an independent governance body in Environmental Standards Scotland, which is fully independent of the Scottish Government and answerable to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government were happy to support it, because they know that true independence of regulators is a vital part of their role.
It seems to me that the UK Government’s reluctance to accept independent oversight is one of the main causes of delay to the implementation of the Bill. It strikes me as incredible that one of the cornerstones of environmental protection in England, post Brexit, is an issue still being argued about by this Government. It exposes the fact that our departure from the EU leaves us all very vulnerable to this Government, any future decisions that they might make to slash regulations, and subsequent environmental backsliding. It is also disappointing to note that the Government have resisted calls to take really strong action through the Bill, such as implementing the World Health Organisation’s standards for air quality, which we have done in Scotland. Let me also record again my utter dismay that the Government inserted an amendment via the House of Lords, the intent and outcome of which I still deplore. UK Ministers ignored the express wishes of the Scottish Parliament as detailed in the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 on a devolved issue, and cut those wishes down.
Let me turn to the amendments on sewage. Water is an area very clearly devolved to Scotland. Scottish Water is a statutory organisation, accountable to the Scottish Parliament. It is owned, if you like, by the people for the people, and that is the way the Scottish people like it. Although we have our own problems with outdated Victorian sewer systems struggling to cope with the “once in a hundred years” events that now seem to be occurring every two to three years, the fact remains that any profits made by Scottish Water are invested in the services and infrastructure of Scotland’s waterways rather than the pockets of shareholders, and that Scottish Water does not carry the stratospheric levels of debt carried by English water companies—and that is the way the people of Scotland like it too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hope that the next contributions will be very brief indeed, because we can only keep the debate running until seven minutes past eight.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak about these Lords amendments.
I welcome the Government’s progress on the Office for Environmental Protection. I think that its independence is better protected than it was before, but that is something of which we must be very conscious. I believe that it will be very effective under Dame Glenys Stacey, and I think that the Secretary of State will work with her, as will Ministers, to ensure that it is indeed independent. It must have enough resources to be able to continue its work. I hope that it will prevent a great many cases from going to court. We will ultimately need a judicial system to make it work, but I hope that the new system and the new body will bring about many conclusions on environmental problems, and a good deal of advice so that cases do not end up in the courts for years.
I will be very quick, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to welcome the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) has put into the outflows amendment, and also the work done by the Duke of Wellington. Together, they have negotiated extremely well—dare I say it—with the Government, and what the Government have now come up with is absolutely right.
Geraint Davies
As the hon. Gentleman knows, if we do not accept the Wellington amendment, we will all have to wear Wellington boots to avoid the stools while we are paddling. But does he agree that we also need on-roof water capture with water butts, upstream water capture, and downstream and water processing plant capture so that we can take the pressure off the sewerage system when there is flash flooding, and sort out this problem without immediate massive investment in the sewers?
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend—I will call him my hon. Friend—from the Select Committee. As he rightly says, we need to capture more storm water and rainwater, because it is unfortunately getting into the sewers and causing these outflows. That is an important point. The water companies have to ensure that they recompense their shareholders, but having done an enquiry in previous Parliaments, I know that we have to apply a lot of heat to those companies to ensure that they put the investment into curing the problem of outflows. We also have to ensure that the Environment Agency and Ofwat use their teeth on those companies to make that happen.
I believe that we can do this. There is a great deal of cost involved, but those companies need to concentrate a lot of their resources on these issues to ensure the quality of the water we bathe in, the rivers that we fish in and those that we want to swim in. Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), I also do a bit of wild swimming. I swim in the River Parrett, so I will probably end up in the Bristol channel one day. But seriously, I believe that we will clean up the water but we must put pressure on the water companies. What the Minister has said is welcome, and I know that the Secretary of State will also put pressure on them. I will stop there, because I know that many hon. Members from across the House and from Devon and Cornwall and across the west country want to speak on this issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now put on a time limit of three minutes so that we can get as many people in as possible. If people could speak for less than three minutes, that would be absolutely great.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I want to thank everyone in my constituency who has written to me about the Environment Bill during its long progress. It has been a long time coming, but I will be brief. I would also like to thank those in the other place who have put up a good fight and improved the Bill. I am disappointed that, despite all the wrangling, the debates and the evidence, there is still an enormous gap between the Government’s rhetoric on the environment and this Bill, which simply does not go far enough. While all the eyes and hopes of the world are on Glasgow and COP26, the Government are doing all they can to resist introducing concrete protections, leaving our environment as a bargaining chip for new trade agreements that would undercut Britain’s environmental standards. They cannot have it both ways.
I am disappointed that the Government have refused to include World Health Organisation air quality targets in the Bill. There is much unfinished business here, on trees and on single-use plastics, and I must include wet wipes in that. The Office for Environmental Protection was meant to hold Ministers to account on their green policies, but the simple truth is that the Government’s preferred OEP will lack independence and will not be able to hold Tory Ministers to account in the way that they have promised. That is why we had such tortuous explanations of how it will work in the opening statement: the Bill is simply not clear enough and does not go far enough. I therefore urge colleagues to support Lords amendments 31C and 75C.
I am proud to have the River Thames in my constituency, but we have a dirty water emergency. While the Government’s proposal is a big improvement on what went before, it still does not place a duty on the Secretary of State, as set out in Lords amendment 45B proposed by the Duke of Wellington, to tackle sewage, to tackle that plastic getting out and to tackle the killing of fish, which happens on a regular basis worldwide. This progressive reduction does not cut it with those of us on the Opposition Benches. In short, the Bill is still not fit for purpose. It has certainly improved since its First Reading nearly two years ago. I was proud to be on the Bill Committee, in which nearly 200 amendments that would have improved the Bill were tabled, but not one of them was agreed to.
We have had to drag the Government kicking and screaming just to get the Bill to this stage, and that is embarrassing when the UK is supposed to be showing global leadership on the climate emergency. There have been a lot of bold words from the Government, and I really hope to see them put into practice, but I fear that the Office for Environmental Protection will not be able to enforce everything, just as the Environment Agency has not been able to enforce everything, and that is why we have our dirty rivers. We will be cheering this on, and we will hope for more, but we are disappointed by the progress so far.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I would very much like to thank the Minister for her clarity today. I represent a constituency that has a great river running through it. It is a river that I have sailed on all my life and also swum in all my life, albeit sometimes unintentionally. This whole debate around the sewage amendment is very personal to me because I am the daughter of a boatbuilder who often used to work on boats on his creek right next to raw sewage and water scum. Nobody on the Government Benches could deny that that kind of environment is totally disgusting.
Also, this year we saw an unprecedented period in which our beautiful Kent beaches were shut because of an absolute disaster involving the dispersal of sewage from the overflows. There is no doubt that water companies pumping sewage into our waterways in 2021 is disgusting. Two weeks ago, I supported the Duke of Wellington’s amendment because I wanted the Government to go as far as they could practically go in stopping this practice. I am very thankful for the work of the Minister and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and for the discussions that have gone on in these two weeks to ensure that we have been able to bring forward this amendment today. I will support the Government tonight, because I totally believe that this new duty, combined with other measures in the Bill, will be a major step towards ending the use of storm overflows.
I was disappointed by some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for whom I have great respect. We need to recognise that this Government and these Ministers are the first to tackle the issue of sewage and storm overflows. No Government have done that previously, and I am proud that the Minister, who is so passionate about this issue, has worked incredibly hard to accommodate our worries and fears. The Environment Bill is a major piece of work for the protection and improvement of our environment. Make no mistake, these measures will cost the water companies and the bill payers, but I believe that they will bring the water companies into line so that we can stop this disgusting practice. I will be very happy to support the Minister and her team tonight.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, but I will not take too long. I want to ask the Minister a quick question. I am pleased to see what is coming forward in relation to single-use items and the conservation covenants, and I am pleased that those measures have all been passed. However, I still have a concern about the Office for Environmental Protection’s enforcement policy. Lords amendment 31 states:
“The OEP has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions, including in—
(a) preparing its enforcement policy,
(b) exercising its enforcement functions, and
(c) preparing and publishing its budget.”
That has merit in my eyes, and I would be interested to hear the Government’s rationale as to why they believe it is unnecessary, as I believe that similar amendments were made in relation to Northern Ireland.
I am also gratified to learn that there is now a Government amendment in place for a duty to be enshrined in law to ensure that water companies secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impacts of discharges from storm overflows. That has been lacking for many years, and I have seen the devastating effects of discharge from storm overflows on homes that merit at least this form of protection. For too many years, the water companies have been doing the bare minimum. I seek the Minister’s confirmation that more will be done to ensure that the rivers and waterways around this great United Kingdom are protected, that more will be done than just the bare minimum, and that this will be the beginning of progress. We must all take our obligation to future generations more seriously. I often say, as others do, that we leave our environment for the generations that come after us, and for the sake of my grandchildren—and my great-grandchildren, when that time comes—we must ensure that the water companies step up to their agenda.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I will be as brief as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Ministers for listening and for moving on this issue, and above all I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who was sitting next to me, for his leadership on this issue. I do not think that this could have happened without him. To be blunt, if this amendment is good enough for him, it is good enough for me. He would not support it if it were not strong.
On the Isle of Wight we have some wonderfully clean beaches, but any sewage discharge is unacceptable. In a place that is environmentally sensitive—we are a UNESCO biosphere—and that has so many amenity sites because of so many visitors swimming, having human poo on our beaches is not acceptable. The same applies in the Solent, for sailors, whether they are in the Solent accidentally or deliberately. We need to clean this up.
I also note that I know the Government are somewhat victims of their own success. It is great being lectured by the Opposition, but this groundbreaking Bill is being brought in by the Government side, and we should all be supporting it.
I have two questions for the Minister, who was kind enough to say that she would take them. First, the Government have power to push the water firms to go further, faster. Will she be willing, and will the Secretary of State next to her be willing, to use that power to ensure that the water firms understand the urgency of this situation for our waterways and our beaches?
Secondly, and if I understand it rightly, can the Minister confirm that ecologically sensitive sites and amenity sites, as which the Isle of Wight’s beaches both qualify, will be given priority? I am writing to the water firms about that this evening, but anything the Minister could do to clear that up and to ensure that those amenity and ecologically sensitive sites are prioritised would be very welcome.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I rise to oppose the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 45B on sewage discharges. We need higher fines for polluters and annual parliamentary scrutiny and to define progressive reductions—how much, and by when—of sewage discharges, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said.
The Thames runs through my constituency; I have kayaked there, I have paddle-boarded and on Saturday I ran 26.2 miles along it. I quote:
“The real test of Government seriousness is whether they also instruct regulators to authorise investment in sewers, and end policies that make the problem worse.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the water companies on 22 October. Why were the Government dragging their feet when the water companies were encouraging them to support the Duke of Wellington’s amendment?
There has been broad support for stronger action. Yet again, the Minister quotes the £600 billion cost that she says dealing with the problem will cause, but the water companies say the cost is in the region of £13 billion to £20 billion using concrete storage tanks, or £20 billion to £30 billion more if they are accompanied by natural drainage schemes that bring wider community benefits. That compares with the £1.2 billion already being spent by industry on overflows between 2020 and 2025. This does not represent some unfeasibly large jump in effort, say the water companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport explained that the amendment does not go far enough, so Labour will not be supporting it. DEFRA has been decimated; the Minister herself just now described the OEP as a small organisation. The Government’s approach to this aspect of the Environment Bill—in fact, all aspects of the Environment Bill—is yet another example of how they just pay lip service to the environment.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I will be brief, because I know we want to end. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for articulating what I would have wanted to say, had I had longer to speak. I also thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their accessibility in this ongoing negotiation on sewage storm overflows.
This issue has been a passion of mine since childhood, when I grew up on the Yorkshire coast and swam in said sewage. Now I have the great privilege of representing two coastlines in Cornwall, as well as inland waterways, and to have been a member of Surfers Against Sewage since before I moved to Cornwall. It has been a great regret that the organisation has been at the centre of a very nasty campaign, supported by hon. Members on the Opposition side, accusing me of having voted to pump raw sewage into the oceans, which I have not. All of us in this Chamber can agree that we want to put an end to that. If anybody accuses me of that again, I would be grateful if they wrote to my office so that I can provide them with a detailed answer.
I look forward to seeing Truro and Falmouth benefit from the myriad of measures within the Bill, which I do not have time to go into. I am grateful to Members of both Houses of Parliament, of all political persuasions, for showing how well this House works and how it is possible to get the Government to move on something that is extremely important to everyone. I will leave my comments there, because I know that we are short of time.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I will finish within a minute and 20 seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let us just focus on the sewage, then, given that that is the time available to us.
We have, thanks to the Government amendment, now a duty on water companies to progressively reduce the amount of sewage discharged through storm overflows —but there are no targets for either volume or timescale. That leaves water companies with the power to continue doing what they do now. This amendment is something to get Conservative Back Benchers off the hook, rather than to give water companies the direction they need.
I represent the English Lake District. I am disgusted that there is raw sewage being dumped into Lake Windermere for 71 days, collectively, in any given year. This amendment will do nothing to stop that. Currently, a water company dumps 40% of all the phosphates in Windermere. If that goes down to 39%, there is no measure to say whether that is okay, so I assume the water companies will think that it is okay.
What about timescale? What if the amount goes down over five years or over 10 years? All the Government amendment does is give the Back Benchers of the Conservative party an excuse to write to their constituents and say, “There has been further movement in the right direction.” It allows the Government to let the water companies off the hook, while doing nothing at all to demand what is necessary to clean up our lakes and our rivers.
Rebecca Pow
We have been two and a quarter years bringing this enormous Bill through Parliament. I want to thank all hon. Members and hon. Friends for their contributions, particularly those who have approached me personally over the past few days: my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young), for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Devizes (Danny Kruger), for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), for Havant (Alan Mak), for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) and for Watford (Dean Russell).
I also thank many others from all around our coasts, including my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). If I have left anybody out, I will be writing to them—[Interruption.] And my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). Yes, we will be looking at ecological sites and bathing waters first when we bring in the storm overflows legislation. That should placate the wild swimmer from the Opposition Benches, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard).
I have outlined in enormous detail why we should vote for these amendments—
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
Monday 8th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 8 November 2021 - (8 Nov 2021)
21:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 273 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 1 to 3.
Julia Lopez
I am pleased that the Bill has returned to the House from the other place and for the chance to speak to it. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for his tremendous work in bringing it through the House earlier in this Session and in the last.
The Bill will create one of the toughest telecoms security regimes in the world. It will protect networks, even as technologies grow and evolve, shielding our telecoms critical national infrastructure both now and for the future. As the House will be aware, the Bill introduces a stronger telecoms security framework, which places new security duties on public telecoms providers and introduces new national security powers to address the risks posed by high-risk vendors.
I will briefly summarise the changes that have been made to the Bill. Lords amendments 1 to 3 were tabled by my colleague in the other place, Lord Parkinson. Lords amendment 4 relates to reporting on supply chain diversification and Lords amendment 5 relates to reviewing actions taken by Five Eyes nations regarding high-risk vendors. I will speak first to Lords amendments 1 to 3.
The important role of parliamentary scrutiny has been raised in debate throughout the passage of the Bill. In the other place, particular attention has been paid to scrutiny of our strengthened telecoms security framework. In its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted that the new codes of practice were central to this framework, as they will contain specific technical information for telecoms providers. The Committee recommended that the negative procedure should be applied to the issuing of codes of practice. We carefully considered the Committee’s recommendation over the summer, and tabled amendments 1 to 3 in the other place to accept them.
The amendments will require the Government to lay a draft of any code of practice before Parliament for 40 days. Both this House and the other place will then have a period of time to scrutinise the code of practice before it is issued. These amendments demonstrate that we have listened and that we are committed to every aspect of the framework receiving appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I commend these amendments to the House.
I will now speak to Lords amendment 4, regarding diversification. This amendment would place an annual requirement on the Government to report on the impacts of their 5G telecoms diversification strategy on the security of public telecommunications networks and services. It would also require a debate in the House on that report. The Government cannot support the amendment for two reasons. The first objection relates to the flexibility necessary for diversification. A reporting requirement of this nature is restrictive and premature. This is an evolving market that is rapidly changing, and we need the flexibility to focus our attention where it will have the greatest impact. While our focus is currently on diversifying radio access networks, once that part of the mobile network has been diversified we will move on to focus on other areas. Committing to reporting on specific criteria would limit us to reporting against the risks as we find them today and would not afford us the flexibility that diversification requires.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am very interested in what the Minister says, because one of the major themes, and one of the big failures of the 5G debacle over Huawei, is the fact that we do not have diversification in the network. How will the Government be able to do a stocktake every year so that we as parliamentarians, and others, will be able to judge that what is being said about a commitment to diversification, which is in a lot of policy papers, is actually happening in practice?
Julia Lopez
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comment. Hon. Members will be able to raise in the normal way, through parliamentary questions, scrutiny at oral questions and Committee work, what we are doing in this area. We are reporting regularly on some of our diversification efforts and some of the money that we are spending from the spending review.
Mr Jones
I accept that, although the current Government’s response to parliamentary questions these days is sometimes lacking. What benchmark, then, will the Government use for ensuring diversification? I accept that the Minister is the Minister today, but there will possibly be a future Minister—she will not be there for ever—so how are we to judge that we are actually going to get that diversification? Without that, we will end up as we have done now, with a network that is market-led and diversification is not in the market.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We are committed to reporting to the House on a regular basis, but we do not want to limit ourselves on specifically what we will be reporting on in technological terms, because this is a rapidly evolving marketplace and we need to make sure that we have the flexibility to deal with particular infrastructure challenges as and when they come along.
My sense is that this amendment is intended to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on delivering their diversification strategy. If that is the case, a reporting requirement of this nature is unnecessary. This House and the other place already have mechanisms to hold the Government to account through parliamentary questions, as I said, and through the various Select Committees that can ably scrutinise this work. That is the appropriate way for scrutiny to take place.
Our second objection relates to focus. This is, first and foremost, a national security Bill. It is intended to strengthen the security and resilience of all our public telecoms networks, be they fixed line or mobile—2G, 3G, 4G, 5G and beyond. While the Government’s 5G telecoms diversification strategy has been developed to support that objective, it is not the sole objective of the strategy. This is market-making work. It is not a panacea to raise the security of our public networks. Moreover, the current scope of the strategy is not to address the entire telecoms market but to diversify a specific subset of it. The amendment extends the Bill beyond its intended national security focus and creates an inflexible reporting requirement on a strategy that will need to continue to evolve. We have been insistent on this position, and that is why I ask that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4.
Lords amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to review decisions taken by Five Eyes partners to ban telecommunications vendors on security grounds. In particular, it would require the Secretary of State to review the UK’s security arrangements with the vendor and consider whether to issue a designated vendor direction, or take a similar action, in the UK. I welcome the intention behind the amendment, which demonstrates that those in all parts of this House and the other place take the security of this country and its people incredibly seriously.
However, while we support the spirit of the amendment, we cannot accept it for four reasons. First, the House will recall that the Bill will provide the Secretary of State with the power to designate specific vendors in the interests of national security for the purpose of issuing a designated vendor direction. In clause 16 there is a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State may take into consideration when issuing these designation notices. That list illustrates the kinds of factors we proactively consider on an ongoing basis as part of our national security work. A decision by a Five Eyes partner, or any other international partner, to ban a vendor on security grounds could be considered as part of that process, so this amendment would require us to do something that has been part of the Bill from the outset.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The key remark that the Minister made there was that it “could be” considered. We have seen the Government’s failures previously in relation to Huawei, so why should we have confidence moving forward that this will be any different?
Julia Lopez
I appreciate the hon. Member’s comments. When the Secretary of State is looking to designate a vendor, she will put that to the House to be scrutinised, and we will be scrutinised on this issue through the usual procedures that I have outlined in my previous comments.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to her place. If we look back over the past few months, even the past year or so, we see very much that the resistance early on by the UK Government with Huawei, when other Five Eyes countries were banning it, has led to a remarkable back-cost for replacing all this stuff because we failed to take an early decision. While the amendment may not be perfect, it indicates clearly a big weakness in the Government’s position, even in this very good Bill. If Five Eyes countries, which are our main allies in intelligence, spot there is a problem, we should pause, investigate the reasons why, and then come back to the House with the reasons why we disagree or agree. The amendment aims at doing that, so perhaps the Government should think about amending the Bill in such a way.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s comments, but it is important that we do not put in primary legislation the specific partners that we should have to listen to on these specific issues. It would create a hierarchy of diplomatic networks.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
With respect, these are not specific partners; these are our closest allies when it comes to intelligence sharing. They do not get any closer than this. Working with them, as we do in sharing intelligence, means that using systems for sharing that intelligence would corrupt our own ability. I wonder whether the Minister could just slightly reset: these are not just partners.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s comments. The amendment would require us to do something that has been part of the legislation from the outset. We believe that our existing approach is the right way to continually consider the decisions of our international allies and partners, whether or not they are part of Five Eyes. That brings me to the second objection to the amendment, which is that it is unnecessary because we regularly engage with our Five Eyes partners and are committed to a close and enduring partnership with them. We agree with the other place that where possible, the UK Government should consider the actions of other countries when developing our own policies, and that is exactly what we do already. It is what we have been doing before and during the passage of this legislation.
The intelligence and security agencies across Five Eyes retain close co-operation, which includes frequent dialogue between the National Cyber Security Centre and its international partners. This dialogue includes the sharing of technical expertise on the security of telecoms networks and managing the risks posed by high-risk vendors. There are mechanisms in place for the NCSC to share this and wider information with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Collaboration with our Five Eyes partners forms an intrinsic part of our national security work. The alliance was not created through legislation and it has not required legislation for us to develop and strengthen that relationship, and the amendment would set an unhelpful precedent. We do not need the amendment to compel us to work with our Five Eyes partners.
That takes me to our third reason for resisting the amendment, which is that the UK needs to have the flexibility to develop and encourage international relationships in addition to Five Eyes. Naming individual countries in this way would set an unhelpful precedent for national security legislation in future. As I have acknowledged, it is important that we consider the policies of our Five Eyes partners, namely New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the US, when developing our own policies, but we also need to consider the policies of a wide range of other countries, including those of our European neighbours, such as France and Germany, and those of other nations, such as Japan, South Korea and India. Stipulating in primary legislation the countries whose policies the UK Government should consider when developing our own national security policies, whether Five Eyes or other countries, would be unhelpful, given the wide-ranging nature of our international collaboration. It would be highly unusual to refer to specific countries in legislation in this way, and this Bill is not the right place to create such a precedent.
The fourth reason for resisting the amendment is that it is impractical because of the many different ways in which other countries operate their national security decision making. The amendment would require us to act whenever a ban takes place in another Five Eyes country, but it may not be immediately clear when a country has taken a decision to ban a vendor, particularly if they have relied on sensitive intelligence to make that decision.
It may not always be apparent why a particular country has banned a particular vendor. There could be any number of reasons why a foreign Government would choose to restrict a company’s ability to operate within that country. Those reasons may not be based purely on national security grounds. I welcome the intention behind the amendment, but we cannot accept it because we feel that it is duplicative, impractical, restrictive and, ultimately, unnecessary.
In summary, the House is presented with a strengthened Bill as Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3 will increase the chances of parliamentary scrutiny of the telecoms security framework. As I have set out, however, it would be inappropriate to agree to Lords amendments 4 and 5. I thank the other place for its scrutiny of the Bill. I commend Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3 to the House and ask that the House disagrees with Lords amendments 4 and 5.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank colleagues in the other place who have worked hard to improve the Bill. National security is the first duty of any Government and Labour will always put our country’s security first.
The pandemic has shown how important telecommunications networks are. I declare an interest as a former telecoms engineer, but I am sure I speak for the whole House in thanking all those who have kept our networks going during the pandemic. We have been dependent on them to work from home or to keep in touch with family and friends. This House could continue its important work thanks to telecommunications networks, as well as the hard work of House staff and the Speaker’s support.
A secure network is of the utmost importance. Labour welcomes the Bill’s intention while recognising its limitations. I am pleased that the Lords amendments that we are discussing reflect issues that Labour has been raising.
Lords amendment 1 seeks to improve transparency in the use of the Secretary of State’s powers to issue codes of practice to communications providers through the negative procedure. It reflects amendments that we tabled in Committee in response to the sweeping powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State and Ofcom. As the Comms Council UK said,
“the Minister will be able to unilaterally make decisions that impact the technical operation and direction of technology companies, with little or no oversight or accountability.”
The House has a duty to ensure that those powers are proportionate and accountable, so we are happy that the Government have bowed to pressure from Labour to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny, even if, in our view, it does not go far enough. Two consequential amendments to Lords amendment 1 set out the conditions for the 40-day scrutiny period and ensure that that time cannot be disrupted by recess or Prorogation so that this House and the other place have sufficient time to scrutinise the code.
Lords amendment 5 is cross party and designed to ensure that the Government review a vendor that is banned in a Five Eyes country. We support the amendment and find the Government’s opposition concerning, as we believe it could threaten our national security.
I find the Minister’s arguments against the amendment somewhat confused. She claims that the amendment is unnecessary because we already monitor Five Eyes countries and would always respond to the actions of our closest intelligence partners, but if that is true, why not formalise it? We are stronger together, specifically with our Five Eyes allies. Instead of putting forward further arguments, I turn to the eloquent explanation of Conservative peer Lord Blencathra:
“All it asks the Government to do…is to review the security arrangements with a telecoms provider if one of our vital, strategic Five Eyes partners bans its equipment. We are not calling for a similar immediate ban, or an eventual ban, we are just saying let us review it and come to a conclusion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2021; Vol. 815, c. 99.]
We will support the amendment.
Lords amendment 4 requires the Secretary of State to report on the diversification strategy’s impact on the security of telecommunications networks. It would also allow for a debate in this House on the report to further strengthen parliamentary scrutiny. Labour supports the removal of high-risk vendors from our telecoms networks, and given the grave situation into which successive Conservative Governments have allowed our networks to fall, it is essential that the Government have the powers to remove Huawei at speed. However, we are left with only two providers, and as we heard repeatedly at every stage of this Bill’s progression, two providers is not diverse, is not resilient and is not secure.
We cannot ensure national security without a diverse supply chain, but I fear that the Government still just do not get it. Let me just take two of the Minister’s arguments. The first argument seems to be, as far as I could comprehend it, that requiring reporting would be “restrictive and premature”, but surely if the Government’s intention is to diversify the supply chain—and we have heard that we cannot have a secure network without a diversified supply chain—the only way a reporting requirement would be limiting is if the Government have no actual intention of doing anything about diversifying it.
The Minister’s second argument seems to be that this is too technologically specific. Lords amendment 4 says:
“The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the impact of progress of the diversification of the telecommunications supply chain on the security of public electronic communication networks and services.”
Would the Minister tell me what in that is specific as to the technology? Indeed, the only specific aspect of technology is a requirement to include future technologies that may be used as a platform, such as cloud computing. I find the Minister’s reasons for not supporting this amendment concerning. I fear that the Government are just not serious about diversifying our supply chain, and that they do not really have a plan for it.
The Minister mentioned asking parliamentary questions. Just last week, I asked her what funding was available for 5G diversification, and she talked about
“a Future RAN Competition (FRANC) and opening the doors of the SmartRAN Open Network Interoperability Centre (SONIC Labs).”
I want to know how diversification is being achieved and how local sovereign UK capability is being built, not an acronym soup that is ad hoc, hard to digest and dangerously complacent.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The hon. Lady is an expert in so far as she was, I understand, a communications engineer. As far as I understand it, there are three suppliers, but one of them we do not particularly want to use, and that leaves two. What other diversification can we do if we only have two? Can we try to build up something very fast, and is that what the hon. Lady is suggesting?
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I promise not to take advantage of it to set out at length what we could be doing to diversify. I would just say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that we only have two suppliers for 5G now, but the technology is evolving and there are new technologies for the next generation of networks—6G. As he will well remember, we have gone through generations of technology at quite a pace over the last 20 years.
Right now, we should be investing in great UK technologies from companies and start-ups that are working in the field of open RAN and other technologies. Rather than having just one vendor supplying a whole network, as has been the case with Huawei and others, we would have a diverse mix of vendors at every stage of the network—the core and so on—which would enable much greater resilience. We could be doing that. The technologies are there now, and with the support of a forward-looking Government, we could ensure that leaders in those technologies were UK companies. We would therefore have not only a resilient network, but a network with local capability, because I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is no UK capability or UK vendor in this area right now. That is what I hope to see from the Government. Network diversification should be a fantastic opportunity to support innovative start-ups around the country.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree it is a pity that the Government got rid of the industrial strategy group that helped to advise on these expert issues?
Chi Onwurah
As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and as a telecoms engineer, it has been sad to see the lack of an industrial strategy for our telecommunications capability, which strengthens our UK capability. We have excellent engineers and excellent research. We should be leading in future telecommunications capability, and an industrial strategy would ensure that was the case. It would also help collaboration with our allies. For example, the US does not have a vendor that can provide our 5G networks at the moment, and collaboration with our allies and an industrial strategy or plan could make such a difference globally and locally to our security and economic strength.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Is the main point in all of this that this was not a market failure? Although an industrial strategy is important, in reality this is a national security failure. Huawei has undercut the market progressively for nearly 15 years through its subsidies, breaking every rule and driving every company out of business. The single biggest problem we face is having a proper functioning market that requires those involved in it to obey the rules. China does not, and everyone has paid lip service to that. Is that the real problem?
Chi Onwurah
I both agree and disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree totally that national security is not a function of the market, and the fact that we have a network that is not secure is not a market failure but a failure of government and foresight. China had an industrial strategy. That is why it has a vendor in all the networks across the world—
Chi Onwurah
Not to break the rules, but to work with other nations whose values we share, and in the long term to develop and support companies in this area.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend also agree that this did not come as a great shock to the Government? It was all laid out in the 2013 Intelligence and Security Committee report on critical national infrastructure, but nothing has been done since then.
Chi Onwurah
My right hon. Friend, as always, makes a really good point. That is where an industrial strategy would have come in. It was predicted and we had time to build up alternatives. To go from having Huawei as one vendor among others that had small parts of our network, to our network being so dependent on it, took time. We could have used that time better to secure our networks and our own capability. The Government are bodging this. They are leaving it to the market when national security is not a market function. Labour has consistently welcomed the Bill, but it is only a small step towards achieving a truly secure and robust telecommunications network. In 2010 the Tories inherited a secure, competitive and world-leading network. It is now insecure, uncompetitive and bumping along the bottom. The Government have wasted 11 years, with huge delays in the second and third-generation fixed broadband roll-out, pushing us down the bottom of the OECD tables. Telecommunications are essential to our national security and economy, and we hope the Government will take this opportunity to recognise that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am introducing a four-minute limit. There is hardly any time in this debate, and the votes will come no later than 9.37 pm. If people can be even pithier than four minutes that would be helpful.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
First, I must declare that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on new and advanced technologies.
I have here—switched to silent, I hasten to add—my mobile phone, on which are all my apps. Just going through them gives us an idea of the flood of information about me that is now carried through telecommunication networks. I have my train app, my Uber app, my Bolt app and my Uber Eats app—as you can see from my waistline, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have my bank accounts. I have my Tesco Clubcard. I have my Signal and my WhatsApp. I have my Instagram. I have my tickets for sporting events. I have my apps for parking and for booking restaurants, and apps to read newspapers. I have apps for—heaven forbid—my golf handicap; unfortunately, it is really high. I also have my bet365 app—the less said about that, the better. I have apps for health and I have apps for my mental health.
In short, someone can see from my phone where I eat, what I spend, who I associate with, where I have been, where I am going to be, my financial status, my credit worthiness, whether I am an insurance risk, even whether I like a curry or a pizza—or, frankly, whether I am happy or sad.
Much of this is truly wonderful, and we have seen through the pandemic how technology has advanced 10 years in just 18 months. But you ain’t seen nothing yet, Mr Deputy Speaker. I expect that we will have the use of biometrics, the linking of data, and artificial intelligence. This is more than the railroad of the 21st century; it is redefining the way we interact with one another, and how the state protects and interacts with us. You do not need an aircraft carrier if you can subvert telecommunications. It is imperative that the Government ensure that our national security is not breached in this way. That must be woven into the plan that we have for the future of data and the interaction between the state and the individual. This Bill is the start of that process, although admittedly it is very late in the day, after many false starts.
Moving on to the Lords amendments, I am pleased that the noble Lord Parkinson tabled Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3 in the other place on behalf of the Government. As new technologies emerge and security threats change, it is only right that Ministers have the ability to introduce new codes of practice to bring legislation up to date. However, through the application of the negative resolution procedure, right hon. and hon. Members will be able to provide parliamentary scrutiny to the new codes where necessary.
I have great sympathy with the thrust and intention of Lords amendments 4 and 5, although I wonder whether Lords amendment 5 is slightly gilding the lily. I would hope that any Government worth their salt would take very seriously the approach of our closest security partners, so I wonder whether that really needs to be in law at this stage. However, Lords amendment 4 on network diversification is very strong, and I am minded not to support the Government on it tonight. Frankly, I think it would advance things and set a really good marker in that respect.
This is absolutely necessary law. It is very late in the day, and it has been a very difficult process, but we must now focus on the fact that this is not the end but the very beginning of the way we underpin our society in terms of how we protect our data and our telecommunications.
Stephen Flynn
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), although now I am really interested to know whether he prefers a curry or a pizza. When I came into the debate, I did not expect that to be the topic of discussion.
I am very conscious of time, and I know that a number of people on the Back Benches would like to make contributions to this incredibly important debate. However, I will take the opportunity to set out the SNP’s views on Lords amendments 4 and 5 and, importantly, briefly to reflect on why we are in the situation that we are in. Actually, that kind of ties in to Lords amendment 5: it is because of the mess that the Government have created in relation to Huawei.
When I first came into the House—pre-pandemic, of course—one of the biggest issues being discussed was the situation with Huawei and the flip-flopping that the Government were doing. I respectfully suggest that, in relation to Lords amendment 5, it is almost akin to the fact that they have learned nothing. There is an opportunity before them to ensure that they work with key intelligence partners, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, to ascertain where the biggest threat sits. But rather than take cognisance of what has been said in the other place, they are simply saying that the plan, as they have it at this moment in time, is good enough. That, from my perspective, simply does not cut it, especially, as we have heard, when some £2 billion has already been wasted on this debacle, notwithstanding the economic impact of being so many years behind in the roll-out of 5G itself. That, in many senses, covers Lords amendment 5.
On Lords amendment 4 and diversification, I will not repeat the exact detail of the amendment because that was done so eloquently by the shadow Minister, but I was a little bit surprised at what the Minister said. If I got the scope of it correctly, she was saying that Lords amendment 4 is far too narrow and would make the Government’s life too difficult. However, the amendment did not seem to suggest that when I cast my eyes on it. In fact, if I read it correctly, in the other place the Government’s position was that the framework was already sufficient, so the Government do not even seem to have clarity between the other place and this place on their actual position. I do not think that that is necessarily a surprise, because they are just looking for a reason not to back an incredibly helpful amendment.
Those are the views of the SNP on the two more contentious amendments. I look forward to the Minister perhaps providing the clarity that the Government have not been able to provide so far. I also look forward to hearing what our esteemed Back Benchers have to say on these matters.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow all the Back-Bench speeches so far.
I would like to blaze in capital letters what the Minister said:
“This is, first and foremost, a national security Bill.”
Something very similar was said when the National Security and Investment Bill—now the National Security and Investment Act 2021—was going through this House and the other place earlier this year. The Intelligence and Security Committee is, as it always has been, a non-partisan organisation. I will therefore be saying some things to please and, probably, to annoy both sides.
The Committee considered the five amendments at a recent meeting. We agreed that the entirety of Lords amendments 1 to 3 was broadly beneficial. We looked at Lords amendment 5 and we understood the temptation to flag up the importance of the Five Eyes relationship. We agreed—it is interesting how closely our deliberations, without consultation, conformed to the views of the Chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight)—that it was, as he put it, a case of gilding the lily, because whenever a serious objection is raised on security grounds by one of the Five Eyes partners, we take that with the utmost seriousness. That leaves us with Lords amendment 4. For the life of us, we cannot understand why the Government are opposing it. We believe it would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and provide a valuable annual stocktake on the progress being made on the diversification strategy and how it is helping to improve national security. Therefore, like the Chairman of our parallel Committee, I will not be voting against Lords amendment 4 tonight.
Where does that leave us as a Committee in terms of the two Bills and the amendments thereto? You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there have been intense arguments both in this place and in the upper House about the failure of the Government to accept amendments that would allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to scrutinise closely the secret aspects that are inevitably involved in those two Bills. I will not digress on this both because I lack time and because you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would instantly call me to order. I will simply say, on ensuring that there is ISC scrutiny of the classified elements that follow from this legislation, that arguments have been advanced by the Government in the other place to say, “Well, the face of the Bill isn’t the place to do it.” We agree with that now; we are taking the Government at their word. Therefore, we have written to the National Security Adviser and asked him to take up the issue with the Prime Minister, so that the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the ISC can be brought up to date to cater for the provisions of this Bill and the earlier Bill that should be part of our purview. That is what the Government promised in 2013 when the legislation was originally put through, for our Committee’s powers, and it is a promise that we expect them to keep.
Mr Kevan Jones
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who took the Bill through Committee very ably. Sadly, he was a victim of the cull of competence in the last reshuffle, but his approach to the Bill was refreshing.
The Bill is important and, as a member of the ISC, I fully support it, but aspects of it need improving. Lords amendment 4 on the diversification strategy is vital. I was not reassured by the Minister telling us that this would be kept on track. When people try to give the impression that the issue of telecoms security suddenly hit us like a bolt out of the blue because of Huawei, I suggest that they read the 2013 ISC report on critical national infrastructure. What was going to happen was all laid out there, and nothing did. I think that without this annual stocktake, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, there will be a tendency for future Governments to take their eye off the ball in terms of pushing forward the agenda that ensures that we are never again in a situation where we are beholden to, in this case, Huawei or any other vendor.
I have no problems with Lords amendments 1 to 3, but I think the Minister rather oversold this in saying that it is a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to parliamentary scrutiny. I accept that to a limited degree as it pertains to the codes of practice, but as the right hon. Member for New Forest East outlined, there is an issue that should concern Members on both sides of the House with this Bill and the National Security and Investment Act, in that there are elements of security now in two Departments that will not be able to be scrutinised by any Committee other than the ISC. As he outlined, although we have tabled probing amendments here and in the other place, we have given the benefit of the doubt to the Government, because of reassurances that scrutiny will be forthcoming. However, I say to the Minister that I would like a commitment tonight that she will feed that point back, because without this, no other Committee will be able to deal with the secret aspects involved. I have spoken to members of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, who are still trying to wheedle out of the Government their memorandum of understanding about what they can and cannot see, and that does not bode well. This is one thing that we will come back to, if it is not done now.
The ISC has so far been constructive and responsible in the way in which it has approached this issue. It is now in the hands of the Prime Minister to ensure that the memorandum of understanding is amended and is, as the Chair of the ISC said, in line with the Justice and Security Act 2013, which envisaged that we would have oversight if security went into other areas. Without that, these matters will lack the scrutiny that they rightly need.
Bob Stewart
I, too, speak as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. My comments will be short, because my time is limited, but many of the views that I will express have already been stated by other hon. Members.
As the House has heard, the ISC broadly supports the Bill, although it remains concerned about the Bill’s lack of a role for it in providing parliamentary oversight of parts of the legislation that Select Committees are unable to supervise. The ISC has made that point to the Government, but they do not accept it.
As a Committee, we want this legislation and will not push the issue, but we retain reservations about the matter not being part of the Bill. However, as the Chairman of the ISC—my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—and other hon. Members have said, we have written to the National Security Adviser to suggest that the matter be addressed in a revised edition of the Committee’s MOU, which comes from the Prime Minister. Otherwise, we consider that there will be gaps in the supervision available to Parliament—that is our main point.
The Committee fully supports the changes to clause 3 in Lords amendments 1 to 3 about codes of practice and the new wording after clause 23 in Lords amendment 4. With regard to Lords amendment 5 on Five Eyes review, we believe that the intelligence community will naturally consider the views of Five Eyes partners as part of its reporting, so the new clause, although worthy, is not really necessary.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am extremely grateful for your pithiness.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Bill seeks to enhance security provisions that all Members of this House must recognise are much needed. Clear consensus has been achieved—it has been hard-fought—that cyber-attacks on the telecommunications infrastructure pose a significant threat to national security and that legislation is needed to strengthen the security framework. The Government and the Minister are endeavouring to protect the state and its citizens. This is an absolutely necessary law that will make a clear improvement, but more can and must happen.
I believe that the Bill is needed not only to safeguard this great nation from cyber-terrorism, both domestic and external, but to ensure that we can continue to attract jobs and investment from those who seek to utilise the skills and experience of our workforce. As I have said numerous times in this House, Northern Ireland is fast becoming the cyber-security centre of the world, with companies from Europe, America and elsewhere making use of our low business rates and our high skillset. To continue to attract that investment and those jobs, we must really be on top of our game; I believe that the Bill will play an important part in that. Could the Minister give some indication of her discussions with Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the Bill’s economic benefits for all regions, particularly Northern Ireland?
We all want to secure jobs, but we cannot allow any and all companies to have access to our networks. I believe that the protections in the Bill are imperative against those who may unscrupulously seek to carry out espionage on either a corporate or a national security level. Along with many others, I had concerns about the Huawei deal and its impact on the essential Five Eyes agreement; I was pleased by the decision that the Government ultimately made for all our security. There is a lesson to be learned and I trust that we have all learned it.
I agree that it is imperative that a clear and precise code of conduct is permitted, so I support the Government’s further amendment to ensure that a code of conduct is encompassing and far-reaching. That is right and proper, and I fully support it.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendment 5, which was tabled by Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra.
The Five Eyes alliance is one of the most important strategic alliances that the UK shares. It is one of the world’s most comprehensive intelligence-sharing alliances, bringing together nations that have a strong bond forged through our shared history and values. The Government have recently taken a great stride towards strengthening our relationship with two of our Five Eyes partners, Australia and the United States, through the AUKUS agreement. I believe that Lords amendment 5 would further strengthen our ties with those great allies and ensure that we look to the future of the security and resilience of our telecommunications network.
Telecommunications networks have become the foundation of our economy, allowing business, Government and communities to connect and share information. This ability to connect and communicate is now a fundamental part of the way in which our society operates. Only last year, however, the Government were still considering using the services of a Chinese company, Huawei, to manage the introduction of 5G technology in our country. That was deeply worrying, owing to the complete subservience of the Chinese tech companies to the Chinese Communist party. The unholy alliance of these so-called private companies and an authoritarian Government who have no respect for basic values such as privacy has allowed the CCP to increase internal surveillance to a level never seen before. We would be foolish to think that the CCP would not have used its access to the information accumulated by Huawei through its involvement in our 5G roll-out, given the immense levels of intelligence that it would have been able to gain from that.
This debacle of Huawei shows that we must be extremely careful in protecting the security of our vital infrastructure. Letting companies that are so intertwined with a malign Government manage the implementation of our telecommunications systems would be no less than an act of national self-harm. If one of our close strategic allies makes the decision to ban a telecommunications company from operating within its borders, it will have a good reason for doing so. Taking the time to consider the rationale for such decisions will cost us little, whereas I worry that not doing so could be catastrophic for our national security. I hope that this House will approve amendment 5, as it will send a clear message that technology companies that work against our national interest will not be allowed to operate in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s position.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will be brief, as much has been said already. However, I want to say a bit to my hon. Friend the Minister about Lords amendment 4. I also, by the way, want to recognise my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who is no longer a Minister but who was in charge of much of the Bill’s passage. I thought that he did an excellent job. It is a very good Bill which is long overdue, and there is much to praise in it.
I think that Lords amendments 4 and 5 are worthy of a little more assessment. Lords amendment 4 does have merits, because it recognises that there is a real problem about diversification. The point that I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) earlier was not an argument against any kind of strategic review or industrial policies; it was the argument that if a nation is in a sense rogue, in terms of its ability to stay within the market, and subsidises companies deliberately for strategic effect, that is why the number of companies will fall from 15 to three in the free world, which is what happened in this case. I think the amendment is about the need to recognise the fact that diversification, if not pursued deliberately, will lead us into the hands of a country like China, which then forces us eventually to have only one vendor on price, because that country has subsidised it.
As for Lords amendment 5, I heard the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I would not regard this as “gilding the lily”. I do not much like lilies and I think they could do with a bit of gilding, but I think that this is more a case of locked doors, and if the amendment is about putting an extra door into the security panoply, I think it is important. I will be brief, but last year, along with many others, I had very strong arguments with the Government about Huawei, and we were disregarded, disregarded, disregarded. The Government even led out all the great security experts who told them that they could control everything, saying, “Don’t worry, we can manage the risk”—until it finally became apparent to them that they could not. We faced that at the time. Other Five Eyes members had already said that this was not on, but we seemed to disregard their views. So I simply say that this is not about gilding the lily; it is about reminding the Government that they must abide by these provisions.
I should also make the point that there are many other companies to which we should be giving real consideration right now, and which are being looked at and banned by the Five Eyes—such as Hikvision and ByteDance—and I urge the Government to think again about those as well.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I want to thank the various Members who have paid tribute to my small role in this Bill. I say simply to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that I regard all reshuffles as an upgrade, so I welcome the Minister to her place. I mean that sincerely. I would also like to pay tribute to the officials—some of whom are in the Box today—who do not get enough credit for getting the Bill to the place that it is in. Ultimately, this is the Bill that will remove Huawei from our 5G network, and that is something that we should all welcome. It addresses a number of the issues that I raised and discussed robustly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, during the process of getting the Bill to this point.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendment 5, which was championed in the other place by my Friend, Lord Alton and which focuses on the Five Eyes partnership. The Minister said that the amendment was unnecessary, but I would argue that if she were to accept it, it would provide a safety net. Last year, the Government were forced into committing to removing Huawei equipment from the UK’s 5G network, which followed on from a ban by the US and Australian Governments. We had even found ourselves in a situation in which one of our closest allies publicly threatened to stop intelligence sharing with us for the first time in our 75-year partnership. I would argue that this amendment would ensure that we did not find ourselves in a similar place again.
Let me give the House an example. Despite being blacklisted by our closest ally for its ongoing links to the ongoing genocide in the Xinjiang, and a Chinese intelligence law which means that the company can not only harvest data but provide data back to the Chinese state, the surveillance company Hikvision continues to be embedded in councils, hospitals and city infrastructure up and down this country. Earlier this year, I led a Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report, “Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang and UK value chains”, which also looked at data harvesting. I was deeply unimpressed with Hikvision’s response, and I want to put on record that I thoroughly support the Foreign Affairs Committee’s recent recommendation that the Government should forbid Hikvision from operating in the UK. My Select Committee continues its work on Xinjiang, and I look forward to meeting TikTok in the near future.
The amendment would provide a fantastic safety net to ensure that we do not find ourselves in a difficult relationship with our Five Eyes partners again. Why would we want to risk that? I urge the Minister to recognise the motivation behind the amendment, which would enable trust and deepen our intelligence sharing alliances with our closest partners as well as ensuring security at home. I also urge the Minister, if she has the time, to read the “Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang and UK value chains” report, and in particular to focus on article 7 of China’s national intelligence law, which states that any company that is registered in China has to provide data to the Chinese Communist party on demand, and also to deny to any other state that it is doing so.
Julia Lopez
With the leave of the House, I close this debate by thanking hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for making a number of extremely important points about national security. I am keen to address those not only now, in this legislation, but in the future, through horizon scanning for some of the challenges that are coming up.
I appreciate that some of the trust in the system has been undermined by the Huawei situation, and I am sympathetic to concerns raised about reporting, diversification and resilience. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) is absolutely right that this legislation is just one part of a wider security framework. The development of 5G and full-fibre networks brings new security challenges, which we must be prepared for.
This legislation sets up a strong regime for handling and removing high-risk vendors from our public networks, but it is just the start. Specific security measures will be set out in secondary legislation; there will be a lot of work to do in the next stage as we draw up that legislation, and we will be publishing a code of practice explaining the technical guidance that providers can follow to comply with legal duties.
The final secondary legislation and code will be agreed through public consultation, which I hope will provide another opportunity for hon. Members who have concerns in this area to provide adequate scrutiny. I am alive to some of those concerns, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) has outlined, MPs and Peers have had multiple chances to scrutinise and feed back on our diversification strategy, and we will continue to report on developments.
Bob Stewart
I remind the Minister that the members of the ISC present tonight have written to the national security adviser on the revision of the memorandum of understanding from the Prime Minister to the ISC. We really do expect some changes to that, so that we can close the gap on supervision of things that other Select Committees cannot look at.
Julia Lopez
I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. This issue has been raised throughout the passage of the Bill; I am alive to those concerns from the ISC, which bring particular expertise and scrutiny on matters on which others cannot, by virtue of their security importance. I understand that the ISC’s Chair has written to the Cabinet Office on the matters raised, but I wish to engage with the Committee on its important work. I believe I may—
HGV Driving Licences
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
For the convenience of the House, motions 6 and 7 on road traffic will be debated together.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I beg to move,
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 16 September, be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this we shall consider the following motion:
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 18 October, be approved.
Trudy Harrison
Together with the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021, which follows the negative procedure, these statutory instruments are part of several ways that the Government are seeking to address the heavy goods vehicle driver shortage. The haulage sector has been experiencing an acute shortage of HGV drivers worldwide for some time. This has been further exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic having suspended driver testing for much of last year, meaning that the shortage increased further. The shortage affects not only the supplies of fresh food, but fuel, medicines and medical equipment across Great Britain. I am therefore grateful that this debate could be held at the earliest opportunity available, so that we can address this issue as a priority.
The overall aim of the regulations is to increase the number of HGV drivers in Great Britain by increasing the number of test slots available to drivers wishing to pass an HGV driving test, while maintaining road safety standards for any changes made to the driver licence testing regime. The intention of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 is to remove the need for driver licence category B+E tests, which are required for car drivers who wish to tow a heavy trailer. Driver examiners have limited test availability, and this legislation will free up driver examiner time and mean that it can be reallocated to conduct HGV tests instead. This should provide additional availability of tests for potential HGV and bus drivers to help lessen the driver shortage. For car drivers, the change in legislation will mean that they will be able to tow a heavy trailer up to 3,500 kg automatically once they hold a full category B licence.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of whether the changes will in fact deliver the additional capacity for HGV drivers that she said should happen? What assessment has actually been made?
Trudy Harrison
The removal of tests will free up 30,000 opportunities, and the removal of staging will free up 10,800 opportunities. For car drivers, the change in legislation will mean that they will be able to tow a heavy trailer automatically once they hold a full category B licence. Theory and practical training will continue to be recommended to help maintain driver safety on the roads, which is of the utmost importance.
An accreditation scheme is being developed with help from the trailer industry and training providers. This accreditation scheme will provide voluntary training opportunities for car drivers wishing to tow a trailer of any size for either recreational or business use. The scheme is planned to launch early next year and will focus on specific driver needs when towing different types of trailers through the provision of specialised modules. We are already working with trainers and those in leisure and business to develop the training package and, together with these groups and the police, we will identify the additional data needed to monitor towing standards effectively.
The purpose of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 is to streamline the HGV and bus driving licence regime by removing the staging requirement for a separate heavy trailer test for provisional vocational licence holders. This will mean that once car drivers have applied for and been granted the relevant provisional entitlement to drive an HGV or bus, they can then take a full HGV or bus driving test that includes towing a heavy trailer without first having to pass the rigid HGV or bus test stage. Road safety standards will be maintained as, in order to obtain this full licence, drivers must still prove competency in all required areas to pass the test. There is no change in the test standards. Together, these measures are expected to free up 3,300 additional test appointments every month, thereby helping to reduce the acute shortage of approximately 39,000 heavy goods vehicle drivers we were experiencing as of June 2021.
The SIs support the streamlining of testing to increase the number of HGV tests taking place. Keeping our roads safe is of paramount importance, and we will monitor and take action if needed, if our roads become less safe. The SIs are just one of the 28 interventions the Government are putting in place to tackle this issue and to help reduce the strain on our national supply chains.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The ongoing driver shortage is having a profound impact on businesses and consumers, yet the Government have fallen well short in their effort to boost driver recruitment. The shortages that are crippling our economy and supply chains could lead to disruption and misery for millions in the upcoming Christmas period.
We have a mounting driving test backlog, and it is clear that only the Opposition and our proposals will take the necessary steps to address the issue and invest in upskilling UK workers. It is vital to take the urgent action that is required to boost driver recruitment and get our country moving again to support businesses after a challenging two years. That means putting in place mechanisms to encourage more people to take up jobs in the industry and to make it a more attractive place to work through improvements in conditions and facilities.
The driver shortage demands urgent action, which is glaringly lacking from the Government. Instead of expanding testing capacity through examiner recruitment, increasing facilities and resolving outstanding industrial action, they are taking the short-sighted and short-term measure of diluting testing requirements and endangering all road users in the process.
No one on this side of the House will deny that the shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers is an international problem, but it has been particularly acute in the UK due to the Government’s incompetence. To put it into context, we are facing a shortage of 90,000 drivers, which is double the number required in Germany and France and six times the figure facing Italy and Spain. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is currently conducting only 3,000 vocational driving tests a week, which means it would take months to fill the huge shortage of HGV drivers.
Instead of expanding testing capacity, the Government’s answer to the crisis is to increase the legal working hours of HGV drivers, endangering their lives and those of other road users due to an inability to operate safely if they are exhausted. They are already working too many hours on too little pay. The Government should urgently set out plans to improve conditions and facilities in the HGV industry to make it more attractive to a new and more diverse generation of drivers, as well as working with the industry and workers to retain existing staff by resetting pay, terms and conditions.
It is staggering that the Government are not doing all they can to address the crisis, given its significance for our economy’s success. If it was not enough to make UK roads more hazardous, the Government have announced regulatory changes to driving tests that will apparently speed up recruitment. That is all well and good, but when it involves removing off-road manoeuvres and rigid lorry practical tests from the testing obligations for new drivers, it has the potential to threaten road safety for drivers and users.
The way to turn the crisis around is not to dilute testing requirements and downskill HGV drivers, especially as there will be more vehicles on our roads that have not reached the standards that they are currently expected to meet. Will the Minister therefore tell the House what the safety implications will be of the decision to dilute testing requirements? Can she assure all those who use our roads that measures are being taken to recruit more instructors and expand the capacity of existing testing facilities—positive measures that would help to boost driver numbers and would be welcomed on both sides of the House?
It is a further concern that the measures will be made permanent, rather than being a temporary fix until the driver shortage and supply chain crisis have been resolved. The statutory instruments provide for three-yearly reviews before moving to five-year checks, but they do not mandate the collection of any specific safety data to inform those reviews, which make them unlikely to be as carefully considered as they should be. I repeat that they do not require the collection of any specific safety data for the reviews, which is clearly not acceptable. The Opposition are clear that, unless it can be proved that the changes have not affected road safety, we want them to be temporary and reconsidered as soon as the driving test backlog and driver shortages have improved.
The Government also need to address the cost of funding the training and tests of prospective HGV drivers. The ones I have spoken to say that the costs are too high and often unaffordable. We need to have a conversation with the Department for Education about how HGV training could benefit from some of the measures that help other students to access courses.
All of this is happening at a time when the supply chain crisis risks spiralling out of control, so I urge the Government to provide greater clarity on the steps they are taking to address this crisis in food supply chains specifically. In particular, I would like to know whether measures will be reintroduced to suspend competition laws for supermarkets.
If the Secretary of State needs ideas for how his Government can bolster the number of HGV drivers and reverse the current downward trend, he could do far worse than listen to the Opposition. To us it is abundantly clear that, in the same way as for the covid crisis, a dedicated Minister must be appointed for this latest crisis. That Minister should hold an emergency summit bringing together all those who can help overcome this current impasse, including the road haulage industry, training providers, affected business groups and transport unions.
Industry associations such as the Road Haulage Association have understandably been critical of the Government’s proposals because, like many, they have not been properly consulted. The Government must also sit down with the Migration Advisory Committee to assess the extent of the skills shortage in this sector and identify how this can be recognised in the immigration points system. The fact that neither of these have so far happened weeks into this crisis is nothing short of a dereliction of duty and shows how detached from reality this Government are from the needs of our country.
When urgent action was required, time and again this Government have either dragged their feet or run out of ideas altogether. As long ago as July, the shadow Transport Secretary, the shadow Transport Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)—the shadow Home Secretary, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary and the shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary all wrote to their counterparts to warn that the measures the Government had taken were not enough to address the scale of the crisis. Despite this, the Government continued with their short-termist approach and the crisis has scaled new heights, further compromising the safety of already exhausted drivers, increasing their working hours and putting road users in danger by diluting testing requirements for new drivers. Because of Government inaction, this crisis is now almost certain to continue well beyond the end of this year, ruining Christmas for so many.
As I have already made clear, the Government must do all they can to reverse the HGV driver shortage and the related supply chain crisis, but they cannot do so by diluting tests and downskilling drivers, increasing their hours operating dangerous machinery and vehicles, and endangering all of those who rely on UK roads in the process. Instead, we must see positive changes such as investing in more examiners, expanding and improving facilities, and making any changes temporary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made clear in the summer:
“These measures just kick the can down the road for another year. This crisis is affecting businesses and consumers now, and the Government needs to understand that.”
But we are determined to ensure that this crisis does not continue for any longer than is absolutely necessary.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I commend both my hon. Friend the Minister for proposing some measures, and the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), for asking some very serious and sensible questions about some of the issues, and I do hope that the Minister will respond to a couple of those. I should mention that I am a member of the all-party group on trailer and towing safety. Its chair, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), is here, and she may be speaking later.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. It is interesting that the first arises from a constituent coming to see me at one of my constituency surgeries, which I think points out the importance of our being able to meet our constituents. Driving is a task that has always been quite difficult for me, so driver safety issues have always been key in my mind. Although I am not too familiar with heavy goods vehicles, it seems to me that there must be a substantial difference between a rigid HGV and one with a trailer, and that the driving safety requirements of the two should be significantly different. When my constituent came to see me, he showed me the reversing test for one of these vehicles and how much more complicated it is for a trailer compared with a rigid vehicle.
My first question to the Minister, echoing what the shadow spokesperson said, is: what assessment has been made by the Government of the safety difference between those two types of vehicle? We are making quite a significant change by not requiring people who have had training on rigid HGVs to go forward to training on one with a trailer, allowing people to go straight from being able to drive to car to being able to use an HGV with a trailer. What safety assessment was made not just in the consultation, but separately by the Department?
May I also ask about the availability of spaces for testing? Although increasing capacity may be an issue, and we hear numbers bandied around, both in this debate and before, about how many drivers we are short—I think the range goes from 20,000 to 90,000—nobody actually knows what the shortage is or how long it will last. That is why the Government are right to come up with a range of policies, including those proposed today. Increasing capacity is not the same as clearing the backlog because where we have that capacity is just as important as how much capacity we have. Again, I have anecdotal evidence from my constituent—I would be interested to know about this from the Minister—that local facilities have a surplus of spaces available for tests. What assessment has my hon. Friend made about where capacity shortages are? Is there a geographic understanding of where those spaces might be, and of where they might be required?
Finally, let me reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry). It looks strange that this change will take place for three years, rather than for six months or 12 months. It looks like trying to achieve a regulatory change not quite through the back door, but without saying that we are trying to make such a change. It would be reassuring if the Minister provided some response on her and the Department’s intentions on that matter.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Government have been warned for years and years about the shortage of HGV drivers, yet the speed of their reaction to that issue could best be described as glacial—having recently seen how quickly glaciers move, that probably gives the Government too much credit. The situation we face is of our own making. It is a combination of the industry not moving with the times quickly enough, of take-home pay being diluted in real terms when compared with other sectors, often driven by cost demands from the big supermarkets, and of this Government’s completely deaf ear and sneering cynicism about the scale of the problem facing our supply chain—problems that were clear to everyone else.
This problem is long-standing. The introduction of the IR35 was a contributory factor, covid will have had a sporadic impact, as it has on all sectors, and the way that many supermarkets and distribution hubs treat drivers going about their jobs is pretty shameful. However, even the dogs on the street can see that the Prime Minister’s botched Brexit deal was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and caused this crisis, so it is incumbent on this Government to fix it.
The Scottish National party has been warning about this situation for years. Well over five years ago my predecessors as transport spokesperson, my hon. Friends the Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) warned about the impact of Brexit, given that EU drivers were papering over the ever-widening cracks. They also mentioned the cost of HGV driver training and testing, and Government support to get people into that industry. I accept that the Government recently acted on that issue, with the £3,000 incentive payment for hiring new apprentice drivers, and that must be extended for at least—at least—another 12 months.
I have asked Ministers about this issue time and again. Indeed, back in June I wrote to the Secretary of State to urge immediate action to head off a crisis, and suggested that he would have to make contingency plans such as asking the armed forces to step in and help. The reply I received focused on apprenticeships, perhaps not quite getting the urgency of the coming situation. Despite the Government’s dismissive response, they did in fact have to ask the forces to assist and deliver fuel to forecourts across the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One thing that perhaps has not been done, which perhaps the Minister could follow up, involves coaxing those who have gained their HGV licence through being members of the Territorial Army or the full-time forces, out of retirement and into taking up the position of HGV drivers. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that is something the Government have not pursued, but that they could benefit from?
Gavin Newlands
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; it is good to see him here at his usual time on a Monday evening. He makes a very good point. All options should be explored. I know that a letter was sent by the Government, supported by the Road Haulage Association and Logistics UK, to a great many drivers. I am not sure whether the drivers he mentions were on the address list, but that is certainly something that the Government should strongly consider.
So what do we get? Some short-term visas, far too little and far too late, and on terms that have not exactly been a big draw for EU drivers; a welcome announcement, it must be said, on investment in driver facilities, but one that just happens to be years too late; and the potentially permanent changes before us this evening to fix a temporary problem, which have a great many people concerned about road safety.
Despite all the UK Government’s protestations to the contrary, the end of freedom of movement is the single biggest cause of the situation that we currently face. The Conservative party chair, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), said recently that a “relatively limited” number of EU drivers were applying for jobs, with about 300 applications received and “just over 20”—I presume that means 21—fully processed. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm the latest figures on that scheme. It is no wonder that EU drivers are not interested, with the Government initially announcing the scheme end point as Christmas eve, and in a tone that signalled that EU workers were still not welcome, seemingly forgetting that it was us who were desperate for help.
If disruption is to be minimised and the economy provided with greater certainty, drivers must be added to the shortage occupation list and this derisory short-term visa must be extended to at least 12 months. If we are honest, a two-year visa is probably necessary, given the time it will take to get the required drivers trained, passed and given the appropriate experience.
Let me turn to some of the specifics of the changes that the Government are proposing tonight to address the shortage. On the first motion, the removal of the staging between the class 2 driving test and the class 1 articulated test has been welcomed by much of the industry. I say “much” because there is some concern that, for some drivers, the process may still be a little rushed.
Delegating the testing of the reversing manoeuvre is also a concern for many. Brian Kenny from the RHA said:
“According to HSE, there’s about seven people knocked down and killed in yards each year with vehicles reversing. I think it is a step back. More than one person is one too many, as far as we’re concerned. Going forward on the roads should be assessed and should be tested. It’s equally important to test properly how an individual reverses and manoeuvres off the road.”
Andrew Malcolm of Scotland’s largest logistics company, the Malcolm Group, whom I met just last week, told the BBC:
“In principle, I can understand what they’ve done, to try to unlock test dates. However, I am seriously concerned about the safety aspect. I think they’ve cut far too much out the process of the test–that’s my biggest worry.”
Baroness Vere told me at the Transport Committee:
“We have to note that as we are reviewing all these we have to have safety absolutely at the top of our minds, and we must do whatever we can to make sure that there is no diminution in road safety.”
I ask the Minister to take note of the real concerns outlined by many and the comments of Baroness Vere, and to commit to reviewing the impact of this change in the short term and coming back to the House to report on both the positives—the number of extra drivers that have managed to go through the system as a result—and the impact on road safety, such as the incidence of accidents. As the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) said, if the Government could publish some of the criteria that will be used in reviewing this change after three and five years, that would be most useful to the House in holding the Government to account on this issue.
However, the second motion, on the removal of the car trailer test, is more troubling and concerns most of the industry. Put simply, there was a good reason that the tests were introduced in the first place. To allow anyone who has passed the regular driving test to tow a 3.5-tonne trailer, about two and a half times the weight of an average car, seems to be to be asking for trouble.
I agree with the RHA when it says that trailer use requires a special set of skills that are best instilled by a training and testing process. I know, because I have been told many times by the Secretary of State and other Ministers, that the Government will encourage drivers to take training, but the truth is that the vast majority of drivers will not undertake proper training, given that they will tow only occasionally. I would prefer that the DVSA continues to test, but as a temporary measure I back the Road Haulage Association’s proposal to delegate the testing to a DVSA-authorised trainer, in a similar fashion to the proposal to delegate the HGV manoeuvring test or, currently, MOTs. With the appropriate safeguards in place, road safety can be protected rather than abandoned.
The other unintended—I hope—consequence of the decision is to make parts of the driver training sector completely obsolete, largely without warning. I wrote to the Secretary of State back in September on behalf of a constituent whose business disappeared overnight when the changes were announced. I told him that my constituent had recently invested £30,000 for a vehicle, £4,500 for a trailer, and—to me, this is the worst of all—£6,000 from a covid support loan that the Government encouraged him to take before swiping the rug from under his feet! The letter he received in response was essentially silent on the impact on the sector and on any support that my constituent, and anybody like him, could access. I asked the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box and Baroness Vere at the Transport Committee about compensation for those affected, but nothing was forthcoming. They both spoke of the hope to have an industry-led accreditation scheme, but, as I said, the vast majority of drivers simply will not take any non-statutory training. I appreciate that we are not talking about tens of thousands of people, but the Government have essentially closed viable businesses and surely they must meet their obligation to those people.
To conclude, I would like to amplify a point made by a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who highlighted the clear inconsistencies of this Government on this issue and on wider road safety decision making. They would not extend theory test validity, despite the inability of many of my constituents to take theory tests, because of the large backlog in Scotland, because of a supposed risk to road safety in theory, and because it would require further legislation. However, they are now happy to rush through legislation to terminate B+E testing, a decision which will increase actual road risk and have a disastrous impact on the training industry. It is clear that the Government must act, but the time to act was years ago when the industry and many of us in this place warned about the repercussions of Brexit combined with inaction. Instead, that inaction has led to the empty shelves which are now commonplace across the country and to these panic measures before us, which compromise road safety for all of us.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I want to speak to the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021.
I rise as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety. For more than four years, we have worked across the House to make roads safer for our constituents through consideration of the gaps in regulation and enforcement of towing and trailer safety. I believe we built a good consensus that showed the very best of Parliament. We were making advances in a non-partisan way, the result of Ministers and Back-Bench MPs working together across party lines to arrive at a settled and sensible position that improvements in this area were desperately needed. In that spirit, I thank former Ministers for their support: the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) who is in his place, and the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). They each showed a desire to fix an endemic problem around trailer safety and a genuine commitment to deliver on a promise to one particular family in my constituency.
I first met Donna and Scott Hussey in 2016, months after my election as Member of Parliament for Bristol South. Two years previously, their three-year-old son Freddie was killed in the most tragic of circumstances when a two-tonne trailer came loose from a vehicle in Bedminster, driven by somebody who had been trained and who was towing for business. From the first time I met the Hussey family, it was all too evident that the loss of Freddie had affected them in ways I could not imagine. In the four years since, it has been a privilege to campaign alongside them, and many other families and supporters, on the little-known or cared-for issue of towing and trailer safety, to put it centre stage at the Department for Transport, Highways England and the DVSA, and with it, the hundreds of associated accidents and incidents that occur in this area every year.
We have hosted Ministers and experts. We have held summits and awareness events. We have taken to the newspapers and the airwaves. We launched the all-party group. At the inaugural meeting of that group, the National Towing Working Group, chaired by Highways England, launched its first ever safety framework. In the House of Lords, we defied the odds to secure an amendment, by one vote, to the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, which required the Government to collect data on trailer-related incidents and produce a statutory report, the safety report I have brought with me this evening. Meanwhile, the DVSA has also launched the “Tow Safe for Freddie” campaign to help raise awareness among drivers and to honour Freddie’s name. On the roads, we made a real difference, working with the National Trailer & Towing Association to promote free roadside safety checks.
All of that makes the situation in which we found ourselves today abjectly terrible. The proposals from the Government take a wrecking ball to the advances that we have made. It is unconscionable and totally unfathomable. The Minister has made a series of unsubstantiated claims this evening. These proposals have come from nowhere, without any respect or acknowledgement of the work that has been done. They are an insult to the campaigners, who have worked so hard. It is a shoddy parliamentary practice—it really is a bitter blow today.
In the statutory report—a Government report—we have numerous paragraphs stating what needs to happen to the B+E tests around the driver safety issue. Paragraph 5.26 states:
“In order to tow heavier trailers…the driver must undertake an additional…test… Given that a range of stakeholders and data sources pinpoint driver error as a key factor in towing incidents, it is sensible to consider improvements to this test.”
Paragraph 5.27 states:
“DVSA will be considering revisions and improvements to the B+E safety questions, which form part of the practical test, over coming months. These will seek to address issues which have been raised during this report”—
the Government’s report.
Paragraph 5.28 states that the
“DVSA will consider ways to promote the B+E syllabus in the national driving standard, especially to increase awareness of safety issues among new and learner drivers and those who may only tow rarely”—
the other people who are being let tow vehicles out on our streets.
Paragraph 5.29 talks about changing the load that drivers can carry:
“DVSA will explore whether increases to this requirement, for example requiring a combination over 3.5 tonnes, would lead to tests being undertaken in a more representative vehicle combination”.
Again, that is about improvements. We were expecting to have improvements to the B+E test and it is truly astonishing to be here tonight talking about abolishing it.
When the House of Lords considered this statutory instrument, its report stated:
“These draft Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation.”
As Scott Hussey said to me last week, this makes absolutely no sense. As other Members have said this evening, this is not a temporary measure; it is a permanent change.
Our work on the APPG is based on the findings of the statutory report. We were looking at how safe trailers over 750 kg are based on the available data and then, on the basis of that assessment, we were looking at whether the mandatory testing and/or registration of trailers over 750 kg should be introduced.
The Department for Transport decided that the case for trailer registration and testing, hence the need to ensure that there is roadworthy-compliance, was not made. However, it always said that the level of compliance of some 50%—50% of these trailers are compliant—was a cause of concern.
Paragraph 5.1 of the report states:
“This report has presented an opportunity to consider trailer safety in a broad context, and to consider other interventions which may benefit towing and more general road safety”—
that is, more improvements.
Paragraph 5.2 states:
“Throughout this report, significant concerns have been raised about data availability and validity, the role of driver error in incidents, and ensuring that the current test regimes for drivers and vehicles are working correctly.”
It mentions an assessment of the current regime, without any talk of abolishing it.
We have been meeting over the past few years and collecting more data, working with the Department on roadside checks. The DVSA’s checks, which it has carried on through the pandemic—we are very grateful to those who have worked with us closely to make sure that we get evidence to look at the greater regulation of these trailers—all consistently show 50% non-compliance.
