House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
As the Minister with responsibility for cross-departmental criminal justice issues, I spend a lot of time talking to myself.
Mr Sheerman
I am sure the Minister is aware that many people in the criminal justice system are deeply worried about the state of forensic science, on which so much depends. I will not play the card that it is all the fault of privatisation; it is much deeper than that. Will he not only have a serious look at the evidence from the recent House of Lords inquiry, but keep in touch with me and with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice? This is an urgent matter that goes to the heart of many miscarriages of justice. Will the Minister work with us to get it right again?
Kit Malthouse
I am more than happy to work with the hon. Gentleman on the issues that he raises. He is quite right that forensics are a critical part of a good and functioning criminal justice system. He will know that in the Home Office part of my job, significant work is going into the transforming forensics programme, which has received investment of more than £25 million in each of the past two years, bolstering and reinforcing the Forensic Capability Network. He will also know that the Mackey review, which was completed in April, has been looking at where forensics goes next, and that there is a jointly chaired forensics sub-group of the Criminal Justice Board that looks at the issue across both Departments.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Contrary to the question from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), will the Minister welcome the developments in forensic science that led to last week’s conviction of David Fuller for two murders and multiple counts of sexual abuse in mortuaries? Will he commit to ensuring that with every development in science and technology, the system routinely returns to unsolved cases so that justice can be done?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. She is quite right that as forensic science develops—and it is developing very rapidly indeed—we are able to revisit some quite elderly cases in which evidence is still available and reveal the true perpetrators of some awful crimes. What we saw last week was a brilliant result by Kent police. A matter that I have to confess that I was involved with, where exactly what my hon. Friend describes took place, was the catching of the killers of Stephen Lawrence nearly 20 years after the killing: it was driven specifically by developments in the ability to assess microdots of blood in a way we had not been able to do before. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that all police forces, through the Forensic Capability Network, need to keep all so-called cold cases under review as science leads us towards greater and greater answers.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
As part of the Department for Transport’s longer-term and wider work on road safety, road traffic offences are kept under review to ensure that irresponsible driving and the risk it poses to others are appropriately punished. In the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we are increasing the maximum penalties for causing death by dangerous driving and by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, and we are introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving.
Mr Bradshaw
Businessman Hassan Nasser al-Thani, who killed retired railway worker Charles Roberts while driving his Rolls-Royce at nearly twice the speed limit, was given a short driving ban and fined last month because prosecutors accepted that he was driving carelessly, not dangerously. That is just the latest example of a road criminal receiving a ridiculously light sentence while their victim’s loved ones are left grieving for the rest of their lives. It has been nearly eight years since the Conservative then Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), promised
“a full review of all driving offences and penalties”—[Official Report, 6 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 17.]
Where is it?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I recognise has been very vocal on these issues for a long time. I obviously cannot comment on the specific case; sentencing and decisions of the courts are a matter for our independent judiciary, as he knows. However, we had a review in 2014 that looked at driving offences and penalties, which led to the consultation in 2016 and to the new measures that were debated in the House of Lords yesterday. Those measures significantly strengthen the penalties for the two offences that I mentioned, not least because the maximum penalty will increase from 14 years to life. I think that sends a strong signal about our overall position on these very serious matters.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
In the 12 months to March 2021, the number of incidents in which drugs were found in prisons decreased by 6% to 20,295.
Mr Holden
What steps have been taken to ensure that state-of-the-art X-ray body scanners have been installed throughout the male prison estate, and that we are harnessing the best available technology to help our prisons to become places of rehabilitation rather than addiction to drugs?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right to ask that question. Since 2019, the Government have invested more than £100 million in prison security. We have installed 74 X-ray body scanners, which has resulted in more than 10,000 positive scans. I recently visited HMP Highdown and saw the equipment in action. It has stopped 100 smuggling attempts in the last year alone, involving drugs, weapons and mobile phones, and it allows that prison to operate safely.
Dr Davies
Prison staff have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic to keep the prison population safe. They are also key to preventing instances of drug smuggling in our prisons. What is my right hon. Friend doing to support and resource their important work?
Dominic Raab
On top of the investment and the scanners, we have the Prisons (Substance Testing) Act 2021, which gives prison officers the powers to test prisoners for any psychoactive substance. We also now have enhanced gate security at 35 high-priority sites, and fixed and portable mobile phone blocking equipment to give officers all the tools that they need to keep their prisons safe.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I speak as co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Drugs in prisons cause chaos, putting immense strain on prison officers, and such stress is a factor in the prison staffing crisis. This year, 134 band 3 officers left HMP Berwyn. Each officer’s training had cost £13,000; that is £1.74 million of public money wasted. Does the Secretary of State agree that implementing the recommendations of the pay review body is a key part of the solution to the crisis, and that good prison staff deserve proper wages?
Dominic Raab
The right hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. It is important to consider not just the technology that we have been talking about, which helps to keep prisons safe, but the men and women who—day in, day out, at considerable risk to themselves and under considerable pressure—do such an excellent job. She asked about the independent pay review body; this year we have accepted its recommendations, which is critically important and only right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the past, and perhaps even in the present, a great many drugs and other items have been smuggled into prisons by means of drones. Can the Secretary of State give any indication of what has been done to stop that happening, and thereby stop prisoners’ access to those items?
Dominic Raab
I was up at Glen Parva recently to look at one of the new state-of-the-art prisons. There, and across the prison estate, we are introducing improved cell windows, netting and other physical upgrades, as well as technology, to counter the threat of drones.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Under this Prime Minister and before the next election, we will overhaul the Human Rights Act to end its abuse by dangerous criminals and to restore some common sense to our justice system.
Gavin Newlands
Does the Secretary of State believe that the UK should remain a signatory to the European convention on human rights, or does he plan to join such liberal luminaries as Belarus outside the convention? Yes or no?
Marion Fellows
Will the Secretary of State listen to calls from the campaign group Liberty, and commit himself to ending what it has described as a cynical use of violence against women and girls as justification for the planned HRA reforms, bearing in mind that the legislation has been instrumental in securing women’s rights?
Dominic Raab
As a trainee lawyer I worked at Liberty, and I have huge respect for the work that it does. In fact, back then I took a test case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg relating to gender discrimination. However, it is also right that we listen to the wider voices, and we have conducted the independent Human Rights Act review to consider all the issues from all the different angles. We are grateful to Sir Peter Gross for chairing that review and we will carefully consider its recommendations in the round.
Scott Benton
The Human Rights Act handed power to unelected judges, both at home and abroad, meaning that Britain remains tied to a foreign court. The creeping power of the courts is directly interfering with the Government’s ability to conduct their business, not least in preventing the Home Secretary from combating the unacceptable numbers of illegal immigrants crossing the channel. In the light of this, does my right hon. Friend agree with many residents of Blackpool in thinking that it is time we scrapped the Act altogether?
Dominic Raab
We will look at reforming and overhauling the Human Rights Act, and I think my hon. Friend raises a reasonable point. I support continued membership of the European convention on human rights, but a fair challenge has been raised by lawyers and judges past and present about the elasticity of rights and whether, when they are expanded, that decision ought to be taken by elected Members of this House and not by courts and lawyers. That is a fair challenge, and if hon. Members look fairly at the data from successful challenges on seeking the deportation of foreign national offenders, they will see that there is a good argument that there are too many cases of criminals being able to flout the system because of that elastic interpretation of rights.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The victims of the most horrendous crimes wait years for justice in this country, the courts backlog might not be sorted for eight years, rape convictions are at shamefully low levels, and even with strict lockdown conditions, violence, self-harm and drug abuse are still rife across the prison estate, yet the Secretary of State is investing his time and energy in his personal obsession with dismantling the Human Rights Act. What message does he think this sends to victims about the priorities of his Government?
Dominic Raab
I have visited three prisons in my time as Justice Secretary. We have secured an important settlement for the courts backlog in this spending review, but on top of that, a lot of victims and their families say that it is galling to see foreign national offenders who cannot be deported and who are claiming their right to a family life. I think the hon. Gentleman needs to instil a little bit of balance and perspective, and we are going to reintroduce some common sense to the system.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
We are already seeing the results of our efforts to tackle the impact that the pandemic has had on our justice system, and the number of outstanding cases in magistrates courts has dropped by around 80,000 since its peak in July 2020. I am pleased to say that the spending review provides an extra £477 million for the criminal justice system, which will allow us to reduce Crown court backlogs caused by the pandemic from 60,000 today to an estimated 53,000 by March 2025.
Liz Twist
The Government try to blame covid-19 for the backlog, but the Crown court backlog had already increased by 23% in the year leading up to the pandemic. Does the Minister regret the decision to slash sitting days in 2019?
James Cartlidge
I say to the hon. Lady with the greatest respect that it is quite extraordinary that anybody in this place should try to pretend that the pandemic has nothing to do with the backlog. If she visits a Crown court, she will see extraordinary measures having to be used to ensure that, with a jury present and potentially multiple defendants, a case can be disposed of while upholding the rules that we brought in for public health. It would be very welcome if the Opposition recognised that the best part of £500 million of investment to clear the backlog is a very significant step and a positive way forward.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Last week, the Justice Committee visited the Crown court in Manchester and met the recorder, His Honour Judge Dean QC, and the rest of the judiciary. We also met court staff and practitioners there. I hope my right hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the hard work that they are all doing to try to keep the show of the jury trial on the road in these exceptional circumstances. Does he agree that it is extremely difficult to deal with jury trials when social distancing is required, and that we have to be realistic about that? Will he also note that the magistrates courts are now, as he observed, dealing with cases in a timely fashion? Is it perhaps worth looking again at the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in relation to the powers of magistrates, because a lot of lower-level offences could be disposed of in magistrates courts?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I also had the pleasure of visiting Manchester Crown court and saw the brand-new super court, put in place at a cost of £2.5 million to the Treasury to deal with multi-handed cases. I am pleased to say that today we have opened another in Loughborough. On the matter of magistrates, he will know that in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill that is before the House—in fact, we have just been in Bill Committee—we will increase the number of cases that are remitted from the Crown court to magistrates, saving 400 days in the Crown court to hear serious backlog cases such as rape and other indictable charges.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I will let you get the benefit of the applause, Mr Speaker.
On a recent trip out with officers from the Waterfoot police station in Rawtenstall, one of the challenges they talked about in getting cases to court is that the Crown Prosecution Service insists that full disclosure is done before charge. Will my hon. Friend go away and look at that? It is currently warranted officers doing that disclosure, when it could easily be a civilianised job. Will he agree to speak to the Crown Prosecution Service and his colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that Lancashire constabulary—as you know, Mr Speaker, the finest police officers in our United Kingdom—can be out getting criminals and not doing paperwork?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend makes a good point and has significant experience as a lawyer himself. I can confirm that there is extra resource for the CPS in the spending review, and the Home Office and our Department work closely together on that question and will be looking at what more we can do to improve those processes.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
On 5 October, the Secretary of State said it would take up to 12 months to get the backlog down to pre-pandemic levels. Yet we know now, according to the Ministry of Justice’s own analysis, that the backlog may not return to those levels until 2025. Just this morning, he said it could take up to eight years. Was he mistaken when he said it would only take a year, or has it taken him a little longer to get on top of the Department?
James Cartlidge
On the contrary, I can confirm that what my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor actually said was that cases would start to stabilise. They are stabilising now, at around a 60,000 backlog, but we accept that that is still significant. I think what matters to our constituents, though, is not the size of the number of cases outstanding—though that is important—but how long their case is going to take. On timeliness, we are seeing a very significant improvement, because we are working at full capacity. In July, the Crown courts in this country sat more days and disposed of more cases in a single month than at any time since November 2018. We are making significant progress, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the additional investment in the spending review, which will ensure we can go even further.
Mr Lammy
I am glad to see the Minister come to the aid of the Secretary of State, but he has not answered whether it is a year, eight years or 2025. The Secretary of State told Sky News today that he did not recognise that there was a workforce crisis in the criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor has got to get real. The workforce is beyond crisis: it is in end times. Criminal solicitors and barristers are leaving in droves, cases are up right across the country, they are stalled right across the country and nobody is available to take them. The Criminal Bar Association is threatening to strike. How does the Lord Chancellor expect to reduce the backlog if there is no one available to take on the cases? Holiday time is over. It is time to act, or let the system collapse.
James Cartlidge
It is quite extraordinary: 43 minutes ago in Bill Committee, the Labour party voted to keep clogging up our courts with immigration and asylum cases with almost no chance of success. Quite extraordinary. Those cases take up 180 days of court time. That means a High Court judge, and that is precious resource. That is why we are taking that measure. It just proves that when it comes to the backlog in the courts, Labour says one thing and does another.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
We will invest £200 million a year by 2024-25 in initiatives to reduce reoffending, including supporting prison leavers into employment.
Lee Anderson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that prisoners and ex-offenders out on licence should help fill the labour shortage, that on release all prisoners, including some ex-Labour MPs, should be ready for work and that starting work should be a condition of their licence?
Dominic Raab
One of the first things I did as Secretary of State was host an employers’ summit attended by 600 organisations last month, where we committed to working together to improve employment rates for prison leavers. I have seen how that works at Ford prison and at HMP High Down, whether we are talking about HGV training or call centres. We know that if we give offenders the skills, and if they have the attitude to take a second chance, getting into work significantly reduces the risk of reoffending and that protects the public.
Alexander Stafford
Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving offenders the chance of employment is key in driving down reoffending rates? What additional support is his Department providing to prisons to ensure that offenders are seizing the employment opportunities available to them?
Dominic Raab
In addition to the spending review settlement and the employers’ summit, we are making sure that we design prisons the right way. I visited Glen Parva, one of the new state-of-the-art prisons that we are building with our £4 billion investment programme. It had in-cell technology to ensure that inmates can learn skills, particularly numeracy and literacy, and state-of-the-art workshops, so that not only can they get skills, but we can get employers in to get inmates into meaningful, purposeful work.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I absolutely welcome the recognition that employment is pivotal to rehabilitation, but why then the obsession with short prison sentences? What is the point of locking somebody up for one or two months, which achieves absolutely nothing but will often cost somebody a job and a chance of rehabilitation?
Dominic Raab
We think that justice must be served; punishment is important. The short sentences are often for those who have systematically flouted and breached community sentences. To cut crime, the answer is to make sure justice is served. As well as incarceration where that is required for the purposes of punishment, we work on drug rehabilitation, skills and employment so that those offenders who want to take a second chance to turn themselves around—not all of them will—have the opportunity to grasp it.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on helping offenders into employment. Given estimates that more than half of offenders may be dyslexic and given the impact of dyslexia and illiteracy on the ability to work after a sentence, what is he doing to make sure that screening is available to ensure that prisoners can get the right training, especially on literacy if they are dyslexic, to help them into more successful work afterwards?
Dominic Raab
One issue we have discussed—I will be hosting prison governors at a roundtable shortly—is making sure that there is an immediate diagnosis within days of an offender getting into prison, so that we know two things: their numeracy and literacy levels, which will of course bring in other special educational needs, to which my right hon. Friend rightly refers; and what the next qualification is that they may—or may not—be able to achieve, so that we have a decent plan that gives them the chance to improve their skills, get into work and avoid a life of crime.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
The Bill had its Second Reading in this House on 26 October. As the hon. Lady knows, it is now in Committee—she is part of that Committee. The Bill fixes inefficient processes that cause delay in our justice system and gives judges more flexibility to resolve judicial reviews in a practical way. The Secretary of State discusses these matters with Cabinet colleagues, and we are confident that the package of reforms in the Bill is proportionate and effective.
Angela Crawley
Judicial independence is under threat across Europe, so given the Minister’s recent chilling comments that the UK Parliament should correct decisions of the judiciary that Ministers disagree with, can he see the concerns that this raises for the principle of the separation of powers? How can the UK credibly join other countries who threaten the independence of judges?
James Cartlidge
We have been debating these matters at length. The Bill is a very good one. It strengthens judicial review in relation to quashing orders with the new remedies. Far from what the hon. Lady said, those new remedies—for example, being able to suspend a quashing order—will bring great benefit to our constituents and support better public administration.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Bill has a whole chapter on coroners yet entirely neglects the key issue of giving bereaved families a fair hearing at inquests. Victims’ families have no right to legal aid, even when many state institutions are represented at public expense. At one inquest, 18 public bodies were represented but families had to fight to be heard. Will the Minister commit, now, to non-means-tested funding for bereaved families when the state is represented, and table amendments to the Bill to achieve that?
James Cartlidge
I am pleased to confirm to the House that we are currently drafting the measures that will ensure that we remove the means test on exceptional case funding for such matters. Furthermore, I can confirm that the changes should be implemented early next year.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
There has been much gnashing of teeth in the past week over MPs who breach standards and their right to appeal—natural justice, I think they call it. Why, then, do the Government propose to remove a vital last line of defence for ordinary people by removing Cart and Eba-type judicial reviews—the type used by the most vulnerable and the least powerful?
James Cartlidge
We have just debated this issue at great length in the Bill Committee and I understand that the hon. Lady feels strongly about it but, as we have explained, in those cases there are—we keep using this phrase—three bites at the cherry, whereas in almost all other areas of law there are only two, so the Bill is fair in that sense.
I am bound to say that it is incumbent on the Government to look at resource. When we have a backlog like we have, we have to ask whether using up 180 days of court time for cases that have a tiny chance of success is the best use of that resource. We have a backlog of very serious cases to deal with; that is our Government’s priority and where we are focused.
Anne McLaughlin
We have just spent a considerable amount of time arguing about that issue in Committee, so let me turn to another part of the Bill. The presumption in favour of prospective quashing orders will mean that this Government will be able to treat ordinary people unlawfully, safe in the knowledge that even if the courts say they have done so, there will be no redress or compensation, and there will even be time for the Government to change the law so that the unlawful thing becomes lawful. I wonder what it is about the wealthy, powerful friends of this Government that makes their right to so-called natural justice so much more compelling than the right of the ordinary man or woman on the street.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady knows that that is a wholly erroneous interpretation of the presumption clause, which is there simply to ensure that we expedite the accumulation of jurisprudence.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
The Government are providing £150 million this year for victims and witnesses and the support services relating to all types of crime. Of that, more than £50 million has been ringfenced specifically for rape and domestic abuse victims.
Wera Hobhouse
In Bath we are fortunate to have the charity Somerset and Avon Rape and Sexual Abuse Support, which empowers survivors to tell their stories. With just 2.4% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction, too many women do not come forward for fear that they will have to relive their trauma, and they do not get justice. Will the Secretary of State commit to mandatory training in the Crown Prosecution Service on understanding the impact of trauma and supporting victims, so that all victims of rape come forward in the knowledge that justice is being served?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this very important issue in the forensic way that she does. The funding that I referred to includes funding for 700 independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, precisely to give victims the support, advice and confidence to see their cases through. We have to bear down on the attrition rate—as it is called in the criminal justice system—of victims falling out of the system because of lack of confidence.
To respond directly to the hon. Lady’s point, before Christmas we will publish criminal justice scorecards not only for general crime but specifically for rape, so we will be able to see the performance at every step in the system. That will help to spur an increase in performance, which will give victims the confidence to come forward and get prosecutions to court.
Andrew Gwynne
When it comes to this issue, I would hope that all Members from all parts of the House speak with one voice, but the Secretary of State will know that recorded rape offences have hit the highest number on record at 61,000, with just 1.4% leading to a suspect being charged. There were only 1,333 convictions, and yet the Government could not even agree to the target on improving prosecutions in their own review. Will the Secretary of State, who I know wants to get on top of this issue, commit to getting conviction and prosecution levels back to those last seen in 2016 by the end of this Parliament?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to this as a problem, a challenge—and a systemic one at that. It is of course good news that a number of victims have been willing to come forward, talk to the police and report that crime, but it cannot stop there. That is why we are publishing the score cards that I mentioned to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). We are looking at every stage of the system, including improving phone technology and digital disclosure. We are making sure that victims can access an online or telephone device 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He will know about Operation Soteria, which is shifting the focus of investigations from the victim to the suspect so that they are suspect-centric, and that we are also trialling section 28 pre-recorded cross-examinations so that vulnerable types of victim do not have to go through the added trauma of giving evidence in front of an assailant.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Women and girls do not seem to be safe from sexual predators whether they are alive or dead. David Fuller violated 100 bodies at a Kent hospital. Many of my constituents are impacted by these crimes. At present, necrophilia is illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, with a maximum sentence of just two years. Can my right hon. Friend consider reviewing that to ensure that the maximum sentence is extended so that the punishment reflects the gravity of the crime?
Dominic Raab
I share my hon. Friend’s total disgust at what we have learned about those hospitals in Kent, and, indeed, in relation to the David Fuller case more broadly. Although I have already said this, as has, I think, the Health and Social Care Secretary, I am very happy to repeat that I am willing to look at those sentences again. Incidents of this kind of event are rare, but they are abhorrent and the sentence must match the level of outrage, the trauma and the renewed trauma that it will put the victims’ families through.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Women and girls who are victims of human trafficking suffer extreme violence, yet, last year, there were only 91 prosecutions and 13 convictions for specific modern slavery offences. However, there is some good news: the charity Justice and Care has been working with the Government to provide victim navigators to help in prosecuting these evil gangs. In nine out of 10 instances where the victim navigator is involved, we get the evidence to prosecute. Will the Government look at extending their support for that charity?
Dominic Raab
I am very happy to look at that. We have a record-breaking amount from the spending review, certainly the largest in the past 10 years, for justice issues, and I will be looking very carefully at the support that we can provide for victims. My hon. Friend referred to the work of the charity in question, and it dovetails with what I have already mentioned to the House about the independent sexual violence advisers. We know that, if the victims who have gone through these awful crimes get the support they need, they are less likely to fall out of the justice system. That is one of the important ways that we will secure more prosecutions.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
On the Home Affairs Committee, we recently heard from Sir John Gillen, Baroness Stern and Lady Dorrian, all of whom have conducted independent reviews into rape or serious sexual violence in some part of the United Kingdom recently. They were unanimous in saying that the single most important factor in preventing a rape victim from withdrawing from the criminal process is the ability to give evidence early under section 28 procedures. I know that my right hon. Friend shares my view on this. Will he tell the House when he expects this procedure to be rolled out across the nation?
Dominic Raab
That is incredibly important not only for the victims of rape, but for other vulnerable victims. The evidence so far from the pilots and the trials needs to be gleaned and carefully evaluated, but I can tell my hon. Friend that this is something that I want to look at very carefully not just because of the ability to secure a more effective prosecution, but to deter defence lawyers from perhaps not the universal practice, but certainly the widespread practice of encouraging the accused to wait until the moment in court before they take the decision on whether to plead guilty.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Whether victims of sinister spiking, rape or sexual assault, women and girls are being retraumatised by the system. They are cross-examined, disbelieved and made to feel like they are on trial, despite having had their own bodies used against them. No wonder 80% of rape victims do not report it. Last night, Channel 4’s “Dispatches” exposed the ugly truth behind women’s experiences and about a system that is letting victims down. As one woman put it:
“It’s soul destroying not to be believed when you’ve been through so much. They discredit and they destroy you.”
Will the Secretary of State tell us who is on trial here, and explain to women and girls what he will do to put this right and restore their faith in a broken justice system?
Dominic Raab
I totally share the hon. Lady’s sense of frustration on behalf of victims up and down the country. There is no single silver bullet, precisely because it is a system-wide failure. As has already been mentioned, more victims are reporting to police stations than before; that is positive. We have Operation Soteria, the whole purpose of which is to shift the way in which investigations address these crimes to make them suspect-centric, rather than focusing on the behaviour of victims.
There are a number of technical things that we can do: section 28 has been mentioned; and improving phone technology and digital disclosure is another aspect. It will be important when we publish the criminal justice scorecards for rape that we can see not just at a national level, but—in due course, following that—at a local level, which areas are getting it right and why those other places are not following best practice, and that we ensure we can correct the gaps.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I am happy to report excellent progress on our electronic monitoring programme. We recently expanded our world-first acquisitive crime project, GPS tagging all those released from prison who were convicted of those crimes, to cover half of England and Wales. Between April and September, more than 1,500 offenders had to wear a sobriety tag.
Dr Mullan
The Minister will know that it is actually a relatively small number of hardcore, prolific offenders who are responsible for so much of the misery that is inflicted on our constituents. I therefore welcome the progress on tagging and encourage him to think about other offences that we could use it on. What discussions has he had with the police about the resources that they need to bring back in people who may be breaching their tags?
Kit Malthouse
It is typical of my hon. Friend to think about the burden on policing. He is one of the primary supporters of the police in this House; I am grateful to him for that. We hope that the GPS tagging programmes—specifically, as he says, for prolific acquisitive criminals—will actually reduce the burden on policing. As he knows, something approaching 50% of offenders who have been burglars or robbers go on to reoffend. By putting a tag on their ankle so that we know where they are 24 hours a day, we essentially put a probation officer or police officer alongside them. We hope that that will be a huge deterrent. It also means that if there is a breach or somebody is identified as being at the same place that a crime has occurred at the same time, it is much easier for the police to find them because we can track them down through the tag. As we expand the programme further, from six to 19 police forces across the country, we need to monitor the impact on policing, albeit that, thus far, the police are enthusiastic proponents of the scheme.
Aaron Bell
Newcastle-under-Lyme plays host to the North Staffordshire Justice Centre, so I know that my constituents will welcome what the Minister has said. What steps will he take to invest in the latest technological advances, so that tagging will keep pace with the behaviour of offenders?
Kit Malthouse
That is a brilliant question, not least because my hon. Friend has put his finger on the button of where we need to go next. As part of the £183 million that the Treasury has now invested—with some confidence, I like to think—in the future roll-out of our electronic monitoring programme, we have £19 million to invest in future technology. In particular, I am keen to stimulate the market to find the holy grail of tagging, which would be a drugs tag that we could fit to the ankle of offenders with that kind of problem, and therefore deter them from taking drugs in the first place.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
We are investing an extra £93 million over the next three years to recruit 500 additional community payback staff, so that we can increase hours worked to a record-breaking 8 million a year.
Stephen Metcalfe
Requiring offenders to give back to their communities not only delivers a just punishment but sends out a clear signal to other criminals that crime does not pay. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that where a community sentence is given, the offender actually then serves it?
Kit Malthouse
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are investing significant extra resources, time and effort into making sure that community payback is both seen and effective. He is quite right that we want the public to see that justice is done, and we want offenders to know that their punishment is meaningful. There is a third reason why community payback is important, however, which is that offenders need to learn what the rest of us know—that we all have to play our part in building a great community and a safe neighbourhood. By this method we can almost teach them the value of contribution to their local neighbourhood.
We want to make sure that community payback is visible, and that means that there will be more people out there on the street cleaning up, improving the environment and so on. That will enable us to square the circle, with a sense of repaying a debt to society but also an ongoing commitment to it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Victoria Atkins)
I start by thanking all prison and probation officers and staff across the country. They do an absolutely vital job protecting the public and rehabilitating offenders, and they deserve our thanks and our acknowledgment. Pay awards for this financial year across HMPPS are subject to the public sector pay pause, which was imposed due to the covid-19 emergency, but I welcome the Chancellor’s recent Budget announcement on public sector pay and the fact that from 2022, it will return to a normal pay setting process.
John McDonnell
I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers’ Association, with which I have worked for the last 25 years. Morale is at rock bottom among prison staff, and that relates to pay. In response to the chair of the justice unions committee, the Secretary of State said that the Government were accepting the pay review board’s recommendations. The pay review board has made it clear in its report that the remit that the Government have given it precludes it from making a full recommendation on pay awards. It finds that to be incompatible with its independence and in conflict with its role as a compensatory mechanism for the fact that prison staff are not allowed to strike. May I request that the Minister meet a delegation from the justice unions group to talk about morale and the development of a pay strategy?
Victoria Atkins
I am delighted to inform the right hon. Gentleman that I have met not just the POA but the Prison Governors Association and many of the smaller unions that represent the interests of vital members of staff such as chaplains and educationalists, who play a really important role in the prison system. I very much look forward to working with the POA and others not just on matters of pay but on ensuring that we value their role in the prison system. I want prison officers to feel safe in their workplace, for example. That is not up for question. We should be making sure that they feel safe, and that is one of my priorities as Minister with responsibility for prisons.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Over the last month, I have visited HMP High Down, Ford prison and the new state-of-the-art prison at Glen Parva. Today, we opened a new super-court at Loughborough, which will help to reduce the courts backlog, along with a real-terms increase in MOJ funding of 12% by 2024-25.
Caroline Ansell
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s work to bring together employers in the offender employment summit, and the significant investment that is to come. One more key element to addressing reoffending is the third sector. Will he join me in paying tribute to Sussex Pathways, which does such tremendous work for offenders pre and post release, so that they can make good on some of the opportunities afforded them in prison? What specific steps is the Department taking to connect women with employment and education opportunities?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need a tailored approach to the female prison estate. I can tell her that the number of women in custody has fallen by almost a quarter since 2010. That reflects the Government’s investment in community services and community sentences. Custody should remain the last resort for women, but we need to ensure we have better services that are better tailored. That is why we have 500 new places in the women’s estate—a mixture of open and closed conditions—tailored particularly to mental health challenges, addiction, skills and work. Indeed, there are some trailblazing examples of work in prisons, such as The Clink restaurant in HMP Downview.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Baby A died in Bronzefield women’s prison in 2019. Mum called for help time and time again, and no one came. She had to bite through her umbilical cord as her baby died. Baby A’s mother had not been convicted of any crime; she was there on remand. She and her baby were in a place that should have kept them safe, but the prison system is not keeping our women safe. Self-harm among women prisoners has increased by nearly half in three months. Many are self-harming over and over again. This House knows what needs to be done. The Minister knows what needs to be done. There is even a female offender strategy. When are this Government going to do it?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Victoria Atkins)
I thank the hon. Lady for drawing the House’s attention to that tragic case. She will know that we asked the ombudsman to examine it in detail, and we are very grateful to the ombudsman for having gone through it so that the Department, HMPPS and other providers can learn the lessons from that terrible incident. We have set out extensive plans to help women who are pregnant, mums and babies in prison, and that framework has been published and is being very much implemented. On her wider point about supporting women in custody, we have the female offenders strategy. The Government maintain our aim that we should support women outside of custody and give magistrates the confidence to impose community sentences, but we must ensure that when women are in the female prison estate, they are supported, but importantly, rehabilitated. If they leave prison, we want them to be able to re-enter society and we want to protect the public.
Mr Speaker
May I just say to both sides that this is a very important question, and it should really be dealt with in the main questions? Topicals are meant to be short and punchy. I understand why the answer has to be detailed, because the issue is far, far too important, but please can we put such important questions earlier in the agenda? That way, it will be easier to get through them.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
We share my hon. Friend’s abhorrence at this appalling new phenomenon. To reassure him, the Home Secretary and I are in close touch with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which is co-ordinating local and national investigation assets across the country to try to prevent the crime and help protect young women.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Tom Pursglove)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Government are firmly committed to the measures set out in the Nationality and Borders Bill that will deter people from making hugely dangerous crossings of the English channel. We need to take action. Public concern on this is profound. We simply cannot have people putting their lives at risk at the hands of dangerous people smugglers. We must put the smugglers out of business.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; these are sensitive matters. We remain clear that allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitation must be thoroughly and properly investigated by police. Since Alexis Jay’s report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, significant improvements have been made in how local authorities and the police safeguard children both in Rotherham and across the country. However, we know that there is further to go, and we continue to drive improvement in response to actions set out in the “Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Strategy”. We are also bringing forward measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that will ensure that an additional cohort of serious and sexual offenders will now serve two thirds of their sentence in custody, instead of half.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Two and a half years ago, practitioners were promised that the criminal legal aid review would be published in summer 2020. We are still waiting. The all-party parliamentary group on legal aid conducted an inquiry into the sustainability of legal aid, and the report was published last month. We heard compelling evidence from practitioners about the impact of inadequate legal aid rates. The consequent crisis in recruitment and retention is feeding directly into the courts backlog. Does the Minister agree that there is no route through tackling the courts backlog that does not also deal with the crisis of inadequate legal aid rates?
James Cartlidge
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady in her role as chair of the APPG. It is precisely because I see the importance of legal aid that I went to the meeting at which she launched the report. I very much enjoyed it; colleagues from both sides of the House were there. Key to this is the criminal legal aid independent review under Sir Christopher Bellamy QC. Of course, we are still waiting for him to publish that, but we look forward to seeing it as soon as possible.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend is right that we have seen a 12% boost to the Department’s budget, which will see £11.5 billion invested by the end of the Parliament. That will help us build prison places and invest in tagging as well as the drugs, skills and work regimes for people in prison and on licence to cut reoffending and protect the public.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Law Society of Scotland has explained in detail why clause 2 of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill requires the Scottish Parliament’s legislative consent—it is basically because judicial review is a devolved matter. When I raised that with the Minister on Second Reading, he said that he would write to me addressing the Law Society’s detailed arguments. When should I expect to receive that letter?
James Cartlidge
Without wishing to sound like one of the famous online shopping alerts that we receive by email, I confirm that it has been dispatched and that the hon. and learned Lady will receive it imminently.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend is a long-standing advocate for victims in his community. I hope he will be reassured that we will consult as soon as possible on how we best guarantee victims’ rights in law and the level of support that they can expect. We will want to hear from a wide range of individuals and stakeholders to inform that process and shape policy, getting it right from reporting the crime through to the courtroom experience.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Sarah Child, aged 26, was run down and killed by a driver doing 64 mph on the Walsall Road. Poppy-Arabella Clarke, aged three, was run down and killed on the Walsall Road by a driver who could no longer see and had been warned never to drive again. With RoadPeace, we have campaigned for tougher penalties for those who kill with a car, and some welcome progress has been made. However, does the Minister not understand that changing and strengthening the law is one thing and that helping to enforce the law is something different? With 1,000 police officers cut in the west midlands and huge cuts to Birmingham city council’s budget, they are unable—
Kit Malthouse
I understand the hon. Member’s distress at that case. As he knows, we are busy about the job of increasing police capacity. We are over halfway to the 20,000 extra police officers—we have 11,053—and a significant number of those are heading towards the west midlands.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The main reason for my call for a Rotherham-style inquiry into child sexual exploitation in the Bradford district is to bring justice to the victims of these offences and help ensure the safety of children across my constituency. Will my hon. Friend join me in that call so that we can tackle the issue once and for all?
James Cartlidge
I absolutely recognise the trauma endured by victims and survivors and their need for answers. The Government continue to be clear that it is for local authorities in individual areas, which are responsible for delivering services, to commission local inquiries. However, we expect Bradford Council to take the most thoroughgoing approach to ensuring that all lessons have been learned and that local partners are doing everything possible to identify offending and protect children from harm.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
As a veterinary surgeon I really welcome the fact that the Government have listened to the calls that have been made and are introducing a new pet abduction law. Sadly, in rural areas such as Penrith and The Border, other animals are frequently stolen, including farm animal livestock, horses and ponies. Will my hon. Friend look to expand the legislation from pets to encompass all animal abduction offences, including those involving farm animal livestock and horses, so that we can put an end to the horrific and distressing crime of animal theft?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I do see the point he makes. As he knows, the focus has been on dogs and other pets that we keep in the home, but I am happy to speak to colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to get back to him about what we think of his suggestion.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Justice Secretary is working with the Law Commission on bringing forward a new corporate offence of failure to prevent economic crime. There are concerns that the offences will be downgraded to regulatory offences, rather than those involving criminal sanctions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be criminal sanctions if we are to have a true deterrent against this terrible crime?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He has been following it for some time, and I have worked with him on it in the past. We will make sure that we have the right combination of toughness and robustness and send a clear message that these are not victimless crimes.
Petition
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition, on behalf of not just the constituent signatories but the 80 or so delivery drivers at the Ocado Zoom plant in Acton who, having worked throughout the pandemic, kept the company going and kept the capital going by delivering key food supplies, now find that they are being turfed out and frozen out for not accepting very punishing new terms and conditions. They are being replaced by third-party workers against the promises that they would be taken in-house. The petition notes that profits and business have deteriorated since all this started, as the company is putting profit over people. I have to say, the CEO has been donating lots of money to the Conservative party. I hope those things are not related.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton.
Declares that Ocado has not followed through on its promise to cease the use of third-party employment and transfer the workforce from 4 October 2021; further that the majority of deliveries are currently carried out by the third-party agency “Job and Talent”; further that Ocado Zoom offers no flexibility despite promises to provide fully-flexible contracts; notes that Ocado Zoom’s business has deteriorated because of the failure to implement the transfer of workers; and notes that Ocado Zoom continues to engage in exploitative practices and anti-trade union behaviour as they continue to prioritise profit over the working conditions of its staff.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that Ocado engage with delivery drivers’ chosen trade union, the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), in order to resolve the current dispute; further that the Government should press Ocado Zoom to avoid further job losses of key workers.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002697]
Bosnia and Herzegovina
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on Bosnia and Herzegovina and the potential of a renewed conflict in the Western Balkans.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he is right to highlight it. The recent political violence is of significant concern to the UK Government. Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian Serb member of the presidency, has threatened to withdraw Republika Srpska—the entity—from a range of state institutions. That is an act that the High Representative calls a de facto secession. This is a dangerous and deliberate attempt to distract from a failure to improve standards of living and to tackle corruption. It is unacceptable.
The UK fully supports the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the devastating conflict of the 1990s, the region has lived in peace for 26 years, and the Dayton political system, which should have been used to deliver progress and development for citizens, has been exploited by politicians who are focused on building and maintaining their own position.
We recognise the important role that the EUFOR peace and stabilisation force has played, and we welcome the renewal of its mandate—an important deterrent against those malign actors who wish to see instability on Europe’s doorstep. We worked hard in the Security Council to ensure that it authorised EUFOR’s mandate for a further 12 months. The UK continues to play an active role. My hon. Friend the Europe Minster was in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the summer to support that work.
The High Representative will visit the UK for meetings in December. The UK is in close contact with him to ensure that we work in co-operation and is giving him vocal support, including on the use of executive powers should the situation require it. That is a further check and balance on the destabilising actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the upcoming NATO Foreign Ministers meeting, the Foreign Secretary will push for more focus and resource on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on the need to rebuff Russia’s actions.
The international community also has collective responsibility to ensure that there is no return to the conflict of the 1990s. Along with our international partners, we are ensuring that the High Representative’s position and work are secured, and we will continue to urge Russia to return to productive engagement with the peace implementation council’s steering board. Along with our international partners, we are working to tackle the divisive rhetoric and actions from some politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the threat to re-establish a Republika Srpska army and to pull out of other established state-level institutions.
The UK is committed to helping the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina build a better future in a stable and prosperous state, with strong institutions. We support the NATO Headquarters Sarajevo, including through the secondment of UK staff officers who play an important role in building the capacity of the armed forces. We are providing capacity building and expertise to those actors who demonstrate genuine commitment to progress.
Anthony Mangnall
For almost 30 years we have been engaged in the Balkans, and until recently in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In December last year we withdrew from Operation Althea, the international stabilisation force in the country. The decision to withdraw came just as Bosnia was about to be put under the worst possible pressure by Bosnian Serb secessionist leaders. In the words of the High Representative, Christian Schmidt, who reported to the UN Security Council last week:
“Bosnia and Herzegovina faces the greatest existential threat of the post-war period…the prospects for further division and conflict are very real…ignoring or downplaying this state of affairs could have perilous implications for the region and beyond.”
The secessionists are operating with the support of Russia, as we saw at the Security Council meeting last week, and Serbia, as is evident from the joint military exercises held in the past few weeks between Serbia and Bosnian Serb forces. This is a dangerous situation in a country where ethnic cleansing and genocide were perpetrated in the 1990s. With that in mind, will the Minister tell the House that it is still Government policy that the redrawing of borders in the Balkans was finished in the 1990s, and that they will not tolerate any secessionist adventurism? The EUFOR presence on the ground in Bosnia is hardly sufficient to respond to any security challenge, with only 700 troops on the ground and inadequate equipment. What consideration has been given to redeploying UK forces in support of EUFOR and through NATO? What consideration has been given to imposing sanctions on anyone undermining the Dayton peace accords, which is in line with the US but sadly lacking from the EU and UK?
In an article written last week, Baroness Helić quotes the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, commenting on the Bosnian genocide in 2000. He said the most important lesson was that
“we must recognize evil for what it is, and confront it not with expediency and compromise, but with implacable resistance.”
Now is the time for us to act, not to wait. If we fail to do so, we will further weaken the international rules-based order and embolden our enemies, and we will also see death and destruction rage again in our backyard.
James Cleverly
I reflect on the passion with which my hon. Friend puts forward the case, and he is completely right. The period of borders being redrawn in that region is behind us. We saw the devastating conflicts of the 1990s, and nobody should be willing to go back to that period. We support EUFOR. I beg my hon. Friend’s indulgence, but I am not going to speculate on what a future stabilisation or military force composition might be like. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will shortly be raising this issue in the strongest terms at the meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Riga. We support the NATO Headquarters Sarajevo, and my hon. Friend will know that it is a long-standing policy of the UK Government not to speculate on future sanctions designations, for fear that doing so might undermine their effectiveness. We are determined to ensure that the peace the region has enjoyed for the past quarter of a century is maintained.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this urgent question. Today the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is extremely serious. I visited Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2013 as part of a delegation with the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I well remember our chaperone in Sarajevo telling me how she had been shot in the leg by a sniper in the 1990s when she was a small child. We do not want those dark days to return.
At the time of my visit in 2013, the situation was precarious, with the Dayton agreement widely seen as a holding operation. It did not really provide a way forward, but it did help keep a lid on the conflict. Now the situation is undoubtedly dangerous. The Dayton agreement is under serious strain, with the very real risk that the country will fragment and conflict will once again erupt. There is the distinct possibility that the President of Republika Srpska, one of the two autonomous elements of Bosnia and Herzegovina, will withdraw from the federal Bosnian army and create a separate force. With the threat of Serb withdrawals from other state institutions, the situation is extremely serious, and not only for Bosnia; as the EU’s High Representative has said, there could be implications throughout the western Balkans if the situation deteriorates in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
My questions to the Minister are these. First, what pressure are the UK Government applying internationally to prevent the Serbs in Republika Srpska from fracturing the Bosnian army and the institutions of the Bosnia and Herzegovina state? Secondly, what representations have the UK Government made to China and Russia for them to adopt a more constructive attitude towards Bosnia and Herzegovina? Every effort must be made to insist that all ethnic groups continue to work together. Thirdly, what co-operation is there between the UK and our EU allies to ensure that the EU’s 700-strong peacekeeping operation, EUFOR, plays an effective role in helping to maintain peace during the coming months?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes some incredibly important points, and in many respects I echo the concerns that he has raised. With regard to working with our international partners, which goes to the core of his questions, we maintain a close engagement with EUFOR. Having left the European Union, we are no longer formally part of it, but, alongside the United States of America, we pushed for the mandate renewal, and we were very pleased that that was successful. We will continue to support it.
The key institution here is the High Representative, Mr Christian Schmidt, and we will continue to lobby in support of the work that he is doing on the international stage. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to prevent the fragmentation of this country, because that would almost inevitably be the precursor to further conflict. Many of us in this House have seen the genuine horror that conflict in this region brings, and we must work together with our international partners to do everything we can to deter that from happening.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I call attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to a recent visit to Bosnia as part of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces.
Is it not extraordinary—I am sure the whole House will be amazed—that the trigger for the current instability in Bosnia and Herzegovina was that the High Representative brought in a law outlawing genocide denial? The last place in the world where genocide can be denied is Republika Srpska; all the High Representative did was say that that is now outlawed. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that behind all this lies Russia, and Serbia itself, and that unless we do something very dramatic, serious and urgent about it, we will face a return to the kind of chaos that we saw in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the late ’80s and early ’90s? We really must act seriously on this. We are facing catastrophe—a disaster—in Bosnia, and just saying “we’ll think about it” is no good at all.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is sadly right that we see the hand of Russia at play here. We need to work with the High Representative and our international partners to ensure that there is not a fragmentation. My hon. Friend is right that it is unacceptable to deny holocaust in whichever arena it occurred, but for many of us, this is the event that was a significant part of our lives, and we have to ensure that it is not repeated.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Remembering Srebrenica tweeted earlier that this day in 1993 saw the destruction of the historic bridge in Mostar, a poignant reminder of the conflict and genocide in living memory. Our thoughts should very much be with the people who live there and who fear a return to the types of horrors they saw in the past.
What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the UK plays its part in securing peacekeeping efforts, as needed? We welcome very much that the UN mandate to EUFOR was renewed last week. It must be seen to be fulfilled. Will he tell us a bit more about the discussions he has had with key regional partners in the EU, the US and leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina itself? If the situation deteriorates further, we risk a return to the sectarianism of the past and the violence to civilians that that entails, and emboldening Russian influence in the region. Will he tell us more about what steps he will take on a multilateral level to ensure that the UK plays its part alongside regional allies to ensure that existing frameworks are managed in a way that protects the settlement within the country? Lastly, are there any considerations about the nature of the UK’s role in supporting EUFOR specifically? What contingency plans is he making, should we require to be brought into that?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Specifically on EUFOR, as I said, the UK and the United States of America were vocal in our support of the mandate renewal and we are very pleased that that happened. Although we are not formally a member of EUFOR, we have seconded staff officers to support capability-building work and we have given direct support to the Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces, which are an essential part of the security framework. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will speak at the upcoming NATO Foreign Ministers meeting and push for more focus and resource on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for the collective need to push back against Russia’s actions in the area. With regard to what we might do next, that will need to be a collective decision by the international community, because working in accord with each other is the only way we will make meaningful progress. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that this is, and will remain, a very clear focus for UK foreign policy in the region.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing the urgent question. As someone who spent time in Yugoslavia during the wars of the 1990s, I do not underestimate how unpleasant this could get, and how violent and how quickly. I want to look at Russia. We know it has been selling arms to the ethnic Serbian police. We know it has form in handing out passports to people in conflict areas as a reason for intervention. We also know there is now significant potential for European Union forces to come into direct conflict with Russian proxies. Is the Minister aware of the true danger of that situation, and that it follows a pattern not only in the western Balkans, but in eastern Ukraine and, now, on the Belarus border? We, and NATO and the EU, are being significantly tested. Do we have a policy?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his points. I recognise the contribution he has made and his understanding of the issues in the region. He is right that those of us who remember the headlines and images that came out of the region not that long ago are horrified at the prospect that it might slip back into that level of violence. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) visited the region extensively earlier this year. She and our officials are well aware—well aware—of the circumstances on the ground. We will, as I say, continue to work with our international partners, both European partners and NATO partners, to do everything we can to prevent the region slipping back into the kind of horrific sectarian bloodshed we saw, sadly, only 26 years ago.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). We know how quickly the situation can deteriorate in the Balkans. The bloodshed and the flight of refugees we saw in the past will be with us if we see secession by Republika Srpska. I have to put it to the Minister that he said nothing really about what our red lines are. It is not enough to wait for secession. The steps that Prime Minister Dodik is talking about now are steps to secession. We have to make our red lines clear to Russia and Serbia, as well as to Prime Minister Dodik. In that context, EUFOR simply has no peacekeeping capacity if things deteriorate. We now have to have a strategy for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We recognise that EUFOR is there to do a particular role. We would, of course, all collectively much prefer to prevent, rather than have to deal with, a return to violence. If there is an escalation—we will work hand in glove with our international partners to try to prevent that—that would need to be discussed at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting. Any red lines put forward would need to be done in conjunction with our international friends and allies. However, I completely take the hon. Member’s broader point about the need to work collectively to prevent this situation slipping back into violence.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
As a Bosnia veteran, I am very familiar with that country. I went there recently and I know for a fact that fears about security are justified. Britain signed the Dayton agreement in 1995, so we are part of the solution. Is it perhaps time for another ministerial visit to Sarajevo?
James Cleverly
My hon. and gallant Friend makes an important point about the need for visible support for the institutions that have helped to keep the peace for such a long time. As I said, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, went to the region recently. I am not in a position to commit to exactly when a future ministerial visit will be, but the Foreign Secretary will bring this up at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Riga in the near future. I have no doubt that it will be the location for a ministerial visit in the not-too-distant future.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing this urgent question. The world cannot make the same mistakes again. In the 1995 genocide, more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed in a single day. The US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Gabriel Escobar, told Congress last week that the US is working with the EU to
“make sure there are consequences for any illegal or any destabilising actions”
in Bosnia. The hon. Member asked what representations have been made and the Minister answered that they will be made at Riga shortly. Given what happened in Afghanistan when the Government were asleep at the wheel, my concern—I think rightly and fairly—is whether the Government are asleep at the wheel again on this one. Why have we not already made representations? What representations, if any, have we made to the EU, world partners and NATO?
James Cleverly
I think the hon. Lady is frankly wrong in her assessment. This is not a question about Afghanistan, but she will know that we started the evacuation process in Afghanistan in spring this year, long before the fall of Kabul. I have already said that in conjunction with our European partners and the United States of America, we made representations at the Security Council to renew the EUFOR mandate. We have done that important and significant piece of work in conjunction with our international partners. We have made public statements and acted in support of the High Representative, Mr Schmidt, and we will continue to do so. As I said, the Foreign Secretary will bring the issue up at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Riga. What else we might do will be defined by the circumstances, but I assure the hon. Lady, you, Mr Speaker, and the House that that will remain a focus for Her Majesty’s Government.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary for their time on this issue, as well as colleagues, because there have been many ongoing conversations over the past few weeks. Dodik has one goal: the destruction and failure of the Bosnian state. As chair of the all-party group for Bosnia and Herzegovina, I have invited the High Representative to visit Parliament, and I hope that you will join us, Mr Speaker, when we meet him as parliamentarians from across the House. The time for diplomacy is now, so that we do not have to have this conversation again because we have been able to ride out the crisis. Will the Minister consider activating the conflict centre; review all conflict, stability and security fund programmes to see whether they are fit for purpose; and work with Defence Ministers to increase our deployment to NATO and Sarajevo and consider joint cross-Balkan deployments and missions?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend again speaks with great passion, but perhaps more importantly, with authority and experience on this issue. I pay tribute to the work that she and the other members of the APPG do. I assure her that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is looking seriously at what administrative structures need to be in place for us to respond to an escalation of the situation. Obviously, our priority is to try to prevent an escalation. I am very glad that she has extended an invitation to the High Representative, because public, visible support for his work is incredibly important, both from Government and Parliament. I echo her calls that that should be done internationally and not just here in the UK.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am sure that many others, like me, regret that the late Paddy Ashdown is not with us here today, because he would have a lot to say as an expert. There has been much talk about the tilt to the Indo-Pacific, and yet, as others have said, Russia and possibly China are not hesitating to get involved in European affairs in our own backyard. So I ask the Minister: first, is our defence poise possibly wrong in terms of the tilt to the Indo-Pacific? Perhaps we should concentrate on our own backyard. Secondly, I have spoken before about defence cuts and the cut in the size of the Army. I wonder whether I can tempt him to agree that this is no time to cut the size of our armed forces.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the work of the late Lord Ashdown. Indeed, I should have paid tribute to him in my opening statement, because his work was incredibly influential and the whole House should recognise that. I will not be drawn on the size of the armed forces, but I will make the point that the Indo-Pacific tilt, as set out in the integrated review, should be read not as an exclusive focus on that part of the world, but as an additional focus. We absolutely recognise that the security of this region and our peace and security are interwoven—he is right to highlight that—and that is why I can assure him that we will work diplomatically with our international friends and colleagues and through the conversations that we have at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting shortly in Riga to look collectively at what our response might need to be. Ultimately, the win would be to put pressure on Republika Srpska not to go down this separatist path.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the western Balkans, I have made two recent visits to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Indeed, I was in Sarajevo on Thursday and Friday last week and there is no doubt that there has been a significant increase in tensions. I pay tribute to our ambassador and his excellent team over there, who are working not only to reduce those tensions, but to develop our economic ties and the economy of the country to the benefit of all the people there, particularly the young people who are leaving the country in enormous numbers. I urge the Minister to continue his work with colleagues in the Department for International Trade so that we can develop our economic ties with not just Bosnia-Herzegovina, but the whole western Balkan region. Will he urge politicians of all descriptions over there to work together and seize the moment now for peace and prosperity?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that international trade is a force for good and a force for peace. “When goods cross borders, soldiers do not”—I paraphrase, but I am sure that every Member of the House is familiar with that. Ultimately, we all have an interest in the economic stability and prosperity of the region. The belief that there is a failure in the economic opportunities for people in the region is a big driving force for the actions of Republika Srpska. To directly answer his question, I will continue to push for increased trade with the western Balkans and Bosnia and Herzegovina, because it is to the benefit of both us and them that it continues.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I was in Bosnia a few weeks ago with the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces. I was genuinely shocked that the segregation of communities felt worse than in the ’80s, with some schools even teaching that the genocide of Bosnian Muslims did not exist. Can the Minister explain why we seem to be shifting our development money away from stability? Can he tell us what he is doing to safeguard the investment that we have already made in that country for peaceful dialogue and tolerance? Will he consider embedding atrocity prevention in all our embassies to prevent this situation from happening in other countries?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady, as always, puts forward thoughtful ideas. I will pay close attention to her final point. It is essential that we never allow the genocide that happened to be forgotten. We must ensure through our diplomatic work that it is not expunged from the curriculum for young people in the country. We will seek to work with our international friends and partners to prevent the situation from slipping into conflict, but if we are successful, we will still have to go further and ensure that our diplomatic efforts are focused on bringing communities together. I recognise that money plays a part, but in this context I think that our diplomatic heft is probably of greater impact than our official development assistance contributions.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing the urgent question. The secessionists, having denied the genocide and tried to discredit the post-war Bosnian state, have created a crisis that could get violent. I know that the Minister has offered a commitment, but as he has heard today from hon. Members, we want the issue dialled up to a priority, whether that is through challenging the EU’s failure, putting pressure on China and Russia, or even making troops available, not just to protect but to collect evidence of any atrocities that may take place.
There is a red line that the Minister can draw right here, right now. Ministers have repeatedly said that we recognise genocide only when it is declared by the UN. The UN has declared a genocide. The Office of the High Representative has said that anyone who denies that genocide was committed will face a sentence. Perhaps the Minister could say that we stand behind that statement.
Mr Speaker
We will have to speed up if we are going to get through all the questions.
James Cleverly
I appreciate that, Mr Speaker.
My hon. Friend will know that the UK has zero tolerance for holocaust denial, wherever it comes about. I can assure her that we will continue working with our international friends to ensure that the Republika Srpska understands that its actions are unacceptable and that there will be consequences if they continue.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I worked in Bosnia in the late 1990s with political parties and civil society. Does the Minister recognise that one of the downsides of the Dayton agreement was that it institutionalised political difference and crowded out any multi-ethnic voices from the political space? What more can the Government do today to support civil society, especially on a multi-ethnic basis, to have a more powerful voice to combat the forces of division in Bosnia?
James Cleverly
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Dayton accords. They serve an important function in underpinning peace; I do not think that they were ever envisaged as a permanent structural solution to the situation. Ultimately, our focus at the moment is on the High Representative and his work in the here and now. The future evolution of a political and social structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a subject that we will need to look at once we have resolved the current issue.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The break-up of Bosnia and Herzegovina would create massive instability in the region, which would not be in the best interests of neighbouring countries such as Serbia. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are engaging with Belgrade to encourage leaders in the region to ensure that that wider instability, which would be so damaging, is not borne out?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes the incredibly important point that this is not a situation in which countries in the region will be disinterested. We have active bilateral conversations with countries in the region—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, has been there and is very active—and will continue to do so because the instability in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not something that anyone, either in the UK or in the region, wishes to see again.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Stephen, from my constituency of Weaver Vale, was a peacekeeper who saw at first hand the genocide in the Balkans, on our doorstep. The Minister referred to close co-operation with EUFOR. What are the details? What does that co-operation involve?
James Cleverly
As I have said, the UK is not formally a member of EUFOR, having left the European Union, but we have secondees in the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo and we have been very supportive of the mandate renewal. Exactly what future support may be required is a question that we will have to decide, depending on the circumstances at the time, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we stay very focused on ensuring peace in the region.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing the urgent question. Some years ago, I visited Bosnia and Herzegovina with Stephen Parkinson—now Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay—as part of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy programme. May I ask the Minister to ensure that the UK Government will oppose all attempts to redraw borders? Alongside the sadly necessary consideration of hard power and sanction options, will he do all he can to continue to dial up all the soft power levers at our disposal to pressure those who would seek to damage the fragile peace in Bosnia?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes the incredibly important point that we would much prefer to resolve the situation through diplomatic efforts and persuasion rather than force. That will be the focus of our work, and we will do it in conjunction with our international partners.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
On 14 October, Dodik said that he would force the Bosnian army to withdraw from Republika Srpska by surrounding its barracks if the west tried to intervene. He said that he had “friends” who had promised to support the Serb cause—a presumed reference to Serbia and Russia, which are both seeking to undermine the role and the authority of the High Representative.
This is a massive test for NATO. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial for us to bolster the Office of the High Representative, get NATO on the same page with a solution and tell Russia in no uncertain terms that we will not accept the break-up of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
James Cleverly
I have to confess that I find myself in complete accord with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Speaker. The Minister will know that the situation is very worrying. If it quickly deteriorates into conflict, the inevitable consequence will be a refugee crisis, perhaps—hopefully not—on the scale that we saw a few decades ago. That would put enormous pressure on neighbouring countries. It seems to me that all Governments internationally are between a rock and a hard place, but one thing that we can do is start preparing contingency plans with neighbouring countries for dealing with a potential refugee crisis.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman is right that, whatever the ultimate resolution is to the attempted break-up of Bosnia and Herzegovina or to a potential refugee crisis, it will need to be achieved in conjunction with countries in the region. That is why the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, has been—and no doubt will continue to be—active in speaking to all countries in the region.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Srebrenica massacre in 1995, the worst atrocity on European soil since world war two, was a horrific genocide that cannot be repeated. Dodik has alluded to alliances with China, Russia and Hungary, which could provide support should conflict break out. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the likelihood and impact of those countries intervening in the region?
James Cleverly
We are aware of the likely hand of Russia in the matter. We will ensure that we continue with a dynamic assessment of the situation on the ground. Ultimately, we will work with the member states of the European Union, as well as with the United States of America, to do everything we can to ensure that the situation does not escalate once again to the violence that sadly we saw in the 1990s.
Racism in Cricket
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on reports regarding racism in cricket.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
I am appearing here this afternoon in place of the Minister for Sport—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston)—who is in Geneva having meetings with football officials.
I will start by being very clear about something on which I know the whole House will agree: there is no place for racism in sport. Indeed, there is no place for racism anywhere in society. It must be confronted, it must be eradicated and it should never be written off as just “banter”.
The Government are extremely concerned by the reports of racism at Yorkshire county cricket club. Quite simply, the situation faced by Azeem Rafiq was unacceptable. It should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, and it should have been dealt with properly during the initial investigation. We have made it clear to the England and Wales Cricket Board that this requires a full, transparent investigation, both of the incidents involving Azeem Rafiq and of the wider cultural issues at Yorkshire county cricket club. The ECB is now investigating the matter fully. It took action against the Yorkshire club on Friday, stripping it of the right to host international matches, and has suspended a player.
There have been a number of resignations from the Yorkshire board—quite rightly—including that of its chairman. Lord Patel of Bradford has taken over as chairman, and has set out the approach that he will be taking to tackle the issue at Yorkshire. Crucially, he has started by apologising to Azeem Rafiq, but we know that that will not undo the pain that Azeem feels. More action is needed, and we have called on Lord Patel and the ECB to investigate fully, to eradicate racism where it exists, and to tackle the culture that can support it. In addition, the ECB is now undertaking a regulatory process. It must take strong action where it is necessary, and that action must be transparent and swift, for the benefit of cricket.
The ECB has also launched the independent commission for equity in cricket to look at wider issues that go beyond Yorkshire. It is chaired by Cindy Butts, a highly respected anti-racism campaigner. She is a board member of the Kick It Out campaign in football and is also, as you know, Mr Speaker, a lay member of your Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have great confidence in her independence and her phenomenal track record in this area. This terrible case—the awful case of the abuse that Azeem Rafiq should never have suffered, but did suffer—shows how much more needs to be done to stamp out racism in the game, and I urge anyone who has experienced discrimination in cricket to approach Cindy Butts’s commission and report what they have experienced. I understand that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has requested information about this incident. That is quite right, and I encourage the EHRC in its work.
Sport should be for everyone, and it should not take cases such as this to bring that to life. The Government applaud Azeem Rafiq’s courage in speaking out, and encourage anyone who has been similarly affected to do the same. This must be a watershed moment for cricket. The Government will closely scrutinise the actions taken by the ECB—the Minister for Sport met the board last week to discuss this topic—and by Yorkshire county cricket club in response to these damning allegations. The investigations to which I have referred must be thorough, transparent and public. That is necessary to restore the public’s faith in cricket in Yorkshire and beyond. Parliament is watching, the Government are watching and the country is watching. We expect real action, and the Government stand ready to step in and act if those involved do not put their own house in order.
Navendu Mishra
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
The leaked racism report from Yorkshire county cricket club has exposed the extent to which serious allegations of discrimination have been mishandled, covered up and sadly, it seems, entirely ignored over a long period. Players and former board members of the club have since come forward expressing their regret, but it is too little, too late. The question of how to address this should not be solely concerned with what to do next; rather, we should ask how the club arrived at such a low point. Why were players not properly investigated, why were no processes in place to address these allegations, and why did it take the leaking of the report to kick the club into action?
Members on both sides of the House have spoken publicly about how appalled they are, so I hope that the Minister will tell us today what concrete action the Government intend to take to tackle racism in sport. I know that my good and hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) wrote to Mr Mark Arthur, but unfortunately he has not received a response to his letter. The news over the past week has focused on cricket because of this report, but we know that it is not in cricket alone that racism and discrimination fester. The Government’s intervention on this particular issue must be a model for the way in which other sports address racism.
I want to express my solidarity with Mr Azeem Rafiq—who has shown great bravery in the face of this injustice—and with all who have been discriminated against in cricket and other sports. Sport should be for everyone. No one should be excluded or belittled because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or disability, and I hope that today will be a landmark in the addressing of these serious issues.
In the light of the leaked racism report—which I hope will be published in full this week—1 hope that the Equality and Human Rights Commission will investigate Yorkshire county cricket club and publish a full set of recommendations for how it will tackle racism in future. We must not forget that it was only when there were financial repercussions and corporate pressure that Yorkshire actually acted; that is simply unacceptable. We also know that, although nearly a third of all cricket players at grassroots level in the UK are from ethnic minority backgrounds, the figure drops to only 4% among cricketers with professional contracts. That too is shocking. I hope that today the Government will set out how they intend to work with the England and Wales Cricket Board to ensure there is independent scrutiny of the sport, so that incidents such as this never happen again and the sport is diversified at all levels.
Chris Philp
I shall try to respond briefly to those further questions from the hon. Gentleman.
I entirely agree that the conduct of Yorkshire county cricket club in trying to brush this matter under the carpet and ignore it was completely unacceptable, and it is right that the chairman and others have resigned. The club’s conduct has no justification whatsoever: it is disgraceful, and we condemn it unreservedly. The point about the transparency of these inquiries is important: they need to take place in public, they need to be open, and the country and Parliament need to be able to scrutinise them fully.
I also agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for wider action in cricket. Clause 10 of the ECB’s own county partnership agreement requires it to increase ethnic minority representation, and we need to hold it to account to deliver that. As for the question of independent oversight of what Yorkshire and the ECB are doing, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is obviously independent, and is now rightly asking questions. The Government fully support that process, and, like Members of this House, will be following and scrutinising it extremely carefully.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I stand in solidarity with the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), and thank him for bringing this issue to the House today. Let me recognise both his constituency and yours, Mr Speaker, by pointing out that the Lancashire league was the first to show that it was possible to have teams that were inclusive and could show an example to the rest of the country.
The issue raised by Matthew Syed in an article in The Times today was “What is the minimum test of credibility?” It is clear that this club has failed that test, but I do not think we should point the finger at just one club. We should be asking where discrimination, inequality and barriers to access exist in other sports and in other parts of life.
I say here, on the Floor of the House, that when we discovered that one of our local councillors in Worthing had posted unacceptable comments on the Patriotic Alternative white supremacist website, we suspended him. There will now be a by-election, and we have a south Asian candidate who is longing to be a Tory councillor. That shows that action can be taken, and whatever our party politics, we need to stand together on this.
The final point that I want to put to my hon. Friend the Minister is this: if we are going to ask the EHRC to take on this particular role in greater depth, it will need extra funding. I suggest that the Government talk to the EHRC to establish how much extra funding it needs and then add it on, so that this does not push aside other parts of the EHRC’s important work.
Chris Philp
I associate myself with the characteristically wise words of my hon. Friend the Father of the House. I agree that we need to stand together, across the whole House, in combating and fighting racism wherever it occurs in our society. The local example given by my hon. Friend was a good illustration of that. The EHRC is of course independent and will make its own decisions about what to investigate, but I think it is clear that the House is encouraging it in its work. It did, I believe, receive a funding uplift not long ago, but its funding arrangements remain under continual review.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing the urgent question. I too want to pay tribute to the bravery and persistence of Azeem Rafiq. He has already given others the courage to come forward, and I am sure that more will do so.
Racism destroys lives, and that is why allegations must be properly, fairly and transparently investigated. The handling of this case is a textbook example of what should not happen. A legal investigation team was second-guessed by the club’s panel, there was a failure to apply the legal tests correctly to the evidence gathered, and Yorkshire even changed the inquiry’s terms of reference part-way through, preventing the investigation team from drawing conclusions about institutional racism. One has to wonder whether it was taking lessons from the Prime Minister on that. Yesterday, Lord Patel took the first steps to begin to right these wrongs. The next step must be that the rest of the board leave their posts. Their role in this shameful fiasco gives them no right to continue to hold positions of power in the club. I, too, hope that the EHRC will formally investigate what has occurred.
Racism has no place in cricket or any other sport, and Michael Holding has said of this case:
“Each sport or industry can try to and put their house in order, but the message has to reach society at large or no real meaningful change can take place.”
Society at large includes all of us here, and it of course includes the Prime Minister. His well-publicised comments in the past have helped to enforce a culture where racism is seen as banter, so it was good to hear the strong words from the Minister today about committing to stamping out racism, but the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State need to understand that words alone are not enough. They must lead by example. Failing to do so gives credence and encouragement to racists.
Chris Philp
I think we should avoid making party political points on an occasion such as this. We should be standing together, as we have been doing, to resolutely condemn racism and to tackle it wherever it is found. That means ensuring that the ECB investigation is independent and transparent, it means supporting the work of the independent commission chaired by Cindy Butts, and it means supporting the EHRC in any work that it does. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks about the board of the cricket club. They bear collective responsibility and I do not see how they can continue.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I wish to thank the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for bringing this urgent question to the House. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like many cricket lovers in this country, I feel a fool. I thought my sport was more colour-blind than most, but it most certainly is not. At Yorkshire, it is clearly institutionally racist, and Lord Patel has the mother of all jobs in turning that once venerable club around. I would like to chide the club about the report, because, despite publicly promising to issue it to myself and to the Government, it has not yet done so. That report needs to be in our hands today.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is more than a Yorkshire problem, and that it is a national problem within cricket? Although I agree that the likes of the ECB must now have a permanent place on the board at Yorkshire to ensure that it is guided to a better place, I think that we also need substantially better whistleblowing procedures in the sport. We also need the likes of Ebony Rainford-Brent and Michael Holding, who are an inspiration not just to cricket but to wider sports and to our society, to be front and centre in cricket’s battle against racism. It is going to be a tough fight, but I truly believe that the whole House will agree that it is one that must be won, out in the open so that we can all see exactly what is going on.
Mr Speaker
I say gently to the Minister that I totally agree that if information is being withheld from a Select Committee that is carrying out its duty, that is a major matter. I hope it will be resolved today on behalf of the Committee.
Chris Philp
I wholeheartedly agree with the Select Committee Chairman’s comments. On the question of the report, the Government have also requested to see it. As of about an hour ago, when I was last briefed on this, we had not received it. I would like to make it clear that the Select Committee and the Government should receive copies of the report and that it should be put into the public domain. I want to make it very clear today from the Dispatch Box that Yorkshire County Cricket Club should do that immediately. My hon. Friend made the rest of his remarks with great eloquence and power, and I agree entirely with every word that he said.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I certainly agree with all that has been said thus far, including what you have said from the Chair, Mr Speaker. Racism has no place in cricket, in sport or in society, period. This shocking episode has come out during the T20 world cup at a time when we should be celebrating all that is good in the game. That being said, Scotland might not have had the results we would have liked in the world cup, but the performance in qualifying was exemplary.
Turning to the important matters at hand, Azeem Rafiq must be commended for his bravery in coming forward and speaking out on Yorkshire’s shameful racist treatment of him. Conversely, Yorkshire’s actions have been disgraceful almost from start to finish. As we have just been hearing, their report remains unpublished. They have been forced into publishing a summary and only then sent a heavily redacted version to Mr Rafiq—a further sign that all was not right. The credibility of some of the report’s findings must also be questioned, with a racist term that was used against Mr Rafiq having been deemed to be “friendly and good-natured banter”. It is clear that Yorkshire have a lot of work to do, but does the Minister have confidence that the ECB is the right body to oversee a culture change in cricket, given that it has been repeatedly warned about this issue for years? Moreover, does he agree with the Health Secretary’s suggestion that if the ECB does not take strong action as a result of these events, it is not fit for purpose?
Chris Philp
I broadly agree with many of the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman has just expressed. I agree that racist abuse of the kind suffered by Azeem Rafiq is certainly not banter. It is racist abuse, and it should be called out and action should be taken whenever and wherever it occurs. In relation to the ECB, I have a high level of confidence in the independent commission for equity in cricket, which is being chaired by Cindy Butts. As I have said, she is a highly respected anti-racism campaigner. The eyes of the country and of Parliament are upon these inquiries, and the EHRC is looking into this as well. We expect them to do their duty.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for bringing forward this important urgent question. As somebody who has played cricket in Yorkshire for the best part of 40 years—sadly not for Yorkshire, but in Yorkshire—I have to say that I have not heard that term expressed on a cricket field or in a dressing room for many decades. Nevertheless, this reflects very badly on the whole of Yorkshire cricket. When we get to the bottom of all this, may I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that those who are responsible for this kind of language are sanctioned, and that the people who have described this language as “banter” also face sanctions?