I met the Minister, the noble Baroness Vere, and I am grateful for her support, too. This Minister—and she has done this—will talk about continued working with regard to improving compliance, and she made a distinction between trailer compliance and driver behaviour. However, as I said, we are so concerned about these proposals because we never envisaged a situation where the test would be abolished. In an area where the Government have admitted their concern, namely the regulation and testing of trailers, they have made things worse by taking away the test requirement for drivers.
Let us look at a little of the detail of the Government’s proposals, because I do not think that Ministers are across it in any way, shape or form. The Government have not made a road safety impact assessment of this decision. I am not making this up: there is no road safety impact assessment of a decision that makes such a massive change to how drivers are trained. We are being asked to vote on a decision that has not been assessed, with ramifications that are literally a matter of life and death.
The Government’s explanatory memorandum states that there are
“around 1,000 accidents per year”
involving trailers, but statistics on the car and trailer driving test suggest a consistent current fail rate of 30%. In 2019-20, that was 8,575 people. Under the Government’s proposals, those people will be going out on our roads. It takes either immense stupidity or unbelievable indifference not to see that allowing people on our roads who cannot pass a test will drive up accidents.
Perhaps most offensively, the Government are proclaiming that the changes are needed to solve the HGV crisis—a case that they have not proven. It is not clear how the theoretical freeing up of the test will be used to do what the Government say. They have brought no evidence and no case that they have done that work. I dare any Minister to talk to any family who has been affected by the issue or to anyone who has lost somebody to an unsafe trailer or an unsafe driver.
The draft regulations will do nothing to help with the HGV crisis. In theory, at a stretch, they could free up some examiner capacity, but they will do nothing to reverse the backlog and gain new HGV drivers. Plenty of alternatives have been put forward to help with the problem. The key question for the Government is whether it is worth risking lives to free up theoretical testing capacity.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have been inundated by messages from experts in the field telling me that the draft regulations will not do what the Government say—and the Government have brought no evidence that says otherwise. I have heard from trainers, drivers, testing centres, the insurance industry and the Road Haulage Association that they do not support this part of the package.
It is not just Members and industry experts who have grave concerns. Noble Lords have stated that they
“take the view that the House currently has insufficient information to enable proper assessment of the policy and the House may wish to press the Minister for more specific details about its wider safety implications.”
That is exactly what is happening tonight.
The Government’s proposals are not, in any shape or form, fit for purpose. They are dangerous. This is reckless. No-one thinks that it is a good idea, except some parts of the Government, and there is no safety assessment on which to base the decision. I hope that the Minister is listening carefully, that she will go back to the Department and that she will accept that I want to work positively, as I have done in the past four years. Along with the suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), with which I agree, I ask for four other issues to be taken into account.
First, the Government need to ensure that the remit of any voluntary accreditation scheme is widened to include all drivers and all trailers. The rules are now very complex and we need a much simpler licensing system.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister and the Government will continue to work with the APPG, not only on developments relating to towing and trailer safety, but on somehow assessing the effect of this legislative change. I do not know how we will do that, because there is no evidence for us to assess as a starting point and there is no way that the Government can assess the situation in three years’ time, but we will try to work with them.
Thirdly, I would like the Minister to provide an annual written statement setting out where driver error is cited in towing accidents. That would give us some reassurance that the Government will be in a position to undertake some sort of assessment in three years’ time, as they say they will.
Fourthly, I would like the Minister to give more specific details of the new proposed training scheme. What is its scope? How many people are expected to be trained? When will the scheme come on stream? How will it be communicated? How will it be evaluated? Let us not forget that these tests are already being abolished. We are here tonight supposedly to rubber-stamp something that has already been set in train, and there is nothing to replace it.
I will close with the words of my constituent Donna Hussey. She said:
“While it has always been difficult for us to comprehend what happened to Freddie, we made a promise to each other and to Freddie that we would do all we could to make sure this issue is given the serious consideration it deserves. If our hard work saves one life, then it is worth it. No family should have to go through what we have been through. We are determined to see this through in memory of Freddie.”
We have been promised, time and again, measures that will be fit to serve the memory of Freddie and the bravery of his family. Rushed legislation is always bad legislation. There is still time for the Government to pause, to put aside the mish-mash that is before us and to make good their promises, and I would like to support them in trying somehow to reverse the terrible damage that this proposal is doing.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a privilege to follow the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth).
Like every other Member, I am obviously concerned about the HGV driver shortage and the very visible impact that it has been having in every community over recent months. We have seen the petrol shortages and empty shelves. One thing that concerns my constituents is that we are not entirely sure what the next impact will be. Is this a short-term issue, or will it continue for longer? I support the Government’s measures to attempt to resolve it, and I give them credit for what they have been able to do so far.
We know that the HGV shortage has arisen from a number of sources. We know, for example, that terms and conditions in the haulage industry have been declining relative to the general employment market over the last couple of decades. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) highlighted the issue of facilities, but this is also very much an issue of how our labour market has changed, partly as a result of the pandemic but also as a result of our leaving the European Union. I urge the Government to do more about making HGV driving an attractive occupation, certainly for new entrants to the market here in the UK—the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) made some interesting remarks about training, and I think that the Government should take that on board—but in the immediate term we need to make more visas available for HGV drivers from abroad to ensure that we no longer see the disrupted supply chains that we have seen over the last few months.
The Government are hoping to increase capacity for testing. I am concerned about that, because obviously we should not be attempting to resolve the HGV shortage at the expense of road safety for everyone—motorists, pedestrians and all our communities. As we all know, the impact of poorly driven HGVs can be devastating. I am anxious about all these proposals on road safety grounds, but while I have my anxieties about the proposed changes in the way in which tests are taken by drivers of articulated and rigid lorries, they are mitigated by the fact that those changes are targeted at a specific group of people who are already professional, experienced and have been driving lorries for a living.
However, I have a real problem with the abolition of the trailer towing test. I cannot say much more about this issue than has already been said so eloquently by the hon. Member for Bristol South, but my specific concern is that if we were to allow this change, and if that were to result in a significant increase in collisions or indeed deaths—as was also eloquently described by the constituent of the hon. Member for Bristol South—we would have just let these regulations through without any opposition or anyone standing up to say that it was wrong.
We are talking about drivers of motor cars, which is obviously the majority of licence holders in this country, suddenly being able to drive trailers weighing 3,500 kg. That is a significant skill that takes time to acquire, and it requires proper instruction. I am very concerned by what the hon. Member for Bristol South has been saying about the need to increase the safety of trailers. That is well recognised, and it is something that she has campaigned on for a long time, so the proposal to abolish the measure feels like a move in the wrong direction. I am extremely anxious about the implications of that. Also, now that the barrier of the requirement to take a test is being removed, will we see a big expansion in the number of people wanting to tow trailers without proper instruction? What will that mean for road safety? I am extremely anxious about that, and I will oppose the statutory instruments this evening.
Trudy Harrison
I would like to thank hon. Members for their clear consideration of these instruments. I will respond in turn to the various points that have been raised.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), encouraged swift action, and we have certainly taken swift action. There is a shortage of 39,000 HGV drivers, according to my data, as a result of a variety of factors including a lack of diversity and poor quality facilities. That is why in the latest spending review we have committed £32.5 million to improving those facilities. On diversity, I am delighted to be able to inspire the House with the latest figures on vocational tests. They indicate that 56% of men are passing the tests and that 65% of women are doing so. That is an uplifting statistic on vocational heavy goods vehicle testing.
We are also working with the Department for Education and now have specific apprenticeship standards with a funding band of £7,000. That is really working. We are providing funding to Think Logistics and working with Career Ready. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested, we are already working with ex-military personnel and others, including people who have retired, to help to retrain them to work in the sector once again. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) questioned the timescales. Yes, we will review formally in three years and five years, but we will also review continually at every stage. Should there be a need for intervention, we will not hesitate to intervene where road safety is concerned.
I would really like to thank the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) for her work on chairing the all-party parliamentary group, and I would be delighted to accept her invitation to come and speak to the group and to understand how we can make this work. I want to reassure her, her members and, most importantly, Freddie’s family that safety is of paramount importance to the Department, and quite rightly so. We will continue to support the Tow Safe for Freddie campaign, which the Department has supported in the past, because we take road safety very seriously. The UK has some of the safest roads in the world. Our support for the campaign will continue, and will draw attention to the importance of motorists doing safety checks whenever they are towing.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) raised a number of points. I have reached the grand old age of 45, and I passed my test before 1997. I can already tow a trailer of up to 750 kg—and indeed of up to 3,500 kg—because this change came in in 1997. Earlier this year, we ran a trailer safety campaign. It was timed to coincide with the lifting of the travel restrictions and the anticipated rise in the number of motorists towing caravans and trailers. It focused on encouraging motorists to do several basic checks before setting off on their journey, and highlighted the most common defects found by Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency examiners at the roadside. This reinforces the vital importance of maintaining trailers. I very much hope that people will take advantage of the Department’s encouragement of accreditation, which will also be provided.
We will shortly be publishing the impact assessment. It is being handled urgently and requires clearance, including by the Regulatory Policy Committee. We will keep those timescales to a minimum, but at the earliest we expect to be able to publish the assessment before the end of the year. We understand the concern that a full analysis has not yet been published, and we are working on it urgently. It was a case of balancing the need to take action quickly to address the driver shortage against the need to assimilate evidence and analyse it in full.
I hope the Chamber has found the debate informative. These instruments will play a critical part in ensuring we can rapidly address the acute heavy goods vehicle driver shortage that the haulage sector faces.
Trudy Harrison
I am afraid I will not—I am nearly there. The instruments will free up driver examination time so that more HGV driving tests can be conducted. As has been seen in recent weeks, this is a matter that affects us all in our daily lives and action must be taken.
Question put.
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 17 November (Standing Order No. 41A).
Resolved,
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 18 October, be approved.—(Trudy Harrison.)
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Chiltern Railways
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). The petition states:
That the petition of residents of the constituency of Cities of London and Westminster,
Declares that Chiltern Railways should upgrade their fleet to improve air quality; further that Marylebone is currently the only station in London which uses only diesel trains; and further that this usage greatly increases the noise and fumes in the area, much to the distress of local residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that the new franchise with Chiltern Rail requires that they convert their diesel trains to hybrids and end their lease on Class 68 locomotives.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002696]
UK Vaccination Strategy
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
After the earlier debate, I think I must make it absolutely clear that I occasionally practise dentistry, and that that is relevant to some of the points I am making today.
The previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, some considerable time ago, set out a change of direction for our health service that was based on prevention. Shortly after that, our health services—indeed, the world’s health services—were brutally assaulted by the arrival of covid from China.
I do not wish, in my few words this evening, to run a one-man inquiry into covid or into the way the UK or any other country handled it. I wish to push the Government to jump on the opportunity that I believe now exists because of the attitude of the majority of the population towards the preventive nature of vaccination.
Even detractors of the Government must give considerable credit for their willingness to invest in prospective vaccines and for the fact that there has been and still is a massive programme of preventive vaccination against covid and flu. I believe this is an opportunity for this country to continue to lead by building on the very best practice and collaboration fostered during the covid pandemic, to utilise vaccinations to save lives and to avoid damaging people. That would reduce the demand on our health services and would introduce a reduction in the financial demand on them.
We should be rapidly moving towards a broader and more robust, proactive approach to vaccination. That would protect us against future public health threats and against existing vaccine preventable diseases, especially respiratory diseases. I am looking to Health Ministers for clear leadership on vaccination to ensure that our health services continue to see it as a top priority. We must drive uptake across all ages, setting clear targets for adult vaccination, to bring it into line with our already great achievements on childhood vaccination. Such an approach could and should create an environment where the value of vaccines is recognised for our health and for our socioeconomic progress. It will keep our population out of our health services and keep them in their homes, in work and—dare I say—play, and keep our children safe and in education.
My first personal recognition of vaccination came with the polio epidemic that hit the world from to 1949 to 1952, sweeping through selective population centres and leaving as its most tragic sign children—sometimes permanently and sometimes temporarily—in wheelchairs, on crutches or in leg braces, and with deformed limbs. For children with polio in the late 1940s and early ‘50s, the disease caused paralysis in one in 1,000 cases among children aged five to nine. Polio also hit adults, and there were many deaths. Rescue came in the form of vaccination delivered in three doses of injections with stainless steel needles. My early childhood memory of the needles is that they looked like stainless steel 3-inch nails. They had to be thick enough to allow boiling water through them for sterilisation, and they were re-sharpened on leather strops. Subsequent improvements brought about a liquid dose and, ultimately, an impregnated sugar cube.
In Western countries, if not almost worldwide, polio, along with smallpox and yellow fever, has been pushed mostly into history. Ideally, most, if not all, vaccination programmes should be administered to a high percentage —probably more than 95%—of the population. We have a very effective routine immunisation schedule—at least, it is effective, or fairly effective, for children, with vaccinations at eight, 12 and 16 weeks and 12 months. To my dismay, it appears that there has been some slippage in the routine childhood vaccinations for the under-fives. These children should receive 10 vaccines in total, which provide protection against such hideous diseases as tetanus, polio and meningitis, along with many others. I am not sure of the latest figures, but I am sure the Minister can update us on them. The latest I could find were from 2018-19 and they showed that the uptake of the first dose of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine had fallen to 90.3%. I believe that was the fifth year in a row that it had dropped. Although I accept that 90.3% is a high figure and that the percentage changes may seem small, we must recognise that the impact must not be underestimated, particularly if this turns out to be a trend. The UK has lost its World Health Organisation measles-free status, and this comes three years after the virus was eliminated in the United Kingdom. Astonishingly, during 2018 there were nearly 1,0000 cases, which is more than double what the figure was in 2016.
There are a complex number of reasons for that, but one of the biggest factors, as we have seen in the covid battle, has been the appalling misinformation on vaccine dangers on social media. That has certainly affected the uptake of covid vaccines. I still find it incomprehensible that some individuals I know of quite high intelligence are absorbed into believing this appalling misinformation. Some parents think that these childhood infections are trivial. Such a view needs to be vigorously countered at every opportunity; anyone seeing a child deformed by polio or with badly affected eyesight from measles really needs to wake up.
There have been some great successes. Recently data indicated that the HPV vaccination given to girls has bought about a dramatic drop in cervical cancer. Now that it is available to boys, I hope that we will see a similar dramatic drop in years to come in oral and head and neck cancers. Those cancers hit males more than females—I could warn a few fathers on that. HPV types 16 and 18 cause cervical cancer, penal cancer and between 60% and 80% of oral, head and neck cancers. The treatments for head and neck cancers—particularly surgical treatments—which of course I have seen, are debilitating and often leave hideous damage to the patients.
There has been a call for all hospital and care home staff to be vaccinated against covid. This is no different from the requirement when I became a dentist in this country: dentists and surgeons were required to have the BCG—Bacillus Calmette–Guérin—injection and vaccination before they were able to work. If I had an elderly relative who was to go into a care home and the choice was between two homes, both being identical except one had all staff vaccinated and the other did not, the choice would be obvious.
Much has to be done to promote vaccinations through hospitals, GPs and pharmacies, and by any other means that the Minister might think up. The promotion of and reminder about vaccines has already been undertaken with covid; this approach could and should be applied to all vaccines. New contact methods through the likes of the NHS app and social media should be used. I believe there are financial encouragements for GPs and pharmacies to promote such vaccinations—please, step that up. That approach could be applied to more than just covid and flu.
It appears to me that there is no promotion of vaccination against shingles among the over-70s. Anyone who has seen a patient who is over 70, 80 or 90 with shingles will know what a ghastly, debilitating condition it is. Perhaps when the Minister replies she can give the House some glimpse of the Government’s thinking, even if at this stage it is speculative. In future, we must use vaccinations extensively, because that is the goal of the original set-up for prevention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for bringing this important debate to the House and for his kind words about the success of the covid-19 vaccination programme. He speaks with a great deal of knowledge and personal experience, and I thank him for that.
I am going to talk about the covid vaccination programme as a great example of how well the UK has done in putting together a programme in a short time with great success, which I know my hon. Friend will want us to emulate in other areas. Our phenomenal covid vaccination programme continues at pace, with almost nine in 10 people aged 12 and over having now received at least one dose and more than 10 million people throughout the UK having had their booster and third vaccination dose.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and he suggested that I should ask the Minister this question. Those over 50 with a vulnerable disease or who are on a priority list have been told that they can get the booster vaccine; if someone happens to be aged 40 or 35 and is a type 1 diabetic in a vulnerable position, should they not also get the booster injection as a priority?
Maggie Throup
The criteria for who should receive a third dose are set by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. We take its recommendations and roll things out according to that advice.
I thank each and every person who has come forward for their jab, as well as the tens of thousands of NHS staff and volunteers who have made this happen. Vaccines remain our biggest line of defence as we head into a challenging winter period. Vaccinated people are less likely to get seriously ill with covid-19, to be admitted to hospital or to die from it. There is also evidence that they are less likely to pass the virus on to others. Although the vaccine efficacy against severe disease remains high, we know that a small change can generate a major shift in hospital admissions—for example, a change in efficacy from 95% to 90% would lead to the doubling of hospital admissions among those vaccinated.
Early results from Pfizer show that a booster jab restores protection to 95.6% against symptomatic infection. That is why we have launched the booster programme—to top up the immunity for those at increased risk of complications from covid-19 over the winter months, helping to keep people out of hospital, to reduce pressure on our NHS, and, as my hon. Friend has indicated, to ensure that there are fewer patients with covid-19 in need of an expensive hospital bed. The UK already has one of the highest covid-19 vaccine uptake rates in the world and we are working closely with the NHS to make it as easy as possible for everyone to get a vaccine.
There are more than 2,200 vaccination sites in operation across the country, an additional 500 extra vaccination sites now compared with April this year. Hundreds of walk-in sites across the country are now also offering booster vaccines, making it even easier for people who are eligible to get their top-up jab. From Elland Road in Leeds to the Kassam Stadium in Oxford, the NHS is making it as easy as possible for people to get vital protection against the virus ahead of the winter months.
We are working with the NHS to provide advice and information at every opportunity on how to get a vaccine and its benefits as well as combating any misinformation. The NHS is engaging every single day with local authorities, faith leaders and organisations representing ethnic minority communities to provide advice and information about vaccines and about how they will be made available.
Our communications include information and advice via TV, radio and social media, and this has been translated into more than 13 different languages. Print and online material, including interviews and practical advice, has appeared in 600 national, regional, local and specialist titles. We have worked with clinicians and medical influencers to communicate the benefits of the vaccine and deliver content via the media and social media platforms.
This is just some of the huge amount of activity that has taken place, and that continues to take place, to ensure that as many people as possible can benefit from the vaccine, but we are not resting on our laurels. We have been continually learning throughout the roll-out of the vaccine. We look at research from trusted and reputable sources and we have identified some of the most effective interventions. I am sure that we can learn from this for other vaccination programmes, too. For example, we have learned that engagement with local communities, targeting specific gaps in vaccine uptake and getting local, trusted community leaders involved—people who know their communities well—is a very effective approach.
There are countless, brilliant examples of local activity around the country, but I shall mention Salford where they worked specifically with people experiencing homelessness, and were able to vaccinate 653 people. Every jab helps to save lives, and these are some of the hardest to reach people in our society, and also those who would have been most vulnerable to the virus. We have also increased the amount of information publicly available on vaccines, including more transparency about its benefits, safety, and potential side effects.
I can fully assure my hon. Friend that this Government are committed to tackling covid-19 vaccine misinformation, and I agree with every word that he has said so passionately on this: vaccine misinformation is dangerous and costs lives. That is why we stood up the cross-Whitehall counter-disinformation unit, specifically to tackle online misinformation and disinformation, and to hold social media companies to their public commitments to combat covid misinformation. We have also produced a wide variety of communications and toolkits to share case stories, build confidence, and provide trusted information about the safety of the vaccine.
Throughout the pandemic, the Government have been guided by the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and the four UK chief medical officers, and we have consulted a wide range of experts and ensured that their advice is embraced and actioned. Trusted experts such as our deputy chief medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam and so many others have all helped to build confidence in the vaccine in our communities where uptake is traditionally low. That has made a big difference. YouGov polling indicates that vaccine hesitancy in ethnic minority groups reduced from 63% to 14% from October 2020 to August 2021.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we do not have an ounce of complacency, and will continue to do whatever we can to stamp out dangerous misinformation. He is keen that we translate the successes of the covid vaccination programme into all our immunisation programmes. I fully agree that there is so much learning from our response to the pandemic that can inform and strengthen our wider vaccination programme.
The UK already has world-leading childhood immunisation programmes, and vaccine coverage from most of our childhood programmes is generally high. My hon. Friend was quite correct when he indicated that uptake had fallen slightly due to school closures and social distancing. I reassure him that the mitigation measures are in place to ensure that no child misses out on those vaccinations. However, we know that uptake rates must improve to fully protect the public from preventable diseases. We made a manifesto commitment to maintain and improve the routine childhood vaccination programme, and we recognise that there is still more that can be done to improve uptake in all programmes.
The publication of England’s national vaccine strategy has been delayed as a result of our ongoing focus on responding to the unprecedented covid-19 pandemic, but rest assured the strategy has been kept under constant review and is in the process of being refreshed to reflect the changed landscape that the pandemic has brought, including new developments from the covid-19 vaccine and the extended NHS flu programme.
I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the use of data and technology. Both offer immense benefits to every individual who seeks vaccination and to the health system that supports them. Our ambition is to make vaccination records easily available digitally so that each individual, and anyone treating them, can easily access their vaccination records, know which vaccines they have had, which they still need, and when they are due to receive them. The covid-19 pandemic has reinforced both the importance of vaccines—as they offer the best way out of the pandemic and the return to normal life—and our certainty that we can do even better and create even stronger, more effective vaccination programmes in the future.
Flu is another winter virus that can be serious, especially when combined with covid-19. That is why we are running the largest ever flu vaccination programme in UK history. A record 35 million people in England can book a free flu jab this year—the most ambitious effort ever to protect individuals and their loved ones from what can be a very nasty illness. It is vital that we build on the learning from the successes of the covid-19 vaccine programme, and use it to improve all vaccine programmes.
The covid-19 vaccine roll-out continues to be a success through every single vaccine given. I ask those people who peddle untruths and misinformation about the benefits of the vaccine to look at the evidence: more than 130,000 lives saved; and more than 24 million infections and 230,000 hospitalisations prevented. The facts are clear. That is 130,000 families who continue to have a mother, father, husband, wife, daughter, son, brother or sister still with them—and that is powerful. It is for that reason that we will continue to tackle vaccine misinformation head-on, and to promote the benefits of the vaccine to as many people as possible.
Finally, and as I have been grateful to have the opportunity to say many times at this Dispatch Box over the last few weeks, I urge everyone to get their booster jab as soon as they are eligible. To those who have not had their first jab yet: it is never too late.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Antique Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I am required by the House of Commons Commission to remind colleagues that you should wear masks, if at all possible, and maintain social distancing, but of course it is a matter for your own discretion whether you do so.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Antique Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 September. Members will recall that the House debated the Antique Firearms Regulations 2021 on 14 December 2020. The regulations introduced the statutory definition of “antique firearm” to prevent criminals exploiting a lack of legal clarity to gain possession of old but functioning firearms for use in crime. The regulations came into effect on 22 March this year and were based closely on long-standing Home Office guidance. The regulations now define in law which firearms may safely be regarded as antique, and therefore exempt from control, and those that should be subject to licensing.
In light of concerns expressed by law enforcement, the new definition does not include seven types of cartridge that, together with their associated firearms, have featured most often in crimes involving antique firearms. Those particular firearms are therefore no longer regarded as antique. However, owners were able to retain them on a firearms certificate. A six-month transition period was included in the relevant commencement regulations to allow owners to licence, sell or otherwise lawfully dispose of their firearms. That transition period ended on 22 September.
During the transition period, however, it was brought to our attention that a category of cartridge that had previously been included in the Home Office guidance on antique firearms had been inadvertently omitted from the regulations. The cartridges are for vintage rifles, punt-guns and shotguns with bores greater than a 10 gauge. Members may recall that the regulations are unusually technical and lengthy. They list more than 450 old cartridge types and went through checks before being laid. Regrettably, however, the omission was not picked up.
Unless we correct the error, owners of the omitted firearms would have to obtain a licence for them, incurring unnecessary inconvenience and expense, with no benefit to public safety. Since antique firearms are not licensed, it is not known exactly how many firearms might be affected by the omission, but I understand that potentially 200 or 300 might be owned by perhaps 100 collectors. They are also the sort of old firearms that might be displayed on the walls of pubs or hotels, as I am sure many Members can attest.
The draft Antique Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 2021 will add that category of cartridges to the list in the schedule to the Antique Firearms Regulations 2021, as was always intended. In the meantime, I have made the Policing and Crime Act 2017 (Commencement No. 11 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2021, which extend the transition period in respect of the omitted firearms until 22 January 2022, to ensure that owners remain in lawful possession while the draft amendment regulations before us are considered by Parliament and, I hope, approved and brought into effect.
Although the owners of those firearms will not require a firearms certificate once the omission has been corrected, the way in which the transitional provisions were drafted in the commencement regulations means that owners should still lodge an application for a certificate with their local police force before the end of the extended transition period, otherwise they could technically commit an historical offence of unlawful possession. That is because owners who choose to retain their firearms may only benefit from the transitional provisions, including the temporary disapplication of unlawful possession offences, if they have applied for a certificate before the end of the transition period.
The Home Office has issued advice on the Government website to make owners aware of the omission and of the need to apply for a firearms certificate before 22 January next year. The National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for firearms licensing has suggested to police forces that they simply hold on to any applications they receive and cancel them once the draft regulations come into effect. That will avoid owners having to pay unnecessary fees and avoid nugatory work for police forces.
I apologise to Members and to the House for the omission. The 2021 regulations have been checked by officials and external stakeholders for further omissions and errors. As a result, the draft regulations will also make a number of minor and typographical corrections to descriptions of other cartridges specified in the 2021 regulations. None of those additional corrections represents any significant flaw, but it is worth making them now to ensure that the 2021 regulations are completely accurate. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Mr Gray, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, particularly because, as a senior Member of the House, you have always given me great encouragement since my election in 2015. I know we have a shared interest in defence and the armed forces, so it is appropriate, in some respects, that you are chairing this afternoon’s Committee.
First, as the Minister would expect, Labour does not oppose these largely technical regulations. However, I do have a few questions for him. He will know that our priority, like his, is to protect the public, so we strongly support the need for firearms legislation to be robust, clear and kept under constant review so—as in this case—it can adequately respond to any loopholes or challenges. Critical to that is reducing the number of dangerous weapons on our streets—no matter what the danger is—so we of course support the principal aim of these regulations.
More specifically, the draft regulations before us work to correct an error in the more substantial ones approved by Parliament back in January, as the Minister said, in which a certain category of cartridge had been omitted. I understand that our law enforcement and the heritage firearms owning community welcome this clarification, and I appreciate the Minister’s apology and explanation. The mistake was largely a technical one in a list of over 450 cartridges. However, as well as checking, can the Minister assure the Committee that additional procedural safeguards are now in place to prevent any similar errors happening again—perhaps in more serious situations, such as during firearm list reviews or updates?
Antique firearms found in the wrong hands are a serious part of violent crime. They have caused many fatalities, and we have recently seen a rise in the number of such weapons retrieved from crime scenes. What further steps can the Minister take to monitor the firearms still able to be possessed without a licence, so they are not deemed a violent risk?
On the need to inform those antique firearms owners affected by this oversight of the need to apply for a certificate with local police forces before January 2022, can he say when he hopes to issue the advice? I hope it will be soon, because people will need to plan.
Finally, I take the opportunity to say that we welcome the changes the Minister announced last week on the new statutory guidance to chief police officers on firearms licensing coming into force, particularly the requirement for information to be provided about relevant medical conditions, including mental health conditions, as well as the requirements that applicants may be subject to open-source social media checks as part of the process. I know it has only been a week, so not even I would ask the Minister to update us on its early implementation, but I am sure he will commit to doing that in due course. Will he perhaps comment on how regularly that guidance will be kept under review by the Home Office, alongside law enforcement and other key partners?
To conclude, the Opposition support these regulations. Our priority—a shared priority, I think—is to keep people safe, and we are happy to find common ground with the Government on occasions like this to do just that.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. From the outset, I welcome the apology from the Minister, at least in relation to the omission from the previous legislation. We take that in the faith it has been given. The Scottish Government, of course, welcome the new legislation on antique firearm regulation under the Firearms Act 1968.
Two decades ago, the UK witnesses its worst incident of gun-related violence, which prompted the Government to enact the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997. That, of course, stopped Britain from heading down an American-style route of gun ownership and availability.
In Scotland, we again went one step further by introducing the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015, which makes it a criminal offence to have any air weapon without a licence or permit, and can see perpetrators fined or facing up to two years in prison. The tightening of those gun laws in Scotland has undoubtedly made Scotland a safer place for us all to live.
Public safety is and should be paramount for this Government and any Government, and we must question whether they are doing all they can to protect communities from gun crime. The role of police officers keeps expanding, yet numbers of police on the beat are reducing. Has enough thought been paid to whether police forces are getting the resources they require to process extra gun licences?
An individual may not possess, purchase or acquire a shotgun or rifle without a shotgun or rifle firearms certificate. The application process requires an applicant to provide personal information including medical data and contact information for their general practitioner. An applicant must detail their firearm storage arrangements, which are subject to inspection. The applicant must also justify possessing a shotgun or rifle and provide two character references.
The Scottish Government are always hard at work looking for new ways to protect public safety. That is why we introduced tougher measures on air gun control, as I said. In England, a firearms certificate is not required to possess or purchase an air gun. We therefore call on the Government to set their sights further on air gun control—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is deviating substantially away from the statutory instrument that we are considering, which is a very narrowly defined correction to a previous instrument. He might like to return to the actual matter under discussion.
Steven Bonnar
I take your points on board, Mr Gray. The UK Government’s approach to reducing violent crime and knife crime has been inadequate, and that is important to what we are saying—
The Chair
Order. The statutory instrument that we are considering is on a particular matter to do with the size of cartridges and a previously made error. Matters relating to knife crime, as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and others are important; none the less, they are not remotely in order. He might like to return to the statutory instrument that we are considering.
Steven Bonnar
I believe that they are in order in terms of the pressures on police, but I will move on, Mr Gray.
Finally, has the Home Office made any assessment of the potential merits of mandating that a person in possession of an antique firearm hold a certificate of technical obsolescence or proof of the firearm’s irreversibility?
Kit Malthouse
First, on procedural safeguards to prevent a similar error, I think it is safe to say that this has been a chastening experience for all of us, and not least the brilliant firearms team who are technically adept in normal circumstances. I assure the hon. Member for St Helens North that they take such things seriously and I am hopeful that there will not be a reoccurrence.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill asked about monitoring the use of antique firearms in crime. The National Ballistics Intelligence Service, based in the west midlands, monitors the use of firearms across the piece and looks for patterns of behaviour. It saw a rise in the use of antique firearms between 2008 and 2016, with 95 uses in 2016, and recoveries have decreased slightly. It also looks at fatalities in particular—I think there have been six since 2006 due to such firearms—and, critically, monitors the types of firearms used to look for patterns. I visited the service pre-covid and, even though I am a shotgun certificate holder—I declare an interest on that—I was surprised at the type of firearms that had previously been agreed to be antique. Some were quite muscular and capable in their intent, should anyone wish to use them in such a way.
Given the requirement to apply for a licence, I understand that we have already issued advice for there to be an application for a licence—at least before 22 January—highlighting the omission to collectors and owners of such items in the hope that, as the regulations come into force, such licence applications can broadly be torn up.
On the extremely important point about updates on implementation, an annual review will take into account all the intelligence that we have, and there will also be a full review of the guidelines every three years. That is not to say that we will not necessarily learn lessons in between. Following the terrible tragedy in Keyham, we issued guidance in advance about lessons that may be learned from those investigations and inquiries. If there are such lessons to be learned, we will have to issue interim guidance to police forces in particular.
On the wider point about implementation made by the hon. Member for St Helens North, the police have been in possession of the new guidelines for some weeks in the hope that they can operationalise them quickly. I will be more than happy to report back to the House in the future on the bedding in of the regulations and how they are working. With that, I am grateful to you, Mr Gray, for your charming presiding over our affairs, and I hope that the Committee will agree to the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Construction Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I am required by Mr Speaker to read out the following advice: I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain distancing as far as possible, in line with Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of 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 may be done at the testing centre on the estate or at home. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Public Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Construction Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The draft regulations make a simple amendment to the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 in order to cite the construction products regulations as a specified regulation within that legislation.
Let me begin by providing some context and background to the draft regulations. The European Union’s construction products regulation of 2011 became retained law and formed part of the UK’s legal system under the withdrawal agreement. The Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as amended by the Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, amended the 2011 regulation to ensure that the provisions would have practical application in Great Britain, introducing provisions such as the UKCA —UK conformity assessed—mark and UK designated standards. That regime, the UK CPR, came into force on 1 January 2021.
The UK CPR specifies which conformity assessment bodies are recognised to carry out conformity assessment procedures for construction products covered by UK designated standards. Currently, conformity assessment bodies, known as UK approved bodies, must be located in the United Kingdom. On 1 April this year, the United Kingdom-Canada trade continuity agreement came into force. That incorporated the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement—CETA—and the protocol on conformity assessment. Under the protocol, the United Kingdom is required, among other things, to recognise or to accept a conformity assessment procedure or result issued by a mutual recognition agreement body.
Under the trade agreement, Canadian conformity assessment bodies are able to assess construction products against United Kingdom designated standards, and vice versa. The 2021 regulations provide for the UK to recognise and accept a conformity assessment procedure or result issued by a Canadian conformity assessment body for the specified regulations.
The UK CPR is not yet included as a specified regulation in the 2021 regulations, which came into force on 19 June this year. Including the UK CPR as a specified regulation will enact the provisions of the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement. That will mean that, should a Canadian conformity assessment body seek accreditation to assess construction products against our designated standards, the Canadian-assessed product can be recognised on the market in the United Kingdom.
The effect of making this amendment can be considered in two parts. First, the draft regulations ensure that, pursuant to the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement, we recognise and accept a conformity assessment procedure or result issued by a Canadian conformity assessment body that has carried out the assessment of a construction product against UK CPR requirements. The effect of that is that a conformity assessment procedure undertaken by a Canadian conformity assessment body against our designated standards will be treated as if it were performed by a United Kingdom approved body, enabling Canadian-assessed UKCA-marked products to be placed on the market in Great Britain.
Secondly, the draft regulations enable the Secretary of State to assign an identification number and include in any register a Canadian conformity assessment body carrying out an assessment in relation to our CPR, and to include a Canadian accreditation body in a register of those bodies. As a result, manufacturers will easily be able to find and use a Canadian-based CAB that is accredited to undertake conformity assessment procedures against our designated standards prior to export to the United Kingdom.
The draft regulations are necessary to ensure that we remove a technical barrier to trade between our two countries and meet our obligations in the trade continuity agreement, which has already come into force. It is a small and technical measure, and I trust that it will not be a barrier to agreement in this Committee.
The Chair
Members will be delighted to know that the regulations can be debated until 7.30 pm.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the use of this statutory instrument, which is a technical amendment to the 2021 regulations on mutual recognition agreements. Conformity assessment ensures that what comes to market in Great Britain complies with regulations and meets specified expectations. The organisations that provide conformity assessments, testing, inspection and certification are called conformity assessment bodies, as the Minister outlined. Building on the 2021 conformity assessment regulations that were introduced earlier this year, this statutory instrument amends regulations to recognise conformity assessments for construction products issued by a Canadian conformity assessment body, providing a continuation of the arrangements that exist between the European Union and Canada, and ensuring that we comply with the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The statutory instrument is not contentious—Her Majesty’s Official Opposition support this technical amendment—but I would be interested in his comments on its interplay with the Building Safety Bill, which will obviously improve standards. Things that have been happening across the globe—with shipping, and undoubtedly with Brexit as well—have had a significant impact on the cost of construction products. If the Minister does not have an immediate answer, I would welcome written assessment of the impact on building safety remediation, and the cost.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his support for these very simple and straightforward draft regulations. He asks a specific question about the interplay between the draft regulations and the Building Safety Bill. By way of parenthesis, I remind the Committee that the Government are spending a significant amount of taxpayers’ money on the remediation of high-rise buildings and buildings that are in scope that need to have dangerous cladding removed from them. The Bill will also introduce a building safety regulator and a national construction products regulator. It is for the national construction products regulator to ensure that the sorts of goods that may be used in the construction of buildings are properly assessed, and that materials and products that are of critical use meet a higher and defined standard. Through the Bill, those standards will be defined. Working with the national regulator, once it is in place, we will be able to properly police the regime.
We will, of course, want to ensure that any assessment of goods that are introduced to Great Britain from foreign places meets those high standards. That is one of the reasons why the mechanism of accreditation is being put in place—so that bodies, in this case in Canada, understand our assessment requirements. It will ensure that those bodies are also properly assessed and signed off by the Canadian assessment organisation, the name of which momentarily escapes me. If I do not remember it by the time I have completed my remarks, I will write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm it.
By having the draft regulations in place, we will properly accredit those organisations abroad that can assess our regulations, and they will be required to assess our regulations to the standards that we have set—including those set by the national construction products regulator. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fireworks: Sale and Use
(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
Derek Twigg (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 current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. 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. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House, or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 319891, relating to the sale and use of fireworks.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The petition before us, entitled “Limit the Sale and Use of Fireworks to Organisers of Licensed Displays Only”, states:
“Current legislation allows for public use of fireworks 16 hours a day, every day, making it impossible for vulnerable groups to take precautions against the distress they can cause. Better enforcement of existing law is insufficient; limiting their sale & use to licensed displays only is necessary.
Restrictions on the sale & use of fireworks has huge public support and is backed by several human and animal charities. Limiting the sale & use of fireworks to displays only, by introducing licensing via local authorities, would help to protect vulnerable people and animals from the distress and anxiety caused by unexpected firework noise & pollution. Legislation that balances people’s desires for firework displays, and individual rights to not be distressed throughout the year, is needed now.”
The petition closed with 301,610 signatures, including 306 from my own constituency of Carshalton and Wallington, and I am grateful to the petition’s creator, Julie, for taking the time to speak to me before today’s debate to set out why she created the petition. It is great to see so many colleagues present to take part, and I know that many wanted to get into the debate but could not, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who has done a lot of work in the area. I wanted to make sure that the contributions of those Members were also put on record.
The debate has become something of an annual event. I remember being in Westminster Hall to debate the topic last year, and I believe that the Petitions Committee has held a debate on the issue every year for the past five or six. The Minister, as a former member of that Committee, will remember those debates full well. The fact that every year more 100,000 people sign a petition asking for very similar things, and we come to this place to debate those things, demonstrates—as the petition says—the significant public interest in the topic. I am sure that many colleagues will share their experiences of the emails and social media messages they have received over the past few days, ranging from those that are totally opposed to any change in the law whatsoever to those that would like to see fireworks banned altogether —not just for private use, but for any use at all.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I was at a constituency event yesterday evening and was approached by constituents about the debate, including one, Sharon, who has a family member who has autism. The unexpected, random and unpredictable nature of fireworks going off when they are not anticipated causes that person real distress, and other constituents who are military veterans have contacted me to express the same concern. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those kinds of issues need to be considered when we are taking steps to minimise the use of fireworks outwith proper displays?
Elliot Colburn
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I expect that many colleagues will mention the impact that fireworks can have on animals, but we often forget that people are equally affected. That needs to become a central part of this debate; it should be considered, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention.
Because of the great public interest in this topic, I decided to set up a survey—as I know many colleagues on all sides of the House have done, either this year or in years prior—to gauge my constituents’ views more widely. The response was something of a surprise, and has been quite phenomenal, so I hope the House will give me leave to go through some of those responses. I checked just an hour before today’s debate began, and the Facebook post that I created has received over 1.2 million hits, has been shared 12,000 times, and has attracted 75,000 responses. I asked those 75,000 respondents for their thoughts on four different topics, and I will very quickly go through their responses.
I began by asking the respondents if, like the petitioners, they agreed that fireworks should be banned other than on set days of the year; 10% said no and 88% said yes. Secondly, I asked if they normally looked forward to bonfire night; 19% said yes and 78% said no. Thirdly, I asked if they supported a complete ban on fireworks, other than for organised events; 9% said no and 89% said yes. Finally, I asked pet owners specifically about the impact of fireworks on their pets, and whether they were afraid of fireworks; 15% said no and 83% said yes. Of course, I must add the caveat that the survey was no official consultation—it was a Facebook post that went a bit viral. However, I hope that that snapshot of public opinion and the views expressed will help colleagues understand the issue.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing such a vital debate. One person who responded to the survey and has campaigned vigorously on the issue is Richard Smith, from my constituency. He is a veteran and has served in Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland. He is not a killjoy, but the effect of post-traumatic stress disorder on him and many of his comrades is a significant factor. He welcomes the debate but, more importantly, he would welcome action from Ministers.
Elliot Colburn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to our attention. Would he pass on the Petitions Committee’s thanks to his constituent for his engagement with the debate? I will touch on that issue later.
I recognise and accept that there are strong views on both sides of the debate. The hon. Gentleman just used the word “killjoy”, and I was called that by a journalist just this morning. I confess that I sometimes find myself very torn, as I am sure many hon. Members are and will discuss later. I admit that I enjoy a good fireworks display. The Minister, who is my constituency neighbour, will know very well the amazing fireworks displays that have been put on in Carshalton Park by Carshalton Round Table over the years. Many people see fireworks as good fun and are not keen to see further bureaucracy come into their lives, preventing them from enjoying themselves. My natural instinct has always been against banning things, and I share concerns, which I know the Government have raised in response to the petition before, that restrictions could lead to a rise in black market sales and illegal usage and create problems with enforcement. I appreciate that a number of measures have also been undertaken, but I will let the Minister touch on those in his reply and not steal all of his material.
On the flip side, the petitioners’ arguments are incredibly persuasive. As I am sure we will hear throughout the debate, my dog Willow, like so many dogs, is absolutely terrified of fireworks. She spent most of Saturday night cowering and hiding in a corner. As we have heard from hon. Members, fireworks can also be incredibly distressing for people living with autism and for veterans suffering from PTSD. That is why many animal and veteran charities and organisations have echoed the petitioners’ calls for restrictions on sale and use.
I have also received a number of emails, as I am sure many colleagues have, with the most dreadful photos showing how letting off fireworks can go badly wrong, where people or animals have suffered horrific injuries or property has been damaged. After all, we must remember that fireworks contain combustible and explosive materials.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a particularly regional nature to the issue? In the north-east, in County Durham, we are one of the top two places in the country for arson and arson of vehicles. The knock-on effects of fireworks are not limited to those on animals, which are very serious, and to road safety and antisocial behaviour, but relate to some of the criminal issues he is highlighting, which can lead to real damage to people and property. Does he understand that that is probably one reason why my constituency was in the top 9% in the country in terms of respondents to this e-petition?
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention; if I did not understand before, I certainly do now. One reason petitioners keep bringing the topic back is the problem with the current enforcement measures, which are either not enforced properly or are insufficient to deal with the issue. After all, fireworks contain combustible and explosive materials. There are alternatives available; there are quiet or silent fireworks and even non-explosive things such as light-up drones.
I know the Minister will want to cover the existing legislation, enforcement and public awareness campaigns, so I will not steal his material. I will draw attention to the work that the Petitions Committee has done in the past in recognition of the strong public interest. This is why, following the three petitions that have been formerly debated in Westminster Hall, the Committee produced a report in 2019. I will admit that the investigation concurred with the Government of the time; introducing a ban or taking “drastic action” on the sale and use of fireworks was not supported by the Committee. However, it did make a number of recommendations to Government. In their response last March, the Government made a number of commitments. These included: instructing the Office for Product Safety and Standards to develop a fact-based evidence base; inviting stakeholders to share information that may not have previously been publicly available; better education and public awareness; engagement with animal welfare groups about proactive steps that pet owners can take; and a number of other points. On the first point, I understand that the OPSS has since published its evidence base. However, it would be useful to get an update from the Government on the commitments they made in response to the report, and the progress that has been made since.
Given the significant interest in this area of policy, as evidenced by the regularity with which we come here to debate this topic in Petitions Committee debates, I wondered whether the Government have considered a larger exercise in gathering public opinion and consultation. I am sure we will hear more from our colleagues in the Scottish National party about the Scottish Government’s two consultations in the area since 2019. That work north of the border has led to the establishment of a firework review group, whose recommendations are being considered by the Scottish Government following a second public consultation. Will the Minister speak to his opposite number in Scotland and consider undertaking a similar public engagement exercise better to understand public opinion and inform policy in this area?
It is clear that the issue is not going to go away any time soon. There is significant public interest and strong views are held on all sides; I would be very surprised if we were not back here next year debating the issue once again. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions and the reply from the Minister about the action that has been taken. However, for the reasons I have given, the status quo does not appear to be tenable. I do not think that is fair that we continue to come here year after year, have the same debate and repeat the same arguments. I would argue that that could erode public trust in the Petitions Committee system, which is designed to give people a voice in this House. It is not fair to the petitioners, or to the constituents who contact us year after year, that we just go round in circles without exploring the matter in greater detail. I believe that further work should be undertaken, and that it is to the public that we must look to find the way forward.
Through public consultation, the Government could better understand and engage with the concerns about the impact that fireworks have, particularly on animals, people with autism and those living with PTSD. There are also concerns about losing a source of enjoyment; there is a balance to be struck. I am sure that the significant number of people who took part in my survey—in just a few days and in uncontrolled conditions —demonstrates that if a proper public consultation was to take place there would be a significant amount of public involvement. That would allow the Government to do a full and detailed analysis of responses, which could inform policy going forward. Can the Minister take this suggestion back to his Department and report back to the Petitions Committee about whether such an undertaking would be possible? I appreciate many other colleagues want to speak, so I will bring my remarks to a close. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
As so many Members wish to speak, I have to impose a three-minute limit on speeches; that will give us the best chance of getting every Member in to speak. I will cut Members’ speeches off at three minutes.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
I rise to speak on behalf of the 584 people living in my constituency of Pontypridd who have signed this petition on an issue that I am passionate about. It is clear that many Members from across the political divide share my concerns about the sale and use of fireworks, given the popularity of this debate and that of debates on the same topic in the past. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) has already said, we have had this debate year on year. I was in the debate last year and I have no doubt that I will be in such a debate next year unless the Government take clear action and do something about the issue.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who is making excellent progress with her Misuse of Fireworks Bill, which is making its way through the House. Indeed, the issues surrounding the sale and misuse of fireworks have been debated in this place for many years, but despite compelling contributions from colleagues in a range of debates there has been little progress in terms of practical change.
If anything, the situation is getting much worse. Although I recognise that a well-organised fireworks display is something that a lot of people look forward to, myself included, we must also acknowledge the impacts of fireworks, including the distress and danger that they can cause some people. One resident in Pontypridd, who recently gave birth, contacted me to share her real concerns about the impact that firework season will have on her new baby’s wellbeing. I share and empathise with her concerns. Those who have children in their house will know that painstaking silence is often required for a newborn to drop to sleep and those few hours are also undeniably precious for any new parent. I remember from my own experience of giving birth that I was utterly exhausted after having Sullivan and the thought of an excruciatingly loud firework display waking him up was a genuine worry at this time of year. It is important to recognise that bonfire night, despite its name, is rarely celebrated on one night alone. Often, fireworks are let off on for days on end and it is time that we reflect properly on whether that is truly necessary.
Of course, if we restrict public firework displays even further, as had to be the case last year due to the pandemic, we are likely to see an increase in home displays, which will often be even more dangerous. Some responsible outlets and supermarkets are making the decision not to sell fireworks, but despite their best efforts there were still reports of firework-related antisocial behaviour in my area.
I recently met South Wales Fire and Rescue Service, which is based in Llantrisant in my constituency. Its team told me about their extensive preparations for what is undoubtedly their busiest weekend of the year. Similarly, last weekend, as part of COP26, there were a number of rallies in my area to encourage more rapid environmental action to tackle the devastating effects of climate change.
We know the devastating impact that fireworks have on our local environment and on all animals, not just our pets. I have spoken passionately in Westminster Hall before about my own dogs, Dotty and Dora. They are absolutely petrified of fireworks. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has already said, this is not just about animals or newborn babies; it is also about veterans, those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, those suffering with autism and those who are vulnerable and on their own.
I urge the Minister to take action and recognise the broad range of health and safety concerns that have been raised today. We have to take action before it is too late—before we all end up back here next year. Remember, remember, the fifth of November, and not this debate.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I apologise, Mr Twigg, that I will not be able to stay for the very end of the debate, because I have to chair a Committee upstairs.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on introducing the debate so well. Things have moved on from the time of my grandfather, who was an orphan in south London in the late 1890s. Just ahead of bonfire night, the superintendent of the orphanage went round with a bucket of fireworks, and each young lad was told to take a firework and to go out and light it. Can anyone imagine that happening today?
Distressingly, however, a very large number of people are injured each year because of the use of fireworks in domestic settings. Over 100 people go to hospital each year as a result of fireworks-related accidents; over 1,000 people are hurt, half of whom are children; there are over 40,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour related to fireworks; and 4,500 animals are injured and require veterinary support as a result of activities related to bonfire night.
I support the wording of the petition. I think there should be a ban—an outright ban—on the retail sale of fireworks, and that we should encourage licensed, organised displays. The point about such displays is that they are the best way to appreciate fireworks, while also raising a lot of money for charity. The thing about fireworks is that they are great if they can be seen and are well organised, but they are universally awful if they can only be heard. That is what happens with domestic firework displays. If the fireworks cannot be seen, they cannot be appreciated. It is animals in particular that suffer. Hundreds of thousands of dogs, cats, horses and other animals every year are quaking in fear because of the loud bangs going off in the vicinity.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is rightly highlighting the awful impact that fireworks can have on pets and other animals. Will he join me in praising the work of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Dogs Trust—to name but two organisations—which have published their advice to pet owners on what they can do to safeguard their pets against fireworks?
Mr Hollobone
I am grateful for that intervention, because the RSPCA calculates that fireworks cause distress in 62% of dogs, 54% of cats and 55% of horses. The RSPCA estimates that 85% of people whom it has surveyed think that firework displays should be licensed and that the retail sale of fireworks should be abolished. The point is this. As human beings, we can all be frightened by noise, but we can rationalise it, understand it, and most of us can overcome it, but very, very few animals can do that, so if we want to stop hundreds of thousands of animals quaking in fear year in, year out, as a result of fireworks, let us ban the wretched things from retail sale and have organised, licensed public displays only.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I want to start by reflecting on the emails that I have had from constituents. They are very clear that fireworks are not just on one night; they are an ongoing problem that lasts for weeks and weeks. Charlie Fairley emailed me on 14 October to say that he had
“already been woken up three nights in a row, with people letting off fireworks in the early hours of the morning.”
Ruth Ewan emailed on 17 October to say that she had already
“reported two incidents to police, kids lighting and throwing fireworks in the middle of the day”.
There was also an incident in which a firework landed very close to a young child in a pram, which was really terrifying. Fortunately, the police were able to find and charge the young people responsible, but that is indicative of the many incidents that happen and the risks that are caused. Ruth says:
“Our kids 4 and 8 are terrified as are our cats and dog.”
She said that they were
“considering going to stay with family outside of Glasgow for the first week of November as it’s…scary and distressing for everyone.”
Marg Vickers emailed to ask why, given all the climate change concerns that we have, we are
“senselessly adding fuel to the fire?”
She feels that it is
“all about money and commercialism with no thought about those that suffer every bonfire night; our veterans, our elderly and our animals.”
Elaine Wallace said that she had recently moved into Pollokshields and lives just off Albert Drive. She said that
“the last two weeks have been a shock”.
and she describes the fireworks in the street as “terrifying”. She has phoned the police on multiple occasions.
All of this is not for the want of trying to tackle the problem. I pay tribute to Police Scotland for all that it has done in Pollokshields after a very serious incident a few years ago when the police and fire service came under attack. Inspector Cenny Smith, Sergeant Lynn Donnelly, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Crimestoppers, trading standards, neighbourhood relations staff from the council, the Youth Community Support Agency and the Bowling Green in Pollokshields have all worked collaboratively to try to reduce the impact on communities. But I was out on the streets in Pollokshields on Friday night and the fireworks were going off everywhere, from all directions—near, far, up, through back courts, and in the middle of the road as well. That is incredibly unsafe. What is left behind is the impact on the community—the litter, the waste and the disruption to people’s lives.
It is unfortunate that the UK Government are not really doing anything to tackle the problem. The Scottish Government have had a comprehensive consultation. The responses were clear that legislation remains in the hands of the UK Government. If they will not do something about it, they must devolve the powers in order to let the Scottish Government get on with the job.
My constituent Lauren Aitchison said that she looked forward to
“the annual tradition of Alison Thewliss getting wearily to her feet in the House of Commons to explain, once again, why selling explosives in supermarkets isn’t a genius idea”.
The Minister should listen, and stop this right now.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Thank you for allowing me to speak in the debate, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing it.
There is no denying that access to fireworks in the UK is easy and that enforcement of existing legislation is poor. Although many of us have enjoyed firework displays over the last week to celebrate Diwali or to remember the foiled plot to blow up this House, many, if not more, are traumatised by fireworks. Last year, following scores of pieces of correspondence from constituents, I decided to open a public survey so that all my constituents could share their thoughts on fireworks and the impact they have. I received both positive and negative feedback, but I was truly shocked by the sheer volume of responses I received, many of which were overwhelmingly negative. Given the nature of the internet, the survey spread widely—some might say it went viral—and I found myself with well over 1 million hits on Facebook and well over a 100,000 survey returns.
We have heard about the trauma to pets and livestock. As we approach Remembrance Day, let us also spare a thought for our veterans and those suffering from PTSD, for whom loud and unexpected bangs and flashing lights can have a devastating effect on quality of life.
We have had many Australian influences on legislation over the years, and perhaps it is time for some more. At present in the UK, there is no legal requirement to have any form of licence or training in order to let off consumer fireworks. Fireworks can be sold at any time of the year and can be bought online. In Australia, it is illegal for someone to buy, possess or discharge fireworks unless they hold a pyrotechnician’s licence or single-use licence. Authorities must be notified of all firework displays, and authorised events can be found using the authorities’ fireworks display search.
One question that I would ask all Members in this room and those unable to join us today is this: should local authorities take the location of public displays into consideration when granting them a licence and should they require displays to be well publicised in the surrounding area? Furthermore, is it right to place greater restrictions on the sale, purchase and use of fireworks? If we agree, surely we can then find an agreeable compromise that protects those who are traumatised by fireworks.
I have already had discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister about this issue and I greatly appreciate his time, but it is time we had a wider debate and an honest discussion. This debate is had every year, but there are no real legislative changes. Surely the time is right for that to happen now.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I should say at the outset that I do not object to fireworks per se. They are a great tradition in our country, and I have many memories from my childhood of attending bonfire displays.
Even allowing for my memory, however, the fireworks then were less powerful and less noisy. Some of the rockets available now are not far off what the likes of Richard Branson and Elon Musk have been spending their money on to send people into space. That is part of the problem; there has been greater awareness of mental health issues and the impact of fireworks on people suffering from PTSD in recent years, but the power and volume of fireworks has also increased. A firework can sound like it has landed in our living room, even though it might actually be hundreds of yards away, so the impact on people’s wellbeing can be the same. My simple question is this: what is stopping the manufacturers limiting the noise of fireworks, and what is stopping the Government legislating for that? That would be a straightforward way to deal with some of the worst effects of fireworks and to strike the right balance between allowing people to enjoy themselves and reducing the impact on others.
A number of constituents have contacted me with their comments. A common theme is that the days and times that fireworks are set off seem to have increased. Others have talked about the personal impact that fireworks have on them, with some unable to leave their homes during these events. I also have one very distressing story from a constituent called Katherine, who contacted me yesterday about what happened to her dog, Lara-Beau, who was killed on Friday. Katherine’s dog jumped out of a first-floor window in response to a firework, then ran several miles down the road on to a motorway, where she was killed. Katherine has our utmost sympathy. As a dog lover myself, I know how tough it must be for her to lose her dog in such horrific circumstances. Even though Katherine put many precautions in place, the fact that the dog reacted as she did shows just how distressed she must have been. That starkly illustrates how fireworks cause unnecessary distress to animals and supports the argument for legislating for the use of fireworks for public displays only, which would help pet owners put in place the right precautions at the right time. Anyone hearing about Katherine’s experience must surely consider that that is the right thing to do.
In conclusion, I do not believe that the status quo is acceptable. Each year, there are thousands of hospital admissions for physical injuries due to fireworks and an as yet unquantified number of individuals whose mental health is impacted as well. We should look at ways to reduce the massive demands on the NHS that we hear about and at the impact on individual animals. We can make life better for everyone by seriously looking at some of the measures we have discussed. A proper licensing regime and reducing the noise that fireworks make would be relatively easy steps that would make a difference. Even if the Government do not enact them, we can all make a difference ourselves by ensuring that if we do set off fireworks, we do so responsibly and with due consideration for others.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for leading the debate. I place on record my thanks to my 524 constituents who took the time to sign this petition on the sale of fireworks.
We all know how special 5 November is for people across the country, as we celebrate the foiling of the gunpowder plot in 1605, merely yards from where we are today. Many people look forward to bonfires and dazzling firework shows, especially after the cancellation of scheduled events last year. I know the excitement and anticipation in Darlington about the return of the organised display in South Park in 2022, thanks to the leadership of the Conservative council.
However, many people are also afraid of the impacts of unscheduled, home-based displays on pets and loved ones with health conditions. From reports of events here in Westminster over the weekend, we also know that fireworks can be used as weapons and pose a threat to the safety of our hard-working police officers.
As a dog owner, I well understand the concerns of Darlington pet owners for their beloved pets. Similarly, the impact on family members suffering from conditions such as PTSD is a worry. I have been moved by the responses to my snap call for views over the past few days, as constituents have told me distressing stories of how their loved ones and animals suffer from overly loud, overly disruptive firework displays put on by residents in Darlington.
However, the overriding opinion is that a complete ban on fireworks is counterproductive. It is right that the Government focus on ensuring that an enforceable, comprehensive framework is in place to control availability and use. Under existing guidance, using fireworks outside curfew hours is a criminal offence, which can be enforced by the police and can lead to imprisonment and a substantial fine, but we rarely hear of it being enforced. We know that the antisocial use of fireworks continues around the country, and I look forward to the Minister outlining the progress his Department has made to clamp down on illegal fireworks, which continue to be bought online or on the black market.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
On Saturday night, I received an email from a Luton resident, who told me:
“We can hear fireworks every single night. Without exaggeration, I counted, they can go off every 10 minutes between 6 pm and midnight. Sometimes at 1 am. The stress caused by them is enormous and growing. My child is terrified. To a point where she screams and begs me to stop them. We have to put on a white noise sound on a tablet in her room in order to reduce the sound of the bangs. If she wakes up, she cries, shivers and goes back to sleep with earmuffs on. Before bedtime she begs me for no fireworks. Mental health in our family is in pieces. I am genuinely worried about the wellbeing of my daughter. We can’t live like this.”
I start with this message because I am not sure I could have made the case better myself. They finish by telling me:
“Please, help us, somehow. This is too much to deal with. We feel trapped and powerless.”
Their voice adds to those of over 300,000 people who have signed this petition telling MPs to act.
I love bonfire night, new year’s eve, Eid, Diwali and the lunar new year. This is not about being anti-fun or anti-celebrating when it comes to our diverse British traditions. But it just cannot be right that it is so easy to get hold of fireworks and to cause nuisance to others. For some, fireworks are not about celebrating but about causing a nuisance. My fellow Luton MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), recently found boxes of used fireworks. Their names showed that they were not about celebrating or about the beauty of fireworks, but about disruption. They were called “Rain of Terror” and “All Out War”.
Over the past few months, I have been inundated by people getting in touch to ask that MPs make it harder for fireworks to cause chaos to their lives. That is why I introduced a private Member’s Bill to tackle the misuse of fireworks. It is clear that the law needs to change. Ahead of Second Reading of my Bill early next year, I hope to include a minimum £1,000 fine for use of any fireworks past the existing 11 pm curfew and to reduce the production and availability of louder fireworks, as well as access to them. Importantly, the Government must consult on the impact of fireworks with veterans’ charities such as Combat Stress and animal welfare charities such as the RSPCA and Dogs Trust.
However, I am not naive—I know where most private Members’ Bills end up—so I ask the Minister to meet me as soon as possible to discuss the measures I want to outline in my Bill. The last time we debated this, the Minister responding confirmed that the Government do not consider a ban on fireworks to be an appropriate course of action, so I ask the Minister today, what action do they consider appropriate? Why are we all here if we are so rigidly unresponsive to the voices of the people who send us here? I want to help my constituents. I hope the Minister will work with me and Members here today to end the misery that people are facing.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate. Although it was bonfire night last week, I am afraid to say that firework misuse across my constituency, in Keighley and Ilkley, happens throughout the year, every night and well into the evening and the early morning. This is not acceptable for many of my constituents, who just want to be able to have a peaceful night’s sleep.
Fireworks are causing antisocial behaviour. They are a huge nuisance to pets, animals and livestock. They also produce litter. When the rockets are sent into the air, the cartridge or whatever it may be lands in green fields and is consumed by livestock. We have seen that with Chinese lanterns as well, so may I use this opportunity to call for a ban on them too?
As I say, fireworks cause huge antisocial behaviour. I hope the Minister will join me in condemning the yobs and hooligans who targeted Keighley fire brigade only last week with fireworks when it was out on duty. It was a four-man brigade. Luckily nobody was properly injured, but these fireworks were targeted at members of the Keighley fire brigade who were just going to carry out their duty.
Fireworks cause huge amounts of antisocial behaviour, and we absolutely must put a stop to members of the general public being able to purchase fireworks. I fully support the call for proper fireworks to be utilised at licensed events by licence holders, because we are dealing with explosives here. To buy a shotgun and the cartridges to use with it, someone must have a proper licence, which is vetted by the police and the council. I do not understand why we should not be looking at tougher measures along these lines for fireworks. After all, they are explosives and are causing huge discomfort for many in my constituency right throughout the year. They should not be let off in car parks, roads and back gardens, where they cause huge disturbance. They should be utilised only at proper, licensed events by licence holders. I urge the Government to do all in their power to review the current situation so that we have a proper, meaningful position going forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing this online petition, which was very well subscribed to.
My wife was a volunteer with Assisi Animal Sanctuary for around 10 years, and on many occasions she highlighted the problems with animals and fireworks displays, so the statistics from Blue Cross come as no surprise to me personally. Some 70% of the nation’s pets are affected by fireworks, with dogs topping the list at 64%, followed by cats at 42%, and horses at 17%. Owners reported their pets trembling with fear and being physically sick, with 45% saying the unexpected bangs and noises left their pet hiding away for hours and 21% saying their pets had been left scared to go outdoors for days. In drastic cases, some owners were even forced to move house, and 7% said they had to rehome their animals. The Dogs Trust has highlighted some of the behaviours it sees:
“We can also see very overt behaviours including barking, spinning, self-trauma such as tail-chewing/tail-licking and destruction… These behaviours can be extremely challenging for owners to address because fireworks remain out of their control and, therefore, they are unable to remove the triggers for their dog’s fearful behaviour.”
I am not saying that we should not have fireworks—as the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said, we are not killjoys; we are just about protection and having the right measures in place. We must, however, regulate fireworks more effectively to minimise the problems for pet owners. We should shorten the timeframe for the availability of fireworks and tighten up the legislation on who may purchase or use them and on when they are used. If pet owners know for certain the days when fireworks may be used legally, they may take mitigating measures to protect their animals. It is a matter of us all working together—let us do it the right way.
Blue Cross and other charities have said that they want to see further restrictions on the sale of fireworks, limiting them to licensed public occasions and organised events. I agree with that methodology, ever mindful that people have a right to enjoy fireworks. We want to ensure that they may do so, but that they do it in a way that does not disadvantage or impact on those with animals.
Blue Cross also recommends that the period within which fireworks may be purchased and used should be as limited as possible. Local authorities should take the location of public displays into consideration when granting a licence and ensure that they are well publicised in the surrounding area. We should all work together. The hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) referred to attacks on the fire brigade, and each and every one of us in Northern Ireland—particularly in Strangford, which I represent—knows about issues with that.
We all enjoy the displays, but what happens if people get their pet out, only for fireworks to start again the next night? It can go on for weeks. That is unacceptable and cannot happen. It really is not fair. We must do better to allow the freedom to enjoy fireworks safely without traumatising animals, but we do not yet have that balance. We can get it, and I look to the Minister for a satisfactory response.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
For a number of years, I have been campaigning with Bradford 4 Better, which has been leading on the issue of antisocial behaviour around fireworks. The local council conducted a review only this year. The findings were simply that MPs needed to lobby Government for more legislation and to make it tighter. I will not call for a complete ban, but that is not the mood of the people. I am calling for more legislation to be put in place, and would welcome the Government doing so. Such legislation could include—even immediately—having fireworks that are less powerful and less noisy, to save on the distress caused to animals.
Bradford Council conducted its review in August this year, with the findings shared in October. One of the really saddening incidents shared was that of a Shetland pony, which was so distraught and fearful that she strangled herself. From personal experience with my children, the family dog Bella, the family cat Whiskers, and my sister’s dog Lexi and her cat Max, I know what it is like. My niece told me only this week, when she knew I would be speaking in the debate, “Auntie, I had to put the music on all night to drown out the noise of the fireworks.”
On my street there are two people who are affected—I do not need to go wider into the constituency, although the number of emails that I get on this subject is substantial, because fireworks have become an everyday, or at least every week, thing. I appreciate that people want to celebrate weddings or have a good time marking such occasions, but we have to change. Societally, we have to make that not acceptable—it is antisocial behaviour. It is not okay for those two learning-disabled adults on my street to be cowering and frightened, waking up in the middle of the night, because the fireworks might be at 1 am—they do not necessarily stop at 12 o’clock, but can go on until after 1 o’clock. That is irresponsible.
My message to the Government is that, yes, I am happy to work with them. I welcome and support the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), and I will support the Government. However, there has to be reform. Enough is enough. I do not want to have to come back to have this conversation next year, after another load of animals have been made distraught and lots more of my constituents have written more and more emails. We have been having the debate for so long. I am calling for reform and stronger legislation, because councils have limited legislated powers to stop and manage the nuisance that is fireworks. I am happy to work with the Government, but on behalf of my constituents I urge the Government to get some legislation and to get it through fast.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It was in 1605 that my former constituent, Mr Guy Fawkes, came to this place to misuse fireworks. That is why I am making a speech today to call for an end to that practice. Not only have many of my constituents written to me, including veterans, families who have experienced autism and other mental health conditions, and animal lovers, but 714 of my constituents signed the petition, calling for fireworks to be used only in properly licensed public displays.
We have to remember that at this time of year our precious NHS, which is overstretched, sees about 2,000 injuries arriving through its doors, 600 of those affecting children, and deals with about 35 inquiries about burns in relation to both Diwali and bonfire night. Our public servants are often a target for people who misuse fireworks. Indeed, only three years ago, I was cycling home from Parliament when young people who were playing with fireworks threw one at me. It was only because I reacted in nanoseconds, slamming on my brakes, that it missed me. If it had hit—it exploded as it hit the ground —who knows what the history would have been?
Every year, cycling on that section of my route, I fear what could happen. That brought home how serious the issue is, so we absolutely have to protect the public. When I called the police, they told me that an incident had previously occurred on the very same spot that night, but they did not have time to attend, which highlights the reasons why legislation needs to be introduced from the top—from the Minister—to change the fortunes of others.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend comes on to the point of the debate: fireworks are easily accessible in supermarkets and other shops, which is why we need a comprehensive ban. If people want to enjoy a firework display, such as one put on by the local authority or fire services, that is a better use of public money, as there are fewer call-outs, which require the involvement of the NHS and other emergency services. Those displays can bring communities together, as opposed to what fireworks are now doing—pushing communities apart.
We have heard about fear factors, which are real and live for many families, so I urge the Minister to tackle the problem. We should not come here year after year, voicing the pleas in the letters that we receive time and again from our constituents. This should be the year the Minister goes back to the Government and acts on our call, and on the call of more than 300,000 petitioners, who are saying that things must change. We must not forget the silent animals, who do not have an opportunity to make representations, but who no doubt experience that fear. This nightmare time of year should be one of pleasure for families, instead of one of dread. I trust that the Minister will act swiftly and engage with banning the sale of fireworks by ordinary members of the public.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Before I call the SNP spokesman, may I tell Members that I expect to call the Minister at about 5.40 pm? I call Patricia Gibson.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his comprehensive exposition of the debate.
Every year we have the same debate, and every year a Minister stands up and says not very much at all that takes into account the reality of the disruption and distress that fireworks cause in our communities. To be clear, no one in the Chamber today or in any of the six previous debates—we did not have one in 2019 because of the election—has ever called for fireworks to be banned, although that is often how the kind of concerns that have been expressed today are dismissed. For example, I recently raised this very issue in business questions. When I asked about the regulation of fireworks, the Leader of the House responded by calling me “a killjoy”, then began to recite the words of a traditional bonfire-night rhyme.
We all know that the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) believes that he has his finger on the pulse, but that response will sound contemptuous to my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran—but that is only because it is contemptuous of the disruption and distress to which they are subjected because of the misuse of fireworks. From the right hon. Gentleman’s response, I can only assume that the good people of North Somerset are not plagued by fireworks, as my constituents are—they seem to have quite a different experience. I wish to repeat and make it absolutely clear that no one is calling for fireworks to be banned. The current situation—anyone over the age of 18 can purchase fireworks, with all the potential for community disruption that entails—is simply not tenable, and it is not acceptable. The distress, as we have heard, caused to the elderly, beloved family pets, veterans with PTSD, and to children and babies, shaken from their sleep, makes the compelling case that the sale of fireworks should be restricted to organised community displays, and that only those with a licence to deliver such displays should be able to access them.
Fireworks, whether for bonfire night, a wedding, or some other important celebration, are a hugely enjoyable spectacle. Indeed, some 10 million of us in the UK enjoy them throughout the year. Nobody has any quarrel with that; the point at issue is the fact that the irresponsible misuse of fireworks must be tackled properly, and that is most sensibly and most effectively done at the point of sale.
As Members have said in this debate, and have said in every previous annual debate on this subject, we know all about the accidents and injuries caused by fireworks, which are sobering indeed. We also know about the increased pressures this places on public services. The fact is that selling fireworks to the general public entirely on the basis that they are aged 18 or over is very hard to justify and yet, year after year, a Government Minister is trotted out, trying to do just that, very unconvincingly.
Patricia Gibson
In a moment. This is my sixth debate on this issue, and I remember when the illusion of action was played out in previous debates, with talk of consultations and evidence gathering. Today, it seems to be a proposal for a review group. All of this is excuse after excuse for inaction—and, of course, all of those previous initiatives came to nothing. It seems that all they were designed to do—if Members will pardon the pun—was take the heat out of the issue.