Chris Philp
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. That language is clearly not banter. Those who used it should face consequences, and those who tolerated it, condoned it and even covered it up and hid it should face sanctions as well.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Can I first join others in condemning the vile language directed at Azeem Rafiq and the blatant culture of racism that has been exposed? It is shocking that, even after all this, this House has requested a copy of the full report and been denied it. The language faced by Azeem was not friendly banter, as has rightly been pointed out. It was racism, plain and simple, and the failure of Yorkshire cricket to recognise it taking place under its nose is just the tip of the iceberg of a much bigger problem. That problem is the normalisation of racism in so many sports such as cricket and football. You only have to ask any young person in Bradford who has ever picked up a bat or a ball about the obstacles they face on a daily basis because of this normalisation. I have listened to the Minister, but the reality remains that we cannot tackle the racism present in many sports if we change only the boards and not the culture. What the Minister needs to do today is to commit to a top-to-bottom review of professional sporting bodies to directly challenge the normalisation of racism.
Chris Philp
I agree that the normalisation of racism is something that we all have to fight. Each and every one of us has a duty and an ability to do that. As far as cricket is concerned, as I have said, I have enormous confidence in Cindy Butts—a highly respected anti-racism campaigner—to lead the independent commission for equity in cricket and sort out the problems that evidently exist there. Across society more widely the Government have a hate crime strategy, we have done a race disparity audit and we have a race disparity unit. We will shortly be bringing forward an online safety Bill, which is designed to clean up the sewer online where so much of that hatred is often spread.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this question and I thank Azeem Rafiq for his bravery. Not only was he exposed to racism and suffered from that, but he was denied an inquiry, and only yesterday was it acknowledged that what he did was whistleblowing. Much of the racism he faced at Yorkshire county cricket club was blatant racism and Islamophobia, and he has said as much. I recognise that the Minister and other members of the Government have stood in solidarity with colleagues across party in challenging the racism in this specific case, and I welcome the appointment of my fellow Bradfordian Lord Kamlesh Patel, but it cannot be left to him to fix this culture on his own.
I appreciate that the essence of this debate is about cross-party unity, but the truth is that for two and a half years we have been waiting for a definition of Islamophobia. No Government advisers have been appointed in two and a half years and the definition provided by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, which the Muslim community stood behind, has been denied by the Government. Given the collegiate nature of this debate, will the Minister and the Government meet with the all-party parliamentary group so that we can reach a definition of Islamophobia? Without that, how do we understand that Islamophobia is rooted in racism, and what do we do to address it?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I repeat my admiration for Azeem Rafiq’s courage in standing up to the appalling racism he suffered at Yorkshire county cricket club. I understand that that is by no means an isolated example. Root and branch change is needed at that club; I hope that the recent appointment of Lord Patel of Bradford is an important first step, but it is only a first step. Root and branch change is needed. Across cricket more widely, the independent commission for equity in cricket, chaired by Cindy Butts, has that mission in mind.
On the more general question, of course we need to create a culture in this country where racism is fought at every step and every stage. That is why we have a race disparity unit. That is why we have a hate crime strategy. That is why we are bringing forward the online safety Bill. In relation to the hon. Lady’s particular question about the definition, the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), is working on that. I will convey the question to my hon. Friend and ask her to make contact urgently with the hon. Lady to discuss that issue.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Yorkshire county cricket club is supposed to represent each and every person of our great county, but these reports show that it has failed our entire Yorkshire community and the whole sporting community. It is right that the board members at Yorkshire who turned a blind eye to racist accusations have resigned, but does my hon. Friend agree that the ECB must now take responsibility for neglecting racism in cricket and that individuals there must also consider their positions?
Chris Philp
I agree with my hon. Friend that the failings at Yorkshire county cricket club are deep and have been long lasting. Of the people responsible, I think some have resigned already, but there are others who, as the shadow Minister and I said earlier, should now consider their position and do the same. My colleague the sport Minister met the ECB last week to raise exactly those issues, to hold it to account and to make clear that the expectation of Parliament and the public is that it takes responsibility for fixing the problems that it has allowed to occur on its watch. We are scrutinising its actions. The public are watching and Parliament is watching; we now expect them to act.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Let me first congratulate my dear hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and thank him for securing this urgent question. We are talking about structural racism and institutional inequality in society. Does the Minister agree that community sports projects run in the community, which bring people of different faiths and backgrounds together, are key to breaking racism in sport? Will he agree to meet successful teams in my constituency to understand the challenges they face?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point to grassroots sport as the place where everything starts and the place where culture is set. I think the person he should meet is the sport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston); he is in Geneva today, but I will certainly pass on that request and I am certain he will readily agree.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
This appalling case follows several high-profile examples of racism in other sports this year. The efforts to address racism in football, for example, through taking the knee have sadly met with a mixed reaction from fans. Although it is clear that we need a new anti-racism strategy across all sports, it is important that that strategy brings everybody with it. What steps have the Government taken to develop such an initiative across all sports?
Chris Philp
In relation specifically to football, in response to what happened last summer, the scope of football banning orders was extended to cover not just racist abuse happening in football grounds, but racist abuse perpetrated by fans online. Quick and decisive action was taken there. The online safety Bill is designed to address racist abuse online more widely, and the hate crimes strategy and the race disparity unit are designed to fight racism in sport and across society as a whole.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with remarks already made in this place. Racism is absolutely unacceptable anywhere. In Scotland we have a useful expression, “We’re a’ Jock Tamson’s bairns,”—we are all John Thomson’s children—meaning that we are all the same. We are all human beings.
I served for 12 years in the Scottish Parliament. For a long time, sectarianism has been a scar on the face of Scottish sport, but I give credit where it is due: the Scottish Government have recognised that and are working hard to tackle it. Some would say perhaps not successfully, some would say successfully, but never mind—the intention is there. May I recommend to Her Majesty’s Government that they talk to the Scottish Government about what has been done north of the border, as it may well help to stamp out the evil of racism in the rest of the UK?
Chris Philp
We always talk to Administrations around the whole United Kingdom, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government’s commitment to stamping out racism in cricket, in sport and anywhere we find it is absolute.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I too am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for raising the important question of racism in cricket in the House. Just yesterday, I met Cricket Wales and heard about the work it is doing in my constituency with the brilliant Miskin Manor Cricket Club to tackle misogyny and inequality at grassroots level. Racism and discrimination in any form is utterly unacceptable, and it cannot be that cricket is allowed to continue as a sport for only the most privileged communities. I ask the Minister exactly what steps his Department will be taking to break that cycle and encourage true diversity in sport. We need deeds, not words.
Chris Philp
Diversity and inclusion run through the entire ethos of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s interaction with sporting bodies and the way it funds sport, from grassroots levels, which the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) mentioned a moment ago, right up to the top. It touches every element of the way we fund and work with sport. On the question of cricket in particular, Cindy Butts’s independent commission for equity in cricket is designed to address exactly the questions the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) rightly just raised.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing this important urgent question. I agree with the remarks that have already been made this afternoon. Racism in all its forms, whether in sport or society, is wrong and needs to be stamped out. We all saw what happened last summer, when the racist attacks on our black England football players took place, and the lack of leadership, as many would describe it, from the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister when they failed to condemn it. To tackle racism requires leadership. If the Minister is going to bring his words to life, he needs to commit today to implementing a proper race equality strategy that will seek to tackle institutional and structural racism across society, including in sport, the labour market and our education system.
Chris Philp
When we saw the racist abuse suffered by those footballers in the final of the European championships at Wembley back in the summer, there was universal condemnation of it. It was universal condemnation followed by action, in the form of the extension of those football banning orders to include online racist abuse, which previously was not covered and is a matter that will be further addressed in the Online Safety Bill in the very near future. On the wider questions, we had the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities give its initial report and the Government will be coming forward with a further plan in that area, which my colleague the Minister for Equalities will be leading.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
May I strongly associate myself with the praise for the courage of Azeem Rafiq, the condemnation of institutional racism at Yorkshire cricket club more generally and the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) about the lack of a Government-backed definition of Islamophobia? There are two other specific things the Minister should focus on. First, last year Sport England found a 14-point gap between the percentage of white British people participating in sport and of British Asians taking part in sport. So it would be good to know what the Minister is going to do to put a target in place to bring that gap down quickly. Secondly, members of Yorkshire cricket club were raising concerns about what was going on, but the governance structures at Yorkshire clearly did not allow those concerns to get to the very top and have an impact. There is, rightly, a campaign for fans to have a seat on the board of football clubs. Is it not time for consideration to be given to fans having a place on the board of cricket clubs as well?
Chris Philp
The question about encouraging participation is a good one. My colleague the sports Minister, who deals with this on a day-to-day basis, in his dealings with various representative sports bodies and in the way he constructs funding arrangements, is resolutely focused on increasing participation in sports across all backgrounds in this country, both ethnic and social; there are other metrics and dimensions besides just ethnicity. That is an important piece of work that he is taking forward. On representation on boards, that is exactly the kind of question Cindy Butts’s review will be addressing. I hope she is listening to today’s proceedings and will take that as an idea for her review to carry forward, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there were catastrophic failings of governance over many years at Yorkshire county cricket club. That is why it is right that the chairman resigned and if anyone is left from that regime, they should resign as well.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
In my constituency, children are flourishing when playing local, grassroots, community cricket, through excellent programmes led by organisations such as Wicketz, which focuses on community cohesion. It is clear, however, that structural inequalities, particularly associated with race and class—as have been writ large by the issues and allegations at Yorkshire county cricket club—will place huge barriers in their way if they want to pursue their dreams and make it as professionals in cricket. What actions is the Minister taking to stamp out discrimination, in all its forms, within cricket and sport in the UK?
Chris Philp
As I set out already, the independent commission for equity in cricket, chaired by a highly respected anti-racism campaigner, is going into exactly those issues and I am sure it will be making concrete recommendations, which the ECB and the Government will be taking very seriously. In addition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is asking questions, as I have said. If the ECB, in its work, does not do what this House expects, the Government are prepared to act.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
More than 50 years ago, Asian cricketers set up their own leagues and tournaments in Yorkshire because they were not getting the recognition in the sport that they deserved for their talent, and they certainly were not being picked up by the head of the sport in their county, which is Yorkshire cricket club. This problem has existed in broad daylight for generations and the ECB has done precious little to deal with it. If we are going to deal with this issue, we cannot look only at Yorkshire cricket club; we need to look beyond it and talk to people about what has been going on in Yorkshire for a very long time—perhaps even look beyond Yorkshire and at other areas where this sort of institutional racism takes place. We need a root-and-branch investigation into what has been going on.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and that is precisely what the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket, chaired by Cindy Butts, is going to be doing. It will be asking exactly those questions that he just posed, not just of Yorkshire county cricket club, which clearly has the most appalling, very long-standing problems—from what he said, it sounds as though they are multi-decade—but across cricket more widely. It is essential that that work happens. Let me just take this opportunity to say to anyone in cricket—Members of Parliament, members of the public, players, coaching staff or parents—who has experienced the kind of appalling and unacceptable racism we have heard about to make sure that they give evidence to this independent commission, so that their voice is heard, their story is heard and action can be taken.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the Minister for his helpful response. Does he agree that the sport of cricket embodies the very sense of multiculturalism and that those who are caught in racist-speak or in racist acts should not have the privilege to don the whites or even to watch the wonderful play? What steps can and will he take not just to reduce racism but to implement a zero tolerance policy on it?
Chris Philp
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that where players are found to have committed acts of racism, they should suffer consequences; a mere slap on the wrist or admonishment is clearly not enough. In that spirit, I understand that the ECB has already suspended from eligibility for England selection one of the players at Yorkshire county cricket club who was guilty of racially abusing Azeem Rafiq. I hope that county cricket clubs, the ECB, cricket clubs more generally and sporting clubs more generally take exactly that kind of action whenever they find examples of this kind of unacceptable behaviour. Let us say as a House today that that is what we expect them to do.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask your advice, as I believe the Minister has just inadvertently misled the House on two occasions in his responses to questions? In July, the Prime Minister accepted Labour’s request to extend football banning orders to online racist abuse. I raised the fact that nothing had been done about that in oral questions to the new Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 16 September. She was not able to answer the question and said that she would write to me. She has actually done so today, some two months on, saying, in effect, that nothing has been done yet because it will require primary legislation to extend football banning orders. So these orders are clearly not in force and action has not been taken. I wonder whether you might advise me as to how the record could be corrected.
Chris Philp
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her point of order. As I said at the beginning, I am covering today’s debate for the sports Minister, and the hon. Lady is quite right to say that it is a commitment—a clear and affirmed one. The Department is currently working on ways to implement it as quickly as possible. I will make sure that my colleagues the sports Minister and the Secretary of State deliver this commitment as expeditiously as they possibly can.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Well, that was speedily done, was it not? Thank you very much, Minister, for responding to the urgent question today. May I ask Members who are leaving to do so in a covid-friendly way? Appropriately enough, we are moving on to a statement by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the covid-19 update.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the further steps we are taking to keep this country safe from covid-19.
We head into the winter months in a much stronger position than last year. Of all the reasons for this progress, the greatest is unquestionably our vaccination programme. Across the UK, the overwhelming majority of us have made the positive choice to accept the offer of vaccines against covid-19. Almost eight in every 10 people over the age of 12 have chosen to be double jabbed, and more than 10 million people have now received their boosters or third jabs. I am grateful to colleagues from all parties for their steadfast support for our national vaccination programme.
Despite the fantastic rates of uptake, we must all keep doing our bit to encourage eligible people to top up their defences and protect themselves this winter. I understand that vaccination can, of course, be an emotive issue. Most of us have taken this step to protect ourselves, our families and our country. Sadly, we have all seen how covid can devastate lives, but we have also seen how jabs can save lives and keep people out of hospital.
Our collective efforts have built a vast wall of defence for the British people, helping us to move towards the more normal way of life that we have all been longing for. The efforts of the British public have been phenomenal, and those working in health and social care have been the very best of us. Not only have they saved lives and kept people safe through their incredible work but they have done the same by choosing to get vaccinated. I thank NHS trusts and primary care networks for all the support and encouragement they have given to their staff to take up the vaccine. The latest figures show that 90% of NHS staff have received at least two doses of the covid-19 vaccine, although in some trusts the figure is closer to 80%.
Although our health and social care colleagues are a cross-section of the nation at large, there is no denying that they carry a unique responsibility. They have that responsibility because they are in close contact with some of the most vulnerable people in our society—people we know are more likely to suffer serious health consequences if they get covid-19. Whether it is in our care homes, our hospitals or any other health or care setting, the first duty of everyone working in health and social care is to avoid preventable harm to the people they care for. Not only that, but they have a responsibility to do all they can to keep each other safe.
Those twin responsibilities—to patients and to each other—underline, once again, why a job in health or care is a job like no other, so it cannot be business as usual when it comes to vaccination. That is why, from the very beginning of our national vaccination programme, we put health and care colleagues at the front of the line for covid jabs, and it is why we have run two consultations to explore some of the other things that we might need to do.
The first consultation looked at whether we should require people who work in care homes to be vaccinated—what is called the condition for deployment. After careful consideration, we made vaccination against covid-19 a condition for deployment in care homes from 11 November. Since we announced that in Parliament, the number of people working in care homes who have not had at least one dose has fallen from 88,000 to just 32,000 at the start of last month.
Our second consultation looked at whether we should extend the vaccination requirement to health and other social care settings, including NHS hospitals and independent healthcare providers. Our six-week consultation received more than 34,000 responses and, of course, covered a broad range of views. Support for making vaccination a condition for deployment was tempered with concern that, if we went ahead with that condition, some people might choose to leave their posts. I have carefully considered the responses and evidence and have concluded that the scales clearly tip to one side. The weight of the data shows that our vaccinations have kept people safe and saved lives, and that that is especially true for vulnerable people in health and care settings.
I am mindful of not only our need to protect human life but our imperative to protect the NHS and those services on which we all rely. Having considered the consultation responses and the advice of my officials and of NHS leaders, including the chief executive of the NHS, I have concluded that all those who work in the NHS and social care will have to be vaccinated. We must avoid preventable harm and protect patients in the NHS, colleagues in the NHS and, of course, the NHS itself. Only those colleagues who can show that they are fully vaccinated against covid-19 will be employed or engaged in the relevant settings. There will be two key exemptions: one for those who do not have face-to-face contact with patients and a second for those who are medically exempt. The requirements will apply across the health and wider social care settings that are regulated by the Care Quality Commission.
We are not the only country to take such steps: there are similar policies for specific workers in other countries, including the United States, France and Italy. We also consulted on flu vaccines but, having considered views that we should focus on covid-19, we will not introduce any requirement to have flu jabs at this stage, although we will keep the matter under review.
Of course, these decisions are not mine alone: as with other nationally significant covid legislation, Parliament will have its say and we intend to publish an impact assessment before any vote. We plan to implement the policy through the powers in the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which requires registered persons to ensure the provision of safe care and treatment. I will shortly introduce to the House a draft statutory instrument to amend the regulations, just as we did in respect of care homes.
This decision does not mean that I do not recognise concerns about workforce pressures this winter and, indeed, beyond as a result of some people perhaps choosing to leave their job because of the decision we have taken. Of course I recognise that. It is with that in mind that we have chosen not to bring the condition into force until 12 weeks after parliamentary approval, thereby allowing time for remaining colleagues to make the positive choice to protect themselves and those around them, and time for workforce planning. Subject to parliamentary approval, we intend to start the enforcement of the condition on 1 April.
We will continue to work closely across the NHS to manage workforce pressures. More than that, we will continue to support and encourage those who are yet to get the vaccines to do so. At every point in our programme we have made jabs easily accessible and worked with all communities to build trust and boost uptake. That vital work will continue, including through engagement with the communities where uptake is the lowest; through one-to-one conversations with all unvaccinated staff in the NHS; and through the use of our national vaccination programme capacity, with walk-in centres and pop-up centres, to make it as easy as possible to get the jab.
Let me be clear: no one working in the NHS or in care who is currently unvaccinated should be scapegoated, singled out or shamed. That would be totally unacceptable. This is about supporting them to make a positive choice to protect vulnerable people, protect their colleagues and, of course, protect themselves. The chief executive of the NHS will write to all NHS trusts today to underline just how vital the vaccination efforts are.
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the heroic responses across health and care. Those who work in health and care have been the very best of us in the most difficult of days. Care, compassion and conscience continue to be their watchwords, and I know they will want to do the right thing. Today’s decision is about doing right by them and by everyone who uses the NHS, so that we protect patients in the NHS, protect colleagues in the NHS and protect the NHS itself. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for, as always, timely advance sight of the statement.
Vaccination saves lives—it is the best protection against this deadly disease and helps to cut transmission—and we of course want to see NHS staff vaccinated. As has been pointed out many times before, there are already categories of staff for whom a hepatitis vaccination is expected. We will look carefully at the regulations and the equality impact assessment, but I urge the Secretary of State to proceed with caution, because the NHS is already under the most intense pressure this winter; waiting lists are close to 6 million; there are more than 90,000 vacancies across the NHS; and the Chancellor failed to allocate in his Budget funding for training budgets to train the medics we need for the future. There will be anxiety at trust level that a policy, however laudable in principle, could exacerbate some of these chronic understaffing problems. We simply cannot afford to lose thousands of NHS staff overnight.
We do welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has listened to representations from organisations such as NHS Providers and others about delaying the implementation of this until after the winter; we welcome that. None the less, there are still organisations, such as the British Medical Association, that have raised concerns about the practicalities of implementing this policy. Helen Stokes-Lampard of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has said that mandatory vaccination is neither “necessary” nor “proportionate”. Will he agree to meet the royal colleges, the BMA, and the relevant trade unions to agree a framework for how this policy will be implemented? Will he outline to the House what success looks like for this policy? Some of the 10% of NHS staff who are not vaccinated include those with medical exemptions, those who are on long-term sick, and those who could not get the vaccine first time round because they were ill with covid. Will he tell the House: what is the actual number of NHS staff who should be vaccinated, but who have not had the vaccine? What is the actual number? In other words, what then does he consider a success? What does full vaccination across the NHS look like for him? Is it 94%, 95%, or 96%? What are we aiming for here? What is his target?
The aim of this policy is presumably to limit those with covid coming into contact with patients, but one can still catch and transmit covid post vaccine, so will the testing regime that is in place for NHS staff—I think it is twice a week at the moment—increase in frequency? Furthermore, thousands of visitors go onto the NHS estate every week, so will visitors to hospitals be asked whether they have had the vaccine or have proof of a negative test?
What analysis has the Secretary of State done of those who are vaccine hesitant in the NHS workforce? What targeted support has he put in place to persuade take-up among those groups? He refers to trusts where take-up is around 80%, so what specific support has he put in place to help those trusts drive up vaccination rates? We know from society more generally that there has been hesitancy, for example, among women who are pregnant and who want to have a baby. That has meant that a significant proportion of those in hospital with covid are unvaccinated pregnant women. A large proportion of the NHS staff workforce are women of a similar age, so is this one of the issues as to why there is hesitancy in certain pockets across the NHS? Will he therefore look at a large-scale campaign to reassure pregnant women of the safety of the vaccine and look at launching an information hub, perhaps a dedicated phoneline, to offer clear advice to women and their partners who might have concerns?
Finally, on vaccination more generally, I do not want to see—I do not think that anyone across this House wants to see—anymore lockdowns imposed on cities such as my own in Leicester, or across Greater Manchester, or Bradford, but in many of these areas, vaccination rates are not good enough. Leicester has a vaccination rate of just around 61%, Bradford 63%, Bolton 69%, and Bury 71%. Generally, on children’s vaccinations, we are only at 28%. On the boosters, there are still around 6 million people eligible for a booster who have not yet had one. The Government’s own analysis shows that people over 70 who are dying from covid or hospitalised should have had a booster, but have had only two jabs.
With Christmas coming, which will mean more mixing indoors at a time when infection rates are still high—one in 50—we are facing six crucial weeks. What more support will the Secretary of State offer now to local communities, such as Leicester, Bolton, Bury and Bradford, to drive up vaccination rates, because nobody wants to see those local lockdowns again.
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his approach to this matter and to issues around vaccination in general. There is no doubt that the general consensus in this House, across parties, has played a vital role in building confidence in vaccines among our citizens, and, once again, I thank him and his party for their approach to vaccination.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of questions. He suggested caution in this approach and he was right to do so. I hope that, from what I have already shared with the House today and what I will continue to share, he will feel that we are taking that cautious approach. For example, if Parliament supports this move, there will be a grace period so that those in the NHS and social care who have not yet chosen to take any vaccine will have plenty of time to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about meeting healthcare leaders. He will not be surprised to hear that, probably like him, I meet healthcare leaders all the time and will continue to do so. I am more than ready to listen to them. Following the consultation that we have had on this so far, we would like to know what further suggestions they have, especially around implementation and take-up.
The right hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about the NHS take-up. The take-up throughout the NHS in England is 93% for the first dose and 90% for two doses, which leaves, I think, 103,000 people in the NHS who are unvaccinated—in other words, they do not have even one jab. As he will understand, it is hard to know what portion of that number will take up the offer of vaccination. If we look at what has happened in care homes since that policy was announced, we can see that there was a significant fall in the equivalent number, and I think that we can certainly expect that here, but, as he has suggested and as came through very clearly to the consultation, it is about making sure that people are encouraged to take a positive choice. From what I said earlier, I cannot be clearer that no one should scapegoat or single out anyone in the NHS or in social care who has, at this point, for whatever reason, chosen not to get vaccinated. This is all about working with them positively, making sure that they have the information that they need. In answer to his question of what more will be done to help people make that positive choice, I say that, as well as information, one-to-one meetings will be offered to everyone who is unvaccinated, if that is what they want. They will have the opportunity to meet clinicians and others to allay any concerns they may have. That includes, of course, those who are pregnant or thinking of one day becoming pregnant. The right hon. Gentleman was right to raise that, too.
Lastly, on the vaccination programme overall, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, as a country, we have done remarkably well. Almost eight out of 10 people over the age of 12 are double vaccinated. That is one of the best vaccination rates in the world, but, as he and others have said, we still need to be working hard to do better. There are still too many people who have not taken up an original offer of a vaccine. We also need to make sure that, for those who are eligible for a booster shot, it is made as easy as possible for them. Some of the recent changes to the booster booking system have led to a phenomenal increase in booster shots—more than 10 million throughout the UK—and the number is growing all the time.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
This is a difficult decision, but it is the right decision, and I congratulate the Health and Social Care Secretary on biting the bullet on this. I congratulate his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), on laying the foundations of the vaccination programme that has made it possible.
When we have a disease that can be transmitted asymptomatically, all of us have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable people, and no one more so than doctors and nurses. I do not know of a single doctor or nurse who do not want to be double or triple jabbed in order to make sure that they are protecting their own patients. Reducing the number of nosocomial infections is one of the big learning points from this pandemic going forward, so this is the right thing to do.,
Exactly the same arguments for the covid vaccine apply also to the flu vaccine. I note that, today, the Health Secretary has not made an announcement about the flu vaccine. Can I encourage him to do so? I wanted to vaccinate NHS staff for flu much more comprehensively than was happening. I think my successor wanted to do it as well. This needs to happen for exactly the same reasons. There is asymptomatic transmission of flu just as there is asymptomatic transmission of covid. I encourage my right hon. Friend to look at that and I would be interested to hear what his plans are on that front.
Sajid Javid
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for today’s announcement. I know that he speaks with huge experience, that he has rightly focused for years on the importance of patient safety, and that he will also welcome this as a patient-safety measure. On his particular question around flu, we did consider that carefully. As he knows, we did consult on it. We looked at the response to the consultation and, after consideration, we were not convinced that we should go ahead with flu at this stage, but the option remains open.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I am guardedly sympathetic to the direction of travel in which the Secretary of State is going, but this obviously could lead to specific skills shortages in different parts of the health service. Can he give us a guarantee that this will be monitored at a granular level, so that each hon. Member can be certain that we do not find out that our own hospitals have developed those skills shortages in vital services?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. It was a concern in making the decision, and I have set out how I have taken that into account. However, I assure him that the issue will be monitored on a day-by-day basis by our colleagues in NHS England and of course the Department itself, and that whatever workforce planning is necessary will be done.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s decision and the cross-party consensus behind it. Medicine is based on science and the vaccine is the best of science, and we should use all the science and tools at our disposal to keep people safe. That is the justification for this policy. I support the extension of the decision in due course to flu. I am glad that the Secretary of State is keeping that option open, and urge him to continue to push on that as soon as is practicable.
May I invite my right hon. Friend to join me in saying that, given that there is cross-party consensus and that the announcement has now been made, this is clearly going to happen; and that all those working in the NHS, including those who have so far been hesitant, should therefore come forward as soon as possible to get the vaccines? They are going to have to get them, so better to get them sooner rather than later.
Sajid Javid
I agree wholeheartedly. May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend again for the work that he has done in Government, and particularly in this Department in laying the foundations of our successful vaccination programme? Without those foundations, we would not have been able to take this positive step today. He is right to point to the fact that vaccines work, and that they are safe and effective. Public Health England estimates that at least 230,000 hospitalisations and more than 100,000 deaths have been prevented by the vaccines. He is also right to say that now that the Government have made our decision, subject to the will of Parliament, this will happen; and that there is already an opportunity from this moment for people to make the positive choice. In doing so, we will help those people in every way that we can.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, but if this is about minimising transmission, surely it follows that we should be reviewing the guidance on facial protection and FFP3 masks. Will he be following the recommendations of the royal colleges and trade unions that frontline staff in care homes and the NHS should be issued with FFP3 masks?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that masks play an important role in vulnerable settings in healthcare and social care already. He points to a suggestion by some that the requirements regarding the type of masks should be changed. I reassure him that we keep this issue under review at all times, and if such a change were necessary, we would support it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is obvious that the booster jab is essential to protect the very vulnerable. I have an elderly family member who is 90 years old and completely bedbound. He lives at home, and cannot get out of the flat and down the steps, and he has been waiting for weeks for his booster jab. He said to me on Sunday, “Where is my booster jab?”. I suspect that across the country it is quite inconvenient to get out to very elderly people who are living at home—not in care homes, but in their own home. These people are being looked after all day by care workers, coming in and out. Will the Secretary of State now give an instruction to health authorities, GPs and district nurses to get out and get the booster jabs into these very old and vulnerable people?
Sajid Javid
What my right hon. Friend has just said deeply concerns me. Anyone who is 90 years old and homebound should have been contacted—certainly at that age. I am assuming that it has been at least six months since the individual’s second jab. On that basis, he should have been contacted and visited by his GP. First, I would like more details about that particular case, if my right hon. Friend will supply them. I would want then to ensure that there are no other instances like that, because someone at that age who is homebound should certainly already have received their booster jab.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for setting out his thinking today. The Government said in the Budget that they planned to invest responsibly. Does he believe that it was responsible to cancel a multimillion-pound contract to supply a covid vaccine that phase 3 trials show may be more effective than the Oxford vaccine, threatening hundreds of jobs in Livingston for no apparent good reason? Will he consider rethinking that unfortunate decision?
Sajid Javid
I know the case to which the hon. Lady is referring. We are clear in our decision, which was made for all the right reasons. I hope that she will understand that I am not at liberty at this point to share those reasons, due to commercial and legal sensitivities, but I assure her that there is absolutely no point in revisiting that decision.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about his proposed method of dealing with this issue in Parliament, and his confirmation that he is going to publish an impact assessment ahead of the decision. That, of course, was not what happened when we voted on the care home vaccination issue, for which, to be fair to him, he was not responsible; the way in which that decision was conducted was an abuse of this House, which was asked to vote on it.
The Secretary of State has just confirmed that of the 40,000 care home staff who the Government estimated were going to leave the care home sector because they had not been vaccinated, 32,000 of them—two days away from the deadline—remain unvaccinated. That is a significant number. When he publishes all the information before we make a decision, will he ensure that as well as the impact assessment he includes a plan to deal with what sounds like it will be something like tens of thousands of NHS staff, who, if the care home workforce are any precedent, are going to end up leaving the national health service? It may be the right decision, but we must have a plan to deal with it. Not having had a plan for the care home sector is causing enormous pressure not just on the care home sector, but on the NHS. I want to ensure that when Members are asked to make a decision, we have all the information at our disposal so that we can make the best possible decision in all the circumstances.
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that parliamentary procedure is vital. As well as publishing the impact assessment before a vote, I can share with the House that we will be publishing an impact statement today. That will be followed by the impact assessment, later. He mentioned the figure of 32,000. That is the latest published number, from the end of last month. Although it has only been a few days since then, the situation is currently quite fast moving because the number might include a number of people—perhaps in their thousands—who are medically exempt but about whom the Care Quality Commission has not yet been informed. He has pointed to the need for the Government to share our thinking or that of the NHS on workforce planning with respect to this new measure. We will set out more details.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
A number of care home owners have said that the damage has already started to be done, and that some of their carers are leaving either their jobs or the sector entirely. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that an impact assessment will be forthcoming, and look forward to seeing the impact statement later today. In response to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), the Secretary of State also mentioned that the Department is monitoring the issue on a “day-by-day basis”. I worry that an impact statement might be too late if we have to wait two or three months for a vote. Will he commit to publishing the data that he is looking at day by day, so that Members of the House can see in real time whether the policy is going to have an impact on the workforce situation in the NHS and care homes?
Sajid Javid
We will be publishing the impact statement today.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Although I want everybody to be vaccinated, I do not support mandatory medical interventions, and I worry about the impact on the already high vacancy rate in the workforce. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must have done some risk assessments, so can he tell me this? As previously asked, how many of the 10% who are un-jabbed does he assess will be subject to medical exemptions? What calculations has he made of the likely job losses overall? When will he publish a list of exactly what personnel are involved? Will it involve cleaners, for example, who do not have medical engagement with patients but are certainly in proximity to them? When will he publish the evidence and the data on the number of patients who have been infected with covid by unvaccinated staff while in hospital?
Sajid Javid
I hope my hon. Friend appreciates that there were a lot of questions. The impact statement will be published today, and the impact assessment will be published before he and other Members are asked to vote. Those documents will help to answer their questions. I also draw his attention to the experience thus far of the condition of deployment measure that we took in a similar way with care homes, and how dramatically the numbers were cut from the point of announcement.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Of course NHS and care staff should all be vaccinated—that is what we expect for our loved ones—and of course they should all be wearing masks. The Prime Minister parading around a hospital yesterday without a mask was a disgrace, and I hope that the Health Secretary is talking to him about that.
I support the questions that other hon. Members have asked about more detail in the impact assessments, because I want to know whether those 10% of un-jabbed staff are in Bristol, or whether the figure in Bristol is 20%, 30% or 2%. If the Health Secretary knows that information, I, as a Member of Parliament for Bristol, should also know it. If all staff and associated people in healthcare settings are to be vaccinated, will there be a covid passport for people to visit hospital and care settings?
Sajid Javid
I gently say to the hon. Lady that she really should not try to play politics with the story that she is perpetuating about the Prime Minister on a hospital visit yesterday. As the hospital trust said, and as I am sure she knows, the Prime Minister and his team followed all the rules that they were required to follow, whether they were about face masks or otherwise, in that hospital. Something tells me that she knows that, but sadly she has decided that she wants to play politics with such an important issue.
As for information on vaccination rates in Bristol, the hon. Lady knows that every region of England has a director of public health. She probably knows who hers is, and they will be able to supply a lot of information. If she is having any difficulty getting that information, I will certainly help her in any way that I can.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I declare my interest as a vaccinator. I support the Government’s position, but will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tell us what assessment he has made of the risk of transmission of coronavirus from an apparently healthy person to a vulnerable person? As with hepatitis B, the only justification for the measure must be that there is a significant risk of transmission.
Furthermore, will he reassess his position on flu following the comments of his two predecessors, which I support? Will he ensure that we do nothing to trespass on the rights of individuals unless it is absolutely essential to keep vulnerable people safe? Finally, will he say why he has gone for 1 April? If this has to be done, it is better to do it quickly. By the spring, we will clearly be past the winter pressures that we are all concerned about.
Sajid Javid
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. On the assessments that we have done, I have shared some information with the House, and there will be an impact statement followed by an impact assessment that will give him more information. It may be helpful for him to know that studies already in the public domain show that against the delta variant, the AstraZeneca vaccine is 65% effective and the Pfizer vaccine is 85% effective in preventing infection. The fewer people who are infected in these settings, the less spread there will be.
I think I have set out the Government’s thinking on flu, but it remains under review. There are many reasons why we have focused on the 1 April date, but the main one is to give those in the NHS who have not yet had a single jab—there are 100,000 of them—to make the positive decision to get vaccinated.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In York, vaccination rates are high at 87%, but transmission rates of covid are also extremely high, and transmission is happening in the community. As a result, directors of public health such as my own are absolutely despairing that the Secretary of State and others in the Department are not listening to public health experts who are asking for the tools to be restored to manage the virus. That is about moving contact tracing immediately into local authorities, where they got on top of the virus and locked it down. It is also about ensuring that greater public health measures are taken—hands, face, space needs restoring in all settings.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady is right to point to the high vaccination rates in York, and everyone involved is to be commended. When it comes to other measures that may or may not be taken, I think the plan A approach that the Government set out is the right one. There may be reasons to take a slightly different approach in certain regional areas, and that is also possible with the right evidence. This is something that we always keep under review.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his clear commitment and for the regular updates that we get in the House. Can he provide an assessment of the availability of the new covid drug molnupiravir? If people get that pill within five days of symptoms, hospitalisation and death rates are cut by 50%. Will the drug be available across the whole United Kingdom, and will the vulnerable classification include the diabetic and the immunosuppressed?
Sajid Javid
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the antiviral drug that he refers to has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. We do have that drug, and since the point of approval last week we have already started deploying it in certain settings across the United Kingdom. We have put an order in for another antiviral, which has had very successful trial outcomes, but it has not received any final approval. If the MHRA independently decides to approve it—of course, that is a decision for the MHRA—the country will be in the fortunate position of having procured that drug, too.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
One of the major objectives behind the successful vaccination programme is obviously to reduce infections, reduce hospitalisations and allow health professionals to focus on other, even more dangerous conditions, including cancer. The Secretary of State will be aware that in 2020, there were 35,000 missed cancer diagnoses. The London School of Economics study shows some 60,000 potential years of life being lost to cancer as a consequence of covid, and it is estimated that the NHS’s diagnostic and treatment services will have to work at 120% capacity for two solid years just to get back to March 2020 levels.
I suspect that the Secretary of State was as disappointed as I was that there was nothing in the Budget to help us to catch up with cancer. Will he follow the Government’s good example on the vaccine roll-out and adopt the same relentless focus on catching up with cancer, with targeted resources and leadership? Will he agree to meet clinicians and those involved in the cross-party Catch Up With Cancer campaign so we can work together to save those tens of thousands of lives, which will otherwise be unnecessarily lost?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the importance of cancer. For all the reasons he set out and more, it has remained an absolute priority of the Government and the NHS throughout the pandemic, despite the huge pressure that the NHS was under. Sadly, he is also right—I have spoken about this, just as he has—that many thousands of people went undiagnosed because they were asked to stay away from the NHS to protect it. We all understand why that happened, but sadly it had an unintended consequence. He is not right, though, to suggest that there was nothing in the Budget or the accompanying spending round to help with that problem. I draw his attention, for example, to the billions of investment in the new community diagnostic centres. There will be more than 100 across England, which will mean it will be much easier and quicker for GPs or others to refer people with suspected cancer for diagnosis. There are other examples, but I hope he is reassured that this remains an absolute priority.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for his statement today and for responding to questions for 40 minutes.
Points of Order
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware of the importance across the country, not least in the north of England, of the long-awaited integrated rail plan. In Hull, we await news on the Government’s levelling-up promises on rail electrification and the eastern leg of HS2, but recent reports suggest that the plan may be published this week, on 11 November. In Transport questions on 4 November, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), said:
“I am delighted to say that the integrated rail plan is not just coming soon—it is now coming very soon.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 1035.]
This evening, the House goes into recess until next Monday. Mr Speaker has repeatedly reminded Ministers of the need to make important policy announcements to this House first. I therefore ask whether Mr Speaker has received notice of any intention by Ministers to make a statement in the House regarding the integrated rail plan and whether Mr Speaker has sought any assurances that such an important statement will not be published while the House is not sitting.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order and notice of it. I certainly have not been given any indication that any statements will be made, other than the one we have just had, but she has made her point very well, and Mr Speaker has made his views clearly known. Whenever that report is published, I hope there will be ample time for Parliament first to question Ministers on its contents.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may not be aware, but as I understand it, the Government told the lobby this morning—but obviously not the House, as yet—that they intend, further to yesterday’s debate and last week’s proceedings, to table a motion, rescinding the decision to set up the special committee and approving the third report of the Select Committee on Standards on the conduct of Mr Owen Paterson, for debate some time next week. Have you had any notice that that is the Government’s intention, or of what day they intend to do that? Obviously we will not have a business statement this week. Is there any suggestion as to whether there will be a business of the House motion to enable that to happen, or how they are intending to do it?
If I may, I make a brief announcement from the Standards Committee, which might be helpful to the House. As part of our review of the code of conduct and its operation, we have decided today to commission a senior judicial figure to advise us on possible changes to the process. We have already taken advice today from Sir Stephen Irwin, who is chair of the Independent Expert Panel. We believe that our present practices guarantee a fair hearing, but we will always consider suggestions for improvements. I hope that is helpful for the House.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it helpful, given that this issue is best done on a cross-party basis, to say, first, that I support and welcome what the Chair of the Standards Committee has just said about his Committee’s procedures. On the first matter he raised, Ministers in the debate yesterday gave an indication that they were not minded to deal with the issues that arose last week. So I deprecate the fact that again these things have been announced outside the House; they should be announced in the House.
We do not have a business statement this week. Notwithstanding that, if the Government intend to bring forward a motion next week to deal with the two matters—to enable the House to take a decision on the Standards Committee report, which is important, and to unpick the committee that should not exist and which the Chair no longer wishes to chair—that is welcome, but it should have been announced in the House in the usual way. I hope that Ministers are able to furnish Members, perhaps by way of written information, before we come back next week with the detail of how they wish to proceed. I think that would be welcomed by both sides of the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to Mr Bryant for his point of order and to Mr Harper for the follow-up point of order. I thank Mr Bryant for his notification. I am not privy to the lobby briefings that take place, but there has been a lot of speculation. If the Government are taking this course of action next week, then you, as Chair of the Committee, need to be given information as quickly as possible. It would be nice if that were the case. There does seem to be a bit of a theme, which is not appropriate, because Parliament needs the opportunity to hear that news first. If the process is going to take the course that it does, it is a shame that it could not have been done a lot earlier. I am also grateful for the comments he has made on the action that his Committee will take, because that is the right process. It should not hang on any individual case, as was clearly happening in this particular instance.
Bill Presented
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Paul Scully, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Dominic Raab, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Nadine Dorries, Secretary Sajid Javid and Secretary George Eustice, presented a Bill to make provision enabling relief from payment of certain rent debts under business tenancies adversely affected by coronavirus to be available through arbitration; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 189) with explanatory notes (Bill 189-EN).
Recognition of Armenian Genocide
Tuesday 9th November 2021
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Recognition of Armenian Genocide Bill 2021-22 View all Recognition of Armenian Genocide Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Her Majesty’s Government formally to recognise the Armenian genocide of 1915-23; and for connected purposes.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Armenia. Many people might not be able to identify Armenia on a map or have any knowledge of atrocities that happened over a century ago, but that is no reason for us not to consider, to remember and to seek to remediate a particularly dark chapter in human history, which has been acknowledged by His Holiness Pope Francis as the first genocide of the 20th century.
The Armenian genocide was the systematic and systemic mass murder of between 1 million and 1.5 million ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman empire, primarily in the years of the first world war between 1915 and 1916 and extending as far as 1923, though large-scale massacres at the hands of the Ottomans go back to the 1890s and 1909. Following the Ottoman invasion of Russian and Persian territory during world war one, and to deter Armenian independence, Ottoman paramilitaries massacred local Armenians and plans were formulated for mass deportation.
In 1915, the Ottoman authorities arrested and deported hundreds of Armenian intellectuals and leaders from Constantinople. Subsequently, on the orders of Talaat Pasha, an estimated 800,000 to 1.2 million Armenian women, children and elderly or infirm people were sent on death marches leading to the Syrian desert in 1915 and 1916. Driven forward by paramilitary escorts, the deportees were deprived of food and water and subjected to robbery, rape and massacres. In the Syrian desert, the survivors were dispersed into concentration camps.
In 1916, another wave of massacres was ordered, leaving about 200,000 deportees alive by the end of 1916. Around 100,000 to 200,000 Armenian women and children were forcibly converted to Islam and integrated into Muslim households. Massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenian survivors were carried out by the Turkish nationalist movement during the Turkish war of independence after the first world war. The Armenian genocide resulted in the destruction of more than two millennia of Armenian civilization in eastern Anatolia.
We knew about these atrocities at the time. The British Government commissioned a parliamentary blue book in 1916 to document the Armenian genocide. It was compiled by Viscount Bryce and the historian, Arnold Toynbee. I read the Hansard of the debates in the Lords at the time, and in particular the speeches of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, a great champion of the Armenian people. He spoke of
“appalling stories of wholesale massacre, of expulsion of great populations from their homes under conditions which could only be described as in most cases slowly dragged-out massacre…on a scale so vast as is scarcely credible in our own time or, indeed, in any time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 1919; Vol. 38, c. 280.]
He recounted details of women and girls thrown off barges on the River Tigris to drown, children burned alive in concentration camps and hundreds of thousands of men uprooted and forced on long marches to be murdered if they did not expire on route. He concluded:
“After all the distractions which the war has brought into the mind of men all over the world in contemplating contemporary history, is it conceivable that we are going to allow these facts to be forgotten; or, if we do not allow them to be forgotten, that we are going to allow conditions to arise again during which their repetition can be possible? That seems to me to be a question which ought to be, and must be, asked at once.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 1919; Vol. 38, c. 285.]
Hear, hear to that, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is why the issue is still so important today.
Part of the problem is that the term “genocide” was not in use then and therefore not applied to massacres such as this back in 1916, and it did not have the international resonance that it does today. The word “genocide” was first coined by the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944. It was first recognised as a crime under international law in 1946 by the UN General Assembly and codified as an independent crime in the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which came into effect in 1951. From that flow all the subsequent international cases on genocide tried in the international court, which includes retrospectively—that is an important point—the Jewish holocaust.
The convention and subsequent UN resolutions recognise that genocide has taken place at all times in human history and that there were prosecutions for the crime even before the term was invented. To date, the convention has been ratified by 149 states, including the UK in 1970, strengthening our country’s global prestige for standing up for human rights and justice.
We know about the Jewish holocaust as a genocide and, since 2001, we have commemorated Holocaust Memorial Day, applied to all holocausts. We acknowledge and mourn the Rwandan genocide of 1994, in which 800,000 Tutsis and Hutus died. The Srebrenica massacre of 1995 has been recognised as genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal, and there are others. However, the UK has yet to recognise the Armenian genocide, despite strong condemnation of it at the time from the British Government as “a crime against humanity”. Churchill referred to the infamous massacre and deportation of Armenians thus:
“The clearance of the race from Asia Minor was about as complete as such an act, on a scale so great, could well be.”
Despite no fewer than 31 countries officially recognising the Armenian genocide, including European partners such as Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and France, which notably recently passed into law the offence of denying that the Armenian killings were genocide, for some reason the UK has failed to follow suit. Earlier this year, the Biden Administration in the US recognised the Ottoman-era Armenian genocide as well. It is therefore surely time for the UK to do the right thing and follow suit.
Let me uniquely quote Hitler, who, ahead of his invasion of Poland in 1939, famously said
“who after all speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
That is the point: we cannot legitimately call out and stand up to genocides that are still going on in the 21st century by side-lining and neglecting the genocides of the 20th century. The refusal to recognise the Armenian genocide risks conveying a dangerous message of impunity that a crime unpunished is a crime encouraged or downplayed. A memorandum from the Foreign Office back in 1999 let the cat out of the bag. It said:
“Given the importance of our relationship (political, strategic, commercial) with Turkey…recognising the genocide would provide no practical benefit to the UK”.
That is not good enough. Glossing over the uncomfortable inconveniences of history is not the basis for strong and constructive relationships with supposed allies in the present day.
Earlier this year, the House rightly voted unanimously to recognise the Chinese genocide of the Uyghur people going in Xinjiang. Every aspect of what happened to the Armenian people deserves the same title and regard. Just as the Uyghur atrocities continue, the recent invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan, which has forced 90,000 Armenians to flee their homes due to the threat of ethnic cleansing, serves as a warning that Armenians remain vulnerable today. Disgracefully, the Azerbaijanis issued a set of official postage stamps depicting exterminators in hazmat suits cleansing Nagorno-Karabakh of Armenians. What more chilling evidence do we need that some countries need to be reminded about the horrors of genocide?
My Bill would require the UK Government formally to recognise the genocide of the Armenians in the period from 1915 to 1923; establish an annual commemoration to victims of the Armenian genocide, which may be part of a wider commemoration of genocides; and ensure that the facts of the Armenian genocide and its relevance are acknowledged in the curriculum, just as we do with other historical genocides. Such an undertaking would help to right an historical injustice; help to advance genocide studies globally; raise public awareness on crimes against humanity; and send out a strong message and assurance to the Armenian community in the United Kingdom that we share and recognise their pain and will stand with them against the revisiting of such crimes in future.
The Bill is strongly supported by hon. Members from at least five parties across the House—I am glad to see some of them in their places—including the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist party and the Scottish National party. It has the backing of the Armenian National Committee. I am particularly grateful to Annette Moskofian, its chair, for all her help and support both for the all-party parliamentary group for Armenia and in preparing the Bill. I also thank the ambassador. I am glad to see and be able to acknowledge the presence of both of them in the Public Gallery.
The Bill is important. The Armenian genocide is not an historical anachronism but an important contemporary issue where, inexplicably, we have failed to read the room internationally. We urgently need to put that right now. Many of us were disappointed with the relatively tame condemnation last year of Azerbaijan’s invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh and the ongoing atrocities committed against Armenian prisoners and Armenians still trying to live in homelands that their ancestors have inhabited for centuries. With the Bill, we have the opportunity to do our bit to help right an appalling historical injustice and, as a leading advocate of human rights on the international stage, send out a clear message that we recognise genocide—wherever and whenever it has been committed—as the worst crime against humanity and that we will call it out, defend the victims and bring the perpetrators to justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tim Loughton, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, John Spellar, Chris Law, Christine Jardine, James Gray, Jim Shannon, Andrew Rosindell, Dr Rupa Huq, Wera Hobhouse, Alan Brown and Chris Stephens present the Bill.
Tim Loughton accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 190).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before we move on, following the earlier points of order about the Committee on Standards, information has now come to me that a motion has been tabled for Monday that will do exactly what Mr Bryant, the Chair of the Committee, said: endorse the Committee’s proposals and rescind the proposals for reform. I do believe it is important that the House gets to know these things as quickly as possible so that it can make all sorts of preparations. It is a shame that that was not made clear earlier.
Backbench Business
Giving Every Baby the Best Start in Life
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of giving every baby the best start in life.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time for the debate. Among all the turbulence created by the pandemic and the lockdown, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate at length the impact of those events on those who are likely to live with its after-effects the longest.
The building blocks for lifelong emotional and physical health are laid down in the period from conception to the age of two. Those first 1,001 days are a critical time for development, but they are also a time when babies are at their most vulnerable. Babies do not yet have the language skills to advocate for themselves, so carers and services must be equipped to do that on their behalf. During the first 1,001 days, babies are also uniquely susceptible to their environment. Chronic stress in early childhood, whether caused by maternal depression, poverty or ill health, has a negative impact on a baby’s development.
Early intervention and prevention to support the wellbeing of babies during this time is strongly linked to better outcomes in later life, including educational achievement, progress at work and mental health. Failing to invest in giving babies the best start in life delivers not only a human cost but an economic one. The total known cost of parental mental health problems per year’s births in the UK is estimated to stand at £8.1 billion.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate on an issue that is close to my heart, having had a lockdown baby at the end of January—he is just over nine months now, and he is very happy and causing all sorts of chaos in my and his mother’s lives. The hon. Lady mentioned mental health, and my constituent Mark Williams has spent many years speaking publicly about the mental health issues he experienced after having his first child. It is extremely important that we wrap care around the mother and the baby after birth, but does the hon. Lady agree that we should also do more to allow fathers to get support with their mental health and to realise that becoming a father is a deeply profound thing and that there is nothing wrong with talking about our mental health as a father after having a child?
Sarah Olney
I congratulate the hon. Member on the birth of his baby, and I hope that all is progressing well. I am grateful to him for raising that point about fathers, and I will come to it later in my speech.
My interest in this topic arose from conversations I have had with constituents who gave birth during lockdown. They told me about the isolating experience of not being able to have their partners in the delivery room with them, not being able to share their new babies with the wider family and not being able to meet up with other new parents to support each other and share their experiences. Thinking back to my own experiences of early motherhood—12 years ago—I remember how much it meant to me to have all those people around me as I recovered from the birth and got used to my new life as a parent. My heart goes out to all those who struggled in isolation during those early months, and I am determined that young families should be prioritised for support as we emerge out of the other side of the pandemic.
The UK Government’s recent focus on investment in the first 1,001 days in their “Best Start for Life” vision and funding is very welcome and will undoubtedly make a significant difference to families. I pay tribute in particular to the efforts of the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who has been unsparing in her work to bring the needs of our very youngest citizens to the forefront of public policy and funding.
One of the most important sources of support for new parents is a health visitor. Even for those who enjoyed the most robust mental health, having sudden responsibility for a tiny and vulnerable new baby who is entirely dependent on them is a source of great anxiety. Having a visit from a trained health care professional who can give them advice, answer their questions and, above all, reassure them is enormously helpful and can make all the difference to their early experience of parenthood.
Although the UK is no longer in lockdown, both access to services and working patterns have changed. Some support services, such as playgroups, have not survived, and some have closed altogether. Children’s centres have reopened, but numbers are limited and places need to be booked in advance, which may mean that the families with the least time on their hands will lose out. The co-ordinators and volunteers at Home-Start Richmond, Kingston & Hounslow have told me about the high levels of anxiety experienced by new mothers unable to access health visitor advice and reassurance. That is impacting new mothers’ confidence and their ability to meet their baby’s needs.
Health visitors are a skilled workforce of specialist public health nurses who have the expertise to provide holistic care to families. As the only professionals positioned to reach every young child before they start school, health visitors play a crucial role in child safety and early childhood development. They identify and manage developmental delay, as well as common and serious health problems. They also provide support around childhood immunisations and advice on infant feeding, safe sleeping and mental health, all of which relieves pressure on NHS emergency departments and specialist services.
However, there is currently no national plan to address falling health visiting workforce numbers. The Government's spending review stated that it
“maintains the Public Health Grant in real terms, enabling Local Authorities across the country to continue delivering frontline services like child health visits.”
In fact, the Government are maintaining the public health grant at a level that is too low for many local authorities to resource health visiting services that can deliver face-to-face visits and the support described in the healthy child programme and other national guidance.
Ahead of the spending review, 700 leading children’s sector organisations were united in their call for investment for 3,000 more health visitors over the next three years. However, I am concerned that £500 million over the next three years will not deliver the Government’s pledge to rebuild health visiting. It is of the most urgent importance that we restore face-to-face health visiting to every new mother as the most essential building block of support to families as they welcome their new babies.
The importance of early home visits by skilled healthcare professionals was highlighted to me by one constituent who wrote to me last summer. She said:
“My baby is now 6 months old and soon after birth he was diagnosed with SMA type 1. If you are not familiar with it, the full name is Spinal Muscular Atrophy and it’s a muscular wasting illness. There isn’t a cure for it and without treatments and proper care the life expectancy of a baby is less than 2 years. He is currently under treatment but, and here is the reason for this letter, every possible centre specialised in physiotherapy, hydrotherapy or other physical activities for disabled people is shut due to Covid-19.
My husband and I were the ones who had to notice something was not right with Peter because, due to Covid, no one came for home visits after birth to see the baby or me. I almost died in child birth and because we were left alone I had to endure 1 month bed ridden due to further complications, once again noticed by me. Only once I was able to walk again we saw something wasn’t right with the baby. If after 2 weeks the health visitor had been able to come home, my son would have started treatment sooner without losing the mobility of his legs.”
I want to talk a little more about the importance of diagnosing and treating perinatal mental health. Maternal suicide is the leading cause of direct deaths within a year of pregnancy. An estimated one in four women experience mental health problems in the first 1,001 days after pregnancy. While depression and anxiety are the most common perinatal mental health problems, other conditions include eating disorders, psychosis, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. One in 10 fathers is also affected by perinatal mental health problems. Of the 241 families that Home-Start Richmond, Kingston & Hounslow supported during the most recent year, 66% were experiencing mental health difficulties, including post-natal depression, anxiety, depression and chronic mental health conditions.
I was privileged to be able to visit Springfield University Hospital in Tooting recently to meet the perinatal psychiatry team for the South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust. I was extremely pleased to hear about the work the trust is doing in successfully supporting new mothers who struggle with their mental health, and particularly that it was able to maintain its services during the lockdown and after. Akvinder Bola-Emerson, the clinical services lead for perinatal psychiatry, stressed in particular the need for peer support but also the importance of health visitors, whom she described as the “eyes and ears” of perinatal mental health services.
The visit highlighted for me that we also need better provision for new and expectant fathers. Currently only mothers can be formally diagnosed with a perinatal mental health problem. Springfield provides services for fathers, but it is currently able to identify mental health issues in fathers only when they accompany a mother who is attending the hospital for perinatal mental health issues.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate, and she is making some very important points. Does she agree that one of the worst situations expectant parents can find themselves in is when there is a miscarriage and that parental leave for such parents would be a welcome reform?
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right that there are a large number of events and incidents surrounding pregnancy and birth—as I know from my own experience—that can cause huge distress, and it is right that mothers and the people supporting them, and fathers as well, get the support they need, including statutory leave from employment for the time it takes to come to terms with the miscarriage. That is certainly something we should be looking at.
We know that impending fatherhood can be a cause of great anxiety for men, and more services need to be developed to support them. We also know that over a third of domestic violence starts or gets worse when a woman is pregnant. I would speculate that some of that is attributable to undiagnosed and untreated mental health conditions in expectant fathers, which underlines the need to do more to support them.
In addition to health visiting and perinatal psychiatry, support for children and their families throughout their early years is vital for enhancing children’s prospects at school and beyond. Evidence shows that effective integration of services in the earliest years can bring broad benefits. For example, Sure Start children’s centres are shown to decisively reduce hospitalisations during childhood. However, 1,300 children’s centres have closed since 2010, and recent research has shown that 82% of parents of young children have struggled to access early years services. I am pleased that the Government have now committed £80 million to introducing family hubs to 75 local authorities across England, and £50 million for parenting programmes. However, we need more information on what family hubs can provide, and I would particularly like to ensure that health visiting and mental health support are included.
The importance of the right support in the early years was brought home to me after a recent meeting with primary headteachers in my constituency. I heard about how difficult it is for nursery and reception-age children to settle into class and to get used to spending time with other children and not spending all day at home with their parents. For adults, lockdown has been 18 months of inconvenience, after which we expect to be able to pick up the threads of our former life. However, some young children who started nursery this term will have spent up to a third of their life in lockdown, and we cannot yet know what the long-term impact will be.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Is my hon. Friend alarmed, as I am, by the fact that domestic violence has increased during lockdown, which has particularly affected young or very young children? The Government need to look at the backlog of cases that have arisen through the lack of attention to domestic violence, or inability to look at it, during lockdown, as it did not really come to our attention.
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and incidents of domestic violence during lockdown are a matter of grave concern. We know there is a clear link between domestic violence starting or worsening and a pregnancy in a family. That issue needs a huge amount of attention; more mental health support for both partners would help a great deal.
The lockdown will have increased disparities in educational outcomes between those from poorer backgrounds and their richer classmates, and I call on the Government to do more to provide catch-up funding to our schools, and allow them to spend it on a greater range of services. Local headteachers tell me that funding can be allocated only to academic tuition, and that they have identified many children, including the very youngest, who need mental and emotional support to help them in school.
I will conclude by saying thank you to everyone who has talked to me about their experiences in this area, but particularly our health visiting and perinatal mental health teams, who do so much good and valuable work for new families. I also acknowledge the huge contribution made by the voluntary sector in supporting new families, in particular the work of Home-Start, which provides an excellent network of support. It takes only a small amount of encouragement, a little word of advice or a sympathetic listening ear to give a new parent confidence, but it can make a world of difference to their children. A small investment in the beginning of life can reap huge rewards, not just for individual children and their families but for whole communities, and the right start can enhance not just individual educational achievement and wellbeing but reduce risky and antisocial behaviours. Few pounds could be better spent, or yield a more valuable return, than those invested in our youngest citizens.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in this important debate, and I congratulate her and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) as fellow co-sponsors and tireless fellow campaigners for giving every baby the best start in life.
Despite the rough and tumble of politics, there are times when colleagues from all parties in the House come together. Early years is one such cross-party issue. Over the past 11 years in Parliament, I have been proud to work with many colleagues on the early years. The hon. Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), my stalwart and long-standing hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and for Winchester (Steve Brine) have all been amazing campaigners for the earliest years, as has the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). The former Member for Birkenhead, Lord Field, and the former Member for East Dunbartonshire, Jo Swinson, have been great allies, as have all those Members who supported the all-party group conception to age two: first 1,001 days, and Ministers on the inter-ministerial group on early years family support from 2018-19.
It is fantastic that since the 2019 general election, the early years agenda has received fresh support from new colleagues such as my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I also pay tribute to the late Baroness Tessa Jowell. She and I worked together on the 1,001 critical days agenda, and she campaigned for it to be introduced as part of the sustainable development goals at the United Nations. I must also mention the superb work of the Royal Foundation and its Centre for Early Childhood. The commitment from Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge and her team has generated fresh attention for ensuring that every baby gets the best start in life.
This subject has been my personal passion for more than 20 years, from chairing the Oxford parent-infant project, to setting up the parent infant partnership UK, and the Northamptonshire parent infant partnership, establishing the 1,001 critical days manifesto and the all-party group conception to age two: first 1,001 days, and chairing the inter-ministerial group in the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). July 2020 marked a huge opportunity when the Prime Minister commissioned the early years healthy development review and invited me to chair it. Since then, we have been able to build on years of cross-party support, and a wealth of knowledge and expertise from the early years sector, to create a new vision for the 1,001 critical days initiative that was launched in March this year. The review has put the baby’s needs at the centre of all our work. Through meetings with parents and carers, virtual visits to local areas, and detailed discussions with parliamentarians, practitioners, academics and charities, we heard about the experience of early years services and support, and about what is going well and where change is needed.
First and foremost, we learnt from every parent and carer of their strong desire to be the best parent they can be, but we also learnt that new prospective parents often struggle to find the support they need. We heard from many parents who had deep concerns about their own or their partner’s mental health, and struggled to get timely support. We heard from many mums who desperately wanted to breastfeed but gave up because the support was not there. Parents told us how frustrating it was to keep telling their story over and over again to different people. Their cry was, “Why don’t you people ever speak to each other?” Equally, we heard from professionals and volunteers who said it would have been so helpful for them if they had known before meeting a new parent or carer about previous trauma or health challenges.
We heard from many dads about how excluded they felt from what they saw as “mum-centric” services. Some felt that they should not ask for any support for themselves, while others just felt sidelined and, in some cases, traumatised by what their partner had gone through in childbirth. We heard from foster carers of babies how little information came their way when caring for a vulnerable baby. More specifically, in 40 cases of babies who went into foster care, only two arrived with their red book. Those carers had no formal information about that baby’s early traumas that had caused them to be taken away from their birth family.
We heard from same-sex couples about unhelpful assumptions by early years professionals about their relationship and parenting roles. We heard from black mums about how particular cultural and health issues can be overlooked by busy staff. We heard from single mums and single dads about how they can feel isolated, and sometimes stigmatised, at such a life-changing time. We heard from many parents with particular challenges, such as not speaking English well, concerns about possible disabilities, experiencing violence in their lives, or other significant challenges. We heard that support is inconsistent and sometimes hard to access.
It comes as no surprise that the covid pandemic has been an extraordinarily difficult time for new families who, through no fault of their own, have not been able to access services or support in the normal way. The “Babies in Lockdown” report from the Parent-Infant Foundation, Best Beginnings and Home-Start reveals that nearly seven in 10 parents felt that changes brought about by covid were affecting their unborn baby, their baby, or their young child, and that 35% of parents would like help with their concerns about their relationship with their baby. The report also found that nine out of 10 parents and carers experienced higher levels of anxiety during lockdown.
Despite the many stories of difficulties, we also heard fantastic examples of good support for families. Many health visitors went the extra mile to keep in contact with families who were struggling, and many families found it incredibly reassuring to be able to text or Zoom their health visitor at short notice. Parenting programmes have been a huge support to many families, and we virtually visited Camden’s Bump to Baby programme, where classes continued online throughout the pandemic, and have proved incredibly popular with new parents and carers who are also helped to make friendships outside the programme. Dads gave us positive feedback on services that gave them space to share their experiences, without worrying about whether they were taking the focus away from the other partner’s health and wellbeing.
In lockdown, we also heard about excellent online and virtual services, and how they came into their own. One such service, Parent Talk, provided by Action for Children, reported a 430% increase in the number of parents seeking advice online during the pandemic. The Baby Buddy app, produced by Best Beginnings, has seen a huge take-up of its digital and virtual advice for everything from breastfeeding to nappy changing, and from sleep management to mental health concerns. Many local authorities are now determined to improve their joined-up offer to new parents and carers, so I certainly feel that we are pushing against an open door.
Our report, “The Best Start for Life: A Vision for the 1,001 Critical Days”, was launched by the Prime Minister in March this year. It contains six action areas. The first is that every local area should publish its own joined-up set of start for life services so that every parent and carer knows where to go for help.
The second is a welcoming hub for every family, in the form of family hubs. Those will build on the excellent work done by the late Baroness Tessa Jowell and others on creating Sure Starts, but the benefit of family hubs is that they will be the place where every family goes for support and advice, including from midwives, health visitors, mental health support workers and breastfeeding advisers within their walls. Not only will those services be physically available but they will be virtually available through the family hub model.
The third action area is a digital version of the red book, which will provide parents and carers with a record of their baby’s earliest life, from lovely moments such as their first tooth and their first steps, all the way to records of immunisations and professional support interventions.
The fourth action area is about the workforce. We all know that health visitors provide critical support for new parents and carers, but we also know that their case load can be very heavy, and parents and carers have told us that they really want more continuity of care and more frequent contact in the earliest years. We are therefore working with health visitors and local areas to consider resourcing levels and training needs, and whether a mixed-skill workforce can provide that greater continuity of care.
The fifth action area is to continually improve the start for life offer. A key action will be to establish parent and carer panels in every local area to ensure that the voices of families are heard when services are designed and improved. We are looking at improving the collection of data, at the evaluation of different interventions and at the need for proportionate inspection of the start for life offer in each area. A final but critical action area is to ensure that there is sound leadership, both locally and nationally, to drive the ambition to give every baby the best start for life.
I want to say a huge thank you to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), and to all the review’s sponsoring Ministers, past and present, for their support for the review. I am sure that it was their commitment, combined with the support of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, that ensured such a positive spending review settlement for the earliest years, with £82 million for family hubs, £50 million for parenting programmes, £10 million for the start for life offer, £50 million for breastfeeding support, £100 million for infant and perinatal mental health support, £10 million for new workforce pilots, and a £200 million uplift for the supporting families programme. I believe that £500 million is a transformational sum that will allow many more parents and carers access to the vital help they need to give their baby the best start for life.
Why does this matter so much to our society? Well, we know that it is in the period from conception to the age of two when the building blocks for physical and emotional health are laid down. Babies born into secure and supportive homes will usually go on to become happy children who do well at school and grow into adults who cope well with life’s ups and downs and are more likely to hold down a job, have better health outcomes and form healthy relationships themselves. On the other hand, we know that in families under pressure, particularly where there is partner conflict, substance misuse, poor mental health or deprivation, the consequences for a baby’s developing mind in that critical early period can be far-reaching and very harmful.
Prevention is not just kinder; it is also significantly cheaper than cure. For example, the NHS has estimated that for every one-year cohort of births in England, the long-term cost of lack of timely access to quality perinatal mental health care is £1.2 billion to the NHS and social services and more than £8 billion to society. That is for every year’s cohort. We also know that up to 30% of domestic violence begins during pregnancy, and that health issues such as tooth decay and childhood obesity cost hundreds of millions of pounds every year in health-related expenses. We believe that those things could be significantly reduced by better education and support for new families.
With these six action areas, I think we can transform our approach to early years support and services, improving the health outcomes and life chances of the youngest in our society. Just as we need to level up economic opportunity across the country, we must also focus on where it begins—that critical period of human life from conception to the age of two.
Jonathan Edwards
The right hon. Member is giving a very comprehensive speech. Does she also agree that the Government should look at the issue of shared parental leave? The stats seem to indicate that fewer than 4% of eligible fathers take up the Government’s current policy. The Government need to look at that, and the forthcoming employment Bill may be an opportunity to strengthen those provisions.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be fantastic for families and babies if more dads took up shared parental leave. Of course, as he will know, that has been legislated for. Unfortunately, as he points out, far too few fathers have taken it up to date. I certainly wish that more would have the confidence to do so.
I believe that all colleagues across the House would agree that the world in which we all want to live is one where every baby is nurtured to fulfil their potential, where good lifelong emotional wellbeing is the norm, where our society is productive and co-operative, and where every one of our citizens has the chance to be the very best that they can be.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time to debate this incredibly important subject. I also commend my colleagues, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), for setting out so eloquently and passionately the case for focusing on this issue. I had hoped that, as co-sponsors of the debate and co-conspirators on this issue, we would not just repeat one another’s arguments, and I believe that, without co-ordinating in any way, we will not. We agree on the problem—we agree on the challenge and the importance of this issue—but today I want to focus on the enormous challenge presented by poverty in overcoming many of these issues.
We know from international evidence that so many important life outcomes, from health to wealth and wellbeing, have their origins in early childhood, but the reality is that not all childhoods are equal. If we truly want to give every child the best start in life, we must tackle poverty and economic disadvantage. There is substantial evidence demonstrating the damaging, stigmatising and often lifelong impact of experiencing poverty in childhood. It affects cognitive skills, social and emotional development, physical health, mental health, educational outcomes, employment prospects, the likelihood of being in poverty as an adult, and life expectancy.
Recent reports have highlighted starkly that the impact of poverty begins in very early childhood, or even pre-birth. For example, last month, MBRRACE-UK— Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK—reported that
“babies born to women living in the most deprived areas are twice as likely to be stillborn, and at a 73% excess risk of neonatal death compared to babies born to women living in the least deprived areas”.
Likewise, national child mortality database research published in May found a clear link between deprivation and child death. It concluded that around 700 fewer child deaths per year—a fifth of all child deaths—might be avoided if children living in the most deprived areas had the same mortality risk as those living in the least deprived. Poverty is literally killing children.
Wera Hobhouse
Is the hon. Member as concerned and shocked as I am about data showing that a mother from an ethnic minority background has a much higher likelihood of experiencing complications during pregnancy or birth that result in their baby being either stillborn or born with a disability? Does she agree that we need absolutely to focus on such discrimination and disadvantages?
Catherine McKinnell
Yes, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. As the Chair of the Petitions Committee, I can say we received petitions on that issue and debated it in Parliament. We have been given some assurances from the Government, but it is imperative that all of us in this House ensure an improvement in both the statistics and the reality for those who experience it.
It is well established in education research that on average the longer a child has been disadvantaged the worse their performance will be at school, particularly in key stage 4 assessments. Even where children from more deprived backgrounds do achieve the same results as their better-off peers, they are still likely to have lower lifetime earnings. How unbelievably disheartening is that?
Sadly, child poverty is getting worse. Government statistics on households below average income published this spring show just how many families were struggling before covid-19. In 2020, 200,000 more children were pushed into poverty compared to the previous year, using the measure of relative poverty after housing costs. That means 4.3 million children living in poverty: real children living in real hardship. I know the Government do not readily accept the concept of relative poverty, but Ministers should listen to the recommendation of the Work and Pensions Committee to end the sole focus on absolute poverty and look at broader measures. After all, if the Government are committed to levelling up, improving the position of a child in Newcastle relative to a child in Middlesex is surely more relevant to comparing a child in Newcastle today with a child in Newcastle 11 years ago.