For reasons that very few of us can understand, the Government are simply not willing to regulate the sale of fireworks, and nobody can honestly understand why. We do not need review groups; we do not need consultations; what we need is the Minister to get on his feet and announce concrete action. I have no optimism that he will do so, based on the previous six debates. To advise constituents to call the police when fireworks plague their community is disingenuous. By the time the police are able to attend, the damage has been done and those who are responsible are long gone. In their wake, fireworks have caused huge disruption to communities, scared family pets out of their wits, and sometimes literally scared them to death.
In Scotland, the Scottish Parliament has the authority to regulate when fireworks can be set off, but no power at all over the regulation of the sale of fireworks, which in effect means it has no power at all. If we cannot influence who has access to fireworks, we cannot deal with the disruption that they cause.
Fireworks cannot currently be sold to anyone under 18, but as I have said in the past six debates, so what? We know that children can get hold of them, and that people using fireworks irresponsibly are often perfectly entitled, under the law, to buy them. The irresponsible use of fireworks is not confined to those who got hold of them illegally, which is why more needs to be done to protect the elderly, people with pets, and a whole range of people in our communities.
As we have heard, every single Member of Parliament present for this debate, and many who are not, have had constituents telling them about the onslaught of fireworks and the profound effects they have had on their quality of life and on their pets, who undergo trembling fits and become withdrawn and very frightened. Of course, this cannot be prepared for, because the outbursts of fireworks come from nowhere when someone has fireworks and thinks they will have a wee bit of fun. Some people think it is a great idea to set fireworks off in tenement closes, or in shared entryways to flats in the middle of the night.
What is interesting about this debate is that the sale of fireworks is tightly restricted in the Republic of Ireland, while in Northern Ireland, fireworks have long been subjected to some of the strictest laws in the world. Perhaps the Minister—I keep asking this; I have asked it six times in the six previous debates—can tell us why the rest of the United Kingdom is denied similar or greater protection than Northern Ireland. Even the United States, which has liberal gun laws, believes that restrictions on fireworks need to be strict.
The current situation in Scotland is nothing short of bizarre. The use of fireworks is a devolved matter, but the sale of fireworks is reserved. It does not take a genius to work out that unless the sale of fireworks—who can get their hands on them—can be tackled there will be no meaningful influence over who uses them, which makes it extremely difficult to police. Our local environmental, health and anti-social behaviour teams work hard to tackle the misuse of fireworks in our communities, but that is dealing with the consequences of their wide availability rather than tackling the fear, alarm, distress, and safety hazard that they cause, which we have heard so much about. As the Minister knows, the only way to deal with this issue is to tackle the sale to individuals—to tackle the problem at source, and be mindful of the fact that fireworks are far more powerful and prevalent today than in the past.
Organised and licensed displays allow the many people who wish to enjoy fireworks to do so safely. Importantly, they allow local residents to plan ahead and make arrangements to protect their pets and get on with their lives. The Dogs Trust says that when public displays are organised 93% of pet owners alter their plans during the display time to minimise their pet’s trauma, which protects its welfare. We cannot help pet owners to prepare for the use of fireworks in their neighbourhood when fireworks are going off randomly without warning. The solution, as we have heard across the Chamber, is patently obvious to anyone who chooses to look. We need greater restrictions on the sale of fireworks, instead of selling them to all and sundry over 18 years old.
Organised public firework displays are a safer option for all our communities, and would become the accepted and welcome norm. We need to get the balance right. No one is asking for fireworks to be banned altogether, but the status quo must not continue. Is the Minister finally going to announce action on this issue, or are we to rehearse these arguments every year to a Government who appear unwilling to listen and, like the Leader of the House, dismiss us and our constituents as killjoys? If the Government do not want to act on this issue, give us the power in Scotland and we will get on with it ourselves.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The debate has been characterised by passion and unanimity. Across the House, hon. Members have joined together to say two things. No. 1 is that none of us is in the business of saying that fireworks should be banned completely. The way in which the debate has been characterised in some areas is a severe misrepresentation of what people are saying across the piece. The second issue on which there is pretty much unanimity in the Chamber is that the status quo cannot prevail in the end. It really is not acceptable to carry on in this way regarding firework displays.
I think today’s debate is the sixth on this subject. I cannot claim that I have been present for all of them, but the cast assembled for last year’s debate was pretty identical to today’s. Certainly I, as the Opposition spokesperson, and the Minister were in identical places. I hope we were not saying identical things, but I fear that we are looking at yet another identical response this evening to what hon. Members are saying. What I said last year pretty much coincides with what hon. Members have been saying across the Chamber. As the petition says, there is a strong case for looking at restricting firework sales to organised displays where we can be confident about the quality and safety of the display, and the extent to which proper arrangements, such as notice in advance, will be made that will allow fireworks to be enjoyed, as they should be, in both safety and reasonable peace.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) referred to legislation in Northern Ireland. I just want to say that there is a reason for that: the terrorist campaign. The legislation in Northern Ireland works. It does not stop people getting fireworks, but they have to buy them under licence and it is controlled. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that should be the example for the whole of the UK, England in particular?
Dr Whitehead
There is a strong case for looking seriously at what other legislatures have considered on fireworks and taking from them the sense that is embodied in their legislation. We should make evidence-based inquiries into what other legislatures, such as Northern Ireland, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and Australia have done and the effect of their legislation on the enjoyment of fireworks in those countries. As far as I know, that has not been done in the UK. It continues to be an area of silence, shall we say.
I am afraid that there are other areas of silence in terms of getting an evidence base together, as I have mentioned previously, particularly last year. The first is that we have heard, and continue to hear, about the effect of fireworks on domestic animals. We heard powerful testimony not just on domestic animals, but on the effect on children and people with mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. We have not heard about––there is little research on it––what the random use of fireworks does to wildlife. We know virtually nothing about that, yet we continue to allow random instances of letting off very noisy fireworks in both urban and rural areas, which I imagine has a substantial and continuing effect on wildlife.
We also have little information about the climate effects of fireworks, in terms of their constituents and their residues. We know that they put a great deal of CO2 into the atmosphere on fireworks night and that the atmosphere changes quite considerably the morning after. We must think of the effect of the chemicals in fireworks on the environment, on which several environmental organisations have commented.
Above all, we know from our direct experience––I can comment from my own constituency experience––just how inappropriate it is that we are subjected to the unconscionable noise of fireworks every year. As hon. Members have said, it is not just on 5 November, the lunar new year or Diwali but throughout the year. It is acts of extreme noise spaced regularly across the year.
On Friday—I cannot blame my constituents for this, because I was just over the border in the neighbouring constituency, so the 550 people from Southampton, Test who signed the petition were not responsible—there was a private display 100 yards away from my constituency. I do not know whether it was a legal or illegal firework, but an airborne firework made repeated noises six or seven times that echoed across the entire neighbourhood. It was the equivalent of a pretty loud military explosion taking place just down the road from where I live. I cannot believe that we find it acceptable these days for those kinds of fireworks to be readily sold and readily set off in private displays, and something has to happen about it fairly urgently.
In his response to a Westminster Hall debate on fireworks last year, the Minister claimed that some progress had been made in this area. He said:
“Fireworks clearly require some explosive content to be set off. However, as part of the evidence-based work, we have commissioned a test of fireworks to determine the range of decibel levels, and that will help to identify a lower acceptable decibel level. It will also look at the potential impact of such a classification. We will publish the report based on that work in due course.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 19WH.]
I am not aware that the report based on that work has been published. If it has been published, I am not aware that anybody has drawn any conclusions yet about what an acceptable decibel level might be and what the potential impact of such a classification might be. Will the Minister tell us where the report is? If it has been published, what conclusions is he drawing from it? If it has not been published, will he hurry up and ensure that it is published? When it is published, will he also publish what the Government think are acceptable decibel levels for fireworks? That is the nub of the issue.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point about decibel levels. I am aware of somebody who bought some fireworks on the basis that they were being marketed as reduced-noise fireworks. When they were set off, the person was mortified to find out that they were actually louder than the ones that would have been bought originally. Perhaps there needs to be more regulation, even on that matter.
Dr Whitehead
We clearly need legislation from the top that, first, enforces who lets off fireworks and where and that, secondly, enforces how noisy and disruptive those fireworks might be. We certainly have what I would call firework washing going on at the moment, whereby some fireworks are claimed to be less noisy but are not. There is no objective measure or enforcement that we can take to ensure that the claimed levels of noise are accurate, and we still have the problem that enforcement is down to local authorities, the enforcement bodies of which have been starved of money for many years and are really hard pressed to take meaningful action on firework displays, particularly in private areas. We clearly need something from the top in order for us to get going on the road to safer, more acceptable and enjoyable firework displays across the country. That has to come from the Government, and it has to come shortly.
I do not want to be here yet again next year saying the same things, and I am sure that hon. Members do not want that either. We want to be here when the tests on decibel levels have been completed, when there is a conclusion about decibel levels, and when there is perhaps legislation on the statute books, or on the way to the statute books, that starts getting the guidance that can shape our firework displays properly for the future. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her private Member’s Bill, which I hope will go a long way, if successful, towards getting some of these things under way. But as she said, however valiant the intentions with which private Member’s Bills are put forward, rather like fireworks they land with a thump on the ground after initially going off quite brightly.
We need Government assistance in this area now, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say today just what is in train and what will be coming forward, both in terms of evidence and action, over the next year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing today’s really important debate and at such a pertinent time, as ever. I algo congratulate him on his considered speech, which framed the debate on the e-petition that has been signed by so many people. I also thank the other hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, and I am grateful to the members of the public who took the time to sign the e-petition that has brought us here to Westminster Hall to discuss this important matter, because it has received more than 300,000 signatures and calls on the Government to limit the sale of fireworks.
Therefore, I will take the time to outline and explain the Government’s position on this matter, and to say, first of all, why we believe—although I understand that it is not the subject of this debate, as has been outlined—an outright ban on fireworks or an outright ban on their sale to the public is not the appropriate course of action.
We have concerns that banning fireworks in that way could have significant adverse and unintended consequences for public safety, particularly in leading to the emergence of a black market in illicit fireworks. There was a reason why there was not a 2019 debate on this issue. Yes, it was the year of a general election, but more importantly in 2019 the Petitions Committee conducted an inquiry on this issue, which I was a part of as a Member of the Committee, and the evidence given by interested parties aligned with the Government’s current view. Those interested parties included both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the National Fire Chiefs Council.
The petition being debated today also highlights the concerns that some people have—understandably—about the impact of fireworks on vulnerable groups and animals. These are issues that I was only too pleased to discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) when we met back in July to discuss the fireworks survey that he had carried out in his constituency; as he said, it went somewhat viral. I really sympathise with those views, and I am always sorry to hear the stories of how some individuals and animals have been affected by fireworks. That is why the Government are committed to promoting the safe and considerate use of fireworks, and why we have been carrying out a programme of action on fireworks to ensure that those who use them do so safely and appropriately.
It is important to say that this is a highly regulated area, with a comprehensive regulatory framework already in place to control the sale, availability and use of fireworks. We believe that this framework strikes the right balance for people to enjoy fireworks while aiming to reduce risks and disturbances to people and animals. For example, current legislation sets an 11 pm curfew on the use of fireworks, with later exceptions only for the traditional firework periods of 5 November, Diwali, new year’s eve and Chinese new year.
Patricia Gibson
I interrupt briefly to ask the Minister if he believes that this “highly regulated area” is fit for purpose. Can he still say, given the concerns that have been raised today and in previous debates, that he thinks enough is being done? If not, what more can he do?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and hopefully I will flesh out some more of our thinking, including on enforcement and what other action is being taken.
There is a 120 dB noise limit on fireworks available to consumers. Retailers are restricted to only selling consumer fireworks during a limited period around each of the seasonal celebrations that I just referred to, and retailers may only supply fireworks to the public outside those periods if they obtain a licence from their local licensing authority. However, I fully appreciate that it is just as important to ensure that legislation is enforced effectively. We have heard of some issues where that has fallen short, but I will describe what powers and mechanisms are in place against the illegal sale and use of fireworks.
Local authority trading standards work with retailers to ensure that the fireworks that are sold are safe, and have powers to enforce against those who place non-compliant fireworks on the market. Trading standards and local fire and rescue authorities in metropolitan counties can also enforce against those selling fireworks without an appropriate licence—for example, outside of the normal selling period.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point, which I will take away and look at. I think that a licence can be easily revoked if the person holding it is not fit and proper, but she is right: the licence does not specifically say that, as far as I understand it. Those licences are given for a reason—to try to avoid those inappropriate sales—but that is something we can certainly reflect on.
The police, local authorities, and other local agencies have a range of tools and powers that they can use to respond quickly and effectively to antisocial behaviour, including the antisocial use of fireworks, through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Local areas can decide how best to deploy the powers in the 2014 Act depending on the specific circumstances.
Rachael Maskell
The example from my personal circumstances showed the Minister that the Act is completely ineffective, and therefore people are being put at risk every single day from fireworks being lobbed by young people who should not possess them. Will he not recognise that the structures that are in place do not work, and therefore put proper enforcement in place?
Paul Scully
We are never going to get a perfect situation. It was terrible to hear what the hon. Lady faced. One Member talked about the Republic of Ireland having tougher restrictions than we do, and it was terrible that only last month a lady in Galway had a firework fired into her face. Even with those tougher restrictions, there is no perfect situation, but we need to take an evidence-based, careful, proportionate approach. As I say, there is always more we can reflect on, but local police are best placed to understand what is driving the behaviour in question and the impact it is having, and to determine the most appropriate response.
Dr Whitehead
I hope that the Minister will not conclude his remarks on the question of evidence-based activities without saying where the report he mentioned last year actually is, and what he intends to do about it.
Paul Scully
I was not going to. Let me tackle that issue now: I talked about the fact that legislation already exists to limit the noise levels of fireworks available to consumers to 120 dB, and we said that we were going to work on a report on that topic. I freely admit that that report has not been published: the testing work on the noise was delayed due to covid and adverse weather conditions impacting the laboratory’s ability to carry out the necessary testing. However, the result of that testing will be available in due course, and we will reflect on what is in that report as we proceed.
Mr Hollobone
I look forward to the publication of that report. If neighbours ramped up the stereo and pumped out music at 120 dB every 5 November, there are laws in place to deal with that. However, as far as the Government are concerned, it seems to be socially acceptable to let off fireworks of up to 120 dB without any legal recourse at all.
Paul Scully
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I would differentiate between a constant noise of 120 dB in a confined area and the more individual use of fireworks in an outdoor area, but none the less I take his point.
The Government are also committed to giving the police what they need to support local communities, including through the recruitment of an additional 20,000 police officers by March 2023 and investment in measures to make communities safer through the safer streets fund. That being said, I understand the challenges faced by enforcement authorities, and I assure Members that the Government are not complacent in this area.
Jim Shannon
Has the Minister had the opportunity to discuss the Northern Ireland legislation with the devolved Administration and the responsible Minister at the Assembly? I understand that there are exceptional circumstances, but that legislation seems at least to have led to some control over this issue.
Paul Scully
I have not had a discussion at ministerial level, but officials look at what is happening in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland—and in other countries. Clearly, there is a difference in the law in Northern Ireland, predominantly because of troubles and the historical context there; however, officials from the Office for Product Safety and Standards do look at that.
Patricia Gibson
The Minister is generous with his time. He has clearly set out how he thinks this should be dealt with, but it is not satisfactory for many of us. Will he support devolving power to regulate fireworks to the Scottish Parliament, so that we can choose our own path and solutions that fit our communities, given that his Government are not interested in going down that road for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Paul Scully
Scotland has put forward some proposals and there has been a consultation; I am interested in seeing what happens there. I am also aware that the Scottish Government are drafting a Bill on fireworks to be introduced next year; that primary legislation is still at the proposal stage. My officials engage regularly on the matter with officials in the Scottish Government; it will be interesting to reflect on what happens in Scotland as a result of that work.
We are continuing to engage with local authorities to understand the issues they face, and I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that the Government provide appropriate support.
Sarah Owen
I am glad to hear that the Minister is willing to work with Members, so I reiterate my question: will he meet me to discuss the subject and the measures outlined in my private Member’s Bill? What we have heard so far is that the current restrictions are failing people. What we are not seeing from Government is new action that will tackle the misuse of fireworks.
Paul Scully
I will happily engage with the hon. Lady on her private Member’s Bill.
Robbie Moore
Do not the examples given in today’s debate, including the yobs and hooligans in Keighley who fired fireworks at Keighley fire brigade only last week, demonstrate that fireworks are being purchased and getting into the wrong hands and that we need to look seriously at tightening the licensing provisions for the sale of fireworks?
Paul Scully
I was going to turn back to exactly that. In our polling, the Government found that 11% of the population want a total ban on fireworks, 36% want a ban on the private sale of fireworks, and, from memory, 64% enjoy the use of fireworks and want to be able to enjoy them both privately and publicly. We came to similar conclusions from our evidence as were reached by the Petitions Committee in its 2019 inquiry. In the extensive report setting out its findings, the Committee concluded that introducing further restrictions on fireworks was not the appropriate course of action, due to the potential unintended consequences. That was just two years ago. We agree with that position.
We acknowledge the experience of people who believe that banning fireworks would push the market underground and make it more difficult to regulate and monitor. We also agree with the Committee’s conclusion that such a ban would have a substantial economic effect on those who have built their livelihood in the fireworks industry. Restricting fireworks would probably also have dire consequences for community displays, which raise funds for good causes.
Due to those significant concerns, the Government believe that the most balanced course of action is to continue to pursue non-legislative measures on fireworks to complement existing legislation. That is the position we set out and committed to in our response to the Petition Committee’s inquiry. As such, we have been carrying out—
Paul Scully
I want to leave my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington time to conclude, so I will not give way to my hon. Friend for a second time.
We have an ongoing programme of action for fireworks, responding to the key issues raised. This included commissioning the research by Ipsos MORI that provided evidence on consumer attitudes and behaviours around using fireworks in the UK. The key findings have informed our public awareness campaigns and support the need to educate consumers on use of fireworks, to commission noise research—admittedly yet to be published—to test the decibel level of commonly used fireworks, to engage with animal welfare organisations to better understand what specific issues they face, and to engage with the fireworks industry to consider what action it can take to promote consumer safety.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to one of the key commitments the Government made in response to the Petitions Committee regarding public awareness of the safe and considerate use of fireworks. We know that information and education are vital to address the key issues around fireworks. The Office for Product Safety and Standards works in partnership with animal welfare organisations, safety charities and the industry to develop an annual campaign on fireworks; the 2020 campaign was far reaching and had a potential reach of 2.6 million people on Twitter. We built and expanded on that success for the 2021 fireworks campaign, focusing on educating people on how to buy, use, store and dispose of fireworks safely; ensuring that retailers know and understand their responsibilities when selling fireworks; and promoting considerate use so that people and animals are better protected from any negative effects that may be caused by fireworks.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as he is short on time. When I met people from my local fire service this week, they mentioned the idea of a firework amnesty for people who purchase fireworks but end up not using them—perhaps because of poor weather—and have no way to safely dispose of them. They encouraged some sort of formal guidance around such an amnesty so that people could safely dispose of or hand in unused fireworks. Would the Minister support that?
Paul Scully
That is a really interesting idea. Any way of taking potentially dangerous things that will not be used correctly off the streets is well worth another look. More widely, we have partnered with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and other organisations, which will undoubtedly look at that as well.
In addition, this year the Government collaborated with the Association for Science Education to produce teaching materials for children in schools, to introduce messaging about safe and considerate use at an early age. I look forward to seeing the statistics from this year’s campaign, and would be more than happy to share those with hon. Members if they are interested. As I said, the Government are aware of Scotland’s new regulations and proposed new Bill, and we work closely with all the devolved Administrations. I would be really interested to see how that pans out.
I want to leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington to wind up and reflect on the debate. I thank him especially, but also all the colleagues across the House who have come to show their interest in an incredibly important debate. Hon. Members should bear in mind that the Petitions Committee might want to update its report next year and take evidence before bringing a debate to Parliament. There is also the opportunity for an all-party parliamentary group, where Members can take evidence on those international comparisons, if they want to bring that kind of information to the Government and Parliament in future debates. I pay tribute to the work of the Committee.
Elliot Colburn
Sadly, time prevents me from going through the contributions made by all right hon. and hon. Members. However, I thank the 11, I believe, Back-Bench Members who joined us in the debate. I think we have represented the petitioners well. Again, I thank Julie, the petition creator, for taking the time before the debate to brief me on why the subject is so important. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for sharing their reflections and stories from their constituencies. We have heard about the wide-ranging and worrying impact of fireworks on our constituents, which reflects why we have had this debate six years in a row, and why we will no doubt have it again. On that basis, it is important to find a way forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 319891, relating to the sale and use of fireworks.
Nightclub Safety
(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
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 598986, relating to safety at nightclubs.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray, to discuss petition 598986 on making it a legal requirement for nightclubs to search guests thoroughly on entry. We have all seen the stories from around the UK, mainly about women having their drinks spiked and even being jabbed with drugs in some nightclubs. In Swansea, the police are investigating a number of incidents of drink spiking, and as of last week the police in Nottinghamshire were dealing with 15 separate incidents of spiking with something sharp. We now see nightclubs such as Sin City in Swansea taking action by ordering 12,500 StopTopps—anti-spiking lids—as well as implementing a policy that allows those who think their drink might have been spiked to get a replacement for free. In the absence of comprehensive drinks testing, that makes sense.
While those steps from some nightclubs are welcome, what will happen after the media interest has died down? It is not good enough for this issue to be in the hands of some nightclub owners. The Government must realise that something has to be done. A number of clubs have extra security staff on the floors of their nightclubs, so surely it is not beyond the owners’ financial capabilities to invest in making security checks a permanent feature across all clubs in the UK. I understand that this has been a financially difficult 18 months for many venues, but does the Minister agree that some investment in keeping people safe on a night out will make going out a much more attractive proposition and therefore worth it in the long run for club owners?
Many colleagues will have seen the Big Night In initiative, where cities across the UK boycotted pubs and nightclubs in a show of defiance against the increase in spiking. Many town centres were much quieter than normal. With 51% of the population being women, and other groups also being vulnerable to spiking, that is big spending power not out in the clubs; they have made their voices and concerns heard. I thank the many groups who have supported the campaign, including student unions, bars and clubs across the country that closed early, and the Swansea University men’s rugby team, who were among the first to show their solidarity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward the debate. We have had 21 incidents of spiking in the last month in Northern Ireland. Does she agree that all Administrations in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must agree a policy that protects women? We could do it here centrally and feed it out to the Administrations.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I welcome the hon. Member’s comments. That is what the UK Government need to do, working hand in hand with the devolved countries. I thank him for that.
The petition has now been signed by more than 172,000 people, including 180 people in Gower and 224 in the Minister’s constituency, which demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue. The aim of the petition is for
“the UK Government to make it law that nightclubs must search guests on arrival to prevent harmful weapons and other items entering the establishment. This could be a pat down search or metal detector, but must involve measures being put in place to ensure the safety of the public.”
That seems wholly acceptable to me and many others. The Government can take the lead. Working with local authorities to put in place clear and definitive guidelines to protect the safety of people using licensed premises seems a very sensible thing to do. It would protect not just customers but club owners and workers.
Perhaps the Minister can answer these questions. How many people have to be spiked before the Government will do anything? Do we have to wait until something terrible happens for the Government to act? Local authorities will be key in making these changes. Under their licensing powers, they should take measures to make clubs and pubs safe places to go. What discussions has the Minister had with local government to address this?
I thank Hannah Thomson, who started the petition, for her hard work in promoting it and for speaking to me last week. Hannah was a student in Edinburgh for four years, and though she graduated last year, she still has friends based there. A friend showed her the story about spiking with needles in Edinburgh, and they both questioned how needles were getting into clubs undetected. Hannah realised that in her entire time as a student, she had never been searched when entering a club. That prompted her to do some more research. She found that there is no law on this, and she felt that she could change that.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend mentioned very good work by Swansea police, but she may not be aware of a case that I had where a person was spiked with a needle, and the day after, their arm came up with a massive swelling. They went to the police, who said that the person was just drunk and they refused to look at the CCTV evidence. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while that may be an isolated case, it is important that the police take these incidents very seriously? Any CCTV evidence should be examined, and we should consider testing drinks, which has been piloted in Cornwall.
Tonia Antoniazzi
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I do not think his case is an isolated incident. These incidents are becoming increasingly visible and are happening in nightclubs across the country. My evidence is anecdotal, but A&E departments have seen a rise in cases specifically as a result of university terms starting. That needs to be reported. That is why it is important that the Government take responsibility and find out what the data is. They must raise awareness, working with local authorities and the police to ensure that these are not seen as drunken incidents.
Geraint Davies
My point is that it is imperative that the police take these issues very seriously on all occasions and do not, as I understand they sometimes do, dismiss them as, “Oh, she was drunk.” Sometimes these people have been spiked or drugged.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right––there can be no excuses. The police need to investigate every incident.
Hannah also explained that when she went to a festival in Manchester, she was thoroughly searched and her bag swabbed to ensure that she was not carrying any drugs. She was then given a stamp that required her to be searched again a couple of days later. There is no reason why that could not be introduced in clubs. Safety should never be about cost. What would the cost of serious injury, rape or even death be for a club owner? It would be much, much worse.
When I spoke to Hannah about her petition last week, she outlined some of the comments that she had received. I have looked at her Instagram account and even though she has deleted many of the worst comments, there is a real misunderstanding of what the petition is trying to achieve. She sent me some screen shots. While she did not call them abuse herself, they clearly constitute aggressive and sometimes threatening behaviour, mainly men saying that she was a feminist––I do not see that as an insult––and a racist. This requirement would cover everyone entering a nightclub and is for everyone’s safety.
One theme of the comments was that men were saying that women should not be on a night out if they cannot protect themselves. Now, some people are not fortunate enough to have played rugby for Wales, like me, and be able to look after themselves. But that is not the point; that is not what this is about. Those comments are not welcome. How about men stop attacking women when we are just going about, and carrying on, our lives? How about men start calling out other men on their behaviour? As the Duchess of Cornwall said the week before last,
“rapists are not born, they are constructed.”
Toxic masculinity, extreme porn and the normalisation of violence against women in all areas of popular culture drive this level of violence against women. That is what the Government need to address.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real need for a systemic approach to capturing data on the number of incidents from across universities, the police, and health services? Does she also agree that some universities are falling way short and not taking responsibility by providing healthcare in clinics 24/7? After facing an incident, young people, particularly women, do not want to go to accident and emergency or to the police straightaway; they need on site, on-campus support that they know how to access, but that is not the case in many universities across the country.
Tonia Antoniazzi
My hon. Friend has made absolutely wonderful and excellent points. This should be data driven, and the universities must be working in concert. There has to be consistency across the whole United Kingdom. There need to be guidelines. That is why this petition calls on the Government to take control of the situation.
Let me go back to think about how Hannah felt. This young woman, a year out of university, feels so motivated to make a difference, and she is in Edinburgh, just going about her everyday life. We have to take notice. This issue is happening everywhere. I will go back to talk about Hannah’s social media posts. What happened when she reported some of the comments? What support was she getting from Instagram? Absolutely nothing. It said that it would not take action against those posting the comments, so in the end she had to delete them. It became a really difficult thing for one person, one young woman, to have to deal with. I say to those social media platforms that are unwilling to act: get your house in order; you may be able to change your company name, but we still know who you are, and we will be taking action to make sure that you clean up the cesspit that social media can be.
Clubs themselves also have to take responsibility. When Hannah went on one radio show to talk about this issue, a nightclub owner was arguing that the rise in reported drink-spiking incidents was because students going out were not used to drinking so much after being stuck indoors because of covid and were reporting it as spiking. Fortunately, that attitude seems to be limited to a few uncaring club owners. In fact, Mike Kill, chairman of the Night Time Industries Association, has called on the Government to hold an inquiry into spiking. The association would like a review of the way in which spiking is classified and recorded, meaning that it could look at solutions based on the full facts. It has also highlighted a scheme put in place by Devon and Cornwall police that provided on-site testing as soon as there was a report of spiking. That meant a uniform approach to reporting, assessment and evidence gathering, which increased confidence and reduced fear of crime among customers. Will the Minister today agree to meet me and the Night Time Industries Association to discuss the scheme trialled in Devon and Cornwall and see how we can roll this out across the country? Where there are patterns of this behaviour that can be identified, it is much easier for effective policies to be put in place, and this could be put in place quickly.
I thank Hannah for talking to me about how she and her friends felt. I really appreciate her efforts on this issue and hope that we can get some concrete commitments from the Minister today.
The last 18 months have been particularly hard on women. I am thinking of Sarah Everard, Nicole Smallman, Bibaa Henry and Sabina Nessa and of those women who were locked down with their abusers. The subject of today’s debate is just part of a wider picture for women all over the United Kingdom. Violence towards women and girls is an epidemic of epic proportions, and the Government must act now to stem it.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The issue that we are addressing today was raised with me, before the recent media attention, by school students at King Edward VII School in Sheffield. The prevalence that they describe, in terms of their experience, is distressing. I have also had reports of incidents at house parties. Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue does not simply end with nightclubs but is about a wider spectrum of behaviour? There have been some good campaigns. My own student union in Sheffield has a good initiative and some nightclubs are working well, but, as she has said, but there has not been a comprehensive approach, which is what we need to address this.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to work with the police and other authorities to treat the issue more seriously and view it in the wider context of violence against women and girls? Does she also agree that the strategy needs to challenge the whole spectrum of behaviour, which starts with casual harassment and ends with sexual violence?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is really shocking to find out that school students in his constituency were raising this issue with him before it even came to the public eye. That shows that they know about it through social media platforms and have an understanding of this danger. I am concerned that this is happening not only in nightclubs, but in the wider community, in house parties. It is becoming a craze and a trend. It has to be taken seriously by everybody. That is why education is key. We have issues in this country around access. More young people are online now and they have access to all sorts of very dangerous pornography and materials. That needs to be addressed as a cultural issue.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Tomorrow, North Yorkshire police will have a multi-agency meeting, including with universities and higher education institutions, to discuss the issue of spiking. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to talk about the availability of trauma services, which are seriously underfunded and understaffed?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about trauma services. As we have seen, those services are needed 24/7 at universities. They are needed at police stations. They are needed everywhere and the issue needs to be addressed.
We cannot go on like this. Radical action needs to be taken. Misogyny should be a hate crime. Support for women facing domestic abuse needs to be restored. Education for boys and men needs to be put in place. This is a specific debate, but it speaks to a much wider issue—one which needs action, not words, today.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I welcome today’s extremely important debate. I agree overwhelmingly with what other Members have said.
I came to speak in this debate because I was contacted this morning by a concerned parent about what was, to me, a new horror: spiking by injection. It is fair to say that when I was young enough to go to nightclubs—a very long time ago—we may have feared that people would spike our drinks with spirits. The idea that today, people—overwhelmingly young women, I understand—might be spiked by injection is a grave horror. I want to use the word “grave” a few times.
To inject a person against their will should be regarded as a grave assault—one of the most serious assaults. They are injected not only against their will, but with a substance unknown, with the purpose of intoxicating them and, presumably, with a view towards raping them. That is the most extraordinary horror. Yet, as we heard earlier, the police do not always take it as seriously as they might. I want to know what my hon. Friend the Minister is going to do to make sure that what is the most exceptionally serious assault is treated as such. This kind of crime should attract the most serious penalties, and no one should be in any doubt about how serious it is. That includes security staff at nightclubs and police officers, though I do not wish to assign blame to any of those groups. Ambulance crews should also be aware that while somebody they pick up may seem to be intoxicated, they might in fact have been injected with a drug.
This morning, after hearing such an alarming account, I called Michael Kill, the chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association, and asked him about it. I will not repeat the remarks that the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) made about his comments, but I will add an extra quote:
“Our industry has been deeply concerned by the rise in reported spiking incidents across the country, and have been extremely proactive in our reaction so that everyone can enjoy a night out free from fear of being spiked, as it should be.”
He goes on to refer to the Home Office inquiry sought by the association and to which the hon. Lady has referred.
I strongly endorse the call for action on spiking by injection. Of course, I care about spiking through drinks as well, but we should draw the distinction that injecting somebody with a substance unknown ought to be treated as among the most grievous assaults that could be carried out, partly because of its motivation, which is probably that of rape. I am so horrified that I find it difficult to put it in words, so I do not wish to labour the point.
My final point is a difficult one to make. It is about the hon. Lady’s point about men as a class. I do not doubt for a moment that men as a class conduct most of the violence that is conducted against others and against women. I am very much inclined to take the position that she set out that men should do this or that. However, one of the women in my team, who has worked in the past with abused men, asked me not to do that, because the vast majority of men are decent, civilised and law-abiding people who want women to be treated with respect and do not perpetrate violence. I have been asked, despite a mistaken chivalry on my part, not to blame men as a class.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I totally respect the hon. Member’s comments about men. It is just that the victims in this case tend to be women and the perpetrators tend to be men, but I completely respect that my comments may have come across like that. We do have an issue that we need to address—let us work together and not make it an issue of sex, but of how we can keep people safe.
Wera Hobhouse
I totally respect what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, we should not undo the fact that many men behave well and are decent towards women. However, we have a culture where women are not treated with respect where, through banter and all sorts of things, it goes into more horrible and violent behaviour. It is the underlying and, unfortunately, still prevalent culture of disrespect to women that we need to address.
Mr Baker
As I have said, my instinct is with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Gower, but I have been asked to swallow my pride and to not demand that fellow men as a class change their behaviour; it is men who commit wicked acts who need to change. It is men whose attitudes towards women are appalling who need to change. It is people who do wicked things who need to change, and we need to be a bit careful about painting all men as some kind of criminals.
Geraint Davies
The basic point is that 5.2% of sexual assaults involve drugging people. Of those, 5% are against women and 0.2% against men. In other words, the incidence is twenty-fivefold for women, so we have to put this in context. Men and women are victims, but it is basically about men attacking women, so let us not pretend that it is not.
Mr Baker
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind me saying that any fair-minded person listening to my remarks will not suggest for a moment that I have pretended what he suggested. What we need to do is carry all men with us. All men need to understand that we have a duty towards women and to treat women equally, but we also must be careful to not do what I have perhaps done in the past, which is to have a chivalry, which is seen as misplaced these days.
I do not think my wife would mind me saying that I am married to a retired Royal Air Force wing commander who has been on operational service a number of times, and I think I can fairly claim to be capable of treating women equally. Indeed, I recognise that my military service was not anything like my wife’s military service. I yield to no one in my willingness to treat women with respect and equally, but I recognise the statistical reality the hon. Gentleman gave. We need to recognise that we need to carry men with us if we are going to solve the problem of violence against women and girls.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but I hope he will agree that we have to educate our young boys so that they become men who will righty treat women with the respect they deserve. It starts from school. Those young boys will grow up to become the men who will stand up and protect women and girls, and carry society with them.
Mr Baker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue of schools. Every time I listen to teachers, particularly headteachers, I hear inspiring messages about how we should behave and the values we should have. Indeed, I wish those messages were heard far more often among the adult population, not least Members of Parliament—excluding, of course, everyone present at this debate.
I agree with the hon. Lady on schools and education. We must ask ourselves, however, how can it be that, even though headteachers and teachers articulate values of which we can all be proud, somehow people who make it through the system end up conducting violence against women and girls. Sometimes that begins with relatively minor behaviours, which then escalate out of all proportion into the most heinous crimes. We have to challenge ourselves on all of these matters.
To conclude, we ought to be taking much more seriously the problem of spiking people by injection, which is part of an escalation of abuse directed overwhelmingly towards women. It is among the most grievous crimes that one could conceive. It seems to lead overwhelmingly towards an intention to rape women, and it must be treated with the gravity that those implications deserve. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure us all that spiking by injection will be dealt with in the proper manner.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I will pick up on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi).
This has not come out of nowhere, but the incidence, escalation and scale of the issue are extraordinary. Although date rape drugging was on my radar—and, I am sure, that of many others—this sudden phenomenon of spiking through needle is a shocking escalation.
In terms of the wider issue, the figures obtained by the BBC back in 2019 showed an increase in recorded cases of drink spiking of more than 2,600 since 2015. This is a significant problem in our society. Just this week, Nottinghamshire police said that they had received a total of 15 reports of alleged spiking with a sharp object since 2 October. That is from a month ago, and that is just in Nottinghamshire. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has called violence against women “an epidemic”, and says that the authorities have to treat it with as much urgency as they fight terrorism.
I am sure that many of us will have been horrified by the incident in Texas, which illustrates that this is not just a UK problem. There is a phenomenon and copycat behaviour, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, in terms of social media and how quickly these things get shared, perhaps among males, not just across campuses, towns, cities and countries but globally. In Texas, where eight people died and hundreds were hurt, police are investigating reports that somebody in the audience was injecting people with drugs, such that several concert goers had to be revived with anti-drug overdose medicine.
As of 23 October, the National Police Chiefs’ Council had collected 198 reports of drink spiking, in addition to the 56 reports of incidents involving a needle. This is not necessarily an epidemic at this stage, but it is a seriously concerning phenomenon. Freedom of information requests from “Sky News”, which were published back in 2018, found that reported incidents of spiking had doubled in the three years before. Although I do not have the data to hand and did not have time to put it all together, it is really alarming to see where this phenomenon is taking us.
Rushanara Ali
Does my hon. Friend agree that this problem has a new face to it but, as he has pointed out, it has been there in the form of drugs being used for rape? I have certainly come across examples in my constituency in the past. Does he agree that the use of needles adds another health dimension, with the potential spread of diseases such as HIV, and that hospitals need to respond to that risk as well? Does he agree that Universities UK needs to come together and address some of the challenges at university level in order to support students? Finally, does he agree that conviction is required for those who are perpetrating, and that we need to know what the police are being instructed to do by the Government in order to get a grip on this issue before more fatalities occur?
Matt Western
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that there is an urgent need for the data, which I think was mentioned earlier in the debate, but also for multi-agency meetings through the local authorities, the police, and universities—wherever. Some of the work being done by Devon and Cornwall police, which was discussed earlier, is really interesting. We as parliamentarians should certainly be pushing for that, but so should the Government be urging the Home Office to call on chief constables to work with local authorities, those on campuses, universities and further education colleges to lead on and to try to address this phenomenon.
It is certainly really alarming to the National Union of Students, which is rightly urging that any case needs to be investigated quickly and that the findings need to be shared across the country through different authorities, because there is an information vacuum at the moment. We just do not have the data, as has been discussed, and we need to know the scale of the problem, particularly with the spiking by injection that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) referred to. Students across the country are understandably very anxious and are panicking about this issue. Some are taking extreme measures, in an effort to protect themselves when venturing out. The reports that we are getting are extremely horrifying and need investigating, but perhaps the NUS would be saying that we have to be cautious about measures to increase surveillance in clubs, because that can cause problems of its own.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I apologise that I was not able to be present for the start of the debate—I was in a Delegated Legislation Committee.
Does my hon. Friend agree that in formulating a response to the reports of spiking by injection, and the impact that it is having on young women and their lives because of the fear that they feel, it is really important that the authorities, the police, our universities and our health service listen to young women and hear about the things that they want, the things that would allow them to feel safe, and the things that they want to hear about men changing their behaviour? This should not be about victims; it should be about changing the behaviour of perpetrators.
Matt Western
I absolutely agree with the point made by my hon. Friend: it is about changing behaviour among perpetrators and young men. Going back to the points that were made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), the problem absolutely starts at a very young age. We must change the norms of behaviour—certainly among young males—at a much younger age. She is right in the point that she makes.
I will move on to two examples; I did not want to take examples from across the country, but these are very real examples I have had to deal with through constituency casework, and so are specific to the University of Warwick, which is close to me. One constituent’s daughter was unable to seek urgent medical care, so had to travel to her home in Manchester, and go to Manchester Royal Infirmary, because she could not get the care that she needed locally. The hospital has implemented a separate pathway and recording system for spiking victims, so all credit that Manchester should have done that. Another student is currently in A&E at University Hospital Coventry, being treated for a suspected spiking with a needle. That is just in the last couple of weeks.
It is no wonder that the Girls Night In campaign quite rightly drew attention to this nationally. If we are to bring about change, we need to have an impact on the night-time economy, and we need people to wake up to the immediate urgency of this. I would echo the calls that I made earlier. It was interesting to listen to the point made about the work being done in Devon and Cornwall. If there is a chance of rolling that out, that would be terrific, but we need to quickly share that information. I hope the Minister will be listening carefully to this, because it does need leadership from the Government.
This is a terrifying phenomenon for young women, and it is leading to a real change of behaviour in our towns and cities. The Government and police need to get to grips with it very quickly, and ensure that the night-time industry meets with them and can bring about the changes that are needed. The NUS has called for greater training for staff, to understand and identify those visiting their nightclubs and so on, looking at alcohol vulnerability and the potential for sexual harassment and assault, with a focus on how to respond and intervene if incidents take place.
In my constituency, I want to pull together the police, the local authorities and the university, but also meet with a panel of young women to understand what is really going on. This is happening quickly, and it needs a response from Government. I really hope that they will look to work with all sectors to co-ordinate some sort of response, because this issue needs urgent leadership from them.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Going out and having fun is an important part of everyone’s life. We need it for our general wellbeing, to switch off from our busy working lives, and for our social lives. Nobody should be excluded from it, or live in fear that their night out will turn into a nightmare. Why should so many women live with that fear when most men do not?
I am fully behind the many women, including those in my constituency in Bath, who have taken to the streets or boycotted nightclubs to campaign against the rise of spiking incidents. Just imagine the fear and trauma of suddenly losing control of your body on a night out: your vision becomes blurry; you feel dizzy or sick; your memory disappears. You wake up in the morning with no recollection of how you got home, or with a fear that something really bad happened that you cannot even remember.
Spiking is predominantly an attack on women, and happens primarily to young women. One of my constituents wrote to me to say,
“not only have I been spiked myself—so have two of my close friends and nameless other girls I know”.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has reported almost 200 confirmed incidents of drink spiking across the UK in the past two months alone. Reports of spiking by needle have added an extra layer of fear, and I completely agree with the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that those reports need to be treated with much more severity, because they represent another level of crime. Those recent reports are not isolated incidents: data shows that drink spiking has been a growing problem in the UK for several years. Over 2,600 reports of spiking have been made to the police in England and Wales between 2015 and 2019, and that number may just be the tip of the iceberg, as many who have been spiked do not come forward.
Some have called for increased police presence in venues, or searches upon entry to night-time venues, but I am not sure that that is the right approach to stamping out spiking once and for all. As we have seen with stop and search policies under the Government’s hostile environment policy, increased police presence and searches often end up disproportionately affecting marginalised communities. We need a solution that considers the impact on all groups within our society. However, the Government should act urgently to make night-time venues safer for everybody. Spiking test strips should be made freely available at every venue; if necessary, that should be backed by Government funding. Police and venue staff should be given specific training to spot the signs of spiking so that they can give proper support when incidents occur. I urge the Minister to convene a conference of senior police officers from forces across the country as soon as possible. We need to get a complete picture of what is happening and draw up a national action plan on spiking, particularly the urgent issue of spiking by injection.
There is an epidemic of violence against women, and the rise in spiking incidents is simply the latest manifestation of that. We need to get to the root causes of why so many women are still regarded as inferior or, worse, a target for hate. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for Gower—
Wera Hobhouse
I mean the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—I am terrible with names. We need to bring everybody with us in order to achieve behavioural change—I do get it—but we also need to call out what needs to be called out, which is that this behaviour is increasing, and it is predominantly a crime committed by men against women. We cannot paint that fact out of the picture, but we absolutely need to have men on our side, and we need men to find this behaviour despicable. I know that many men, particularly in this Chamber, find it despicable and are on our side as women to stamp it out.
I repeat my call to the Minister to make misogyny a hate crime. The culture that allows crimes such as spiking to continue without sanction must change. Women must be given confidence that the system is not stacked against them, and must feel confident that those who are perpetrators of disrespect and hate against women are being brought to justice. That starts by making misogyny a hate crime, but today we are talking about spiking, so I look for leadership and urgent action from the Government. They should call a conference of all senior police officers across the country in order to get a proper picture, and listen to what the young women who have been affected by this despicable crime are asking for.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) highlighted, we have seen nearly 200 reports of drink spiking in the UK, with 58 of those recorded by the Metropolitan police here in London. Each of those reports represents a shocking violation of a woman’s—and victim’s—safety and privacy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) highlighted, the vast majority of victims are women—young women—and there can be a devastating impact on their lives and consequences later on. The reality is that no one is immune from spiking, and every woman feels the impact of spiking every time they go out.
Coming out of lockdown in July, so many people were looking forward to enjoying that freedom and to go out clubbing. For a number of women, going out to support their local bars and clubs was something that they wanted to do, and for some of those young women in my constituency at the Kings College university campus in Waterloo, the past few months have been the first time that they have been able to go out. A number of them are students in their first year, which is a seminal time for everyone, and they should be enjoying that freedom. My constituency has so many thriving nightclubs and bars—hon. Members may have visited some of them on occasions—but, unfortunately, some of those young women have to live in fear of becoming a victim of spiking whenever they go out.
Too often in these debates, we hear about the steps that women have to take to keep themselves safe. Why are we policing women’s behaviour in response to a problem that they did not cause? That needs to change. The tragic death of Sarah Everard earlier this year showed that women are expected to jump through hoops to change their behaviour and are told that they need to keep safe, but still misogynistic violence and abuse goes on. It is not good enough for us to tell women to avoid going clubbing, not to be drunk when they go out and to be uber-vigilant when they go out, especially as, even if they do all those things, they can still be subject to harmful spiking. In a bar, in a club and on their way home, women must be able to enjoy their night out with the same freedom and frivolity as their male colleagues.
We need a sea change in treating violence against women and girls to tackle misogyny and hate. If we want to make our society safer, that must include having conversations with everybody, including our men. I hope that the Minister will reassure us and outline the steps that the Government will take to address the issue fully.
Geraint Davies
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about reports of Metropolitan police WhatsApp groups containing misogynistic, sexist and racist commentary, which is often about victims? Does she agree that we need a wholesale review to pull the rotten apples out of the barrel and culturally change the Metropolitan police, as well as the education system, so that women are not in fear and can go out in freedom?
Florence Eshalomi
I agree. We should highlight that one bad apple does not exist in isolation with the Met police; unfortunately, this is an issue right across our police forces. I hope that the Minister will outline steps that will be taken where officers are found guilty—in my view, they should face disciplinary action. There should also be more training on dealing with misogyny for our police officers.
James Gray (in the Chair)
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), was unavoidably detained in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate and therefore missed the first half of the speech by the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). Because there was a perfectly reasonable reason for her delay, I am content to allow her to speak for the Opposition. I call Jess Phillips.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Gray. I apologise to all assembled. I tried to leave the Chamber but was called as I was leaving—I was assured by Mr Speaker that he wanted me to speak. I have read the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and am forever grateful to her for making them. She is a brilliant advocate of women’s rights, and it is no surprise to hear her speaking up with the petitioners in this instance.
It is also no surprise to me to see the number of Members who represent university towns, and the clear level of concern across the country about this particular issue. I do not know what the explanation is, and I very much doubt that the Minister knows what the explanation is, for this sudden moment in which the issue is reaching the headlines. It seems unusual that this situation is occurring, apart from the fact that it is not in any way unusual that women in our country have to run the gauntlet, whether at home, at work, going on a night out, walking to get anywhere, going on a bus, or—in some terrible cases—when approaching those agencies that are meant to be there to protect them.
I am afraid to say that spiking is by no means a new thing. In 2019, a BBC investigation uncovered 2,600 reports of drink spiking to police in England and Wales over the previous four years, and everybody will know that that is only a tiny fraction of what actually happened. Who knows? Every woman I know has been on a night out with a group of their friends and one of them is suddenly uncontrollable, or their legs suddenly go away from them and they are much drunker than they should be. That is not an unusual circumstance. The trouble is that when it is violence against women and girls, it does not matter that there were already 2,600 reports in 2019; we never seem to be able to quite reach a big enough number for things to actually get done.
I regularly stand in front of the House of Commons and say these things. The Office for National Statistics told us this week that reported rape had gone up by 8%, so it is now 62,000, 1.6 million women are victims of domestic abuse and, only two years ago, as I say, there were 2,600 reports of drink spiking. With this new phenomenon, this new issue, it is the introduction of the use of a needle that is frightening. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) quite rightly pointed out that such an action needs to carry a more severe punishment. To me, carrying into a nightclub a drug to put into somebody’s drink, or for injection—it seems harrowing, to inject somebody—is like carrying a knife, a weapon. In fact, it is not like it—it is carrying a weapon. The only aim is to harm.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she is also right that we do not really know what is going on. I wonder whether there is a kind of dual phenomenon, whereby we have a very well-known and long-standing problem with drink spiking, which seems even to be increasing, putting vulnerable women, mainly, at risk, but I wonder whether there is something else going on, which is people being stabbed by a sharp implement—a needle-stick injury—for reasons or motivation unknown, and that becoming a copycat thing around the country. It could be that those two phenomena are going on at the same time.
The reason I raise this point—
Jeff Smith
My hon. Friend is right. Both these things are problems, which is why it is really important that the call from the Night Time Industries Association for an inquiry into this situation, to get to the bottom of it, should be heeded.
Jess Phillips
I agree, although I have to say that even that kind of spiking is not necessarily a new phenomenon. I am a little old for nightclubs now—actually, I am not—but I remember there being a similar phenomenon. The Minister, whose constituency is a near neighbour of mine—at certain points she has been a nearer neighbour as a representative in Birmingham—will remember that there was a story about a particular nightclub in Birmingham. It is no longer there, so I can name it and not bring it into any disrepute—it was called The Dome. There were all these stories about pinpricks, and I am talking 20 years ago.
I do not know whether this new form of spiking is a new phenomenon, but the thing is that we do not know. What women know, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Gower and the petition are suggesting, is that they are seeking some level of security so that they can go into a place and feel safe. We can never stop all harm; we cannot. However, I really hope to hear from the Minister some tangible asks and action about how we will make sure people can feel safe.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Member feel, as I do, that there might be a fatality at some point? Then we would think, why do we always wait until something really dreadful happens before we take action?
Jess Phillips
Every single constituency Member of Parliament who has ever tried to get any sort of road safety measure in and has been told that they have to wait until somebody dies on that street hears the call of the hon. Member for Bath. I am afraid to say that a woman is murdered every three days in the UK by violence against women and girls; if that was happening at football matches in our country, football matches would be banned. The reality is that even if somebody does die in these circumstances, I do not think that will be what suddenly changes things. I want to hear from the Minister what exactly the Government will do to make it so that women can feel safe, and that perpetrators are the ones who are scared?
Rachael Maskell
The reality is that this is all about an assault against a woman, and somebody invading her space. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. We know there is massive underreporting of violence against women; whatever the statistics are, the reality is probably far greater. It is about bringing about action now, whether there is one case or several thousand cases.
Jess Phillips
The underreporting of this, and of all violence against women and girls, is well charted. We estimate that, at best, we are hearing about 20% of it. It used to be that only 8%—or even 4%—of people had come forward about rape. At the very best we are only seeing 20% of the problem, and 80% is missing from our eyes. With nightclubs, what worries me even further is that young women especially, and I remember this because I was one, will not speak up because of fear for their liberty—by which I mean the fear that their moms and dads will not let them go out again. When bad things happen when they are young, girls keep those secrets close because they are worried about their freedom.
In nightclubs, whether we like it or not, there will be people who take recreational drugs. That is just the world that we live in. The idea that people will not want to come forward because they are frightened, because they have been taking recreational drugs, is something that we have to deal with. We do not want to deal only with perfect victims. We must never fall foul, as so many of us have over many years, of only seeing victims who have a halo that allows us to see their abuses and not others.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech, as she always does on this subject. Does she share my concern that one reason why women may not come forward, and why we do not have evidence about whether there is a link between these sharp-object incidents and toxicology, is because when women do seek help in instances of spiking they are sometimes not believed, dismissed as being drunk and, I am told, they are not seen quickly when they attend A&E? Does she agree that this response is discouraging women from coming forward and preventing us from getting the evidence that we need to better understand this latest problem?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and our hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) pointed out very clearly that one of his constituents had that exact experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower talked about good services and best practice in Devon and Cornwall; some best practice in hospitals in Manchester was also highlighted by hon. Members. But that simply cannot be the case everywhere. As with all violence against women and girls, those presenting at A&E will be made to feel brilliant in some places—amazing and believed, and there will be specialist workers there—and in other places that will absolutely not be the case. But the single most important thing that the Government have to tackle is not how victims interact with the system. We have spent so many years trying to improve the experience of people who end up in this situation, which is noble—I will not stop trying to do that, and I am sure nobody else in the House will either. However, the fundamental point is that we have to end the perpetration. We have to make perpetrators feel as frightened of being caught with this type of thing in a nightclub as being caught with a knife. A rape victim once said to me, “If I had a stab wound, I wouldn’t have to prove that I’d been stabbed—everybody would be able to see that—but because I’ve been raped, I have to prove it. I have to prove it to you.”
We have heard many brilliant examples from Swansea and elsewhere of women speaking up with one voice. I have spoken to women about the issue, such as a local councillor in Oxfordshire who has been dealing with around 20 cases. She is working with 25 young student freshers who have been spiked in recent months, who were all deeply reluctant to report it to the police, saying that they did not want the hassle or were worried they would not be taken seriously. Statistics are starting to flood in from big and small organisations, and I am sure we can all see it on Instagram. I came across a Birmingham women’s safety initiative group that had done a survey of 100 Birmingham respondents, and more than 95% said they felt unsafe in their local area.
As always, I stand with each and every one of these women. There are things we can do now and I would like to hear what the Government will do to make sure that they happen. Venues must be clearly led to do far more robust security and search protocols, improve training for staff and have high-quality and well-positioned CCTV. The Minister might know that I am not always a fan of the sticking plaster of CCTV, because I would like someone to be stopped from hurting me, rather than it being possible to find my body. However, I have seen CCTV work well in clubs when something is found which shows that women were not drunk or stupid or lying or attention seeking.
I have a slight concern about searches in nightclubs, relating to the protocols for testing and securing staff who work on the doors of nightclubs. There has been a series of newspaper articles in recent weeks about the vetting of people who work on the doors of our nightclubs. There is a live debate among Members of Parliament about having our own security and how we vet the people doing that. I am afraid to say that, in lots of circumstances, journalists found what a lack of vetting had not: door staff who had been convicted of sexual assaults. I have to say, remembering what it was like to be searched going in and out of clubs, that it can often feel like a sexual assault to lots of women. We need to make sure that there are women on hand to ensure that those searches are done properly and appropriately. I certainly would only ever want to be searched by a woman.
It is very important that we do not treat this as just another issue where not much can be done. The Government need to start telling us exactly how they are going to deal with perpetrators of violence against women and girls. They are currently resisting, stating for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that they will make it a serious crime, and that local authority areas have to—not can choose to, if they like, which is the sort of standing we give violence against women and girls—have a violence against women and girls prevention plan, as they would for crimes such as county lines. They have to have a public health approach to that locally. In this instance, the Government could be working with licensing; it would be incredibly helpful to have a protective duty.
I would hope to see the Government committing, finally, to make violence against women and girls a serious crime with a serious crime prevention duty. Mainly, I hope that they will take the advice of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), did lots of good work in this area, but the inspectorate’s very long name is not something I will ever thank her for. It is a ridiculously long name. Her Majesty’s inspectorate has clearly set out a timeline and a timeframe for exactly how police forces could be working to tackle perpetration and build up trust in victims to come forward. The Government are, for some reason, still resisting saying how they are going to do this.
I will sit down now so that the Minister can speak, but I want to finish by saying that my parliamentary assistant, as I was preparing for the debate, told me this morning that at the weekend her and her mates had had to compare the features of their new safety keyrings, which included whistles, seatbelt cutters and rape alarms, just so that they could go on a night out. It is no longer on the young people and women in this country to make themselves feel safer. It is on the Government now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am extremely grateful to all Members who have spoken in this debate. It has been wide ranging and excellent, with some good contributions from across the House.
I am incredibly grateful to Hannah Thomson for starting the petition. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) has outlined her tribute, and I want to add my voice to that. It is not a small undertaking to present a petition to Parliament at any age, particularly at Hannah’s. I want to pay tribute to her and all the other campaigners in this space, who have successfully brought a debate in Parliament. We are now discussing these issues and I hope we are according them the seriousness that they deserve.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gower when she said that we women are 51% of the population and we wield considerable financial muscle. Part of the natural financial muscle is going on a night out. That is something I am absolutely sure all of us have enjoyed in the past. For some of us it is the more distant past—Mr Gray, perhaps?
Rachel Maclean
Perhaps not. I certainly, in common with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), remember many nights out in various Birmingham nightclubs, including the one she referred to and many others.
Florence Eshalomi
On the point of going out in the past, would the Minister agree that we need to see more women and girls going out and supporting our full range of businesses in the night-time economy, because of that financial muscle power? That will not happen until they feel safe.
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the night-time economy is vital. It is very important that we have thriving local economies. It is a vital to our financial prosperity, and it is part of our building back better agenda.
Turning to the issue and petition at hand, there are, of course, growing concerns about safety in the night-time economy. The specific focus on searches in nightclubs comes as no surprise. We know that over 172,000 people have added their name to the petition. I am sure that that is driven by concern over the rise of media reports on spiking. It is perhaps not a completely new issue, but there has been a focus on the needle aspect as something that is new. It is certainly receiving a lot more attention than it has done in the past. However, Members have rightly said that the spiking of drinks is something we have seen for some time.
Reports of spiking, whether that is adding substances to drinks or injecting people with needles, are extremely concerning. I have every sympathy with victims and anyone who might feel unable to go out and enjoy a night out without fear. The fear factor is very serious, and no one should feel frightened or vulnerable when they go out. We utterly condemn the people who perpetrated those attacks, and they should be brought to justice. I want to begin by saying very clearly that I want to reassure Members that this is something that we are taking seriously. The day on which we heard the first accounts—I think it was a few weeks ago—the Home Secretary wasted no time in getting reports, requiring additional data and convening police chiefs at the highest level.
Let me be clear: any spiking constitutes criminal conduct. The necessary offences are on the statute book. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), where a drink is spiked and where there is sexual motivation, administering a substance with intent is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and could carry a 10-year sentence. Depending on the specific nature of the assault and offence, it could also be classed as common assault, which includes grievous bodily harm, and could carry a sentence of five years up to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. I want to reassure him that this is a serious criminal offence. As with any crime, it falls to the police to investigate it and ensure that those responsible are dealt with in accordance with the law.
I want to update the Chamber on the fact that there is no doubt that police are taking this seriously and are working at pace to gather intelligence and identify perpetrators. It is a changing and evolving picture. We have been gathering reports from forces across the country, and at the time of my making these remarks, we have 218 reports of needle assaults and injections since September. Over the same period, the police are aware of 250 drink spikings. Those numbers broadly chime with what Members have reported to me. Those numbers are subject to change as the police continue to gather information. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is right in saying that this is a crime in which not all instances are reported. I strongly encourage anyone who has been a victim to report it to the police. It is difficult to make comparisons with the past, and I have stressed to my team that we need to understand more about this crime, and that is absolutely what we will do.
Members may be pleased to know that there have been at least three recent arrests for this and a number of active police investigations are under way. I very much hope that we will be able to bring more perpetrators to justice in the coming weeks.
Mr Steve Baker
I am very grateful for what the Minister has said. Will she undertake to carry out some kind of public information activity to make sure that potential perpetrators are aware of the gravity of the offences that they are considering? We need to make sure that people are dissuaded from what, I think we all agree, is a very serious set of crimes.
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We have a number of communication plans within the wider violence against women and girls strategy, and we will absolutely make sure that this issue is included in that work, which I am sure he will welcome.
The Home Secretary has already asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council to urgently review the extent and scale of the issue, and we are receiving regular updates from the police. We are working locally, regionally and nationally, including with our partners in the National Crime Agency. The NPCC has convened a group of policing leads, including Jason Harwin and Maggie Blyth—the Government’s new lead on violence against women and girls—which is meeting several times a week, with the aim of understanding the issue and ensuring that there is a strong police response.
Turning to the licensing regime, I think it was the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) who referenced the fact that not all of these cases occur in nightclubs. [Interruption.] Apologies, it was the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). Not all of these attacks occur in nightclubs, but our understanding is that the majority of these settings are probably targeted specifically by offenders.
Paul Blomfield
There are lots of numbers floating around, and many of them probably underestimate the scale of the problem. My understanding is that the Alcohol Education Trust has done some work on this, and has suggested that there are slightly more incidences of drink spiking in house parties than in nightclubs. How will the Government reflect that in the strategy that they are looking at?
Rachel Maclean
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and it is important that we continue to ensure that we gather data from all these incidents, regardless of whether they take place in homes or nightclubs.
I turn now to the issue of nightclubs, which is the subject of the debate. It is really important to say that there is nothing preventing a nightclub from introducing searches on entry, and a number of nightclubs are doing that already. Lincolnshire police are working with their local licensing authority and a local nightclub to address concerns about spiking. The club has made an extra search on going into the premises a condition of entry and, additionally, it is using stickers to place over the tops of drinks at key locations within the premises. Many other clubs across the country are doing that as well, and we have heard references made to the work in Devon and Cornwall. In fact, I did a quick straw poll with my children, who are all of clubbing age. Two of them had been out clubbing in London over the weekend and had seen in action some quite detailed and thorough searches when they went into clubs.
Rushanara Ali
Will the Minister clarify what she will do quickly to make sure that all nightclubs follow the good examples that she is citing? She is responsible for making it happen and for giving families across the country the reassurance they need that, whichever nightclub young people go to, they can go safely.
Rachel Maclean
I am coming to that, and I very much hope to satisfy the hon. Lady. It is important that I make it clear that premises such as nightclubs have a responsibility, which I will set out, if she will bear with me.
Premises that have a high volume of customers are required to assess what steps they think are needed for the venue, but we are not solely reliant on venues taking action themselves. The law already allows relevant conditions to be imposed. The Licensing Act 2003, which governs the control and issuance of licences to sell alcohol, allows local licensing authorities to take a tailored approach to granting premises licences in order to uphold the four licensing objectives. The most relevant is of course the objective to prevent crime and disorder. It is important to state that the Act applies only to premises in England and Wales, as licensing is devolved in Scotland. I note that the petitioner is from Scotland, so I definitely encourage her to have similar conversations with her local authorities. I very much hope that they will consider those issues.
In order to reduce crime, licensing authorities can impose conditions on any business that wants to sell alcohol, which can include requiring the presence of suitably trained and accredited door staff or CCTV. A licensing authority can also require a licence holder to introduce entry searches as a condition of a premises licence.
We have a rich and diverse night-time economy across the country, catering to many different communities: big cities with a large student population—many Members have referred to their local universities—towns with a high proportion of families and holiday visitors, and rural areas with local pubs. We have venues and villages, and everything in between. It is a fundamental and important premise that, with very few exceptions, decisions on which licences to grant, and on how premises should be managed, take into account local issues, demographics and circumstances. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to licensed premises. We do not wish to see mandated national conditions, which could be disproportionate and burdensome to some venues. Even among nightclubs, there is a huge diversity of premises, so what is required for one will not work for another.
Rachel Maclean
I will allow the hon. Lady to intervene, but I also need to allow some time for the hon. Member for Gower to sum up.
Jess Phillips
How many licensing committees does the Minister think have their eye on violence against women and girls across the country and will be paying attention to this issue?
Rachel Maclean
I can assure the hon. Lady that we insist on it and require them to do so, and it is part of their statutory duty. They are of course accountable to their populations, and they are staffed by locally and demographically accountable members of their council.
I want to make the House aware that the police already have considerable powers to take action where they think there is a problem. They can call for a review of a premises licence and work with the management and licensing authority. Local mechanisms can introduce searches where they are needed more quickly than waiting for a national mandate to be brought into effect. Licensing laws allow longer-term measures as well, to improve management of the night-time economy. For example, the night-time levy, with which some Members may be familiar, enables local authorities to collect a financial contribution from businesses. Some of the initiatives are really helpful and have been used to fund additional police officers, community protection officers and local projects, such as club hosts and taxi marshals, all of which can help keep people safe.
The Act also allows the licensing authority to carry out a cumulative impact assessment, to help it to limit the number of types of licence applications granted in areas where there is no evidence to show that the number or density of licensed premises in the area is having a cumulative impact and leading to problems that could undermine the licensing objectives.
As I have said, the night-time economy is varied and diverse, and covers many types of areas. Alongside the specific measures I have outlined, there are other things that local areas can and should be doing. I have been impressed by some of the initiatives I have seen around the country. Some areas have introduced safe spaces, where a combination of medical assistance, supervised recovery and other support services are provided to intoxicated, injured or vulnerable individuals.
In another area, I saw a scheme where door staff convert into street marshals at the end of the night, across the whole city centre. I pay tribute to other organisations, such as Street Pastors, who provide invaluable assistance. Members have highlighted good work going on in their local forces and in some of their local universities. In addition, initiatives such as Ask for Angela, X Marks the Spot, Safe Havens and Good Night Out provide opportunities, help and support to everyone who is concerned for their safety.
Many Members talked about the wider and broader issues of violence against women and girls, which I come to now. We published our new cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy this summer, to help to ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere. I fully agree with all the comments that have been made by hon. Members that this is not about blaming women, or requesting or expecting women to change their behaviour. It is about tackling the root cause of the violence.
I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said about this not being about all men perpetrating these crimes, but about recognising that in the majority of the spiking incidents the victims that we know about are young women. It is at the forefront of the Government’s mind and our priority is to tackle the perpetrators and prevent this from happening.
On the specific work we have already funded, we are delivering a pilot £5 million safety of women at night fund, focused on preventing violence against women and girls in public spaces at night, particularly in the night-time economy. That is in addition to the £25 million safer streets fund, which focuses on improving public safety, with an emphasis on the safety of women and girls, and their feelings of safety in public spaces.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley referred to doorkeepers and their qualifications, which is an important issue. I have met the Security Industry Authority and I assure her that it is cognisant of the issue. It is working to ensure that qualifications for door supervisors and security guards include specific content relating to violence against women and girls. It is now working at pace to remind the industry and those operatives of their role and responsibility to keep people safe, with a focus on women’s safety. In our violence against women and girls strategy, we have committed to further work to see what more we can do to strengthen those safeguards.
I want to conclude my remarks and allow time for the hon. Member for Gower to respond. Violence against women and girls is abhorrent. As I have set out, the Government are taking wide-ranging action to prevent these crimes, support victims and pursue perpetrators. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower on her speech. I fully agree that some of the issues that she highlighted around our sexist and victim-blaming culture are wrong and need to stop. We in the Government are completely behind that. The measures that I have set out, and more, are the measures that we will be using to bear down on this abhorrent behaviour. We are putting the full force of the Government behind tackling the issue, because we want women and girls to feel safe when they are going out at night.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I welcome the comments that the Minister has made in response to the petition and I thank everybody who has participated from the Back Benches for their comments. One thing that comes across is the need for consistency, for people to work together, and for all organisations to ensure that this behaviour does not continue but is addressed by the Government. I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker): he says that we need to have a campaign that raises the profile of the issue. The Minister spoke about the public information and the communication plan; I hope to see this at the forefront, especially now, with young people in university and more active—going out—in the night-time economy.
I will just refer to some of my notes. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) talked about pulling the local authorities together with young people to discuss what is happening in his constituency. I will be suggesting with my Swansea colleagues some of the things talked about today—meeting the local night-time industry and also working with the licensing agencies. It is important that people who set up campaigns in the UK know the situation with the licensing laws and the local authorities and where those responsibilities lie, so that they can take this further.
I thank Hannah Thomson, because what she set up has brought about a debate in this House, which is important. This is not about chivalry; it is about working together. It is not about calling out any particular people, but we do need to raise the fact that the way we treat women and girls in this country is, frankly, a disgrace. I am fed up of hearing about how we are just putting them aside. I hate the word “banter”. I have a 17-year-old son who thinks banter is hilarious. It is not hilarious, because it has consequences. We have to change our mindset and our culture. We have to deal with the online harms Bill. We have to ensure that our young people, our women and girls, are safe and that we have a respectful culture in this country whereby we can all go about our lives and live our best lives. I thank the Minister; I thank those on our Benches; and thank you, Mr Gray.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 598986, relating to safety at nightclubs.
Written Statements
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Council of Reserve Forces' and Cadets' Associations Annual Report and Accounts 2019-2020
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Today I am placing the Council of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations (CRFCA) annual report and accounts 2019-20 in the Library of the House, in accordance with the RFCA Regulations 2014.
I am also replacing the RFCA review 2019 report in the Library of the House with an appropriately security marked copy. The content of the report itself is unchanged.
[HCWS377]
Licensed Standing in Seated Areas: Early Adopters Programme
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
On 22 September, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority announced an early adopters programme for licensed standing in seated areas at football stadia. The programme will be implemented in the second half of this football season between 1 January 2022 and 31 July 2022. I can confirm today that the football clubs that will act as early adopters are Cardiff City, Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur.
The early adopters programme represents a significant step towards fulfilling the Government’s manifesto commitment to work with fans and clubs towards introducing licensed standing in seated areas at football grounds. It will enable the Government to evaluate how successful licensed standing areas could be as a strategy to manage persistent standing across five different football grounds with varying challenges, before it considers making any substantive policy changes or wider implementation. It will be subject to a formal independent evaluation.
I have today laid a statutory instrument which directs the SGSA to amend the “all-seater condition”, which requires stadia to provide all-seated accommodation, in any licence to admit spectators issued to these five football clubs under the Football Spectators Act 1989 by the SGSA. This will allow the five specified clubs to admit spectators to their home grounds to watch designated football matches from a standing position, provided certain conditions are satisfied. This means doing so in areas of the ground where the seating accommodation has been adapted so there are seats incorporating a barrier or seats with an independent barrier. The SGSA has produced supplementary guidance (SG01) providing further information about the standards-requirements which must be met. This guidance is available online. These modern—non-terraced—stands or areas with seats therefore still allocate one person to one seat.
The selection of these clubs followed an expression of interest process which was conducted by the SGSA between 22 September and 6 October 2021. The SGSA invited applications from football clubs in the top two tiers of professional football in England and Wales currently subject to the all-seater policy to become early adopters of licensed standing in seated areas. The SGSA analysed the applications against the published early adopter criteria, which are available online, before providing written recommendations to DCMS. This advice was carefully considered before receiving final ministerial approval.
In addition, prior to their publication, the early adopter criteria and licence conditions for standing in seated areas were subject to a six-week consultation—28 July-6 September 2021—with key stakeholders. This included safety committee members—the Premier League, English Football League, Football Association, UK Football Policing Unit, Football Supporters’ Association, Football Safety Officers’ Association, Safety Advisory Group Regional Chairs Lead and the National Counter-Terrorism Security Office—local authorities, football governing bodies and licensed football clubs. DCMS worked closely with the SGSA to ensure that consultation responses were used to inform the final criteria clubs were required to meet to become early adopters, which are available online.
The Government’s approach is driven by safety considerations. Given the wider context and background to the current all-seater policy, it is right that we carefully consider any wider change in policy, looking at all the evidence and assessing the potential safety impacts of any change. The Government are not complacent about spectator safety, nor are we complacent about the safety policies that have served spectators well for many years. We will continue to work closely with the SGSA, football clubs, the football governing bodies and local authorities to ensure that spectator safety remains paramount.
[HCWS376]
Premier League Domestic Broadcasting Agreements: Exclusion Order
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
Following my written ministerial statement of 8 September, I would like to further update the House on the making of an Exclusion Order under the Competition Act 1998 regarding the Premier League’s domestic broadcasting agreements.
In that statement I confirmed that the Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) (Kwasi Kwarteng), had concluded that there were exceptional and compelling reasons of public policy to make the proposed Exclusion Order.
The statutory instrument was laid on 14 October 2021 and came into force yesterday, 7 November 2021. This will allow the Premier League to renew its current UK broadcast agreements with relevant broadcast rights holders for a three-year period, on substantially the same terms, without carrying out the normal tender process. This is a temporary measure undertaken in response to the financial strain placed on the sector by the pandemic, and will secure the release of over £1.6 billion of funding for the entire football pyramid, including grassroots, women’s and lower league football.
As part of the agreement to make an Exclusion Order, the Premier League has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to formalise their financial commitments to the football pyramid with the Government. The MoU has been published on www.gov.uk alongside this statement. The Premier League has also passed a shareholder resolution confirming the funding as below, and is contractually obliged to deliver many of these agreements. The MoU gives the Government further assurances on the agreed financial commitments as set out below:
guarantee existing levels of financial support for the football pyramid for four years from 2021-22 to the end of the 2024-25 season. This includes solidarity payments, parachute payments, youth development funding and funding for grassroots football at existing levels, worth over £1.5 billion over the three-year rights cycle;
maintain at least this level of funding even if its international broadcast rights decrease in value when they are re-tendered individually over the next year into 2022, and to increase the level of funding if its international broadcast rights exceed their current value;
and provide a further minimum £100 million in solidarity and good causes funding to the end of the 2024-25 season. This will include: additional solidarity payments to National League and English Football League—League One and League Two-clubs; investment into the professional and grassroots women’s game; funding for grassroots community facilities; investment into youth players’ pathways; and funding for projects to improve equality, diversity and inclusion, and combat discrimination within the game. This investment will make a significant difference to the whole football pyramid and community.
The Premier League will update the Government and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee annually on progress against these financial agreements and the impact this funding has had on the pyramid.
This Exclusion Order is an exceptional and temporary measure in response to the pandemic. The normal tendering process is expected to be followed for subsequent broadcast rights agreements. The Exclusion Order will expire, at the latest, after the end of the 2024-25 Premier League football season or on 31 July 2025—whichever is earlier. It does not apply to broadcasting rights beyond that season and the normal tendering process is expected to be followed for subsequent broadcast rights agreements.
[HCWS378]
Lorry Parking
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I wish to update the House on the joint initiative between the Department for Transport and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on planning reforms for lorry parking, and to emphasise the critical importance of the freight and logistics sector to shops, households, assembly lines, hospitals and other public services across the country.
The infrastructure that supports our hauliers is essential to the effective and resilient supply chains we need. This Government are committed to addressing the strategic national need for more lorry parking and better services in lorry parks in England and we must act now.
To support our hauliers’ access to parking and services in the near term we are working with our partners to identify and deliver a number of temporary sites where short-term modular facilities can be installed to address some of our immediate need. We are encouraging National Highways to consider how their land holdings can be used to provide additional parking spaces nationwide, to give priority to the provision of lorry parking across the strategic road network and assist local authorities in identifying areas of lorry parking need.
This Government are also determined that the planning system should play its part in meeting the needs of hauliers and addressing current deficiencies. Planning plays a critical part in the allocation of land for lorry parking.
The national planning policy framework sets out that local planning policies and decisions should recognise the importance of providing adequate overnight lorry parking facilities, taking into account any local shortages, to reduce the risk of parking in locations that lack proper facilities or could cause a nuisance.
In addition, the Government policy is clear that development proposals for new or expanded goods distribution centres should make provision for sufficient lorry parking to cater for their anticipated use. In preparing local plans and deciding planning applications, the specific locational requirements of different industrial sectors should be recognised and addressed. This should include making provision for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales, and in suitably accessible locations.
We have also published planning practice guidance setting out how local planning authorities can assess the need for and allocate land to logistics site uses and are accelerating work recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission to consider the appropriateness of current planning practice guidance. This includes taking forward a review of how the freight sector is currently represented in guidance.
To ensure future decision making supports the needs of the sector, we are updating highways circular 02/2013 “The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development” fully to reflect the importance of providing logistics and freight, and are updating the national lorry parking survey to ensure strong evidence is available on the national picture in future. A programme of longer-term measures is under development supported by the £32.5 million in roadside facilities for hauliers announced in last week’s Budget, and we will publish a future of freight plan, a long-term strategic plan for the sector, in the coming months.
The need for a reliable and efficient supply chain has recently come into sharp focus. It is therefore essential that we put in place mechanisms that deliver a supply chain network that is secure, reliable, efficient, and resilient, with no link in the chain overlooked.
Taken together our planning policies and wider measures will support our logistics and freight sectors and the people that work in them. Working with industry and local authorities we will continue to monitor the situation closely and take further action when it is needed.
[HCWS379]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I welcome noble Lords to the Grand Committee’s third day. Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Armed Forces Bill
Monday 8th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 42-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (4 Nov 2021)
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Armed Forces Federation
(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) After section 333, insert—“333A Armed Forces Federation(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare, remuneration and efficiency, except for—(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.(3) The Armed Forces Federation must act through local and central representative bodies.(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces are to be construed accordingly.333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and (d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 51, in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, is a probing amendment. We will be interested not only in the Government’s response but in the response of the noble and gallant Lords whose experience we value.
The new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent its members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. It has been clear for some time that the Armed Forces need independent advice and representation. Witnesses before the Bill Select Committee in the other place have reinforced this and we continue to hear shocking stories of abuse that takes place within units. We have also heard that continued delays discourage the use of the service complaints system, and there is a concerning perception that one’s career will be under threat if one complains.
Most members of the Armed Forces have also endured a real-terms pay cut for most of the last decade. Given the renewed emphasis that Ministers appear to be placing on the value of people as assets to our national defence, the time may be right to formalise representation and support for service personnel on issues such as welfare and pay.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Sorry. You do not want me to start again, do you? I am in two minds about it.
This would not be the equivalent of a trade union for the Armed Forces in that it would not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the Armed Forces. The federation would work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues. It would also recognise the importance of the chain of command.
The proposal might seem radical or dangerous to some, but other nations, including the United States and Australia, already have similar models embedded in their existing military structures. Would the Minister not accept that if our police service enjoys access to a representation body for welfare, pay and other key issues, our Armed Forces deserve the same?
Following on from the Budget, I want to ask the Minister a specific question. The Budget set out that the MoD would experience a decrease of 1.4% in average annual real-terms growth between 2021 and 2025 in day-to-day departmental spending. Does the Minister accept that this means less money for forces recruitment, training, pay and family support? Ministers should seize this opportunity to give the Armed Forces a real voice. I beg to move.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Fundamentally, I believe that it would be seriously detrimental to the chain of command. I have some questions. Will membership be voluntary? Would there be a subscription? Would all Armed Forces members be expected to join?
I want to focus particularly on the purpose mentioned in the amendment: that the federation might represent members on welfare, remuneration and efficiency. On welfare, we have the covenant. We have myriad Armed Forces charities, and we have the internal welfare services and a number of other things. I cannot see what value this would add. On remuneration, the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body has respect among the members of the Armed Forces. How would this dovetail with the federation? On efficiency, what do we mean by efficiency? Is it fighting efficiency—in which case, what will the competence of the federation be to decide what is good or bad efficiency on the fighting side of life?
The amendment also says that:
“The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings”.
Would we have to have an Armed Forces federation member, rather like a Soviet commissar, on ships deployed for example in the Pacific? I think this is completely impractical.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I, too, oppose this amendment. I take the opportunity at the start of the session to remind your Lordships of my interest as a serving member of the Army Reserve.
I was going to intervene on the noble Lord, but perhaps I will give him this opportunity to intervene on me in reply to this question: how many members of the Armed Forces have contacted him or the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to ask for this? Surely somebody has. I say that, because at no point in my 33 years’ service in the regular and reserve has this ever really been a topic of discussion for serving members of the Armed Forces. If the noble Lord wants to intervene on me or perhaps answer the question when he comes back at the end, I would be fascinated to know how many members of the Armed Forces have actually asked for this. I have a horrible feeling that the answer is none. I certainly have no experience of that.
Equally, I share the noble and gallant Lord’s concerns about the impact on the chain of command. Given the unique circumstances that we find ourselves in in the military, certainly on operations, there is a distinct way of doing things with the chain of command. There are ways through the chain of command to make your complaints. Of course, we now also have the Service Complaints Commissioner. We have quite a developed sense of how this works in the military, which is why I go back to my first point: I just do not sense that there is any demand for this at all within the community the noble Lord is seeking to impose it on.
Where there are areas of concern, for example pay, we have quite a developed system with the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body. I have given evidence to this body as a Minister. It is a very considered body, it is independent and its recommendations have been taken very seriously by successive Governments now for many years. We have seen that in the annual pay award, which the Government are forced to respond to
I suppose my principal opposition to all this is that I just do not understand where the demand is coming from, other than political parties potentially wishing to impose their values on our Armed Forces.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I do not support this amendment either. Indeed, I fully endorse the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. I do not for a moment question the good faith in and the fulsome support of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Tunnicliffe, for the Armed Forces. However, I believe that there is a concept, of which this amendment is an example, that has been aired from time to time over the past 30 years and more—a concept that seems to have sprung in part from the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. The concept, or supposition, was that the Armed Forces were “civilians in uniform”, so their treatment, expectations and everything else about their daily lives should be seen and fashioned in that civilian primary context. However, it is a false premise.
I believe that the proposal in this amendment has been floated unsuccessfully more than once since the 1980s. Of course, members of the Armed Forces, like all their civilian counterparts, are human, but members of the Armed Forces have duties and responsibilities unmatched in the civilian environment. The fact that we are dealing with an Armed Forces Bill that affects the lives and well-being as well as the fighting efficiency of our Armed Forces underlines that point in spades. The fact that this Act has to be renewed every year and owes its origins to the time of Henry VIII exemplifies the unique difference in treatment, both in law and more generally, of the Armed Forces from the civilian world of employment over centuries.
Whether on or off duty, the behaviour of service personnel may be much praised, but if they fall short of good behaviour it is their service as well as themselves that attracts bad publicity and opprobrium. The more senior the individual, the greater the public dismay at poor or reprehensible behaviour. Both on or off duty, the service individual has a duty to behave responsibility, and who or what has or should have the responsibility to lead and encourage that? It must be the chain of command.
I have many times in my own experience explained why this is so fundamental to the ethos and fighting efficiency of the Armed Forces. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, spelled all this out in the clearest of terms in her introductory remarks in the first sitting of this Committee. She said, and it is worth quoting:
“It is worth emphasising that members of the military are governed by a more stringent set of rules and restrictions than those of us in civilian life. These rules are designed to maintain discipline and promote operational effectiveness so that they can get the job done. Many of these additional rules and restrictions to which service personnel are subject apply regardless of whether they are on or off duty.”—[Official Report, 27/10/2021; col. GC 146.]
That is worth listening to and remembering.
The regard for an application of such a unique regime must rely primarily on the chain of command. I am not alone in expressing concern and, at times, even dismay at the way in which the chain of command’s uniquely important role has been set aside or weakened, sometimes in the search for more transparent justice. However, no judicial system is perfect. The imperfection is processed and managed by gradations of justice, but that does not make it infallible.
The introduction of an Armed Forces federation, regardless of whether such an organisation could perform alongside the chain of command without confusion, overlap or mismanagement, would once more be to underrate the chain of command’s importance to the efficiency and ethos of the Armed Forces. Indeed, I am not sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was saying, on what research or examination the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Tunnicliffe, have undertaken in support of this amendment. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce—and, I believe, all chiefs of staff since my day, over 30 years ago, including the present holders of that office—I agree that an alongside federation as proposed in this amendment would be a grave mistake. That body of expert opinion should be heeded. I do not support the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I fear that the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Coaker, will not have very much support this afternoon. We on these Benches are also somewhat sceptical about the proposed amendment. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that this was not a trade union, which we would clearly oppose, but it is also not entirely clear what an Armed Forces federation would bring that would serve an appropriate and necessary purpose. We therefore share a lot of the reservations raised by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Craig of Radley, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. In particular, what precise problems do the noble Lords believe will be served by having this federation? In particular, in what way can it serve efficiency? Adding another mechanism does not necessarily seem to be a way in which to help efficiency.
The one area where I think something might be useful that would not, I hope, undermine the chain of command is that on some occasions, particularly at times with issues of pensions and pay, there could be better lines of communication. What was fed to me occasionally when I was involved in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme was not that people were saying, “We must have representation and a trade union or an Armed Forces federation”. It was more that they would like to understand better what was going on. So slightly better lines of communication would be welcome.
However, I do not think there is anything in this amendment that will really be necessary or particularly useful. In particular, I have reservations about proposed new Section 333B(2)(a), (c) and (d). What will the Secretary of State be providing on membership, voluntary subscriptions or financial support for this Armed Forces federation? Will those really be useful expenditures? Will they help our security, our defence or our Armed Forces?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling Amendment 51, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for so eloquently speaking to it. As has been explained, this amendment seeks to create through primary legislation a representative body for the Armed Forces that is similar in many respects to the Police Federation. It proposes that details of how the federation would operate are set out in regulations. I recognise the commitment of both noble Lords to the welfare of our Armed Forces, as other contributors have rightly acknowledged.
This has been an interesting debate. It has thrown up in broad terms the particular environment and context in which we ask our Armed Forces to operate, and it has disclosed some specific issues. Let me try to address some of the points raised. Clearly, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, have reservations. I think they were well articulated and suggest that they should be heeded.
To go to the context, the environment in which we ask our Armed Forces to operate, the Armed Forces have a unique role and can be called upon to carry out tasks that are clearly beyond anything that most other people would be asked to do in the course of their duties. What works for a civilian workforce such as the police will not necessarily work for service personnel. That is why the interests of Armed Forces personnel are already represented through a range of mechanisms, not least the chain of command. I will spend a short time outlining some of those provisions. We are currently, in fact, considering what more we can do in this space without compromising operational effectiveness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of pay in general terms and made a particularly interesting point about whether the Armed Forces understand the structures. The Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body provide independent annual recommendations on pay for the Armed Forces to the Prime Minister. The X factor addition to basic military pay, which is currently at 14.5%, recognises the special conditions of military life, including the limits on the ability of service personnel to negotiate on this issue. Processes are in place for personnel to make complaints about their pay or allowances. I would hope that, with the new ambience that now pervades the Armed Forces, people would be encouraged to articulate those concerns and ask questions of the very type the noble Baroness mentioned.
With regard to complaints more widely, the Service Complaints Ombudsman provides independent and impartial scrutiny of the handling of service complaints made by members of the UK Armed Forces regarding most aspects of their service life, and service personnel are able independently to approach the ombudsman or ombudswoman about a complaint which they do not want to raise directly with their chain of command. Support is provided to those who are making complaints or allegations and to those who are the subjects of such actions. In addition to this practical support, there is a range of internal and external welfare support for personnel to draw on if they need it as they go through these processes.
Improvements to the service complaints process are being progressed as a matter of policy, as the vast majority of these do not require primary legislation. For many other issues, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—SSAFA—the Royal Naval Association, the Royal Air Force Association, the Veterans Support Association and a host of other regimental associations and groups around the country have regular access both to the chain of command and to Ministers to represent their members’ interests.
Service personnel have their own voice on matters which concern them through the Armed Forces annual continuous attitude survey, which asks our people about all aspects of their service life. The results, which are published, are used to inform the development of policy and to measure the impact of decisions affecting personnel, including major programmes and the Armed Forces covenant.
Service personnel can also play an active role in the development of the policies which affect them. There are currently more than 50 diversity networks operating within defence at various levels. Most of these are run by volunteer members, with senior officer advocates and champions, and they can be consulted on matters which are likely to impact our people.
Noble Lords will understand that the well-being of our personnel directly contributes to the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces. It is therefore important to the chain of command and to defence to both sustain and support the well-being of service personnel and their families and, where necessary, provide welfare support to resolve issues that might otherwise undermine well-being and impact on operational effectiveness.
That is why, during basic training, all service personnel receive details on how to identify welfare issues and how to get help, with refresher training provided during subsequent initial trade training. All regular and reserve officers also receive training during their respective commissioning course which teaches how their service provides welfare support and sets out their welfare roles and responsibilities as line managers. Once again, refresher training is provided throughout and welfare specialists are also on hand to provide advice to the chain of command and provide support to their personnel.
We recognise that some personnel and families may feel uncomfortable exposing welfare issues to the chain of command and, in some cases, issues may even arise as a direct result of conflict with the chain of command. My noble friend Lord Lancaster spoke in broad terms about that and the alternative channels available to complainants.
I therefore submit that, in these circumstances, service personnel have alternative mechanisms for raising and addressing welfare issues, giving them a voice independent of the chain of command. These include unit welfare staff, padres and confidential helplines, in addition to the service families federations and service complaints process that I referred to earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to Australia, but Australia disbanded its armed forces federation in 2006.
The noble Lord also raised an issue about the recent Budget, in response to which I would say that as the department prioritises providing a wider range of supportive bodies and invests in training for service personnel throughout their service career, it would be misleading to quantify this in terms of budget lines as such. The department feels strongly that the interests of service personnel need to be protected and we take a varied approach by providing many strands to offer that protection. We cannot put a price on giving people a voice.
I hope that this explains clearly the rationale for the Government’s approach to ensuring that the interests of service personnel are protected and the provisions that exist. I trust that, following these assurances, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, one of the essential skills for survival in politics is being able to count. I recognise a 5-0 defeat when I hear one; it can also be pretty uncomfortable when the closest you get to support comes from the Government. But I ask noble Lords to pause and consider that the speech that the Minister just made was probably unthinkable 30 years ago. She at least took the generality that representation, through one mechanism or another, is necessary. We also have to take the generality that, much as we all are proud of the Armed Forces, we know that in some areas things are not as perfect as we would want.
The concept of representation will have its day. Clearly, that is not today. But on the ideas behind it, I am pleased that the Government, I think, conceptually see that it is necessary to make sure that there are appropriate mechanisms for representation. Over time—this will come up every five years—we will test the ground, because we as a party believe in representation.
There is an interesting concept about civilians in uniform. They are not civilians in uniform; clearly, they are different from civilians in that they have to put their lives on the line, and I accept that. However, I think that they are citizens in uniform and there need to be processes and a mechanism for their views to be made known. We talk about supporting individuals going to the ombudsman. That is a good thing. I think that there is a recognition that that might have to be more formalised and more powerful. We will see. I accept that we are apart on this issue. Nevertheless, we are not as apart as one might think. The idea of agency by individuals is one that will not go away, but it is certainly not an idea that should be forced on an unwilling institution.
I opened by saying that I wanted to hear what the Government had to say. I am pleased with the direction of their answer. I also said that we were interested in what noble and gallant Lords might say. I note what they said. Therefore, taking account of all those issues, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment and will not be bringing it back on Report.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Universal Credit
(1) The Government must publish annual statistics on the number of veterans who are receiving universal credit.
(2) These statistics should be included in the annual Armed Forces covenant report.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to publish statistics on the number of veterans in receipt of universal credit.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, I will speak also to Amendment 56. Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to, and have a moral obligation to help, those who have served our country transition back into civilian life. This transition can often be hard. Just the idea—let alone the process—of finding a new job can be challenging. Too many veterans are falling through the cracks of veterans’ employment support and struggling to find a job. This support has even been cut back by Ministers.
I was shocked to learn earlier this year that the Government have dropped their target for helping personnel, veterans and their families to find work after they leave the Armed Forces. Ministers are now hiring only 50 Armed Forces champions, despite committing £6 million in 2019 to fund “more than 100” Armed Forces champions in jobcentres. Announcing the increased spending in 2019, the Work and Pensions Secretary Thérèse Coffey said that 100 champions should provide
“specialist, individual support to former service personnel and their families”.
The Government also said that champions were a key part of their commitment to the Armed Forces covenant.
However, in response to a Written Question in June 2021, the DWP Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, said that a “new model” was now being pursued, with 50 Armed Forces champions being recruited. She also confirmed that the number of Armed Forces champions had fallen to a record low, with only 34 champions being appointed so far. In 2019 there were 46 Armed Forces champions in the UK, so why did Ministers decide to cut the number of Armed Forces champions in jobcentres? How much money did they save? Can the Minister tell me how many Armed Forces champions are currently working in jobcentres? Is it the target of 50, or fewer; if so, how many fewer? Amendment 56 seeks to reinstate the Government’s original commitment of 100 Armed Forces champions.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches did not add our names to these two amendments, both of which seem to be small but important. In particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, Amendment 56 essentially asks the Government to go back to a prior commitment. Can the Minister commit to 100 champions in jobcentres? As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out, the Minister’s noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, could not answer all the questions the other day in the Chamber. If it were possible for either DWP or the MoD to come forward with some statistics, that would be helpful. Normally, asking for annual reports on this, that and the other can be a little time-consuming and bureaucratic but, on this occasion, if the information is not available it is time to suggest that we ask the Government to make sure that it is available. Unless the Government can make a commitment, the amendment seems wholly appropriate.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
This amendment, which I do not particularly support or otherwise, would be an awful lot better placed if better evidence were available. There does not appear to be the relevant data. Personally, I am convinced that if that data were made available, it would re-establish in people’s minds and in society at large that the Armed Forces are one of the nation’s most successful organisations for social improvement among the people who join.
I fear that amendments such as this convey the impression that people enter the Armed Forces and then leave, at some later stage, damaged by the experience. That is far from the reality of the situation. Yes, some unfortunate people will struggle to find employment—some people struggle with second careers—but, by and large, people leave the Armed Forces both socially and professionally improved and go on to have highly successful second careers. So the publication of the evidence base would be hugely helpful in determining whether this sort of amendment was, in truth, required.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this may have been a short debate, but it was interesting. Once again, I have no doubt about the commitment of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Tunnicliffe, in taking an interest in these matters. Amendments 52 and 56 engage with the subject of, first, the number of veterans claiming universal credit, and secondly, Armed Forces champions.
I will deal with Amendment 52 first. The Government are delighted that the universal credit system has now been enhanced to allow the Department for Work and Pensions to collect information on how many universal credit claimants are veterans. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, put his finger on the point: the all-important issue here is the data, which is not yet complete. It is still early days. The DWP is still building up its data base and working out what the data is telling them and how to make best use of it, including producing reports and making information public. This may well include making information available through the covenant annual report, as well as more routine data releases.
I understand that, as soon as decisions have been made, the DWP will write to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, setting out its plans. I expect it to be able to do this early in the new year. Further, the MoD will keep a close eye on this area as well. We are also interested in the data being collected, so I, too, look forward to the DWP’s response on this matter. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I will now address Amendment 56, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which seeks to put into the Bill a specific number of Armed Forces champions who would be in place at all times. The number of Armed Forces champions, their specific roles and how and where they are deployed are detailed day-to-day operational matters for the DWP.
The DWP’s long-standing, undoubted and profound commitment to and support for the Armed Forces covenant is clear. Like the rest of this Government, my colleagues there do everything that they can to provide members of the Armed Forces community with the help and support that they deserve. I thought that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, made an important point about the impressions that we wish to create and what the perceptions might be. Armed Forces champions are key in supporting and enabling the DWP to provide that help and support, but setting out a specific number in the Bill will limit the DWP’s flexibility to adjust the support to meet levels of need and will do nothing to enhance the current support provided by the DWP to veterans and others.
The DWP works very closely with the MoD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs to help ensure that those using its services get the help and support that they need. Earlier this year it introduced a new model. Once again, it is important to put all this into shape so that there is context. It introduced the new model to transform the support that the DWP provides to members of the Armed Forces. This change of approach by the DWP was not subjective; it reflected feedback that the department had received, including from formal research and from those representing members of the Armed Forces community.
The new model was designed to ensure that veterans and others are served in a more intelligent and effective way. It enables the department to better match available resources with the demand for its services. The new model has built on the successful network of Armed Forces champions, which had been in place within the DWP for a number of years.
As part of the new model, the department has introduced for the first time a dedicated Armed Forces role at middle management level. These roles have responsibility for building capability and sharing best practice on Armed Forces issues across the DWP network, as well as building networks with the tri-services. It is important to understand the relevance and significance of that conjunction of activity.
There is a lead role in each of the 11 Jobcentre Plus groups and, as part of its work, it oversees 50 Armed Forces champions stationed across the Jobcentre Plus network. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was critical of that level of champions, but the work of the champions cannot be viewed in isolation, for the reasons that I have just described.
The champions have specific responsibility for supporting claimants who are members of the Armed Forces community. Under the new model of support, the champions also have a front-line role and will personally handle some claims for the first time, supporting veterans into work and helping to resolve some of the more complex cases where necessary. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised this point—that there is at least one Armed Forces champion in each of the 37 Jobcentre Plus districts.
The new model has been welcomed by the department’s Armed Forces stakeholders, who have been more interested, to be honest, in the structures and quality of services than in actual numbers. The DWP has listened to what stakeholders and researchers have said. Putting in place the new lead roles will help to improve the co-ordination of support activity and facilitate the sharing of best practice between the champions, and more widely across the department. The new roles also provide the opportunity for more pro-active work with the three armed services on resettlement and recruitment. Again, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, took an interest in this issue.
In the early stages of introducing the new model, the DWP talked to a number of stakeholders, including Armed Forces charities and other groups, about the planned structures and roles. It explained how these would work in practice for stakeholders, as well as for individual claimants and their families. Now, almost six months in, the change seems to have settled in well and continues to be well received.
The DWP’s support is not limited to those with a formal Armed Forces role. For example, the new model enables the dedicated Armed Forces roles to complement the wider investment the department had already made during the pandemic in the recruitment of an additional 13,500 work coaches, bringing the total to 27,000. The Committee may be interested to know that every work coach receives specific training to support members of the Armed Forces community, and that an important part of the work of the new champions and lead roles is to build capability on Armed Forces issues across the whole department. This is not just across the Jobcentre Plus network but more widely, for example in DWP service centres.
As your Lordships will understand, there are many DWP staff, some based in individual jobcentre offices, who will be the local expert on Armed Forces issues and will work with those in the dedicated roles also to the support the Armed Forces. Many of these staff will have experienced service life themselves, either directly or through friends and family. They will use this experience in their work.
As within other parts of its business, the DWP will monitor and evaluate the new model, and will use the information gathered from this work to shape the support provided. These new arrangements come on top of other support that is already in place. For example, veterans are given early entry to the work and health programme, and if we can use service medical board evidence, a severely disabled veteran does not have to undergo additional examinations for employment and support allowance and universal credit purposes.
If the intention of this amendment is to make sure that the DWP always provides an Armed Forces champions service, it is unnecessary. The the DWP, through its words and actions, has consistently demonstrated its commitment to support veterans and members of the Armed Forces community. I accept that this is unintentional, but the amendment would constrain what are rightly day-to-day operational decisions for DWP managers. For example, holding open a post for a short while during a recruitment exercise would become unlawful. I know that is not the noble Lord’s intention, but we should let the expert delivery managers in the DWP manage their resources as they see fit.
With that reassurance of the scale of support within the DWP for Armed Forces personnel and veterans, I hope nthe noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, called for better evidence. If there is any consensus here, it is between him, the Minister and me that data, which we are promised will be early in the new year, will add light to our concerns.
I am in no way suggesting that, as a generality, individuals are damaged by their experience of being in the Armed Forces. In the limited experience that I have of contact with the Armed Forces, I see, as a generality, good people who have valued their training and their roles.
The problem is that there is anecdotal concern that some veterans have a difficult time and there is a general concern in society that veterans of the Armed Forces in particular should be looked after. The dilemma of the covenant is the negative concept—it is put in a negative way, although I do not mean it negatively—that nobody shall be worse off as a result of coming from the forces. There is a second tranche that says that, in view of the special service of members of the Armed Forces, we should do things at the edge to help, having regard for their previous experience.
We will carefully consider what the noble Baroness has said, although we would welcome any additional information that she finds to reassure us. However, she has put on the record areas of comfort, which we will take account of, so I am content at this point to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker
“Flexible Service scheme report
A Minister of the Crown must make provision to improve the uptake and use of the Flexible Service scheme, for both women and men, and report its progress by the end of 2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is based on recommendations in the House of Commons Defence Sub-Committee Women in the Armed Forces report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords. I look forward to continuing the interesting debate that we have had on the Bill.
As I know all Members of the Committee will agree, these are extremely important amendments. We can see their importance not only because of the concerns that all of us have raised in Committee and beyond, but because, as we read last week, the Defence Secretary himself has written to Armed Forces chiefs, asking to meet them to discuss his concerns over the progress of the implementation of various recommendations. I understand from press reports today—perhaps the Minister will be able to update the Committee on this—that the Defence Secretary is meeting them to discuss some of the issues raised in the amendments. The BBC says:
“The defence secretary told the BBC it was ‘really important we get the culture right’ in the Army.”
We all agree with that.
The purpose of the amendments is to try to understand how the Government intend to deal with some of the concerns that have been raised and some of the serious issues that various reports have highlighted, including media reports that we have read in our papers, and to move forward on them. The evidence for and recommendations in the amendments are based on the Defence Select Committee’s report that was published just a couple of months ago; it is also the source of some of the data that I will quote and is the basis of the amendment before the Committee. It is therefore incumbent on us to understand what, if the Government say that the amendments are unnecessary, they will do to achieve the effect of the recommendations. Clarity from the Minister on that would be welcome to us all and those outside who read our proceedings.
I beg to move Amendment 53, and will speak to Amendments 54, 55, and in particular, 66B. They are all amendments based on an excellent recent report from the Defence Sub-Committee into women in the Armed Forces. The report stated that it was
“disappointed … with gaps between the many policy documents”
on women in the Armed Forces
“and practice on the ground”.
It added that
“the 2021 Armed Forces Bill”—
in other words, what we are discussing—
“may represent a missed opportunity to address critical issues.”
So here we are with these four amendments, which seek to understand from the Government what has actually happened.
Some of the report’s conclusions were that:
“Services are failing to help women achieve their full potential … barriers still affect female recruitment, including an impression that it is harder for women to thrive there … Within the military culture of the Armed Forces and the MOD, it is still a man’s world. There is too much bullying, harassment and discrimination—including criminal behaviours”,
which we discussed earlier in Committee,
“like sexual assault and rape—affecting Service personnel … Juggling Service life and family life can be hard for all Service personnel, but especially for military women”.
These were the conclusions of that Sub-Committee and are the sorts of things we need to hear about from the Minister. How are the Government going to seek to address them? Nobody would want to read about some of those things; all of us want them addressed. We need a clear plan of action. We need bold and unequivocal action from the Minister in solving these challenges.
In 2019, the Wigston review identified a
“pressing need to reform the Service Complaints system”,
echoing the findings of the ombudsman that BAME and female personnel were disproportionately affected by such behaviours. Wigston made 36 recommendations, all of which the Government, to their credit, accepted. But the question two and a half years on is: where are we on the implementation of those recommendations?
The Defence Sub-Committee’s recent report said that the recommendations in the Wigston review were “positive” but that
“progress is slow, and frequently there is a gap between the raft of policy documents in place and actual practice on the ground.”
Many of us, if not all of us, in the Committee would welcome a statement from the Minister as to how the Government intend to accelerate this progress so that we do not read in another report in a year or two that progress has been made but it is slow.
The most recent Service Complaints Ombudsman annual report found that female personnel were overrepresented in the service complaints system—21%, compared with their representation in the UK Armed Forces of 12%. What do the Government intend to do to rectify that situation? In 2020, female service personnel were disproportionately represented in the service complaints system. Female personnel had nearly twice the rate of service complaints that males had. Although this overrepresentation was found in all categories, it was primarily driven by differences in levels of bullying, harassment and discrimination. The rate at which female service personnel raised bullying, harassment or discrimination service complaints was four times the equivalent figure for male service personnel.
The Defence Sub-Committee made a number of recommendations and we have tabled amendments to raise some, but not all, of the most important of them. Amendment 53 forces a Minister of the Crown to
“make provision to improve the uptake and use of the Flexible Service scheme, for both women and men, and report its progress by the end of 2022.”
Amendment 54 forces the Secretary of State to make recommendations of the Service Complaints Ombudsman binding on the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence, and Amendment 55 ensures that the covenant annual report includes a metric to monitor the experiences of veterans by sex or gender and by other protected characteristics.
I say again to the Committee, to reinforce the point, that these are not my recommendations; they are based on the Defence Select Committee report. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister believes that the amendments are unnecessary and not needed, and, if so, why that is.
Amendment 66B seeks to establish a defence authority responsible for cultures and inappropriate behaviours that is outside the chain of command. Again, this was a direct recommendation from both the Wigston review and the Defence Select Committee. I say to the Committee that we have tried very hard in the amendment to be reasonable and to understand why the Government or others might object to that. That is why we have put that the Secretary of State must review whether it is desirable to establish an independent defence authority. If it is not desirable, why is it not, and why would the things identified in the various Defence Select Committee reports and in the Wigston review and in many other reports, including the experiences of personnel who gave evidence to these various committees, mean that such an independent authority is not needed, and how can the people who have made those significant complaints in many areas of service life be reassured that their concerns can be dealt with and things can be improved without the establishment of such an authority?
I say to the Minister that there may be flaws in the amendment, and the Government might say “Item C doesn’t work with respect to legislation, it’s not needed, it’s not drafted correctly” or whatever, but two or three of us have tried to put these things together without the legal expertise of the MoD, and what they seek to do is represent the spirit of the various committees that have reported, to try to deal with concerns that have been raised.
As I said, the Defence Secretary himself is clearly worried and concerned by the various problems that have arisen and that we have read about in our papers recently. None of us in this Committee would try to justify any of that; all of us would want something done about it. But what I am saying to the Minister is that “We need to do something about it” is not good enough. What is it that we are going to do? What practically is going to happen? What policy changes are going to take place? What sense of urgency is being put in place at the MoD to drive this on?
Clearly, if the Defence Secretary himself has written to defence chiefs to say “I want to see you to understand why there are problems and these problems are not being fixed as quickly as I would want”, this is now an opportunity for the Minister to reassure the Committee that the Government have a grip on this and “This is what the Government intend to do”. If these amendments are unnecessary, “This is why they are unnecessary, because this is what the Government are doing to take into account all the various recommendations”.
I thought the Defence Select Committee report was a very sobering document. I am not a military person, but in any walk of life, if you read that two-thirds of the 4,000 women who gave evidence had experienced bullying, sexual harassment or discrimination during their time in the Armed Forces, it does not matter what the organisation is. It is not an attack on the Armed Forces; it is not an attack if you are talking about this as a Civil Service or as a police force or as an industry. There is something that really needs looking at, to understand how it is possible that of the 4,000 women who came forward to give evidence to the committee, two-thirds reported that there had been a problem.
None of us would want that. None of us condones that: of course not. But the question is, what are the Government doing about it? That is the purpose of the amendments before the Committee today—to try to put some meat on the bones and say “These are some of the ways that were recommended by the Defence Select Committee as ways of helping with respect to this particular problem”. The Defence Secretary thinks there is a problem. I think there is a problem. I am sure that many noble Lords in the Committee think that there is a problem. But we want to understand what the Government are going to do to tackle these very real issues. That is the purpose of the amendments before us.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments, to which I have added my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, they very much draw on the House of Commons Defence Select Committee’s report. In a sense, that was a cross-party report. The signatories in this place come from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches, although of course Sarah Atherton, the MP for Wrexham, who was the force behind the report, is a Conservative. We potentially have cross-party and cross-Chamber support for a range of issues brought forward in these amendments.
If these amendments are not necessary, we would be delighted to hear the Minister say, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, invited her to do, that whatever the Secretary of State has been doing today in bringing the service chiefs together will somehow deal with all the issues. That would be fantastic, but the evidence seems rather concerning, to put it at its mildest. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, talked about the number of female service personnel and veterans who had come forward. The report also talks about delays in the complaints procedure. It says that the performance target for the Armed Forces is apparently that
“90% of service complaints should be resolved within 24 weeks. This target has not been met by any of the services in recent years, and the pandemic has increased delays in the system.”
Maybe the pandemic has made it even worse, but in 2020 only 24% of the complaints brought in the Royal Navy were dealt with within 24 weeks, although it had a much better record in previous years. In 2019, before the pandemic, the Army’s statistics were only 32%. Those figures seem entirely inappropriate.
Could the Minister tell the Committee what is being done to try to resolve the complaints system? It does not seem to be working at the moment. What is even more shocking, in addition to the delays, is that the people who have brought complaints have been extremely dissatisfied with the outcomes and the way they were kept informed about progress. What is going on? If the Minister and her team are unable to give the Committee good answers, these amendments seem the very minimum of the recommendations that came forward from HCDC that we would want to see in the Bill to ensure that the service complaints system is improved.
Noble and gallant Lords raised concerns about the chain of command under the Armed Forces federation proposals in an earlier amendment. I understand that. I do not think that anything in these amendments would undermine the chain of command, but there are suggestions in the House of Commons Defence Select Committee’s report and in Amendment 66B that say essentially that if service personnel bring cases against somebody in the chain of command, that has to be looked into. It is hugely important to acknowledge that the argument about the chain of command cannot be used in any way to negate the complaints that have been brought by service personnel, particularly women. I hope the Minister will take these amendments in the spirit in which they are brought, which is in no way to criticise the MoD specifically but to say that these issues need to be explored and that the service complaints procedures need to be speeded up if that is possible, which we hope it is.
I will say a brief word about Amendment 55, in case the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, feels the need to say that we should not be talking down veterans or the experience. I do not believe that the intention of the previous set of amendments on universal credit was to say that there is particular problem and somehow veterans are coming out as being poorly treated; rather, it was to understand the situation for veterans. Again, the House of Commons Defence Committee report seems to suggest that there are some problems for women transitioning out of the Armed Forces that may be a little bit different from those experienced by the men. If we can understand the experience of veterans and have a report on that, we can try to improve the situation for all veterans.
These amendments are intended to be positive and constructive, and I hope the Minister takes them in that light.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
One would think that one would get into a routine of “Off with the mask, slug of the water, stand at the Dispatch Box”, but it still comes as a ritual.
Amendments 53 to 55 and 66B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and promoted so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, cover four strands: promoting flexible service, making binding the recommendations of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, monitoring the experience of veterans with protected characteristics, and considering whether to establish an independent defence authority. These are important amendments, and I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the Government understand that Members are trying to make constructive contributions.
The amendments concern a broad range of topics but, as has been identified, each is based on recommendations of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee report, Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was interested in what happened at the convened meeting of the Army Board this morning. I think he will understand that I am constrained in what I can say, because these proceedings are confidential. I hope he realises that the Secretary of State, his Ministers and the Army do want to be sure that they are proactive in addressing issues which, as noble Lords have indicated, can be upsetting when they surface in the media and can cause concern. Without being able to impart any specific details, I reassure your Lordships that this morning’s meeting was very constructive, with what I thought were some excellent suggestions coming forward.
I believe that the motive behind the amendments is driven by a subject which I am deeply passionate about and wholeheartedly supportive of: women in the Armed Forces and, indeed, women in defence. To that end, I want to say a few words about that Select Committee inquiry and to thank the committee for its thorough work and report. That work has been enhanced by the testimony of current and former servicewomen, whose experiences have greatly assisted the inquiry. Their courage and fortitude were not just admirable but inspiring, and I extend my thanks to all those women who came forward to such positive effect. I acknowledge that, on too many occasions in the past, Defence has failed to provide women with adequate support. It will not surprise your Lordships to hear me say that.
We have examined the Defence Committee’s report in minute detail. We want to use it to build on our improvements and to ensure that our response is substantial and informed. We recognise that the lived experience for many women is not yet good enough, and this has to change.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, rightly identified the report as pivotal. I assure the Committee that the Secretary of State is absolutely committed to delivering against its findings. Indeed, he intends to go further. The Secretary of State has personally discussed the initial draft of our response to the report with members of the servicewomen’s networks, and this has led to additional work.
I know that your Lordships are keen to see a response to the Defence Committee’s report and I acknowledge that it is taking a little longer than expected, but that is for good reason. The Secretary of State has kept the inquiry chairwoman, Sarah Atherton, fully informed. She is in the picture. I think that we all agree that we would much rather produce something meaningful and substantial that provides hope and concrete direction for the way forward than just cobble together something to produce it within a time limit.
Defence Ministers and service chiefs are adamant that the important issues in the report are addressed comprehensively and that no opportunity is missed to bring about meaningful and enduring change. We are all taking an active role in ensuring that our response to the report is comprehensive and well informed to deliver positive outcomes. We are in the process of finalising that and anticipate submitting our response “in due course”, as it says here. I say to your Lordships to read that as “sooner rather later”.
I wish to be clear that many changes have already been introduced to improve the experience for women in the Armed Forces and military service remains a fantastic career opportunity for men and women alike. It is important to remind your Lordships that nearly 90% of the women giving evidence to the committee would recommend a career in the Armed Forces to female relatives and friends. We should not underestimate the importance of that. Yes, there are matters to be addressed. Yes, there are improvements to be made. Yes, there were areas overdue for investigation, for being addressed and for being rectified. But that sort of testament shows that many women have confidence in a career in the Armed Forces. We are delighted about that and proud of it. We owe it to them and everyone else in the Armed Forces to make sure that the response to this report has clout and impact.
Before speaking to Amendment 53, I first remind this Committee that the Armed Forces launched flexible service on 1 April 2019. The policy allows all regular personnel to apply to serve part-time and/or to restrict the amount of time that they are away from the home base, for a temporary period, subject to defence need. Flexible service is part of a suite of flexible working opportunities that we offer our people, which include remote working, variable start and finish times and compressed working. Between its introduction in April 2019 and September 2021, more than 355 service personnel and their families have benefited from flexible service. This level of uptake is in line both with the MoD’s forecast and with the experience of other nations’ Armed Forces that have introduced similar measures. Defence is ensuring that as many service personnel as possible can benefit from these measures by keeping flexible service under constant review.
We have an ongoing communications campaign aimed at encouraging uptake and improving awareness of flexible service and the wider flexible working opportunities that it offers its people. For example, this autumn, Defence is releasing a series of podcasts that explore service personnel’s experience of flexible working. On completion, the campaign’s impacts will be evaluated to inform communications for 2022.
Our previous communications have led to a high awareness of flexible service. The Armed Forces continuous attitude survey for 2021 shows that 82% of service personnel have heard of the policy. Notable campaigns have included video case studies of service personnel on flexible service in summer 2020, which attracted over 270,000 impressions on social media and nearly 10,000 engagements, and promoting Defence’s full flexible working offer to the Armed Forces through a digital booklet Flexible Working and You: A Guide for Service Personnel, which was published in January 2021. The booklet was viewed 17,000 times on the GOV.UK website and 12,850 copies were distributed to Armed Forces information centres and military units during June and July this year.
Ownership and development of flexible service policy is overseen by the Minister for Defence People and Veterans and, as such, he, too, is committed to ensuring that all service personnel can benefit from the policy. Defence already has several initiatives in place to measure and report on its awareness and uptake. These include annual reporting of flexible service’s developments, uptake and usage in the Armed Forces continuous attitude survey’s background quality reports.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I simply want to ask a technical question, which she will not be able to answer right now. I accept that, but perhaps she would be so kind as to write to me. Having thought about this as she spoke, can I take her back to Amendment 53 and the wonderful flexible service scheme? We are going to face the challenge between dialling down the regular service of an individual, male or female, to perhaps two or three days a week and what they are going to be paid. Given that when you are on operations, you sometimes work seven days a week but at other times, effectively, you work Monday to Friday—five days a week—are they to be paid, for example, 60% of their salary if they are dialling down to three days’ service? I am bearing in mind that a part of that is their 12% X factor, which they get because of the inconvenience of service life. Would they continue to get that 12% X factor when they dial down their service?
I will compare that to the other end of the spectrum and the Reserve service. Part of the Reserve Forces 2030 review, which I chaired, sought to have a spectrum of service so that a reservist can increase their service, potentially, to three days a week—the same level that the regular has dialled down to. Bearing in mind that a reservist gets paid only a reduced X factor of 5%, and that their individual pay is based on one-365th of their regular counterparts’, unless we manage to mirror those two schemes so that they meet in the middle, individuals will potentially be doing exactly the same service per week but will be paid quite different amounts. That is a technical challenge, but we need to think about it. I simply ask whether, perhaps in slow time, my noble friend could write to me about how we are going to address that issue.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am sure that your Lordships are, as ever, immensely impressed by the noble Lord’s command of this matter. I think he is the only person on the Committee who really understands it and I am very grateful to him. I will look in Hansard to consider all his remarks—and, yes, I do undertake to write to him, because there are serious points in there and I do not have the information before me.
Before I conclude my remarks on this group of amendments, I was saying that the response to the Defence Committee’s report will be significant and I think your Lordships will be reassured by it. I will certainly be pleased to update your Lordships once the Government’s response to the report is published and I might even, I suggest, do a Peers’ briefing on that topic when it is forthcoming.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response which, as usual, sought to engage with the questions. That is always very helpful to the Committee. In particular, we all look forward to what she mentioned in her last point: she said to the Committee words to the effect that there will be a significant response to the Defence Select Committee report, which we have been referring to. I am sure that the Committee will look forward to that response.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for not mentioning that she had added her name to the amendments. I did not mean to be rude. I had it in a note that I wrote to myself but I just went over it, so I apologise for that.
In addressing the specific amendments, on Amendment 53 I wrote that I understood what the Minister had said. I think I nearly understood what the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was saying. That reflects my ignorance, not his explanation, and it was an important point. I would be interested to see that, but I understood the points that the Minister made about Amendment 53. However, like all of us, I am going to have to reread Hansard a little to fully grasp some of this—and Amendment 54 is a classic example of needing to read it. As I understood it, the Minister said that if the ombudsman makes findings, they are binding; but if they make recommendations, they are non-binding, but that is okay because they can be judicially reviewed. I need to read what she said because, again, the role of the ombudsman is important for us. On Amendment 55, perhaps I need to look again, but I think she said that the Committee will be pleased because the Government are going to go further than is stated in the amendment so, in that sense, more will be done.
Before I make a couple of general points, with respect to Amendment 66B I refer the Minister—if the Committee will bear with me for one moment—to something that I will read. She referred to the Diversity and Inclusion Directorate as one of the reasons that a defence authority was not needed, but paragraph 147 of the report says:
“Although the Wigston Review identified a pressing need to reform the complaints process, the MOD has not fulfilled the recommendation for a Defence Authority, to handle complex BHD complaints outside the chain of command.”
Lord Browne of Ladyton
“Liability for using novel technologies: review
(1) Within three months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review of the implications of increasing autonomy associated with the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, including in weapons systems, for legal proceedings against armed forces personnel that arise from overseas operations, and produce recommendations for favourable legal environments for the United Kingdom’s armed forces operating overseas, including instilling domestic processes and engaging in the shaping of international agreements and institutions.(2) The review must consider—(a) what protection and guidance armed forces personnel need to minimise the risk of legal proceedings being brought against them which relate to overseas operations in response to novel technologies,(b) how international and domestic legal frameworks governing overseas operations need to be updated in response to novel technologies, and(c) what novel technologies could emerge from the Ministry of Defence and the United Kingdom’s allies, and from the private sector, which could be used in overseas operations.(3) Within the period of one year beginning on the day on which the review is commissioned, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament of its findings and recommendations.”
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton of Richmond and Lord Craig of Radley. I am very grateful to them for joining me in this amendment, and I convey the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who is unable to be present today because he had a prior, immovable commitment to be abroad representing your Lordships’ House in a meeting.
Amendment 59 focuses on the protection and guidance that Armed Forces personnel engaged in the deployment and use of new technologies will need to ensure that they comply with the law, including international humanitarian law, and that will explain how international and domestic legal frameworks need to be updated—all because of the predicted increased use of novel technologies that could emerge from or be deployed by the Ministry of Defence, UK allies or the private sector.
Today the private sector is often deployed with our Armed Forces on overseas operations as part of a multinational force. The amendment imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to commission a review of the relevant issues, sets out what that review must consider and obliges the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament of the report’s findings and recommendations.
That is the focus of the amendment but underlying it is a much broader issue about the duties of the Government for our Armed Forces in respect of the development, deployment and use of these technologies, and another complementary obligation on the Government to ensure that they are parliamentarily accountable for these developments—to the extent, of course, that they can be.
Noble Lords will recall that the same amendment was tabled and debated during the passage of the overseas operations Bill but was not pressed to a vote. Separately, on behalf of those noble Lords who supported it, I told the Minister that it was our intention to bring it back in this context, which is perhaps a more appropriate and broader context for the amendment.
I thank the Minister and pay tribute to her and to the MoD officials who are wrestling with the complex legal challenges posed by the development and deployment of these weapons systems for their work on that, and for their repeated engagement with me and other noble and noble and gallant Lords, including those who have put their names to this amendment. As a result of that engagement, I am very aware that the Ministry of Defence continues, and has continued over recent months at pace, both domestically and internationally, to work hard on this, and is making progress with these complex challenges.
I do not want to take unnecessary time going over again all the arguments made in support of the measure in the overseas operations Bill context. I take them as read. There are still unanswered questions, but I hope that, over time, they may be answered. I shall refer to some of them, and more recent developments, for another purpose, which is to set the context, and reinforce the importance, of addressing these challenges—so I shall repeat a few points that I made in earlier debates.
First, the integrated review, published in March, was the third defence and security review since 2020, which alone is an indication of the pace at which these developments are taking place. It was described as forward-facing, recognising both current and future threats against the UK, and set out the capabilities that will need to be developed to deter and engage them. It does do that—imperfectly, I have to say, but it does do it.
When the Prime Minister made a Statement on the review in November last year, he said that
“now is the right time to press ahead”
with the modernisation of the Armed Forces because of
“emerging technologies, visible on the horizon”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 488.]
The Prime Minister said that these would “revolutionise warfare” and I think he was right. The CGS, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, said that he foresees the army of the future as
“the integration of boots and bots”.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, who is with us today, has repeatedly warned your Lordships about the risks posed by the intersection of artificial intelligence and human judgment and has spoken wisely about the risks posed by technology interacting with human error.
These risks are with us now and they are very real. Last month retired General Stanley McChrystal, who led the coalition forces in Afghanistan for two years, said that artificial intelligence inevitably will come to make lethal decisions on the battlefield. However, he acknowledged the “frightening” risks of potential malfunction or mistake. He said:
“People say, ‘We’ll never give control over lethal strike to artificial intelligence.’ That’s wrong. We absolutely will. Because at a certain point, you can’t respond fast enough, unless you do that. A hypervelocity missile, hypersonic missile coming at the United States aircraft carrier, you don’t have time for individuals to do the tracking, you don’t have time for senior leaders to be in the decision loop, or you won’t be able to engage the missile.”
Now, at a less strategic level, military-grade autonomous drones can fly themselves to a specific location, pick their own targets and kill without the assistance of a remote human operator. A UN report about a March 2020 skirmish in the military conflict in Libya records that such a drone made its wartime debut. The report states that retreating forces
“were subsequently hunted down and remotely engaged by the unmanned combat aerial vehicles”,
but does not say explicitly that this lethal autonomous weapon system killed anyone. But it certainly tried to.
The very real fear is that autonomous weapons will undermine the international laws of war. These laws are premised on the idea that people can be held accountable for their actions even during wartime and that the right to kill during combat does not confer the right to murder civilians. But how can autonomous weapons be held accountable? Who is to blame for a robot that commits war crimes? Who would be put on trial: the weapon, the soldier, the soldier’s commanders, the corporation that made the weapon, or the person who wrote the code that gave the weapon the ability to do this?
In a world without regulations that compel meaningful human control of autonomous weapons, there will be war crimes with no war criminals to hold accountable, and the laws of war, along with their deterrent value, will be weakened significantly. I say “deterrent value” because I think, from my experience, that the laws of war and international humanitarian laws work because they are observed, not because they are enforced. It is important that we find some way of collectively reviewing these laws so that they can continue to be observed in this more complicated—and, in many ways, terrifying—new world that we are moving rapidly into.
On 21 October 2021, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to NATO’s first ever strategy for artificial intelligence—AI—which states:
“At the forefront of this Strategy lie the NATO Principles of Responsible Use for AI in Defence, which will help steer our transatlantic efforts in accordance with our values, norms, and international law. The NATO Principles of Responsible Use … are based on existing and widely accepted ethical, legal, and policy commitments under which NATO has historically operated and will continue to operate under. These Principles do not affect or supersede existing obligations and commitments, both national and international.”
Our Government must have agreed these principles. When will the Minister make a Statement to Parliament on them, allow them to be debated and allow Ministers to be questioned on their sufficiency or their breadth and depth? The provisions of Article 36 of Protocol 1, additional to the 1949 Geneva conventions, commit states, including our own, to ensure the legality of all new weapons, means and methods of warfare by subjecting them to a rigorous and multidisciplinary review. I have no reason to believe that we have not complied with our legal obligations in that respect, but, unfortunately, as we are not one of the eight nations in the world that publish a review of legal compatibility, including the United States of America, I have no Minister’s reassurance in that regard. When will we get that assurance or transparency?
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of this amendment. It is one of the few elements of the Bill that seeks to get ahead of the game rather than just play catch-up. My particular perspective is that there is one element of the new security challenge that I feel has escaped proper consideration, one for which there seems no comprehensive or coherent plan of action, which is the issue most commonly referred to as “lawfare”.
To my view, the law is potentially one the most powerful weapons that we have in the security context of the age. It is both a weapon of defence that we should use to protect ourselves from the malign activity of others, and a weapon of attack that we should use to liberate our own freedom of action. As had been said, a fundamental deduction from the recent integrated review was that, within what is a significantly changed strategic context, we now live in a persistent state of adversarial competition, but one in which the resort to formalised warfare at scale is, perhaps by choice, avoided. The preferred vectors of attack in this competitive world are not, therefore, active, large-scale military operations, but more subtle, more deniable and less attributable activities.
The domains of active warfare are no longer necessarily primarily land, sea and air, but space, cyber and what is called the “cognitive domain”. Whereas traditional warfare has rules and laws and accepted norms of ethics and morality, the new character of grey-zone warfare is one in which our enemies exploit, for advantage, the absence of a legal framework within which to operate. So the new vectors of attack are activities such as disinformation, multiplied by internet bots; deniable cyber offensive activity; proxy terrorism; and political assassination, potentially using international private military companies.
More specifically in relation to this amendment, technological advancement in the areas of artificial intelligence, machine learning and autonomous weapons systems also offers scope for our adversaries to deny us their potential benefit while they exploit their unattributed use simply because no accepted legal framework for their authorised use yet exists. This context means that our principal geopolitical adversaries can employ methods that are both malign and aggressive but which we find difficult to respond to because we are unclear about what is morally, ethically and legally permissible. We risk, in effect, allowing our enemies to win without fighting.
In this House, during the passage of the overseas operations Bill, I bore witness to—forgive me—some remarkably contorted debates that appeared to present the law as either something inviolate to change or else an irremovable object that needed elegant methods of circumnavigation. I fear that our enemies will exploit our legal complexities to undermine our morale and devalue our credibility as an ally, among other things.
My view is that the only practical way to respond to the situation I have described and the one described in the integrated review is to start to use the law to our advantage: to go on the legal offensive, to reimagine our use of the law not as a time-honoured constraint on activity but as a weapon to be employed to liberate and confirm the legal boundaries of our own freedom of action while bringing much-needed constraint to the malign activities of our enemies. The Government need to give serious thought as to what aspects of this legal offensive need prioritisation. This House, consisting as it does of far more legal minds the military ones, has a significant role to play, but unless global Britain can make a meaningful contribution to the re-establishment of internationally accepted norms of morality, truth and justice, some might seriously undermine the willingness of our people to fight for them.
My strong view is that this country has all the necessary skills to embark on lawfare. I hope that, within their stated intent to help shape the future international order, the Government have the political will to do so as well. I believe the amendment is a small step in the right direction and it has my unreserved support.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment and agree that there is an increasing need for clarity not just today but in the immediate future about the legality of, for example, remote aerial vehicle kinetic operations that involve loss of life, whether military, paramilitary or civilian. Many recent operations have been conducted on an asymmetric footing and not all perhaps with formal, clear-cut international approval. Of course, the right to self-defence is well understood, but how confident are we that emerging technologies in defence weapons systems and their oversight will remain invariably with a human in ultimate control? How it that to be maintained in order to comply with the present laws of conflict as new weapons systems with new technologies are deployed? Are the laws of conflict being overtaken by the possibilities of new types of lethal weapons systems?
Presumably the legality of a remote aerial vehicle operation applies to long-distance control from ships as well as to that from a land base that is remote geographically from the target. Does that base have to be on national territory? What if it is not? What if the operation of the remote vehicle is shared with an ally? How has the operation been approved? What justifications are required for an armed response or for initiating one?
What if the child of a non-combatant civilian accidentally killed by a remote kinetic strike subsequently grows up and seeks to sue the individual or individuals responsible for the control or authorisation of the attack that killed their parent? Will the loss or destruction of any official records of the attack be any sort of viable defence?
As technology moves defence capabilities forward, we will soon enter the era of loyal wingman UAVs and how they interact with their human control. Swarming mini drones are also emerging. There will soon be more, as novel digital technologies are exploited; for example, in the Tempest programme, although I do not have knowledge of secret projects.
The Armed Forces personnel—and this is the key point—involved in kinetic operations exploiting these novel technologies must have absolute clarity about the legal position in which they are required to operate. It is time to know more about how the Government are examining this issue, as I am sure they must be. It is time to be kept informed about the considerations of this complex legal issue as it evolves. Reports from the Secretary of State to Parliament are a must. A review, which should be already in hand, should be reported to Parliament.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise as a Liberal Democrat to support this amendment and, like the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to apologise that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is not able to be present in Committee today. He asked an Oral Question last week, to which the Minister responded:
“UK Armed Forces do not use systems that employ lethal force without context-appropriate human involvement.”—[Official Report, 1/11/21; col. 995.]
I was not sure that the Chamber fully understood what “context-appropriate human involvement” was. It was a phrase that the Minister used many times. I wonder if she could elaborate this afternoon a little more on what she meant and whether now might not be the time to think a little more about AI, machine learning and some of the forward-looking issues. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, pointed out, this would be a forward-looking aspect to the Bill. It is surely time for us to think about that, because the ethical and moral questions of people being killed by autonomous weapons that have a life of their own are unconscionable.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Browne, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Craig, for tabling this incredibly important and forward-thinking amendment and the ensuing debates around it. As we have heard, Amendment 59 seeks to force the Government to conduct
“a review of the implications of increasing autonomy associated with the use of artificial intelligence … for legal proceedings against armed forces personnel that arise from overseas operations, and produce recommendations for favourable legal environments for the United Kingdom’s armed forces operating overseas, including … how international and domestic legal frameworks governing overseas operations need to be updated in response to novel technologies”.
As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, this was first debated during the passage of the overseas operations Bill and, just like then, it is about future-proofing this legislation as well as ensuring protection for our personnel from the increased risks when using new technology. I understand my noble friend Lord Browne’s concerns about the mismatch between the need to be future-focused when it comes to technology and emerging threats, and the legislation we have in front of us.
Technology is not only changing the kinds of threats we face but changing warfare and overseas operations in general. Clive Baldwin of Human Rights Watch said that
“we are seeing a breakdown in what is the beginning and the end of an armed conflict, what is the battlefield and what decisions are made in which country … The artificial distinction of an overseas operation with a clear beginning, a clear theatre and a clear end is one that is very much breaking down.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 6/10/20; col. 67.]
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on how the Government view this and what changes they have in mind.
The Prime Minister was surely right, when giving his speech on the integrated review last year, when he said that technologies “will revolutionise warfare” and announced
“a new centre dedicated to artificial intelligence”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 489.]
and an RAF fighter system that will harness AI and drone technology. It sounds impressive—it is impressive—but, as my noble friend Lord Browne said, as military equipment gets upgraded, we do not know whether the Government necessarily plan to upgrade the legal frameworks for warfare and what this means for legal protections for our Armed Forces personnel.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I have added to my choreography before standing at the Dispatch Box: can I get a Polo mint in before the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, concludes? The answer is no. That is the first question I am able to answer.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for tabling Amendment 59, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Craig, and engages with the subject of novel technologies. It is a significant issue that merits discussion, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks.
There is no doubt that the increasing adoption of innovative technologies is changing how military operations are conducted. The noble Lords’ analysis—that we need to be particularly mindful of the legal ramifications—is hard to dispute. From the engagement that I and the department have had with the noble Lords, I know that they understand very well the broader complexities likely to be created by Defence use of AI and are anxious that we should address these issues both purposefully and systematically. This scrutiny and challenge is welcome, because we are grappling with questions and subjects that are indeed very complex.
I hope to reassure your Lordships that the department is alert to these issues and has worked extensively on them over the course of the last 18 months. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot set out details until these positions have been finalised, but work to set a clear direction of travel for defence AI, underpinned by proper policy and governance frameworks, has reached an advanced stage. Key to this is the defence AI strategy, which we hope to publish in the coming months, along with details of the approaches we will use when adopting and using AI. This commitment, which is included in the National AI Strategy, reflects the Government’s broader commitment that the public sector should set an example through how it governs its own use of the technology. Taken together, we intend that these various publications will give a much clearer picture than is currently available, because we recognise that these are important issues that attract a great deal of interest, and we need to be as transparent and engaged as possible.
Noble Lords asked pertinent questions. I think the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked some of these: where in the chain of command does responsibility for AI-related outcomes reside? When might the Government have an obligation to use AI to protect service personnel from harm? What are the military and moral consequences of machine-speed warfare? These are vital questions, and we recognise that we do not yet have all the answers.
Nor can we hope to arrive at these answers on our own. We have to persist in our engagement with our international partners and allies, and with our own public and civil society. It is perfectly legitimate for parliamentarians to take an interest in this subject, to ask questions and to table debates. I hope that our forthcoming publications will provide a solid platform for an ongoing effort of public engagement and efforts to enhance public understanding, subject to the usual caveats that may apply to the release of Defence information.
To turn to the subject of the proposed amendment, we are committed to ensuring that our Armed Forces personnel have the best possible care and protection, including protection against spurious legal challenges. I assure noble Lords that, regardless of the technologies employed, all new military capabilities are subject to a rigorous review process for compliance with international humanitarian law. Furthermore, we also adjust our operating procedures to ensure that we stay within the boundaries of the law that applies at the time.
International and domestic frameworks provide the same level of protection around the use of novel technologies as for conventional systems because their general principle is to focus on the action, rather than the tool. These frameworks therefore offer appropriate levels of protection for our personnel. Earlier this year, we acted to bolster this protection in historical cases, for example, through the overseas operations Act.
In respect of artificial intelligence, I have mentioned our forthcoming AI strategy and our plan to publish details of the approaches we will use when adopting and using AI. This is really where we come to the nub of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, put his finger on it, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I want to try to encapsulate what I hope will be a substantive and reassuring response to them all.
These approaches will not affect or supersede existing legal obligations, but they will ensure coherence across defence. They will also drive the creation of the policy frameworks and systems that, in practical terms, are needed to ensure that personnel researching, developing, delivering and operating AI-enabled systems have an appropriate understanding of those systems and can work with and alongside them in compliance with our various legal and policy frameworks.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, specifically referred to the NATO AI principles. Essentially, NATO’s position is that alliance members can sign up to these NATO-wide standards or they can produce their own to a similar standard. We support NATO’s leadership in the responsible use of artificial intelligence and, as I have indicated, we intend to publish details of our own approach in early course.
In addition, we will continue to engage internationally, including through the United Nations Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons, to promote consensus on international norms and standards for the use of new and emerging technologies on the battlefield, while continuing to act as a responsible leader in this area.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who asked about the phrasing I used in response to her noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s question last week. From memory, I said two things: first, the UK has no systems that could unilaterally employ lethal force without human involvement at some stage in the process. I think that I went on to say that, sharing the concerns of government, civil society and AI experts around the world, the UK opposes the creation and use of systems that would operate without context-appropriate human involvement. I think that is the phrase the noble Baroness sought clarification on.
The phrase means that a person is exercising some form of control over the effect of the use of the weapon in a way that satisfies international humanitarian law. This could be some form of control over the operation in real time, or it could be setting clear operational parameters for a system. I hope that that has been helpful to the noble Baroness in explaining what was behind the use of that phrase.
I have endeavoured to provide reassurance to noble Lords that the Ministry of Defence takes these matters very seriously, is already doing all that needs to be done, and is planning to be proactive in communicating our approach appropriately to Parliament and the public. On this basis, I suggest that the amendment is not needed.
I also say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and no sense of impertinence, that I do question the utility of requiring a review and a report. This will necessarily be only a snapshot; it will quickly become out of date when we are dealing with a rapidly evolving subject matter. Not to put too fine a point on it, the effort of staffing it risks reducing the capacity needed within the department for developing the extensive systems and frameworks that we need to ensure the proper handling of AI.
I must say that I have enjoyed this debate, as I always enjoy my engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Browne—but, for these reasons, I ask that he withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response to this debate and, with the indulgence of the Committee, I will refer to parts of her response. I was greatly appreciative of it all, but some parts I welcomed more than others.
I will start with the last point. The criticisms the Minister made about the vehicle that I tabled in order to have this debate was correct. It is implicit in the way I debate these issues that they are moving so fast that probably there is no point in time at which we could publish a report that would not quickly go out of date. I accept that. In fact, for that reason I wish that people, and sometimes senior military officers—but thankfully no British ones—would stop talking about a “race” for this technology. A race requires a line, and the development of this technology has no winning line that we know of.
In fact, the likelihood is that when we move to AGI, which is a hypothetical but likely development, whereby an intelligent agent understands or learns any intellectual task that a human being can, it may well be that we think we are at the line, but the machine does not think we are at the line and runs on and looks back at us and laughs. So I accept all of that but, at some point, we need to find a framework in which we in Parliament can connect with these issues—a methodology for the Government to report to Parliament, to the extent that they can, and for all of us to take responsibility, as we should, for asking our young people to go into situations of conflict, with the possibility that these weapons will be used, with all the implications.
So that is what I am seeking to get. I want a 24 year-old who is asked to take some responsibility in an environment in which these weapons are deployed to know with confidence that he or she is acting within the law. That is my shared responsibility with the Government; we need to find a way of doing that. This may be an imperfect way, but we may always be in an imperfect situation with a moving target. So I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. None of these debates answers any questions fully, but they all add to our collective knowledge.
I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, for his unqualified support. He took me slightly by surprise with the deployment of his eloquence to make the case for deploying the law as a weapon of war. I fear that I agree with him—I used to be a lawyer—but I will have to think long and carefully before I give him my unqualified support for that. However, I suspect that, as always, I will end up supporting what he said.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
“Age of recruitment
In section 328 of the AFA 2006 (enlistment), in subsection (2)(c), omit “without the consent of prescribed persons.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes 18 as the minimum age for recruitment into the UK armed forces.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 61 and 62 consider the minimum age for recruitment into the UK Armed Forces. Amendment 61 would establish it as 18. Amendment 62 would ensure that soldiers aged under 18 were not required to serve for a longer period than adult personnel.
Noble Lords may remember the efforts of my late noble and much-loved friend, Lord Judd, who fought to change the situation with regard to the recruitment of under-18s. I am honoured to resume his campaign and hope that progress can be made. He would have reminded us—I shall do so, therefore—that people under 18 are actually children. We should not forget that. Today I am honoured and delighted to have support for these amendments from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. They all have great expertise in children’s issues and are passionate in supporting children’s rights. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords and, of course, the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard. I thank the Child Rights International Network for its help and support.
I have tabled these amendments due to concern about the rights and welfare of children. I have worked for many years with children—that is, people under the age of 18. Thankfully, we now have a much better understanding, thanks to research and experience, of the teenage brain and behaviour. This knowledge of the brain can help us understand the mental and emotional health of those under 18, and how those develop. Children mature at different rates and the ability of a 16 year-old to make decisions about, for example, life choices may lack the necessary maturity. The younger children are, the more vulnerable they are. Some children will thrive as recruits—we know that—but others may not.
The Minister may point to the opportunities available in the Army for young recruits who might otherwise be unemployed, but circumstances have changed and the new circumstances must be taken account of. It is now the norm for young people to stay in full-time education beyond the statutory school leaving age of 16. This includes those whom the Army targets for recruitment. Four out of five of the most disadvantaged young people in England now stay in full-time education after their GCSEs. In fact, the policy of enlisting at 16 draws young people out of full-time education. The Army is now competing not with the dole office for its underage recruits but, as its officers acknowledge, with schools and colleges.
Every year the Armed Forces enlist around 3,000 young people aged 16 or 17. Most join the Army, which tends to recruit from deprived neighbourhoods. Military recruitment at 16 is now highly unusual internationally. Three-quarters of countries worldwide now allow only adults to be enlisted. A few other NATO member states still recruit at 17 in small numbers, but the UK is the only country in Europe, and the only NATO military power, still allowing its Armed Forces to enlist 16 year-olds. Indeed, we appear to be the only country in the world to rely so heavily on that age group to fill the ranks. In the British Army, more new soldiers of 16 than any other age group—
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She places significant importance on her research. I simply seek some reassurance from her, and perhaps the other proposers of the amendment, that they have actually been to the Army Foundation College in Harrogate and talked about these issues with the young people to find out what has motivated them to join the military.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I shall mention this later. I have not visited that college myself. I know people who have and I know an organisation that has visited quite regularly. I will come on to that later. If the noble Lord is not satisfied then, I will try to give some more information.
I was saying that more new soldiers are recruited at 16 than from any other age group in the UK. I am aware that some join due to instability in their lives—I have known several of those—such as divorcing parents, or unhappiness at school or in their communities. The 16 year-olds who enlist sign a binding contract. Its terms of service are so restrictive that they could not be imposed on any person of any age in any other walk of life, with or without consent.
A 16 year-old has no right at all to leave the Army in the first six weeks, which corresponds with the most stressful period of their training. Then the recruit may leave. They are subject only to a notice period of between two weeks and three months. From the day that recruit turns 18, they have no right to leave the Army for the next four years. That means that the 16 year-old recruit is subject to a minimum period of service of up to two years longer than recruits who enlist as adults, whose four-year minimum term is counted from the day they enlist, rather than from their 18th birthday. In effect, a soldier’s service before they turn 18 is not counted, when plainly it should be. An 18 year-old recruit who serves for four years can leave the Army. A 16 year-old recruit who serves the same duration cannot.
The second amendment seeks to end that discrimination. Although the High Court has ruled that the Army is entitled to discriminate in this way, the basic principle of fairness—and, I suggest, common sense—demands otherwise. Indeed, even the Army says that the change would, to quote its junior entry review,
“provide greater consistency to U18 recruits”.
That is the Army saying that.