Even if we use only the Government’s preferred absolute poverty measure, the proportion of children living in poverty rose by an average of four percentage points in every north-east local authority area between 2014-15 and 2019-20, while the number of children living in absolute poverty across the north-east rose by more than 21,000 during that period. The latter point is particularly concerning as absolute poverty is a measure that has always tended to naturally improve over time as living standards rise, but in the north-east it is going in the opposite direction. As troubling as the pre-pandemic figures are, none of that should come as a surprise given the direction of Government policy over the last 10 years. Indeed, the country went into the pandemic expecting to spend £36 billion less on social security because of Government welfare policy. That has to come from somewhere, and it is coming from the poorest pockets and the mouths of children.
Just as Government action can lead to increases in child poverty, it can bring them down too. We have seen it before, especially under the previous Labour Government. What we need is a cross-governmental strategy for tackling child poverty, something groups such as the North East Child Poverty Commission and the Child Poverty Action Group have consistently called for. It needs to go a lot further than anything we have heard from the Government to date. It should include a welfare system that prevents and reduces poverty, giving all families a dignified safety net when they are going through tough times. It should tackle unemployment and low-paid insecure work, the kind of work that means most children living in poverty are now in working families. We need concerted action to support families with the cost of major outgoings: energy, housing and childcare.
All those things were problems pre-pandemic and they still need to be addressed, but covid-19 and the lockdowns of the last year-and-a-half have brought additional challenges for parents and young children. For the past 18 months, the Petitions Committee, which I Chair, has investigated the pandemic’s impact on new parents and children, and expressed its deep concerns that it is being overlooked by the Government. Our first report in July 2020 highlighted the need for urgent catch-up investment to help new parents access support services disrupted by the pandemic, and to do more to ensure employers meet their health and safety duties towards pregnant women. Unfortunately, the Government rejected almost all our recommendations, saying that support was “sufficiently generous” for
“the vast majority of parents”.
That, however, did not match up with all the evidence we heard from new parents about their struggles. We heard that crucial support for children’s wellbeing and development was being missed, that there were concerns about employers not meeting their health and safety duties towards pregnant women, and about additional difficulties in accessing childcare. I fear that the Government know that the impacts of all of that are long term, and that by the time the impacts of their failure to invest will be seen, they may be well gone, or at least their failure forgotten.
This year the Committee decided to revisit those issues with a follow-up report, but unfortunately it is already clear that we are seeing the impact of the Government’s lack of action in this area, including: children coming into early years classes behind in their social development; increasing rates of poor mental health among new mothers; and childcare providers going out of business. The Committee found that new and expectant parents’ access to support has remained severely limited. Many have lost out entirely on the crucial window of support available in the early months of their child’s life, and issues around children’s development and parents’ mental health will have been missed. I have said repeatedly that there is a good reason why we wrap a blanket of support around new mums and their babies—and dads, too. It is needed at the time and the long-term impacts of not providing it are well known. Urgent investment is needed to provide catch-up mental health and health visiting support.
The Government have failed to deliver on stronger workplace discrimination protections for new and expectant mothers, and they have repeatedly promised to do that. That is especially concerning as the economic impact of the pandemic continues to be felt. I pressed the Prime Minister on that at the Liaison Committee, and I urge the Government to pass those protections into law as soon as possible. If mums are being discriminated against, it is bad for their children, too.
The pandemic has also exacerbated pre-existing problems in the early years sector. Government financial support has been welcome, but it has not prevented many early years providers seeing a significant impact on their finances, with low pay for staff, many of whom are mums too, and high costs for parents. The pandemic may well contribute to or even accelerate an ongoing erosion of provision. I therefore urge the Government to consider a review of early years funding to ensure it is affordable and meets the needs of new parents seeking to return to work. They could set out a clear vision for our children, our undervalued early years and childcare workforce, and ensure that no parent must choose between their child and their career.
Before I conclude, I want to ask the Minister some specific questions on the Government’s proposed family hubs. Given that there are 152 upper-tier councils in England and there will be 75 family hubs, it looks like just under half of local authorities will benefit from the programme. Have the Government already determined the criteria by which the funding will be allocated? We assume it will be based on some measure of deprivation, but will the Minister confirm that? May I urge the Government not to continue their approach of forcing overstretched local authorities to commit their scarce resources to making funding applications? We should not be pitting local authorities with high levels of deprivation and child poverty, such as those in the north-east, against each other to receive support. How does the Minister see family hubs working in large local authority areas, often with poor public transport links? For example, getting across Newcastle with young children to access services via public transport can be challenging, particularly for my constituents in the Outer West. Large rural areas like Durham and Northumberland face their own challenges. I hope when the Minster responds, she will confirm that services will be “within pram-pushing distance” of the families they are intended to help, as was the aim of the Sure Start programme.
In conclusion, the crushing pressure that poverty places on families and children is clear. It impacts our children’s lives directly when parents and carers do not have enough money to meet their children’s material, social and educational needs. It impacts on them indirectly by creating stress, insecurity and conflict at home.
These adverse childhood experiences inevitably influence children’s development and wellbeing, creating a vicious cycle. To escape that cycle, we need a coherent, cross-departmental anti-child poverty strategy, backed by proper investment. It is fair to say that we are pretty far from that at the moment when the Government often seem unsure about which Minister to send to respond to child poverty debates. Such pervasive child poverty is not inevitable. The last Labour Government reduced child poverty and the concerns about child welfare that it creates. We can do it again and truly give every child the best start in life. We just need the Government to care truly about achieving it.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the other colleagues who secured the debate. It is great to be having a debate about early years again; we are having a few of them these days. It never happened when I first became a Member of the House and has not for much of my 24 years here. It is really fantastic that such a relevant and important subject to so many of our constituents is now commonplace in the Chamber and that there is real, concerted action. We may disagree over the extent or detail of that, or the amount of money that is going into it, but I think we all agree about the direction and emphasis.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), and I agree with much of what she said. It is also a great pleasure—but a great challenge—to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is such a guru on this subject that anything the rest of us say subsequently will pale into relative irrelevance, but I will give it a bash anyway.
I want to recount an episode that happened when I was Children’s Minister 11 years ago. I used to spend a week of the summer recess going out on the frontline with some of the workforce, without any fuss and without any cameras, just to see what their job involved at first hand. I remember my first time: I spent a week in Stockport going out with social workers, knocking on doors, seeing cases at first hand, manning the overnight emergency helplines, sitting in on morning meetings and liaising with police and others. It was a fascinating experience, which I recommend to any other Member. I think it should be compulsory for all Ministers and their officials to spend time with the professionals over whose regulations that Department has responsibility. That is where we find out the most. I used to find out most of my information from sitting down with groups of children in care, as the Minister responsible for children in care; that is where we find out what is really going on.
A really good social worker took me to my first case, and I think that she deliberately chose the most challenging case in the most run-down, depressing part of the town. We went into a house that was a complete mess. There was a young mum with three young boys. There were no carpets on the floor. There was virtually no furniture, other than what had been dumped in the garden. There was no food in the house—the fridge was bare—other than what the kids literally were eating off the floor. There were bare mattresses for beds and piles of dirty clothing.
One of the kids had had a really dire toothache for some weeks, and the social worker had gone on at the mum about getting the child some treatment for it. On the day that we visited, the mum had had a toothache problem. On the previous day, she had gone down to the emergency dentist and had her tooth fixed, but she did not have the presence of mind to take her son who was suffering from toothache along with her.
What does someone do with a family like that? Plenty of professionals had been going in and out of that house to offer different bits of help, but that mum required some serious support. She had been abused as a child, as is so often the case. The father was not on the scene and she had been subject to domestic abuse, as is so often the case. We all know, extraordinarily, that about a third of domestic violence starts during pregnancy. So there she was, highly vulnerable and desperately in need of support, but her life was not improving and the life chances of her children were certainly not. So what does someone do?
Those children could have been taken into care. They probably would have been split up, going to different families across the area and perhaps beyond. The mum would have been completely distraught at that prospect. Inadequate though she was, for whatever reason, in the care that she provided, she absolutely doted on those kids and they doted on her, so what was the solution? That is the sort of judgment of Solomon that our social workers have to make day in, day out when dealing with those really complex, challenging cases.
That case, which I will remember for the rest of the time that I am involved in these areas, encapsulates all the challenges that we face in children’s social care and all the challenges relating to the whole issue of the best start in life and the project that the Government have undertaken, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. That is why it is so important. One of the answers is to have a joined-up approach locally, with all the different professionals working together as a team to encapsulate mum and family. It is about having somebody who can literally take her by the arm and march her down to a children’s centre to get family support and advice or march her down to the dentist with little Johnny to make sure that he gets dental treatment—somebody to take control of people’s lives and get them on the straight and narrow until they can fend for themselves and their family again. We need local professionals working as one, with a lead person who has responsibility, who has all the joined-up knowledge about what needs to happen, and who has the force and confidence to make it happen.
We also need the Government to be joined up at the centre. I remember that when we were trying to get the early intervention grant sorted, we were getting the run- around from officials because the fund would affect various Departments. We were told, “Oh, we can book you an appointment with the Minister in that Department in a few weeks’ time, and then perhaps you can have another meeting with that Minister.” In the end, the only way my co-Minister Sarah Teather and I got the problem sorted was by ringing up all the Housing, Health, Home Office and other Ministers responsible. We all had pizza in the Adjournment, agreed what the strategy should be, went back to our Departments the following morning and told our civil servants, “This is what we want to happen.” All the civil servants said, “That’s not the way we do things here, Minister,” to which we all said, “Tough. Do it.”
The problem is that government does not work in a joined-up way, which is why the approach that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire has taken is really pioneering. I pay tribute to her for the way she has brought things together, forcing Departments to sit down, work together and have a strategy that works as one. That is the only way we will sort the problem sustainably for the future, which is key to the whole approach.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park has set out the problems: the £8.1 billion that perinatal mental illness costs each year; the £15 billion that we spend each year in this country on child neglect, particularly in relation to younger children; the £6 billion that childhood obesity costs each year, which is likely to rise to £9 billion within the next few years. As well as the cost of domestic abuse and safeguarding, we are spending £20 billion to £30 billion-plus each year as the cost of getting it wrong for some of the most vulnerable children and their families. Spending a fraction of that on solutions to get it right will be absolutely transformational.
Let us look at some research from the Institute of Health Visiting. I will always speak up for health visitors; in my view, frankly, they are one of our emergency services. They have been diverted too often during the pandemic to other parts of the health service, and their absence has been greatly felt. There is a shortage of several thousand: the institute says that we need at least 3,000 additional health visitors over the next three years, and I completely agree. One of the great achievements of the Cameron Government was building up the health visitor workforce, which has since diminished, alas. A survey of health visitors shows that 81% have seen an increase in perinatal mental illness, 80% have seen an increase in domestic abuse, 80% have seen an increase in child behaviour problems, 72% have seen an increase in poverty affecting families and 71% have seen an increase in child safeguarding.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North is right, too. Research from Action for Children shows that
“only 57% of children from poorer backgrounds were ready for school at age five, compared to 74% of their better-off peers…82% of parents of 0-5s in England struggled, or were unable, to access vital non-childcare early years services…78% of parents who were unable to access a service were worried about potential impacts on themselves or their children. The most common concerns were children’s development, and parents’ own mental health and wellbeing.”
That is the cost of failure, and that is why it is so important to have a co-ordinated, joined-up approach. One statistic that has always stayed in my mind is that if a 15 or 16-year-old at school suffers from depression or some form of mental illness, there is a 99% likelihood that their mum suffered from some form of perinatal mental illness or depression—the link is that close. We should be spending so much more time and resources on looking at the pre-school period, particularly from conception to age two, because that is where it all goes pear-shaped. We see the consequences throughout childhood, and they so often carry on into adulthood and stay with the person for the rest of their life. So of course we should be doing more about this, and I am glad that at last the Government have recognised that that is where all the action—or a lot more of the action —needs to be focused.
On health visitors, I agree with the Local Government Association, which has said it is important for the Government to work
“on a children’s workforce strategy to support the development of a well-qualified, well-resourced workforce with the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience to work in a preventative way. This needs to be an integrated strategy between local authorities, health, education and community and voluntary sector partners, which links effectively with established programmes, such as Supporting Families, Sure Start and Family Hubs and puts the child’s journey at the centre.”
That strategy, it adds, needs to be properly resourced. Well, we are having a lot of extra resource. We could all argue that it is not enough, and the more Opposition Members argue that it is not enough the more I will welcome that, because we could always do with more money; but I think this has been a good start.
Let us look briefly at some of the action areas. One of them is the provision of seamless support for families. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire has said, we need to have a lead person who knows all the facts and history of the family involved, and who has the power to say, “This is what needs to happen for that family”, and make sure that it happens. Then there is the welcoming hub for families. I can answer the earlier question from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North by saying that 75 family hubs have been identified, in about half the number of local authority areas. I hope very much that the other 75 will follow very quickly, so that there is at least one per authority.
Can we get away from the idea that these hubs are a challenge to, or in place of, children’s centres? They are building on the experience of children’s centres and are complementary to them, but they are not just about bricks and mortar; they are about services. I think that in the past we have been too hung up about the amount of bricks and mortar that we have rather than the quality of the services provided, whether as outreach or within children’s centres, and, most important, the outcomes that they are creating for the children for whom they exist and their families.
It is important to ensure that families have the right information at the time when they need it. When people are reluctant to cross the threshold of a children’s centre or a family hub, as my family in Stockport were, they need to have other ways of obtaining that information. It may be a night-time call line, or it may be online, on the internet. It may mean having another professional to call on, or even volunteers—even members of another family who are looking out for vulnerable families. What those people need is a trusted source of information that they can access, rely on and then act on to their benefit.
I think we have all learnt in the past that a top- down approach, with all the geeks in the civil service coming up with whizzy new schemes and trying to impose the same scheme in Newcastle as in a village in South Northamptonshire or a coastal town like Worthing, rarely works. We need national frameworks and national quality thresholds, and we need local design and local implementation. We need to hold people’s feet to the fire. Every local authority needs to come up with a best start in life plan. That local plan needs to meet the thresholds for children’s outcomes, and then the centre needs to ensure that authorities go ahead with those plans and achieve those outcomes. In that way we can have local ownership, local design and local flexibility that are in the best interests of children and their families.
I welcome the “best start in life” programme, and I congratulate all who have made it possible. This has been a huge joint effort. It has been a false economy not to look at those initial few pre-school years, because that is when we can have the biggest impact on the nurturing value of parents and the attachment that is so essential between a parent or parents and their children, when a child’s brain is growing exponentially—and will be impacted on for the rest of his or her life. At last we have a programme that realises that. Let us ensure that we make it a success for our future generations.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the next speaker, I must tell the House that we have another debate following this one in which 11 Members have put in to speak so far, so we must be conscious that there are slight time pressures.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I would like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing this debate at this incredibly important time. I also offer my thanks to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire for her tireless campaigning on this issue over many years, for her recent leadership of the early years review and for her success in securing funding for the sector in the recent Budget. All those are to be welcomed. It is not easy getting money out of a Chancellor, as we all know. She also knows my dismay at the short-sighted cuts that preceded this funding, making it all the more necessary. I know she agrees that we need to ensure that no Government cut valuable services such as Sure Start or family hubs ever again.
I stand here as a former shadow Minister for children and families, a role now most ably held by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). It has been said that once anyone has been a children’s Minister, like the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), or a shadow, they can never quite leave the issue alone. It is sort of like an “Order of the Babies” maybe, or a ministerial Hotel California.
Covid-19 has had a profound impact on all of us, but the effects of the lockdown restrictions and social distancing measures were keenly felt in the early years sector. I welcome the “Babies in Lockdown” survey report published today by the Parent-Infant Foundation, Home-Start UK and Best Beginnings. The pandemic is, sadly, far from over, and the report offers signs that the early years sector has developed a form of long covid, if you like. The survey found that nearly a third of mothers questioned reported that health visitor drop-in clinics that existed before the pandemic were no longer operating. I urge colleagues to read the report.
But let me take Members back to 1970, well before Zoom and Teams. Back then, fewer than a quarter of mothers worked; society expected a full-time mother. Without a central focus on the early years, and no talk of the 1,001 critical days or adverse childhood experiences, the education of very young children was neglected. Baroness Blackstone, writing in 1974, highlighted the fact that only 10% of three and four-year-olds attended state nursery schools or classes in 1971, with some areas receiving no service at all.
To combat the lack of state nursery education, the mothers did it themselves. Belle Tutaev set up a playgroup with her neighbour which eventually bloomed into the Pre-School Playgroups Association. This has since become the Early Years Alliance. But the state should have taken up this mantle, rather than the already burdened mothers. Not everyone was convinced of that principle, however. In 1980, George Young, then the Conservative Secretary of State for Social Services, said that he did not
“accept that it is the state’s job to provide day care to enable the parents of young children to go out to work”.
Listening to the debate today, 40 years on, we can see how far we have come from that thinking.
It was the last Labour Government who finally addressed this problem. I have spoken before, as others have today, about the late Tessa Jowell’s Sure Start programme being a beacon of early years policy. Sure Start brought children’s services together under one roof, uniting healthcare with wellbeing, education with childcare, babies with other babies, and parents with other parents. There were 3,620 Sure Start centres in 2010 under Labour. That has fallen, as we heard from the hon. Member for Richmond Park, by more than 1,300 in the past decade or more of Conservative Governments. Those that remain have been effectively hollowed out, offering only skeleton services with minimal opening hours. While the Government’s pledge to fund 75 more family hubs is obviously welcome, it does little to make up for that loss. I know the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said it is not all about the buildings but, when we have lost 1,300 and replaced them with 75, it is trying to get a quart into a pint pot, as they used to say.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
It has been such a pleasure to work with the hon. Lady on this topic for so many years. I just want to put on the record that it is not 75 family hubs, but 75 upper-tier local authorities; it will be for them to decide, but it could be hundreds or thousands of family hubs. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) drew the same conclusion, so I really want to set the record straight on that point, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.
Mrs Hodgson
I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady. That is an important clarification, and we must ensure it is out there that maybe it will not just be 75, but that they can make it many more. Let us hope it is 1,300; I am sure she will agree with that. That said, I warmly welcome what I think is the Government’s tacit admission that they got it wrong when they defunded the Sure Start programme, even though, as we all remember, on the eve of the 2010 election, David Cameron promised it would be safe in his hands.
However, we are where we are. Earlier this year, I also co-chaired a cross-party early years commission alongside the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), who, as a former children’s Minister, is also a member of the “Order of the Babies” and a resident of the ministerial Hotel California. The commission heard from a wide range of stakeholders, including educators, academics and policy professionals. I will take the House through some of the recommendations in the comprehensive report.
First, there should be integration of health and education support for children, ensuring that every child receives the health visitor appointments they are entitled to and a new health visit when the child is 18 months old. Secondly, because too few families have access to essential services, a locally relevant and dedicated parent support service is needed in every community in every area. Thirdly, we should upskill early education practitioners by investing in continuing professional development, so that the workforce stay fit to face the challenges of the future. Those proposals could easily be made reality. I sincerely hope that, as part of the £500 million brought forward in the Budget, the Government will deliver all of what we seek in this debate.
As we take part in this debate, we are mindful that the babies and children themselves will not be listening. They will not be tweeting their agreement or penning letters to our offices. I will spare a moment to mention how, beyond their value on their own terms, reforms to the early years offer can be instrumental in improving the lives of those without children, via the economy.
The Early Intervention Foundation found that the cost of late intervention in 2016-17 was £17 billion, owing to the need for services to help with mental health issues, youth crime and exclusion, including a £5.3 billion spend on looked-after children. Early intervention can offset that cost. The Carolina Approach to Responsive Education programme provided intensive, high-quality childcare for ages 0 to 5 in the United States of America and delivered a 13% return on investment per child each year. It netted IQ gains, higher wages, increased likelihood of home ownership and higher scores on achievement tests.
For the family unit, the economic returns are clear too. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, parents in areas with Sure Start local programmes moved into paid work more quickly than those without, reducing the benefits bill to the taxpayer and increasing tax receipts for the Treasury. But that is not the full picture: the economic benefits are often only modelled on specific, targeted interventions, whereas the benefits of intervention fan out across a range of factors, such as reducing the later burden on the public purse— the whole point of early intervention—and greater participation in the economy over many years. As such, it is practically very difficult to model the effects of a web of measures applied at once. So just imagine the results we could achieve if those interventions were provided simultaneously, with wholesale improved outcomes delivered via intensive early years support. Britain’s early years offer has the potential to be much greater than the sum of its parts.
To conclude, I would like to look to the world we are creating as legislators in this place. As we speak, delegates from around the world are discussing the means of preserving the planet and protecting the environment in Glasgow at COP26. It is incredibly important that we limit climate change to an increase of 1.5°. Missing, I believe, is leadership for those who will grow up into these environments. The pursuit of climate justice is in no small part to ensure that our children and their children’s children do not face an uninhabitable, hostile world. As those at COP26 work for the future of the planet, let us, here and now, seize this golden opportunity to help those who will inherit it.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), whose leadership on the issue and perseverance over many years has led to the incredible result of this investment in the first 1,001 days —in such a difficult economic time, it is a real achievement to secure that. It has been a privilege to be part of the early years healthy development review, with a number of others sitting in the House. It has been a great learning experience as a new MP but also a real honour to be part of that. This is an issue I am also very passionate about.
There is no more important period in anyone’s life than the first 1,001 days. As we have heard from many hon. Members, that is the time when the foundations are set for childhood and for the rest of life. Building blocks in terms of patterns of behaviour, how we communicate and our health are all connected and made during that time.
Lockdowns have been so, so damaging for the youngest in society, in all those areas we have heard about: lack of access to professional services, to community support and even to family support, which has really harmed the very youngest in our society. So the £500 million funding comes at a crucial time. I have to say it: it is time to build back better for babies. So there is no better investment for the Government to make than on the first 1,001 days. Babies who go through healthy development have a far greater chance of becoming healthy, happy, fulfilled adults who are going to contribute to the economy and, as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West said, will be much less likely to be a burden on the taxpayer.
One great paradox of human society is that parenting is so important, but it cannot be left to the experts. About half of us were brought up by people who had never done it before. The truth is that having babies is really hard—I have had three and I should know. It is amazing to me that something so natural, desirable and fulfilling is also so incredibly challenging. It does not always start well. My first child was a full two weeks late and I just escaped induction. He came into the world following a 32-hour labour, so we started parenting after two full nights without any sleep—something I did not even manage to achieve as a student. I had never even held a newborn, let alone been responsible for its survival. When we add the challenges of breastfeeding, living on no sleep, trying to identify when nappies need changing, and eating with one hand when a meal consists of a dry piece of toast that you can put in and out of the toaster without even opening the fridge, it is really tough.
I vividly remember one day, when my newborn was crying and my husband was out. I desperately needed a shower, as we were going out. He would not stop crying. I still needed a shower. I put him in the car seat, strapped him in and stuck him on the floor of the bathroom. I got in the shower and started crying myself. That is just what it is like as a parent of a newborn—then throw in mastitis and the challenges of getting to the town hall to register the baby’s birth, before we get to weaning, potty training and more sleepless nights. What kept me going, and what kept us going, was family, friends and baby groups. Every day of the week, I found a different group to go to. I developed a routine that made sure that I saw adults every day of the week—other people who were going through the same experiences.
I was really fortunate to develop a strong group of friends who learned to be mums together. Because of that support, interaction and camaraderie, I can honestly say that it was a joy and a privilege to care for a baby and to see them learn and develop. Despite the sheer exhaustion, there is nothing more worth while.
My husband and I had all the support we could ask for—I had a full year of maternity leave and we had the financial security and the practical support to enjoy the first 1,001 days—but it was still really hard. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who we know is not short of a bob or two, remarked in a recent newspaper article that even they found it incredibly challenging. It is tough, whatever a person’s circumstances. I would like to say that I was a pro by the time the third child came around, but I am afraid the challenges were just threefold.
The truth is that we are not supposed to care for babies alone: it takes a village to raise a child. Every first-time parent might be a novice, but the truth is that millions of other people out there have done it before and can help. The sad fact is that so many parents do not have the support that I was so fortunate to have. If just one area of a person’s life is fragile—such as relationships, mental or physical health, geographical isolation or poverty, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said—caring for a baby can go from challenging to impossible. For many, there is a cycle of generational abuse and neglect that it is almost impossible for them to break on their own.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, the world has changed. A couple of generations ago women did not work outside the home—they definitely worked inside the home—and there was a network of mums, grandmas and aunties on hand to help. Our social fabric was much richer. Nobody wants to return to the 1950s, and we have made incredible progress in so many areas—we must not deny that and must celebrate it—but we do need to intervene to rebirth the social and relational support that is so crucial in equipping families to thrive in the early years. That is why family hubs are so important and why I am so delighted that the Budget included £82 million to develop the network further throughout the country.
Family hubs should provide a one-stop-shop for parents, not only to make it easier for them to access professional support and advice from midwives, health visitors and other professionals but to integrate them with local community groups, build friendships and support networks and bring together the whole community to provide that “village” to help to raise the child, which every parent so desperately needs and to which so many parents do not have access, for all sorts of reasons. Family hubs can also be a place where intervention can happen early so that families with particular issues, whatever they may be, can be helped before the problem gets out of hand and leads to damaging consequences for both the baby and the parents.
How is a first-time parent supposed to know how to deal with colic, with their baby not putting on weight or with conflicts with a partner that are exacerbated by a lack of sleep? We do not know this stuff without asking other people. That is why family hubs should be available for everyone. Every parent needs support and a great way to provide it is through family hubs. I support the idea of allowing birth registrations at family hubs: if parents have to go there, under a statutory duty, they have then put their foot through the door, seen what is available, made that first contact and, hopefully, built some relationships with people in the community. That will make it that much easier to get support in future. A parent going to their local family hub should be as everyday an event as a person going to their GP surgery, with no stigma attached.
Of course, the start for life offer is all about babies, but if we want to use the language of the market, the parents and carers are the clients, so the whole offer is actually aimed at supporting and equipping parents and carers. I am delighted that we are recognising parenting as the most valuable contribution that anyone can make to society, so I am also pleased that £50 million for parenting skills is part of the offer.
On parenting, I wish to speak briefly about motherhood, which is not something we speak about much. It is brilliant that women are much more valued, in every sense, outside the home than we used to be—we are valued in the workplace and have full equality under the law, and those things should be celebrated—but I sometimes wonder whether we are too much valued through the lens of the traditional male role model, and the hugely important work that many women do in looking after children and building community through the home is massively undervalued, and sometimes looked down on and talked about in the language of oppression. I do not deny that that is the case for many women, but many women are fulfilled in that role and choose it in the early part—the first 1,001 days—of their child’s life. There are good biological reasons why women desire to do that, and I know that I certainly did.
Even the Department for Education’s own stats say that mothers of young children would prefer to work less, but we as a society have made it almost impossible for many women—parents, but often women—to choose to focus on their children in those early years. Our ever-increasing drive to get everyone into the workplace, the tax system and house prices make it impossible for the majority of families to survive on one income. They make it impossible for so many families to choose to take that crucial time out from work in the first two years of a child’s life. We also have a system that expects single mothers to be able to be the provider and the care giver, and that places so many in an impossible situation, which is difficult for them and difficult for the children.
I conclude by saying that children are not an economic inconvenience; they are our best hope for the future and deserving of every investment and support that we can give them. The start of life offer is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to refocus our priorities, to put babies at the centre of policy making, and to give every child the opportunity they need to grow and flourish.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates).
When I was first elected to this House nearly two years ago, I came here not just as a new Member of Parliament but as a first-time new mother. As the hon. Lady has already mentioned, it takes a village, and my village is the best. I had all the support in the world, from my husband, from my family, and from my mam especially, but I still found balancing motherhood and work incredibly difficult. In all honesty, I am still struggling to find the right balance.
How do we give every baby the best start in life? Quite simply, we ensure that our baby is born in Wales. In Wales, we have a real focus on childcare from our Labour Government. Everyone is offered 33 hours of childcare each week for children aged three to four with no terms, no condition. The Flying Start programme in particular does fantastic work supporting families with children under four who live in some of the most disadvantaged areas of Wales. I am also very lucky to have some fantastic local childcare providers in my constituency, including Little Inspirations, which has branches in Tonyrefail and Llantrisant.
Supporting families in looking after their children is an incredibly important part of giving every child the best start in life, and we must do more to support families at this difficult stage in their lives. For many people, myself included, bringing a baby home from hospital is not a straightforward process. I have spoken many times in this place about my own experiences when my son was being cared for on a neonatal unit, and I cannot resist once again taking this opportunity to urge the Government urgently to bring forward their promised legislation on paid neonatal leave for parents. On this occasion, I also want to draw attention to some research by the fantastic charity Bliss on the specific challenges that young parents—those under 25—face.
Bliss found that babies born to mothers aged under 20 are at an increased risk of premature birth and at a 75% increased risk of neonatal death compared with those born to mothers aged 30 to 34. Women living in the most deprived areas of the UK also have a significantly higher risk of stillbirth and neonatal death than more privileged women, as we have already heard today. In order to ensure that every baby has the best start in life, we must start here. Pre-natal and post-natal care are vital, and I would be grateful to the Minister if she could outline exactly what steps the Government are taking to address these inequalities.
We know that the first 1,001 days—from conception to a child’s second birthday—are vital. In many cases, these days are predictors for what level of education a baby will attain, what their health will be like, and even how long they will live. It should be of paramount importance to any Government to work to level this playing field. In this day and age, it simply should not be the case that where a person is born, and who they are born to is the most determining factor in their life.
This Tory Government talk a lot about levelling up, but when it comes right down to it, they fail to act on their promises. Just a few weeks ago, I and my colleagues on the Labour Benches lined up to urge the Government to rethink their decision to cut universal credit. We warned that nearly 300,000 children faced being plunged into poverty, and, once again, they failed to listen and failed to reverse the cut.
We have had a very high-profile U-turn from the Government in this past week, so how about we have another one this week? While I will not hold my breath for meaningful change, I will use the brief time that I have left to raise genuine concerns about the future of breastfeeding for mums up and down the country. I have spoken out many times about my passion for increased education, awareness and support for those who are breastfeeding in this place, and I pay tribute to the fantastic Breastfeeding Network, which gave a wealth of support to me personally when I was struggling, but, once again, I have to say that the Government have failed to protect those of us who are breastfeeding. I was frankly appalled that the campaign to make it illegal to photograph breastfeeding women without consent reached a halt in the other place last week when a Minister implied that banning photographs of this nature would potentially impact family pornography and require a complex change in the law. We should speak more and more about breast- feeding and the law surrounding the practice, especially in the context of giving babies the best start in life. I sincerely hope that the Minister and the Government are listening. Diolch.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
All of us in this House who are parents or have young children among our family and friends will know that there is an abundance of advice available on the topic of today’s debate and many of us take that advice: we talk to our babies in the womb; we play games with them before they are born; we study baby-led weaning; and we invest in stain-proof covers that never seem to extend quite far enough. But wherever on the nurturing scale we sit as mums and dads, babies thrive when they are surrounded by adults taking an active interest.
The focus of my contribution is the babies and young children who need extra help to thrive—those whose interests are at the heart of the decision by the Government to invest in family hubs in the recent Budget, as championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). As many Members have said, it is welcome that this agenda is taking a higher profile in the context of levelling up, because we all recognise the need to build on sound foundations.
Twenty years’ experience in children’s services has taught me a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of the child support system in our country. Like our NHS, we are very good at emergency services, and studies by academics at the University of Bristol and the University of Warwick show that the UK has a world-leading child protection system. But today’s debate goes beyond protection from harm, and into how we help children to thrive and flourish—something that is a matter not just of social responsibility but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire highlighted, of long-term economic benefit to our country.
Thriving children live lives that cost the taxpayer less and contribute more to everyone’s benefit. To that end, I am going to offer three points, which are focused on how we turn the widely-shared aspiration that we hear in the Chamber—I grew up in the village of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and am glad to hear of the progress it is making—into a change that children and their families can see and feel in their lives.
First, we need to follow the flow of money. The funding for early years, which is a key statutory responsibility for all local authorities, remains mired in bureaucratic processes that are dominated by those whose focus, for good reasons, is elsewhere. Schools forums, which determine the distribution of the dedicated schools grant, in which much of this funding sits, are dominated by the interests of our secondary schools. A fragmented early years sector of small private, voluntary, charitable providers often struggles to be heard. There is a structure around the money that inhibits innovation and flexibility, and stands in the way of creating the joined-up local offer that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) highlighted. Although I can see that there is a perceived political benefit to lumping that early years funding in with schools, in reality the needs of the sectors are different.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says about ringfencing and I do not disagree, but that is why Sure Start funding was directed through local authorities and ringfenced at a local level for local authorities to draw up their local strategies. He talks about levelling up, but this process did not start in 2019. We have seen the devastation of Sure Start centres, certainly in County Durham, as a result of cuts to that funding by his Government—although I know that he perhaps was not in the House then.
David Simmonds
It is good to hear the right hon. Member’s contribution. I was in a local authority throughout Sure Start’s implementation period, and although it was welcome to see a Government giving a high degree of priority to children in the earliest years of their lives, there were a number of failings with that programme. One was that the pace at which Government sought to deliver it—for understandable reasons, it was a political priority—meant that poor decisions were often made about the location of services and exactly what was delivered. At a time when many activities outside Sure Start were a high priority for local areas, Sure Start was generously funded to meet the Government’s aspiration while other activities, such as child protection, were starved of cash. Although all Governments want to deliver their priorities, we need to achieve a longer-term consensus about what is in the interests of children in the earliest years of their lives.
I call on Ministers to consider how we free the early years sector from the shackles imposed by the dedicated schools grant and bring it together with other local authority and NHS budgets, so that investment can be aligned with the needs of local families and built on the strengths of the early years sector. We must not forget that the sector is not just about nurseries; it provides an opportunity to join up with a range of local statutory and non-statutory services, which include health visiting, child minding, family hubs, child protection, public health, vaccination services, libraries, play and informal learning. When I was a new parent, the services provided by the libraries of the London borough of Hillingdon, including story time for young children, were an outstanding example of that early support. They were a chance to meet other parents whose children were at the same stage, to get informal advice and tips. That may sit outside what Government mandate, but it is exactly the sort of thing that parents of young children treasure.
Having touched on the funding challenge, we need to ensure that every area has the scope to develop a strategy for thriving that suits local circumstances. Many of our councils—the 152 top-tier authorities—are in partnership arrangements of one kind or another. Some are council to council, and others reflect outsourced services. That all reflects issues of local need and capacity. Along with the statutory lead member for children’s services and the director of children’s services, the health and wellbeing board has the most scope to join up the offer to get babies the best start in life. Those boards—statutory committees of the local authority—still struggle to assert their role, especially with the NHS, which in my experience is strategically disengaged, despite their role as key partners.
The rearguard action fought by the NHS against making public health a local and accountable service has also inhibited innovation and tied up resources in rolled-over NHS contracts rather than stimulating the reshaping of local services around children. I have seen some outstanding examples of such reshaping, however. I pay tribute to my constituent Dr Jide Menakaya, a leading paediatrician who has led work across the sector in his field of neonatal care in the London borough of Hillingdon to join up children’s services and Sure Start so mums and dads have a seamless experience. However, the system still tends to stand in the way of creativity rather than promoting it.
My suggestion to the Front-Bench team is that, in line with previous asks of our health and wellbeing boards—for example, to produce joint strategies on child mental health—we look at setting a clear expectation for them on a strategy for helping children to thrive in line with the first 1,001 days ambitions. Much of this already exists in different forms at a local level, but for a new parent or an expectant family, it can feel hard to access and fragmented, because it is driven by the disparate duties and funding regimes imposed by Government. In line with the local offer for children with special educational needs and disabilities, a strategic approach to the local offer for the earliest years will deliver greater value for money and, vitally, greater coherence for parents who access it.
The final area that I would like to put forward for consideration is accountability. Successive Governments have adjusted the regulatory environment for the early years, but broadly speaking the two priorities today are school readiness—seen in the regulation of settings such as child minding and nurseries—and the avoidance of harm to children, which is seen in the regulation of child protection and the NHS. We are in a context where resources are extremely stretched—not just money, but, as we have heard from a number of Members, the workforce too—which tends to drive a risk-averse approach in the early years, prioritising the absence of failure, rather than the promotion of innovation. We need to consider how we line up the accountability that we have all talked about with what we are seeking to achieve for our children. My suggestion to Ministers is that we need to look beyond the current inspection regimes and datasets used for performance management, many strengths though they have, and think about how we measure the things involved in a child thriving—the positive health and social outcomes that we want for babies in our country and how we incentivise the behaviour that will deliver them. Time is tight, so I will simply say that we have so many statutory duties in place that will help us deliver that, but so often the holders of those duties lack the autonomy needed to fulfil the aspirations we have. We need a permissive approach from Government.
In conclusion, we need to recognise that much of what we do is world class and of the highest quality, as many parents of young children, including me, can attest, but the regulatory regime still too often expects low standards. Rather than contributing to success, we have a complex funding system that stands in the way of local communities and their leaders delivering value for money and good outcomes for every child. We all want to give our babies the very best start in life. By enabling local leadership, setting high standards and setting people free to innovate, we give ourselves the best chance of levelling up life chances for all our children.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It has been a real pleasure to listen to all the different contributions made this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and her co-sponsors on securing this debate. One of the observations I want to make is in reference to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), who asked why we cannot give women the choice. I absolutely agree. We all know that the most nurturing environment for young children is with their parents. The question then is why this country has one of the poorest maternity pay and leave settlements compared with any other country with a similar economy. We need to look at statutory maternity pay.
Miriam Cates
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Maternity benefits are certainly something we should look at. As well as that, we have a taxation system that penalises families—to the tune of 20% or 30% for the poorest families—compared with the taxation systems of, say, France, Germany or America. One of the problems we have in this country is that we do not recognise the importance of those early years in terms of protecting families from those costs. That would have a far bigger impact on parents’ ability to choose in those early years.
Wera Hobhouse
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. We are on the same page. We need to recognise the importance of parenting and the early years and help families of all incomes to make that happen, but the issue mostly strikes families of poorer backgrounds, where women are then being forced into work much earlier than they would like. The Government need to look urgently at that, as well as shared parental leave, which is actually a transfer of parental leave, rather than shared leave. We should look at how we can fix that system, too.
I will speak briefly as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of childhood trauma. Preventing adverse childhood experiences from occurring is vital, particularly in those first 1,001 days. Within the APPG, we are working to improve understanding of adverse childhood experiences or childhood trauma, how to heal them, and ultimately how to prevent them. It is about breaking that cycle of trauma, which can so often pass from a parent to their child.
Those who experience childhood trauma are two times more likely to develop depression and three times more likely to develop anxiety disorders. Adults who reported four or more adverse childhood experiences had a four to twelvefold increase in alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide attempts, compared with adults who experienced none of those. Recently, the APPG heard from Josh MacAlister, the chair of the independent review of children’s social care, which produced “The Case for Change”. He made the critical point that we have children in care who become parents, and they often pass their childhood trauma to that next generation of children unless it is treated and recognised. One of the most important things on which I campaign as a Member of Parliament is preventing childhood trauma, recognising trauma in those who experience it later in life and making all our services trauma-informed.
I pay tribute to the WAVE—Worldwide Alternatives to Violence—trust, which does excellent work alongside the APPG. Its 70/30 campaign needs no introduction because it has just reached 500 supporters in the House—an incredible milestone. The campaign aims to reduce child abuse, neglect and other adverse childhood experiences by at least 70% by 2030. Professor Sir Harry Burns, a former chief medical officer, said that
“reducing child maltreatment by 70%...is the minimum acceptable outcome in responding to this unacceptable—and profoundly costly—harm to our youngest children.”
We have all heard in various forms about how important it is to get to childhood trauma. The Government can do much to achieve that, but they must start by increasing early years funding, by appointing a senior Minister for families and the best start in life and by prioritising prevention in the early years.
Earlier this year, I tabled an early-day motion on giving every child the best start in life, which calls on the Government to adopt a comprehensive early years strategy to prevent harm to children before it happens. It has now been signed by 100 Members from across the House. I grateful to all of those who have put their name to it and hope that many more will join them.
I have just two questions for the Minister. Given the overwhelming support for the 70/30 campaign and my EDM, will she give her public support to the campaign today? Will she also commit to meeting the APPG so that we can discuss a way forward and end childhood trauma once and for all? Let us start now to ensure that every family has the full support needed to give their child the best start in life. That would be to all our benefit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and, in particular, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for sponsoring the debate. I know that the right hon. Lady has pursued this issue in the House for many years, and I am pleased to see the culmination of her championing of it in the funding that the Government have set aside. Congratulations and well done.
As the proud grandfather of five children—Katie-Leigh, Mia and Austin, and two so-called lockdown babies in one-year-old Max, and Freya, who is one-and-a-half—I believe that our babies and our young families have never needed more help and, like others, I have a fervent desire that we in this place get it right. We must consider the pandemic’s effect on lockdown babies who have never attended a mother-and-toddlers group, never learned to play and share with another child, and never sung a nursery song or a rhyme in a group. I believe that will have a huge impact that they will carry into their early years at school. Others have referred to that, and I want to refer to it as well.
I have spoken in this place about the pandemic’s academic effect on schoolchildren and its mental effect on children. It is right and proper that we also address its effect on babies. We can simply do better. The debate may be England-centric, but the problems faced in the UK mainland mirror those faced by parents and babies in Northern Ireland. I am hopeful that proper funding streams in the mainland will be replicated when the Assembly allocates the Northern Ireland funding received for the levelling-up agenda. It is important that we in Northern Ireland also receive that assistance through the levelling-up agenda.
Action for Children has stated that, in 2018-19, only 57% of children from poorer backgrounds were ready for school at age five compared with 74% of their better-off peers. Its “Closed Doors” report found that, between 2014-15 and 2017-18, the number of children using children’s centres decreased by about 18%. That is a worrying trend, as it is that the numbers fell fastest in the most deprived areas. Those statistics give us concerns and show us that the debate must focus most on the deprived areas where the problems are.
Action for Children’s most recent report found that 82% of parents of children in the nought to five age bracket struggled or were unable to access vital non-childcare and early years services. Some 78% of parents who were unable to access services were worried about potential impacts on themselves or their children. The most common concerns were about children’s development and parents’ own mental health and wellbeing. Other speakers have referred to that, and the fact that we are all saying the same thing based on our constituencies tells us that these issues are clear and real, so the work that Action for Children carries out is essential for giving babies the best start in life.
I am a great supporter, and always have been in all my years as an elected representative, of Home-Start in Northern Ireland. It knows that well trained volunteers complement the early years workforce, significantly contributing to the support that families receive and enabling them to access services when those are most needed. More than 1,500 families are being supported by 300 Home-Start volunteers in 16 communities in Northern Ireland. Newtonards, the main town in my constituency, has a Home-Start facility. During the dark days of the pandemic, more than 200 families were supported by the volunteers, and that was really significant and important work at a critical time. Although volunteers are helping out, funding is needed to enable their work to continue. Funds must be available to charities such as Home-Start to make a real and practical difference to the lives of the most vulnerable—our babies, who are what this debate is really all about.
Some 59% of respondents to a Home-Start inquiry admitted to feelings of loneliness and isolation, and 23% said they needed help with their mental health. After help, 94% said they were more able to cope, so it is clear that intervention can make a difference. The money that the Government have set aside for this strategy and these schemes over the next period can and will make a difference. The next debate is about a separate issue, but some of it will also refer to education and mental health issues.
It is my humble opinion that funding should be allocated to such streams, which allow trained and interested volunteers to go into homes and help with practical issues. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to going to a home where the deprivation and the problems were incredible and hard to take in, but these volunteers help households to find mechanisms to better cope with the pressures of young children. The UK mainland also uses the Home-Start charity, and I am sure the Minister will have cognisance of this great charity and the wonderful work it does.
Time is short, and I am very clear about what you said earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will come to the crux of my comments. Time has prevented me from talking in depth about the wonderful work carried out in churches. It is no secret, but I want to put it on the record, that what churches do at parent and toddler groups in community halls throughout the country is incredible. We all know those groups, and I have a large number in my constituency—indeed, I think that every church is actively helping parent and toddler groups.
One of my local churches, Newtonards Elim, had to go ahead and open its group again, and it has had massive numbers of parents and childminders simply desperate for company, desperate for their child to talk with others and to interact with them, and desperate for normality. However, if more churches and community facilities are to do these things, more expensive protocols need to be put in place. Perhaps a one-off grant would encourage more churches to take the same step, which can be somewhat daunting due to the way things are. We cannot neglect, we cannot forget and we cannot ignore what churches do and the commitment they give to our constituents.
In conclusion, I believe that we can now safely meet, and if we can, we must. The characters of our little ones are formed in this time, and people need people—children need children, and mums need mums. In this place we need to support, encourage and facilitate the essential component of early years development. Levelling up has promised it, but let us make sure that that levelling-up process reaches out to all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The levelling up starts here, today, through this debate.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I want to pick up where the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) left off and thank all the organisations in our constituencies that provide such vital support to families in their time of need. I have Home-Start in my constituency too, and it does a fantastic job. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this debate, as well as all those who have contributed so valuably to it. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for the work she has done on early years and the first 1,001 critical days. We see by its inclusion in the Budget that her work has been recognised by the Government. I would like that money to go further, as I am sure would many hon. Members, but it is certainly a good first step.
Some might consider it slightly odd that the Scottish National party Treasury spokesperson is winding-up this Backbench Business debate, but there is an economic imperative to the debate. The Women’s Budget Group estimates that 1.7 million women are prevented from taking on extra hours as a result of lack of childcare, which leads to a £28.2 billion loss in economic output. Those on the Treasury Bench should consider that when they think about childcare. It is not a burden in any way; it is an investment and should be considered as such. The Nordic countries have much better outcomes and more equal societies, and they invest much more in their early years.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said that Wales is the best place in the world to grow up. I dispute that—certainly Scotland is up there as well, and we are doing a great deal on that front. The Scottish Government baby box is emblematic of that investment. A box is given to every new family, regardless of their circumstances, and it provides them with all the essentials they need. The feedback on that is overwhelmingly good, and around 186,000 baby boxes will have been delivered to families by its fourth anniversary. All families will have benefited from that, with all babies entering the world with a degree of equality, even when other things are not equal, as we know.
I was glad—well, I suppose I was not glad—to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) speaking about the impact of poverty on young people; I feel that not everybody has reflected on that crucial part of the debate. Significant inequality is growing in the UK. Such things do not happen by accident; they happen as a result of specific policies designed by the Government and inflicted on the people of these islands. Let us take, for example, the two-child limit for tax credit and the rape clause that is part of that. By 2 April 2021, 308,520 families had been affected by that policy, and more will be affected as it rolls out. It discriminates against children in a family, based solely on the order in which they are born. Those children cannot help when they are born. They are brought into families, many of whom have babies because they think having a child is a blessing, but they may end up in financial circumstances that mean they find it much more difficult to get by. That is a real barrier to many families, and it is causing severe poverty across the UK. The UK Government should scrap that policy once and for all.
Hon. Members have referred to the £20 uplift in universal credit, which has been a lifeline for many families throughout the pandemic. By not keeping that uplift, and by reducing the taper on universal credit—something I welcome—the UK Government have divided households into the worthy and the unworthy. The taper rate affects those who are in work. I am glad for them and it is right, but the Government are only fixing the harm that their predecessors caused by adjusting the taper rate, and there is no help for those who are out of work, many of whom have caring responsibilities, illness or disability. There is nothing whatsoever for those on legacy benefits whose children also need that help. All of this is at a time when costs in shops are increasing and fuel prices skyrocketing. What impact will that have on children in those homes in the cold winter that is coming? What impact does the lack of fresh food and a warm home have on the lives of the babies we are talking about?
Sir Harry Burns, the former Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, has spoken poignantly about the lack of a sense of control, and the impact that that has on people’s lives. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) talked about a household he visited, and many more households like that now exist after the past 10 years. Many families have a lack of control over their lives, because they do not have the financial resources to build a safe environment for them and their children. That lack of control, certainty, or of knowing what will happen when an unexpected bill or illness could bring everything down around your ears, is no way to give babies the best start in life, and neither is it to have families reliant on foodbanks and charities. That only adds to the trauma mentioned by the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Newcastle upon Tyne North, and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). These families are growing up in trauma because they do not know how to cope. They do not have enough money to make ends meet, and living in such circumstances day after day means trauma for those parents, and trauma for those children. The Government should recognise that when they talk about recognising trauma, and consider how they can lessen it.
I want to talk briefly about the impact on ethnic minority families. There is a significant cost to them that is not often recognised, and that is the cost of the immigration system. Many families that come to me are finding life more and more of a struggle because they have to pay for visas, which are extremely expensive and a huge family cost burden. I cannot imagine how those families in relatively low-paid work make ends meet. They often cannot get the family support that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) so valued having around; they cannot get their mother-in-law, their mother or their sister over to give that support with their babies because they are not allowed visas. I have seen many families really upset by their inability to have a family member there at that most important time in life—and worse, I have seen families where there has been a baby loss and all that mum wanted was to have her mother there, but the Home Office said no. We need to recognise the wider implications of family support in all Departments.
I also want to talk about the impact of no recourse to public funds. There is a lack of data about how many constituents in Glasgow Central are affected by no recourse to public funds, but that immigration condition on benefits means that many families are not entitled to the same support as their neighbours, and they find it harder to make ends meet. I have had families come back for support for school uniforms and for presents for Christmas. They are working very hard, but not hard enough, because they cannot earn enough money. That will only get worse under the Nationality and Borders Bill.
I would be doing the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities a disservice if I did not talk about breastfeeding. Breastfeeding rates in Scotland are really improving, because we have a comprehensive plan to improve them. Almost two thirds of babies born in Scotland last year were breastfed for at least some time after their birth. More than half of babies were being breastfed at 10 to 14 days of age, which has increased from 44% in 2002-03. There are increases across the board. There has always been a marked gap in deprivation rates, with more deprived communities tending to breastfeed less. With the investment and comprehensive planning that the Scottish Government have put into breastfeeding support, that gap is beginning to narrow in Scotland, which is very positive.
I have two brief questions for the Minister on that. The “Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly” report was published in Scotland in 2019, but it has not yet been published in England. When is that going to happen, and when will the infant feeding survey be reinstated and published? We cannot track that data.
There is a great deal more that I would like to have said in this debate, but I urge the UK Government to look to Scotland and the comprehensive plans that are being put in place there, and to improve services for everybody who requires them.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing this debate. The collective case that they made was weighty, and I think there was universal agreement; I certainly did not disagree with anything that was said.
I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the importance and the centrality of good health visiting. She also made very interesting points about lockdown and covid that were shared by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, whose statistic that seven in 10 parents feel that they have not had enough support was sobering. That shows the scale of the challenge that we have in building back.
Of course, the right hon. Member has also gifted us her rich report, which we are discussing, in many ways, today. I want to take this opportunity to reiterate in public what I have said to her in private about the Opposition’s support for her. She had real success at the Budget, which we were all heartened by. We know there is more to do, but she is clearly doing something right and, as I say, we will be with her along the way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North made a stark and powerful speech about poverty. She could have changed Newcastle upon Tyne North to Nottingham North—my constituency—and the entire thing would have read across, but particularly the cruelty of pre-ordaining a child’s destiny at their birth.
The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) talked about turning the strategy into a local plan and putting an emphasis on local authorities or health and wellbeing boards—in my case, I think integrated care systems is the model. I proposed that in a new clause that I tabled to the Health and Care Bill, which the Government were not minded to accept. I hope that we might be able to work together on that, and that we might get something in the Bill to that effect in its remaining stages. I think that would be a very good way to do that.
I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), my predecessor in this role, because so much of our policy is her policy and I have just been carrying on that work. The point she made about the environment was one I had not heard her make before. I am always fearful that children can sometimes grow up in hopeless environments and the future of the planet is one of the things that restricts hope. That is a very important point and we have a responsibility in this place to address it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) made the point that, if in doubt, look at Wales. In many ways, that is very much the way to go.
Previously, and certainly for the last 10 years, the place to start when talking about early intervention and the best start in life was the breakthrough 2011 report on early intervention by my friend and constituency predecessor, Graham Allen. Happily, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire is providing him with some good competition with her report. As we have seen in the debate, that has established a cross-party consensus to make good on this. The report confirms and builds on what we know about how critical the first 1,001 days are.
In my maiden speech four-and-a-half years ago, I talked about similar themes for my community and how these challenges are cyclical, and said that the way to break those cycles is to intervene as early as possible. A healthy pregnancy is very important for mum, but also for the baby’s development. Beyond specific dangers such as smoking, alcohol or drugs, we know that stress can cause challenges for babies. That is an awful lot of pressure on mums, so health visitor support is really important, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said. The next two years are crucial, too, in setting out how a child’s life is likely to go. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made important points about adverse childhood experiences, which we know have a lifelong impact. As I say, the case for change is well established, but we have to have concrete things to do and the report and the six action areas effectively laid out that route for us.
I want to briefly address Sure Start. We know that Sure Start prevented hospitalisations, impacted children all through their adolescence, improved mental health, helped particularly in the poorest communities and, of course, made major, long-lasting savings for the NHS. The tragedy is that any savings made by cutting those services will be hoovered up in costs to the NHS. It is dreadful public policy. I say that not to litigate the events of the last 10 years, but because at the moment councils are setting their budgets. Councils in cities such as mine will be making decisions that mean children’s centres will again be lost. So we have not adequately addressed this yet. It was not adequately addressed in the support for local authorities in the Budget. Family hubs are very welcome and I accept the point that they are not a like-for-like replacement, but my point is that we are weakening our approach in this area by filling the bath at the top and then draining it at the bottom. I think that is a big mistake.
I will make a final point on what I consider to be our greatest hurdle in this endeavour: the public finances and the Treasury. This is the sort of spending that we know—the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner said this—benefits future generations. Politically, I think we can get our heads around that. The previous Labour Government showed that we can do that. The growing consensus is that we want to make long-term investments, even if we are not in this place seeing the benefits from them. However, I do not think we have quite got there yet with regard to the Treasury. Clearly, significant progress was made at the Budget—I want that to be recognised—but we need models that, for the Treasury’s purposes of balancing the budget and having good responsible public finances, also recognise that investing now can give returns in a decade. Even if we are not able to get the pound and penny of where that return will be, we know that it will happen. I do not think we are quite there yet and I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
The report by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire has set us a real road map. A political consensus is being established around it. However, we now need to know the long-term commitment. On the Labour Benches, we are committed in finance and in public policy terms to make the investments here. The Government showed at the Budget that they are starting to get to that place, but I hope to hear from the Minister that that is for the longer term and not just a one-Budget commitment. The prize is so great for our nation. As a result, our ambition must be great, too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing this important debate. I also thank all hon. Members for their important contributions; it has been a very worthwhile, informative and forward-looking debate.
Ensuring that every baby gets the best start in life is of central importance to the Government. The critical 1,001 days of a child’s life lay the building blocks for lifelong emotional and physical health. By investing in supporting the youngest members of our society and the families who care for them, the Government will deliver on their ambition of levelling up health outcomes across the country.
The health and wellbeing of parents and carers is important for the healthy development of their babies. Approximately one in five mums and one in 10 dads experience mental health problems during the 1,001 critical days of their baby’s life. Poor mental health can impact on their parents’ ability to bond with their baby and meet the baby’s emotional needs. Later development is heavily influenced by the loving attachment that babies have to their parents or carers, and there is a wealth of evidence that poor parental mental health can lead to worse outcomes for young children.
It is vital that parents and carers have access to the help and support that they need to give their baby the very best start in life. The Government’s vision is for every parent and carer to have access to high-quality universal services in their local areas. That is set out in, “The best start for life: a vision for the 1,001 critical days”, published by the Early Years Healthy Development Review in March. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire for that inspirational work. Thanks to her dedication, the Government are delivering on six priority action areas that will realise that vision.
First, we will ensure that all parents and carers have access to clear information about the Start for Life offer and family services in their area that they can access virtually and physically. Secondly, we are championing family hubs and working with local authorities to make them a place where families can access universal Start for Life services.
Thirdly, we are designing digital, virtual and telephone services around the needs of families with babies, including digitising the red book. Fourthly, we are developing a modern, skilled workforce to meet the changing needs of families with babies. We are doing that by looking at new ways to support, train and retain the skilled professionals that we need.
Fifthly, we are working across the system to ensure that local services are high quality, considering how improved data can enhance the evaluation of outcomes and how inspection and feedback from parents and carers can drive excellence. Finally, we are working with local areas to encourage them to nominate a leader with responsibility for Start for Life services and ensuring that Start for Life is at the heart of policy making at a national level.
Alongside the Early Years Healthy Development Review, the Government are implementing a wide range of policies to improve child health. That includes the most ambitious child obesity plan in the world, the transformation of children’s mental health and maternity services and a world-leading immunisation programme.
Investing in the 1,001 critical days is the most important long-term investment that we can make. Failure to invest in that critical period comes at a great social and economic cost. Adverse experiences at the start of life are linked to negative outcomes later in life, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned. It is estimated that late intervention amounts to a cost of £17 billion a year in England and Wales. Investing in prevention and early intervention is a much better use of taxpayer money. That is why the Budget announced a £500 million investment package to transform support for babies and families.
The Government will invest more than £80 million in expanding the network of family hubs, improving access to a wide range of integrated support services for families with babies and children. A further £10 million will support local authorities to publish clear Start for Life offers, helping parents and carers to understand the services available to them locally, while £100 million will be invested in rolling out bespoke parent and infant mental health support, helping to nurture parent and infant relationships and improving access to support for new and expectant parents.
There will be £50 million available to local authorities to establish multi-component breastfeeding support services in line with local needs, ensuring that parents receive the help that they need where and when they need it. There will be £50 million to fund evidence-based parenting programmes, which will support parents and carers to have positive interactions with their children. Seventy-five upper-tier local authorities in England will benefit from this funding. The evidence and learning from this investment will help to improve services across England where they are most needed.
An additional £10 million will be available to trial and evaluate innovative workforce models in a small number of local authorities. This will enable local authorities to bring together and train staff under the clinical supervision of health visitors to provide babies and families with the high-quality, timely support that they need. It will also support future workforce reform.
Maggie Throup
I am short of time, so I will continue.
Some 300,000 of the most vulnerable families will be supported with an extra £200 million boost to the Government’s supporting families programme, which helps families through complex issues that could lead to family breakdown. In addition to the £500 million investment to transform support for families, the Government will provide more than £2 million per year to continue the holiday activities and food programme, providing healthy food and enriched activities for disadvantaged children in England and delivering our flexible childcare fund commitments.
Before I draw my remarks to a close, I would like to address some issues that have been raised this afternoon. The hon. Member for Richmond Park raised the issue of health visitors. As I have outlined, £10 million has been allocated to trial and evaluate new workforce models. The specific number of health visitors and case- loads is a locally determined decision based on local health needs, so the number and ratio of health visitors support staff will vary. She also raised perinatal mental health, which has been recognised in the spending review with £100 million allocated to rolling out bespoke parent-infant mental health support.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire rightly stated that babies’ needs should always be at the heart of our work. She also highlighted some new ways of working that have developed as a result of the pandemic, from Camden’s Bump to Baby programme to Parent Talk, and the benefits that physical and virtual support can offer in reaching out to even more families.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) said that we are building back better for babies. She was quite right. I welcome her support for family hubs and her recognition that they will provide support and services from conception to the age of 19 and to parents and carers.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North also asked about family hubs. In the Budget, as I said, the Government announced a further £82 million to create a network of family hubs. Each of the 75 selected local authorities will receive transformational funding to support the change process of moving to a family hub model.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) brought a great deal of experience to the debate, as did the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) raised the important issue of breastfeeding. I am delighted that the Chancellor has announced £50 million to establish multi-component breastfeeding support services in line with local needs.
Maggie Throup
I must finish; I am sorry.
In conclusion, we will continue to work across the whole Start for Life system to improve health and development outcomes for our youngest citizens. We must do everything in our power to support all families to give their baby the very best start in life.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Sarah Olney for a very brief wind-up.
Sarah Olney
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in our debate, which has been really interesting. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for all her work.
It was great to hear from the Minister about how much has already been delivered and the spending that has been announced. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for all her support in getting the debate together. She made some very interesting points about employment discrimination. I also want to pick up on what the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said about the importance of climate change.
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) made some very interesting comments about the economic impacts of motherhood. I was particularly struck by her comment that children are not an economic inconvenience; I agree 100%. I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for sharing his personal experience, which was really thought-provoking. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for mentioning trauma and adverse childhood experiences.
All hon. Members have added a really interesting dimension to the debate. I thank them all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of giving every baby the best start in life.
School-based Counselling Services
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
There have been some additions to the speaking list, so I will introduce a time limit for Back-Bench speeches, which is likely to be seven minutes, following the opening speech from the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of school-based counselling services.
Let me start by saying how grateful I am to the Backbench Business Committee for affording me almost half a day for this topic. I thank my friends throughout the House for making the case to the Committee, and I particularly thank my friend the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who has joined me in sponsoring the neutral proposition on which the debate is based.
It is estimated that in England, one in eight young people—13% of those aged between five and 19—are living with diagnosable mental health disorders. They include depression, anxiety, and conduct disorder, which is a type of behavioural problem. While the announcement earlier this year of extra funding for young people’s mental health services is welcome, it is targeted specifically at the extra dimensions of the problem caused by covid within schools. The problem was there before. It has grown, and it needs to be addressed. The services were under pressure before the pandemic, and they remain so now.
The Children’s Society tells us that 75% of young people are not receiving the help that they need, and 34% of those who manage to be referred to NHS services are not accepted for treatment. Public Health England says that in the north-east the number of pupils with social, emotional and mental health needs is higher than the national average, and the same is true in respect of hospital admissions resulting from 10 to 24-year-olds self-harming. This is an issue for the country, but it is a particular issue for our region.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting an excellent and very timely speech, and congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. I do not know whether he has seen the data, but does he share my concern that there seems to have been a much steeper increase in the mental health challenges faced by girls throughout their secondary school years than has been the case among boys? By the time they leave secondary school, girls have had almost twice as many contacts with mental health services as boys. Many of those challenges could potentially have been avoided if there were proper counselling in schools, for which I am sure my right hon. Friend will be making the case. Moreover, if boys are more reluctant to come forward for that help, is that not also a problem demonstrated by the data?
Mr Brown
Whatever the cause, the problem is clear enough, and it needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend is right to make the point, and she is also right to suggest that the roots of this, particularly in our region and the city that we both represent, are to be found in deprivation and in poverty. That is a particular feature of our region, and my hon. Friend spoke about it very movingly in the earlier debate. We know that mental health issues have a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable children, and the roots of that are in social deprivation. It is a particular problem in my own constituency. In 2014, 27% of children in east Newcastle lived in poverty; the latest figure, for 2019-20, is 38%, and it is increasing year on year.
The north-east of England is bearing the brunt of the increase in child poverty, with all 12 local authorities within the north-east region in the top 20 authorities that have seen the highest increase across England as a whole. The last Labour Government boosted the life chances and welfare of children, and I am proud to being a part of that. Policies such as Sure Start, working tax credits and well-funded family-friendly public services ensured that every child had a positive start in life. How far we have slid from that, and how misguided and mistaken we were to get ourselves into that position.
I particularly want to make the case for services for the disabled, whether they have a physical disability or mental health problems. I recently met representatives of the National Deaf Children’s Society who told me about the disproportionate impact that the coronavirus lockdowns have had on the mental health of deaf children. Measures taken to fight covid, such as the widespread wearing of face masks, particularly in the classroom, have led to communication difficulties for deaf children. As a result, 60% of deaf children have indicated that their mental health has worsened, and 58% have reported feeling isolated and lonely. Many felt that services relied too much on the telephone for booking appointments, and others did not like the fact that some appointments were now available only on the telephone.
I also want to say something about the special needs and significant mental health problems that child refugees face when they enter the United Kingdom and, eventually, the school system. I have received a substantial amount of casework regarding the situation in Afghanistan, including many requests for help to leave that country. I do my best to help my constituents, and I know that other MPs are in the same position. On the point about ring-fenced funding for mental health support in schools, I have written to the Home Secretary on behalf of my constituents and I look forward to receiving a response. It is a specific problem and it requires a specific response.
Existing provision of schools-based counselling is patchy. There is currently no legal requirement on schools in England to provide counselling services. There is, however, a specific requirement for such provision in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I understand that the Department for Education does not routinely collect school workforce data that would allow us to identify how many schools directly employed their own counsellors. Some employ their own, and some link up with other schools and share a counsellor. We know that provision is varied. Some have more casual arrangements with the voluntary sector or local authority partners. Some simply do not offer any school-based provision, and instead refer children to an external service.
There is a demand to make schools-based counselling services more consistent. More than two thirds of young people would prefer to be able to access mental health support without going through their GP. The Government’s roll-out of mental health support teams goes some way towards meeting the lower-level mental health support needs of children by offering group work and cognitive behavioural therapy for emerging issues. However, by 2023, the new teams will reach only about 30% of schools and colleges, leaving a worrying 70% with no additional early help or support other than funds that may be accessed directly via the education recovery plan.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There are many charities, particularly children’s charities, across the United Kingdom that I can think of, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s and Mind, that have a great grasp and knowledge of where the real priorities need to be. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that when the Government reply, they should listen to the organisations that know, and then deliver a strategy that can help with these situations?
Mr Brown
I have a relatively open mind on the particular route that should be taken to meet these issues head-on, and I have no ideological objection to a role for the voluntary sector or for those who want to contribute, but—at least in England—the state must take a lead. Things cannot be left as they are. I believe that school-based counselling, regardless of which organisation provides it, could fill the gap between those mental health support teams in schools and the national health service’s child and adolescent mental health services. There are limits to voluntarism, of course, and we would need the people delivering the service in the schools to have some form of qualification and understanding of what they are doing.
The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy makes that point and is campaigning on these issues. Schools-based counselling is a proven intervention for children and young people experiencing psychological distress. Some 50% of mental health disorders are present by the age of 14, increasing to 75% by the age of 18, so early intervention is key, as it is with many of these issues.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has just mentioned the statistics about early intervention. In the previous debate we were talking about investment in children at a young age. Does he agree that targeted investment in these young people is not just good for those individuals but makes economic common sense, in that the payback will be that we have productive and stable members of society?
Mr Brown
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It also relieves pressure on the national health service in the longer term, because the NHS tends to end up as the service of last resort—a role it shares with the police, equally unfairly in my view.
I commend the efforts of the Tyne & Wear Citizens group, which has been working to raise the profile of schools-based counselling and with which I have had regular meetings. The group has set out three core principles that a successful schools-based counselling programme ought to follow: first, that services should be co-operative and inclusive, including the use of digital wellbeing tools, telephone counselling and face-to-face sessions at school or external venues; secondly, that services should be collaborative and liaise with external agencies such as social services and the police where it is appropriate to do so and, thirdly, that services should be consistent, provided by those trained on a nationally recognised course, registered with a professional body and experienced in working with school-age children.
In concluding my contribution to this debate, I want to say something about the schools-based counselling programme in place in the Newcastle East NEAT Academy Trust in my constituency. I have nothing but praise for the project itself and the enthusiastic support that it is receiving from the broader schools community; my right hon. Friend will remember it well, because he used to be a councillor for the local government ward that it serves.
The project has found clear signs of improvement in educational attainment for around one in three of the pupils who received counselling. There was a significant improvement in pupils’ achieving their personal goals, with an 85% improvement in reported progress towards achieving these goals. No child reported a sharp deterioration in progress.
The counsellor—not a local government-type councillor but a schools-based counsellor—in the trial that is taking place has told me that embedding the counselling service as part of the whole-school approach is vital to removing the stigma around mental health and promoting a culture shift in the community. She has reported high levels of engagement in the programme and has stressed that demand is increasing. In order to reach more children and young people in crisis and to prevent future mental health issues from developing, I am convinced that the project has made a strong case for more school-based counsellors delivering interventions.
Were the Government to continue to take an interest in this way, it should be possible to achieve something more. I give them credit for tentatively seeing the need to intervene in this area and I hope that today’s debate, across the Floor of the House, reinforces their appetite for further action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am introducing a seven-minute time limit. I call Tracey Crouch.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
It is an honour to be able to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) on securing it and the Backbench Business Committee on granting the House time to discuss such an important matter.
I want to start with an admission. When I first became an MP, I did not think that schools should be involved in matters that were beyond the core curriculum, such as mental health. My mind was changed pretty swiftly in two ways. First, my own brush with anxiety and depression in 2012 enlightened me about mental health and cast aside any unconscious prejudice I may have had about who is affected by poor mental wellbeing. The second came through the privilege that we, as Members, have of visiting schools in our constituency and seeing that education is holistic, child-centred and rarely textbook—I ask the House to forgive the pun.
Having had my lightbulb moment, I now feel a responsibility to stand up in this Chamber to advocate for better mental health services for our children. Our child and adolescent mental health services are, I am afraid, overwhelmed, and we could, and perhaps should, have another three-hour debate about that. However, while that remains the case, the system of support for our children needs to be widened, and that is where our schools come in.
Reading the briefings for this debate, I was struck by the statistics of deteriorating mental wellbeing among our children, especially following covid, but the stat that made me feel sick was in the brief provided by YoungMinds, which noted:
“In 2017, suicide was the most common cause of death for both boys and girls aged between 5 and 19”.
That made me want to cry. There are so many heartbreaking stories of children whose lives have been robbed by a disease of which they had no control, but suicide should be preventable, if we have the right awareness, training and essential support services in place. No one, but especially no child, should lose their life to suicide.
Prior to this debate, I sought some thoughts from a handful of schools in my constituency, both primary and secondary, just as a snapshot reflection of need and provision. Anything I say from here onwards is not a criticism of the services that they, as schools, provide—quite the opposite. They are doing their absolute best, despite all the challenges that they face, which I hope to outline in what is left of my speech. It is clear that schools can play a vital role in supporting pupils’ mental health, given that they provide routine and structure to those in their daily care. However, as the need increases, it is clear that the existing provision, which in itself varies, is inadequate in meeting the need from not just a quantitative perspective, but a quality one.