It is important to know that under-18s are not normally deployed on hostile operations, but that they will be during training is a matter of serious concern; here I come on to the noble Lord’s intervention. The Army’s youngest recruits undergo their initial soldier training at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate. As is well publicised, the institution has an “outstanding” grade from Ofsted, awarded again this year. But Ofsted does not grade the Army Foundation College on the same basis as civilian schools. The outstanding grade is awarded not for the education on offer, which amounts to less than one day per week, but for the welfare arrangements. Despite this, the Army recorded an extraordinary 60 allegations of abuse of recruits by staff at this college between 2014 and 2020. The allegations include assault and battery. They are all on the Army’s record and officers are aware of them, but they are absent from the Ofsted inspection reports, including the latest report this year.
The situation facing girls is of particular concern. Freedom of information requests show that since 2015, 41 girls aged under 18 in the Armed Forces have made formal complaints of rape or other sexual assault to the service police. This is equivalent to a rate of 2.5%—one in every 40 girls in the forces. This is twice the reported rate of sexual abuse for girls of the same age group in civilian life.
The Child Rights International Network has collected some testimonies from parents of former recruits at the Army Foundation College. They have shown great courage in speaking out about their children’s treatment. The father of a former recruit at the college writes:
“[My son] had been bullied verbally [by staff]; he and the other recruits were talked down to, called [the c-word and the f-word] constantly … [we had a] fraught and stressful negotiation to get our son out.”
A mother says:
“[My son] struggles to talk about what happened … but we know that staff bullied and abused the young recruits … [My son] is a completely different person since his time at Harrogate. He has attempted suicide and his mental health is permanently damaged.”
Another mother said that her boy was,
“hit, slapped, pushed, kicked and verbally abused by staff. He told me his request”
to leave the army
“was ripped up in his face. He was only 17 years old and devastated at not being able to leave … My son died last year while still serving in the army.”
This is abuse, and these are shocking testimonies concerning young people placed in a care of an institution that has a clear legal and moral duty to safeguard them from harm. One can only imagine what would happen to a civilian school or college, whatever its Ofsted grade, with so many allegations of violent abuse to students.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, to which I have added my name. I have done so because of my concerns about the well-being of young people and because I am not convinced that there are sufficient benefits in allowing the enlistment of young people of 16 or 17 rather than 18. Evidence and personal experience tell me that there is not.
I speak because of the experience of a member of my own family, so I know a story inside out, but I have also spoken to a number of parents whose children were recruited under the age of 18—and I have heard some very similar stories those described by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in her speech. I have no doubt that, for some early leavers recruited below the age of 18, the mental damage can take years to recover from. These recruits have the legal status as children and are entitled in law under safeguarding legislation to be protected from harm as far as possible.
There are a number of other reasons why I question this policy. Younger recruits suffer from very high drop-out rates. Official statistics show that, once enlisted, 30% of the Army’s under-18 recruits leave or are dismissed before they finish their training. They can find themselves out of work and education within months of joining, and these discharged recruits are not tracked, so we cannot speculate on how they fare after they leave the military. That being said, it would not be unreasonable to say that, had the option of joining up not been available, they would have stayed in full-time education, taken an apprenticeship or worked part time while undertaking a qualification. We are talking about not some small, troubled minority who failed to adapt adequately to military service, but nearly a third of all junior recruits. That is affecting some 700 young people a year, according to the Child Rights International Network.
According to data from 2011 to 2014, of those junior recruits who stay on to complete their training and enlist fully, an additional 10% drop out at the age of 22, the minimum length of service. This gives a total retention percentage beyond the age of 22 of around 63% for all those who enlisted below the age of 18. Furthermore, data from 2017 to 2019 shows that only one in five recruits enlisted under the age of 18 are still in the Army 10 years later, compared with one in four adult recruits.
Surely this makes little sense for the Army, which allocates huge amounts of time and resources to recruit so many under-18s only for such a large proportion to either leave prematurely or complete just the minimum required service. The Ministry of Defence’s own data shows that adult recruits aged 18 or above are more likely to finish their training. Hence, it makes economic sense apart from anything else for the Army to focus its efforts on older recruits, especially given that the MoD admits that adult recruits cost half as much to train.
As I have mentioned, there are also concerns surrounding the long-term mental health outcomes of those who join up early. A recent study led by Glasgow University comparing the long-term outcomes of junior entrants with civilians of the same age and background found that junior entrants since 1995 were between two and three times more likely to develop long-term PTSD. This is significant because PTSD has been found, in a range of studies, to co-occur with depression and addictive behaviours, including substance and alcohol misuse and gambling disorders. This point is reinforced further by a study led by King’s College London, which reviewed the mental health of veterans who had originally enlisted as junior entrants. Since 2003, junior entrants were twice as likely to develop alcohol misuse and twice as likely to report episodes of lifetime self-harm compared with veterans who had enlisted at older ages.
Even if these are afflictions that affect junior recruits in adulthood, any reasonable duty of care must consider the long-term consequences of a particular policy. Since around the turn of the millennium, the youngest recruits to the Armed Forces have been substantially more likely than older recruits, and more likely than civilians of the same age and social background, to develop mental health problems in the longer term.
I am sure that some might prefer to focus on the fact that this problem has emerged since the late 1990s. The slur “snowflake” has been used to tar a generation some believe are overly sensitive and unable to overcome adversity. But the reality surely is that, regardless of our approach to young people, the problems young recruits face are real and have serious long-term impacts. In an age of heightened awareness about mental health, old mantras such as “toughen up” fail to alleviate the damaging consequences of junior enlistment.
The evidence I have been trying to outline in favour of these amendments points to a real problem with the policy of recruiting at such a young age. Seeing as most other countries can manage by recruiting adults, surely the UK should have no problem either. For those 16 or 17 year-olds who would have eagerly joined the military, if they are still passionate about doing so at 18, the option is still available to them. They will be entering with greater life experience and a greater chance of success both in the military and in their subsequent civilian life.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the last time I spoke on this issue was in support of my late noble friend Lord Judd, who, as my noble friend Lady Massey said, was much admired and loved—and, I would add, is much missed. He brought to issues such as this his passion for social justice, which was unrivalled in your Lordships’ House. That said, my noble friend has made a powerful case today in introducing these amendments. Like her, I come to the issue from a children’s rights perspective and am grateful for the briefing from the Child Rights International Network.
I apologise that I could not attend the Second Reading debate but, reading it, it seemed that the Minister was rather flippant in her response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, when she raised this issue. The Minister dismissed the term she used, “child soldiers”, as
“a term that few of us in this Chamber recognise”.—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 775.]
Perhaps so but it acts as a reminder that we are talking about children, as defined by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as has already been emphasised. The Minister may wish to point out that the convention does not prohibit enlistment of children under the age of 18. But the body which monitors compliance with the convention, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, has repeatedly called on the UK to raise the minimum age of recruitment to 18. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has in the past, including when I was a member, also questioned government policy on this matter from a human rights perspective.
The UN committee will be reviewing the UK’s progress on children’s rights again next year and has already flagged up Armed Forces recruitment in the list of issues that the review will examine. It has asked the Government to explain what steps they have taken to raise the enlistment age since the last review in 2016. The committee has also asked whether the minimum period of service for recruits aged under 18 is still longer than for adult recruits—a discrimination that Amendment 62 seeks to end. Surely we wish to be able to point to progress in this area since the last review.
As my noble friend underlined, it is important to remember the international context. She pointed to a clear positive trend: half a century ago, it was normal for state armed forces to recruit children; in most parts of the world, including Europe, it is now abnormal. This is a seismic shift at a global level that has already safeguarded countless adolescent children from the harm associated with joining the armed forces too early. Increasingly, the global consensus that children should be safeguarded from military work is denying political cover to less scrupulous countries than our own and armed groups which otherwise have no qualms about sending child soldiers into combat.
We have an opportunity here. A global ban on the use of children for military purposes used to be a pipe dream. Now, it is at least imaginable. At the moment, the UK follows the lowest legally permissible standard in the world by allowing enlistment from age 16, lagging behind others when we could be helping to lead the way—and it can be done. Noble Lords here will know much more about this than I do but, in contrast to the Army, the RAF and Navy do not recruit many under-18s. Historically, the Army has said that it needs younger recruits just to fill the ranks and when the issue was last debated, the then Minister—the noble Earl, Lord Howe—explained that the under-18s represented 15% of the Army’s inflow, which I found rather shocking. Given that the Army has downsized and, as I understand it, is continuing to do so, surely it does not need underage recruits any more. Can the Minister give us some up-to-date information on the trends in recruitment of those under 18, including what proportion of inflow they represent now?
It would seem that the transition to an all-adult Army could now be within easy reach. For the protection of children’s rights, here in the UK and globally, it is a step we should take.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support the amendment of my friend and fellow member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading. At that point I had not had the irresistible invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, to support her on this. She and I have form when it comes to working on children’s rights. I put on the record that I am a governor of Coram, the oldest children’s charity in the United Kingdom, dating from 1739.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Amendment 61, which would effectively prohibit the enlistment of persons under the age of 18. I, for one, certainly am not ashamed that we give young people these life opportunities. I say to the noble Lords who have proposed this amendment that many of what they seem to have taken as facts I simply do not recognise: presumably they have been published by organisations opposed to this. I am happy to give way to be corrected, but the one cohort they do not seem to have engaged with is the young people themselves at the Army Foundation College. Has anybody been to the Army Foundation College? No, no one has. That is a disappointment. Perhaps I could ask noble Lords to at least consider going to visit the college.
Slightly tongue in cheek, I say to the right reverend Prelate, on his concerns about what is an appropriate age to recruit young people into an organisation, that I think I was 14 years old when I was recruited into the Church of England, effectively, through confirmation. I have no idea what is now the minimum age to be confirmed in the Church of England, but I am happy to give way for him to tell me.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I would say that we are not asking our confirmation candidates to enter into armed conflict. It is a very different thing when we talk about membership of clubs, the Church or whatever. We have laid out our concerns about this very strange period when young people are growing up because, right across Europe and most of the world, we are absolutely clear that these are children who we are asking to undertake an adult task. That is the concern I bring—but I am happy to have further conversations.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
That is a reasonable point, but none the less, the Church of England is actively targeting young people of a certain age to be recruited into an organisation. Okay, I say that slightly tongue in cheek, but there could be a discussion of what age is appropriate for young people to make an informed decision.
I begin by reminding your Lordships that there is no compulsory recruitment into the Armed Forces. All those under the age of 18 are volunteers, and we should take pride in the fact that our Armed Forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people while in service, as well as after they leave.
The Armed Forces remain the UK’s largest apprenticeship provider, equipping young people with valuable and transferable skills for life. I declare an interest, because I applied to join the Army before the age of 18. I went through a regular commissions board and made an informed choice to join the Army when I was still a minor. Although I did not attend Sandhurst until shortly after my 18th birthday—a short course for the type of commission I was undertaking—I recall my time in the regular Army when I was a teenager with great pride and a sense of satisfaction. That may well be in part due to my posting to Hong Kong, where I received both a formal military education and a rather less formal liberal education in life—but that is another matter.
The minimum age for entry into the UK Armed Forces reflects the normal school leaving age of 16, but recognises, through the training offered, that participation in education or structured training remains mandatory until 18. In the services, all recruits who enlist as minors and do not hold full level 3 qualifications are enrolled on an apprenticeship scheme, unless their trade training attracts higher-level qualifications. All undertake structured professional education as part of their initial military training, and therefore automatically fulfil their duty to participate under the various education Acts. Many individuals who join under the age of 18 are not academic high achievers, although some are, and the duty of care and training that the Armed Forces provide enhance their self-esteem and prospects for the whole of their working life, within or without the services.
Let me be clear: our military is full of service men and women who freely admit that, had it not been for the structure, education and discipline that service life offered them as 16 year-olds, it is highly likely that their lives would have led them down an entirely different and less positive path. Joining the military at 18 would have simply been too late for them to make that positive change of direction in their lives.
In my experience, the military fully recognises the special duty of care that it owes to under-18s, and commanding officers continue to have that made clear to them. The recruiting policy is absolutely clear. No one under the age of 18 can join the Armed Forces without formal parental consent, which is checked twice during the application process. In addition, parents and guardians are positively encouraged to engage with recruiting staff during the process. Once accepted into service, under-18s have the right to automatic discharge at any time until their 18th birthday. All new recruits who are under the age of 18 and have completed 28 days’ service have a right of discharge within their first three to six months of service if they decide that a career in the Armed Forces is not for them. It is simply not in the interest of either the individual or the service to force them to stay where they are not happy to be.
MoD policy is not to deploy personnel under the age of 18 on operations. Service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on any operation outside the UK, except where the operation does not involve them becoming engaged in or exposed to hostilities. There is evidence to suggest that those joining at a younger age remain in service for longer and that under-18s in the Army achieve higher performance based on their earlier promotion. Evidence clearly shows that junior entrants are likely to serve longer and to achieve higher rank than some senior entrants, so the additional costs incurred in their training that noble Lords have mentioned reap considerable benefits for the service, the individual and society as a whole.
The services are among the largest training providers in the UK, with excellent completion and achievement rates. Armed Forces personnel are offered genuine progression routes which allow them to develop, gain qualifications and play a fuller part in society—whether in the Armed Forces or the civilian world. In the naval service and the Royal Air Force, initial military training is conducted on single-service sites and, because of the smaller scale, no distinction needs to be made in the training provided to those under 18. In the Army, phase 1 training for under-18s, the basic military training course, is completed at the Army Foundation College, where the facilities have been specifically designed for this age group. The training courses last either 23 or 49 weeks, both of which are longer than the basic over-18 course and dependent on the length of the subsequent specialist training.
The MoD’s duty of care policy for under-18 entrants is laid down in a defence instruction and covers the duty of care obligations of commanding officers. This is constantly updated, and I am the first to admit that I am probably now out of date, since I have left being a Minister for two years, but I am sure that my noble friend in her response will update the Committee on some of its current components to offer some reassurance as to how the military deals with that duty of care.
Equally, as I have mentioned, all recruits enlisted as minors who do not hold full level 3 qualifications are enrolled on an apprenticeship scheme, unless their trade training attracts higher-level qualifications. For example, as a Royal Engineer I trained to be a bricklayer and an electrician. The time taken to complete their apprenticeship varies according to the programme being followed, but completion rates are high. Additionally, while in service all Armed Forces personnel—subject to meeting certain qualification criteria—can claim financial support for education under the standard learning credit scheme and enhanced learning credit scheme.
To conclude, I believe that under-18s who chose to join the Armed Forces are an important and valuable cohort among those starting their military career. The MoD invests strongly in them and they repay that investment with longer service and higher achievement. The duty of care for that cohort is paramount and establishments are regularly inspected by Ofsted and achieve consistently good or outstanding gradings. The training and education are clearly first class and MoD policies on under-18s in service are robust and comply with national and international law.
Crucially to me—and I have seen this time and time again—joining the Armed Forces provides prestigious and respected career opportunities for young men and women who may not have achieved the same in civilian life. But there is no need to take my word for it. I would encourage any noble Lord seeking to support this amendment to visit the Army Foundation College in Harrogate and speak to the young service men and women themselves—because it is, after all, their future we are debating.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Well, perhaps he might respond as this is Committee stage. I pay tribute to the Army training, because the noble Lord is certainly able to follow a brief and read it in a fairly military fashion and in a straight line. But if this is such a good idea, if it is so effective and productive for the children who enter the Army at the age of 16, why are we one of the very few countries in the world, and the only military force within NATO, to do this? What do we know that they do not? Why have we got it right and why have they got it wrong?
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I think the evidence speaks for itself. I have attempted to outline some of that evidence, bearing in mind that for those first two years we offer first-rate training. We are the largest apprenticeship provider in the United Kingdom. We are giving life opportunities to young people who, without that discipline or training, may well have followed a different path. I am convinced through my experience of 33 years in the military, of visiting this college and of meeting young people who have been through their careers, will look me in the face and say, “Had it not been for joining the military, I would have ended up doing something awful on the streets of Portsmouth or London, or wherever. It is only through the opportunity that the military gave me at a young age that I became the man or woman that I have.” That, away from the MoD’s passion for young people, has to be the best reason why this should continue.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to both amendments. I thank my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen for tabling them. My noble friends Lady Massey and Lady Lister and I are doing our level best, in his absence, to do justice to our recently deceased, much-loved and greatly missed noble friend Lord Judd, who was a person of the greatest integrity and enormous kindness, in the context of an issue which was very dear to his heart. But that is not why I want to speak to these amendments.
When I was Secretary of State for Defence, I attended a passing-out parade for young recruits and, on occasions, spent time with the young recruits themselves and those who were training them. I invariably enjoyed a morning of meeting recruits, their families and the Army training and welfare staff. Among other matters, we talked about some of the social challenges that these young people faced. On each occasion—this was some time ago—I left with an overwhelming feeling that the Army offers many young people an accessible alternative at a time when some could quite easily drift down another path; a point which the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, made repeatedly and which I think is not lost on your Lordships’ Committee.
Of course, the discussion was almost exclusively about how the Army had provided for these young people, often from very poor socioeconomic backgrounds, an opportunity to find meaning in their lives and to develop comradeship and interpersonal skills, as well as training them for a variety of trades—opportunities which may have been difficult for them to obtain otherwise. I admit all of that. I wish I had access then to the research I have now read because I would not have asked the young people these questions. I would have asked the people who were training them and responsible for them, and who had recruited them, many different questions. I now have access to this research, which I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, dismisses with a wave of his hand, saying that it clearly is being done by people who have a vested interest—as he does, of course.
Frankly, I have much experience of personal experiences which have been contradicted by the truth. I would, in the face of this peer-reviewed research, not be conceited enough to make the case that my short experience, which has never been peer reviewed or tested properly, was a better basis for public policy than that research. That is the point I want to make in this debate.
My attention has been drawn to the work of King’s College, which found that violent, sexual and drug-related offending increases after enlistment and then rises again before first deployment. My attention has been drawn to two recent studies by the University of Glasgow—my alma mater and hardly an institution which has some grudge against the Army or its practice of recruiting young people, but which has, like King’s College, an enviable academic record and an insistence that before any work is published it is properly and rigorously peer reviewed—which found that the mental health outcomes of junior entrants give further cause for concern. The Glasgow study found that PTSD among veterans who enlisted before 1995 was between two and three times more common than among civilians from the same social background.
In the face of these recent reports, it is hardly surprising that many people are calling for an end to the UK’s policy of permitting 16 year-olds to join the military, but I am asking for an urgent rethink. I press this upon the Minister. I will not rehearse all the many good arguments as to why this reconsideration ought to conclude with a termination of the policy, but my conclusion is that the case for consideration of raising the minimum age is comprehensive. It is built on medical evidence, sound logic and, much more importantly, ethical standards.
Beyond those recruited to the Army, adolescence is known as a time when the brain and the ability to make well-reasoned decisions are still developing. Why would we ask young people to make a decision of this importance when their brain is still developing? Of course we ask young people to make all sorts of decisions that affect what they do in the rest of their life, but this is a very special decision because of what the Army does. It means that teenagers recruited to the Army are more likely to be acting on impulse than making a fully informed decision about their future. I say no more; I do not say that every one of them is but they are more likely to be. That is enough to make me hesitate. It means that they are also less likely, although it is not impossible, to withstand the physical and emotional strains of military life and training. Young people who have experienced childhood adversity are also more likely to develop mental health problems in the Army.
There is credible research on all of this. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, invites each of us to visit a particular institution. I invite him to read the research with an open mind. I will be confounded if he does not come to the conclusion that there is a serious issue. One study found that three-quarters of military personnel have suffered two or more instances of childhood adversity and that factors such as younger age, lower educational attainment and serving in the Army were all linked with higher vulnerability to depression and anxiety. I understand that that might be because of what we ask these people to do and what we subject them to in order to keep us secure. That is their service to us and it has consequences for them. We have to ask ourselves, however: at what point in their maturity is it more likely that they will make the right decision to commit their lives to do that? All I ask is that we consider what that time is.
There are, of course, logical flaws in the policy of 16 year-olds joining the Army. It is inconsistent with other legal age limits. Supposedly 16 year-olds are not mature enough to vote but they still can make life-changing decisions about their future. They cannot purchase knives but they can learn to use lethal weapons. Perhaps the greatest irony is that the sale of certain military videogames is prohibited to under-18s. That is not at the heart of my argument, but there are these inconsistencies. This is not the only case where an age limit that we apply to activity appears arbitrary and illogical.
In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about what age we should choose: any age we choose is arbitrary because each of these young people—these children—is an individual. If we could find some way to measure their maturity and their ability to go through what they will go through, that would be a far greater way to decide whether they were ready to be recruited to the Army, but we cannot. It was tried and it proved to be ineffective.
Surely, if we are satisfied, on the incontrovertible evidence, that it is far less likely that we will expose young people who are actually not fit for this if we wait until they are 18 instead of doing it when they are 16, that is a very compelling reason for moving the age from 16 to 18. I am not suggesting that those arguments ought to convince the Government to go back on this policy; there are many others. But surely the time has come, now that we have this knowledge, to do what noble Lords in this Committee have repeatedly asked the Minister to do—to expand on the research until we can make the best judgment we can with what we have available to us about this. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that it should be to stop recruiting young people at scale into the Army at 16 years of age.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I apologise, but I had not finished—it was a dramatic pregnant pause that misled the noble Baroness.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
It is not a preface. I want to turn to Amendment 62, for a couple of paragraphs. The amendment would ensure that
“soldiers aged under 18 are not required to serve for a longer period than adult personnel.”
In my view, the amendment addresses an issue that is just wrong—we just should not be keeping people who signed at 16 in the Army longer than people who signed at 18, just because of their age. There is no justification for that discrimination, in my view. It is an abuse of their rights; they should be treated the same as everybody else, and we should simply get rid of their distinction. I have finished now.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the dramatic pause of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was going to interrupt if I had not.
It is unusual to get to the final group of amendments and suddenly discover the most heated debate of the whole Bill. That is clearly were we are today. Clearly, the concept of child soldiers, which the Minister said at Second Reading that she did not recognise, is emotive. If one talks about “child soldiers”, it gives a very strong sense of children running around, perhaps recruited by being stolen away from their families by regimes that would be seen as unsavoury. The recruitment of 16 and 17 year-olds in the United Kingdom is somewhat different.
With some of the arguments in favour of Amendment 61, there was a sense that somehow people were being forced to join—that the Army is so determined that it needs more young people, and it can fill its ranks only if it recruits 16 and 17 year-olds. But nobody is forcing 16 year-olds to join the Army; it is voluntary recruitment, and they can do so only with parental agreement.
I am not as passionate as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, in saying that I am not persuaded by Amendment 61. On these Benches, our defence spokesperson in the House of Commons, Jamie Stone, and I discussed these amendments at an earlier stage. We were encouraged to table such amendments, but neither of us felt that we wished to do so, because there are some benefits to the current arrangements.
We heard clearly from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, about certain problems at Harrogate. Like other noble Lords, perhaps with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, I have not visited Harrogate. I would be extremely happy to do so if the Minister can arrange a visit, because I think it would be important to do so.
We have heard some horrifying-sounding statistics about things that have allegedly happened at Harrogate. However, on an earlier group of amendments we were looking at the report from the House of Commons Defence Committee and some of the issues facing particularly female soldiers—recruited, presumably, after 18. Those statistics were also horrifying. If we were to say that a higher level of abuse or sexual harassment should lead us to say, “Away with Harrogate; away with recruiting child soldiers”, we could almost be getting ourselves to the point of asking why we are recruiting to Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. I do not think we should conflate two things. If there are issues associated with the Army Foundation College at Harrogate, they should be dealt with separately from the principle of whether it is acceptable to recruit people at 16.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I did sit down; I apologise.
On Amendment 62, like other noble Lords, I can see no justification for saying that somebody recruited at 16 should be required to stay in for longer than people recruited at any other age. I really have finished now.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am a bit nervous of standing up.
I will make some brief remarks, if noble Lords will bear with me. It is somewhat strange for me: my noble friend Lady Massey, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and I have spent years campaigning on children’s rights and on 100% of occasions have been exactly as one on all these issues. I therefore fully understand the proposal outlined in Amendment 61, but I have always been persuaded by the argument that has been put forward: for some young people in some situations, recruitment into the Army at 16 offers a way out of the situation in which they have found themselves. It is often a desperate situation—not for all the recruits at 16, but certainly for a number of them.
I was persuaded by this as much as anything. Most of the schools I taught in for 20 years before becoming a Member of Parliament and then joining your Lordships’ House were in the most deprived and desperate communities. One of the options available to those young people was the Armed Forces. Indeed, we used to use the uniformed organisations, admittedly not the Army, but certainly organisations such as the cadets, the Scouts and the Guides, if it was girls, to try to instil some structure into completely chaotic lives. I have always felt that, in some situations, recruitment at 16 gave some young people an opportunity that they otherwise would not have had. I have always been persuaded by that argument and certainly that is our position formally from the Front Bench.
I do not want to get into an “I have done this and other people have not” discussion but I have been to the college at Harrogate—not that you have to go to places like that to have a legitimate or honest opinion. I went there when I was shadow Secretary of State a number of years ago and it was fantastic. It was brilliant and the experience of the young people and the dedication of the Army personnel who were responsible for them was first rate. The young people talked openly about their experience there. You can be cynical about it and say that they were set up to do it and they would not say anything else because they would be worried about getting in trouble, but I did not feel that, to be honest. Maybe I was duped—who knows? However, I felt when I was there that those young people expressed a view that supported the fact that they were allowed to be recruited at 16.
I know that there are very deeply held views on both sides on this. They will cut across party lines, probably. As I have said, I am completely persuaded and always have been by that argument that it creates opportunity. That is the position that the Front Bench of Her Majesty’s Opposition have at present.
There are concerns and I think the Minister would say that some of the allegations that have come out need to be addressed. Some of the statistics from the report quoted by my noble friend Lady Massey are concerning. We need to understand the rights and wrongs of the bullying and of the sexual allegations. We need to get to the root of that. As Amendment 62 points out, maybe there is something there that needs to be looked at.
A very serious debate has taken place here and people have very deeply held views. It is a debate that has been going on for decades about whether it is right to recruit young people at that age because they are too young, or whether is it right to create an environment in which they can join at that age if they are properly supported, protected. They are looked after but they are given an opportunity that were it not available to them there would be significant problems in their lives. That opportunity should be made available to them, but that then puts an added responsibility on all of us to ensure that they are properly cared for and properly looked after as part of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
First, I can say to all contributors that, wherever one comes from in relation to this debate, this was a cracking debate. It was really interesting, with genuinely thought-provoking contributions from all round the Committee. I thank contributors for that.
The subjects under discussion are, essentially, fairly simple to understand. To look at these two relatively small amendments is perhaps misleading, because they are the genesis of the content that is the trigger for the debate. Essentially, we have amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, with Amendment 61 supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. Amendment 62 is once more supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.
These amendments seek to raise the age of recruitment to the Armed Forces to 18 and to ensure that those recruited while under the age of 18 serve the same period of time as those who enlisted at the age of 18. To be honest, what I have detected is a fundamental philosophical divergence: the proposers and supporters of Amendment 61 think that such recruitment is bad; the Government take a different view. I will try to address the concerns articulated by your Lordships in the course of the debate.
I want to be clear about one thing: we comply with the law. We are not in breach of the law in doing what we do. We remain clear that junior entry offers a range of benefits to the individual, the Armed Forces and society, providing a highly valuable vocational training opportunity for those wishing to follow a career in the Armed Forces. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lancaster, who spoke eloquently and authoritatively from a very personal standpoint as to the merit he sees in this system. That opinion should weigh with us.
What I am very happy to do—if others want to respond to this, I am more than happy to support that—is facilitate a visit to the Army Foundation College at Harrogate. I offer to join that visit myself. I, too, have not visited that college, but I would be very happy to do so. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who specifically asked whether I would be prepared to do that. I hope that, following the impressive marketing strategy from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, relating to the foundation college, there will be a good take-up of this invitation. I will take that away, engage with those who might be interested in attending and see whether we can get a visit to Yorkshire sorted out.
A number of noble Lords quite rightly raised our duty of care in Defence. We take our duty of care for entrants under 18 extremely seriously. Close attention has understandably been given to this subject in recent years, especially after the tragic deaths at Deepcut. We have robust, effective and independently verified safeguards in place to ensure that under-18s are cared for properly.
I will give a little more detail on that. Mental health and well-being are a priority across Defence and all training establishments. We are clear that the duty of care to all our recruits, in particular those aged under 18, is of the utmost importance, and that those aged under 18 should be treated with special consideration. The 2020-21 Ofsted report, Welfare and Duty of Care in Armed Forces Initial Training, noted the well-co-ordinated care and welfare arrangements for regular and reserve recruits and trainees. At the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, Ofsted was particularly impressed by the strong ethos of emotional and psychological safety, as well as the high standards of all facilities and accommodation. The AFCH has dedicated safeguarding, mental health and well-being leads to support students while they are at the college.
As others have indicated, the provision of education and training for 16 year-old school leavers provides a route into the Armed Forces that complies with the law and government education policy while providing a significant foundation for emotional, physical and educational development throughout an individual’s career. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. She made a very balanced contribution and acknowledged her acceptance of these virtues.
As others have said, there is no compulsory recruitment into the Armed Forces. Our recruiting policy is absolutely clear. No one under the age of 18 can join the Armed Forces without formal parental consent, and that is checked twice during the application process. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, adduced an example and thought it would be extremely undesirable if the individual whom he envisaged were to go into the Armed Forces but, presumably, in that situation, parental consent would not be given, and one could understand why not. In addition, parents and guardians are positively encouraged to be engaged with the recruiting staff during the process. As has been acknowledged, service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on hostile operations outside the UK, or on operations where they may be exposed to hostilities.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
On Amendment 62, can the Minister answer this deceptively simple question? Why do the Army, in their regulations regarding the minimum service period, discriminate against younger recruits? On the issue of whether this is legal, I am not arguing that it is illegal—but will the Minister confirm for the record that the only reason why this discrimination, which would be unlawful in civilian life, is lawful, is because the Armed Forces benefit from an exemption from the Equality Act 2010 which was put there to allow them to continue to discriminate?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think I can add nothing more to what I have already provided by way of an explanation for how that system works and why it is there, and why we do not believe that it is as discriminatory as the noble Lord indicates. However, I am happy to look at his remarks in Hansard and see whether I can provide him with a fuller response.
In conclusion, I thank your Lordships for all contributions. I genuinely thought that it was an extremely interesting debate, and I have welcomed the thoughts from contributors all around the Room.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I have about 10 pages of notes here, which I shall go through very slowly. I joke, of course—it is late.
First, I thank the Minister for her extended response. I should love to meet her, and I should also like to bring others with me to that meeting, because I think we all have a variety of experiences on this—they are very different. We are almost at some sort of philosophically possibly permanent divide. I know where I stand and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, knows where he stands, and possibly never the twain shall meet. But perhaps they will.
I will say a little about some of the comments by my very dear noble friend Lord Coaker, who talked about children joining the guides or scouts. They are not forced to join them, obviously, and can also not go if they do not want to. You cannot do that in the army, so it is a different situation. Sorry about that, Vernon.
In trying to make any comments of any sense, I can only say what I would like next from this debate. It has been a super debate, it has been really interesting and exciting, with very good speeches from my friend the right reverend Prelate, my noble friend Lady Lister, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who are all clearly where I am—on the side of the rights of the child, child protection and welfare. That was my focus: child protection and child welfare.
We perhaps all need to seriously look at—I do not mean in depth, just some summaries—the new research coming out about children’s brains. It is very extensive and scientific. We have to accept from this research that the teenage brain develops at different levels in different children. However, there are trends, and 16 is generally too low an age to accurately make decisions or predict what you want to have in life. I was a teacher—as was my noble friend Lord Coaker—a long time ago. I do not think we knew all this stuff then. We knew that children were different, but we did not have all this scientific input about the development of the brain. I am grateful for it. I have just read a wonderful book about it, and I am really grateful we have it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said that the Armed Forces can equip children with skills for life. Yes, they can, but so can other places. I cannot accept that equipping people with skills for life should include such joys as I have heard—I have not quoted all the stories I have heard—about the not-so-good parts of Harrogate. I would love to go to Harrogate with the Minister or anybody else. I am very aware that institutions can gloss over things. I have been in schools, so I know that when you have an Ofsted inspection you would not think there were naughty children there, or anything is wrong, you would just believe what you were told. You were often not invited to interview children. It is absolutely key that children must be interviewed, and parents should give their views as well, to have a complete spectrum of what is going on in an institution.
I keep talking about the rights of children. We should respect the international agreements, that we have not just made but endorsed, about the rights of children as embedded in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a hugely important document; we do not know enough about it and we should take more account of it. My noble friend Lady Lister was quite right to bring out the awful reports from the committee on our attention as a country to youth justice and the rights of the child. We need to look at all these things if we have not already.
I would also say that the evidence of people tonight has not really answered this question: if the case for recruiting at 16 is so strong, why do none of our closest allies do it? We are really out on a limb. I read in the Times the other day that the Marines are now looking at recruiting people at an older age because they are more mature and have more experience of life, and that is what they want, rather than people who are raw recruits.
Baroness Goldie
“(ga) paragraphs 1 to 23 and 33 to 52 of Schedule (Tri-service serious crime unit) (and section (Framework for establishment of tri-service serious crime unit) (5), so far as it relates to those paragraphs);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is about the territorial extent of the new Schedule proposed by Baroness Goldie to be inserted after Schedule 4.
Baroness Goldie
“(ha) paragraphs 1 to 23 and 33 to 52 of Schedule (Tri-service serious crime unit) (and section (Framework for establishment of tri-service serious crime unit) (5), so far as it relates to those paragraphs), and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is about the territorial extent of the new Schedule proposed by Baroness Goldie to be inserted after Schedule 4.
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Baroness Hilton of Eggardon
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 5 November, of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Baroness for her much-valued service to the House.
Cancer Drugs: Licensing and Approval
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to align the timelines between cancer drugs being licensed and being approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as chief executive of the charity Breast Cancer Now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
NICE is committed to publishing draft guidance on cancer drugs around the time of licensing, with final guidance published within three months of licensing wherever possible. The MHRA and NICE work closely together to ensure that licensing procedures and health technology assessments are as streamlined as possible. For cancer drugs, the NHS in England provides funding from the point of draft positive NICE guidance, delivering faster access to promising new cancer treatments.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (CB)
My Lords, the delay between licensing and NICE technology appraisal has been dealt with in the case of two out of the three drugs approved under Project Orbis, through agreements between NHS England and the drug company concerned. Unfortunately for women with secondary incurable breast cancer, for which there are very few treatment options, no agreement has been made with the drug company Gilead, and this creates a new treatment lottery. Are interim access agreements meant to be the permanent solution, and if not, what can be done to address this lottery and close the gap between Orbis licensing and NICE appraisal?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. Clearly, there is distress and concern at the delay between MHRA approval and NICE licensing. The drug Trodelvy was licensed by the MHRA for both unresectable locally advanced and metastatic triple-negative breast cancer through Project Orbis. On NICE’s appraisal of Trodelvy to determine its clinical and cost-effectiveness for use in the NHS, NICE hopes to have guidance next year but, in the meantime, NHS England, NHS Improvement and NICE continue to work with the manufacturer to explore options for interim access to Trodelvy.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, despite what the Minister says, the fact is that innovative new drugs such as the cancer drugs the noble Baroness mentioned are reaching patients in this country far too slowly. We lag behind many other countries. How can we expect to be a centre of science and research if the NHS is so slow to develop the medicines that are produced?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I think noble Lords will agree with that frustration at the speed of approval and licensing, but in most cases it does happen speedily. One of the central issues is making sure that there is confidence in the ability to purchase. We are looking at a number of different ways to accelerate the process, including through ILAP—the accelerated partnership—while also making sure that MHRA and NICE can speak where they are allowed to, given some of the legal restrictions on their discussions. For example, I went a couple of weeks ago to a board-to-board meeting between MHRA and NICE at which they discussed issues of common concern.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, picking up on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, there is a particular problem in the United Kingdom with NICE and MHRA appearing not to talk together as much as they should to help streamline the process, where that is appropriate. An academic paper in March demonstrated that the CDC in America has a much stronger, streamlined system that works, with far fewer drugs being delayed. How can NICE and MHRA learn from what is happening abroad?
Lord Kamall (Con)
It is important that we learn the best lessons from abroad on incredibly important issues such as this. Where NICE and MHRA are allowed to talk to each other and co-operate—there are some restrictions, as I am sure many noble Lords are aware—both clearly recognise that there are great concerns and distress on the part of the many patients who want access to these drugs, and they are trying to work out how they can speed up the process as much as possible.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, how can we speed up the process once new, innovative medicines have been approved by NICE so that patients get their benefit? Is the Minister aware that other countries, especially Germany and France, are leading the way with cancer drugs while England is near the bottom of the list? That is not good enough, is it?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. It is important that NICE, MHRA and others hear some of the concerns, and the fact that we are being held to account today shows how important this is. Unfortunately, some existing legislation restricts MHRA’s ability to share information with partners, including NICE, which would help them to plan their processes more efficiently. NICE, MHRA, NHS England and NHS Improvement are talking about the concerns raised by noble Lords and generally about delays in the process. They are talking about how they can improve access, including through initiatives such as the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway launched in January 2021, and sharing as much information as they can upfront. Both MHRA and NICE are aware of the concerns and made that clear when I met them recently after their board-to-board meeting.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will follow up on questions that noble Lords have already asked. The ongoing NICE methods and processes review missed the opportunity to propose a new process to mirror accelerated regulatory processes. There are concerns that capacity constraints will limit NICE’s ability to publish decisions as close to marketing authorisation as possible, including for oncology drugs, through the new Project Orbis route, as has been the case with the secondary breast cancer drug, Trodelvy. Have the Government assessed whether the system is fit for purpose in achieving the objective which the noble Lord has articulated: to deliver quick patient access to new, clinically effective treatments? What concrete steps have been taken so far to address any concerns?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Both NICE and MHRA are aware of the concerns, particularly regarding the delay between approval and licensing. That is why they are having conversations with NHS England and NHS Improvement to make sure, as far as possible, that they can discuss co-operation to ensure the speedy approval of drugs.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, regarding the efficacy of cancer treatment, so far this year, six friends of mine have died from cancer; all were under 80 and three were younger than me. I know of many more who have terminal cancer, regrettably. I also knew one person who died from coronavirus aged 55. She had leukaemia, or blood cancer, which destroyed her immune system, and she caught the virus while she was being treated in hospital. To put cancer in perspective, how many people under the age of 80 have died this year from cancer and how many people under the age of 80 have died in this terrible pandemic, which has shut down society, damaged our children’s education and mortgaged their future for decades to come?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The focus was on fighting Covid and making sure that people were vaccinated as quickly as possible. As noble Lords know, economics is about the allocation of scarce resources and there are always trade-offs. Sometimes there are unintended consequences of focusing on one condition rather than another. I will write to my noble friend with an answer to his specific question.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, so far, we have spoken about England. The drugs are licensed for the whole of the United Kingdom and NICE regulates what happens in England. Wales is aligned to some extent and Northern Ireland much more closely; Scotland applies a different system. Will the Minister undertake to look at whether other parts of the United Kingdom are dealing with this more efficiently? As he does so, will he also take care that NICE is not being used as a back-door way of rationing?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point, especially given that health is devolved to the devolved Administrations. As much as possible, we work England-wide, but we also ensure that we co-ordinate UK-wide and that Ministers and officials regularly meet with those from the devolved Administrations.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, some of the territories in the world which have the cheapest, safest and widest choice of medicines do not have their own regulators. Instead, they automatically recognise the decision made by globally acknowledged licensers. Does my noble friend agree that one way of addressing the question of expedition that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and others raised would be for global Britain to work for the consumer as well as the drugs companies and to recognise automatically drugs licensed by the FDA, the European Medicines Agency and other equivalent bodies?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend, who has been an advocate for free trade, for his question. Sometimes in the conversation about recognition, there is a debate between harmonisation and mutual recognition but also unilateral recognition. One of the concerns often raised when looking at unilateral recognition is that negotiators feel that, sadly, they are losing a bargaining chip. The other thing to recognise is that one country’s standard is often another country’s non-tariff barrier. MHRA is the UK regulator and I have been told that it thinks it important that we have our own arrangements in place for the regulation of medicines.
UK Cash Network
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have (1) to designate the United Kingdom’s cash network as Critical National Infrastructure, and (2) to introduce a Universal Service Obligation for the provision of cash.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, designation of the United Kingdom’s critical national infrastructure is sensitive and as such is not made public. However, the Government have committed to legislating to protect access to cash and to ensure that the UK’s cash infrastructure is sustainable for the long term. The Government recently concluded a consultation setting out proposals for new legislation which seeks to ensure that people only need to travel a reasonable distance to pay in or take out cash.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, whether for the financial inclusion of individuals or the overall resilience of the UK economy, until we have high-speed reliable digital connectivity and high levels of universal digital inclusion, cash still matters, and it matters materially?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I agree with my noble friend; he is completely correct. It is worth pointing out as some reassurance that over 79% of adults over 65 have made a payment using contactless in the last year and 84% of adults over 65 have used online banking, so I think the digital revolution is spreading to all parts of our society.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s answers seem to indicate that the Government are very keen that we end up as a cashless society, with everything done with cards and so on. Is he aware that Sweden has stopped this move because of fears of a covert attack? In which case, if we were cashless and had a covert attack which disabled everything, we would be a moneyless society.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point—though perhaps he meant “cyber” attacks—and it is certainly part of our responsibility to ensure that the banking system is resilient to attacks. We have convened the banking system and ensured that operational resilience is a key part of protecting the UK’s financial system, institutions and customers.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, is there not a levelling-up issue behind my noble friend’s Question, in that areas that are left behind have more people without bank accounts and fewer ATMs? Will this be addressed in the forthcoming levelling up White Paper?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My noble friend is right that access to cash can be more difficult for those less well off. However, as he will be aware, LINK has committed to protect free-to-use ATMs more than one kilometre away from the next nearest free ATM or post office and free access to cash on high streets. It remains a priority of this Government to ensure that cash is available.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I wonder if I can press the Government, because the Bank of England is looking closely at a central bank digital currency. Many have suggested that this will be the substitute for cash in the future, but its characteristics are quite different, in many ways, from cash. Can we have an assurance from the Government that they will keep in place a cash infrastructure running alongside—if they choose it—a digital sterling?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, we are certainly looking at a digital system, but I reassure the noble Baroness that cash remains a key part of the ecosystem.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, as a former member of the Select Committee on Financial Exclusion, so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, I first endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said about levelling up. Even though the statistics show a reduction in the number of those needing cash, people still become at the mercy of ruthless illegal moneylenders and others, and this is destroying lives. Can the Minister assure the House that he will keep pressure on the banks to ensure that there are effective and accessible services that allow these people access to the financial system, so that they can avoid all this desperation and the criminality that flows from it?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, basic bank accounts are one requirement of the banking system; the nine largest account providers are required to provide this to customers, and there are some 7 million basic accounts open with these providers. They are easier to open than ordinary bank accounts, and that facility remains available.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I first draw attention to my interests as set out in the register, particularly as an independent director of LINK. Does my noble friend the Minister have an indication of when the fundamental review of financial services regulation will be concluded? Given that the pressure on cash infrastructure is now so acute, what news is there of the work the FCA is overseeing with the banks on developing a much-needed plan to protect cash infrastructure?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My noble friend asks important questions. On access to cash, as I said in earlier answers, the Government are committed to legislating to protect access to cash and ensuring that the UK’s cash infrastructure is sustainable in the long term. In answer to my noble friend’s second question, the Government are undertaking a wider financial services future regulatory review, which aims to build on the strengths of the UK’s existing framework as set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. An initial consultation exploring these issues and a proposed approach was published by the Treasury in October last year, and we had 120 responses. We will publish a second consultation with detailed proposals shortly.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, is right to keep up the pressure on this important issue. The problem to date has been the lack of ownership, with the Treasury urging action from a variety of regulators and public bodies, none of which has a whip to crack when providers leave town. The recent consultation sought to place overall responsibility with the Financial Conduct Authority. Is this still the Treasury’s preference? If so, when and how will this be enacted?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s consultation set out proposals for the Financial Conduct Authority to become the lead regulator for oversight of the retail cash system, including having responsibility for monitoring and enforcing new legislation and cash access requirements. In adopting this approach, the Government intend that the Payment Systems Regulator and the Bank of England continue with their existing functions with regards to cash. Co-ordinated actions by the FCA and PSR on cash as part of the Covid response have shown that joint working between the regulators at both strategic and operational levels is working.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, following on from the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Tunnicliffe, will the Government commit to giving the Financial Conduct Authority responsibility to start tracking trends in cash acceptance levels among UK businesses to help understand what action might be required to prevent that problem worsening? Separate from the legislation—it will be great to get a timetable for when it will be introduced—what specific measures will the Government take to ensure that people, particularly those who rely on cash, can continue to use cash to pay for goods and services?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, as part of the FCA’s role in monitoring and enforcing cash access, the Government consider that it should be given responsibility for ensuring that access points provide reasonable access. In terms of recent activity, since the passing of the Financial Services Act, retailers now have the ability to offer cashback without purchase—I think it was from 29 June—and we are already seeing some take-up of that. Indeed, PayPoint, which operates terminals in several thousand outlets across the country, has committed to provide that extension to its service.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend give an assurance that there will continue to be access to cash in rural areas? Could he please define what, in his view, is a reasonable distance to travel to pay in or take out cash?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, to reassure the noble Baroness, the provision of cash access across the UK remains extensive. As of March this year, 95% of the population were within two kilometres of a free cash withdrawal point.
Immigration Rules: Au Pairs
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to address the impact on the (1) recruitment, and (2) employment, of au pairs from European Union member states of changes to immigration rules following the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, as has been the case since 2008, the UK’s points-based immigration system will not offer a dedicated route for au pairs. Other immigration routes exist for people who may wish to take up these roles, such as the youth mobility scheme, or YMS. We remain open to negotiating bilateral YMS arrangements with other countries and territories, including the EU or, indeed, nations within it.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, the au pair scheme was formalised by the Council of Europe in 1969. It is an excellent scheme: it gives hard-working families the benefit of flexible childcare, and au pairs leave the UK with improved English and are great ambassadors, as well as giving business to our English language schools. Brexit has meant that there is no available visa route to bring au pairs to the UK. According to the British Au Pair Agencies Association, Caroline Nokes, the Immigration Minister in 2019, gave assurances that there would be a temporary visa work route for au pairs, but this has not happened. Can my noble friend the Minister inform the House of when we can expect this to occur and will she undertake to expedite this issue?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, successive Governments since 2008 have decided that the UK’s immigration system will not offer a dedicated visa route for au pairs, and I do not see that situation changing. I described in my initial Answer the YMS route, on which there are around 20,000 people from participating countries or territories coming to experience life in the UK.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that we are moving away from the deplorable British habit of paying British workers too little and not training them enough, and instead relying on cheap labour from abroad. I understand the reasons my noble friend gives for wanting an exception in the case of au pairs, but I counsel the House that it will open us to ridicule if the only exception we are prepared to make is to help us deal with the servant problem.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. Debates have been had over the last few months and years, but the whole point is to offer competitive wages here for workers from either here or abroad. Au pairs certainly are labour on the cheap.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although we have had critical shortages of HGV drivers, fruit-pickers, nurses, doctors and care workers, it takes a shortage of au pairs for some people to realise that Brexit is an unmitigated, self-inflicted disaster? When will the Government acknowledge this and try to find a new, positive relationship with the European Union?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord knows very well that the problems with HGV drivers and poultry workers are to do with easing supply chain pressures and are nothing to do with Brexit.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, for decades after the Second World War, it was Conservatives who, following Churchill, formed the backbone of the European movement. One of the motivating causes was that of cultural and educational exchange, whether through the Council of Europe or later the EU. Why on earth can a Conservative Government not now unilaterally extend the youth mobility scheme to EU and EEA countries to include, among others, au pairs?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have just explained this. The youth mobility scheme is open to the whole world and we are open to having arrangements with any country in the world. We already have arrangements with nine countries, with two more to be added next year.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have no view as to whether the Government should take action to address the shortage of au pairs. However, I ask my noble friend to agree that, if any action is taken by the Government as a result of this shortage, there will be no undue discrimination in favour of EU countries as opposed to those in the rest of the world. We have left the European Union, and that means that we stand on an equal relationship and footing with every country in the world. Any scheme that is introduced should not contain the discriminatory element implicit in this Question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend clearly gets it: since we left the EU, we are treating all countries the same.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This is not really about au pairs, is it? This is about opportunities for young people. Is it not correct that the Government did not think about opportunities for young people when they did their Brexit deal, just like they did not think about food producers, the cultural industries or even the people of Northern Ireland? Will the Minister commit to speak to her colleague the noble Lord, Lord Frost, to make sure that appropriate changes are made to the Brexit deal which deal with this, alongside the other problems the Government have created by omitting arrangements for young people?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I said in answer to a previous question, there are 20,000 young people from participating countries or territories coming here to experience life in the UK. I would not say that that is a scheme that is closing down opportunities for young people.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, when my twin daughters were very small, we engaged an au pair from Sweden who was very helpful and became a lifelong friend. During her time with us, she developed her English language skills and gave us an insight into life in Scandinavia. Do the Government really value this kind of international interaction, particularly with our friends in Europe? If they do, will they just scrap all restrictions on the employment of au pairs?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Why does the noble Lord restrict this opportunity to Europe? We are opening up opportunity to the whole of the world.
NHS: Fracture Liaison Services
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support, if any, they intend to provide to the National Health Service to ensure full coverage of Fracture Liaison Services throughout England.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and note my interest as co-chairman of the APPG on Osteoporosis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising this issue and for the work he has done as part of the all-party group. I look forward to reading the report it is writing on this important service. The NHS has prioritised the fracture liaison service as a key part of its elective recovery plans, after this was a recommendation from the best musculoskeletal health pathway improvement programme. NHS England is working closely with integrated care systems to support the implementation of this and other services.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. He will be aware that fracture liaison services are vital for the identification and treatment of osteoporosis. That silent disease, as it is known, causes over half a million broken bones each year—one every minute—and as many deaths, resulting from fractures, as lung cancer and diabetes. The FLS is the world standard for fracture prevention, yet too many suffering from osteoporosis are unable to access the service. Is my noble friend aware that, when the Royal Osteoporosis Society surveyed NHS trusts in England, only 51% confirmed they provided the service and many of those are underfunded? Can he tell us what action the Government will take to reduce such clear health inequalities and make sure that fracture liaison services are available to all?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for highlighting the importance of this issue. There are MSK leads in local regions who have the ability to focus on what is best for their local region, with the incorporation of key performance indicators related to the FLS within the national clinical audit. NHS England has also convened a group of key clinical opinion leaders to develop an evidence-informed integrated secondary fracture prevention pathway for sharing with integrated care systems. There are many other issues that I could mention, and I would be happy to write to my noble friend.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a donor to and patron of the Royal Osteoporosis Society and a member of the osteoporosis APPG. As my noble friend said, fracture liaison services are the world standard for secondary fracture prevention. According to the Royal Osteoporosis Society, for every £1 spent on FLS in the United Kingdom, the taxpayer can expect to save £3.28. By levelling up FLS provision to cover everyone over the age of 50 in the United Kingdom, we could prevent just under 5,700 fragility fractures every year, saving the taxpayer £65.7 million. Could the Minister confirm that the Government will invest further in prevention as well as cure?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I very much agree with my noble friend that the prevention of illness is as important as the cure. In conversations I have had with the NHS and other healthcare professionals, there is a focus on prevention. Some noble Lords may remember the debate we had a couple of weeks ago, focusing on the prevention of obesity rather than treating its symptoms. The NHS is prioritising FLS and similar services when it comes to prevention, understanding that this benefits not only patients but taxpayers.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an ambassador for the Royal Osteoporosis Society. Vertebral fractures are the most common osteoporotic fractures, but with 70% of these going undiagnosed, the opportunity for early identification of osteoporosis is missed. Does the Minister support the recommendation of the Royal Osteoporosis Society that all diagnostic imaging services should be required to routinely look for and report on vertebral fractures in any spinal imaging they undertake, whatever its primary purpose? Does he agree that this reporting should be unambiguous and actionable, via the FLS where possible, so that patients are put on the right pathway for osteoporosis assessment and care as soon as possible?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The department and the NHS continue to work with interested groups to expand the understanding of the wide-ranging needs of people across the country. One example is NHS England’s Covid-19 MSK—musculoskeletal—stakeholder group, which is advising on the impact that lockdowns have had on the physical and mental health of those with MSK conditions. Collaborating with NHS England were the British Orthopaedic Association, the British Society for Rheumatology, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, and Versus Arthritis. Self-managed resources for patients are being developed. I will write on the specific question that the noble Baroness asked.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, could the Minister say what research is being carried out to establish the extent to which universal provision of fracture liaison services could relieve the pressure on hard-pressed GPs, ambulance services and A&E departments?
Lord Kamall (Con)
NHS England and others are well aware of the need to reduce the pressure on GPs and other services that the noble Baroness mentioned. That is why they very much welcome the investment in 100 community diagnostic centres, not only on NHS premises but in places such as football stadiums, shopping centres, and so on, making sure that there is more access to these services and that patients can be seen quicker and more speedily.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, there is no inevitability about osteoporosis and broken bones as the result of getting older, and yet osteoporosis affects 50% of all women, with those going through the menopause and after menopause experiencing it at a higher rate of incidence due to the reduction in oestrogen levels. Does the Minister acknowledge that two-thirds of women are not getting the treatment that they need, and that this was the case even before the pandemic? What steps are the Government taking to improve access by women to HRT and treatment for osteoporosis?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. A number of people are still waiting to be seen; NHS England is very much aware of the backlog and wants to address it. As a key part of the elective recovery plans, NHS England is working with a number of local integrated care systems to establish a greater number of clinics, as well as with community diagnostic centres, and is developing business cases. NHS England is also working with experts in the field of musculoskeletal health to improve patient pathways and to find new opportunities that, over time, will improve patient care and access.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Do the Government accept the estimate provided by experts that some 90,000 people a year are missing out on the bone-strengthening medication that they need? What is being done to tackle this problem?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point. We accept this estimate; we are working hard to remedy it and to provide the healthcare that people need. The NHS has established the Best MSK Health national improvement programme, which is focused on improving the whole pathway for those with MSK conditions. That programme will include identifying and tackling variations in access, outcomes and experiences. I am also encouraged to see that the NHS is keeping FLS as a priority in its recovery plan, which includes plans to deliver more of these services across the country. On top of that, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is looking specifically at the issue of disparities, not only for MSK conditions but for others.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
Can the Minister ensure that people living in rural areas who are at risk of osteoporosis will be able to be diagnosed by a DEXA scan? Is he aware that this opportunity has been turned down for the local hospital at Northallerton, despite the wishes of the consultant and the Friends of the hospital who raised the money to buy one? What can be done about that?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am not sure about the specific case that the noble Baroness raises, but I will write to her. However, generally, there is an investment of £2.3 billion to increase the volume of diagnostic activity and to roll out at least 100 community diagnostic centres, to make sure that we are taking diagnosis closer to patients in their communities.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do not understand. The noble Lord and his Ministers are taking powers in the health Bill going through the Commons at the moment to issue directions to NHS England. So why on earth can he not issue a direction to NHS England to simply say that every integrated care system must have one of these services, given the evidence that noble Lords on his side of the House have given about the benefit of doing so?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government recognise the importance of FLS, as does the NHS. That is one of the reasons why they are looking to roll out these community diagnostic centres, to make sure that the technology and the scanning is as close to the patients as possible. Just this morning, I had a meeting with one supplier who is talking about a partnership with a number of integrated care systems to make sure that they roll out the systems as close to patients as possible.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. That concludes Oral Questions for today.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I thought this would be a convenient point to draw your Lordships’ attention to the arrangements for business tomorrow, Tuesday 9 November. We expect to receive a message from the Commons in respect of the Environment Bill this afternoon. This House will consider the Bill again tomorrow. The deadline for tabling Motions or amendments for inclusion on the Marshalled List is 11 am tomorrow morning. This will enable the House to consider the Bill as the first main business of the day tomorrow. Report of the Professional Qualifications Bill will proceed once the House has concluded its consideration of the Environment Bill.
Finance Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Lord Kennedy of Southwark be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Collins of Highbury.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Monday 8th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 View all Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 54-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (1 Nov 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, as this is a two-clause Bill and the main clause was an amendment, I will use this opportunity to thank all noble Lords for the positive engagement and feedback they have provided thus far. We have had some truly wide-ranging debates, and I deeply appreciate the House’s passion for and knowledge of social security and pensions. I am enormously grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott, who has supported me at each stage of the Bill’s progress, both on and off the Floor of the House. I extend my thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Janke, Lady Altmann and Lady Stroud, and the noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Davies, for their amendments, ensuring thorough scrutiny of the Bill. I extend my thanks to the countless other noble Lords who have provided an abundance of constructive support and knowledge, and I thank all noble Lords for taking part.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks and thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate on the Bill. For a short Bill, its impact is quite wide, affecting millions of people. Our debates have raised some crucial issues around approaches to uprating and the government strategy for retirement saving, and especially around the position of pensioners on lower incomes as we enter a season of spiralling prices. Not for the first time, it is possible that our deliberations may have a broader impact in parts of Westminster and Whitehall than perhaps we realise or will ever know—at least until the autobiographies of the future come to be written.
On the matter of memoirs, these proceedings have also been notable for the return to the fray of the former Minister for Welfare Reform, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, whose frank demolition of the Government’s case for social security cuts and policies such as the benefits cap will, I predict, turn out to have a half-life somewhere around that of uranium.
I thank the Minister for her concession on Report, in response to my amendment on pensioner poverty, that an impact assessment should be published. That happened on Friday. I look forward to having the opportunity, if we can, to discuss that with her and her officials in due course. Most importantly, we have amended the Bill to require the Government to find a way to adjust pension uprating and to maintain the earnings link, while making allowance for the pandemic. I urge the Government to take that seriously and to use the time they now have to find a better solution than that offered by the Bill.
Public trust in politics has taken a bit of a hit in recent times. If there were a way of pursuing this objective without dumping a manifesto commitment, we would all want that. In the meantime, I thank the Minister and her officials, colleagues across the House for their thoughtful contributions, and Dan Harris of our staff team for his marvellous support. We send the Bill back to the Commons with our best wishes, hoping that it will embrace it and hold on to it as it is.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, apologises for not being able to be here today. She has asked me to say a few words on behalf of our group. We very much welcome that noble Lords have agreed with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. We hope that it will enable MPs in the other place to think again about the need to protect pensioners from the worsening economic circumstances. In the time since the Bill’s passage through the other place, significant changes have taken place, with economic indicators leaving little doubt that pressures will grow in the months ahead. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly welcome the cross-party working made possible by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Sherlock. We have much appreciated the Minister’s helpful approach. We thank her for her openness and willingness to share information on the Bill. We extend sincere thanks and appreciation to the Bill team, who have provided us with expert professional advice at all stages.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend the Minister and the Bill team for all their work, and for the courtesy they have shown in meeting us many times to listen to the concerns we have expressed. I too am extremely grateful for the work across the House that was encompassed by this Bill. It has shown the House of Lords at its best. This is an issue of significant social importance where this House has shown that it believes that the other place took a decision based, perhaps, on incorrect information and has asked it to reconsider. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Janke, my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and others including the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Davies and Lord Sikka, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for their hard work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has said, I hope the Government will find a way to retain this amendment in the Bill and uprate state pensions by more than the 3.1%, which is clearly inadequate to protect against cost of living increases.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the words of the previous speakers. I hope that the Government will act on the recommendations of this House. I am also grateful to the Minister for the impact analysis, which I received on Friday night. I should be grateful if in future we could have a better quality of data. For example, it refers to weekly mean benefits, which do not tell us much about the societal impact or distribution. It would be very helpful, for example, to know the median figure and to have some further analysis in the appropriate financial brackets. Table 4 refers to the number of people eligible, pre-2016, for the new state pension but does not tell us how many actually receive the full amount. Once again, could I please request a fuller analysis, which would not only provide greater transparency but enable us to call the Government to account? It could be in the form of a statement of the number of individuals receiving, for example, a pension of less than £100 per week, those receiving between £100 and £120, and so on in other brackets. A better quality of analysis would enrich the debate.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks made by all noble Lords today. Our discussions have been thoughtful and powerful. Above all, they have demonstrated the commitment across your Lordships’ House to protect the income of pensioners and to bear down on pensioner poverty. The Bill now goes to the other place to consider the amendments put forward by this House. I look forward to our consideration of its reasons on the Bill’s return. As always, I note the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I will take the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on the impact assessment back to the department, as I have done with all the other points he has raised. Finally, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today and at earlier stages. I also thank the officials who have supported me in our discussions.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 8th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (8 Nov 2021)
Lord Garnier
“(11A) After section 68(3) insert—“(3A) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show—(a) that they were not trespassing on the land, or(b) that the activity in response to which the aggravated trespass was committed was unlawful activity.””
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for signing my Amendment 150 to Clause 63. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today because of an unforeseen medical appointment, but has read my speech in draft and has told me that he agrees with it. Whether it comes out as I wrote it is entirely a different matter. In any event, it comes with the usual caveat—the mistakes are mine; the support is his, and I am grateful for it.
The amendment is simple and straightforward. There is no reason in principle or justice why it should not be accepted. That said, I am not so naive as to think that, just because I am arguing for it, it is perfectly drafted or that the Government or the majority of the Committee will agree with me. I will not press it to a Division, but I shall listen carefully to what my noble friend the Minister says in response before deciding whether and how to take the matter forward beyond Committee.
Clause 63 of the Bill amends Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I have nothing to say about the policy behind Clause 63 but, since it is there, as I indicated at Second Reading, it gives me an opportunity to right a wrong contained in Section 68 of the 1994 Act. That section defines the offence of aggravated trespass. In so far as it is relevant to my amendment, it provides, first, that:
“A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
(a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b) of obstructing that activity, or
(c) of disrupting that activity.”
Section 68(2) says that:
“Activity on any occasion on the part of a person or persons on land is ‘lawful’ for the purposes of this section if he or they may engage in the activity on the land on that occasion without committing an offence or trespassing on the land.”
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Can my noble and learned friend clarify the standard of proof? I assume that it is the civil standard for the accused person, namely the balance of probabilities. Would it be wise to include that in the Bill?
Lord Garnier (Con)
Many things could be added to the Bill and many could be taken away but the general thrust of the law, as my noble friend well understands, being a barrister of considerable experience, is that where a burden is placed upon a defendant in a criminal matter, it is set to the civil standard of proof.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for explaining his amendment in such helpful detail. However, my focus is on suggesting that Clause 63 should not stand part of the Bill. The principal reason—much of which we debated the other day, so I will not go into it in great detail—is the effect on the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. It is particularly about the use of the vague and expansive provisions of significant “disruption” and “distress”. “Damage” may be easier to define, but there are perhaps some issues about that as well.
Clearly, a range of provisions is already on the statute book which criminalise committing criminal damage. Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows courts to grant injunctions against people engaging in antisocial behaviour—I could go on. The real concern is that this is clearly targeted at the Gypsy and Traveller community. To repeat a point that I made the other day, the definition of “significant” is not clear in the Bill. The Supreme Court recently characterised “significant” as follows:
“like the skin of a chameleon, the adjective takes a different colour so as to suit a different context.”
However, “disruption” itself has also been controversial in the context of public order legislation and is hugely open to interpretation. Part 4 directs authorities to focus exclusively on disruption caused by roadside camps, rather than inviting this to be balanced against the relative disruption caused by evicting Gypsy and Traveller families, to ensure that the response is proportionate.
“Distress” is also a broad and highly subjective category. The National Police Chiefs’ Council asked, in its evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights,
“whose distress? Is it the landowner’s? Is it a perception?”
This nebulous term may, in this context, also be informed by stereotypes and prejudices against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. We heard noble Lords last week making assumptions about the distress that the presence of camps alone may cause—of having an encampment nearby—and that this was also the source of crimes. Most noble Lords who said this also said that they could not prove it, but certainly among the community there is considerable distress already.
As I said, there are existing powers to address this. Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives the police the power to remove people from land where the landowner or occupier takes reasonable steps, and Section 62A allows the police to direct trespassers to remove themselves and their vehicles and property from land where a suitable pitch or relevant caravan site is available within the same local area. This is particularly important in terms of the data that we heard about the other day—that there are fewer authorised encampments available. There are more unofficial ones, but it is a real problem for people travelling from one area to another and intending to carry out their lawful business if they cannot find somewhere to go. The difficulty with Clause 63 is that it heaps further problems upon them but uses terms which are not well defined and are utterly nebulous, and which put this community at further risk of having their way of life criminalised.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, there is so much to get through. First, I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier; secondly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the clause not standing part.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has partly pre-empted my concern regarding his Amendment 150. Some of us in this Committee and more generally in your Lordships’ House have an allergy to reverse burdens in the criminal law because they generally go against the golden thread of English justice: that it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not for defendants to prove their innocence. That is a general principle which some of us hold dear. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is quite right that over many years that principle has been eroded.
He referred to a number of regulatory offences, which I take to be offences in a confined area of privilege. Regulatory offences are appropriate for activities that might even be licensed, such as driving a vehicle or practising medicine. Regulatory offences are not the right analogy to make with just going about your life, including as a citizen who seeks to protest against issues such as GM foods or climate catastrophe. Therefore, his analogy seems quite wrongheaded. From a human rights perspective, he is aggravating the pre-existing damage of the problematic offence of aggravated trespass.
Trespass and nuisance ought generally to be a civil matter. Trespass is usually dealt with and resolved between reasonable citizens without recourse to law. I believe in civil legal aid if necessary, even though it has been all but obliterated in this country, but neighbour disputes generally ought to be a matter between me and my neighbour, not a matter for the criminal law, unless what my neighbour is doing to me crosses a line that offends all in society. I have a general problem with criminalising the civil law, but worse than that, in the context of aggravated trespass—aggravated by the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier—certain types of trespass are singled out for criminal treatment, are they not? It is not the trespass of my neighbour who is polluting my land or building on my land, cutting over the margins of the boundary for reasons of profit or greed. It is the trespass of my neighbour who comes on to my land to protest and obstruct—for example, an environmental protestor—because in doing damage to my land I am damaging the environment. Therefore, with respect, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is once more prosecuting a culture war in which people he may or may not disagree with are being treated worse in relation to their freedom of expression or, potentially, their property rights, than those who choose to pollute the land, for example. In my view, that is a mistake.
Finally on Amendment 150—again, to be fair, this has been pre-empted by the noble and learned Lord—subsection (a), on the reverse burden defence, suggests that in the offence of aggravated trespass, it is for the defendant to prove that they were not trespassing. That is astonishing: it is like saying that in my defence for assault, I must demonstrate to the civil standard that it was not me who assaulted my noble friend—who was sitting there quite innocently until I metaphorically assaulted him.
That is really quite rich indeed, and shows the underlying thinking here: some people, whose opinions are clearly not considered worthy by some Members of this Committee, are to be guilty until proven innocent, and they seem, in this context, to be demonstrators. In the broader context, in this Part of the Bill, the guilty ones are of course Travellers—as a job lot. This was put so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I will not repeat her reasons, save to say that there is something so inherently unattractive about discriminating against a particular group. We have seen it in many societies, including in our own over so many years. I thought we were in a better place than this.
If people are committing burglaries, let them be prosecuted for burglary. If people are perpetrating nuisances, let them be dealt with like anyone else; there are burglaries in urban and rural areas and there are nuisances everywhere. Let everyone be dealt with equally. Please do not single out one of the most vulnerable minorities, in size, economic power and everything else; do not single out a particular community for less favourable, targeted and demonising treatment. That is essentially why I do not think that Clause 63 should stand part of the Bill.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, may I just intervene very briefly? I agree with the noble Baroness when she says that, in general, trespass should be a civil remedy. I am absolutely clear that she is right about that, but it is important to keep in mind that securing a civil remedy is not a rapid process: it really takes quite a long time to get the required order from a court. I represented a rural constituency for more than 30 years, and I know that the kind of trespass to which my noble and learned friend is addressing his amendment, which is encompassed in Clause 63, causes an immense amount of distress to the rural community. There is a very special reason to abrogate the general rule, which does of course make the civil remedy the appropriate one for trespass. I commend this provision to the Committee, subject to the amendment, on which my noble and learned friend is entirely right.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister that I had to leave before the end of the debate on Wednesday due to the fear that I would not be able to get home.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on this amendment, to which I have added my name. The noble and learned Lord set out his case very clearly: aggravated trespass interfering with farming activities should not be tolerated. Cutting hay versus planting GMO are some of the examples he gave. I am personally against GMO crops, but I would not support trespassers attempting to prevent this happening. There are other avenues for expressing views about the activity taking place. The freedom to express a view should not take the form of an illegal activity or aggravated trespass.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, gives very powerful arguments, especially in relation to war crimes. There are others in this Chamber this afternoon far more knowledgeable on these legal aspects than me, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I listened very carefully to the speech given on Wednesday evening by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and have sympathy for the scenario he painted. It is right that the plight of landowners and farmers should be considered as part of the issues surrounding Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
I also support my noble friend Lady Brinton in her comments on whether Clause 63 should stand part of the Bill. For a great number of years, Gypsy, Roma and Travellers have been stopping in what they consider to be their traditional resting places. They have done this often with the consent of the relevant landowner or farmer, and there has been little, if any, aggravation with local communities. They have sometimes stopped on common land, again with little impact. Over the years, landowners have changed, farmers have retired, and new tenants have come in. Attitudes have changed and what was once tolerated is no longer acceptable.
With no provision for smaller family groups in their habitual stopping places, encampments have sprung up in some unsuitable places, where farmers fear their stock and property may be at risk. Sometimes gates have been left open and stock escaped, to be rounded up later. Both these examples, and the more serious one that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, spoke about, are dealt with in this Part of the Bill. All this is inconvenient and there will often be rubbish to clear up after the Travellers have left. This is an inconvenience to the owner or tenant of the land, but is it really to be classified as a criminal offence?
If local authorities were to fulfil their obligations to provide sites for the Travelling community, both permanent and transit, the police, landowners and farmers would be able to direct the Travellers to these sites. Providing housing and accommodation is a legal requirement of local authorities, as is to plan for future numbers. It therefore follows that planning for Gypsy, Traveller and Roma sites should be part of this. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has reiterated several times that the Government are encouraging local authorities to do this. Just what does he mean by “encouraging”? It is a bit like the interpretation of “significant” in terms of causing nuisance and distress. Just how persistent are the Government in their encouraging?
Trespass has to be proved, and, certainly, aggravated trespass has to be proved to be an unlawful activity, but is it for the perpetrator to prove that they have done aggravated trespass? Either they were not trespassing on the land or they were committing aggravated trespass. Why has that got to be proved by the perpetrator? If the aggravated trespass has occurred, it is right that this should be dealt with properly. However, it is important that the causes relating to a classification of aggravated trespass have to be of a very serious nature and not just idiotic phrases such as “fear of walking close to an encampment” or “smoke from bonfires”.
As we debated during the Environment Bill, fly-tipping is a significant scourge for the landowner and farmer to have to clear up. For this to be a criminal offence against the Travelling community, it has to be “excessive”. It is often the case that the Travelling community will be blamed for crimes that have been committed without any evidence. On Wednesday, when a noble Lord said that he believed that damage and theft by Gypsies and Travellers had occurred, no evidence was provided to support this allegation. We were left to assume that there was a site for Travellers on the doorstep. Similarly, aggravated trespass is serious and must be proved in order for eviction to take place.
On Wednesday, the Travelling community were classed as being illiterate, innumerate, and unwilling to engage in economic activity. This is not the case. The Travelling community do wish their children to receive an education, but in order for this to happen, they need sites on which to reside so that their children can be admitted to school and learn to read, write and have numeracy skills. I have been on a Gypsy site and talked to the elders about the provision of sites. When one elderly Gypsy was required to read a document, he asked his son to do it for him, claiming that his eyesight was poor. I suspect he felt ashamed that he could not read but, like others in all communities, he sought to hide the fact. Lack of literacy is not confined to the Travelling community.
In her response on Wednesday evening, the Minister quoted the Conservative manifesto in relation to making intentional trespass a criminal offence. There will be a great deal in any Government’s manifesto that, for one reason or another, does not make it on to the statute. That same manifesto made a commitment to introduce an animal sentience Bill. That Bill has been duly introduced and had its Committee stage but, like this Bill and Part 4 before us today, it was very poorly drafted. The animal sentience Bill received a very rough passage during Committee, the majority of the criticism coming from the Government’s own Benches. There is no sign of it ever reaching Report stage and I suspect it will be quietly shelved. Hopefully, this section of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will also be either radically altered or shelved.
Arguments against the provision of sites are that it will attract Gypsies and Travellers into the area where the site exists and that the local authority will be overwhelmed. This is nonsense. On Wednesday, we heard that 694 Gypsies and Roma are actually travelling, requiring transit pitches. This is a problem that could be solved by enforcing local authorities’ obligations to provide for this section of the community. Aggravated trespass is not a solution for anything.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the interesting amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, might not have some unintended consequences that I, personally, would find very welcome. What if the “unlawful activity” included acts contrary to the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act? What if the landlord was trying to turf out Gypsies and Travellers who had no other home to go to? I believe that he will no doubt have an answer to that question.
More generally, on Clause 63—and I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said—the openness of the terms, so eloquently laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, amount to a tremendous allowance for prejudice. We should be in no doubt that this is very common. The hate crime reporting organisation, GATE Herts, funded by the then MHCLG, has ample evidence of explicitly Nazi sentiments being used whenever a Traveller or Gypsy community wanted to move on to a site. Stereotyping is the norm in these records. We heard examples in your Lordships’ House last week of whole communities being tarred by one incident. It is the same as somebody saying that white people should be barred from walking on the street at night because of a few incidents of night-time vandalism; it is that kind of remark, and it is prejudice. If such a remark urges violent action—the removal of Gypsies and Travellers—surely it is illegal.
Following the Minister’s remarks last Wednesday on police guidance in this kind of situation, she expressed some surprise at the use of the term “gold-plated”. Is “gold-plated” not a dog-whistle call to opponents of human rights? Most of us are proud of the Human Rights Act 1998, and how it reinforced our position as a leader in establishing a human rights culture after the Second World War. Be that as it may, the Human Rights Act, and behind it the European Convention on Human Rights, is our law—either one complies with the law or not. Gold-plating of human rights is not a term understood in law, and its implications, in this context, are to diminish any putative offence against the Human Rights Act. I think that Clause 63 is not helpful and should go.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Clause 63 amends Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Section 61 addresses the situation that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, alluded to on Wednesday—at Hansard col. 1313—when he told us that, 25 years ago, as a Member of Parliament, he was rung by a very distressed farmer in his constituency, whose land was being trespassed on. I make that 1996, but perhaps it was before the 1994 Act was effective.
As my noble friend Lady Brinton has said, Section 61 of the 1994 Act provides a power to remove trespassers on land. I will quote subsection (1):
“If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and … that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his, or …that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land, he may direct those persons, or any of them, to leave the land and to remove any vehicles or other property they have with them on the land.”
Subsection (4) states:
“If a person knowing that a direction under subsection (1) … has been given which applies to him … fails to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable, or … having left again enters the land as a trespasser within the period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given, he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.”
That is the law now, unamended by this Bill.
As many noble Lords said on Wednesday, what is the problem that Part 4 is trying to solve, when there are clearly adequate powers already in existence? Clause 63 simply brings Section 61 of the 1994 Act into line with the rest of Part 4 of the Bill. For the reasons so thoroughly and persuasively argued on Wednesday, this clause, like the rest of Part 4, should not stand part of the Bill.
Section 68 of the 1994 Act, as amended by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, is the offence of aggravated trespass, where
“A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect … of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity … of obstructing that activity, or … of disrupting that activity.”
I am getting the sense of hunt saboteurs, HS2 protestors or, perhaps, those protesting against genetically modified crops, rather than Gypsy, Roma and Travellers. Section 68 appears to me to refer to deliberate interference with lawful activity by means of trespass, rather than coincidental interference; for example, ploughing a field that travellers are trespassing on. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, I am not a lawyer, but perhaps the Minister can clarify the difference between Section 68 and what we have been talking about up until now.
As far as Amendment 150 is concerned, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, explained, it attempts to correct an error in existing legislation. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the activity being disrupted should be and needs to be unlawful, rather than the trespasser simply asserting that he believes that it should not be happening. I am not sure that the accused should have to prove that they were not trespassing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said, that seems to be going perhaps a bit too far. We support the amendment in principle, in as far as the activity on the land that is being disrupted needs to be unlawful, rather than just being asserted as being unlawful.
As we leave this part of the Bill, I want to again acknowledge the long and tireless campaign by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, to defend Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I fear that, at Report, we may need to adopt a different approach than simply removing all the clauses in Part 4 from the Bill, in the light of what the Minister said on Wednesday, at Hansard col. 1330, when she quoted from the Conservative Party manifesto:
“We will give the police new powers to arrest and seize the property and vehicles of trespassers who set up unauthorised encampments, in order to protect our communities. We will make intentional trespass a criminal offence.”
That is very interesting wording. New powers do not necessarily mean more draconian powers. I respectfully suggest that on Report this House should bring forward new powers that provide the necessary protections for all our communities, including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. For example—I quote from the manifesto—it could be argued that making
“intentional trespass a criminal offence”
entirely supports Amendment 135 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, providing that, where Travellers have no suitable legal pitch on a relevant caravan site situated in the local authority’s area, the trespass should not be regarded as intentional.
It is absolutely right that we, and many others in this Committee, express our outright opposition to Part 4 as drafted but, when we return to these issues on Report, it will be with more sophisticated amendments to take account of the wording in the Conservative Party manifesto—and the convention of not blocking, at least not entirely, commitments made by the governing party in their manifesto—that protect all communities, including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will be relatively brief. We had a lengthy debate on the previous day in Committee about Part 4 on unauthorised encampments, and expressed our strong concerns about what is proposed in Part 4. I will just reiterate a couple of points. Certainly, our understanding is that the police seem to think the existing law adequate; indeed, so do local government officers who have direct involvement with the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, put forward Amendment 150 on the basis that it is putting right a wrong. The obvious concern is that, in so doing, it creates new wrongs or new unfairness, not least in relation to the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, probably quite rightly said that much of the debate might suggest that this amendment was aimed at others, perhaps those involved in protests over GM crops or HS2. Certainly, it involves a change as far as the onus of proof of the accused is concerned. The noble and learned Lord said that he is not going to press the amendment to a vote in Committee. I hope I am not misrepresenting what he said, but I think he said he would wait for the Minister’s response before deciding how and if to progress the matter further. We have our concerns about Amendment 150 and what exactly it might mean, but at this stage we stand in the same position as him: we will wait to hear what the Minister says on behalf of the Government in response to Amendment 150. At the moment we have fairly strong reservations about its implications, but we will listen to what the Government have to say.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for her apologies, which in fact I got the other night. It was very courteous of her to give them.
Before I turn to whether Clause 63 should stand part of the Bill, let me deal with Amendment 150 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, which relates to the offence of aggravated trespass, as he outlined. The effect of this amendment would be to introduce a statutory defence to the offence at Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as he explained. It would require the defendant to show that they were not trespassing, or that the activity which they intended by their trespass to obstruct or disrupt or cause intimidation in respect of was unlawful.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. With regard to the other examples that she has found over the weekend, showing that the law is not targeted at Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, is it not the case that under the Equalities Act the law should not disproportionately impact on any particular community, not that they should not be the sole focus? Therefore, if the changes as drafted would disproportionately impact on the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, would that still not be contrary to the Equalities Act?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have said all along, and the proponents of the amendments that we have discussed have underlined, that the absolute majority of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community are law-abiding people, so this is not something that disproportionately impacts on them. It is about people who cause destruction to other people’s land and property.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, for their qualified support for the principle behind my Amendment 150.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, gently chided me—or if not me then a class of people—for being unsophisticated. It may well be that it was my lack of sophistication that annoyed the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who, not for the first time—we saw it again last Wednesday—tilted at a windmill. I thought I had made it clear in the course of my speech that proposed new Clause 68(3A)(a) in my amendment was there in error and we should concentrate on proposed new paragraph (b). She is of course perfectly entitled to make whatever remarks she wishes, but the gravamen of my amendment was to reverse the burden of proof in relation to the unlawful activity point in paragraph (b) and not, as I think I had accepted, in relation to who should prove the trespass. Having cleared up that point, I think we can make a lot more progress.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hailsham for his support. Beyond that, I have nothing to say because, as I said in my opening remarks, the policy behind Clause 63 is for the Government to defend and to persuade this House and the other place about. However, there is some room for discussion. I know the Minister has had an enormous amount of work to do in dealing with the Bill, and indeed has a lot yet to do, so she has my every sympathy. However, if she can find time perhaps to have a quiet discussion with me and others of like mind about proposed new Clause 68(3A)(b) in my Amendment 150 regarding the unlawful activity point, I would be most grateful. That having been said, this debate has now reached its natural conclusion for today’s purposes and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“Causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs
(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (7).(2) In section 2A (meaning of dangerous driving)—(a) for subsection (1)(a) and (b) substitute “he commits a breach of one or more rules of the Highway Code in a way that causes inconvenience, intimidation or danger to one or more other road users that is sufficiently serious that it would result in a person being disqualified automatically if the person drove in that way during a driving test”;(b) omit subsection (3).(3) In section 3ZA (meaning of careless or inconsiderate driving)—(a) in subsection (2), for “the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver”, substitute “he commits a breach of one or more rules of the Highway Code that causes inconvenience or intimidation to one or more other road users but which is not so serious as to amount to dangerous driving as defined in subsection 2A(1)”;(b) omit subsection (3).(4) Section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.(5) In the heading, for “by careless” substitute “or serious injury by”.(6) In subsection (1), omit “without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place”.(7) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) If a person causes serious injury to another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, and the conditions in subsection (1)(a) to (d) are also met, he is guilty of an offence.”(8) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts) is amended in accordance with subsections (9) and (10).(9) In the entry relating to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (causing death by dangerous driving), in column (4) (punishment), for “14 years” substitute “Imprisonment for life”.(10) For the entry relating to section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, substitute—
RTA section 3A(1) | Causing death by driving while under the influence of drink or drugs | On indictment | 14 years or a fine or both | Obligatory | Obligatory | 6-11 |
RTA section 3A(1A) | Causing serious injury by driving while under the influence of drink or drugs | (a) Summarily (b) On indictment | (a) on conviction in England and Wales: 12 months, or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both.(b) 5 years or a fine or both. | Obligatory | Obligatory | 6-11 |
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, we come to Part 5. I shall also speak to Amendments 167, 168 and 169. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for their support for some of these amendments. This group contains four of several amendments put forward by a coalition of groups, including British Cycling, Cycling UK, Living Streets, RoadPeace and the Road Danger Reduction Forum—I declare an interest as a former vice-president of Cycling UK—and they have one thing in common: the intention to protect the lives of vulnerable road users.
Before explaining the amendments, I should clarify that they are all examples of issues that I and these groups have been urging the Government to consider as part of the wider review of traffic offences and penalties that the Government promised in 2014, seven years ago, but have still not carried out. I will say more about that when we get to Amendments 159 and 165, but I shall make two comments now that I hope will provide some context. The first is that the call for a wider review is now backed by a growing list of road safety groups as well as motoring groups. The second is that without that review there is a real danger that the Government’s very limited proposals in the Bill to amend road traffic law could in fact be counterproductive.
Part 5 currently contains just three proposed changes. First, it increases the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to a life sentence. Secondly, it does the same for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs; these are traditionally seen as equivalent offences. Thirdly, it introduces a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, with a maximum sentence of two years. These amendments were consulted on as part of a rather limited review of road traffic offences and penalties in 2017—that is four years ago—and a number of parliamentarians in both Houses have been urging the Government to enact them ever since.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment 152, to which I have added my name. I welcome Clause 65, because it recognises the additional responsibility that a driver has who causes death by virtue of having drunk before she or he got behind the wheel of a car. It is always deliberate to do that. Every single person knows that it is dangerous to drive after drinking—it is never a mistake; it is never careless; it is never an oversight; it is never an unforced error. It is a deliberate act to get behind the wheel of a potentially lethal weapon, putting other people at risk, when under the influence. So it is quite right, as in the Bill, that the sentence for the most egregious of outcomes—killing someone—should carry the additional penalty when, quite unnecessarily, driving ability was impaired through drink.
I am personally and obviously most aware of this as a result of the actions of a drunken driver who killed my mother on the day before my 10th birthday. But another factor contributed, and that was the absence then of seat belts. There were years of campaigning, including an attempt in 1979 by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, who, as Secretary of State for Transport, said:
“On the best available evidence … compulsion could save up to 1,000 lives … a year”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/79; col. 1720.]
After 13 failed attempts by Back-Benchers in both Houses, some 40 years ago, late in the evening of 28 July 1981, a Lords amendment in the name of Lord Nugent of Guildford succeeded in the Commons.
I was there to witness it, having an interest not just in drinking and driving but in seatbelts because of what happened to my mother. I recall my noble friend Lord Robertson, the chair of the National Seat Belt Survivors Club, speaking. There were many now in your Lordships’ House, including three in their seats today, who voted for that seatbelt amendment—I give a special call-out to my noble friends Lord Anderson, Lord Field, Lord Foulkes, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Clark, Lord Cunningham, Lord Dubs, Lord Prescott, Lord Soley, Lord Rooker and Lady Taylor, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, and to the noble Lords, Lord Beith, Lord Baker, Lord Hailsham, Lord Horam, Lord Howell, Lord Hunt, Lord McNally, Lord Wigley, Lord Patten and Lord Patten of Barnes. Incidentally, I have a list of the others who voted the wrong way that night.
In 1982, the year before the new seatbelt law was enforced, 2,443 people were killed on our roads. By 2016, despite more cars being on the road, the figure had dropped to 816, so the estimate of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, was not an exaggeration. Why is that important to Amendment 152? It is because the sort of accident, caused by drink, which killed my mother might today, thanks to that seatbelt law, along with greatly improved rescue and medical interventions, have led not to death but to serious injury. But without Amendment 152, if death followed, the sentence would reflect the contribution of alcohol, but if the person survived, even with what are euphemistically called life-changing injuries, the contributing factor of alcohol would not be reflected in the sentence. That cannot be right, and that is what this amendment seeks to address.
Although I have not added my name to it, I support Amendment 168. It seems extraordinary that, where someone has either killed or injured someone though drink-driving, they could even think about driving again while disqualified. It seems like sticking two fingers up to society’s abhorrence of this irresponsible behaviour. A sentence of three years where people, disqualified, take to the wheel again seems a sensible measure. To get behind the wheel of a car having killed or injured someone, while being disqualified and therefore uninsured, seems a contemptible act. I hope that that is also an amendment that the Minister will feel able to accept.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the Road Danger Reduction Forum. I point out that our road traffic laws are quite outdated these days. The laws and the penalties have been patched together over the past few decades and the review is long overdue. I hope that Ministers will take that back.
At some point in history, it became acceptable for people to be killed by cars—pedestrians and cyclists. Other drivers just became collateral damage for our car-obsessed culture. I simply do not understand that.
I support all these amendments and am grateful to have worked with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the NGOs which put so much effort into pulling them together. There seems to be a horrific gap between the penalties for killing someone with your car and killing someone in any other way. Personally, I would like to see mandatory lifetime driving bans brought in for many road traffic offences. At the moment, you can be found guilty of killing someone with a car and be allowed to drive yourself home from the court—it is absolutely unbelievable.
We talk so often about “accidents”, which is completely wrong, because that pre-supposes the outcome of any investigation of a collision. If you are saying it was an “accident”, you are saying, “Oops, sorry, couldn’t help it”, but there is always a cause for such incidents. During my time on the Met police authority, I got the Met police to change its designation of those events from “road traffic accidents” to “road traffic incidents”. We cannot prejudge why it happened.
There is also a huge amount of victim blaming. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the case of the person who accelerated away. When I was knocked off my bike by a motorist, I was on a green light and the motorist was not. He just did not look. I had life-changing injuries from that. I did not do anything about it or follow it through because I think he genuinely just did not look properly, and what is there to do about that? At the same time, we accept such incidents far too often, and we cannot blame the victims all the time; we have to, at some point, start blaming the person who is driving a tonne of metal and who is extremely well protected in the case of any collision.
Let us please replace these patched-up, ancient laws with something that fits today’s circumstances, especially when we are trying to encourage more people to get out of their cars and get on bikes, walk home or get on buses. This really needs to change.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was very happy to put my name to all these amendments. As you will be aware, the Cross Benches do not suffer from having Whips to tell us what to do, but when a call comes from the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking, which I have the privilege of being an officer of, that is as near to a three-line Whip as a Cross-Bencher would recognise.
I was a head-hunter for 30 years, so, during that time, one met a range of human beings, many of whom had a particularly high view of the value of their own contribution in a variety of ways. One learned that there were three things in particular that the male of the species thought they were extraordinarily talented at. One of them was making love—I will leave it to noble Lords and noble Baronesses to decide whether the males of their acquaintance meet that hurdle.
The second is that, when interviewing someone, most men, particularly senior businessmen, think that they are extraordinarily talented at telling—within about 30 seconds—whether they are any good. The evidence suggests that they are 100% wrong all the time.
The third thing that many men think they are extraordinarily talented at is driving. Most of us tend to think that we are pretty good drivers—above average—and while, like most human beings, we occasionally make a mistake or forget one or two things that we should not forget, we are pretty relaxed and generous towards ourselves.
In researching this group of amendments and others that follow, the most clear and consistent factor across the whole range of road traffic offences and behaviour is that they are dealt with in an almost entirely inconsistent manner. The inconsistencies jump out at you, because many of the terminologies used are open to interpretation. Many of these terminologies were created and put into statute or guidance in the 20th century—and we are now, in case noble Lords had not noticed, in the 21st century. In the last two decades, the influence of technology has increased hugely, as all of us who drive are very aware.
I, perhaps, have a high danger capability, but I have bicycled in London for 40 years, on and off, and I drive. When I drive, like most people I have at least one device working in my car. One such device cleverly tells you when there are speed traps coming up, or policemen lurking by the side of the road—or whether there’s been an accident ahead. Equally, however, one is often listening or talking, or, even worse, texting. When I bicycle, I have nothing in my ears and I have all my senses about me. What I see, day in, day out, is pretty egregious behaviour, whether by motorists, cyclists or people on e-scooters—including e-scooters ridden by parents taking their four to five year-old children to school, standing in front of them with neither of them wearing a helmet, something that I find fairly alarming. I see this all around: it has become normal.
Until and unless we are more consistent and clearer about how we define acceptable behaviour when driving, or using any form of transport, and what is unacceptable—what is legal, what is illegal, and the gradations between them—we will continue to have an unacceptable level of inconsistency and more heart-rendingly tragic stories. My goodness, you find a lot of them if you do your research.
It is difficult to find rhyme or reason for such inconsistency. The Minister, as a lawyer, is well aware of the dangers that arise when there is inconsistency in how the law is understood. The Minister will also be aware, as are many lawyers, of the many opportunities that inconsistency affords lawyers. When there is inconsistency, or lack of clarity, in the law, it benefits a huge and very profitable industry in this country consisting of law firms that specialise in enabling people to escape, in a variety of ingenious ways, what are almost certainly the right penalties. That industry exists because of these inconsistencies.
These are clearly all probing amendments, but my plea to the noble Lord is that there is real reason and logic behind them, which is that a lack of clarity leads to inconsistency and stories of human tragedy.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his introduction to this group, and his outline of the problems. I also agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about inconsistency. Unfortunately, however, the provisions in Clause 65 are rather unfair and disproportionate. This provision does not address the mischief. We already have the highest per capita rate of imprisonment in Europe, at 133 per 100,000, and this will not help.
I support Amendment 168, for the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
Clause 66 follows hard on the heels of Clause 65 in terms of its undesirability. Can the Minister confirm that these changes would increase the prison population, and if so to what extent?
One of the mischiefs is that, in the event of any road traffic accident, collision, or whatever you like to call it, the insurance companies and relevant contracts forbid policyholders from contacting the other party and, in particular, expressing any form of remorse or forgiveness. This totally flies in the face of the principle of restorative justice. The families, friends and victims can rightly feel aggrieved, due to the insurance regime and not the criminal law. There are other difficulties which I will not weary Committee with. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was right to refer to serious injustices.
There is a problem with securing convictions for dangerous driving; convictions and prosecutions are often for the lesser offence of careless driving. I have much sympathy for the comments on careless driving and dangerous driving by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I can say what the two offences are, but I have difficulty knowing how they are applied.
Clause 65 is about careless and dangerous driving in connection with drink or drugs. The maximum penalty for Clause 65-type offences is currently 14 years, and I have rarely seen anything like that applied. The Government are now proposing a more serious penalty—a life sentence—than for grievous bodily harm without intent.
The problem with the new provisions is that some of the substance thresholds for drug-driving offences are very low—well below the level causing impairment as advised by scientists. Furthermore, some substances can remain in the body for quite a while. Some people, such as noble Lords, never take recreational drugs. For some communities and socioeconomic groups, however, drug-taking is common. This could result in serious unfairness, with some offenders faced with a life sentence when their driving at the relevant time was not actually impaired by drugs.
Amendment 152, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, proposes a new definition and distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving, by reference to the standard required to pass the driving test. I remind Committee that I hold a qualification as an HGV driving instructor, albeit that it is a bit out of date.
It is surprisingly easy to get an automatic failure on a driving test, particularly under the heading “Examiner takes action”. Suppose that a candidate is driving along a main road but has left their left hand indicator on. Suppose that another vehicle is waiting to emerge from a side road and could be fooled into thinking that the test candidate intends to turn left off the main road. At that point, the examiner will say, “Cancel your signal”. That would be an automatic failure, because the examiner took action. I do not think, however, that any of us would call that dangerous driving. I think, therefore, that Amendment 152 is flawed.
However, I agree that it is too difficult to secure a conviction for dangerous driving. I wonder whether the careless driving offence ought to be confined to a momentary or short lapse in driving standards while the new offence of reckless driving ought to consider whether there has been a pattern of numerous, relatively minor contraventions that, taken gather, make for a much more serious offence. I suggest that the Minister sets up a meeting with relevant officials and subject matter experts so that we can discuss these important matters offline and understand them better.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I want to provide my support for a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in the course of his speech. He said that the emphasis should be more on disqualification than on imprisonment. One can understand that, when a jury or magistrate is considering what to make of the facts of the case, the threat of imprisonment may influence the decision to go for the softer option rather than the harder one, whereas disqualification does not have that connotation at all. There is a lot of force in the noble Lord’s point.
I also support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She talked about the patchwork of offences and the need for a much more balanced approach that looks at all the various offences across the board, rather than fitting together one or two things. That is what this enormously long Bill, which, I suggest, is really not suited for this kind of treatment, does.
Having made those remarks by way of support, if one examines the wording of the proposed new clause, one can see that it is a little risky to try to find new wording to replace the well-understood, well-trusted and frequently used phraseology that we have at the moment. For example, in the new meaning of dangerous driving, we are told that that would be where somebody
“commits a breach of … the Highway Code in a way that causes inconvenience, intimidation or danger”.
The word “inconvenience”, which is one of the three alternatives, does not seem appropriate for dangerous driving. I suggest that, if this is to go any further, this word should come out because it is not descriptive of the effect of dangerous driving at all. Similarly, the next subsection defines “careless or inconsiderate driving” and includes “intimidation”, which does not really fit with what one is talking about when one talks of careless driving or driving without due consideration for other road users.
I draw these points to the Minister’s attention because they show that it is a quite a delicate matter to alter the existing wording, which I would wish to preserve instead of trying to introduce a fresh definition.
Finally on definitions, in subsection (4), the words “serious injury” are equated with
“causing death by careless driving”
and the proposal is to insert “or serious injury”. What amounts to a serious injury is difficult to define but, if one is moving in that direction, one would have to introduce additional words, such as “serious injury”. One finds an example in Clause 66, where there is a definition by reference to the existing standards in the criminal court.
I am not sure that that goes far enough when one considers the consequences of some of these offences and the threat of imprisonment, but one has to give very careful thought to what is really meant by “serious injury”. Is somebody breaking their wrist due to falling on the ground enough? Is something that requires them to go to hospital enough? Or is one looking at something much graver? That brings it closer to the idea that one is trying to bridge what might seem to be a gap, where somebody is injured so seriously that it is only by the skill of a surgeon that death is avoided—I can quite see that there is something that needs to be addressed there—but just using the words “serious injury” may mean walking into a trap that it would be better to avoid.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. The Road Traffic Act and all its many successors have left us with a law in which a simple textbook, Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences, is about as fat as a successful marrow. It is absurd that our law is so complicated on something that everybody, or nearly all of us, does every day. Our children will learn it; the day they get to the age of 17, they will want to drive, and so on and so forth.
I entirely agree that this is a patched-up proposal. Personally, I strongly support the idea that we should get this review conducted and analyse exactly what it is that we want to achieve with a modern law relating to road traffic. That law should address not merely the conduct of a person at the wheel of a car but the conduct of a person on an e-scooter or a person riding a bicycle, some of whom are appalling in the way they ride. It should also include pedestrians who step out into a path and make a driver pull away, causing them to knock somebody else over. We need synchronisation of our laws on these issues, which is why I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
That said, I want to make a different point and indicate how strongly opposed I am to a proposal that would enable a prison sentence to be imposed on a motorist who was not driving dangerously or taking deliberate risks, and was not under the influence of drink or drugs, but simply made a mistake while at the wheel. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that “road traffic accident” is not the right phrase to use. It is a road traffic incident, which must be examined, as the evidence shows.
You can, perfectly reasonably, accuse someone who drives without due care and attention of being negligent, but criminal culpability is inevitably low because it is negligent. Driving without due care and attention is an offence; it is negligence. However, we do not send people to prison for negligent mistakes causing serious injury in the context of, for example, the medical profession. A mistake is made. It is negligent. There is an action. Various steps are taken in respect of the doctor, the nurse, or whoever it might be. The result to the victim is very serious. So, when we examine whether a doctor or a nurse may be prosecuted, we look not for evidence of negligence, a lack of due care or a mistake, but for something demonstrating that he or she fell far below the standards required by that profession of that individual in that job at that time. We must be careful not to introduce a different standard of approach to motoring offences. We must remember that this offence is also committed by the young mum whose children in the back of the car start howling because there is a wasp in the car, in the way that children do. Is she momentarily distracted? Yes. Should she have stayed rigidly looking to the front? I suppose so. Is it realistic to think that she, or most mums, would stay that way when her child is screaming in the back? No. Let us keep it realistic.
I am also troubled by the way we approach consequences in the whole of this road traffic law. We have situations where identical culpability can lead to completely different sentences because there has been a death. Of course a death is dreadful, but does the offence become more serious because there are two or three deaths? Personally, I think it does, but there is a question that needs to be answered: how far are we addressing the culpability of the driving as against the consequences? Death by dangerous driving is no trouble; after all, you are driving dangerously. Drink driving is no trouble; you choose to have a drink. Driving to take risks and show off to your friends is no trouble; you are driving dangerously. However, we need to be cautious about the introduction of prison sentences for people whose standard of driving amounts to negligence, not gross negligence.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in thanking the coalition of organisations that have briefed us on Part 5, because they are experts in the field. The short debate we have had reveals the crying need for a comprehensive review of driving sentences. The Government’s push is towards increasing penalties—longer prison sentences—and each of these amendments tackles an issue that needs attention that the Bill is really not going to provide.
The four amendments in this group have little in common with each other. I agree with the local and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on the difference between different offences which could have a very similar outcome. There is a world of difference between causing death while drink-driving or drug-driving, which is a conscious decision that you make, and causing injury or maybe death by carelessly opening your car door: that is at the other extreme. By chance, I saw such an incident last week. I saw a motorist drive up carefully and park, then get distracted by their passenger who had left something behind and who leapt back into the car to retrieve it at the last moment. The driver opened the car door in the path of a cyclist who was not showing lights and it was at night. Now, no great injury was caused in that case, but it could have been. I was standing there waiting to cross the road and I have absolutely no doubt that it was nothing other than distraction and carelessness from a driver who was driving carefully. There is a general push in the Bill towards stiffer sentencing, whereas we should be looking at more effective and appropriate sentencing for drivers, the overwhelming majority of whom are not of the criminal classes and do not have a criminal intent when they drive.
We also need to be designing our roads in a way that makes them much safer. The number of amendments tabled to Part 5 relating to road traffic reinforces my view, and that expressed here today, that we need a thorough review of the laws and penalties that govern driving. I shall say more about this later on my own amendment on this issue. Finally, I refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who drew attention to the inconsistency of the current legislation. Add to that the fact that it is wildly out of date and there really is a need for government action.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I had proposed to speak specifically to my noble and learned friend Lord Hope’s amendments, which are in another group but, frankly, these amendments are all mixed up together and I am rather surprised that they are not grouped. I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said. What it surely comes to, first, is that it is a good idea to look at the astonishing way the law has developed over recent decades.
When I went to the Bar 60 years ago, basically there was dangerous driving and careless driving, as there has been ever since. As now, there were well-recognised meanings and levels within the process of administering this law, and the courts—the magistrates’ courts particularly—and the practitioners know about that. There was also the very rare and very grave offence of motor manslaughter—manslaughter in the context of motoring. That applies to gross negligence cases and is a common-law offence. There is no maximum sentence but life is available. Then, gradually, over the years, sentences became more draconian. A two-year prison sentence was made available for death by dangerous driving. Then, in 1988, 14 years—seven times the original sentence—became the stipulated maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. Now, of course, it is proposed to go from 14 years to life. Is it really contemplated that, short of some quite extravagant case of manslaughter, anybody really ought properly to go to prison for more than 14 years?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I will, once again, I hope, be relatively brief. We welcome Clause 65 and the Government’s actions to increase sentences for those who cause death by dangerous or careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs. Here, at least, is one part of the Bill where we can support its intentions.
We also support the aim of the amendments in this group, which seek to improve road safety and keep dangerous drivers off our roads. I pay tribute to all those, including many noble Lords, who have campaigned to improve road safety and reduce deaths and serious injury. We particularly add our support to Amendment 152, which would widen those protections and increase sentences for causing serious injury while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Having said that, of course, there can be a slim difference between serious injury with a life saved and serious injury with a life lost.
Clause 66 inserts an offence to fill a gap in the law of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. I note some of the comments that have been made in respect of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving, but certainly we support the basic intentions of what is proposed.
The issue of car dooring has been raised for some years by cycling groups, and we have called on the Government to develop a comprehensive new national cycling safety campaign, aimed at not just cyclists but motorists. During the lockdown, cycling increased by, I think, as much as 200% at weekends, with significant increases during the week. We will not be able to build on that progress—I am sure we all regard an increase in cycling as progress—unless we take action to make our roads safe enough to cycle on. What plans do the Government have to look at road safety issues impacting cyclists, as well as other drivers?
I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this debate and to the amendments which we have been discussing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others for speaking to these amendments. This group considers the sentencing of road traffic offences, and I propose to take each one in turn, if I may. I hope that the noble Lord will understand if I do not comment on the specifics of the particular cases he mentioned; not only do I not personally know about them but, as a matter of general approach, it is unwise for a Minister to comment on a court’s decisions in particular cases when they have obviously not heard the evidence and seen the facts. I do, of course, extend my condolences to the victims in those cases. I also acknowledge the moving contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and her particular background in this area.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, reminded us that the law in this area is complex; it now fills a very weighty tome, Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences. I will come back at the end of my remarks to the question of an overall review, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also mentioned. Despite the fact that they perhaps take up more space than they ought to, I think it is fair to say that the current driving laws, while not perfect, work well in the vast majority of cases.
Importantly—this theme ran through the Committee’s debate and was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—we have to strike a balance between the culpability of the driver and the harm or consequences which they cause. That is particularly important in the area of driving, where a moment’s inattention can have such drastic consequences.
I will not comment on the other two areas of life which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, speaking unwhipped, put before us. However, it is often commented that the average person does think that they are an above average driver. Even my maths is good enough to realise that we cannot all be above-average drivers, at least not all the time.
The fact that some of these amendments seek to lower the culpability required before an offence is committed, and others seek to raise the level of culpability needed, might indicate that, broadly speaking, we have the balance about right at the moment. I will speak to the amendments in turn, but I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that victim blaming is no part of my or the Government’s response to any of them.
Amendment 152, which aims to replace Clause 65 in the Bill, does two main things. First, it would replace—I think the noble Lord said it “redefines”, but it effectively replaces—the current objective test of what amounts to careless or dangerous driving with a new test which is, essentially, linked to breaches of the Highway Code. The new test would apply to all offences which relate to or incorporate careless or dangerous driving. Secondly, the new clause would replace the existing
“causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs”
offence with new offences of causing death “or serious injury” by driving under the influence of drink or drugs. The Government have serious concerns about the way this amendment would change the current law. We believe that it would render the current law inconsistent, unworkable and unjust. I will try to explain why we say that.
Given the particular nature of driving, bad driving offences are based not on establishing the intent of the driver but on considering the standard of the driving. The test in law compares the driving of the defendant to that of a notional careful and competent driver, so it is an objective test. If the driving falls below that of the careful and competent driver, the driving is careless; if it falls far below that standard, it is dangerous. This amendment seeks to replace that objective test based on the standard of a person’s driving, which is the current law, with a new definition of dangerous driving which applies to all offences of dangerous driving, including causing death or serious injury.
As we have heard, the proposed new test is linked to breaches of the Highway Code, and here the problem starts. Noble Lords will know that the Highway Code contains references to behaviour that gives rise to criminal offences, and that those offences are set out elsewhere in legislation. But it also contains advisory provisions which are not criminal offences. We should be clear that, when we talk about a breach of the Highway Code—when you do something which it says you should not be doing—you are not always referring to something which amounts to criminal offending. Indeed, often breaches of the Highway Code are not criminal offences.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed out, under this amendment the standard for dangerous driving could be met by a breach of the Highway Code that causes no more than a little “inconvenience”—one of the tests in the amendment—to another road user. At the same time, the offences covered by dangerous driving attract significant custodial penalties, despite the attempt to limit this offence to “serious” breaches of the code. Serious breaches are, in turn—and, with respect, I suggest inappropriately and impractically—defined in relation to passing or failing a driving test. So where does that get us, when we put it all together?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Is the Minister saying that if we drafted this slightly better, with “dangerous driving” included, he might accept it?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I will be very careful here because the law in this area is really complex. I was going to say this later but will preface it now. I am very happy to have a discussion on these points. I am reluctant to reply to a drafting suggestion from the Dispatch Box but, if the noble Baroness writes to me, I will certainly write back and we can have a discussion. I hope that is helpful and answers her question.
On this part of Amendment 152, the five-year maximum penalty for causing serious injury also contrasts with the two-year maximum proposed for the new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving in Clause 66, although the culpability levels are broadly similar. Saying clearly what should not need to be said, we recognise the seriousness of driving while unfit to do so through drink or drugs, but we also must have laws that reflect the various levels of culpability of drivers across the piece. Perhaps it will be more useful to discuss this against another draft, if that is what the noble Baroness wants. This draft does not strike a fair balance and therefore we cannot support it.
Turning to Amendments 167 and 168, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that we take road safety seriously. The sanction of disqualification is a very helpful tool, an integral part of the overall approach to road traffic enforcement and, therefore, to promoting road safety. However, again the sanction of disqualification must be proportionate. He proposes amending disqualification periods for stand-alone offences from two years to five years. We are not persuaded that an increase of that magnitude is warranted for all the offences which the amendment would encompass. For example, two offences that would fall within the amendment involve causing serious injury to other road users, and another covers any offence where the driver has incurred a disqualification in the previous three years. The proposed increase is unduly harsh in these circumstances.
We would want to think carefully and coherently across the piece about amending the periods of disqualification for various offences. We want to keep sanctions at the right level, and we keep this under constant review. With respect, the noble Lord has much to contribute to the road safety debate. I would be very happy to meet him and others to discuss potential changes to the existing periods of disqualification. Perhaps we can arrange that. I heard what my noble friend Lord Attlee said, and recall that on the then Domestic Abuse Bill, we found that what we called a teach-in was quite useful. That might be a useful way of organising this, with specialist officials in the MoJ and/or the Department of Transport. I will be in touch with the noble Lord on that.
Also, in the context of disqualification, the noble Lord proposes reducing, from three years to two years, the timeframe for which offences would be regarded as repeat offences. As repeat offences, this would trigger a longer disqualification period, of two years rather than 12 months. Three years is the time for the totting-up process. We think that it is useful to keep the same period for repeat offences.
I turn to the amendments to the penalties for repeat instances of certain offences. The noble Lord proposes an increase in the minimum period of disqualification from three years to 10 years. Ten years is a considerable period of disqualification. It would affect not only the disqualified person but possibly their families in serious ways. We must remember that those convicted in these circumstances often also face a custodial sentence in addition to any driving ban that they receive. Therefore, one must look at the disqualification period in that context.
The length of a driving ban is at the discretion of the courts. They sometimes impose a lifetime ban. The noble Lord will know, but I will make it clear to the Committee, that the courts have a statutory duty to take into account the impact of a custodial sentence when imposing a driving ban, so it is not diminished by the period spent in custody. However, we do not think that a minimum period of 10 years would be proportionate in respect of the offences that currently carry a three-year minimum period of disqualification for repeat offences. The three-year period is a minimum. As I have said, the courts can disqualify in excess of that if necessary.
The noble Lord also proposes a minimum disqualification period of two years for drivers convicted of dangerous driving. A person who is convicted of dangerous driving is still subject to obligatory disqualification for a period of one year. That can be increased by a judge in light of particular circumstances. Again, we are not persuaded that a conviction of dangerous driving warrants a longer minimum ban, nor do we propose to accept the proposal to reduce the penalty for the offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving from five years to two years. This is a good example of the balance I spoke about earlier. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, mentioned, when death results, the law often looks at things differently. When drivers cause the death of another person, a road user of any sort, through unacceptable behaviours such as careless driving, the penalties have to be sufficient to reflect the seriousness of their actions.
Turning to the amendments on the offence of driving while disqualified, if this sanction is to work effectively, people must be forced to adhere to the disqualification period. We know that that is not always the case. That is why we have a dedicated offence of driving while disqualified, which carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison. We consider that the right penalty for that offence. It is sufficiently effective in discouraging people from driving while disqualified and we do not believe that a longer period would be any more effective.
Finally, the noble Lord proposes an amendment which seeks to make it an offence to cause death or serious injury when opening a car door, with a penalty of a fine, imprisonment or both, obligatory disqualification from driving and obligatory endorsement of penalty points. We believe that the new offence is unnecessary, because causing death or serious injury when opening a door would already be covered by existing offences under Regulation 105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, which is brought into play in this context by Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
More generally, while I recognise the importance of checking the road carefully before opening a car door, the penalty must be proportionate. The penalty for the current offence is limited to a fine and we do not have any evidence base upon which to agree or accept that the new and much higher penalties for the offence proposed by the amendment are warranted or justified. However, we are updating the Highway Code to improve guidance for opening vehicle doors carefully and safely to minimise any risk this may pose. We have been promoting what I think is called the “Dutch reach”, where you reach across—I will try to give an example from the Dispatch Box—to open the door with the hand which is further from it, because that forces you to look around.
There is another point here. It is called the Dutch reach because it comes from Holland, where a lot of people cycle. To pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, cycling is good for people not just when they are cycling but when they are driving. If you are a cyclist, you can also become a better driver, because you are more aware of cyclists on the road. We certainly appreciate the point and are looking at it.
I will pick up two further points from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. First, on the example he gave, I am not sure I took it down accurately, but my initial reaction was that alcohol is always an aggravating factor. However, I will check Hansard and can perhaps write to him with a specific response on that point. Secondly, on the 2014 review, that was announced and we have been working on it. We published a consultation on driving offences and penalties relating to causing death or serious injury and are now bringing forward proposals for reform of the law, which we committed to in our response to the consultation. My colleagues at the Department for Transport are taking that work forward on the broader issues of road safety.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said that she would pick up her point in a later group so, with respect, I or my colleague will respond to it then. My noble friend Lord Attlee asked about an increase in the prison population. The short point here is that people go to prison only when the court cannot impose another offence and they go to prison immediately only when it is sufficiently serious that the sentence cannot be suspended. I hope that gives him some reassurance. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on Clause 65. I note his support for the amendments, but for the reasons I have set out, I hope those proposing these amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I point out that he is arguing for the status quo when we have already said that there is no rationale behind it. There is no rationale behind two years or three years. The fact that he thinks it sounds reasonable is really not good enough. It is urgent to get this review together. Which organisations have the Government taken advice from on this, before bringing in these new penalties? Who did they take advice from? It sounds as if they did not take it from people who understand the situation as it is on the roads.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am afraid that, with respect, the noble Baroness is wrong on both points. There are provisions in the Bill which change the law considerably; there are quite a few in this area. I am certainly not arguing for the status quo but rather for the provisions we have put in the Bill. I have sought to explain why, if we are going to change other parts of our road traffic offences, we need to do so carefully and make sure that there are no unintended consequences. I hoped my explanation of the new test for dangerous driving based on breaches of the Highway Code and the consequences that brings with it was a good example of that.
As to who we have consulted, I assure the noble Baroness that my department and the Department for Transport speak frequently to a range of stakeholders. Perhaps I can write to her with a list, exhaustive or possibly non-exhaustive, of the people we have spoken to.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I also point out that when the Minister demonstrated the Dutch reach, he did so from the point of view of a Dutch car rather than an English one. Perhaps he would like to practise that at home.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Baroness and I are sitting on opposite sides of the House. If I was driving, I would normally open the door with my right hand, so I was turning round to open it. I think my example was right, but I will look at the video tonight and write to the noble Baroness if I was wrong.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has been very helpful, but I am slightly worried that he does not fully appreciate how difficult it is to secure conviction for dangerous driving. On the Dutch reach, could we not include this in the driving test, which would mean that driving instructors would have to teach their students how to do it? I like to think I am an experienced driver and I carefully check my mirror before opening the door. Not doing so is an easy mistake for a novice driver to make, but it would be easy to train those drivers to use the Dutch reach.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am certainly aware of the differences between dangerous driving and careless driving. Dangerous driving is reserved for those instances of driving which fall “far below” the objective standard. The question of whether the Dutch reach should be included in the driving test is a matter for colleagues at the Department for Transport. I will pass that suggestion on; I hope they will get back to my noble friend on that point.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate on these amendments and I have no regrets about tabling them. They came from the group that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned—she has also thought about this very carefully. I would like some further information on whether they talk to each other. They will look at what the Minister has said tonight with great care and read the comments from the many other noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have spoken. It has been fascinating to hear the different views.
One thing that we need to focus on is the need for safety. The Dutch reach is just one example. I have cycled in Holland quite often; motorists there tend to be much more careful when opening doors, but so are cyclists. In Holland, you do not get the kind of aggressive, Lycra-clad people who so many motorists in this country dislike. However, that is no excuse for causing any danger to them.
What also follows from the Minister’s comments is that there needs to a reflection on getting people to think before they offend, because a lot of people do not, and when they offend say, “Oh, it was a mistake,” or whatever. People need to be responsible for their actions.
Thirdly, there is a wide lack of enforcement, which noble Lords have alluded to, covering motoring, cycling and occasionally walking. Some of my amendments reflect the feelings of people at the vulnerable end of the spectrum that there is a lack of enforcement, and they would like to see things tightened up and balanced.
Lastly, I am concerned, and have been for many years, about how the Minister’s department and the Department for Transport work together, or occasionally possibly do not. I have no evidence that they have not worked together on this matter, but it would be helpful to hold discussions with both departments before Report. I see that the Minister does not like my amendments. We do not like some of his. We are a long way apart, but it would be helpful to try to move together. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to this amendment and my other amendments in this group. First, though, I welcome my noble friend Lord Sharpe to the Front Bench, and I look forward to his response.
These amendments are about pedicabs. I will briefly explain the problem, and then come to the solutions and proposed way forward. For any noble Lords unsure about what I am referring to, pedicabs are passenger vehicles operated by a cyclist at the front pulling a small carriage at the back. Sometimes they are known as rickshaws. Noble Lords may have seen them lined up on Westminster Bridge touting for business from tourists. They are often covered in flashing lights and blaring out loud music. They are mainly found in the West End and other tourist hotspots, whether that is Oxford Street and other major shopping zones during the day, or Leicester Square, Soho and the theatre district at night.
We have an unacceptable situation. These vehicles are legal, but, believe it or not, they do not need insurance. There is no way to identify the drivers, there is no requirement for operators to undergo criminal records checks, most vehicles do not undergo any safety or maintenance checks, and there is no control over the fares charged. Pedicabs are the only form of public transport in the capital that is completely unregulated.
It may assist the Committee if I explain very briefly the history of how this unacceptable anomaly occurred. Nearly 20 years ago—lawyers here will be able to expand on this—pedicabs were defined in case law as stage carriages in Greater London under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, so do not fall under Transport for London’s licensing powers. This is not the case elsewhere in England and Wales, where they are defined as hackney carriages and subject to local licensing and regulation.
The upshot is that pedicabs can ply for hire in any street or place in Greater London. They are acting with impunity and in competition with black cabs, and where appropriate with licensed taxis, for custom. To state the obvious, those vehicles are subject to a range of regulations and exacting standards. It will not surprise the Committee that this impunity and the full knowledge that they cannot be held to account leads to a wide range of safety and traffic incidents. This includes dangerous driving, such as going the wrong way up one-way streets—I have personally seen pedicabs come on to pavements—nuisance driving, parking in bus lanes, and impeding traffic. There is a range of passenger safety issues associated with roadworthiness, and some vehicles have motorised the bicycle at the front, creating more risks to passengers. Hit and runs are not uncommon.
Then there is the nuisance and anti-social behaviour, which has a detrimental effect not just on businesses and residents but on the reputation of our capital city. There is aggressive touting for business; ripping off passengers with outrageous charges; very loud music played all day and night; harassment of passengers, including women; violence between drivers; and even reports of facilitating drug dealing across the city.
The Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 has been useful to some extent, but it is only a short-term measure, as it takes a huge amount of evidence, time and police resource to apply. We need regulation to prevent those wishing to give our capital city a bad name having the chance to do so in the first place. Having said all that, there are some reputable firms that want regulation. Indeed, there is an environmental case for pedicabs to be part of London’s public transport system, but that can happen only if they come under the control of Transport for London.
What is the solution? Before I explain my amendments, I want to highlight a better solution. My honourable friend Nickie Aiken, MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, has been campaigning tirelessly on this issue since she was elected in 2019. She has cross-party support from London-based MPs, many of whom have campaigned on this issue since Labour was in government. Her Private Member’s Bill, due its Second Reading on Friday 19 November, would bring pedicabs under the remit of Transport for London and allow it to introduce proper regulations. That would bring London into line with the rest of England and Wales. The Bill, and what it will achieve, is supported by MPs, the Mayor of London, Westminster Council, Kensington and Chelsea Council, other affected councils, Transport for London, the Soho Society, the Marylebone Association, the Heart of London Business Alliance, and a wide range of other bodies that are members of the Regulate Pedicabs Coalition. No one is against this, so I know she is pushing at an open door when it comes to government support. For the last five years, Minister after Minister has promised to introduce legislation to make this regulation happen when an appropriate legislative vehicle is available, but so far none has arrived.
So, here is what I am asking. First, I would like the Minister to confirm that the Government will support Nickie Aiken’s Private Member’s Bill if it gets a Second Reading on 19 November. But notice that I said “if”, because, even with the Government’s support, we face a real risk of not getting that far. This is the third attempt to introduce legislation via a Private Member’s Bill. Nickie’s Bill is the fifth due to be debated on that day, so there is a real danger that it will not get a Second Reading and will fall again. To be fair, this Private Member’s Bill is a suitable vehicle because it is simply bringing London in line with everywhere else, where local authorities can already regulate. It is not introducing new policy; it is just correcting something which needs to be corrected.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has made a powerful speech, which I find entirely compelling. My only concern is that her amendments are far too modest. If the Private Member’s Bill does not proceed satisfactorily, I suggest that she brings forward on Report an amendment which makes it a criminal offence to operate such a vehicle in London without a licence.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am probably alone on this one: some years ago I went away from my wedding service in a pedicab in London, and I rather enjoyed it.
I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but I think the definition in this amendment will cause a few problems. It says that a pedicab is
“a pedal cycle, motor cycle or power-assisted cycle, or such a vehicle”—
I did not know that cycles were vehicles, but maybe that is right—
“in combination with a trailer, constructed or adapted for carrying one or more passengers.”
My daughter used to take her children to school sitting in a trailer on the back of a bicycle, and that would be covered by this amendment. I do not quite see why she should not continue to do that. It was not motor-assisted, but it could have been. This needs looking at.
I think what the noble Baroness is getting at is that she does not like the look of these things. I would agree—they do not look particularly nice. The biggest problem is that many are not insured. That is a serious problem. Whether they need controlling or licensing by TfL needs a bit of debate. The black cabs obviously do not like them because they take away business. Are we in the business of protecting black cabs because they look nicer than these pedicabs that go around with not just lights flashing but some pretty horrible music coming out of them sometimes? On the other hand, are we here to regulate music and pedicabs? I do not know. The key for me is that they should have third-party insurance at the very least. Whether their fares should be controlled is a debate that is probably down to TfL to decide. Secondly, who is going to enforce this?
The other type of “vehicle”, if you can call them that, are freight cycles, which are beginning to appear in the streets of cities, London included. Sometimes they have two wheels, sometimes three or four—I do not have a clue which—but they distribute freight to outlets in the city as an alternative to trucks and vehicles, which cause a lot of pollution if they are not electric. Do we want to prevent them going around? They might be plying for hire, and the customers would be moving freight, not passengers. Whether they should be insured is debatable, because cycles are not required to be insured at the moment, and I expect we will have a debate about scooters in a couple of years’ time. But it is questionable whether a freight cycle, with or without power assistance, should be covered by this. I suggest that it should not be. This goes back to the only issue on which I think I disagree with the noble Baroness, which is insurance, because they are carrying passengers for hire. If I am carrying my family or some friends as passengers in a trailer on the back of my bike, I do not see why I should have to be insured if I do not feel like it. I think that is the same as on a bicycle.
I hope the noble Baroness will consider these issues. If she comes back on Report with a changed amendment, she should confine it to things which really matter from the safety point of view, rather than widening it to freight, family trips or something else.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend. It is ludicrous that pedicabs are regulated in some parts of the country but not in London.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has made a very strong point about an issue which applies only in a specific part of the country. Most of us do not have experience of this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, there is a more general trend in the use of bikes as cargo bikes—and, indeed, my own son also used to take his young children around in a little cart behind his bike. It used to worry me greatly. The girls no longer like to be reminded of it, but they seemed to think it was great fun at the time. Of course, the issue of insurance is important. It seems to me that the point the noble Baroness has made is that there is a long-overdue need for a review of hire services—vehicles for hire—and since the use of bikes is much more common these days, we really should include them in that review.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too agree that the noble Baroness made a compelling speech, with which a lot of people who live in London will have a lot of sympathy. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who raised the issues of cycles for freight, insurance and how the very rapid development of small electric vehicles and bicycles expanding their remit in London is a wider problem that needs to be addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also made that point.
As I have said to the Committee before, I sit as a magistrate in London, very often in Westminster. I remember dealing with pedicabs a number of years ago. Those offences were brought to our attention by Westminster City Council. From memory—this is a number of years ago—it was usually to do with pedicabs being parked on pavements, with the police bringing people to court through the council and impounding some vehicles. I have not seen those offences for several years now. I do not quite know what has changed—perhaps Westminster City Council does not feel it has the power to do that anymore, I do not know; it is a moving target. Nevertheless, I think the central point of the noble Baroness’s amendment is powerful.
I do not know whether there are any practical problems with harmonising the regulations with the rest of England and Wales, so I look forward to what the Minister says on that point.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Stowell for comprehensively setting out the case for these amendments, which relate to the regulation of pedicabs. As she pointed out, Clause 66 relates to motor vehicles which are defined as “mechanically propelled”. They are the most dangerous and cause the most harm, so it is logical that they are the focus of this clause.
The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned other types of similar vehicle that might be caught by this, so it is perhaps worth mentioning what the Government are doing on cycling offences. In 2018, we held a consultation to consider cycling offences causing serious injury or death, as well as reviewing existing cycling offences. The Government feel that any new offences applicable to cyclists, with or without a trailer, are best legislated for as a package, rather than piecemeal. Moreover, we believe that there should be a separate framework of cycling offences, as compared with motoring offences, as it may not be proportionate to apply to cyclists offences intended for drivers of motor vehicles and their corresponding penalties. The response to the consultation will be published in due course—I hope before the end of this year, but early next year at the latest.
The wider question of the regulation of pedicabs, including that of noise nuisance caused by sound systems located on pedicabs—which I agree from experience can be ear-splitting—is not a straightforward issue. In England, pedicabs generally fall under the taxi and private hire vehicle licensing regime, as various noble Lords have mentioned, in that they can be regulated as a hackney carriage—a taxi. The exception to this is London, where, as my noble friend Lady Stowell explained, they fall outside the existing taxi legislation. It should also be noted that taxi and private hire vehicle legislation is a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales, although the legislation that applies in Wales is the same as that which applies in England.
The Government are aware of the long-standing concerns that pedicabs contribute to safety and traffic-related issues in central London. The current situation in London means that there are few existing powers to control pedicab operations effectively. This has meant that pedicab operators, drivers and their vehicles are not licensed, there are no requirements for drivers to undergo criminal record or right-to-work checks, as there are in other industries, and there is no fare control. And there may very well be insurance issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned.
The Government agree that it is in the interest of safety and fairness to passengers to fix this legal anomaly and, as my noble friend Lady Stowell noted, a Private Member’s Bill that would enable Transport for London to regulate pedicabs in London is currently being taken forward by Nickie Aiken MP—the Pedicabs (London) Bill. I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to join the very long list pointed out by my noble friend and support this Bill. I am therefore happy to offer her a meeting with the Minister, my noble friend Lady Vere, to discuss this further, if she would like. I commend my noble friend for raising this issue. We agree that it needs to be addressed, and I hope she is reassured that the Department for Transport is on the case. For now, I hope my noble friend feels free to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will certainly withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for making clear that the Government support the Private Member’s Bill, and I will of course accept the offer of a meeting with my noble friend Lady Vere—although, if it is a meeting we have to have because the Private Member’s Bill has not been successful in its Second Reading on 19 November, I hope the Minister is ready and prepared for action to take us further forward.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his suggestion, which I will certainly consider, if necessary, and discuss with the Government in the first instance. I would very much prefer government support if it is necessary to take this step.
I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that it is certainly not my intention, nor that of my honourable friend Nickie Aiken in her Private Member’s Bill, to include the kinds of vehicles he describes—the domestic arrangement where a parent may have a small trailer on the back, with small children in it. This is about vehicles that charge passengers to transport them.
I also take on board the points made about the nature of the new ways of transporting freight using cycles within London. That is why I emphasised in my opening remarks that, on pedicabs more generally, there was a time when there was a real effort to ban them altogether. Now we realise that, with today’s environmental challenges, there is scope for vehicles that use pedal power, as opposed to standard motorised power.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support, and to my noble friend Lord Attlee. I hope that I do not need to come back on Report to detain your Lordships further on this but, if I have to, I will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“(3) A person is to be regarded as having caused a serious injury to the other person using the road or place only if it would have been obvious to a careful and competent driver that the way the person was driving at the time of the accident was likely to cause serious injury to that other person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a test for the words “causing serious injury”, which is needed as a conviction for this offence would attract a sentence of imprisonment.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
In moving this amendment, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has put her name, I will speak also to my opposition that Clause 66 stand part of the Bill, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Pannick, have added their names.
The essence of the point I wish to raise, which is about imposing sentences of imprisonment for the consequences of an act of careless driving, was put across with great clarity by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, in his contribution to the previous debate. But if your Lordships will forgive me, I would like to take some time to explain my position on Clause 66, as it raises important issues that affect every driver, however careful and considerate they almost always are.
Clause 66 seeks to introduce a new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. As the law stands, causing death by careless driving is a separate, distinct offence but causing serious injury by careless driving is not. That might suggest there is a gap in our law that needs to be filled. Indeed, at one time, it was thought that the fact that a serious injury had resulted from careless driving was not to be taken into account at all when the motorist was being sentenced for careless driving, but that is no longer the case. Under the current sentencing guidelines, that harm has been caused to others is now a relevant factor when a court is sentencing for careless driving, so there is, in practice, now no such gap. It seems that the issue at the heart of this debate is whether the current sentencing approach goes far enough, whether it needs to be changed, and if so, how far, and in what respects.
The Minister in a contribution to the previous debate referred to the need for balance in sentencing. Under the current sentencing guidelines, one finds a balance. Cases are to be assessed in three categories according to the degree of culpability and the extent of the harm. A case where serious injury has been caused will be in the top category where the culpability is higher or the middle one if the culpability is lower. The maximum fine in both cases is I think £5,000. The appropriate fine level is higher for the top category, for which disqualification is possible but not mandatory, and it permits the imposition of seven to nine penalty points. Cases involving serious injury with lesser culpability, which are in the middle of the category, will attract five to six penalty points but no disqualification.
Clause 66 seeks to provide that disqualification is to be obligatory in all cases of causing serious injury by careless driving, that the upper range of penalty points be extended and that there be no limit on the fines that may be imposed. However, it also proposes that a conviction for this offence may result in imprisonment of up to 12 months if prosecuted summarily or two years if on indictment. The contrast between what the penalties are now and what they would be if this clause were to be enacted in its present form, given that serious harm is already a relevant factor under the current guidelines, is astonishing. That is why I thought it right to draw attention to the issue and to the need for the proposal to be explained and fully justified.
Careless driving is something that every competent motorist will seek to avoid but, human nature being what it is, they will not always be able to do so. Lord Diplock explained the difference between dangerous or reckless driving and careless driving in Regina v Lawrence in 1982—Appeal Cases 510. As he put it, driving is dangerous or reckless where it creates an
“obvious and serious risk of causing … injury … or … damage”.
However, he went on to explain that it is not necessary to show that a driver was conscious of the possible consequences of what he was doing for him to be guilty of driving without due care and attention. Section 3, he said,
“takes care of the kind of inattention or misjudgment to which the ordinarily careful motorist is occasionally subject without its necessarily involving any moral turpitude, although it causes inconvenience and annoyance to other users of the road.”
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, gave striking examples of situations that may arise that caused that kind of situation to occur—the wasp in the car with children, for example. Lord Diplock did not mention causing injury, but I suggest that the fact that a serious injury has resulted from that kind of driving does not alter his assessment of the culpability of the offence—the nature of the offence itself. Of course, the circumstances will vary from case to case, but the offence does not necessarily involve any moral turpitude, criminal mind or wicked behaviour at all. A moment’s inattention may be enough.
The fact that the punishments now being proposed for this offence include imprisonment of up to one year if the offence is charged summarily and up to two years if it is brought under indictment is particularly striking. That is a massive increase in the available penalties. Prisons, after all, are nasty, brutal and dangerous places. Quite rightly, imprisonment is reserved under our road traffic law for only the most serious cases where there has been a deliberate breach of the law of some gravity. This prompts me to ask a number of questions to the noble Lord. Why is such a severe penalty now being proposed for something that does not involve a deliberate breach of the road traffic law but which is mere negligence or inattention? What is the reason for this? What research has been carried out into the need for it, and what thought has been given to the consequences of imposing such a penalty for acts of mere carelessness, albeit that a serious injury has been caused?
One may take the example of the mother in the car with the wasp; something has happened because the children were alarmed and she had a moment’s inattention, and a serious injury resulted. Does a person in that situation really deserve a sentence of imprisonment, or even the severe worry of being faced with the possibility of imprisonment? After all, the imprisonment is one thing, but the fact that you are charged with an offence with a penalty of imprisonment is itself a very serious matter indeed, which is not to be taken at all lightly. I suggest that imprisonment as a punishment for such an offence on its own that is being posed here—of course, I leave aside situations where drink or drugs have been taken, which is a different situation altogether—is grossly excessive and wholly inappropriate.
The risk I fear most when I venture out on to the roads is that of accidentally hitting a cyclist. That risk increases as the days grow shorter, we have increasing hours of darkness and, let us face it, not all cyclists are very visible to people driving motor cars along the road, however careful they may be. They do not always wear Lycra and bright colours and it is sometimes extremely difficult to see them and indeed to be sure which direction they will take their cycle in as you approach them. I fear these cyclists when I see them. There are so many situations where it is not possible, despite one’s best efforts, to create the space that is needed when overtaking. You may have a bus coming towards you on the other side of the road. Of course you can slow down, as I often do, and wait for the cyclist to get to a broader place in the road, but it is not always possible to do that. One has to exercise judgment and take as much care as possible.
However, what if the worst was to happen? The cyclist has fallen off the bicycle and breaks a wrist, possibly an arm or a leg. Of course you stop, because there has been an accident resulting in injury. The police have to be called and, no doubt, an ambulance too. There is then the real possibility of a charge of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. In a situation of that kind, almost always the driver will be blamed as the person who caused the accident—that is the way things turn out. Then there is this real prospect of a prison sentence. There is nothing in Clause 66 to tell the magistrates when that would or would not be appropriate. Is that really acceptable? Another question for the Minister: has any thought been given to what the Sentencing Council’s guidelines might be if this offence were to be introduced?
Many of your Lordships will have received an email from Cycling UK with recommendations as to how our current road traffic law should be reformed. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, with his amendments in an earlier group, has drawn attention to a number of its recommendations. Its interest in promoting these reforms is very obvious in view of the very real risks that cyclists undertake every day. However, I was particularly interested in its comment on Clause 66, and I hope that I have understood it correctly when I say that it suggests that there should be a greater focus on disqualification and less on imprisonment. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made that very point in his speech in an earlier group. Cycling UK suggests that the maximum sentence on summary prosecution should be reduced to six months—of course, I would say that it should not be there at all—and that account should be taken of other circumstances not mentioned here that would increase culpability. I would regard that as an improvement if one is to introduce this offence at all; you look for something else, such as taking drugs or driving without insurance or when disqualified. I do not support all that Cycling UK proposes, but there is an indication in what it is saying, which I endorse, that the Government need to think again, and much more carefully, about what needs to be done to alter the current approach to sentencing, which, as I have suggested, strikes a balance as to what is appropriate between the various degrees which may fall within the ambit of this offence.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord explained very effectively, Clause 66 inserts a new Section 2C into the 1988 Act, introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. The offence is committed by driving
“without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other”
road users. Serious injury is defined as physical harm amounting to grievous bodily harm under the terms of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. As the noble and learned Lord set out, the proposed penalties are two years’ imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment and a maximum penalty on summary conviction of 12 months and/or a fine.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I are unashamedly having two stabs at this issue. Amendment 155 takes the narrow view, introducing a test for the words “causing serious injury”. This is needed because it will be an imprisonable offence. The Government have defined “serious injury” but not “causing”. Our amendment suggests a form of words which indicates that to be found guilty of this you have to have displayed blatant disregard for the normal rules of care on the road. It is important for us to remember that driving is the one day-to-day activity by which a law-abiding citizen can kill another law-abiding citizen through simple inattention. I expect most noble Lords are drivers and, if they search their hearts and memories, I am sure they can think of an incident in their driving history when they have done something careless—when they have failed, despite perhaps taking care, to notice a cyclist or another car. Usually that is a moment that passes without anything terrible happening, but sometimes there is an accident.
If we are going to move towards imprisoning motorists for being careless, we need to be extremely careful. Criminalising motorists is a dangerous direction. Most motorists involved in accidents which result in serious injury or death are stricken by an overwhelming sense of guilt. In many cases, it wrecks the rest of their life. Rather than needing imprisonment, they need to ensure that in future they are much better drivers. Why do we send people to prison? We send them to prison to protect society. It is not likely that we need to protect society from the normal careless driver. We need to send them to prison to punish them—to be punished for simple carelessness.
The suspicion must be that the Government are seeking to create a new offence to catch those motorists who are charged with, but not found guilty of, dangerous driving. For 20 years, I was a magistrate. It is, and was, normal for alternative charges to be brought: careless driving and dangerous driving. I well recall occasions when the CPS simply failed to prove dangerous driving for one reason or another. I believe we are in a dangerous position if we start creating new offences to cater for the failure of prosecutors to make their case. Just as there is a difference between murder and manslaughter, there is a clear difference between careless driving and dangerous driving. In opposing that the clause stand part, we are proposing that there is no need for this new offence. As an alternative, we offer Amendment 155, which provides much-needed clarity on the degree of carelessness that must be involved.
There is a tendency to a knee-jerk reliance on custodial sentences. Most drivers, even bad drivers, do not need prison to improve their behaviour. Prison costs the public purse massive amounts of money. It destroys marriages and families and the ability of the prisoner to get a job on release. It often destroys their mental health. Prisons are not called “universities of crime” for nothing; they create better criminals. Bad drivers need more appropriate sentences. Careless drivers need more appropriate sentences, such as driving bans, retraining, which is really important, community sentences, restorative justice or fines, but not prison, except in the most extreme and persistent cases.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to the suggestion that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. I agree entirely with what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the punishment of imprisonment. There is an important difference of principle between causing serious injury by dangerous driving and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. The principle is that the offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving falls into the category of “There but for the grace of God, go I”. It is very difficult to see why the penalty of imprisonment should be appropriate when all the steps being taken in the criminal justice system are to recognise that we send far too many people to prison and that prison has, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, eloquently said, very adverse consequences for the offender, their family and society generally. The Government need to present a most compelling justification for a proposal that more people should be sent to prison in circumstances such as this.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I support everything that noble Lords have said so far. Unless the clause is significantly amended along the lines suggested, I could not possibly support it if it were taken to a Division.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, as this is about causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving, the state of mind—the mental element—is involved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the case of Lawrence in 1982, a decision of Lord Diplock. In that same year I was appearing before the Appellate Committee in a case called Caldwell, in which a person who was intoxicated had gone to sleep in the doorway of a hotel, lit a fire to warm himself and severely damaged the hotel. The issue was whether he was reckless in so doing. What was his state of mind, his mental element? It was agreed that he had no intent to do it but Lord Diplock held that the conviction should be upheld because an ordinary person who was not intoxicated would have realised the consequences of what he was doing, although Caldwell himself had not done so. He spent quite a long time in prison, and it took 22 years for my argument to succeed in the case of G in 2002, when Lord Bingham held that Caldwell had been wrongly decided and that the test of the mental element has to be subjective—that is, it is necessary for the person to have a subjective understanding of what is going on. That is very similar to the issue we are discussing in this case.
However, I believe that Clause 66 is simply wrong in principle. It threatens to penalise the outcome of the offence—serious injury—with imprisonment when the mental element of the offence of careless driving is no more than negligence. I accept that there is a precedent for penalising driving offences by reference to outcomes. Clause 65, relating to causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, has that effect, but dangerous driving and careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs both have a far more serious mental element than simply careless driving. Dangerous driving involves falling far below the standard of a reasonable driver, and the drink or drugs offence involves deliberate impairment. In either case, the offending driver is knowingly taking a risk with the safety of other road users, so it is his mental element that is being punished in those serious cases.
On the other hand, as other noble Lords have said, careless driving involves driving that falls below the standard of care of a prudent driver—no more than carelessness, negligence or, in the terms of the clause itself, “inconsiderate” driving. A mistake, or inadvertence, may suffice. To make such an offence imprisonable because it results in serious injury is not a step that we have ever taken before, and offends against the principle that the seriousness of an offence should depend not just on the act done but on the state of mind of the offender.
Almost every accident is the result of negligent driving on the part of at least one of the drivers involved—that is, in the absence of mechanical failure or an unexpected event, such as the wasp sting that we have heard about, but such events are extremely unusual. Sadly, a vast number of accidents involve serious injury—a broken limb, for example, being “serious injury” for this purpose. The vast majority of accidents arising from negligence, whether or not they cause serious injury, do not lead to prosecutions. The clause would leave it to police and prosecuting authorities to pick out the few accidents that they wished to lead to prosecution, and would expose drivers to the risk of imprisonment for an accident that arose out of a simple mistake.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The noble Lord has made a very interesting speech, but is it right that negligence and the harm that it does cannot be reflected in imprisonment for any criminal offence? What is the position in relation to health and safety at work? My understanding of the law is that once someone is convicted of what is in effect negligence in relation to providing conditions at work, the court can take such matters into account—for example, if they were negligent and someone lost an eye, that would increase the penalty, and imprisonment would be a possibility. I might be wrong about that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
That is an interesting point. Manslaughter can obviously be by negligence.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Gross negligence, yes—although it is interesting that the word “gross” is put before it. But these are different offences, and it may be that I should confine my criticism to the road traffic situation and not extend it as a general principle of English law.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, there have been some powerful contributions to this debate. I agree with the comments that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble friends have made.
It is perhaps necessary that we should say in the debate that there are members of the public whose families have been drastically affected by serious injury resulting from careless driving who feel that there should be a stronger penalty, and that the particular circumstances in the accident with which they are familiar justify a stronger penalty. This is the simple point I want to make: the territory that we enter here is of believing that prison is the only way that society can say, “We are not going to put up with this. This is very bad. Drivers should drive better, and people should be aware of the dangers that they engage in if their concentration lapses.” Prison is probably one of the least effective ways of dealing with the individuals that we are talking about.