Access to school counsellors may well be an integral part of ensuring that young people have access to support, but only if a school can afford to purchase the school counsellor. Most of my local secondary schools are in some form of academy trust and therefore they are able to pool resources and provide a school counselling service. One trust told me that, despite having a counsellor who works at one secondary each morning and one primary in the afternoon, and another secondary that buys in external support for three days a week, it is nowhere near enough. Another trust told me that it is lucky to have built up a specialist team of experienced professionals to plug the gap when other agencies are not on board. They have a qualified counsellor and a full-time safeguarding lead, but still their young people are crying out for help and, with the greatest respect to those working their socks off in schools, what they absolutely do not need is to be told there is a two-year wait to see CAMHS when a pupil is self-harming or has suicidal thoughts.
It is useful to be able to provide that support where the resources can be pooled to do it, but for a small school with a published admission number of 180, like one of the primary schools I reached out to, the funding is simply not available. If anyone thinks that there is not an acute need in primary schools for wellbeing support services, they are fools. I have heard as many stories of self-harm, suicidal thoughts and depression in our younger age groups as I have in secondary. But if they cannot afford a counsellor or a family liaison officer, they are left to rely on a mental health lead, which is basically a teacher still doing their job and all the things required on a curriculum, but having completed an online learning course. That course qualifies them to deal with mental health conditions as much as my FA level 1 coaching badge qualifies me to manage England.
I applaud the Government focus on this issue in guidance and, of course, the increase in funding for mental health services, but the sad truth is that more is needed. First, we need ringfenced funding. One head said to me that
“if you put additional funding into our budgets it would get lost so whilst I hate this process, look at a ring fenced amount for the next 5 years to allow us to specifically fund mental health provision in schools”.
Secondly, as suggested by one of my local schools, the training of mental health first aid should be mandatory in schools. They legally have to provide physical first aiders; why is it not the same with mental health? The training needs to be funded and not just the preserve of schools that can pay £300 per person and release staff for two days of training.
Thirdly, the Government need to fund the provision of curriculum resources to adequately teach mental health and wellbeing skills. As a strong advocate of the benefit of mindfulness in schools, I believe that the welcome but patchy initiatives that help to support wellbeing while building resilience should become standard, funded practice. It does not have to be mindfulness—one of my schools has a pat-a-dog, which has had a remarkable impact on student wellbeing—but aligning mental health and wellbeing to the curriculum, as we do with physical education, would be enormously positive.
We need to reflect on the role of designated mental health lead. I am afraid my local schools think that although it was designed with good intentions, it will end up like the role of designated safeguarding lead, which is done by a teacher, usually someone on the senior leadership team who, by the nature of their position, already has significant responsibility.
Finally, it is clear that schools are really good places to host hubs for wellbeing, so why not capitalize on that view and ensure that each cluster of schools has access to a mental health worker, a social worker, a school nurse and even a police community support officer, to deliver resource right into the heart of the community, for the most vulnerable within it?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and I agree with pretty much everything she is saying. On hubs, does she agree that some children and young people will not feel comfortable and will not want to access services through their school, for a variety of reasons? Community-based mental health support hubs that are a one-stop-shop for a variety of services are an essential complement to school-based counselling services.
Tracey Crouch
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. We need to reduce the stigma around mental health and give people the confidence to access support services wherever they are, whether that is in a school or a community hub.
It is clear that we stand on the edge of a young people’s mental health crisis, and more so because of covid, but it could also be that because of covid we have the chance to make fundamental change rather than minor tweaks here or there. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister and know that he will hear what colleagues say this afternoon. I hope he will go back to the Department, gather together all the relevant stakeholders to urgently review provision in the light of the increasing need, and then propose radical reform to support better in-house provision, because it takes less than a few minutes of listening to teachers in our constituencies to understand how urgently that is needed.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I am happy to speak in this debate on school-based counselling services and thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for securing this important debate.
A silent epidemic is sweeping through our schools and through some of our young people. It is a wide-reaching and indiscriminate epidemic, yet we are so often unwilling to discuss it. I am, of course, talking about the mental health crisis in young people. A recent NHS report published in 2021 found that the number of young people with probable mental health disorders had been rising steadily since 2017. Currently, an estimated one in six young people between the ages of six and 19 have a probable mental health disorder. The pandemic was hard for us all, but it could be said that it was felt hardest by our young people, who were cut off from school, part-time jobs and their friends. Worse still, the pandemic and chronic underfunding of our NHS caused one of the largest backlogs of mental health patients that this country has ever seen. The situation is dire and changes are long overdue.
As children return to school, we must use this opportunity to build a more welcoming and available system for young people with mental health problems. While mental health problems can afflict anyone from all walks of life, for those children whose homes have unstable economic or familial dynamics, and when those disorders are also compounded by fear and stigma, schools are often the only outlet, the only safe place. Schools must be part of the solution.
I am sure that all of us here know someone who has suffered from mental health issues. Tragically, some may also end up taking their own lives as a result. It is in times such as these that we are often forced to ask ourselves: what if we had known sooner; what if they had got the support they needed. That is the essence of what I am putting forward today? What if we tackle mental health complications early? No child should be left to begin their life with baggage—a weight to bear for the rest of their lives. Schools provide us with unparalleled access into the minds of still developing young people and it is here that we can really make a difference.
The current system to tackle young mental health concerns is outdated. A 2014 report by the Health Committee found that the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services has a complex funding arrangement and a tier-based model that fails to truly integrate the range of organisations tasked with safeguarding young people. We must show that we have listened to those families who have struggled to access mental health support during the pandemic, when pressures on children and families were at an all-time high.
While I welcome the Government’s plan to expand mental health provisions in schools, progress is painfully slow. I also fear that their current solution of increasing mental health support teams creates a “missing middle” of children who would not qualify for CAMHS, but whose needs are too complex for MHSTs. Yet again, the Government have put forward a plan that is unambitious and riddled with holes. We need a system that is more straightforward and co-operative and that supports all needs.
Employing counsellors in every school could be a viable solution to this, and it is an extremely popular measure among the public, especially those with children under the age of 18. Only around 61% of schools and colleges in England offer counselling services, more often than not run by under-qualified counsellors. That is not good enough. Concerns about the number of trained counsellors in schools and whether they are mandatory should be addressed by the Government.
Citizens UK has estimated that hiring the required 13,394 fully trained, school-based British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy accredited counsellors would cost only £554 million a year. That compares with the £1.4 billion per year currently spent on CAMHS. School counsellors in every school would centralise services, reaching the “missing middle” as well as help the 65% of pupils not currently supported under the MHST model.
I am by no means suggesting that we should spend less on mental health services, but the current unsubstantiated spending does nothing to improve services. We need focused care that identifies the problem, communicates with students in the most appropriate way and co-operates with all local institutions.
For far too long, mental health services have been shunted to the back of the queue and not taken seriously. I was shocked to discover that, when questioned in July, the former Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), revealed that counselling services for schools were not yet mandatory and she did not indicate any plan to make mental health services mandatory. Instead, she indicated that schools should be given the “freedom to decide”. The mental health of our children is not a subject for party dogma over freedom. Would any responsible parent send their child to school without someone who is, at the very least, first aid trained with a first aid kit to hand. If their child then fell over in the playground or had an allergic reaction, they would hope that someone would be there to help them, so why should mental health be any different?
What I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East, and I think all of us in the Chamber are advocating is this: a safe environment for young people where mental health is no longer the unknown or unaccounted for. If we are ever to achieve genuine parity of esteem, that is the very least we should be doing.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It was an honour to present before the Backbench Business Committee with my friend, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).
The repercussions of the pandemic will have a significant impact on children and young people. As the mental health charity, Mind, has pointed out, covid-19 will leave a “deep and lasting scar” on the mental health of millions. The statistics are grim; some have already been cited. In March, my Committee heard from the Royal College of Psychiatrists that there had been a “massive” rise in children self-harming, with a 7% rise among girls aged 11 to 16 since 2017. In 2019-20, the number of children being referred for mental health treatment soared by 60%. We all see these awful statistics in our constituencies. A mother in Harlow came to me and told me that her otherwise healthy child had started compulsively washing her hands until they were raw and bleeding since lockdown and not being at school.
Are our children getting the help that they need? The Children’s Commissioner suggested that the number of children accessing the treatment that they need has increased by just 4%. I believe that there are ways in which we can turn the tide. Let us rocket-boost the Government’s proposals to put mental health professionals in every school, quicker than the current plans. The What Works Centre for Wellbeing has identified that good mental health and wellbeing at age 14 to 15 has a significant impact on educational attainment at age 18. The Department for Education shows that pupils with better emotional wellbeing at age seven were more than one term ahead of pupils with poorer emotional wellbeing. I have seen the impact of organisations such as Place2Be in schools in Harlow, such as Stewards Academy, which benefits from its services.
This is not just about the provision of mental health; it is also about prevention and resilience. Last week, I visited a remarkable school—Newham Collegiate Sixth Form Centre—where I met students and the headteacher, who described the resilience and preventive work that the school does. It employs a coach to work with students to develop techniques to conquer their anxieties. School assemblies are used to teach the tools needed to manage highly pressured environments, using examples presented by sporting personalities. In private study periods, the desks are set up to resemble an exam hall to help pupils to become familiar with the setting. That is the kind of arsenal that should be replicated in schools around the country.
The second element of prevention must be considering extending the school day for extracurricular activities. I welcome the Government’s £5 billion for educational catch-up, but this should also be about extracurricular activities, because we know that young people who participate in after-school clubs are 20% less likely to suffer from a mental health disorder. The Education Policy Institute found that a longer school day increases educational attainment by two to three months, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport found that an extended school day can boost numeracy skills by 29%.
Why on earth will the Department for Education not at least pilot proper experiments of extended school days in some disadvantaged areas of the country, using civil society to provide those extracurricular activities, so that we can really see the difference they make; and then make that case to the Treasury? Headteachers such as the head at Newham would love to be able to offer their students extracurricular activities, just as the private schools do, but they simply do not have the funding to do so.
The Local Government Association estimates that the annual cost of mental health problems in England is about £119 billion, but rolling out counselling services to all state-funded secondary schools could cost £100 million per annum. That would provide for access to a school counsellor for at least two days a week for more than 90% of schools. It makes economic sense to invest in prevention, given that most mental health problems emerge before the age of 25.
Finally, we know that social media is a wrecking ball for young people’s mental health and wellbeing; it is damaging all of us, but particularly young people. Research from the Education Policy Institute and the Prince’s Trust found the damage that social media is doing to teenagers’ mental health, and 79% of Barnardo’s practitioners reported that children between the ages of 10 and 15 have accessed unsuitable or harmful content. One in three girls said that they were unhappy with their personal appearance by the age of 14.
The links are clear. Social media providers should not be allowed to duck their responsibilities, and I urge the children’s Minister to work with the Treasury to introduce a mental health levy for social media giants so that they can take responsibility for what is happening to our young children. Ofcom published a report earlier this year that stated that the revenue of social media companies is £4.8 billion. Introducing a 2% levy could create a funding pot of around £100 million, which could be distributed to schools to provide mental health support and digital skills training for our young people to build the resilience and online safety skills that they need. If the social media companies knew that they had to pay the levy, they might at last behave more responsibly towards our young people.
Social media firms and tech giants must do more given that much of the problem is caused by the very apps and platforms that they have built. We must rapidly deliver the commitments in the mental health Green Paper to ensure that there is a mental health professional based in every school—sooner rather than later. Priority should be given to initiatives that support prevention and teach resilience, as I highlighted with the example of Newham Collegiate Sixth Form Centre. Only by doing so can we deal with this epidemic and ensure that our children and young people emerge from the pandemic resilient and able to climb the education ladder of opportunity.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee. Talking about mental health is something that we are doing more of in this place, and that is good.
In August 2019, the Children’s Society produced “The Good Childhood Report”, which found that an increasing number of young people—around a quarter of a million—are now feeling low and unhappy about their lives. The right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has just mentioned the pandemic. I recommend that people read the recent report by King’s College London and Oxford University on the pandemic and young people’s mental health, because we have not yet seen the long-term effects.
In opening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East mentioned the statistic that 50% of mental health problems develop before the age of 14, and 75% before the age of 24. We have to change attitudes in this country. Is mental health a health issue? I have to say that for me, it is not; it is an economic issue as well. If we are not going to invest money in early interventions in schools, we will frankly not get the economic rewards. Those interventions would not only improve individuals’ lives, but save us money later on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) mentioned CAMHS. I pay tribute to all who work in CAMHS, but it will never work as it is set up at the moment. We can pour as much money as we like into it, but it will just not work. We have to try to stop the pipeline of young people going into CAMHS, because some people will need assessment by CAMHS but a lot of people do not. It is totally demoralising for young people and their families to be stuck on waiting lists, so we need processes to ensure that they can get early intervention.
I fully support school-based counselling as a way forward, but this is a broader issue. It is not just about schools; it is about the entire way we set up mental health services in this country. We need an open access policy, where people can access mental health services in the community and young people can access them in schools. If we do not do that, we will always have this system where we pour so much money into the medical side of it without addressing the real problem: dealing with those who are in crisis and need support earlier. Early intervention can prevent people from calling on services in later life, and save money. It is not just about saving money, though; it is about ensuring that those people have fulfilling lives.
Are schools islands? No, they are not. They are part of local communities, and it is vitally important that whatever we put into schools—I would certainly make it mandatory for schools to have school-based counselling —has to have links into local communities. I consider myself very fortunate in County Durham. We have a fantastic network of community-based, open-access, voluntary sector organisations that get on and deal with helping people in the community. If U Care Share is a suicide prevention charity that goes into schools and works in the community around young people and mental health. We have just had the new, fantastic Think Positive PACT House project open in Stanley in my constituency. It is a completely open-access hub. People can just walk into it and get the support they need. The people there not only give people support but, if they need to, refer them to more intensive services. We have a fantastic organisation called Rollercoaster based at the Riverside in Chester-le-Street, which supports parents of young people suffering with mental illness. We should not forget that it is not just the young person who is affected; the issue often affects an entire family. Rollercoaster is a fantastic organisation working on that.
In the system I would like to see, it is very important that we have school-based counselling, but we have to have that network of community open-access facilities that allow people, if they want to, to access mental health services. That is not just about people who are in crisis; it could just be people who want some advice. We should do that. People say, “If you give it to the voluntary sector, that is saving money”—no, it is not. Money properly invested in the voluntary sector at the local level pays dividends. It will not only lead to better outcomes, but be better value for money.
I will finish on stigma, which I have done a lot of work on with many Members of the House. We are making progress, but we have to change people’s attitudes. It is that simple thing that if someone had a broken leg or a physical disability, they would go to a doctor or ask for help, but the problem is that many people do not do that when they have a mental health condition. We have to get the system to the point where people can just walk in, ask for help and get it. I have great respect for GPs, and make no criticism of the work they do, but they should not be the only way of accessing those services. If we had that open-access policy, community-based services and schools working with their local communities, we would not only have better outcomes for individuals, but save money. A lot of the cash that goes into mental health services should be redirected into community services and schools where people are accessing it.
To finish, the more we talk about this subject, the more normalised we make it. If I may, I give one message to young people today if they are suffering—we accept the huge pressures on them today. It is not a sign of weakness to ask for help. It is there, please ask for it.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) on securing this important debate. I rise to speak both as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs and as the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent Central, which has significant challenges due to multiple deprivation factors in our city and the high levels of young people in care—more than 1,000—which mean that our schools and colleges have a vital counselling and safeguarding role. That underpins our ambitions to give our young people the best opportunities to achieve and fulfil their potential.
However, support for care leavers and those who live independently is inconsistent and a high-risk area. These young people are vulnerable, as well as being high-risk for mental health issues. Young people’s mental health issues impact educational outcomes and the ability to form friendships. Problems can last into adulthood, affecting life chances and physical health.
In Stoke-on-Trent, CAMHS is overstretched and cannot meet the demands across the city. Students do not see the same person for any follow-up appointments or long-term counselling treatment. In addition, a 17-year-old student is unlikely to be seen until they reach 18 due to the waiting list. Services are now focused on the reactive as opposed to the preventive at a time of wide recognition that investment must be focused on preventive actions to avoid the physical and mental—and financial—cost of waiting until a young person presents with a major trauma.
I welcome the recommendations in the national food strategy about the importance of access for every child to nutritious food and healthy eating, to address the causes of malnutrition in schools and to tackle eating disorders, which recently have risen significantly. Those issues are also probably picked up more by counsellors than by other services.
This year, City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College’s safeguarding, counselling and wellbeing team received a national award for its emotional wellbeing project. I am sure the House will join me in congratulating Jo Finn, Kirsty Cooper and Claire Gaygan on the superb work that they do, which was made possible by the opportunity area funding. The college looks after about 1,800 students, many of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds. The funding enabled the team to devise a model to meet the needs of the young people of Stoke-on-Trent, rather than the other way round. The impact of that is measurable in clinical data, as well as other key performance indicators, including attendance, progression and retention. Young people have engaged with the service as it fits around their timetables, no travel is involved, they see the purpose and they are referred quickly internally to a mental health practitioner, an emotional wellbeing worker, or one of the many groups that they can attend.
Across the city, schools also take on the hugely important role of safeguarding. They act as a triage service that notifies other statutory services when they become aware of issues, as well as providing a safe space where children can open up to a trusted adult. I commend the excellent work undertaken in all our schools and colleges. I have the utmost respect for all the teachers and support staff who work so hard to provide not only quality education but pastoral care to our children and young people. I have heard many accounts of the daily challenges faced in providing such support as an unfunded or temporarily funded extra. I speak today in support of core funding for mental health counselling and safeguarding provision to ensure that those with added personal challenges and health issues have the best possible chances throughout our education system.
In Stoke-on-Trent, loss of early intervention across the city means more focus on higher-tier services that look at extreme cases involving, for example, domestic abuse, substance misuse or human trafficking. Schools and colleges are therefore having to deal with intermediate services. Locally, Stoke-on-Trent has lost essential services such as the school nurse service, which provided preventive support and guidance, and sometimes immediate referrals to A&E, particularly for mental health issues and eating disorders; “Hidden Harm”, a drug service supporting young people with parents with drug-related and mental health issues; and the STAR—sex teenagers and relationships—service that provided early intervention and support around healthy relationships. As a result, schools and colleges are having to pick that up.
The threshold for family services is extremely high, which means that schools and colleges are also picking up that early intervention work. They have the skills and experience to do that, but they have no allocated budget or time. It is an additional responsibility.
Munira Wilson
The hon. Lady is making some important points. When I tour schools in my constituency, mental health is by far the No. 1 priority that every headteacher gives me. I have been struck by the impact on staff, many of whom do not have the skills and experience to deal with the level of mental health problems that they face. I went into a secondary school a few days after a young person had taken their own life. Just recently, I saw a seven-year-old expressing violent behaviour and the teacher was shaken up and had to take time out of the classroom. That is why we need mental health support teams rolled out quickly. The Government’s catch-up funding must provide not just academic support but holistic support, including for mental health, because teachers and headteachers are really struggling.
Jo Gideon
I thank the hon. Lady, and I agree with all she says.
The threshold for family services is extremely high, which means that schools and colleges are picking up early intervention work. The sixth-form college works specifically with 16 to 18-year-olds, which is a really challenging place to be. Legally, this age group is still classed as children, but accessing external support is increasingly challenging. There is a huge gap between children’s and adults’ services, and the threshold for adult services is even higher than for children’s services. At 18 someone will come under adult services, but it is almost impossible to have an adult services support worker for an 18-year-old.
The issue of funding counselling services spans both the Health and the Education Departments. Disappointingly the college approached the clinical commissioning group to share costs and provide additional support for both colleges in the city, which would have cost about £40,000, but the CCG declined. As we move to integrated care partnerships, I hope that it will take an holistic view of preventive mental health support, and that means working closely with education and schools.
I recognise that the cost of staffing counselling service provision across all the schools in England is significant, but I truly believe that it is a key element of levelling up. If areas such as Stoke-on-Trent are to level up our educational achievement, the things that hold us and our children and young people back must be addressed by having extra counselling services. We cannot raise standards without recognising the real barriers that most vulnerable young people face and putting in place core funding for essential school and college-based counselling services. I believe that that will address these issues, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas—there is a need for these services in every area, but those areas need disproportionately more, and any help that the Government provide is most welcome. We need to recognise that some areas need more help than others, and I hope that the Minister is listening.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure to speak in today’s debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing it.
Early intervention cuts harm, reduces risk now and in the long term and, crucially, prevents ill health in the first place. Children and young people are exposed to so many risks and so much trauma in their lives. Bullying occurs, adverse childhood experiences are real and there is the issue of social media. I would also say to the Minister and his Department that the pressure of the school system and exams is bearing down on children.
If we do not produce well-rounded children at the end of their schooling, what have we done to our young people? That is why it is so important that today’s debate looks holistically not just at children’s mental health issues but at their causes, and that it addresses those too. That is particularly important given that we heard that one in nine children had a diagnosable mental health condition pre-pandemic, rising to one in six as a result of covid—covid has of course borne down so heavily on so many of our constituents.
A quarter of 17-year-olds have self-harmed, and 7% have attempted suicide. The numbers are rising fast. This is an epidemic, and we need the Government to shift resources now to get a grip on what is happening. It is unforgivable that the Vale of York CCG budget for child mental health is so limited and that just 0.8% of its overall budget is spent on child mental health—just £55 per child. Children wait 39 weeks for their first contact with the service, and longer for treatment.
Surveys of schools in York show that we are crying out for counsellors. Some schools have told me that they have been able to find a few hours for wellbeing by replacing teacher time or by benefiting from student counsellors or the school wellbeing service. However, by their own admission, provision was too little, too late or non-existent. Schools therefore need support. When they do engage, of course, they have all sorts of challenges around information sharing. While they understand the need for confidentiality, they need to address those issues too. School mental health should not be just another thing for teachers to do. That is unsafe. What if they miss a diagnosis or an intervention? That is where we need to have trained professionals at the helm, creating healthy environments for children to be nurtured in.
Of course, training teachers is important. We can address the culture and climate of a school, but ultimately this must be a job for health professionals. However, without a workforce plan, supporting young people is not going to happen. I recall when the Government focused on driving up the number of health visitors—sadly that is now regressing fast. I was head of health at Unite at the time. It was a priority for No.10. There was action every day. Mountains were moved and people were trained. However, there is no similar focus on the mental health and wellbeing of our precious and often fragile young people and I call on the Minister to look at that today. What happened around training those health visitors? Can that be translated into putting school counsellors in place, addressing a massive shortage in the workforce? That was the case with health visitors then and it is the case with counsellors now.
We need to ensure that a proper structure is in place. This is not just about young people; it is also about parents. Parents want support and to know how best to nurture their children through a crisis, and through developing and increasing mental health challenges. If a child broke their leg, they would know exactly where to go, where to get support and—guess what—on day one they would get the treatment they need. But it is months and months for an injured mind and that is certainly not parity of esteem. So why not make schools the hub for all child mental health, from nursery to primary to secondary to college and to university?
We also need community services. I urge the Minister to talk about youth services, and the need to ensure that we properly invest in those services as a hub in the community that children can access. If we know about place and about the professionals we need in that place, we can then have a programme to get to the point we need to get to. That is what is missing. Where do people go? We hear about family hubs, virtuous as they may be, but then we have CAMHS services and GPs. It is a minefield and a mess, so we must simplify the system and bring it into one place to help families to know exactly where they are heading.
I am not trying to pathologise mental health—quite the opposite. If we have the right professionals in place, they can easily triage individuals into the right place and services. For some people, that will involve an escalation to see an educational psychologist, a psychiatrist, or other professionals. Perhaps it will lead to social prescribing. I urge the Minister to look at the success of the social prescribing programme. It is being rolled out for adults, but what about engaging children and young people in various things happening in their community? I commend organisations such as The Island in my constituency, which provides space and time for vulnerable young people to build confidence and self-esteem, and to unlock their potential through building positive mentoring relationships and unique programmes. The testimonies from there are phenomenal.
In conclusion, let us agree a few principles. The first is place and that is the educational setting. Then it is the workforce. Then let us get a workforce plan in place. Let us consider the recruitment and training we need, and let us have uncapped funding so that we get on top of this crisis and address the needs that follow. If the Education Minister does one thing in his time in post, building and enhancing the wellbeing, confidence and wholeness of a young person would be a far greater legacy than perhaps any of his predecessors have ever achieved.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing such an important debate.
Some time ago, before I was an MP, I was a secondary school science teacher. Like most busy secondary school teachers, I taught more than 300 pupils every week. As a teacher, I was very much focused on delivering the syllabus, ensuring that no one set fire to the classroom, and getting through all the teaching material on schedule. For a classroom teacher, it is important that students are ready to learn, and we often think about that in terms of, “Have they got the right pens and the right pencils? Have they brought their textbooks and homework?” However, it is, of course, also important that students are ready to learn emotionally and mentally.
It is not uncommon for teachers to have students turn up to the classroom who are just not in a fit state to learn. They might need to go to pastoral support or take some time out. Sometimes, the issues—a falling out between friends, an unexpectedly bad test result, or perhaps not getting into a sports team—resolve themselves on their own. But sometimes—often, in fact—the issues are deeper and harder to fix. I am thinking of things such as low self-esteem, a chaotic home life, abuse and, increasingly commonly, sexual exploitation over the internet.
Members on both sides of the House have made excellent speeches about how children are increasingly affected by mental health challenges that they desperately need help with and are not going to recover from on their own. Of course, some will have parents and extended family who are able to help, but many will not. It is not just important for their educational prospects that they have access to counselling in school; it is also important for their life chances in general that we address these problems early to stop them becoming chronic and affecting their whole lives. I do not want to repeat the many excellent remarks about the challenges our children are facing and how it is so important that all children have access to professional support.
Some schools are doing an amazing job already. Horizon Community College in Barnsley in my constituency has a wellbeing centre on site that is staffed by counsellors and people from the multi-agency support team, who support not only the children in the school but the whole community. That is a fantastic example, and we should share such good practice. But the truth is that many smaller schools do not have the resources to put in place something as innovative as that, so I fully support the campaign by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow to have a mental health professional available in every school.
Of course we need counsellors in schools, but it is very important that they are professional, that they follow guidance and that they can be trusted. In response to a survey by the Department for Education in 2017, only 47% of schools that employed counsellors said that their counsellors were registered with professional bodies, and one in seven said that their counsellors had no qualifications at all. We need to be very careful when we talk about counsellors in schools. They have a very influential role and they deal with vulnerable children, who often have mental health issues, as we know. They must fulfill that role responsibly and professionally, and they must follow guidance. I very much welcome the idea of community sector and third sector involvement, but we have to be very careful about the potential safeguarding issues if we do not follow the guidance and do not ensure professionalism.
I want to raise what I think is a very dangerous potential safeguarding issue that we are seeing in this area right now. Schools are inviting outside organisations in to provide counselling-type services and using their materials. Groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids are teaching what I think are dangerous and contested, extreme ideologies that do not have a basis in science to our children, and it is contrary to DFE guidance. We have groups such as the Allsorts Youth Project, which is teaching children that there are more than two sexes, and the Diversity Role Models group, which comes into school and provides workshops but tells children that their sex was assigned to them at birth. I have seen a video today by the Free to Be group telling teachers that they might drive children to suicide if they do not accept this ideology. And we have Stonewall wrongly interpreting the Equality Act 2010 in a way that erodes the sex-based rights particularly of girls, in a way that I think is very dangerous.
I know of children who have been counselled by adults in school that they would be happier if they changed their gender, and frighteningly, they are being told not to tell their parents and to keep this a secret. I know of schools where children are disciplined for complaining about children of the opposite sex being allowed to use their PE changing rooms. I think this pushing of an extreme ideology that does not have a basis in science and is highly contested is having terrible consequences, and teachers and pupils are afraid to speak out.
In 2009, 72 children were referred to the Tavistock’s gender identity service. In 2019, 2,364 children, of which two thirds were girls, were sent to the service. That is a 5,000% increase in the number of girls sent to the clinic in just 10 years. Many of them go on to be prescribed puberty blockers, and research suggests that 98% of those children are then given cross-sex hormones. These are children who will become infertile, sterile and have permanent loss of sexual function. How can 12, 13 or 14-year-olds consent to that? Many of these children have complex mental health issues. Many are autistic and many have difficult family backgrounds. Some are same-sex attracted, but are being told that they should change their gender. I am afraid that that is a consequence of a harm being done to our children as a direct result of this agenda being pushed in schools contrary to DFE guidance, which states:
“You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender”.
The guidance goes on to talk about what material can and cannot be used.
I appreciate that the Minister has agreed to meet me to discuss this issue. Absolutely, we need counsellors to be available in school and we need more focus on wellbeing and emotional health. However, we must have a robust safeguarding process to ensure that the adults who go into schools and the materials they use are registered, approved and in line with DFE guidance, and that they are doing the best for our children, encouraging their wellbeing and not pushing their own agenda. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he intends to ensure the guidance is followed and I appreciate his offer to meet me.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Environment Act 2021.
School-based Counselling Services
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker
I also have to inform the House that I have to reduce the time limit to six minutes. I call Paul Blomfield.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity, after the last contribution, to return the discussion to the topic under debate, and to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing the debate on which there has been, until the last contribution, a great deal of consensus across the House.
Every year, as part of my annual community consultation at the start of the year, I meet school students in each of the secondary schools in my constituency. Maybe this is my naivety, but the first I time did that I was genuinely shocked. When I asked them, “What is the most important thing we could be doing to change your lives?” they told me in each of the schools that it was to provide access to mental health support. Over the past 10 years, I have heard the same message year after year.
As with so many issues, the pandemic has brought this crisis into sharper relief. In Sheffield, I have heard from worried parents, teachers and health professionals who tell me about the scale of the problem with child and adolescent mental health and the lack of available services. Last Friday, I discussed the position with those at Sheffield Children’s Hospital. They are worried. For the most serious cases, they are deeply concerned about the lack of psychiatric beds for young people. They have worked hard to narrow the gap between referral to CAMHS and first appointment, but it is still about five months—five months—for that critical initial intervention. That situation is reflected across the country.
The former Children’s Commissioner highlighted in 2021 the fact that over 500,000 children and young people were referred to CAMHS in the previous two years. Of those, approximately 3,500 either had their referral closed or were still on the waiting list at the end of the reporting period. The number of A&E attendances by young people aged 18 or under with a recorded diagnosis of a psychiatric condition has tripled since 2010. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a striking contribution about the number of suicides. Our schools are caught in the middle of this crisis, desperate to support their students but without the resources to do so. Prior to the pandemic, one third of schools did not provide any in-school mental health support. Those that do provide support have to dip into their teaching budgets, distracting from other priorities to do so. That is why parents, along with professionals, believe that access to counselling is so important.
Of course, it is not just about counselling. We need to be ahead of the problem and view mental wellbeing in the same way as we view physical wellbeing. Our Healthy Minds and Mental Health Support Team in Sheffield works with local schools to develop a culture of emotional wellbeing among young people, which includes feeling safe and valued, with social connectedness and structure in their lives. Young people want to be heard and to have staff who understand that other things might be going on in their lives and who know how to listen. That cannot be a bolt-on; it has to be embedded in a school’s culture. For example, if a young person is feeling anxious about exams, there are therapeutic interventions to help them to manage that stress. But time and funding to do that is vital to its success.
When young people are struggling, early intervention is key, helping them to deal with the problems that they face when they face them and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out, taking the pressure off services further down the line that would be drawn in if the problem got worse. That is why the Local Government Association recently urged the Government to fully fund counselling services in all state-funded secondary schools, providing immediate support. It called for £100 million a year to
“ensure access to a…counsellor for at least two days a week for more than 90 per cent of schools.”
The Government’s response is to ask more of already overstretched school staff. The plans for mental health support teams are welcome, but they do not go far enough. Encouraging mental health leads in schools to undertake training to help to fill the gap by equipping teachers to recognise problems and point students towards help just will not do. As the assistant principal of one of my local secondary schools said to me yesterday:
“Frankly I do not need to be trained in how to signpost young people to mental health care providers, I need the money to be invested in providing the actual mental health care.”
Clearly, support does not stop with counselling. How will CAMHS waiting times be addressed? How many more mental health professionals are being trained? As Members on both sides of the House have consistently said, preventive and early intervention is vital. Half of all mental health problems manifest by the age of 14. It is striking that NHS England recognises that the current investment in children and young people’s mental health meets only 33% of need. That is truly shocking. What if that were to apply to other illnesses? Is there any other kind of epidemic that we would allow to run rampant among our children? Is there any other type of illness that we would let lie untreated without concern for the impact on future generations?
As chair of the all-party group on students, I co-led an inquiry into the provision of mental health support for 16 to 21-year-olds moving into FE and HE. That demonstrated the numbers who were transitioning into HE and FE without previously having had support. When the Minister rises to say what the Government have done, I hope that he will recognise what more needs to be done, as has been reflected in contributions from Members on both sides of the House.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this really important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it.
Since I was elected, I have been working with young people from Peterborough schools on mental health services for children and young people. I am so lucky to have in my city a group of talented, passionate young people who are ready and willing to offer their time to work with their MP on this important issue. I genuinely consider it a privilege to be working with many of them. The speech that I am making today has in part been drafted by those young people; they have provided me with quotes, statistics and testimony. So I would like to thank Darya Robson, Charlotte Hemens, Amelia Lawson, Austeya Dalansamskita and Amira Dinari for all that they have done. They have done superb work and they make me proud of Peterborough.
It is well documented that there has been an increasing demand for mental health services for children and young people, much of it because of the measures taken to prevent the spread of covid. A recent survey by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reported that ChildLine helped as many as 67 children with suicidal thoughts a day. In my region, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust had 1,625 urgent referrals in the month of May 2021 alone, of which 795 were for potentially life-threatening conditions. We are facing a mental health crisis in our young people and the more that we can support them by providing access to early intervention in the form of in-school counselling, the better things will be.
The group of young people I have been working with has also been working with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough clinical commissioning group to secure a system with a single point of referral and a new website. The group approached me last week to request that I participate in this debate and campaign for school-based counselling, which I am more than happy to do.
In 2020, amid the first wave of the covid pandemic, one in six children aged five to 19 was identified as having a probable mental health disorder—up from one in nine before the pandemic. School should be the one safe place where every child can feel valued, cared for and accepted. It is the perfect place for students who are suffering with their mental health to access an on-site qualified counsellor.
I feel that the current systems and mechanisms for mental health provision are not serving young people as they should. In 2019, more than half of GP referrals to child and adolescent mental health services in the UK were rejected on the grounds that the symptoms were not severe enough. Although other services such as NHS mental health support teams are being developed, they are patchy in coverage and tend to focus on parental interventions. They are no substitute for on-site access to a qualified counsellor.
All the evidence, including research undertaken in my county, supports early intervention to prevent an issue from becoming a full-blown crisis. School-based counselling can provide an alternative option for young people who have nowhere else to turn. The young people I have been working with are from a range of schools and colleges; some are fortunate enough to have a school-based counsellor, but others are not.
Students who benefit from easily accessible on-site counselling testify that they feel more comfortable talking with a professional with whom they have a long-term relationship because of their presence in the school community. They also emphasise the overwhelming advantage from not missing education time by leaving school for external mental health appointments; a pre-covid study found that absence due to poor mental health accounted for more than 13% of school days lost. Students who have this option are also free from the burden of waiting times, referral lists and possible rejection for not meeting criteria, and are less likely to need access to emergency services.