As my noble friend Lady Randerson pointed out, the effects of these accidents—or rather incidents, following the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—which result in serious injury are devastating for all those involved. However, the Government need to resist the constant temptation to believe that spending a lot of money on sending people to a place that will not improve their driving—or indeed anything—but is likely to lead to despair and reduce their ability to contribute to society in years to come is a sensible course of action. They should recognise that this is a misuse of the expensive, although important, resource of custody.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can I just ask the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, why he thinks that an offence in the transport sector might be different from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act? Is it because transport is a middle-class crime and health and safety is not, on the whole, or is there something different?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Driving is an activity which is universal. Equally, the mistake—or negligence—is also universal, and I do draw that distinction. I appreciate where the noble Lord is coming from, but that is the distinction I make.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and other noble Lords who have spoken. It seems that there is a perfectly obvious, very serious penalty which can be applied to the most egregious cases of careless driving, where there is very serious injury, and that is a lifetime ban on driving. That would be much more effective than imprisonment.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, there is an obvious difference between an offence of careless driving and a health and safety offence: the health and safety offence is ongoing—someone is operating a dangerous machine, they have not done proper risk assessments—whereas an offence of careless driving can be a momentary lapse.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether I should say that I am not going to make a second speech polishing up my first. I apologise to my noble and learned friend Lord Hope that I got my words in before he did.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I have to say that I find myself in the somewhat invidious situation of supporting the Government. The Labour Party supported this clause in the other place; we agree that it fills a gap in the law and allows the high level of harm caused by these incidents to be recognised.
The debate has focused essentially on the possibility of imprisonment for careless driving, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made it clear in his speech that that was the burden of his objection and the reason he was moving his amendment proposing that the clause do not stand part of the Bill.
The burden of the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was that the mental element in the case of careless driving is no more than negligence and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that that would be a momentary lapse, which would have a serious consequence. But when one looks at health and safety legislation, you can indeed have momentary lapses which have very serious consequences. Magistrates occasionally deal with health and safety legislation as well. In addition to that, as part of health and safety legislation that I have seen, it is about a more systemic approach to health and safety within the environment of the factory or whatever you are talking about. Nevertheless, there can be momentary lapses that lead to serious consequences and there is the possibility—although it may be unlikely—of a prison sentence for the director of a company who is responsible for health and safety matters.
As I introduce this, I acknowledge that I find myself in an unusual situation of supporting this element of the Government’s proposals. Nevertheless, I would hope that it would be a very exceptional case, where there is such egregious negligence, that resulted in a prison sentence, when the vast majority of cases are momentary lapses, possibly with tragic results. I would have thought that those types of cases would not result in a prison sentence.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the good thing is that the party opposite is being consistent, because it introduced the offence of causing death by careless driving.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, objects to Clause 66 standing part of the Bill and has tabled Amendment 155 in its place. We have had a very interesting and more wide-ranging debate than we perhaps anticipated when the amendment was put down. Thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, we have got on to gross negligence. In the time available, it reminded me that it was Lord Cranworth in Wilson v Brett, back in 1843, who said that gross negligence is actually only
“negligence with a vituperative epithet”
attached. That is a little legal chestnut about what gross negligence actually is—in the civil context, I accept.
We need to focus on the fact that we are looking at driving offences, and I will come back later to whether it was a valid comparison put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The amendment we are dealing with here is perhaps the reverse of the approach taken in the earlier group to Amendment 152. Some of the speeches made in that context, such as that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, are also applicable here. With Amendment 155, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, hopes to add additional requirements, thereby raising the threshold for the new proposed offence of causing serious injury by careless driving.
As I said on the previous group, we are back to the issue of relatively low-culpability offences that can attract custodial sentences because the consequences can be catastrophic. Of course, I hear the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—it was a sort of “There but for the grace of God go I” point, if I can summarise it in that way—but, as I have said, there is a balance to be struck between the culpability of the driver and the harm that they cause. The Government believe that the current position—whereby a driver who by careless driving has caused serious injury, including perhaps very serious or life-changing injuries, may only be fined—is wrong. That is why we have created this new offence and why we believe it should be incorporated in the Bill.
I respectfully agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that we have to have sight of, and due regard to, the consequences of the driving. If I may, I will come back a little later to the other point the noble Lord made, about whether prison is the only way to respond to that.
Having said that, we recognise that the standard of driving required for this offence is relatively low. Careless driving can sometimes amount to no more than a short period of inattention—we had the example of the wasp on the back seat—but we do not agree with the noble and learned Lord that we need to add a requirement explaining what we mean by “causing serious injury”, or that the definition should provide that the notional “careful and competent driver” would know that their driving was likely to cause serious injury. I am grateful for the support—at least on this amendment—of the Benches opposite and of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. He also asked whether prison is the right response, and I will come back to that too.
I make three substantive points in response to the proposed amendment and the clause stand part proposal. First—I will make this point relatively softly, because I think the noble and learned Lord, realistically, if I may say, accepted that there may be drafting issues with the amendment and the scope of it—it would create inconsistencies in the law and that is because this additional test would apply only to this new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving and does not, for example, apply to the offence of causing serious injury by disqualified driving, where it might be argued that the level of culpability is even lower, because there is nothing actually wrong with the driving there at all. I will come back to that in another context.
Lord Pannick (CB)
With his enormous experience of various areas of the law, can the Minister think of any example of where a sentencing court has decided that it is appropriate to send someone to prison, whether in a health or safety context or in any other context, merely because of carelessness? I ask this out of genuine innocence and ignorance.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I wonder whether health and safety is not, in fact, an example. This is not my area of the law, and I am reluctant to give examples from the Dispatch Box, but I think we have to balance the degree of culpability with the consequences. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, and as the responses to the consultation showed, it is very difficult to look in the eye the family of somebody who has been killed through careless driving, where the standard has fallen below that of a competent driver—not far below; that is dangerous—and say that the most we can do is fine the driver.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I understand the Minister’s argument. My question is whether there are any actual, practical examples of people being given a prison term because of carelessness. Maybe the Minister does not know. I entirely understand that. I would be grateful if he could write to me with an answer.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Of course, and I will write to the noble Lord with an answer. I just want to be clear what exam question he is setting me. I assume that he is excluding recklessness. He is putting that in a separate box from mere carelessness.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am considering the proposed offence of carelessness. To be clear, my question is whether there are practical examples of sentencing courts sending people to prison for acts of carelessness. Maybe the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Hope, know the answer. I do not. I suggest it may be relevant.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is very kind. I was going to say that, because I am standing up, I will spare the blushes of the noble and learned Lords, so that they do not have to get up. We will look at the exam question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We have to be careful with our terms. It may come back to the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas: we must be careful not to confuse “careless”, as in careless driving, with negligence. It is not necessarily the same concept.
I think I was about to sit down and allow—
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I simply wanted to add that, when the Minister writes to us, perhaps he could give due consideration to the word “inconsiderate”. One could, unusually, be sent to prison for it.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, on a couple of occasions, my noble friend the Minister has said that the only disposal available to the courts is a fine. Surely, disqualification is available? For most of us, that would be a very severe penalty.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I accept that it may be a severe penalty. It depends who you are dealing with, and the circumstances. There are other factors which the courts have to bear in mind when considering the particular effects of disqualification on a particular driver.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I hope the Minister has sat down, because I thought it was time for me to wind up. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
I hope the Minister will appreciate—I think he does—that my Amendment 155 is simply an attempt. I said that it was not cleverly drafted, and he has made it clear that it has problems attached to it. The essence of my intervention is on Clause 66 and imprisonment. Disqualification is fair enough. I can see that taking people off the road meets almost every situation. The same is true with fines. It is quite remarkable that there are no other non-custodial penalties. What about other orders, such as retraining, community service, or something of that kind? They are not mentioned here. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, pointed out, the emphasis on imprisonment as the alternative is endemic in the Government’s approach. It is seriously wrong in this situation.
Two phrases came up in the course of the discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that only in an “exceptional case” would a custodial sentence be thought appropriate; I understand that and entirely follow it, of course. The Minister said that he contemplated a “serious, life-changing injury” where he might find it difficult to look into the eye of the victim and say, “We cannot equate it to the sort of sentence that involves imprisonment. We cannot provide a custodial sentence to make up for the devastating consequences of the injury.”
The problem is that, as it stands, the clause is completely open-ended. There is absolutely no qualification to narrow down the situation described by both noble Lords. That is what I was trying to do with my Amendment 155, and is part of my complaint. If you introduce sentences of imprisonment, you really have to think about whether the nature of the offence or the circumstances that give rise to that kind of penalty should be more carefully defined. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of magistrates, who vary and may misunderstand the situation.
Of course, as I mentioned in my earlier speech, the mere threat of imprisonment is a devastating situation. I go back to example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, of the mother in the car. Her children will ask, “Mummy, does that mean you’ll have to go to prison?” The family must live with the possibility of imprisonment and all its consequences until, eventually, the moment arises when the sentence is pronounced. Even when there is no imprisonment, the fact that this hovers over a family in that situation is devastating enough.
I hope that the Minister will think more carefully. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will also think more carefully about his party’s approach to this problem, because there is more to it than was thought at first sight. I welcome the suggestion of ongoing discussions; I hope that, with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, we will be able to have a discussion with the Minister to see whether some attempt can be made to qualify the open-ended nature of this offence to make it a little less devastating.
For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(c) a local authority or traffic authority;”
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 156, I will also speak to Amendment 163.
First, I must declare my interest, particularly for these amendments. I am the co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation. I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Amendment 163 is the substantive amendment. It seeks to start the legislative process that would enable London borough councils and/or Transport for London to enforce speed limits of 30 mph or below—I have in mind the 20 mph speed limits in particular—on roads for which they have responsibility and, if they so wish, to apply to the Secretary of State and receive consent.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment, because it is a really useful proposal from London Councils. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has well outlined the purpose and the benefits. The idea of a target of zero road deaths—I think that Sweden has a target going back 20 years—is a really important thing to go for in London.
Noble Lords will have seen the changes that have happened in London and other places because of the Covid epidemic. A couple of years ago, London provided much better cycle lanes and reduced some car widths and, in the process, reduced speeds. As someone who cycles around London all the time, I welcome that personally. Hackney, which was one of the first boroughs to go for this, is a pleasant place to pedal around now. It is key that this is done on as great a devolved basis as possible. Devolving it to the London councils seems an excellent idea; I am absolutely persuaded that they are capable of doing it.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, touched on the £445 million of revenue generated by parking fines in London alone. The RAC Foundation appears to criticise this as milking the motorist but, as the noble Lord said, those people have contravened a regulation so we should not have any sympathy for them. If they had obeyed the regulation, be it on parking or speeding or whatever else, they would not have deserved to be fined. If they do not like being fined, it is quite simple: they should obey the legislation. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has got to say on this but it would be a first step in devolving some of these issues, which should be decided locally. If it is successful, it needs to go to other cities as well.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I do so as a resident and ratepayer of the London Borough of Wandsworth; I declare that interest. I was encouraged to speak in this debate and support these amendments by the Conservative leader of that borough. He believes that they are desirable and will be beneficial to the residents of his borough, and he will be answerable to his electorate in due course.
In short, these amendments will, subject to the Secretary of State’s approval, enable but not oblige a borough to take up powers over speeding restrictions and traffic light contraventions. The aim is very simple: to stop people speeding. Because the boroughs anticipate that taking over the management of speed enforcement will create something of a virtuous circle, they will be more energetic about it than the police are. They will enforce speed limits because they have a financial stake in it directly and, because they enforce it and recover the costs, they will have to recycle the money they get in highway improvements, traffic calming and road safety generally.
What is there not to like about that? It will benefit residents and road users. Better enforcement will bring down speeds on residential roads. Lower speeds reduce the level of pollution and particulates. Better enforcement by boroughs will make residential roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists. It is a commonplace that an accident at 30 mph can kill; a pedestrian hit at 20 mph or less has a much more viable chance of survival without even serious injury. So, if these amendments are accepted, there will be immediate health and safety benefit to residents in any borough that chooses to adopt them.
Giving boroughs control over speeding and traffic lights is simply a no-brainer. I stress that boroughs will not be compelled to adopt these powers; it will be for each borough to do so when the time is ripe and it is in a position to carry them out. In summary, these amendments will bring great benefit to the citizens of London.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I am afraid that I take a converse view on this. London has a massive problem with increasing traffic congestion, and I do not believe that reducing the speed limit to 30 mph is going to bring the death rate down to zero. On the converse, one of the biggest problems in London is pedestrians crossing the road more transfixed on their mobile telephones than on watching oncoming traffic. I am not opposing this amendment; I am just saying that reducing the speed limit will not necessarily bring the death rate down to zero.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend is proposing to reduce the speed limit. It is about enforcement of whatever the speed limit is.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this is a very ambitious amendment from my noble friend. It would involve significant changes to the role of local authorities. Before people say that that is not appropriate, it is worth bearing in mind that local authorities already deal with parking issues, which are in the minds of the general public, very akin to the issue of speeding offences. They also have powers, in London and in my city of Cardiff, to deal with certain moving traffic offences, such as entering yellow boxes, driving in bus lanes and so on. It actually does not make local authorities any more popular, so it is important that it is thought through carefully.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I do not intend to stand here and announce our 100% support for what is proposed. We are interested in the issues raised and certainly look forward to the Government’s reply. To state the obvious, I say that local councils are key partners and innovators in improving road safety and encouraging the use of different modes of transport. What is proposed is quite a major step forward from that.
I will add one point, to which the answer may well be that the solution is obvious. Simply, if we end up with new powers or duties in this area being granted to local authorities, they must be accompanied by funding. The reply may be, “Well, of course they’ll get the money, because they’ll get it from any fines they might impose”, but it may not be quite as straightforward as that. Making such a move might put a bigger burden and workload on local authorities than might be envisaged. If people are thinking of going down this road, they should make sure that, from whatever source it may be coming, the funding is available.
As I recollect, the Government have plans, for which local authorities have been waiting a little while, to increase local authority powers to manage local roads, under the Traffic Management Act 2004. If I am right, will the Minister give us an update on where we stand on that and what kind of issues the Government are considering as part of any such plans? As part of that, have the Government looked at the issue of speeding enforcement—as suggested in these amendments—at local authority level when looking at any planned increases to local authority powers in this area? As I said at the beginning, we are interested in the issues raised by these amendments and look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I apologise to the Committee: I was not going to say anything, but I could not resist. There is clearly an issue with people receiving endorsements on driving licences and potentially being disqualified from driving not being dealt with in the criminal courts and through the appeal process that they provide. On the issue around lack of enforcement, does the Minister have any information about the potential use of speed cameras in 20 miles per hour zones to increase enforcement and to what extent speed cameras are self-financing, in terms of the money they generate versus the cost of running them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank noble Lords for taking part in this short but very interesting debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has explained, Amendment 163 would afford local authorities greater powers in managing speed and traffic light offence enforcement on their roads. I take it that Amendment 156 then seeks to extend the National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme so that it also can be operated by local authorities in respect of decriminalised offences.
The most dangerous traffic offences are punishable by either immediate disqualification from driving—as with drink and drug driving—or endorsement. I am sure that noble Lords agree that, because of their seriousness, none of these offences has been decriminalised and nor should they be—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, alluded to. The purpose of endorsements is to disqualify from driving people who show repeated dangerous behaviour and pose a threat to other road users, through the process of totting up penalty points, which of course is a key distinguishing feature of parking fines.
I remind noble Lords that speed offences are one of the types of offence referred to as the fatal four, along with mobile phone use while driving, not wearing a seat belt, and drink and drug-driving. Speed offences share a common feature with these other offences: they are prominent in the causation of fatal and serious collisions. We could not accept a situation where there were some speed limits that the police had no power to enforce.
Likewise, contravening a red traffic light can lead to serious and fatal collisions and that should not be decriminalised either. Traffic lights are provided to manage safety concerns at junctions, and offer safer places for people to cross the road. We have a good compliance record with red traffic lights in this country, and decriminalising enforcement would be likely to undermine that. That would impinge on the safety of all road users, but particularly vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.
The Government are concerned that enforcement of civil penalties is not subject to the same rigorous scrutiny as criminal enforcement, and this would affect public confidence and their level of support. In particular, it would be likely to set back the growing public acceptance of speed and red light cameras. The public strongly agree that speed cameras save lives and are not there to make money. That is clearly demonstrated in the findings of the Department for Transport’s 2020 National Travel Attitudes Study, which showed that 59% of respondents agreed with the statement that speed cameras saved lives and only 41% agreed with the statement that they were mostly there to make money. Those figures are an improvement on those of 2011, when the equivalent numbers were 51% and 55% respectively. The Government, therefore, have no intention of decriminalising any of these offences: we believe that doing so would wrongly signal to the public that these dangerous behaviours had become less important.
Furthermore, the police are the primary enforcers of criminal offences, and have so far been responsible for delivering speeding courses. The National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme is run by UK Road Offender Education, a subsidiary of the Road Safety Trust, which is owned by the 43 police forces. This provides central governance, standards and consistency. UK Road Offender Education works with leading experts in road user behaviour to develop, review and deliver high-quality behaviour change courses—and I can personally attest that they work.
The scheme works alongside PentiP, the national Home Office fixed penalty processing system that is used by all police forces in England and Wales. This ensures that a repeat offender is not offered a second course within three years but is instead offered a fixed penalty notice and penalty points, otherwise court proceedings follow. We are not aware of a strong need to allow local or traffic authorities to charge for speeding courses, and there is a lack of evidence for the benefits, or indeed consequences, of doing so.
Unfortunately I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the update that he seeks, but I will write to him. I am afraid that also goes for the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick: I will write to him too. Given my answer, however, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for revealing how close he came to a criminal conviction on this. The fact remains, whether we like it or not, and generally the public do like it, that there are 20 mph speed limits not just all over London but all over the country, which are by and large not enforced, and drivers know it. Their being disregarded in such a way brings the law into ridicule. As I said in my opening comments, I accept that we have an issue here. I have discussed it with my noble friend Lord Paddick, who I first had discussions with when he was borough commander in Lambeth and I was chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority’s finance committee, when he told me Lambeth was not sufficiently resourced.
These issues must be tackled. We cannot go on with a lot of 20 mph speed limits which most motorists take no notice of, and absurd and ludicrous enforcement rates. I said this is the start of a process; I hope the Government will engage in debate and conversation about how to tackle this, and work with London borough councils and others—as this is a nationwide issue—to see how we can better solve this problem. We do not want this to be batted back and forth like the parking debate in London 30 years ago, when the Met believed they would be severely disabled if they were not enforcing parking in London. I bet they would not say that now. If we asked the Met to take back responsibility for parking in London, your Lordships know what the reaction would be.
I will withdraw my amendment, but this debate will not go away. I hope that the Government, local authorities and others engage in positive thinking about how we solve this and make local authorities, which are by and large responsible for getting the 20 mph speed limits introduced, responsible—I stress the word—for their enforcement too. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Covid-19 Vaccinations
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I start by thanking the Minister for taking the Statement. I very much welcome the new antiviral, molnupiravir—another name we all have to learn—as a significant drug in our armoury in the fight against Covid. I think this might be my and the Minister’s first Covid Statement since he was appointed, though we have done several Questions. I thought it might be useful to remember the last 18 months for a moment, when his predecessor and the House dealt with, on average, two Statements and several Questions about Covid a week.
Let us be quite clear: the NHS and social care services have saved the country, and they continue to do so as we move into winter. I again place on record my gratitude from these Benches to the NHS, social care services and all the staff from the top to the bottom of our health service who have worked so hard to save lives, protect the vulnerable and roll out vaccines. But we should remind ourselves that 142,000 people have died from Covid in the UK so far, and 1,173 died last week. We have the highest, or one of the highest, infection rates in Europe. This is not over by a long way, and we are now moving into the winter. Frankly, one has to question whether the Government have a handle on Covid going into the busiest season for our NHS.
The Government must get a grip on the stalling vaccination programme. The Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, is calling on younger relatives to help their eligible parents and grandparents take up the offer of the booster and the flu vaccine. Older and vulnerable people have been urged to get their Covid-19 booster jabs as part of a “national mission” to help avoid a return to Covid restrictions over Christmas. The Health Secretary said:
“If we all come together and play our part”,
the country can
“avoid a return to restrictions, and enjoy Christmas.”
That is a bit late, and it is absolutely in line with this Government’s handling of the pandemic—about two to three weeks later than they need to be. It is a bit rich for the Secretary of State to line up who is to blame if we do need further restrictions at Christmas because the Government have failed to get everyone vaccinated who needs to be.
I ask the Minister specifically about immuno- compromised patients. In September, the JCVI recommended that severely immunosuppressed patients have a third primary dose prior to having their booster jab to maximise their protection. There has been a lack of clarity about whether and when this would happen, which has caused huge confusion among a very vulnerable group in our communities. It is estimated that between 400,000 and 500,000 people fall into this category and are entitled to both a third primary jab and a booster. These two things are not interchangeable. Can the Minister tell the House how many of this group have received a third primary jab, and how many are going on to have a booster? How many are missing out on potentially life-saving doses of Covid vaccines after confusion about who is eligible for a third dose followed by an additional booster jab?
The blood cancer charity Myeloma UK said its helpline has been inundated with hundreds of inquiries in recent months from patients who are struggling to book their third and fourth doses. To compound this challenge, patients like this cannot turn up at a walk-in or mass vaccination centre. What plans are there to ensure that the immunosuppressed receive the vaccinations they need?
More generally, local residents are contacting their MPs to say that they cannot get the boosters they so desperately want. One lady in her 70s with an underlying health condition went to her pharmacy and called 119, just to be told that she was not eligible for her booster—but she knew she was. She finally has one booked in December, but she had to rely on her daughter to book the appointment because she does not use the internet. The system simply is not working for many of those who need it most, because they do not have access to the internet or the new technology the Government want them to use to get their boosters.
Turning to care home residents and booster vaccinations, 1 November was the Government’s target for getting care home residents their booster jab. Could the Minister tell the House what proportion of care home residents have been vaccinated so far? My honourable friend Dr Allin-Khan said in the Commons on Thursday that only about a quarter of care home residents in Leicester have had their booster. The former Secretary of State is now calling for all NHS staff to be compulsorily vaccinated. Is this government policy? If so, what is the timetable? Is it wise to force this through right now when the NHS has a vacancy rate of 100,000?
Finally, plan B, which contains measures that we on these Benches already support, such as mask wearing and allowing working from home, is simply not enough on its own. Yes, we support it, but we must turbocharge vaccine boosters, fix sick pay, and improve ventilation. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, from these Benches, we add our thanks to all those involved in the current delivery of vaccinations, whether they are GPs, nurses, healthcare assistants or volunteers at vaccination centres, and we thank more broadly our NHS and care-sector staff who are still working extremely hard to reduce the backlog of cases while coping with over 9,000 patients currently in hospital with Covid.
The Minister knows that the Delta variant and its subvariant, which is thought to be behind the growth of cases in the west country and Wales, remains highly transmissible. Doctors are reporting daily that double-jabbed patients are catching Covid and passing it on. Why have none of the mitigations in plan B been carried out? Many scientists, including some members of SAGE and Independent SAGE, believe that we should be operating them now to reduce the high numbers of cases and not be faced with a second Christmas being cancelled by the Prime Minister at short notice.
From these Benches, we have asked time and again for the wearing of facemasks inside and on public transport, as well as room ventilation in schools and other public venues, to be mandated, and for social distancing to remain. There are now, on average, 35,000 new cases daily, a shockingly high number. Professor Peter Openshaw, the chair of NERVTAG, said today that it was clear that immunity from the vaccines is waning. Yes, and vaccination is vital, but with cases at this level why are the Government not making mask mandates and social distancing formal?
Today, the Prime Minister once again reminded people to get their jab, whether first, second, third or booster, the ONS data showing that the risk of dying from Covid is 32 times greater in unvaccinated people. Can the Minister tell us why last week it was announced that vaccination centres are now closing at 6pm? Surely it should be easy for people to get vaccinated at a time that works for them, when they leave for work or get home from work?
The last time we spoke about Covid, I asked the Minister what the Government were doing to prevent some of the very unpleasant anti-vaxxer interventions at school gates and outside some vaccine centres. Has any action been taken on their disgraceful leaflets, which deliberately look like an NHS document but are full of direct lies and mistruths? It is important, because, by the Minister’s own numbers in this Statement, only 22% of 12 to 15-year olds have had their vaccination so far. I think Ministers now recognise that cases in this age group are driving cases in the older age groups, which is probably why hospital numbers are going up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to the muddle between booster and third doses. The pandemic is far from over for immunocompromised and immunosuppressed people. I declare my interest as one of the clinically extremely vulnerable, as I have said before. I discovered by chance, reading something online, that I am now in the third-dose category. My GP did not know it and I certainly did not know it either. That is the problem. GPs and vaccination centres have not been told about the distinction. I have read the NHS guidance on the third dose, but many other clinically extremely vulnerable people are saying that their surgery or vaccination centre does not understand which category they fall into.
This is not helped by the problems with the online form which I asked the Minister about last week. Does the online form now specify the third dose, which is for around 800,000 people, according to current estimates, not for 400,000 people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, as distinct from the booster, which is for around 20 million? It is important, because the third-dose patients must have a booster in a further few months. If the system is not even recording the third dose, how will it know to call them back?
With the end of the shielding programme on 17 September, Sajid Javid wrote to all those on the patients’ list to inform them that it had finished, that the Government would no longer be offering specific advice and that we should go to our hospital clinicians. But many of us do not have an appointment in the diary, and there is not likely to be one because our clinicians are catching up with the backlog of cases, and those who are specialists in immune diseases are working on the Covid wards as well. So can the Minister say how on earth the clinically extremely vulnerable are meant to know what to do in the meantime?
Will the Minister ensure that the Government will work with patient organisations, clinicians and employer to produce clear and meaningful guidance that promotes safe working practices for this group and, in particular, let employers know that they have to help employees either to work from home or, if they have to go in, to make sure they do not have to go in by train or bus at peak hours? Please will the Government appoint a dedicated national lead to co-ordinate the support and guidance available to people in this group?
The news in the Statement of the approval of the Merck and Ridgeback antiviral Molnupiravir is also good news. I see that just under half a million courses of doses have been ordered. It was good to hear on Saturday of the success of the Pfizer clinical trials elsewhere, but I gather we are some way off from that being approved, because further trials of people who are clinically vulnerable are needed. Can the Minister tell the House the likely timescales of the actual delivery of both these different antivirals?
Finally, I am aware that I have asked some technical questions. If the Minister cannot answer them today, please will he write to me with the answers?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses for their questions and for raising some very important points, on which I and others have been in discussion not only with health professionals but with departments and other advisers. I will try to answer their questions in detail. The ones that I do not answer because of their technical nature—as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, acknowledges—I will try to answer later if I am unable to answer now.
First, I join the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, in praising our wonderful doctors, nurses and other healthcare staff. Also, we should not forget all the wonderful people who have supported them: the delivery staff who brought stuff to their homes and delivered food, and the local civil society projects. We saw a massive upsurge in voluntary work and volunteerism. Whatever our politics, whatever part of the spectrum we are on—whether we call it co-operative socialism, local libertarianism, community conservatism, or just humanity and people helping each other—I thought it was a wonderful expression of what we can do when we all pull together.
We also have to remember, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, reminded us, that this is not over. That is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State felt it was important to make this Statement and this point. There has been a level of complacency in encouraging people to come forward. We have not been strong enough, which is why we are pushing now and emphasising the fact that we want as many people as possible to come forward and get the booster. It was announced over the weekend that it is not necessary to wait for six months after the second dose; people can book from five months. In fact, today I tested the system and took advantage of it and was able to book my booster. I hope many others will be able to do so to.
I would ask noble Lords across the House that if anyone comes to them with experiences of not being able to use the service—we have had a couple of reports of a few technical hitches—please let me know so that I can pass them on to NHSX, so that we make sure that we are aware of problems as soon as possible. So far—I want to try to touch some wood somewhere—it seems to be working.
Let me now turn to some of the detailed questions that I was asked by the noble Baronesses. The JCVI has advised that people with severe immunosuppression at or around the time of their first or second vaccination receive a third primary dose as a precautionary measure. Some individuals who are severely immunosuppressed due to underlying health conditions or medical treatment may not achieve the same full immune response to the initial two-dose Covid-19 vaccine course. The third dose aims to bring them up to nearer the level of immunity. As with the vaccination of other at-risk individuals, eligible individuals will be identified and invited by the hospital where they receive care under a consultant and/or GPs.
If either of the noble Baronesses or any noble Lord here today is aware of that not happening, please let me know so that I can make sure that we push on this. I am told that the NHS is writing to all patients who may be eligible so that they can talk through their options with their GP or consultant if they have not done so already. Any patients who have not yet been contacted but think they may be eligible, for example because they have previously been advised to shield, can contact their consultant for an update. If noble Lords know of any problems or are aware of any issues, I hope that they will let me know as soon as possible so that I can chase on them.
On the booster, while there are many stories saying that we have not done that well, we have 12% booster vaccination. When we look at booster vaccination in other European countries, the highest is Israel with 45%, but Spain is at 2%, Italy is at 3%, France is at 4% and Germany is at 2%. This is why we are emphasising the importance of booster vaccinations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and others are keen to push people to make sure that they have their booster as soon as possible. It is the best defence against Covid and it is important, especially as protection wanes, that people are getting their boosters.
On plan B, I repeat what has been said previously: there is no set threshold. We consider a range of evidence and data, as we have done throughout the pandemic, to avoid the risk of placing unsustainable pressure on the NHS. For example, while the number of Covid-19 patients in hospitals is an important factor, the interaction with other indicators, such as the rate of increase of hospitalisations and the ratio of cases to hospitalisations, will also be vital.
The Government monitor and consider a wide range of Covid-19 health data. I shall go into some of them in a bit of detail. We look at cases, immunity, the ratio of cases to hospitalisations, the proportion of admissions due to infections, the rate of growth in cases and hospital admissions in the over-65s, vaccine efficacy and the global distribution and characteristics of variants of concern. We also look at the risk to the NHS. One of the issues, as many noble Lords will know, is about making sure that the NHS is not overwhelmed. In assessing the risks to the NHS, the key metrics include hospital occupancy for Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 patients, intensive care unit capacity, admissions in vaccinated individuals and the rate of growth in admissions. The Government also track the economic and societal impact of the virus to ensure that any response takes into account those wider effects.
On some of the measures that are being proposed in the potential plan B, clearly a number of people with other health conditions, including mental health conditions, would be incredibly concerned were we to go to some of the more severe measures under plan B. We always have to balance them up. As noble Lords will be aware, questions have been asked about those awaiting elective surgery and the unintended consequences of focusing on Covid-19, for example whether it has led to a disproportionate number of deaths from other diseases or conditions.
Covid booster jabs have been delivered or booked in almost nine in 10 care homes as the NHS vaccination programme accelerates ahead of winter. Around 6,000 care homes have already been visited, while a further 3,700 homes have visits scheduled in the coming days and weeks. The new figures also show that residents in more than half of care homes have received their booster jab. When I asked about the discrepancies in the small proportion that have not yet been booked or vaccinated, I was told that there may well be cases of Covid in those care homes and they are waiting for the delay after the positive test to ensure that it is safe to go there.
I was asked about the breakdown of different types of care home. Based on the latest CQC annual report on care, we can say that the CQC inspects a number of these care homes.
To answer some of the other questions, as I said, the NHS is writing to all patients who may be eligible so that they can talk through their options. On the issue of whether to make NHS staff take their vaccinations, we have consulted on vaccination as a condition of employment in wider health and social care; I am told that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will set out the position very shortly. The important thing to remember is that we want people to take the booster, and we want to make sure that we reach those communities and demographics who have not had even their first or second vaccine yet.
I have had a number of conversations with noble Lords from across the House—I thank them for their advice and suggestions—about how to reach out to some of these communities. For example, I was in conversation with one right reverend Prelate about how we could work in conjunction with interfaith communities in local communities, for example in certain parts of London where there is a low uptake. Sometimes people may not be of faith, but they respect faith leaders—vicars, imams, priests et cetera. We are looking at how we can work on this, and I very much hope that we will be able to roll that programme out further. If any noble Lords are interested in or have any suggestions on that area, I would welcome them.
I apologise if there are technical questions that I have not answered; I will make sure that I write to noble Lords.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister mentioned the importance of the booster dose. Can he explain why the valuable NHS app does not prominently display that the individual has received a booster jab, as is the case with the first two doses? The information is hidden away on the app and cannot be downloaded. This is a serious defect because some foreign countries—the Minister mentioned Israel, which is one example—now require proof of a jab in the past six months, given the waning effect of earlier doses. There are many domestic contexts where the ability to prove easily that you have had a booster dose would be valuable.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I have been made aware of this by more than one noble Lord today. I contacted NHSX; it said that it is looking into it and trying to work on a fix as soon as possible. If the noble Lord is aware in a couple of days that that has not been fixed, I hope he will remind me so that I can prompt NHSX.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords—[Inaudible]—very closely to the wise words of Gordon Brown on the need to distribute surplus vaccines internationally. Vaccine expiry is inexcusable. Gordon has made it his life’s work to defend, promote and support the interests of those in need. The third world is in need; if we fail to meet the challenge then not only it but we will lose out. I urge the Minister to listen to him and take this call back to the department for action.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. I think noble Lords agree that it is really important that we make sure that we vaccinate as much of the world as possible. There is no point in us being vaccinated if we then travel to areas in the rest of the world where people are exposed. We are co-operating on a number of international programmes, including COVAX and others. One of my portfolio roles in the department is on international agreements and liaison. I have been speaking to a number of Health Ministers from a number of different countries about how we can help more. I have also been talking to some of the suppliers of the vaccines about how we can make sure that, where we do not order domestically, we can redirect some of those orders for international help. I completely agree with the sentiment of the question from the noble Lord that it is really important that we play our part in helping the international community.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, there are four remote speakers. I shall now call the second of them, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I very much share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. My doctor has recorded my booster jab—at least, I think it is my booster jab; it may be a third primary jab, I do not know—so I just want to know when it is going to appear on the NHS app. Because I was told quite specifically when I was jabbed that it would.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid I am going to have to repeat the answer I gave earlier to the noble Lord. We were made aware of this only today and as soon as I heard, I got hold of NHSX and asked what was happening because, clearly, a number of people are experiencing the same issue. We have chased NHSX and I hope that NHSX will fix it as soon as possible. If it does not, please chase me up.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, what is the situation with vaccination against coronavirus for inmates and staff in UK prisons? Prisoners often get transferred to other prisons and they move in and out when released and recalled. Many live chaotic lives, but it is important that they all get vaccinated. Is there a system to see that this process is safeguarded, so that jabs are fully completed? Prison health must not be forgotten.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point. As far I am aware—I will confirm this—the population of prisons is being treated the same as the wider population in terms of encouragement to take the vaccines and the booster. I will double-check and write to the noble Baroness.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, is taking part remotely and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister look into booster vaccines for vulnerable people such as me who need to be vaccinated at home? There is never any information about this cohort of people who are at the mercy of there being a healthcare professional from a local surgery available. There is a danger that they may be overlooked by surgeries, some of which might be overwhelmed at this time.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The NHS is writing to all patients who may be eligible so that they can talk through their options with their GP or a consultant if they have not done so already. I understand that that includes the option to be vaccinated at home, but I will double-check and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, two questions were put to the noble Lord that he has not had time to answer. First, I should say that, like him, I have received my booster invitation for Thursday and I am absolutely delighted. Two questions, which I do not think were technical, were asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. One was about why centres are closing. Clearly, with this big push now, spearheaded by the Government, we need to keep as many open as possible. The second relates to something the Minister said that surprised me: he talked about a level of complacency. It is indeed possible, I think, to see the failure to make masks mandatory as an indication of complacency. Will he say a little more about what he meant by the level of complacency and how making masks mandatory might help to meet that?
Lord Kamall (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s first point, about the centres closing at 6 pm, this is the first time that I have been made aware of that. I welcome any feedback about what is working and what is not. This is not necessarily political; we all want it to work, so I welcome any information on that. I will double-check it.
The noble Baroness referred to complacency. It is very interesting when people say that most people are in favour of measures on masks. It is quite often like polling, when we see a difference between stated preferences and revealed preferences. It is claimed that a number of people are in favour of masks and want to wear them, but, when it comes to public transport and the revealed preferences, we see that it depends on the mode of public transport—sometimes take-up is less than 50%. I have said to people, “Make sure you get your boosters”, but maybe we have to take some responsibility for not making it clear that the boosters were important and for not pushing them as much as possible. The first and second vaccines were taken up with such enthusiasm because people wanted to return to as close to normal as possible, but when it came to the booster, it really needed all of us to push it to make sure that more people took it.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a nurse. Would it be helpful to reinforce the message that some of the most vulnerable people should contact their specialist nurse practitioners, who in many cases are much more obtainable than both consultants and general practitioners? I would really like the Government to emphasise that.
Turning to 12 to 15 year-olds, I declare my interest in that my daughter is a secondary schoolteacher in south London. Anti-vaxxers outside schools are creating a real problem. I understand that the Government have powers to reduce their access within the area of a school. Is this being seriously considered? The uptake of vaccines in the 12 to 15 year-old age group requires the consent of an adult. Therefore, it is imperative that schools are part of that system.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that really important point: it is about not only consultants and GPs but nurse practitioners. When you go to book a booster jab and look at availability, you might well expect it to be at a hospital or a surgery, but many community pharmacies are offering it. It is important that we have those conversations. I agree with the noble Baroness on the advice that she has given.
I also share the noble Baroness’s concerns about the anti-vaxxers. It is a difficult balance: I believe in freedom of speech, but they should not inhibit people. It is really important that we make the case. As of 2 November, 24% of 12 to 15 year-olds had received their first dose. They will have received it through school. The NHS is also working closely with schools to offer vaccines to young people as soon as parents or guardians consent. We are also expanding our programme of walk-in centres to make sure that we can provide parents with extra choice over where and when their children are vaccinated. The vaccines are safe and will protect children from Covid-19. We repeat this. The current advice is to give the majority of children a single dose, which means that they will be afforded a high level of protection.
On people protesting outside schools, the Government have explained their concerns about that. At the moment, I have no further information. As soon as there is further information, noble Lords will be informed.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of an article in the Health Service Journal today in which a highly respected chief executive of a highly rated acute trust said that his hospital was struggling on every front and that it was far worse than in January? He said that the emergency department was at record levels and elective referrals were increasing as exhausted staff turned down extra shifts needed to reduce the growing backlog. One in five of his beds is filled with medically fit people who cannot be discharged because they cannot find a care package. There have been more than 65,000 Covid admissions to English hospitals in the last three months; that is double the same period last year when, of course, there were no vaccines. Does the Minister agree with this chief executive when he said, “This time the vaccine hasn’t saved us”?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The most important thing is getting the third vaccine. The Government are monitoring and considering a wide range of factors, including cases and immunity, but also advice from the NHS as to whether it is feeling overwhelmed. That is the situation at the moment. We continue to monitor it; it is not a static situation. We are trying to get the booster out as much as possible and are really driving home the message that the booster is the most effective way to fight against Covid. We are making sure that we get as many people as possible vaccinated and taking up the opportunity of a booster.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister talks about mask hesitancy in public spaces. It would be extremely helpful for the Government to take direct action and actually mandate masks. That would be very helpful for members of the public.
In the past eight weeks our family members have directly experienced the NHS, with Covid remaining a severe threat. Ward-based mental health services are in dire straits and lack sufficient funds for essential support and care. Are they also receiving vaccinations? The other thing is the incredibly outstanding services of the Medway Maritime Hospital intensive care unit, where a family member lies critically ill and is really struggling with their care.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
I really find this offensive; I am trying to make a point. I am about to get to my question. Many Members of the Lords do this, but I find that specific Members are always prevented from speaking out. I want to finish my point, which is to say that the health inequalities remain a deep scar among many communities and many sections of the community, where the constant bombardment of information has long since died. Will the Minister agree that we need to continue to mandate masks and ensure that there are meaningful—
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Will the noble Baroness ask her question and sit down? She is preventing other people from asking questions.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, will the Minister agree that incredibly important environmental safeguards continue to be required to prevent children catching Covid and to empower parents with sufficient information so that they can make informed choices?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, I think. To be fair, she has made a number of points, especially about disparities and inequalities. It is quite sad that there is low uptake of the vaccine in a number of communities. I know that the noble Baroness has done a lot of good work in the past in Tower Hamlets and other areas with minority communities.
The most important way we can tackle this issue is to encourage people to be vaccinated. We want to roll out the booster as quickly as possible and, sadly, too many people have still not taken their first and second vaccines yet. I know that noble Lords across the House have many contacts in many communities, so it is important, please, to come to me with suggestions and ideas. I have spoken to a number of noble Lords across the House about how to tackle this and how best to reach people who are hesitant and who may not trust authority, and encourage them to take the vaccine. I thank the noble Baroness for her question.
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
My Lords, many other countries have introduced a form of green pass as a proof of vaccine to gain entry to places for public gatherings, such as restaurants and theatres. This has resulted in a higher take-up of the vaccine, as people have been encouraged to have these passes to access the things they want. Surely we should introduce a similar mandatory proof of vaccine, either paper or electronic, which will help to drive up rates of vaccination.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Apart from the technical hitches in getting data on to it, which a number of noble Lords have referred to, the NHS app has a record of vaccination, which is important. The measures to which the noble Duke refers are being considered as part of plan B, but at the moment the advice is not to move to plan B but to focus on getting people vaccinated. The Government are concerned that other messages may confuse the picture somewhat. The message is simple: get vaccinated—vaccine one, vaccine two or booster. If there are any problems, please let me and others know so that we can push. Sometimes people do not always talk to each other—let us put it that way—so let us make sure that this is as joined-up as possible.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I ask the Minister about the latest advice received by the Government from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. First, has SAGE advised the Government that Covid is moving into its endemic stage or does it continue to advise the Government that we are dealing with a pandemic, which needs additional measures? Secondly, does the Minister regret the resignation of Sir Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and an eminent scientist, from membership of SAGE?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government welcome advice from a range of stakeholders and have listened to SAGE and others throughout to balance their different views. In fact, I remember that when Jeremy Farrar was resigning he insisted that his departure should not be interpreted as a fresh disagreement with the Government. The Government listen to a range of views and balance them all.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The time for Back-Bench questions has now elapsed.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 8th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (8 Nov 2021)
“Alcohol limits
(1) In section 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (interpretation of sections 4 to 10), the definition of “the prescribed limit” is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) 22 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath,”.(3) For paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) 50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood,”.(4) For paragraph (c) substitute—“(c) 67 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine,”. (5) In section 8(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (choice of specimens of breath), for “50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath” substitute “31 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath”.”
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 157 would insert a new clause to lower the drink-drive alcohol limit in England and Wales from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams of alcohol for 100 millilitres of blood and to make appropriate adjustments for breath and urine samples too.
I remind the House that I moved a similar amendment to the Road Traffic Act at Second Reading of a Private Member’s Bill on 29 January 2016. A full report is in Hansard of that date—in vol. 768, no. 102. I spoke then for 20 minutes. I reassure noble Lords that I am not going to do anything like that today.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
However, on rereading this speech, I was so pleased with the evidence-based arguments that I had advanced—which, as I say, I am not going to repeat this evening—that the more I read it, the more I realised what a shame it was that although the Bill went through this House, and I remind my colleagues here that they voted for it last time around, the Government would not give it time when it went to the Commons for it to be dealt with there.
Since 2015, matters have got worse rather than better, particularly in the last two years. The figures plateaued between 2015 and 2018, but we saw some serious injuries and deaths in 2019—a total of 2,050. A total of 230 people died, up from 200 in 2015, when I last addressed this issue. There was also an increase of 8% in seriously injured casualties compared to 2018. Will the Minister confirm whether the figures I am quoting are correct? If I am not right then I would be pleased to be corrected, but I think I am on the right track.
This country had a very good record in the last century. We led most of Europe. We trailblazed in addressing injuries and deaths on the road and all the aspects of them. However, over the years our leadership has started to diminish. This is in part because we have been unwilling to change. Had we gone back to my 2015 data, I would have been talking about Baroness Castle and the way that she introduced it, and asking how we alighted on the 80-milligram figure. It was plucked out of the air with not a great deal of evidence behind it, and work done subsequently indicated that it was very high indeed and should have been lowered.
We have ended up here, where we see that the rest of Europe is at 50 or below, with some as low as 20, and only two countries—England and Wales and Malta—have retained the figure of 80. The question is: have we done the right thing in persisting with holding to 80? Some of the Scandinavian countries that are doing extraordinarily well in reducing deaths on the road are way down at the 20 milligrams level.
Why do these countries have lower limits? It is because all the evidence shows that 80 milligrams in the blood increases the risk of a driver’s involvement in a collision, by three times for collisions leading to injuries and by about six times for collisions leading to death. Even at the lower BAC level of 50 that I am advancing in my amendment, and I am grateful to my colleagues who are supporting me—the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Finlay, have put their names to this amendment—carries substantial risks for people who are inebriated at that level. It is not an easy ride; it is a risky one. Those levels of risk, if the Government are prepared to accept our figures, would be reduced respectively to about 1.5 and 2.5 times more, by comparison with the figure of 80 milligrams. That is a stark difference.
I ask the Minister to say why the Government declined in 2016 to make the change and whether these academic assessments are right that we are permitting people to legally drive at a limit that is a danger to life and limb and we refuse to change it. Where is the evidence for continuing with what we are doing at the moment?
The Scottish Government, as we are aware, cut the limit to 50 milligrams in December 2014, Northern Ireland has legislated to follow suit, and the Welsh Government would like to do the same if they had permission from us. Initially, Scotland saw a decrease in the number of deaths and injuries, but later reports show that what has been happening there is not quite so encouraging as they first experienced.
I will be very straight about the facts. I am not going to pretend that it produced as good a result in Scotland as we would have liked, but there are some other factors to be taken into account there. They did not run any particularly big advertising campaign to try to drive it home. They did not give any further resources to enforcement. There is a range of things they could have done to make it more effective. Initially, certainly, there was some beneficial change. Lives were saved. If a few lives were saved, I am sure they would argue that it was worth doing. They probably need to do more now. The Minister was nodding. I anticipate that he will quote Scotland and say that they need to keep an eye on it—the Scottish results are not convincing enough for us to change.
I have identified a weakness, and I share the view that enforcement is vitally important. With the help of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, we have produced a solution on the enforcement front in Amendment 164, to which he will speak at greater length. We always try to be helpful. It is important to cut the number of deaths and the rising number of serious injuries. We must find any possible way to discourage people from drink-driving. Reducing the limit to 50 would be a discouragement. Support for the second amendment, to introduce random breath testing, need not necessarily mean incurring the use of greater resources. We believe that, on balance, it would provide a deterrent which would have a very dramatic effect on the way thatusb people who still continued to drink and drive would respond.
There is evidence from abroad. It has been particularly effective in Australia, where they have followed this practice. Australia had a very bad record on drinking and driving. The introduction of random breath testing has changed it quite dramatically. People no longer drink and drive as they used to do. Lifestyles have changed. We can do the same in this country.
The life of each individual is unique. It behoves us to take every opportunity to end the selfish killing and maiming by drunk driving. There is a particular category of repeat offenders. The reality is that the police often know who these people are, but unless they commit a traffic offence, the police cannot stop and breath-test them. If the second amendment is adopted, along with the first, I believe it would make a quite dramatic change in lifestyles and in respect for each other. Random breath testing would reduce deaths and injuries.
Driving under the influence of drugs is also an important issue to be addressed. We are not endeavouring to do this, or to complicate the issue here. In this context, we are simply dealing with alcohol. We will need to come back and look at people who take drugs. For the moment, this is about alcohol. It is about a relatively modest change with no great requirement for additional resourcing. It is about focusing on the area that really needs addressing. I trust that, this time round, the Government are prepared to support it, rather than to oppose it in the way that they did last time.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I declare that I chair the Commission on Alcohol Harm.
This amendment would simply bring us in line with other EU and Commonwealth nations. It has been estimated that this amendment alone could save at least 25 lives a year and prevent 95 casualties. This may not sound like a large number, but the majority of those who die on the road are young adults or children in accidents involving drink-driving. Men are far more likely to have been drinking: 78% of male drivers were involved in drink-drive accidents, against 69% of men in other types of accidents. Where casualties are involved, the numbers are also higher for men—67% where alcohol was involved, against 60% for all reported accidents.
Sadly, Wales does particularly badly, with a higher percentage of casualties in drink-drive accidents than in Scotland or England. When we look at the age of people involved, it is quite chilling. Most of the pedestrian casualties are children and young adults, most of the pedal cyclist casualties are children and young adults, and the motorcyclists are young adults. The car occupant casualty rate is higher when alcohol has been involved in the accident. The drink driver does not only kill themselves; the tragedy is that they will kill somebody else’s child or parent. If death is not the outcome, life-changing injuries often are. It has been estimated that around 5%—one in 20—of all casualties in reported road accidents involved alcohol in one way or another; often at least one driver or rider was over the drink-drive limit.
I look back in horror at my childhood, when “Have one for the road” was said as somebody left the house after coming round for dinner. The accident rate then was absolutely appalling; many people of my age can probably remember somebody who died in one of those accidents. However, if we look at 2019, despite Covid looming across Christmas and the festive season, there were 230 verified drink-drive fatalities, with a provisional estimate of 280 fatalities for that year involving drink. That constituted 13% of all casualties on the road, and there were 7,800 drink-drive casualties, accounting for 5% of all casualties on the roads.
In the report from the alcohol harms commission that I chaired we pointed out that in 2017, the Department for Transport estimated that 310 pedestrians and 110 cyclists were casualties in drink-drive accidents, including 60 children aged nought to 15. One police witness, Sergeant Mick Urwin, described the impact of drink driving. Apart from the perpetrators, who lose their licence and often their job and may be imprisoned, the greatest impact is on the family of someone killed or seriously injured by a drunk driver. It is devastating. He explained that
“delivering a death message to a parent, brother, sister, son or daughter to inform them that someone has been killed by a drink driver is not something I ever got used to.”
We had evidence from the ex-wife of an alcoholic about how difficult it was to persuade her children not to get in the car if they thought that daddy had had a drink. Fire officers told us that they now rescue more people from road collisions than house fires, and many of them are due to drunk-driving. A survey by Drink Wise, Age Well of 16,700 people over 50 found that drink-driving was commonplace among high-risk drinkers: 30% reported that they had driven when they thought they were over the legal limit in the preceding year. That is a huge number of people who are aware that they have drunk too much but who think they will get away with it.
If one young parent dies in a drink-drive accident, they are likely to leave orphaned two or three children. Those children’s life chances are seriously damaged, with higher rates of mental health problems and lower school attainment; they are less likely to get into higher education; and they are at a higher risk of suicide later in life—in other words, this year’s drink-driving fatalities leave decades of societal difficulties ahead. The tragedy is that these are avoidable accidents. The simple message: “Do not drink and hold the car keys” is the one to give the public. We all know that simple messages work. We all know that legislation gives messages. That, combined with the simple message that one in eight road deaths involves a driver over the limit, can be enough to bring about the change that we need across society. I do not know of anybody, other than perhaps those in the alcohol retail industry, who objects to lowering the drink-drive limit. We have an NHS that is struggling, a court system with backlogs, and terrible backlogs for psychological support services for young children who are bereaved.
We had a debate earlier about road safety. Nobody will be damaged by lowering the drink-drive limit, but every year hundreds of people will die, and thousands will be damaged, by not acting now. I hope the Government will see it is time to come in line with the rest of the Commonwealth.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I rise to oppose Amendment 157 and speak to Amendment 164 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. I am currently drinking only small amounts of alcohol, so I have no personal interest in this matter.
I have listened carefully to the arguments in support of Amendment 157, but I still do not believe it will have the effect desired. I think that all noble Lords in the Committee will agree that any consumption of alcohol will lead to a deterioration in driving standards and increase the risk of an accident. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked where the current limit comes from. The Grand Rapids study of 1964 showed that the risk of having an accident rapidly increased at a blood alcohol concentration—BAC—of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood or the equivalent. That is why our current limit is set at that level, and I think that is the correct level.
My understanding is that compliant drivers feel uncomfortable driving with a BAC of more than 30 milligrams. My feeling is that the majority of drivers adhere strictly to a limit of 50 milligrams in any case, and when they are caught driving at more than 80 milligrams, it is often a stupid, but criminal, mistake which can arise for a variety of reasons which I will not weary the Committee with. The evidence for this contention is that when the 50-milligram limit was introduced in Scotland, the initial compliance improved by only 12% and I suggest that when a contravention occurred and was detected, it was often the kind of “mistake” I referred to. In this country, we rightly have severe penalties for exceeding the current limit; it is also socially unacceptable. Other countries, as observed by noble Lords, have a limit of 50, but without the severe penalties, at that BAC, that we have.
After the Scottish Government lowered their BAC limit, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I were very keen to see the data, but, I suspect, for slightly different reasons. I was worried that I might be wrong. If that had turned out to be case, I would be supporting Amendment 157. The Scottish Government commissioned research to measure the effect of their changes to the BAC limit. The conclusions were that the change made no detectable difference to the accident rate in Scotland. I never expected it to, and I will explain why in a moment. The Committee will have been grateful for the frankness of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he touched on this point.
The proponents of Amendment 157 will have to explain to the Committee why they think the results in England and Wales would be any different from those in Scotland. According to 2019 DfT statistics, of a sample size of 243 dead drivers, 34% had a BAC of 10 or more, so had been drinking, 25% had a BAC of 51 or more, 23% of 81 or more, 22% of 101 or more, 16% of 151 or more, and 5% were at 200. What these figures show is that most non-compliant drivers are not just slightly over the limit, but far over the limit.
I have argued from the government Dispatch Box that there is a cohort of drivers who are unregulated drinkers. They are clinically dependent upon alcohol, they do not know how much they have been drinking, and they pay absolutely no attention whatever to the legal limits—thus, changing the limit will have no effect on them. The police do not find it very difficult to detect drunk drivers who have made the criminal mistake I have already referred to. They tend to overcompensate and drive too cautiously, and so give themselves away, and thus can be legally stopped by the police. Unfortunately, an unregulated driver is much more difficult to detect. They will drive fluidly for relatively short distances, and therefore with a lower chance of even being seen by the police, let alone being caught.
As proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the only way of dealing with and detecting these very dangerous drivers who are unregulated drinkers is for the police to undertake operations where they stop every driver to check that they have not been drinking. I accept that the amendment might not be perfectly drafted, and that some civil rights precautions may have to be put in. However, not only would the police detect more of these very dangerous drivers but the deterrent effect would be considerable. Although it may be imperfect, Amendment 164 achieves this.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Road Danger Reduction Forum. I support both these amendments. It is absolutely ridiculous that we have such high alcohol limits, and we really ought to bring them down. We should say that no alcohol is permitted when you are driving—when you are in charge of a tonne of metal.
I want to make a small point, but it is something that road safety campaigners care very much about. We have heard the word “accident” used a lot. Road safety campaigners ask that we do not use the word “accident”, because that presupposes that it was accidental. It prejudges the situation, and that is clearly not right when something might come to court. They ask instead that we use the words “incident”, “collision” or even “crash”, but not “accident”. There is also an argument for saying that we should not use the words “road safety”, because that is the solution to the problem; the problem itself is “road danger”. We have to get our head around these differences, because it changes the way we perceive such situations.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will not repeat what I said earlier about my own mother having been killed because of a drunk driver—though I did not mention at the time that I also lost my brother-in-law in a different accident. The people who did this were not dependent, unregulated drinkers at all; they were perfectly normal people, who got behind the wheel of a car when they had been drinking. As the noble Baroness just said, this is not accidental. It is deliberate: these people have a drink and then get into a car.
But things have altered in those 60 years. I mentioned seatbelts earlier, and there has obviously been the breathalyser. When I first started campaigning on this, the Government’s Christmas campaign that year was “Stay Low”—it was not even “Don’t Drink”. So we have made enormous progress, and we should not forget that. But it is a journey, and we have not got there yet. We ought to continue on that journey.
Listening to some of the earlier debate, I heard the argument that the way to solve this is not to use sentencing or to send more people to prison. I have a lot of sympathy with this. I think there are times when prison is right, but what we actually want is prevention: we want to stop people getting in a car after they have had a drink.
Just like the changes I have mentioned, we also have to celebrate the fact that the Government and industry have done a lot. There has been a really good dialogue. There is now zero-alcohol beer—my fridge at home is full of it—that tastes very good. It is not like the early stuff; it is very good. There has been a big investment by industry to make that available—you can now get my favourite tipple, Guinness, with zero alcohol. There is the acceptability of water with meals, and a number of pubs serve coffee. We have to accept that this has been a whole-society move, but, as I say, we should not just stop where we have got to; we need to continue on the journey.
Just as the industry has been very good, we should acknowledge what the Government did in the Budget, when they moved to what a number of us have been asking for—oh, for lots of years: that the tax on alcohol should correlate with the strength of the alcohol in the drink. The Government have done that. It will take time for it to be implemented, but we are moving in the direction of understanding that. All of those are great things. It means that there is a much greater choice of drinks, either in the pub or while drinking at home.
However, there is still a problem: people are getting into cars when they have been drinking. I find it extraordinary, even at 50 milligrams. I do not drink at all when I am driving because I know that my foot would simply not hit the brake as fast, even after one drink. I know it would not, so I do not do it at all. Driving round London at the moment, even at 20 miles an hour, I see some cyclists—and I am a cyclist—going round without lights on and wearing dark clothes; you often have to hit the brake very fast. We may need to continue to move that way.
Therefore, I really favour this drop to 50 milligrams. It works very well in France, where much more is done, with proper random breath tests—closing off a road and checking everyone going through. That is what I would like to see. You do not have to do it very often, by the way, just every now and again.
The other possibility—I know we have discussed it in earlier debates—is whether we could move at least to 50 milligrams for new drivers; say, in the first five years of being qualified. My guess is that, once they get used to driving without drinking at all, they would continue that through life. I think some thought and creativity could be given to that.
We need to go further. I hope the Government do not say that they are doing everything they can, that they have an advertising campaign, that everything is brilliant and that we do not need to move any further. While sometimes they have come through Private Members’ Bills, often the changes we have had have been from the Government, whether through Barbara Castle or others. There is a responsibility on the Government to take it a bit further. Therefore, I hope that the response we get will be “Yes, it is time to do more”. And these may be just the two amendments that we need.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, from my professional experience, there is no safe level of alcohol for a driver. The message should be clear to all drivers that you should not drink and drive. I think that the limit should not be set at zero, because you can still have alcohol in your system the following day and there may be a need for some leeway, but at a level a lot lower than is currently the case. Certainly, the levels that are suggested in this amendment are reasonable. There needs to be a significant reduction in the alcohol limit, but perhaps not set at zero.
The other thing to say—I am sure the Minister will address the Committee on this—is that I am not sure that the second amendment is necessary, as the police are entitled to stop any driver to check their documents. If they then detect alcohol, provided the officer is in uniform, they can administer a breath test. I will leave that for the Minister to confirm.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 157. I need to say very little following the speakers today, who have greater expertise than I have—and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has her own tragic experience to bring to this debate.
I spoke about this issue during Oral Questions last week, and I just want to emphasise a couple of points that I made then. The limit we currently have is 54 years old; the science on which it is based has moved on, and it is outdated. We are not leading the world; we are lagging behind the rest of the world. From Australia to Scotland and the whole of the rest of Europe, we are behind.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe and his co-signatories for raising these issues again. This is a vitally important debate. We know that prior to the last election, a Transport Minister said that the Government had no plans to change the drink-drive limit. They did not believe that a case had been made and instead would focus on enforcing the current law. However, in January 2021, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety reported that the UK’s current system to prevent drink-driving was no longer adequate. It recommended a major review across the board on drink-driving, including lowering the legal limit.
Rather importantly, on the issue of enforcement, the PACTS report found that:
“Levels of police enforcement had decreased by 63% since 2009 and there are indications that drivers believe they are less likely to be caught.”
We know that drink-driving is one of the biggest causes of road deaths, at 13%, and that in the last decade 240 people have been killed each year where a driver was over the limit and that 17% of drink-drive offences are committed by a reoffender. We also know that levels of police enforcement have decreased quite substantially.
It is relevant to ask the Government what they are doing in this regard. Having said, prior to the last election, that they would instead focus on enforcing the current law, clearly that is not what has happened. Indeed, the situation appears in that regard to have got worse. Are the Government actively looking at international comparisons that have been referred to today, and the fact that we are higher when it comes to the legal limit than virtually every other country? Have they been looking at, for example, random breath tests? What do they make of the evidence? My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, has been open about Scotland having introduced a reduced drink-driving limit in 2014 which brought them into line with most other countries in Europe. My understanding is that it has been accepted by the public and, interestingly, it has not significantly impacted pubs and restaurants, which was one of the arguments against going down the same road as Scotland. It does not appear to have overloaded the police or the courts, which was another argument, and it seems that Northern Ireland may go even further, at least with a zero limit for novice and professional drivers.
I will listen with interest to what the Government have to say about why we should be so far adrift on international comparisons, and to what the Government have to say regarding the situation in Scotland. I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe has given a very accurate statement of the situation, but those arguments which were advanced at the time for not bringing us in line with Scotland, in relation to impacts on pubs and restaurants and the police and courts, for example, have not materialised, as far as I know. I wait to be corrected if I am wrong.
The PACTS report recommended, among other things, mandatory breath-testing powers for the police, a reduction in enforcement levels to be reversed, a lower breath-test limit for England and Wales and for the Government to pay more attention to drink-driving, alcohol harm and night-time economy policies. When he was commenting on the report, the executive director of PACTS said that:
“After 10 years of declining levels of enforcement and social media campaigns aimed at young men, it is time for a new, more comprehensive approach to reducing the toll of drink drive deaths and injuries. Drink driving is often cited as a road safety success story, yet it remains a major killer and progress has ground to a halt since 2010. Not only is better enforcement important but also the problems of mental health and alcohol dependency need to be recognised.”
What has come across in our debate this evening is a recognition that we seem to have stopped making progress; and we are still much higher compared with most other countries involved in the international comparisons. Some of the things that were said about Scotland—that it would be a difficulty if we came down to their level—have not materialised in Scotland. Drink-drive deaths are still at an unacceptable level. We seem to have stopped making progress.
I hope that in the Minister’s response we are going to hear what plans the Government have to bring down the level of drink-driving. It is not good enough that somebody puts forward a proposal to lower the limit and the Government do not agree with it. If the Government do not agree with it, what do they intend to do to improve the situation? Arguments have been advanced tonight as to why bringing down the limit would improve the situation. You can certainly say with random testing that, if the limit is lower, the chances are the random testing is likely to have a more dramatic effect than if the limit is at the present higher level—where we seem to have reached a situation in which a number of those who drink and drive seem fairly convinced they will not be caught or get into difficulties as a result.
I hope we will hear from the Minister tonight what the Government are doing. I hope it will not just be a case of the Government saying, “We don’t agree with an amendment to bring it down to 50, we don’t agree with an amendment about random breath testing”, because if that is their response, it is purely negative. It is saying “We are not prepared to go down the road of the ideas that have been advanced, but we do not have any fresh ideas ourselves—we do not have a programme for reducing drink-driving”—and that, surely, is what we all want to do in view of the level of deaths. I hope we will get a positive response from the Government and a recognition that we need to do something, not rejection out of hand of every idea that has been put forward in our debate this evening.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful to everybody who contributed to this debate, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for setting out the case for these amendments. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government take road safety very seriously and believe that any form of drink-driving is unacceptable and a serious road safety issue. The Government are committed to tackling drink-driving and ensuring that those guilty of this offence and all such offences are detected and punished. I am unable to confirm his precise figures, but for 2019 the final estimate was that between 210 and 250 people were killed—in deference to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—in incidents, where at least one driver was over the limit. If I can improve on those figures I will write to the noble Lord.
That number is broadly in line with recent years. We have a combined approach of tough penalties and rigorous enforcement along with highly respected and effective THINK! campaigns. This reinforces the social unacceptability of drink-driving and reminds people of the serious consequences that drinking and driving can have on themselves and others. The Government are obviously aware that the drink-drive limit in England and Wales is one of the highest in western Europe, hence our approach, which I have just outlined.
Turning specifically to Amendment 157 to change the prescribed limits, it is unclear whether it would deliver the desired result—a point well made by my noble friend Lord Attlee. More work needs to be done to see if there will be any such benefit as a result of a reduction in the drink-drive limit. The recent academic study by Bath University demonstrated that there had been no benefit to road safety in Scotland as a consequence of reducing the drink-drive limit. This research highlighted there being no change across all types of accidents involving alcohol as a result of the introduction of a stricter drink-drive limit in Scotland in December 2014.
The Government note—as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, predicted, I am afraid I have to say this—that the University of Glasgow published an independent evaluation of the impact of the reduction of the legal blood alcohol limit in Scotland in the Lancet in December 2018. This evaluation took advantage of the natural experiment created by the lowering of the limit in Scotland only and compared data on weekly road traffic collision rates and alcohol consumption, based on off and on-trade sales data, between Scotland, the intervention group, and England and Wales, the control group. The study found that lowering the drink-drive limit was not associated with any reduction in total road traffic collision rates or serious and fatal road traffic collision rates, but that the change was associated with a small reduction in per-capita alcohol consumption from on-trade alcohol sales, to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Another area that the Government would want to explore in detail is any effect of minimum pricing of alcohol on drinking and driving. We are aware that there is also a public health aspect to drink-driving in both prevention and rehabilitation of those convicted for such an offence.
Earl Attlee (Con)
If the police stopped every vehicle travelling along a certain road, how would that be unfair and disproportionately impact certain communities?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
With respect to my noble friend, it would very much depend on the road and how the policy was being implemented, which would be an operational consideration, but I take his point.
I am very happy to put the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and others who have spoken in this short debate in touch with the Road Safety Minister in the Department for Transport so that they can continue to discuss the further important issues raised by these amendments. I can sense the mood of the Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, quoted some very powerful statistics on public attitudes here, so I urge noble Lords to seek that meeting.
Finally, before I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, I associate myself with my noble friend Lord Wolfson’s remarks about the personal comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter; she has my deepest sympathy. For now, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, would I be right in saying that, five years after my noble friend made his previous speech, which apparently lasted a bit longer, the number of convictions for drink-driving has gone up by 25% and all the Government can offer is that they will study the figures for a bit longer and do nothing else? Am I being unfair?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
With respect, I do not know whether the noble Lord is being unfair, because I do not have the statistics. I will write to him.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My concern is that the Minister does not seem to have any policy that directly targets those drivers who I would describe as unregulated drinkers. His policy may have an effect on people who have made the mistake that I referred to and have around 80 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood, but for the unregulated drinkers who drive far in excess of the legal limit, his policies seem to be totally irrelevant.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Other than the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who raised some objections, and I will come to them in a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who raised a point about what the police can and cannot do, and the Minister, who had a different interpretation, I think everybody has been singing from the same hymn sheet. The evidence is there and it has got worse. The Government have the opportunity today to set out their stall on what they intend to do. While the Minister has done his best, he has been trying to make bricks without straw. I think the group is very happy to come together and have a meeting with appropriate people on the Government’s side. We will be very pleased to do that, but I give the Minister due notice that this is coming back on Report. It is not going to be left as it is at the moment; some change is required.
Regarding 50 milligrams, I would probably go for 20—the Scandinavian figure. I am sure that the Minister would argue it would make no difference. What matters is the message that is sent to the public at large about what is and is not acceptable. It is wrong that the Government permit a dangerous limit to be in force. Okay, 50 may not be the right limit, but it is less dangerous. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that the evidence comes from the work to which we referred. It did not look just at the 80 but at 50, and the further down you go, the less the risk. It is a simple fact of life. The Government either accept it and live with it or change it. I believe that the public are ready for change and that it is wrong that so many people are being maimed and having serious injuries, and the number has been rising. This needs addressing. This matter will come back.
I was very reasonable. I did not make a great thing about Scotland, as I know that some of the evidence is not helpful. There are other counterarguments, which my noble friend Lord Rosser on the Front Bench, advanced in defence of the Scottish position but it is not as comforting as we would wish. The issue is about how we relate to the public at large and how the Government project what is needed to make a change. We are not looking to involve a great deal more police in it or to upset people by being disproportionate. We are looking to present a deterrent. Most people will change their attitude if they think they are at risk of being stopped, and we would start to see some change taking place. We will have the meeting but this will be back on Report.
I suggest to the Minister that he should explore being a bit more flexible. We are prepared to put a sunset clause in the amendment so that the Government can go back to 80 if they wish or to run an experiment, but it is time to make some change rather than leaving life as it was way back in 2015 and see a continual worsening of the position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
“Definition of “exceptional hardship”
In the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, after subsection 35(4), insert—
“(4A) In subsection (4)(b) above, the hardship that would be caused by an offender’s disqualification should be regarded as exceptional if and only if it is significantly greater than the hardship that would arise for a large majority of other drivers if the same disqualification were imposed on them.(4B) In assessing whether the hardship arising from the offender’s disqualification would be exceptional, a court may take account of—(a) any circumstances relating to the offender’s economic circumstances or location of residence that would make it exceptionally hard for him to access key services such as grocery shops and postal, banking and healthcare facilities,(b) any hardship that would be incurred by the offender’s family or others who are disabled and who depend on the offender to provide care for them, and(c) any other circumstance which it believes would make the hardship genuinely exceptional.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides a definition of “exceptional hardship” for the purpose of RTOA.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, at various points in the Bill, the Government are seeking to increase penalties and create new offences, but it is fairly pointless increasing penalties on paper if you regularly allow people to avoid them through what has effectively become a legalised loophole. People avoid a driving ban under the totting-up procedure by pleading exceptional hardship. The problem is that this excuse is being used far from exceptionally. I recall, when in court as magistrates, that we would expect such a plea from some solicitors as a matter of routine for all their clients. The reality is that the definition of exceptional is very broad and applied unevenly.
To give an example, in 2015 Christopher Gard killed cyclist Lee Martin. It was the ninth time he had been caught using his mobile phone while driving. Magistrates had repeatedly accepted that a ban would cause exceptional hardship. There is a case on record of a man being allowed to continue to drive because of the “exceptional hardship” it would cause him if he could not walk his dog—he had to drive a mile to the local park to do that.
This amendment provides a definition of “exceptional hardship”. It is exceptional
“only if it is significantly greater than the hardship that would arise … if the same disqualification were imposed”
on the great majority of drivers. To assist, it gives examples of what the court can take into account.
For example, where you live: if you live 10 miles from the nearest shops and healthcare facilities, halfway up a mountain with no bus service nearby, the ability to drive is clearly very important to you—although, of course, if you live with other family members, you would not be likely to face exceptional hardship because they could probably drive you there instead. If you have to drive as part of your job and will presumably lose your job if you cannot drive, then that would be exceptional hardship; although one wonders whether any employer would want such a bad driver. At the moment, with the shortage of drivers, they might put up with it but in normal circumstances, not so. Clearly, if you are disabled, or a carer on whom a disabled person relies for being taken to the shops, to healthcare and so on, then you would experience exceptional hardship if you could no longer drive. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I are not being hard-hearted; we are, instead, seeking to ensure that the “exceptional hardship” proviso is used as it was intended to be used.
Finally, to give this some context, in 2020 in England, 33,196 drivers were disqualified under the totting-up procedure and 8,764 people are currently driving around with more than 12 points on their licence. Noble Lords will immediately see from those figures that the “exceptional hardship” plea is being accepted in such a high proportion of cases that it cannot be regarded as exceptional. I urge the Government to give consideration to the need to tighten up that definition.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment and I shall add just a few words to the noble Baroness’s excellent introduction. I have a friend in Cornwall who is quite famous and about a year ago he was caught driving at about 80 mph in a 50-mph zone. He already had 12 points on his licence, so he pleaded exceptional hardship because he had to visit his ailing mother every day. He was allowed to keep his licence. Two months later, exactly the same thing happened and he made the same plea. As noble Lords will know, you cannot make the same plea twice for the same offence and the magistrates took away his licence, which made him very angry. But he should not have been angry, because there is an easy solution to this: do not do it in the first place.
The noble Baroness gave many examples of exceptional hardship. I could give a lot more, but I am not going to at this time of night. However, there is a solution to this, which is, do not do it in the first place. Stick to the speed limit, do not go through red traffic lights or whatever else people might think about.
This is not a question of hardship. It is a question of not doing it in the first place so that you are not taken to court and maybe convicted. The definition that the noble Baroness has put in this amendment is a very good one. If the Minister does not like it, perhaps he can come back with an alternative before we get to Report, but we need to find a solution to the 83,000 drivers who have escaped driving bans in the past 10 years because, unless they learn to behave, driving is going to get more dangerous. I hope that the Minister will agree at least to look at the text and come back with something else before Report.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
In doing a little bit of research for this, I went on to the internet and put in “road traffic offences exceptional hardship”. I think I referred in an earlier intervention earlier to the huge legal business that exists to assist drivers who wish to contest some of the allegations against them for their driving. If you put that phrase into a search engine, first of all, you find a huge number of law firms giving you chapter and verse on the ways in which one can plead exceptional hardship. Pressing where it says “videos” gives a whole series of videos where very convincing lawyers, looking very smooth, tell you with a great degree of confidence—probably on the basis of some financially lucrative experience—just how it is possible to contest a ban and plead exceptional hardship. The very fact that it is so easy to find and is clearly a large and lucrative business tells us immediately that something is clearly wrong. The law is, to some extent, making an ass of itself. For those who are able to benefit from it, it is a very profitable endeavour.
Having a licence is not a right; it is a privilege. If people misuse and abuse that privilege, it is completely right that it should be removed. An awful lot of those people who do regard it genuinely as a right, and are deeply affronted at the idea that they should be stopped, are precisely the people against whom a ban is the most effective. In many cases, their driving and their ability to be seen by others driving, often rather flagrantly, is part of their persona and part of their identity. In a sense, removing their ability to drive is a form of emasculation. Despite being male, I am all in favour of emasculation when it comes to an egregious offence like that.
Again, we are looking at huge inconsistency. I will use only one example; it is such an egregious example that I hope your Lordships will forgive me. There is a gentleman called Alex McFarlane who, in only three months—between June and August 2014, so in one year—triggered safety cameras seven times and did not respond to a single penalty notice. In that three months, he managed to rack up a total of 42 points on his driving licence. When he came in front of the magistrates in Southend, what did he say? He said, “If banned, I will lose my job and my home, and I will be unable to pay off my debts”. The second point he made was the clincher. “Since the incident”, he claimed, “I have been treated for a nervous breakdown, which led to a spending spree and me incurring very heavy debts”. The magistrates accepted his plea. I rest my case.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness. My only complaint is that I do not think it is aggressive enough. I have driven for several decades. I have driven for hundreds of thousands of miles. Touch wood, I have never been prosecuted for a moving traffic offence. The penalty points system is a good system. If I picked up three points for speeding, or for some minor offence, I would be extremely careful not to reoffend. So I do not understand why, if people get a few points, they cannot take the lesson and be compliant. I strongly support the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and actually agree with him for a change. The wording is not strong enough, so well done to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for putting this amendment forward.
As the noble Baroness said, at the moment, “exceptional hardship” is anything but exceptional. I cite the case of a person who was exempted from a ban because he said that he had to walk his dog and drive to the nearest park, which was a mile away. I find that absolutely extraordinary; it leads me to think that magistrates ought to get a bit more tuition.
Essentially, points on a licence and the threat of losing that licence are an important part of ensuring that people drive safely and take care of other road users. Around 8,800 people are still driving despite having 12 or more points on their licence, and there is a whole industry of solicitors advising drivers on how to work the system in this way. It is very frustrating for the traffic police who care about enforcing the law and find themselves working hard to bring people to justice and get them convicted, only to see those people allowed to drive home after the case.
There are times when hardship may be truly exceptional, for example if an offender is the sole carer of a person with a disability who would suffer if the offender were unable to drive. Even then, it is a failure of the state if the only way a person with a disability can survive is by getting lifts from a person who is such a dangerous driver that they should not be allowed on the road.
Amendment 158 would ensure that “exceptional hardship” is a true exception rather than just a plea of convenience. Our current road traffic laws, as I started to say earlier, are based far too much on the convenience of drivers rather than justice and safety for other road users. This amendment would ensure that the very worst drivers on the roads do not have a convenient excuse to keep driving.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
This issue was also raised by my colleague, Ben Bradshaw MP, in the Commons. As has been said, exceptional hardship is the plea a person can use when charged with road traffic offences to avoid losing their licence if not being able to drive would cause them exceptional hardship. Obviously, as we have heard, the concerns about the system are that exceptional hardship is being agreed to too frequently for repeat offenders and in spurious cases.
What has quite clearly been asked of the Government —that is, what is being sought—is a tightening-up of the definition of exceptional hardship. I ask the Government to say in their response, first, whether, in their view, there is an issue with exceptional hardship being agreed to rather too frequently. Do the figures show that the number of times exceptional hardship is being agreed to is going up year by year? As I understand it, between 2011 and 2020, there were more than 83,500 cases where drivers did not receive a driving ban by pleading exceptional hardship. Do the Government have a feel for whether it is the case that instances of exceptional hardship being agreed to are increasing? Are they aware of any areas, perhaps in relation to courts, where there is what they regard as best practice, where the system is working well?
I remember once being told that “exceptional hardship” was something that people suffered, for example, at times of war. When it comes to the loss of a licence, perhaps we are talking more about a form of inconvenience than necessarily about hardship. Even in the more extreme case where somebody was able to persuade you that they would lose their job, presumably it is relevant to ask, “Well, that may be the case, but if it is for a short period of time, will the employer be prepared to live with it and give out other duties that do not involve driving?” Perhaps, if they are going to lose their job, it would suggest that the employer is not necessarily highly enamoured of their performance. But, even in a case where you might lose your job, it must surely be assessed against “exceptional hardship”: what would the individual’s prospects be at that time of getting another, completely different job that did not involve driving, if a ban would cause them to lose their job that involved driving?
I know that there are other instances where people come out with examples of it being almost impossible to get to work but where it turns out that, if they were prepared to get up an hour and a half earlier in the morning, they might be able to get there by public transport—but somehow it is regarded as an “exceptional hardship” to have to get up so much earlier to get there by public transport and it taking longer to get home. So I am aware of the way these arguments get used and put forward, and we need to be careful to draw a clear distinction between what is “exceptional hardship”, with a proper definition of “hardship”, and what may be closer to “exceptional inconvenience”.
I simply repeat what I asked earlier: do the Government have a feel for this one? Do they have any information on the extent to which “exceptional hardship” is being used and accepted more as an argument? Do they have any examples of where the wording is being applied in perhaps a more realistic manner, and are they looking to take action in this area? What is being asked for in this amendment is that we should tighten up the definition of what constitutes exceptional hardship. I await the Government’s response with interest.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her explanation of this amendment, which seeks to define the term “exceptional hardship” that applies in the context of a court’s decision on whether to impose a driving ban.
I reassure the Committee that the Government take road safety extremely seriously. Drivers who reach 12 points should automatically be disqualified from driving, to protect themselves and others. However, sentencing, including the imposition and length of a driving disqualification, is properly a matter for our independent courts, based on the facts of each case—we have heard of a number of interesting and diverse cases this evening. Courts have the discretion not to disqualify, or to impose a reduced disqualification, if they are satisfied that there are mitigating circumstances justifying a claim of “exceptional hardship”.
This amendment to introduce a definition of “exceptional hardship” is unnecessary, detrimental to judicial discretion and of questionable utility in assisting a court in applying the “exceptional hardship” test. It would introduce a narrow definition that would not be able to account for all circumstances that were presented to the courts and would remove the courts’ freedom to use their experience to reach decisions accordingly.
It might assist the Committee if I read out the sentencing guidance that is already in practice—from my mobile phone. It says:
“When considering whether there are grounds to reduce or avoid a totting up disqualification the court should have regard to the following … It is for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof that such grounds exist. Other than very exceptionally, this will require evidence from the offender, and where such evidence is given, it must be sworn … Where it is asserted that hardship would be caused, the court must be satisfied that it is not merely inconvenience, or hardship, but exceptional hardship for which the court must have evidence … Almost every disqualification entails hardship for the person disqualified and their immediate family. This is part of the deterrent objective of the provisions combined with the preventative effect of the order not to drive … If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account … Courts should be cautious before accepting assertions of exceptional hardship without evidence that alternatives (including alternative means of transport) for avoiding exceptional hardship are not viable.”
It concludes by saying:
“Loss of employment will be an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people. Evidence that loss of employment would follow from disqualification is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship; whether or not it does will depend on the circumstances of the offender and the consequences of that loss of employment on the offender and/or others.”
I hope the Committee found that guidance helpful.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response and also thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I respond by pointing out that 12 points do not come out of nowhere; they are the result of repeated offences. In other words, drivers who acquire them have been ignoring the signs for a long while, in most cases.
I take issue with the Minister’s characterisation of this as interfering with judicial discretion. The amendment says that it would be exceptional
“only if it is significantly greater than the hardship that would arise for a large majority of other drivers if the same disqualification were imposed on them.”
That is a simple indication of what “exceptional” means. It goes on to talk about the things the court could take into account, including
“economic circumstances or location of residence”
and any hardship to the family, especially to people who are disabled or for whom the offender provides care. Finally, it includes
“any other circumstance which it believes would make the hardship genuinely exceptional.”
That is about the broadest definition I can imagine.
Courts are used to having and following sentencing guidelines. The Minister indicated that to us, in some detail. I urge the Government, despite the Minister’s reaction, to look again at the sentencing guidelines to see what can be done. Of course, this is a probing amendment, but the statistics say it all: for one reason or another, the courts are not applying this in an exceptional manner, and the Government ought to look at why that is the case. I will of course withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
“Review of road traffic offences
The Secretary of State must carry out a review of all road traffic offences and penalties.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to carry out a review of all road traffic offences and penalties
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this amendment simply calls for a review of road traffic offences. It refers back to the debate we had earlier. My amendment is very broad—and deliberately so. Other amendments are much more specific and deal with worthwhile issues, but the haphazard range of amendments laid to the Bill is a result of its broad coverage of topics. The amendments that have been laid are just a snapshot of a wide range of issues that require attention and modernisation. I do not believe that this Bill is the place for any kind of systematic look at road traffic offences; they need their own Bill.
The Government undertook a consultation and review in 2014 with that kind of action in mind, but nothing happened. Of course, that 2014 review is now hopelessly out of date and would have to be undertaken again. I want to run through a few of the issues that are significant today but which were hardly worthy of note in 2014. The first is e-scooters. The Government have dozens of so-called pilot schemes under way, but wherever you live in the UK, e-scooters are visible nowadays. They pose problems and need regulation. The situation has gone way beyond any form of government control. I suggest that the Government will find it difficult to impose regulations now after such a period of a lax approach, but they really have to do something about them. In practice, e-scooters are sold with no attempt to explain to people that they are illegal on public roads and pavements outside the pilot scheme areas.
E-scooters pose a danger. In 2020, 484 casualties were officially recorded as the result of e-scooter accidents. Of those, 384 were the users themselves, one of whom, a 16 year-old boy, was killed. Some 128 of those involved in accidents were seriously injured, including a three year-old girl who received life-changing injuries. Reports this year suggest that at least 11 people have been killed so far, but, of course, that has to be officially recorded.
Another issue that hardly featured in 2014 is smart motorways. I do not want to dwell on the details of those, because last week we had the report from the Transport Select Committee in the other place, but it recommended a halt to smart motorway developments until significant safety improvements had been made and more powers for the ORR to block schemes until safety concerns had been dealt with. Clearly the Highway Code needs amending to deal with smart motorways. Since only 29 miles of smart motorway have been running for five years or more, they clearly did not feature in 2014.
Other issues that need tackling are: autonomous vehicles—road regulations and layouts, driver behaviour and legal responsibility all need tackling as a result of those; the trend towards more 20-mile-an-hour zones, as we discussed earlier today; and the fact that, for environmental reasons, road layouts need to change to encourage more walkers and cyclists. Those are always put together in the same paragraph, but in fact their interests are not identical and can conflict.
Bikes themselves are not what they once were. The welcome increase in the number of people cycling, and more people using bikes to commute, means that cyclists are often in a hurry and there is often a conflict with pedestrians and other road users. Electric bikes, which are certainly a recent innovation, are on occasion ridden much faster than the legal limit of 15.5 miles an hour, because you can tamper with the maximum speed. Cyclists can and do injure and kill, as well of course as very often suffering in accidents themselves. Cyclists who cause accidents can be charged only under the 1861 Act, which I referred to earlier today, with “wanton and furious driving”. The fact that we have to refer to an Act that is more than 150 years old is an indication that there is a need for a proper and comprehensive review of road traffic offences.
For those reasons and a host of others, we need a review, not this Christmas tree of a Bill. This is a probing amendment and I will of course withdraw it in due course. However, my question for the Minister is simple: when can we expect a proper road traffic Bill? When can we look for a proper review to modernise our roads?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 165 in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. We are grouped together with Amendment 159 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I think we are both looking for the same thing, which is a review of road traffic offences, which we discussed a little earlier this evening. It seems that the time has come to put a time limit on this. We suggest two years from the date of the Bill’s enactment.
As I mentioned earlier, this started in 2014. In 2015-16, the Commons Transport Committee reported with an inquiry on road traffic law enforcement, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking reported in 2017, with an inquiry on cycling and the justice system, and in 2018 there was a Westminster Hall debate on road justice and the legal framework, which revealed a cross-party consensus on the need for wide-ranging reforms. Many of the amendments we have discussed tonight demonstrate the need for reform but also the very wide range, scope and potential, and to some extent the differing opinions, which is of course quite normal.
In addition to the groups I have mentioned, there needs to be discussion not just with road safety and road user groups but with representatives of the police, the legal professions and local authorities. It is interesting to reflect that, seven years on from 2014, we could have had that debate by now and we could be passing laws that would save lives by taking the most dangerous drivers off the road.
I hope I can persuade Ministers that there is time for such a review now. I suspect we will be told that there are no current plans. However, the amendments which we and other people have tabled to Part 5 indicate that a review is needed. I suggest that it is time to address the awful additional pain and deaths that so many people have suffered as a result of the failure to review and change the law, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I think we have made the point that there is a huge inconsistency between road traffic offences and other offences causing injury and death. The penalties are simply not similar in any way.
Many years ago, when I first started getting interested in traffic crime, I went out several times with the traffic police and saw a number of investigations and crashes. At the time, I was told about some incidents that had happened and the sentences that the drivers had got, and these were horrific crashes. A police sergeant working there said to me that if he wanted to kill somebody, he would use his car. He would either get off scot free or would get a minimal sentence because, finally, you can always claim that it is an accident.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support both amendments, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of which I am a co-signatory. As discussed earlier, most UK road traffic legislation predates the modern era and lags some way behind. I am ancient enough to remember that in the 1950s, when travelling around probably at high speed with my mother in her two-seater red MG, RAC officers would stand to attention and salute as we went past, after seeing the RAC badge. That does not seem to happen any more. I can also remember the designer of the Mini, Sir Alec Issigonis of blessed memory. He had two rules when driving a car. First, he did not allow a wireless—as they were then called—in his car, because he thought that was a distraction. Secondly, if anybody was a passenger in his car, including Lady Issigonis, silence was required. He felt that any discourse was a distraction from driving. It is rather different now with the array of technology in one’s car, including technology allowing the car to talk back. Perhaps some people find that preferable to having their other half talk to them, but that is another matter.
I live in SW6, where the roads are like the wild south-west. I go around a lot by bicycle, and every day I see the most extraordinary and flagrant driving and bicycling. At a local Tesco Metro there is a security guard, who I know is there when his state-of-the-art electric bicycle is locked up outside. I spoke to him and looked at his bicycle, as it is a great deal more powerful than mine. I asked him, “How fast does it go?” and he said, “About 50 miles an hour.” I said, “Do you realise that’s illegal?” He said, “Oh yeah. I had it down the road the other day, and a couple of police officers came up admiring the bicycle, asked me how fast it would go, and were very impressed.” That is a strange state of affairs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned e-scooters, which I see all over the place. They are incredibly dangerous. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked earlier about Edinburgh, where the bicycle lanes have been designed in such a way that they are now full of leaves. There is no equipment to clean them, so people are in mortal danger if they ride a bicycle in a bicycle lane. That is not good.
That is only part of the problem. As the Minister may recall, during the debate on some earlier aspects of the Bill, we talked in particular about a report from September by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. It so happens that that same institution produced a report in July last year called Roads Policing: Not Optional. It looked at the state of road policing and the enforcement of the types of laws and regulations across England and Wales about which we are talking. If you are responsible for enforcement, it is not a happy read. It says:
“we found that the importance of roads policing has been in decline”
for many years. In some instances, it found police forces where the officers in charge of road policing were not familiar with the relevant road traffic laws which they were meant to enforce. It asked several questions about the state of enforcement of these laws:
“How effective are the national and local strategic approaches to roads policing? Roads policing in some forces is inadequate … How well are capability and capacity matched to demand? Often capability and capacity doesn’t meet demand … How well do the police engage with the public and partners? A lack of co-ordination hinders effective engagement with the public and partners … How well are police officers trained to deal with roads policing matters? Roads policing training should be standardised and accredited.”
It then made a series of 13 eminently sensible recommendations.
If we are to have a wholesale review of road traffic offences, it has to be done hand in hand with enforcement. There is no point in having laws and regulations if we are incapable of enforcing them consistently. You may say that the time is not now but, at some point in the future, we are going to have to do something before more and more people are killed and there are more and more complex remote vehicles, e-scooters and all the rest of it. Why not just acknowledge that and bite the bullet now, rather than kick the can down the road, which we have been doing for so many years?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief because I think that the arguments in favour of these two amendments have been made very powerfully. They are both intended to require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of road traffic offences and penalties. As has been pointed out, there have been so many changes with our roads and new vehicles in recent years as to justify in itself the need for the review which these two amendments seek. As I understand it, the Government promised a full review of road traffic offences and penalties back in 2014. So far as I know, this has not yet happened. In expressing our support for these amendments and for what they seek to achieve, I simply ask what has happened to the promised review so far as the Government are concerned.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this relatively short debate. As we have heard, Amendments 159 and 165 would require the Government to conduct a full review of road traffic offences. I shall make a number of brief points in response.
First, we do not consider it appropriate to include a requirement in legislation for the Government to undertake a review, especially in the case of Amendment 165 from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The Government are concerned that this amendment sets out, without consultation or regard to practicalities, the terms of reference and timing of such a review. We are also concerned that the amendment does not fully grasp the range and complexity of the review which the Government would be required to undertake. Nor, might I suggest, does it consider who is best placed to conduct such a review—the Government, an independent body such as the Law Commission, or an expert panel.
Secondly, I point out the announcement of a review of driving offences and penalties in May 2014 by the then Secretary of State for Justice. The Government did conduct a review; I hope that goes some way towards answering the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. As part of that internal review, we considered a range of concerns that had been raised by campaigners, victims and parliamentarians. In the debate on an earlier group of amendments, my noble friend Lord Wolfson committed to writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and some of those concerned participants.
The review focused on the most serious offences that can result in death or serious injury, and the results are what we see now in Clauses 65 and 66 of the Bill. As we have already debated, the Bill includes provisions that will increase the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years’ imprisonment to life—again, I refer to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Provisions in the Bill will also increase the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs from 14 years to life imprisonment and create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. These provisions have been long awaited, and they have widespread support. Those reforms also fit within the existing framework of road traffic offences. They are therefore consistent and proportionate responses and should be allowed to take effect before any further reform is considered.
I take note of the list that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, gave of other things she thinks should be considered, but, without going into detail on all of it, I will make just a couple of points. First, I mentioned in the group of amendments on pedicabs that there is a consultation on cycling which began in 2018 and is due to report towards the end of this year or the beginning of next year. I hope that will help to answer some of those questions about the changing nature of cycling. On e-scooters, they are of course illegal unless they are hired and, if the rider is not insured, they can be impounded. I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about enforcement very seriously—these rules are not being enforced, and they perfectly well should be. I also say to the noble Lord that I am extremely jealous of his mother’s red MG—my mother had a Ford Popular, and we used to have to hide on the back seat.
My last point is simply this: while we do not think it is necessary to legislate to require such a review, or to set out its terms of reference in such a restrictive way, the Government are not ruling out a wider review of road traffic offences in the future. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, there will be a whole bunch of considerations when we have the advent of technologies such as autonomous vehicles—not just road traffic considerations but things such as who insures them, how you insure them, and whether you are insuring the car, the driver, the software or the hardware. There are a whole variety of different implications. We will, of course, keep the law under review both in terms of specific offences and where it is necessary to reform the structure of the legislation. But having had this opportunity to debate this issue, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response and other noble Lords for participating in this short debate. I have to smile a little to myself because the Minister seemed to argue that the amendment would have been more acceptable if it had been more prescriptive and had tied the Government’s hands more. However, I realise that the Government have to find reasons not to accept an amendment.
I take issue with the haphazard approach of the Government’s transport-related clauses in the Bill. They are a series of unrelated issues plucked from dozens that need attention. I understand the problems that the police have in attempting to enforce the rules on e-scooters. E-scooters are sold in most cases with effectively no reference to what is legal and what is not. If a police force in area A has a pilot project and area B immediately next door does not, it puts the police force in area B in the difficult position of enforcing a series of rules about illegality that do not apply immediately next door or down the road. There are so many pilot projects that they have undermined attempts by the police to enforce the law.
Having said that, I hope the Government will bear in mind the need for review on so many fronts, and I will, of course, withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
“Power of police to stop vehicles
(1) Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “vehicle” in the second place in which it occurs, insert “, and switch off the engine,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause to the Road Traffic Act 1988 would require a person to switch off their engine after being stopped by a constable in uniform or a traffic officer, and make it an offence not to do so.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, if the Committee will forgive me, I was not quick enough off the mark in the previous group when we were considering exceptional hardship. The Minister said that the Government opposed the amendment because it limited judicial discretion. As we will see in upcoming clauses, clause after clause of this Bill limits judicial discretion by means of primary legislation. I will remind the Government of what the Minister said in relation to that previous amendment when we come to those clauses.
I move Amendment 160 in my name and, in so doing, express my thanks to the Police Federation for raising this issue and for its assistance in drafting the amendment. Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 gives powers to the police to stop vehicles, which goes back to the previous group where we were discussing drink-driving. Section 163(1) says:
“A person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform or a traffic officer.”
Section 163(3) says:
“If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.”
Similarly, Section 164 provides the power to require the driver to produce their driving licence. This poses several real dangers and unnecessary risks to our front-line police officers while dealing with such driver checks. The problem with the current legal framework is that an officer has to leave the relative safety of their own vehicle to make any request or to examine the driving licence. The driver of the stopped vehicle is under no obligation to get out of the vehicle or to switch off their engine.
The current law places officers in a vulnerable position in relation to the driver and occupants of the vehicle. They are permitted to remain in the vehicle to either flee when the officer is most vulnerable or even to use the vehicle as a weapon, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said in an earlier amendment. This is a common occurrence, even in my professional experience, where drivers try to flee after you have got out of the police vehicle and spoken to them. The risk to the officer would be minimised by creating an obligation for the driver of the stopped vehicle to leave the vehicle, but it is also important to ensure others who may be present in the vehicle are not able to then drive the vehicle away, or at the officer, after the original driver has got out.
This amendment is intended to highlight this gap in the law, although I accept that it is not suitable as drafted. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Randerson for pointing out that electric cars, for example, do not have an engine that can be switched off in the traditional sense of the words and that other vehicles do not require a set of keys to be in the ignition to start the engine. However, noble Lords will see exactly what the problem is and how, potentially, the risk to police officers could be minimised if, for example, the driver was required to immobilise the vehicle and get out of the car, unless there was a reasonable excuse for not doing so, for example if the driver was disabled. I look forward to a sympathetic response from the Minister, and I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am sorry, but I am going to speak on this if the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not going to.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I feel very strongly about this. It offends my sense of justice that people who do hit and runs never pay for their crime. They are a menace to society, with only six months’ maximum sentence for leaving someone for dead having hit them with a car and, of course, the figures are going up year after year—
Lord Paddick (LD)
I think the noble Baroness may be speaking to the next group rather than this group.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am. Sorry, ignore that. Strike that from the record. I will come back to that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I was interested in the explanation of this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As he rightly said, there are all sorts of potential issues—one can think of electric cars—and reasons this may not be workable as it has been drafted. Nevertheless, the noble Lord made the point about the vulnerability of police officers when they are in this situation, and of course the vast majority of cars do use conventional engines at the moment.
The other point made by the noble Lord is that a driver is under no obligation to get out of the vehicle. I have to say that, in the current circumstances, if there was a lone woman in the vehicle and a lone police officer asked her to step outside, that may be problematic. Nevertheless, that is not the burden of the noble Lord’s amendment. He has raised an interesting point; we want to protect police officers in vulnerable situations, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, correctly, this amendment is aimed at improving the safety of police officers at the roadside. I share his concerns and want to reassure him that the safety of police officers is vitally important to this Government, as is demonstrated by our programme of work on the police covenant. I will not echo the arguments made to the noble Lord by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the defects of his amendment, but I want to say that we are committed to ensuring that the police have the powers that they need to protect people.
The British model of policing is based on consent, and the exercise of police powers, including the Section 163 power, needs to be transparent, fair and legitimate to ensure that the public can remain confident in policing. I am supportive of the intention behind the extension of this power, but more evidence and consultation are needed to demonstrate that it would provide benefits to officers’ safety and build support for the effectiveness and legitimacy of the proposal to extend the power. I can say to the noble Lord that we will work closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and the Police Federation to explore these issues further and consider what more can be done to improve officer safety at the roadside. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for his support in principle. I think it would be problematic if the lone female driver was asked to get into the police vehicle, but I am not sure that the female driver would be in danger by getting out on to the roadside.
I am very grateful to the Minister for her support for the intention behind the amendment. As I acknowledged, more consultation is required, and I am very grateful that the Government are prepared to discuss these issues further with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Police Federation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
“Failing to stop or report accidents involving actual or potential serious or fatal injury
(1) After section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, insert—“(4A) A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) when he knew that the accident had caused serious or fatal personal injury, or where he ought reasonably to have realised that it might have done so, is guilty of an offence.”(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), after the entry relating to an offence under RTA subsection 170(4), insert the following—
“RTA section 170(4A) | Failing to stop and give particulars after accident involving actual or potential serious or fatal injury or to report accident | On indictment | 14 years | Obligatory | Obligatory | 6-11” |
This amendment creates a new offence of failing to stop or report accidents where the driver knew that the accident had caused serious or fatal injury, or where he ought reasonably to have realised that it might have done so, with a maximum sentence of 14 years custody.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 161 is in my name, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—as we already know. I am grateful to Living Streets, British Cycling, RoadPeace, Cycling UK, and the Road Danger Reduction Forum for their joint briefing and suggested amendment on this issue.
Currently, the maximum penalty for the offence of failing to stop to report accidents is a six-month custodial sentence. This may be appropriate in cases where someone has simply driven off after scratching the paintwork of someone else’s parked car, but not when someone has been left for dead by the roadside.
The briefing provided by two noble Lords cites the case of Scott Walker, who was struck and killed by a driver who was driving without insurance, failed to stop at the scene of the collision, failed to report the incident and then tried to conceal his involvement by having his car repaired to cover the damage. The sheriff who heard the case said that the maximum sentence of imprisonment
“would not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence.”
The parliamentary petition calling for tougher laws when someone dies and the driver fails to stop attracted more than 104,000 signatures.
Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended requires:
“where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, an accident occurs by which … personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that mechanically propelled vehicle … The driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle … If for any reason the driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident … A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.”
The amendment would add a new subsection creating a new offence, where the driver knew or ought reasonably to have realised that the accident had caused serious or fatal personal injury, with a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. As with the previous group, this amendment is intended to highlight the inadequacy of existing legislation.
Again, I accept that the wording may not be right; for example, the Road Traffic Act would need to be amended throughout, as other noble Lords have said, replacing the word “accident” with “collision” or “incident”, as some of these incidents involve deliberate acts, rather than being accidents, and the 14-year term may not be the right one. But the law is inadequate when someone fails to stop after a collision involving death or serious injury. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, as I said before, I support this amendment very strongly because hit-and-runs are a menace.
One of the problems is that the families who suffer from having somebody killed or injured rarely feel they get justice. That seems completely wrong. This amendment would mean that a judge has available the range of sentences necessary to reflect the severity of the offence. Sometimes the existing six months might be enough, and other times 14 years in custody would be the only option that can punish the wrongdoing and deter others from driving away from a serious collision. I am not big on increasing prison sentences, because I think we have far too many people in prison already, and many of them are there for the wrong reasons. But in this case, when you deliberately harm a person, prison is the place for that sort of violent person.
Judges should have the option of a lifetime ban for people who hit and run. There is no excuse for fleeing the scene—it is trying to escape justice. People should not be back on the road once they have done that. Hit-and-run is a cowardly thing; it is an attempt to escape and to not admit that you have done something wrong. Quite often, it can mean the difference between life and death for the person you have hit. This is a valuable amendment and will mean justice, not only for victims but their families and friends.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. One of the most telling statistics is that there were 28,000 hit-and-run collisions in 2017, all involving failure to stop and report collisions that involved actual or potential serious or fatal injury. This number had increased by 43% since 2013—in only four years. That is a very significant increase and, as other noble Lords have said, the current maximum penalty for a hit-and-run collision is six months in prison which, as the noble Baroness said, might be all right in some circumstances, but not in others.
The other issue is that, now that most people have mobile phones in their cars, there should be a general duty to report collisions while at the collision scene. Yes, there are a few places in this country where there is not any signal, but very few compared to where there is; and if it is not possible, the driver or rider may subsequently report the collision and produce their insurance certificates, if appropriate, at a police station or to a constable. This should all be done within two hours of the collision, because 24 hours means that, if there were any risk of alcohol or drugs having an effect, that could be lost in that time. This is a really important amendment, and I would be interested if we could find some more up-to-date statistics on what has happened since 2017, because it is a very serious issue.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, my right honourable friend Ben Bradshaw spoke to his amendment, which was along similar lines, in the other place, to increase the sentences for this type of offence from six months to a possible 14 years. I agree with most of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and particularly her opening point: in general terms, I do not like sentence inflation. This is a very large potential inflation in sentences. Nevertheless, I take the point that she and other noble Lords have made, that a maximum of six months in custody for failing to report a serious or fatal injury during a road traffic accident seems like an unduly light sentence for the most extreme cases.
We have heard reference to the petition; I understand that it will be debated in the House of Commons later this month. I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I would be interested to know how this would interact with existing sentences. For example, if a person has committed an offence causing serious injury or death by dangerous driving, would the expectation be that they would also be sentenced to a number of years for not reporting the accident? How would the two charges work in combination with each other? I have an open mind on these amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords have explained, Amendments 161 and 166 relate to the offence of drivers failing to stop. We know that in a small number of cases, the failure to stop might be related to an event that leads to the death of, or serious injury to, another person, but in the vast majority of cases, convictions involve low-level traffic incidents. In an extremely small number of cases, there may not be any other evidence to connect the death or serious harm with the driver who fails to stop, meaning the only offence they have committed is that failure to stop. I understand the concerns raised, but these amendments potentially risk providing for a maximum custodial sentence of 14 years for failure-to-stop offences resulting in serious or fatal injuries in circumstances where there would not have had to be evidence of a causal link between the failure to stop and the death or serious injury.
What is more, these amendments cut across the basis for the current offence. I must stress that the offence of failure to stop and report is designed to deal with the behaviour relating to the failure to stop. The offence is not to provide an alternative route to punish an offender for a more serious but unproven offence.
Where there is evidence that the driver caused harm, there are a range of other offences, including causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving, with which the driver can be charged. In these cases, the courts can treat the failure to stop as an aggravating factor that adds to the overall seriousness of the offending. Where there is evidence that the driver knew about the incident and took steps to avoid detection, they may be charged with perverting the course of justice, a common law offence that already carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Linking death or serious injury with a failure to stop as the cause would risk creating an unnecessary and unfairly severe offence. To take an example, where there was evidence of causing death by careless driving and failure to stop, the offender would face a maximum penalty almost three times higher for failure to stop than they would for causing death by careless driving—14 years compared to five years— even though the causing death offence requires proof of a fault in the standard of driving.
The law already imposes severe penalties for vehicle offences that lead to death or serious injury, but when doing so, a clear causal link must be proved between the driver’s behaviour and the outcome. The proposed amendment would essentially be equating, or in some cases exceeding, the seriousness of failure to stop with actual culpability for causing death or injury. That, as I have said but want to repeat, causes serious anomalies with other offences that could result in potential injustices, and it is why the Government cannot accept the amendment.
In relation to Amendment 166, which also seeks to amend the current offence, we are concerned by the potential impacts on what is a complex area of law. For example, it is unclear what impact replacing the word “accident” with “collision” would have; it might exclude incidents that are currently and rightly within scope of the existing version of this section. We also reiterate our objections set out above to the creation of the offence of failing to report where the collision caused foreseeable serious or fatal injury.
We are of course aware of the traumatic effects of such incidents, however rare. From what I have already said, it should be clear that this is a complex area, and any change to the law has to fit within the current driving offence framework. However, let me assure noble Lords that my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport understand the concerns that have been raised. I can assure the Committee that the Department for Transport is exploring options that could be pursued in this area, including but not limited to the available penalties and how the offence operates as part of long-term and wider work on road safety. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this debate, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who contributed twice. I thank her for her support. I agree in principle with what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said about sentence inflation; we are not in favour of that. However, the Minister talked about anomalies and this clearly is one—where someone causes death or serious injury and fails to stop after an accident but where no other offences are disclosed.
This is from memory, but in the case of the MP whom the noble Lord referred to, I think the incident in his part of the world in the south-west was a case of somebody who hit something, someone wandering in the road for example, and therefore an offence of careless, reckless or dangerous driving was not appropriate. However, the driver knew that they had hit something or somebody and still failed to stop or call the emergency services.
This is not about punishing the manner of driving that has caused death or serious injury, but about the dishonesty of knowing that you have hit somebody and knowing, from the speed that you were doing, that the person is likely to have received serious injury and, because you have failed to stop, what could have been survivable injuries become fatal injuries, because medical aid is not provided immediately or within a short space of time. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, almost everybody who has a car has a mobile phone, and with the extensive coverage of mobile phone signals there is no reason why immediate assistance cannot be summoned in most cases. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, failing to stop after an accident of this kind can mean the difference between life and death.
In my opening remarks I said that I was not sure that 14 years was the right punishment, that it needs to fit within the framework of punishment. In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, there could be circumstances, such as the one that I have referred to, where offences other than failing to stop were not present. In those circumstances—for example, if somebody in foggy conditions wearing dark clothing in the middle of the night stumbles on to a roadway and is hit by a car, and the person driving knows that they have hit that individual but fails to stop—the only offence could be the failure to stop, yet it could have fatal consequences for the pedestrian involved.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that colleagues in the Department for Transport will be looking at this issue, but it goes to the heart of the previous group on how there needs to be an overall look at road traffic offences in the light of changes that have taken place. The Minister also talked about difficulties that might be created because the amendment refers to collision versus accident, whereas other parts of road traffic law refer to accidents, but I did say that throughout road traffic legislation “accident” needs to be changed to “collision”, because some of the incidents are not accidents. However, it is encouraging that the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Transport have agreed to look at this. On that basis, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“Damage to guided transport structures
(1) A driver whose vehicle causes delays to operations of, or damage to, a guided transport structure or its systems is liable, on conviction of careless driving or a more serious offence, to at least 6 penalty points to be endorsed on the driver’s driving licence regardless of circumstances.(2) A haulier which is responsible for commissioning the journey of the driver is liable to—(a) a fine of up to £50,000,(b) the costs of reconstruction and other costs incurred by the owner of the structure, including compensation to its customers, train operator companies and other third parties, for delays and cancellation or damage to guided transport services.(3) In this section, “guided transport structure” means a structure which supports a guided transport system, including a railway structure.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments 169B and169C tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Atlee.
These amendments came as the result of a truck hitting a railway bridge near Plymouth about a month ago. It affected train services to the south-west quite severely, and I had a discussion with the head of safety at Network Rail to find the cause and what could be done to avoid it happening again. I got some very interesting information, which I will share briefly with the Committee.
As noble Lords probably know, an articulated lorry went under a railway bridge. Interestingly, the road was sloping upwards, so the top of the lorry hit only the far side of the bridge, because the clearance was less than when he went in. When I looked at it further with Network Rail, I was informed that there was an average of seven bridge bashes a day on the network; some are serious and others are not.
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for moving his amendment. On its own, it would be unacceptable because it would unfairly penalise the driver of the lorry. The Committee will be aware that we are already exceptionally short of HGV drivers; I think the noble Lord touched on that. It would also be unfair to the operator because the incident may have been caused by the misconduct of the driver deviating from the appropriate route. I must tell the Committee that it is not always easy to determine the overall height of a vehicle. Mistakes can be made. The driver can be incorrectly informed of the overall height of the piece that he is carrying.
My amendments to Amendment 169A would require technology to be in place before the new penalties are available. Surely we can have electronic systems put in place to make these incidents entirely avoidable. Such a system would warn the driver, before he or she gets to the point of no return, that the vehicle will not safely pass under a bridge. This would enable the driver to take their vehicle on an alternative, safe route. With the data provisions of my amendment, it would also be possible for manufacturers to provide automatic GPS-facilitated warning systems; however, that system would rely on correctly knowing the overall height of the vehicle, whereas my proposals for static infrastructure would not. I will not weary the Committee at this late hour with further technical details.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for supporting my amendment to his amendment. He talked about the inconvenience that these incidents cause. He is of course correct. Most incidents involve large van-type vehicles and normally the bridge wins, although careful and time-consuming post-incident technical checks may still be necessary. That is what causes the inconvenience.
I operate a tank transporter on behalf on the REME Museum. The tank weighs 50 tonnes and the loaded transporter is 14 foot high. If the tank hits the railway bridge, the tank wins. If the train arrives shortly thereafter, a serious incident will inevitably arise. The reason why abnormal loads rarely hit railway bridges is that these movements are carefully planned in advance, in conjunction with the various authorities. Generally speaking, unauthorised route variations do not take place. However, heavy engineering equipment is also moved under normal construction and use regulations when it is not particularly heavy or wide. One day, a bridge will get hit hard by one of these loads. It is only a matter of time. An awful tragedy could then follow.
We can avoid this by agreeing to the amended amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, or something like it. It may not be perfect but the Minister can attend to that. All we are asking is that he takes the steps to make sure that these incidents cannot take place. We have the technology in place. I appreciate that there is a difficulty in that Network Rail does not have any authority on the roads near the railway bridge, but the Minister will have to take the necessary powers to deal with that problem.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his introduction and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw added his name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but apologises because he is unable to be here this evening.
It strikes me that it is clearly not in the interests of hauliers or HGV drivers to hit a bridge. It costs a great deal of money all round. It is probably proportionately more damaging for a small haulage company that experiences damage to its vehicle, many hours of lost time and so on than it is for the train operating company. However, I have been on a Great Western train that was held up for some hours as a result of a bridge strike. If you multiply the two or three hours that we sat there by the number of people on the train, the cost of the whole incident becomes considerable.
Why is it is happening so often? Is it because there is not enough training of drivers? If that is the case, I am very concerned because the test for new drivers is becoming simpler and more streamlined, so things are not going to get better there. Is that there is a lack of adequate signage? Is it that the signage is in the wrong place? It has to be well in advance of the bridge because drivers cannot just stop on a sixpence in a large lorry. Is the signage not maintained or inspected? It would be interesting to hear from the Minister the solutions to this problem and how the situation can be improved. Clearly, seven incidents a day are not desirable and really should not be happening in those numbers. There is a particular problem with equipment such as cranes that are loaded on to a flatbed lorry, because the driver may not know the height of this particular lot of equipment.
Noble Lords have suggested lots of solutions. I am interested in the Government’s response.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to be back from the Armed Forces Bill to join you all again for this group of amendments. I start with a comment that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made about the haphazard nature of the amendments before us. This is the last set of amendments on Part 5 of the Bill on road traffic offences yet, despite being haphazard, some really important amendments have been proposed. That demonstrates to the Government that there needed or needs to be a new road traffic Act, which would bring together all the various comments that have been made plus numerous others that people would make. We heard on a previous group about a review of existing traffic offences: some are out of date, and some that did not exist a few years ago should have offences against them. I make that opening remark to the Minister, as he might wish to say that to his colleagues.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley did us a favour by bringing forward these amendments. It is easy to scoff at railway bridges, but we have heard that there are seven incidents a day and that 50% of drivers do not know the height of their vehicles. An issue raised by these amendments clearly needs to be considered. The least we want from the Minister is that he takes away these comments and speaks to his colleagues at the Department for Transport or wherever about them.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is also right in saying that, in trying to solve one problem, you do not want to unfairly penalise another group—in this instance, lorry or other drivers. You have to be careful about the way that legislation is drafted and unintended consequences, so his amendments are important as well.
This is yet another serious amendment that has been put forward to deal with a very real problem, to set against all the other amendments that have been put forward which deal with serious issues on our roads. The legislation needs to be updated. This is a Christmas tree of a Bill. Part 5 on road traffic needs a separate Bill, as has been demonstrated by the debate this evening. I hope, at the very least, that the Minister will take that back to his colleagues.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Attlee for explaining these amendments. I reassure them and other noble Lords that the Government take this issue seriously and think it important. We recognise the serious risk to the travelling public that results from drivers striking and damaging bridges.
It is my understanding that this amendment seeks not to create a new offence but instead to create a new and specific penalty, for striking guided transport system structures, most notably railway bridges, to be applied to broader offences such as careless driving. I do not think that is needed. The penalties available for the offences for which a driver can already be charged in these circumstances are adequate to reflect the seriousness of the offence. The offences include careless, inconsiderate and dangerous driving or, where appropriate, drink-driving or drug-driving. For example, an offence of careless driving attracts an endorsement of three to nine penalty points on the driver’s licence, an unlimited fine, and a discretionary disqualification from driving for such period as the court thinks fit. Damage to property is a factor in the sentencing guidance indicating greater harm, which can lead to a higher sentence. If a driver were found to be under the influence of drink or drugs, the penalties available would include custodial sentences, unlimited fines and driving disqualifications.
As my noble friend will be aware, warning and regulatory signs already exist to indicate low bridges and to ensure that drivers are given information about alternative routes in time to adjust their journeys. I take my noble friend’s points about routes and so on, which he made most forcefully. Those signs are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and can be used by local authorities without reference to the Department for Transport. Local authorities are responsible for placing traffic signs on their roads, and the Department for Transport provides advice to them on the use of these signs in the Traffic Signs Manual. Disobeying a regulatory sign indicating a low bridge is already an offence that attracts an endorsable fixed penalty notice and may lead to the disqualification of the driver. Network Rail can reclaim some of the cost of repairing any damage from the insurer of the vehicle that hits the bridge. The Government are satisfied that the existing offences, penalties and route to a claim for damage are sufficient.
I am afraid that I cannot answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about why this happens so frequently. I imagine there are a whole variety of factors. As to the concerns from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I will of course take those back; we need at least to understand this issue a little better, so I will commit to doing that. That being the case I urge the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid the Minister’s response is a little disappointing. I was hoping he would say a bit more about what use we could make of technology and whether Network Rail would experience any difficulties in putting some of its infrastructure, say, half a mile away from its bridges. Does Network Rail have the power to put infrastructure on the road system, perhaps half a mile away from a bridge, in order to provide a warning for a driver that he is over height —something similar to what is done at the Blackwall tunnel?
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about training. It occurred to me that we could make it a part of HGV driver training that the driver of a lorry was required to compare his vehicle’s height to that of any infrastructure that he went under. On approaching a railway bridge he could say, “My height is 14 feet and the height of the bridge is 15 feet, so we’re fine.” If every time he went under a bridge he considered orally whether he could get under it, that might be a good starting point and might actually make a difference.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed and to the Minister for his response. I am afraid my view is that, however much he may say there is existing legislation, it is not working. That is clear. It is quite difficult for a driver to find the height of his vehicle. I spent several decades working in the rail freight sector, and trying to get a container on a rail wagon under a road bridge going over a railway was difficult because all these vehicles, be they rail or road, have suspensions so, depending on the load, the wagon or vehicle goes up and down. Still, given the rules that affect the railway sector, what we have in the road sector is frankly pretty weak.
I fully support the idea of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that there should be much greater emphasis on putting the information on to electronic GPSes, which I think most lorries have. One has to assume that the driver can read; that is probably not always the case but it is something to start from. He asked whether Network Rail had the power to build something away from the network. My answer is: in most cases, no. It would have to talk to landowners, seek planning permission and so on, although putting up a post with an electronic beam going across would be all right. On the continent, people do something rather better, and in France it is particularly evident: on a low bridge there is a steel structure, a portal frame, with bells and spikes on. It is clearly marked with its height, but if you see something up ahead with spikes and you are driving a lorry with rather a valuable load, you will probably stop and think before going through it. A few of those on the worst-offending bridges would be quite good.
Lastly, I suppose, I hope that the Minister will encourage Network Rail to take proceedings to reclaim as much of the cost as seems relevant, because some of them behave like a good old-fashioned nationalised industry and say “Well, you know, this is one of those things: let’s try to get a bit back.” They should be quite aggressive about it, while making sure that their own information is on these electronic guides and maps and everything like that.
I will look carefully at what the Minister says, and we may come back with something on which to seek a meeting before Report. I am conscious that the wording in my amendment is rather amateur, and after listening to what he has said it would be good to talk to him and Network Rail again, as well as to other colleagues, to see whether we can come up with a solution that encourages and educates but also takes action against people who do not do as they should. On that basis, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“(6A) Before this section (other than this subsection) may be commenced the Secretary of State must by regulations amend subsection (6) to list all excluded offences on the face of the Act.(6B) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the list of excluded offences.”Member’s explanatory statement
This, along with another probing amendment to Clause 99 in the name of Lord Falconer of Thoroton, would list the excluded offences on the face of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
We move to Part 6 of the Bill, which is important. It creates two new types of caution: diversionary cautions and community cautions. These are described by the Government as
“the least onerous types of disposal a person can obtain for offending.”
Both types of caution must have one or more conditions attached to them. These can include requirements to do unpaid work, attend a specified place for a specified purpose, and pay a financial penalty.
This is an important part of the Bill. We are reaching this stage of the debate at 11.12 pm, which is one hour and 12 minutes after our normal stopping time. We have, I am very happy to say, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in the Chair, but she is not permitted to speak on issues; she may only call speakers and announce whatever the Motion may be. There is not one Cross-Bencher here, apart from the noble Baroness. There is only one Back-Bencher here for this debate on the introduction of two important new measures into the criminal justice system. It is a mockery of proper consideration.
The proper way for the Government to deal with this is not by extending the debating hours to a point where very few noble Lords take part. They should instead make extra days available. That is the consequence of having a Bill like this, which lays open to debate the whole criminal justice system. We should not do this. I understand that it is proposed that on Wednesday the Committee sit for another three hours beyond its normal stopping time. If the Government wish to hold the reputation of the House up for scrutiny, they should not do this; they should make proper arrangements.
Turning to the amendment itself, the first group we deal with in Part 6 relates to the delegated powers. I remind the Committee, which has been told this on a number of occasions, that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee took a very unfavourable view of this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
Just for the record, and because the officials have worked extremely hard, I have a WhatsApp group with them. In fact, I have been doing all this work without officials there. They are on the ball; they are online; they are providing assistance.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am very glad to hear that. It is the first time in my experience—and I am not complaining, because the officials have worked incredibly hard on this—that the Box is entirely without officials.
To go back to the debate about delegated powers, this is what the Delegated Powers Committee said in general about this:
“We are particularly concerned that the Bill would … allow Ministers—and even a non-statutory body—to influence the exercise of new police powers (including in relation to unauthorised traveller encampments and stop and search) through ‘guidance’ that is not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny; … leave to regulations key aspects of new police powers—to restrict protest and to extract confidential information from electronic devices—that should instead be on the face of the Bill; and …allow the imposition of statutory duties via the novel concept of ‘strategy’ documents that need not even be published … We are disappointed that the inclusion of these types of delegations of power—on flimsy grounds—suggests that the Government have failed when preparing this Bill to give serious consideration to recommendations that we have made in recent reports on other Bills.”
In relation to this group of amendments, the committee makes complaint about three sets of delegations. The first is in relation to what could be suitable for community cautions. As I indicated, community cautions are for less serious offences. The Bill provides that they cannot be given for the most serious, indictable-only offences, but it gives the Secretary of State power to determine by affirmative procedure regulations the other offences for which they cannot be given.
The Government put forward a memorandum to justify this approach which said as follows:
“The list of offences which may not be suitable for”—
a community caution—
“is likely to change regularly”
and
“will be subject to continual updating and changing which makes it more suitable for secondary legislation”.
The Delegated Powers Committee report states:
“The Memorandum acknowledges that excluding offences from a community caution disposal ‘will have a significant impact on offenders, victims and the public’. It states that the affirmative procedure ‘is considered appropriate as it enables Parliament to debate the details of the restrictions [on community cautions]’.”
The Delegated Powers Committee report says that the Government are relying on a comparison with Section 130 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and then establishes, clearly rightly, that comparison with that Act is misguided and wrong. It says that the Government should follow the 2003 Act, but accurately and not inaccurately. What the Sexual Offences Act 2003 does is put in the Bill the excluded offences but gives power for them to be amended from time to time. Our amendments would follow the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendations. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept that. If the noble Lord could indicate that, it would shorten that bit of it—sadly not.
The next group of problems is the conditions that are attached to a caution. A diversionary caution or a community caution must have one or more conditions attached to it. These can include requirements to carry out unpaid work, to attend a specified place for a specified purpose, and to pay a financial penalty. The complaint that the Delegated Powers Committee makes about this is that you need only the affirmative procedure where you are increasing the penalties but not when you are decreasing them.
The Delegated Powers Committee report says:
“We consider that the Government’s justification for its approach”—
applying only when penalties are increasing and not when they are decreasing—
“is flawed because it focusses solely on the impact of increases or decreases on the rights of offenders and on operational resources and fails to take into account the significant effect that decreases are capable of having on the way in which the policy works—and that making the new cautions less onerous forms of disposal may be something about which stakeholders (including victims of crime) and members of both Houses may have legitimate concerns.”
Again, we agree with that. The committee continues at paragraph 75:
“Accordingly, we consider that both increases and decreases in the maximum number of hours of unpaid work or attendance, or the maximum financial penalty, that may be attached to a diversionary caution or a community caution merit the same level of scrutiny”.
That is simply to quote what the Delegated Powers Committee says.
The final group relates to Clause 129 and Schedule 13, which gives the courts power
“to review community and suspended sentence orders, and … to commit an offender to custody for breach of”
such orders. The memorandum that the Government presented to the committee says that
“the aim… is to improve offender compliance with community orders and suspended sentence orders and to reduce reoffending. This is achieved through a multi-agency approach with links to wider support services, one element of which is providing for close oversight by a court of particular sentences being served in the community”.
The intention is to pilot for an initial 18-month period, and that may be applied to different cohorts throughout the country.
The committee report points out:
“The Secretary of State is given power to specify, by negative procedure … categories of community orders and suspended sentence orders that qualify for the review process”—
and it sets out certain things they can take into account in relation to it. The report continues:
“Where regulations specify a category for the first time, there must be an initial pilot period of 18 months … Both regulations that specify a category for the purposes of a pilot … are subject to the negative procedure … The Government’s justification for this is that ‘the principle of the provisions is made clear on the face of the legislation, and the power is limited by the legislation such that it may only be used to apply the provisions to different courts and cohorts of offenders … These matters are administrative in nature’.”
That is what the Government said in their memorandum.
The Delegated Powers Committee disagreed with that, saying that
“the categories of persons and the offences to which the review process will apply go to the heart of the underlying policy. The power gives the Secretary of State maximum discretion … but with minimal scrutiny … We therefore consider that regulations that provide for a category of community orders or suspended sentence orders to be subject to the review process on an indefinite basis should be subject to the affirmative procedure.”
That is what our third set of amendments does in relation to that.
I apologise for taking so long to go through this, but these are important issues.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord about the importance of this part of the Bill. Although the noble and learned Lord has just apologised for the length of his opening remarks on this group, I must warn the Committee that that was nothing compared with my opening remarks on the next group, if the Government wish to go there this evening.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is right to demand that the list of excluded offences for which the police cannot give a community caution is in the Bill. This is yet another example of why this Bill is a shell, lacking in sufficient detail for noble Lords to give their consent to it. The Delegated Powers Committee agrees, as the noble and learned Lord has said.
He is also right that any changes to the maximum number of hours of unpaid work or attendance, or the maximum financial penalty that may be attached to a diversionary or community caution, should at least be subject to the affirmative resolution. But as the noble and learned Lord has said on previous groups, the House still has no ability to amend such an order. I will have more to say on that issue in a later group. Again, the Delegated Powers Committee agrees, as the noble and learned Lord has said.
Amendment 214B is about community orders and suspended sentence orders, and has, as far as I understand it, nothing to do with police cautions—I look for reassurance. I have no idea why it is in this group of amendments, other than that it is also covered by the Delegated Powers Committee’s report. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right about that as well, and the Delegated Power Committee agrees.
We support these amendments, mostly because they are right, and, in the case of Amendment 214B, because the noble and learned Lord is usually right.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that this group of amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has come about because of recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its sixth report of the Session. It is a pleasure to discuss this matter, even at this hour. As to timing issues, I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows better than me with whom to take that matter up; I am not sure I am the correct post box for that.
I can assure the Committee that, even as the noble and learned Lord was speaking, I received a WhatsApp—I am not waiving privilege on all my WhatsApp messages—from the Bill team: “To reassure, we are here.” The team cannot answer back, but I can. I regret the way that the team’s their work ethic was impugned, unintentionally, I am sure.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I made it absolutely clear that I was not for one moment impugning the Bill team’s work ethic. I was saying, quite legitimately, that they are not here because it is so late at night. My learned friend the Minister makes a poor point in suggesting that I was impugning them. I have nothing but the greatest admiration for that Bill team, and he should not try to distract attention from the problems of debating this at this time of night with a remark like that.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
It has nothing to do with the hour. On every Bill I have done, I have had the Bill team on WhatsApp, whether it was the Domestic Abuse Bill at 3 pm or this Bill at 11.29 pm. The fact they are on WhatsApp and I deal with them remotely has nothing to do with the hour.
Lord Paddick (LD)
If I can adopt a previous role that I had as a police officer and come between the two parties to try to assist, I noticed that earlier this afternoon when the Minister was leading on a group of amendments, there was nobody in the Box. I assumed that that must have been because the officials were working remotely. I have to say that on this occasion I agree with the Minister. Even at—I do not know what time it was, perhaps 4 pm this afternoon—there was nobody in the Box when it was an MoJ issue.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
We can move on. We do not need to raise the temperature at 11.30 pm. We have other things to argue about.
Let us get to the substance of this. The committee proposed a number of changes relating to the cautions and problem-solving courts measures in the Bill, as elaborated by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I shall make the central point that I want to make, because it goes to all the points that have been put down. I can assure the Committee, and in particular the noble and learned Lord, that the Government are looking at all the committee’s recommendations, which underpin these amendments, as part of our wider response to the committee, and we will revert to it in due course. I therefore hope that as time goes on, if I can put it that way, these issues will be highlighted, and I hope resolved to the noble and learned Lord’s satisfaction, but, if not, we can continue to discuss them.
I shall highlight just one matter, because I want to leave time for the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to give us his full oration on the next group, if we have time for it. On Amendment 169D, on excluded offences in respect of community cautions, the committee, as the noble and learned Lord explained, recommended that these offences are listed in the Bill rather than set out in regulations. As he explained, regulations would then be made where further amendments became necessary.
With respect to the committee, we maintain the position that the offences that are to be excluded for the purposes of community cautions are to be made by regulations. We point out that this approach of using regulations to identify excluded offences mirrors the approach taken in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which sets out that the simple caution, if I can call it that, may not be used in respect to offences specified by order made by the Secretary of State by secondary legislation. Just as there, so also here we believe that secondary legislation is the appropriate place for setting out the list of excluded offences, as the level of detail required may not be appropriate or suitable for the Bill. We suggest that that approach also allows sufficient time for essential engagement with stakeholders to identify those offences and to enable future changes to be incorporated without primary legislation.
I point out that the secondary legislation that we are talking about here is subject to the affirmative procedure, so the transparency that comes with that procedure will be maintained. I suggest that it would be a little bit clumsy and rare to use primary legislation for what has to be a fairly flexible approach to listing offences that should not be cautioned. We will of course discuss this carefully with stakeholders. The aim will be to bring an SI to Parliament that will be acceptable. I apprehend that I have not responded to the underlying point made by the noble and learned Lord, because I said that we will respond to the committee, but I hope he understands the thrust of my response and that for present purposes he is able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
First, in the light of the evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I unreservedly withdraw the suggestion that we are in any way disadvantaged by the officials not being in the Box. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for bringing that to our attention.
What a disappointing response that was on the substance. First, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for saying that there might be something more coming, although he did not indicate what that might be. We have had the report since September. Why has it taken so long to get to this? Secondly, in relation to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, did address—about the offences that would be excluded from community cautions—the Delegated Powers Committee is saying, “Put your initial cut in the Bill”.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, gave no reason why that was not to be done. He referred to the 2015 Act to which the Government had not referred when they put their memorandum to the Committee. I have not had a chance to look at the 2015 Act. It has only been mentioned now. Changing defence, as the noble Lord is doing, is always an indication of shambles on the part of the Government. What is the reason for not giving the Commons and the Lords the opportunity to debate the initial cut? It does not make the Bill too cluttered. It would not add much more than half a page. It is a ridiculous defence.
I hope that the Minister will have the time to think about it for when he comes back with the Ministry of Justice’s conclusions on this absolutely damning Delegated Powers Committee report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Paddick’s amendment to page 72, line 37, ensures that a person may only be authorised to give a discretionary or community caution if they have been authorised by a prosecuting authority for those purposes; and requires a prosecuting authority to be satisfied that that person has received adequate training and is suitable to carry out those functions.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 171 and 190 in my name. I will then move to Amendment 186A which I support. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who cannot be in his place, has asked me to speak to it on his behalf.
As I have said, I apologise in advance for the length of my remarks. The only consolations I can offer the Committee are that the Government wanted to group these amendments with other groups. Secondly, I do not take responsibility for the length of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, which I have undertaken to read on his behalf.
These amendments are designed to do two things. First, they question the whole new system of police out of court disposals proposed in Part 6 of the Bill. These include, but are not limited to, cautions. Secondly, they attempt to try to make any system of cautions where conditions are attached more effective.
No doubt, the Minister will say that the new system of diversionary and community cautions is based on the existing system of conditional cautions. To some extent, the Minister may be right. Conditional cautions look very similar to diversionary and community cautions, except that, in the case of community cautions, failure to comply with the conditions of the caution cannot result in the prosecution of the offender for the original offence. The only way in which a recalcitrant offender can be punished if they fail to comply with the conditions of a community caution is for a financial penalty to be imposed instead. This can then be enforced through the courts. The Minister will tell me if I have any of this wrong. I look to the Minister for reassurance. Apparently, I am doing all right so far.
First, I cannot find any data on how many conditional cautions have been administered; the proportion of conditional cautions, compared with simple cautions where no conditions are attached; or conditional cautions as a proportion of other types of disposal. Considering the complexity of deciding on, arranging, administering and monitoring compliance with the conditions attached to a conditional caution, I can only imagine that most custody sergeants would avoid them like the plague, particularly when sending the case to court. Simpler, and arguably as effective, out of court disposals are available. Perhaps this is why the proposals in this Bill as drafted attempt to cut off any other form of out of court disposals. If agreed, these proposals would mean that police custody sergeants could avoid administering a diversionary or community caution only by deciding to take no further action or by sending the accused to court, despite an admission of guilt. I can assure the Committee that we would see a significant increase in these alternatives being adopted.
The House of Commons briefing paper 9165 on these proposals is illuminating. I am afraid that I am going to quote it at length, but I assure the Committee that it will be worth it. It states:
“The Government estimates the policy will cost a total of £109.19 million over ten years. It thinks the criminal justice system will incur extra operational costs of around £15.58 million per year. It also thinks the system will cost the police around £13.70 million to implement (over two years) … The actual costs are likely to be higher because some costly features of the proposed system, like proposed restrictions on the use of OOCDs”—
out of court disposals—
“for certain offences, were not present during the pilot.”
It goes on:
“The Government hopes the proposed system will help reduce reoffending. Available data does not suggest short-term reoffending rates are likely to go down. The evaluation of the 2014 pilot … found no statistically significant difference between the short-term re-offending rates of OOCD offenders”
in the pilot areas
“to those in comparable areas not using the framework.”
It continues:
“The Government also hopes the new system will improve victim satisfaction because more victims will be involved in the OOCD process.”
I have already cast doubt on that, because I am convinced that the police will “no further action” a lot more cases as a result. However, the paper states:
“It is true that more victims will be involved in the OOCD process under the new system, but this is unlikely to have a big impact on victim satisfaction rates. This is because the victim satisfaction rate for OOCD cases is already good. In 2019/20 84% of victims whose offender was issued a caution said they were satisfied with the police, a similar rate to victims whose offenders were charged (83%).”
The paper summarises by saying that
“the available evidence suggests the system … may result in a further decline in the use of OOCDs … is likely to cost more … is unlikely to have a major impact on the reoffending rates of offenders; and … may improve victim satisfaction but is unlikely to have a major impact.”
Can the Minister explain to the Committee why the Government are proposing to spend more to achieve nothing?
Turning to Amendments 170 and 171, a 2018 paper by Dr Peter Neyroud—a former chief constable of Thames Valley Police and now a distinguished academic—published by the University of Cambridge and commissioned by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, entitled Out of Court Disposals Managed by the Police: A Review of the Evidence, concluded:
“In order to be effective OOCD’s with conditions must be implemented well and three areas require particular attention: the eligibility screening of offenders; the needs assessment to match conditions to the offender; the setting and tracking of conditions”.
More specifically, he said:
“The result … was a significant degree of inconsistency and a substantial number of inappropriate and un-evidenced conditions. Whilst the provision of further training and more guidance improved the situation somewhat, the cost of … an investment within a more general implementation of OOCD’s with conditions would be prohibitive and, in any case, did not completely resolved the problems.”
On the issue of whether out of court disposals were more or less effective when they had conditions attached, he said, bearing in mind that this was a review of all the available evidence:
“Making a direct comparison between OOCD’s with conditions”—
both community cautions and diversionary cautions are OOCDs with conditions—
“and OOCD’s without conditions is difficult: none of the research makes this direct comparison.”
Let me summarise. The provisions in this Bill propose getting rid of all out of court disposals except for cautions, all of which will have to have conditions attached. There is no evidence that cautions with conditions attached are any more effective than cautions without them. Where conditions have been attached to cautions in the past, there was
“a significant degree of inconsistency and a substantial number of inappropriate and un-evidenced conditions.”
Amendments 170 and 171 suggest that only those adequately trained officers who are considered by the prosecuting authority to be suitable to decide on diversionary and community cautions can administer them. Amendment 190 is consequential.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I want to say something from the Back Benches about my experience of sitting on scrutiny committees, which the noble Lord has just spoken about. I have sat on scrutiny committees for reviewing out of court disposals for both the British Transport Police and the Metropolitan Police. In my experience, they are good committees because they bring together a range of interested parties on whether out of court disposals are appropriate—magistrates, probation, CPS, police, YOTs and sometimes, in addition, there may be housing, education and health people from local government to review the appropriateness of out of court disposals.
In my experience, this system is extremely erratic and not systemised in any particular way. My experience is that the results of reviewing out of court disposals are not fed up through the Home Office, so when I have asked questions of both the MoJ and the Home Office, there is no way of reviewing whether out of court disposals have been appropriately used or of collating the numbers, because the use of scrutiny committees varies so much across the country—that is my understanding. I was interested to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talk about the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and whether he is trying to introduce a code of practice to try to regularise these out of court disposal scrutiny committees. They are a good idea, but they need to be standardised across the country.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for that intervention, which goes to an incredibly important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, which is that there needs to be proper scrutiny of the police being given a power to, in effect, punish people and impose conditions. There are two aspects to that, which the noble and learned Lord identified in his speech, so beautifully read by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, even though it is so late: first, that the code of practice is complied with and, secondly, that there is consistency throughout the country in relation to the application of out of court disposals. I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on how that point will be dealt with. We support the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
I also agree with Amendments 170, 171 and 190, which seek to ensure that a person may be authorised to give a discretionary or community caution only if they have been authorised by a prosecuting authority for those purposes and a prosecuting authority must be satisfied that that person has received adequate training and is suitable to carry out those functions. Amendment 190 is a consequential amendment on that. I support these amendments and am very interested to hear what the Ministry of Justice has to say about them. I cannot think that it would not agree with this; some level of quality must be required for somebody who is going to give that caution.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made points to the effect that this will be more expensive. He did not mention, because he is too kind—or he may have done, but I missed it—the additional £13 million that the Commons paper identifies for the cost of introduction, in addition to the £105 million and £15 million. We are going to spend all this money to achieve no greater victim satisfaction and without any evidence that it reduces reoffending. Why?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the amendments we are talking to cover a little area and I will take them in turn if I may. I start with Amendments 170, 171 and 190. They remove the authority of a constable or investigating officer to be able to give a diversionary or community caution and in turn propose a set of preconditions that require that a prosecution authority be satisfied of the suitability, capability and training of a person before they are designated to issue a diversionary or community caution.
The position at the moment is that cautioning is mostly but not, it is fair to say, exclusively carried out by police constables. Cautioning by police dates back nearly 100 years and the police have become experienced in the application and use of cautions. At the moment, there are statutory restrictions around the use of simple cautions by the police and an existing statutory framework for their use of conditional cautions.
The framework provides a role for the DPP to authorise the use of cautions in particular circumstances. Police and prosecutors share responsibility for dealing with out of court disposals. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, already knows this, but where police decide that an indictable-only offence should be dealt with by means of an out of court disposal, the case must be referred to a prosecutor to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that it is in the public interest to deal with the case in this way.
These clauses do not change the approach set out in the director’s guidance and we believe this provides a necessary safeguard to the use of cautions for more serious offences. We believe that the police should be empowered as professional decision-makers, while being given clear statutory guidance as to the use of cautions. The question of the adequacy of training to fulfil those functions, which underpins these amendments, is really one for the policing authorities.
In that regard, coming to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, we believe that the code of practice is the appropriate place to set out any safeguards, checks and balances that should be in place before any caution under the new two-tier framework is given.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
What is the method of scrutiny of that code of practice by Parliament?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I will come to that point. I will try to answer that question, but if I do not, I know the noble and learned Lord will remind me. However, I think I will come to it. I was just making the point that there will be safeguards, checks and balances under the new two-tier framework, an example of which may be a review by an officer of a higher rank before a decision to issue a caution is made.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
If the noble Lord will give way, the point I was making is that there is an inconsistency in the scrutiny of out of court disposals, not just the out of court disposals themselves.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Absolutely. Let me deal with the out of court disposals themselves. I hope I have answered that point. There will, we hope, be a greater consistency of approach, but there will be differences. As for the scrutiny, as I said earlier, the code of practice will, we hope, provide a level of consistency of scrutiny that we also want to make sure is part of this structure. As I said earlier, that will be subject to an affirmative SI.
I am conscious of the time. I think we have drifted into Tuesday, so perhaps I should just conclude by thanking the Committee for contributions and invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, although I am sure the discussions will continue. I also beg to move that the clauses stand part of the Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, it is completely unacceptable that the noble Lord has said on numerous occasions that, because of the hour, he is not going to go into detail in answering the issues that I have raised. We either scrutinise this Bill properly or we do not. I do not care what time of night it is; we will scrutinise this Bill effectively. That is the first point to make.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
To be clear, the only reason I made that point is because I have a very long answer—I am happy to read it—explaining the different ways particular police forces have responded to the point. Apart from that, I gave exactly the answer I would have done had it been four o’clock in the afternoon. I assure the noble Lord that I have not deleted one sentence from my notes on the answer.
Lord Paddick (LD)
In that case, I point out how completely inadequate the Minister’s answers have been. He completely did not address the research, which shows that there is no evidence that cautions with conditions attached are any more effective than simple cautions—there is no evidence. The noble Lord himself admitted that there cannot be any evidence because the Home Office does not keep any figures. It does not differentiate between conditional cautions and simple cautions; it just aggregates all cautions together. It also keeps no record of what conditions are applied in cases of conditional caution, so the Government have no evidence upon which to base this system, in which all cautions have to have conditions attached. They cannot demonstrate the efficacy of that system, and the research in the pilot forces also shows no impact on reoffending rates, little or no impact on victim satisfaction and significant increases in cost. The Minister has provided no reassurance on those issues at all.
As far as the amendments are concerned, conditional cautions are supposed to be about rehabilitation and reparation. How can an untrained police officer be an expert on what sort of rehabilitation a particular offender should undertake to have maximum impact on their reoffending? As both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, the problem is not only the inconsistency of whether the conditions that different forces attach will have any efficacy at all—the Minister admitted that there would be inconsistency between forces—but a lack of public confidence in the system the Government are proposing. In one force area, someone will have very stringent rehabilitation and reparation conditions attached; for almost exactly the same type of individual and the same sort of offence, a completely different system or set of conditions will be applied. How can that provide the public with any confidence that justice is being done, when completely different conditions are being attached to very similar offenders and offences in different parts of the country, unless the officers who are giving out these conditions have been specifically trained, told what the standard approach is and approved by the Crown Prosecution Service, as my amendments suggest?
The noble Lord said that the safeguards and checks and balances will be included in codes of practice. I will tell the Committee why such an approach is not acceptable. With the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act, it turns out that, despite the arguments that we made against the safeguards and checks and balances being relegated to codes of practice, the Government now accept that any police inspector, whether specifically trained in dealing with covert human intelligence sources or not, can authorise a CHIS to commit a crime. That person will be immune from prosecution, even though that inspector is not authorised by their force or trained to give that authority —it is in the codes of practice. But the Government have admitted, in a letter to me from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that, if an untrained, unauthorised inspector authorised a CHIS to commit a crime, it would not be unlawful. That person would therefore be immune from prosecution. That is the danger of relegating safeguards, checks and balances to codes of practice and not having them in legislation.
The only thing I can take from what the Minister said is that this is really about saving court time and CPS time; I think I quote him accurately. It is not about preventing reoffending because we know that this system does not reduce it. It is about trying to take pressure off the courts, and that is no way to administer justice. We should give the criminal justice system the resources that it needs rather than taking the shoddy short cut to justice proposed in this part of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.