Providing school-based counselling means that no student slips through the net. Students from schools and colleges that are not able to offer the service tell a different story. One group I met spoke of having access only to a trainee counsellor, who was limited in the support that they could provide, meaning that students waited a long time to access a non-qualified counsellor, only to be signposted to outside organisations. One student told me:
“Having a qualified counsellor would increase the attendance and engagement of students. More importantly it would mean that students can get the support they need without having to reach a crisis point before any action is taken. It would mean that students felt safer and more willing to seek the help they need without feeling like a burden.”
The pandemic has put an enormous strain on our young people. I believe that we owe it to them to ensure that they have the support that they need at the place where they need it: their school or college. I therefore urge Ministers to listen carefully to the voices of young people from a variety of schools in my constituency, including Peterborough School, the King’s School, Thomas Deacon Academy and St John Fisher School—lots of schools in my constituency have taken the time to contact me about the subject. Will Ministers please outline what they will do to get more counsellors based in schools?
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate.
Young people have faced a great deal of uncertainty and disruption to their daily lives, education and support networks, with many facing financial insecurity, trauma and bereavement. A recent survey by YoungMinds found that two thirds of young people aged 13 to 25 believed that the pandemic would have a negative long-term impact on their mental health. In 2017, one in nine children and young people was estimated to have a diagnosable mental health condition; in September, NHS Digital suggested that one in six young people now has a probable mental health disorder.
Access to free, timely counselling interventions for young people can play a critical role in responding to pre-existing mental health needs and to those brought about by the pandemic or other traumatic experiences. However, Government complacency has left CAMHS overwhelmed and many schools without the necessary resources. Before the pandemic, a third of schools did not provide any in-school mental health support; recent research by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggests that as few as 48% of schools were providing on-site access to a counsellor.
I visited Downside Primary School in my constituency of Luton South as part of UK Parliament Week last week. The headteacher told me about the excellent work that the school is doing to support children’s mental health needs. However, Downside has had to resort to using its own grant funding to hire appropriate mental wellbeing support, be it a counsellor or a psychologist, to work with pupils directly in the school.
That is because of three overarching barriers restricting children and young people’s access to mental health support. First, CAMHS simply lacks the capacity to meet demand at the level at which it is needed—often long before a child is in crisis—and in a timely manner. Secondly, there is too much bureaucracy and form-filling, restricting school staff’s ability to secure mental health support for children quickly—perhaps in relation to a longer-term condition, but particularly at that early stage before the child reaches crisis. Thirdly, CAMHS is not always reaching, or meeting the needs of, an ethnically diverse and multi-faith community, owing to social stigma about going “outside” home or school for support, particularly mental health support. Expanding that support in schools to reduce stigma is a priority for parents, who would be much more comfortable about enabling their children to access it in a school setting, and more financially able to do so. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on this complex and sensitive issue.
Parentkind’s Annual Parent Survey 2021 found that 41% of parents wanted any additional school funding to be spent on child mental health services, which meant that it was their second biggest priority, while 88% wanted mental health development to be an important focus within the curriculum. However, the Government are only aiming to get mental health support teams to a quarter of young people by 2023. Will the Minister explain why there is such a lack of urgency on the Government’s part?
We need the Government to listen to the proposals put forward by the Labour party, which would expand the mental health workforce, deliver access to trained mental health counsellors in every school—which, as we have heard, works well—and deliver support to young people through open-access mental health hubs in every community. Under our proposals, every secondary school would have access to a full-time staff member, and primary schools would have access to specialist staff time shared between different local primary schools. Open-access mental health hubs would also help us to reach marginalised children who would otherwise not have access to mental health treatment.
I hope to hear from the Minister whether he agrees that a trained mental health counsellor should be available in every school.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing the debate. It is particularly close to my heart, because in my constituency we have three of the UK’s leading specialist schools for children with learning difficulties. I have had the privilege of visiting them and speaking to staff and children, who I understand come from miles around for the specialist care that Merefield, Peterhouse and Presfield Schools provide. I realise how lucky we are to have those wonderful schools in Southport on our doorstep, and I also realise that, sadly, this is not a success shared universally across the UK. Indeed, the schools themselves have told me that they are at capacity, and that although they would like to take on more children, they are often unable to do so.
In the case of many children, it is not full-time specialist care that they need, but simply a friendly, qualified counsellor to whom they can speak in confidence, perhaps on a regular basis, about their problems. Small interventions now can pay dividends in the long run, helping children to achieve their potential.
I back the Government’s record on support for children’s mental health, particularly during covid, and am proud to have voted for many of those measures. In March last year, as covid took hold, I was pleased to support the offer of £79 million to boost mental health provision for children and young people. By April 2023, that should enable nearly 3 million children to have access to some 400 mental health support teams in schools and colleges. These are noble goals and I fully support them, but there is still much more to do.
Just two months later, we announced the provision of £17 million to improve mental health and wellbeing support in schools and colleges, with up to 7,800 institutions in England being offered up to £9.5 million to train senior mental health leads. These measures are clearly popular. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy reports that 72% of adults believe that schools should offer counselling services, including some 79% of parents with children under the age of 18. Among 16 to 24-year-olds, the figure jumps to a staggering 83%. The support is clearly there, but, while the Government are doing an unprecedented amount to support mental health in schools, specific measures such as increased provision of well-trained schools-based counsellors would be of great benefit.
I do not think that fixing this is just a job for the Government. It is right that the decisions are delegated to schools, and that while the Government are clear that all schools should make counselling services available to their pupils, it is ultimately individual schools and colleges that know best what support to offer their students. That is why they should have the freedom to enact the Government’s recommendations as they wish. However, I would encourage them to work closely with their local NHS, clinical commissioning groups, councils and, most importantly, parents and carers of children, to achieve the ends that we all want to achieve.
In speaking to my constituents and helping them with their casework, I understand the difficulty that many have had in getting an educational health and care plan—an EHCP—once they are referred to SEND. This plan is crucial to the wellbeing of some children, as without it they will struggle to get the necessary arrangements implemented in school that they need for their mental wellbeing. My constituents suffer from a lack of information throughout the process of getting an EHCP, as well as ongoing delays, and they sometimes do not get the support they need. Children can find this frustrating, and I fear a situation where we see children with mental health issues being excluded because they cannot get the treatment they so clearly need.
We need to see mental health support being provided as early as possible in a child’s school career, so that it is there when they need it, not years after their mental illness first occurs. We need to look at what more we can do to support those with moderate mental health problems who do not need specialist schools, but rather qualified counsellors. We need to hit this Government’s ambitious target and then set even more ambitious ones until 100% of children have access to mental health support in schools.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I welcome this debate. I worked in childcare many years ago, when it was difficult to get people to comprehend the scale of mental illness among children and young people. We have moved on from there, and I am really grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the right hon. Member for Harlow (Mr Halfon) for securing this debate. I chaired the all-party parliamentary group for parental participation in education last week, and we heard that the charity Parentkind had produced a survey revealing parents’ concerns. It found that 41% of parents now see the need for additional resources to be spent on mental health services for children, and that this was their second highest priority after the need for additional learning resources.
We also received a briefing from the division of educational and child psychology of the British Psychological Society. I declare an interest, in that my wife is an educational psychologist, but as she reminds me, she is also a constituent so she has the right to lobby me, even if it is at the breakfast table. That report confirmed what my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) said about incidence. The NHS’s own survey showed that in 2020, one in six children—that is 16%—aged between five and 16 were identified as having a probable mental disorder, increasing from one in nine in 2017. What I found startling was that the same study showed that only six in 10 children aged between five and 16 with a probable mental disorder had regular support from their school or college.
I fully welcome the additional funds that the Government have given, but most stakeholders believe that it is inadequate to meet the scale of the problem. My right hon. Friend pointed out that even by 2023, only 3 million of the 9.5 million children will receive the support that they need. What we have been arguing for is a comprehensive, fully functioning and fully funded pathway to support children with mental health problems, and that starts in school. That pathway usually starts as a result of a parent or teacher’s action, but some children now are self-reporting their mental health issues.
A crucial point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about a workforce strategy to provide support for teachers and special educational needs co-ordinators, but in this debate we are emphasising the fact that there have to be comprehensive counselling services embedded within those schools as well. Let me now give a plug for educational psychologists. They have the expertise to provide early help and targeted mental health interventions. They work with the counselling services, where they exist, and also with families. They are often the access points to child and adult mental health services and other health provision that is available, often through local health services and now through local authorities as well.
While we welcome the additional resources, I think we are arguing for the Government to stand back and look for that comprehensive approach, based on a work- force strategy and on the investment overall.
I refer back to educational psychologists. There are 3,000 of them in this country at the moment. That means one educational psychologist for every 3,500 five to 19-year-olds—or, because they now deal with those aged nought to 25, one for every 5,000. One early investment could be the expansion of educational psychology training places on the three-year doctoral programme, which could be readily invested in and could turn around relatively quickly to meet the increase in demand if we are to construct the comprehensive pathway service for which we have all been campaigning for so long. I will leave it at that point, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Throughout this debate, we have heard time and again how important early intervention is. It is essential to a person’s proper recovery from a mental illness, and that is specifically true for children and young people suffering from an eating disorder. I speak today as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders to highlight once more the huge problem that eating disorders pose and the big difference that early intervention can make.
Eating disorders have no single cause, but they have the highest mortality rate of all mental health disorders. I say that again: they have the highest mortality rate of all mental health disorders. Recovery lasts, on average, three times as long as the disorder itself. One third of people suffering from an eating disorder get better, one third stay the same—a life sentence in itself—and one third get worse; quite a lot of them, tragically, either die of malnutrition or take their own lives.
All too often, eating disorders can go undiagnosed and untreated. Although they do not discriminate, school-aged children are a particularly vulnerable group; most eating disorders develop during adolescence. According to data from NHS England, the number of children and young people waiting for eating disorder treatment has increased significantly in 2021 compared with previous years. In June, that figure was four times higher than at the same point in 2020. Eating disorders thrive in the shadows, where there is no social contact, and the pandemic has been particularly bad for sufferers from eating disorders.
There is much that we must do to improve outcomes for all with eating disorders. The APPG is looking into research funding, reducing waiting times and improving access to treatment, but the best possible thing we can do is to help children and young people to avoid reaching crisis point in the first place. The first point of contact for many children and young people in the UK is their school. Speaking to a counsellor can help them to cope with the different circumstances they face in their lives, within a familiar setting—yes, sometimes some of the problems our young people face are not so severe, but often they are. School is a daily contact that they have and a setting where they can access counselling.
I am not denying that other centres would be useful too, but surely we need to do more in schools. School staff are ideally placed to spot the early signs of an eating disorder, as well as the potential factors that can lead to the development of one. I have been a secondary school teacher too, and the problem is finding the time in the school day to really go into where a young person has an issue. It is that extra time and extra counselling resource that schools need.
I highlight the excellent work of the eating disorder charity Beat, which supports the APPG and runs training courses aimed at school professionals. Access to support should never be a postcode lottery, but England lags behind the rest of our family of nations, where school counselling services have statutory funding. Research shows that as few as 48% of schools provide on-site access to a counsellor, with a growing divide between affluent and more deprived communities. School counsellors can provide that crucial missing middle between the lower-level intervention traditionally provided in schools and specialist children’s and young people’s mental health services.
Many leading mental health charities have got behind the campaign for a counsellor in every school in England, and I urge the Minister to support that call. Access to counselling should not just be for the schools and families that have the budget to fund this essential provision. I know that every school in Bath is committed not only to our children’s education, but to their wellbeing. They must be given the additional funding that they need to offer sustainable counselling provision as part of the wider mental health support package available to students. I repeat what many Members from across the House have said: this is the biggest issue that school leaders come to us with—they say that when I go into schools to talk to them. They want more mental health support for their young people.
There is no easy solution on the issue of mental health, but we cannot afford to cut corners, especially on the mental wellbeing of children and young people. We need a multifaceted approach that recognises the value of our schools, community services and society as a whole. Let me say again to the Minister: please pay attention to eating disorders, as they have reached epidemic levels and we need to do something about them.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for leading this important debate on school-based counselling. It is a testament to how much we value this topic that on the day the House rises everyone has stayed back to contribute to this debate.
Lots of issues have been raised. The importance of looking at mental health holistically was talked about passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The right hon. Member for Harlow passionately discussed the impact of social media on mental health. We heard repeatedly about the stigma around tackling mental health, including from my right hon. Friend.
Every Member who spoke talked about the impact of covid on young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) cited the survey by the charity YoungMinds showing that throughout this pandemic, in the past 18 months, the mental health problems for two thirds of young people have been exacerbated enormously. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East also talked about covid-19 and how it has restricted access to mental health services for far too many people. He also made important points about the impact on deaf children, and similar points were made to me when I met a group of headteachers from special needs schools, all of whom talked about the impact covid has had on people with physical disabilities and the mental health impact that moves on from there.
This is a perfect storm, which is likely to have devastating consequences for young people. We are already starting to see this impact as constituency MPs, with an astonishing 96% increase in under-18s being referred to mental health services between spring 2019 and spring 2021, according to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Yet just two in five children with a diagnosed condition can actually access specialist support. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked powerfully about how shocked he was when he heard local children talk about the lack of access to specialist support. I felt similarly when I spoke to a group of young people in my constituency. When we are sitting here in the Chamber, we do not often think about how people struggle to access support. We think it is there and they can access it, but I felt the same as he did when I spoke to people. I was shocked when I read that an estimated one in six children and young people now have a mental health condition—that has increased from one in nine just four years ago. It is also shocking to see that the number of accident and emergency attendances for young people with a psychiatric condition has tripled since then. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central used a statistic that I had also looked up, which was that in 2017 almost a quarter of 17-year-olds had self-harmed. The situation was bad before and it is getting worse, just at the same time as access to mental health services, both in and out of school, has been restricted.
Many of the answers to how we tackle this crisis can relate to school. As well as wider positive impacts that schooling can have, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East talked about ample evidence that school-based counselling can improve wellbeing and attainment. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South talked about the IPPR report, which I also read and which showed that far fewer state schools are providing on-site counselling than were doing so a decade ago, when nine in 10 schools offered it—the figure is now about half that, according to a recent survey of teachers. When children returned to school after lockdown, just one in five teachers thought that their school’s mental health services were sufficient to support their pupils. We know how much pressure teachers are under, so I hope that the Minister will pay attention to teachers returning to find that not enough mental health support was in place.
My hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for York Central both talked about the importance of trained professionals, and the former talked about the missing middle. I know from my experience as a school governor, and we will all know from our experiences in our constituencies, that many teachers and school staff are currently taking on additional responsibilities for supporting pupils’ mental health, on top of their day jobs. They are mostly not trained to do it and neither do they have the resource to do it.
The Labour party believes that there is an alternative. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the economics of mental health and how it pays off to invest in it, which is what Labour believes. We want to give all schools the additional resources they need to hire specialist counselling and mental health support. That was one of the key commitments of the £15 billion children’s recovery plan to deal with the fallout of the pandemic that Labour announced earlier this year. The Welsh Labour Government have made huge progress on this issue by legislating to put counselling support for 10 to 18-year-olds on a statutory footing.
Under Labour’s costed proposals, every secondary school would have a full-time staff member whose job is to support pupils’ mental health, and primary schools would have access to such specialist support, shared among schools in the local area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, that would mean that problems would be caught and resolved before they could escalate, and teachers and other school staff would be able to focus on their jobs. We know what demanding jobs they have already.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West said, schools have to be part of the solution, but fixing the crisis in children and young people’s mental health cannot just be left to schools, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. Even with the support and resources that we would provide if we were in government, we would have to look at the support provided by CAMHS and other NHS services as well, and I am afraid that the situation in that respect is even worse. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham talked about early intervention; the truth is that waiting lists for mental health support are currently unacceptably long, thereby allowing problems to escalate well before young people can be seen by a specialist. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central also made that point.
I say again that there is an alternative. Labour has pledged to implement a new national NHS target that guarantees mental health support within a month, backed up by our plan to recruit 12,000 mental health professionals and to introduce a lock to ensure that mental health spending always rises when NHS funding is increased.
Lots of people talked about the local organisations that are so important in our areas. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham talked about Rollercoaster and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central talked about the Island. In both Camden and Brent in my constituency, several organisations provide support for young people. We in the Labour party want to make sure that every community has an open-access mental health hub for children and young people. Having visible, easy-to-find, drop-in mental health support centres is so important and complements the counselling support offered in schools, because the hubs ensure that those who are marginalised or feel unable to come forward at school can get the support they need.
There is a crisis of children and young people’s mental health in this country that we cannot ignore. The crisis is deepening as a result of the pandemic, as we heard over and over again, and the mental health support that is available in and out of school is not sufficient to tackle it. Those facts have come through loudly and clearly in this important debate. The situation in far too many schools does not match the ambition that parents, teachers and we in the Labour have for our children, mainly because of the huge pressures on school budgets following real-terms cuts of 9% in the past decade. We really need a proper plan from the Government to address that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington advocated well for his constituent and his wife, but he also spoke passionately about a comprehensive strategy, which is what I urge the Minister to produce. It is time for change. We want the Minister to look at what Labour proposes on in-school counselling and a one-month support guarantee. We want mental health workforce expansion, community hubs and much else. The wellbeing, learning and prospects of an entire generation could be transformed by the bold step change in mental health support that we are calling for. I hope the Minister will listen to all the voices in the House that have made their points so passionately today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this important debate. I am conscious that time has been short, but I would like to thank all those who have spoken for their constructive contributions to this debate. Colleagues will know me well enough to know that I have never refused a meeting with a colleague and, although I will not be able to cover all of the points raised today, I would be very happy to meet any Member from across the House to further discuss the points that they have raised. I have already accepted a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates).
We know that mental health can have a profound impact on the whole of a child’s life. That is why the Government are committed to treating mental health with the same urgency as physical health and to deliver parity of esteem, and we are supporting mental health and wellbeing at all stages of people’s lives. We recognise that schools are in a unique position as they are able to help to prevent mental health problems by promoting resilience as part of an integrated, whole school approach that is tailored to the needs of their pupils.
Improving mental health starts with promoting good mental wellbeing and ensuring that children and young people get the help and support that they need. Schools with the right support from specialist services can play a vital role in that, which is why improving mental health support for schools has been a long-standing priority for this Government, with a shared approach led by the Department of Health and Social Care and supported by the Department for Education.
Supporting mental health and wellbeing is especially important at this time. As many Members from across the Chamber have referenced today, the covid-19 pandemic has had a particular impact on the wellbeing and mental health of children and young people. The Government’s national survey on the mental health of children and young people in England, which was published in September, found that rates of probable mental health disorder in six to 16-year-olds have risen from one in nine in 2017 to one in six in 2021. Those findings, which are helping us to ensure that the action we are taking is informed by the most up-to-date evidence, reinforce what we have been hearing from schools and colleges about how many children face issues and the need to continue to act.
Because of that, the Government have made children’s wellbeing and mental health a central part of our response to the coronavirus pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, we have prioritised keeping schools open above all else, as long as it was safe to do so, because it is so vital for children and young people’s wellbeing, as well as their education.
The Government have also invested £7 million this year in our Wellbeing for Education Recovery programme. That programme enabled local authorities to provide further support to schools and colleges to develop their curriculum and pastoral care provision in the context of the pandemic. The programme built on our £8 million Wellbeing for Education Return programme in 2020, which provided free expert training, support and resources for education staff dealing with children and young people experiencing additional pressures, including trauma, anxiety, or grief. Around 12,000 schools and colleges across the country have benefited from that support, which was delivered through local authorities.
In addition, we are investing up to £5 billion to support recovery for children and young people who need it most. That includes an additional £1 billion of new recovery premium funding for disadvantaged pupils. Our guidance is clear that schools can use that funding, as well as other funding such as pupil premium, to support their pupils’ mental health and wellbeing, including for counselling and other therapeutic services, alongside supporting their academic attainment.
As we move forward, the Government remain committed to improving the support available to schools by helping them to put in place whole school approaches to mental health and wellbeing which are tailored to the particular needs of their pupils. We know that school-based counselling by well-qualified practitioners can be an effective part of a whole school approach and that many schools already provide access to some counselling support. Our national survey of school provision, published in 2017, found that 61% of schools offered counselling services, with 84% of secondary schools providing their pupils with access to counselling support.
To further support schools that have decided that counselling support is the appropriate path for their pupils, we have produced guidance on how to deliver high-quality, school-based counselling. In the light of the impacts of the pandemic, we have committed to updating that guidance to make sure that it reflects the current context.
The guidance sets out our strong expectation that, over time, all schools will offer counselling services, alongside other interventions, because evidence suggests that counselling can have a positive effect, in particular on children’s psychological distress, self-esteem and general wellbeing. However, we have not mandated that all schools should provide access to counselling services as we believe that it is vital that they have the freedom to decide what support to offer their pupils based on their particular needs and drawing on an evidence base of effective practice.
We are taking action to help schools to build their capability to promote children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing, as well as ensuring that those who need help with their mental health receive appropriate support. The Government are providing £9.5 million to offer senior mental health lead training to about a third of all state schools and colleges in England in 2021-22. Part of the commitment that we made in our 2017 Green Paper, “Transforming children and young people’s mental health provision”, was to offer this training to all state schools and colleges by 2025. The senior mental health lead is a strategic leadership role, with responsibility for overseeing the school’s whole school approach to mental health and wellbeing.
As part of this training, leads will learn about how to develop a culture and ethos that promotes positive mental health and wellbeing, as well as how to make the best use of local resources, including counselling services, to support children and young people who are experiencing issues. I am pleased to report that nearly a quarter of schools and colleges in England—about 6,000—have already applied for one of these £1,200 grants. Many senior mental health leads have already started their training, which will enable them to start to apply their learning this academic year. That will help them to build on the incredible work that they and their colleagues have done throughout the pandemic to promote and support the wellbeing of their pupils.
Another important part of the whole school approach is ensuring that all pupils understand how to promote their own mental health and wellbeing, and that they have the knowledge and confidence to seek additional support when it is needed. That is why, in September 2020, we made health education compulsory—
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Call me old-fashioned, but I thought that in a wind-up the Minister was supposed to respond to the debate. He has now been on his feet for seven or eight minutes, and all we have heard is a pre-prepared, read-out speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair. If he does not like what the Minister is saying, he is at liberty to intervene on him and suggest that he says something else. The Minister also has plenty more time to make plenty more points.
Will Quince
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to the right hon. Gentleman, I am responding to what the Government are doing on the issues that have been raised.
As I mentioned, another important part of the whole school approach is ensuring that all pupils understand how to promote their own mental health and wellbeing. We must ensure that they have the knowledge and confidence to seek additional support when it is needed. That is why we made health education compulsory for pupils receiving primary and secondary education, alongside relationships education in all primary schools, and relationships and sex education in all secondary schools. Through these new subjects, all children will be taught about mental health, including how to recognise and manage any wellbeing issues. We have published a support package for schools to ensure that teachers have the confidence to deliver the subjects, specifically including the content on mental health and wellbeing.
Let me turn to the mental health support teams, which have been referenced by numerous Members across the Chamber. Although schools have an important role to play, teachers are not mental health professionals and they should not be expected to act as such. Where more serious problems occur, schools should expect the pupil and their family to be able to access support from specialist children and young people’s mental health services, voluntary organisations and local GP practices.
Wera Hobhouse
I have been encouraged by Madam Deputy Speaker to intervene. The point that Opposition Members are trying to make is that schools need to have in-house support, rather than just signposting to outside support. We would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
Will Quince
The mental health support teams are exactly that. Let me also respond in passing to the hon. Lady’s point about eating disorders. I am very much alive to that issue, and would be happy to meet her to discuss it at length. It certainly concerns me, as I know it concerns our colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care.
We mentioned support in schools. The new mental health support teams are really important in this regard. The teams comprise newly-trained education mental health practitioners—an entirely new role—as well as more senior clinicians and therapists. They work alongside provisions such as counselling services to help to ensure that children and young people get the support that they need. They support staff in schools and colleges to develop their whole school approach to mental health and wellbeing, provide early intervention for those experiencing mild to moderate issues, and liaise with external specialist services where additional support is needed, which it sometimes is.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister talks about mental health support teams being able to provide practical support to children with problems. What assessment has the Department made of the coverage that will be provided by these teams in terms of the massive problem that Members on both sides of the House have described?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I will come on to that exact point. We have over 180 mental health support teams already operational and supporting children and young people in around 3,000 schools and colleges at present. That covers about 15% of pupils in England, as has been pointed out. These teams have played a vital role throughout the pandemic, adapting their services to make sure that children and young people have continued to receive the support that they needed remotely. We have 104 additional teams in development, with more to be commissioned this year. That will help the Government to deliver the commitment made in the NHS long-term plan for these teams to reach a quarter of all schools a year earlier than planned, in 2022.
Earlier this year, as part of the Government’s commitment to build back better, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the £500 million mental health recovery action plan was launched. That included an additional £79 million that will help to accelerate the coverage of these teams, with over 100 additional teams set to be established during 2021-22. It will bring the total number of those teams to around 400, and that will cover approximately 3 million children and young people—about 35% of all pupils in England—by 2023. Of course, our aspiration and ambition are to go further.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister talks about the number of teams. Could he give an estimate of the number of full-time equivalent professional mental health workers who are part of those teams supporting pupils in our schools?
Will Quince
I do not have those figures to hand, but I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with that information.
In the longer term, ensuring that children and young people have access to the mental health support that they need remains a priority for the Government. The NHS long-term plan sets out our commitment to ensure that funding for children and young people’s mental health services will grow faster than both overall NHS funding and total mental health spending. By 2023-24, at least an additional 345,000 children and young people aged nought to 25 will be able to access support via NHS-funded mental health services, including mental health support teams.
In conclusion—I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East needs some time to wind up—I am grateful for the support that the right hon. Member and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow have given to this agenda. Good mental health and wellbeing for our children and young people remains a priority for the Government, particularly in the light of the impact of the covid-19 pandemic. We want to make sure that all our children are able to fulfil their potential, and we continue to tackle the injustice of mental health problems so that future generations can develop into confident adults, equipped to go as far as their talents will take them.
Mr Nicholas Brown
I was really proud of the parliamentary Labour party this afternoon. I thought the speeches from Labour Members were very clear in their purpose and full of compassion for people who have every right to look to us to help them on this important topic. I would say the same of Members from all the Opposition parties. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her Front-Bench contribution, which I thought was excellent.
I thank the Minister for catching the tone and spirit of the debate. Clearly, we will want to pursue the conversation, and I welcome his willingness to engage, perhaps after he has had his meeting with his hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), which I frankly do not envy him. I thought that Conservative colleagues’ contributions were absolutely excellent—[Interruption.] All right; on the whole. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), and I say to her that, yes, her constituents have our congratulations and praise for the award that they have won in starting off down a track that the Opposition so strongly support.
There is a lot of common ground and a lot of common purpose, and even the Minister was not so far away from where we want to get to. This is the start of a journey, rather than the end.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the provision of school-based counselling services.
Business without Debate
Ocado Zoom
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition, on behalf of not just the constituent signatories but the 80 or so delivery drivers at the Ocado Zoom plant in Acton who, having worked throughout the pandemic, kept the company going and kept the capital going by delivering key food supplies, now find that they are being turfed out and frozen out for not accepting very punishing new terms and conditions. They are being replaced by third-party workers against the promises that they would be taken in-house. The petition notes that profits and business have deteriorated since all this started, as the company is putting profit over people. I have to say, the CEO has been donating lots of money to the Conservative party. I hope those things are not related.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton.
Declares that Ocado has not followed through on its promise to cease the use of third-party employment and transfer the workforce from 4 October 2021; further that the majority of deliveries are currently carried out by the third-party agency “Job and Talent”; further that Ocado Zoom offers no flexibility despite promises to provide fully-flexible contracts; notes that Ocado Zoom’s business has deteriorated because of the failure to implement the transfer of workers; and notes that Ocado Zoom continues to engage in exploitative practices and anti-trade union behaviour as they continue to prioritise profit over the working conditions of its staff.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that Ocado engage with delivery drivers’ chosen trade union, the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), in order to resolve the current dispute; further that the Government should press Ocado Zoom to avoid further job losses of key workers.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002697]
Fire Safety: Retirement Communities
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am pleased that I have been able to secure this debate tonight. The impact of fire on any property can be devastating, but the risks are increased when it comes to fires in retirement communities, due to the vulnerability and dependency of the residents who reside in them. While “retirement communities” can refer to a variety of types of housing, it is crucial that any building housing vulnerable and dependent residents has the very highest levels of fire protection arrangements in place.
Many residents who live in retirement communities may be unable to evacuate themselves or may have evacuation plans in place that move them from one part of a building to another part that is safer. There is therefore increased importance on ensuring that the ability of fire to spread in these buildings is contained. Despite that, much of the focus recently, following the tragedy at Grenfell, has been on the height of buildings and not necessarily the protection or lay-out of individual buildings.
I will talk about a specific retirement community in my North Durham constituency, but many of the issues I raise will affect other hon. and right hon. Members’ constituencies throughout the country. Cestrian Court was constructed and opened in 2008 by McCarthy & Stone, a developer and management company for retirement communities. The individual flats were sold to residents, and the lease was sold on. The building is currently managed by FirstPort, which also owns the lease. The issues relating to fire safety at Cestrian Court were first brought to my office in February when a resident passed me a copy of a compliance report stating that certain fire-stopping features were
“not considered to have met the guidance at the time of construction.”
Having looked at the report in more detail, I must say that I was alarmed at the litany of defects at Cestrian Court from the time of its construction. Most notably, a 1.5 metre part of a compartment wall between two flats was missing—in effect, a chunk of a corner of a cavity wall was missing—and cavity barriers on doors were not fire-stopped. Moreover, and as I will come to later, the attic space had numerous fire structures dislodged. That may have been as a result of residents moving structures in the loft or, as the report outlines, due to expansion and contraction of the roof and cavity barriers not being mechanically fixed at the time of construction. Finally, and most importantly, these defects did not meet building regulations at the time of construction: plasterboard joints were not sealed; plasterboard compartment walls were not extended to barge boarding areas; cables penetrated brick dwarf walls; roof voids were not fire-stopped; pipes penetrated cavity barriers; service penetration was not adequately fire-stopped; and communal venting discharged through the roof without fire dampening. All of those defects were serious and weakened the protections for Cestrian Court’s elderly residents. In the event of a fire, they would have had serious consequences.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Member on initiating this important debate. Does he agree that the travesty of building regulations that have allowed unsafe building to take place without challenge increases the importance of the duty of care to local residents, which must be addressed not simply for his constituents but for those in every one of the 650 constituencies represented in the House, including my constituency of Strangford?
Mr Jones
I very much agree and will come to some of what the Government must do. Local fire boards and fire brigades will need extra enforcement powers.
I expected McCarthy & Stone, as the builder of the retirement community, to show an interest in rectifying its possible mistakes. I believed—foolishly—that it would be horrified at the risks that it might have inflicted on the residents through a litany of fire safety defects and that it would contact FirstPort, the new operator, to co-ordinate ways in which to rectify the situation. I was therefore disappointed when it simply said that the operation of the building had been passed to a new provider and that the warranty period on its construction work was up—it basically washed its hands of the situation.
It is unclear why the new operator, FirstPort, did not discover some of the structural building defects earlier as part of its due diligence when it took over Cestrian Court from McCarthy & Stone. It is also unclear why, given that Cestrian Court had five inspections during its construction, the National House Building Council failed to identify these issues.
On receiving the compliance report, I immediately contacted the chief fire officer at County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service, who did an audit of the building. Of most concern was the “stay put” policy in place for residents in the event of a fire, which effectively said, “In the event of a fire, do not worry. Stay in your flats. Your flats are fireproof.” Nothing could have been further from the truth. Since construction 11 years ago, residents have been under the impression that “stay put” was the best policy to save them in the event of a fire. That was on the misguided assumption that the fire would be contained. With no fire-proof doors, gaps in cavity walls and loft spaces with missing or dislodged fire safety structures, that advice might have had fatal consequences. Residents were not protected, and we have been lucky that we have not had a national tragedy at this building.
The chief fire officer also found that the fire alarm system did not work, which again calls into question the “stay put” policy for residents in the event of a fire. He therefore escalated the advice from “stay put” to “full evacuation” in the event of a fire at the premises. Unsurprisingly, he also confirmed that the problems had to be treated with such urgency to mitigate the risk that the work would have to be done within three months. In the meantime, the fire risk was so bad that residents would have to pay for someone to stay on the premises 24 hours a day to alert them to possible fires, costing each two-bedroom flat £1,000. I want to formally thank Stuart Errington, our chief fire officer, and his team for the speedy way in which they dealt with this matter.
There have been cases throughout the country, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, of fires in retirement communities. There is evidence to suggest that if those fires had taken place at different times of day, they could have had fatal consequences. One fire took place at the Beechmere retirement complex—a four-storey complex of 132 extra-care sheltered flats in Cheshire—in August 2019. The fire rapidly spread through the cavities in the walls and the roof space. The fire service was unable to prevent total loss of the flats, but it was able to prevent any deaths. However, there is evidence that if the fire had taken place during the night, the consequences would have been completely different.
In 2017, a fire took place at the Newgrange care home—a two-storey care home in Herefordshire—resulting in two fatalities. The fire service had to rescue 30 people. Finally, in June 2020 in Sunderland, a fire started in the roof of the Croft care home and quickly spread. Some 27 residents had to be evacuated—some from upper storeys. Again, if the fire had occurred at night, we would have had a large number of fatalities.
Turning back to Cestrian Court, I was told in April this year that full remedial work would cost residents £87,000—around £3,000 per resident. Let me say very clearly that it is plainly wrong that residents are having to pay for remedial work that was the responsibility of McCarthy & Stone, which built the properties in the first place.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I have the same issue at Guardian Court in my constituency, which is owned by Anchor Hanover. Just putting a new fire alarm system in these rented properties would cost £114,000. Along with the residents, I lobbied to reduce the cost and the labour costs to £98,500, but this is extortionate for people who have no additional means.
Mr Jones
I agree. These people are on fixed incomes and cannot just lay their hands on this type of money.
Let’s get this in perspective. Before its £647 million buy-out by private equity in February, McCarthy & Stone was listed on the FTSE 250. It handed out multimillion-pound bonuses in 2019. The chief executive officer earns £658,000, and the company has an annual turnover of £725 million—FirstPort has a turnover of £88 million. I have to say that £87,000 is small beer compared with the amounts being paid to the executives of McCarthy & Stone.
The remedial works at Cestrian Court have now been done, but the cost has fallen on the residents, and that cannot be right. It is also causing a huge amount of distress to those individuals, knowing that for the past 11 years they have been living in a building that could have been a tinderbox. I urge the National House Building Council and the two companies I have mentioned to put in place a scheme to compensate my constituents.
Interestingly, I have had one letter from McCarthy and Stone, but I think I have had five phone calls in the past few days, with it suddenly wondering why it is going to be raised in this debate. In the correspondence, McCarthy and Stone and the NHBC clearly have a dangerous misunderstanding of each other’s roles. I urge McCarthy and Stone and FirstPort to look, along with the NHBC, at who is responsible for this. Again, McCarthy and Stone’s attitude is, “It’s not our problem. It’s gone away”, but I think it is.
In conclusion, the Minister needs to consider new clause 1 to the Building Safety Bill, which calls on the Government to establish a review of construction industry payment practices. The current legislation contains no protections for residents such as those at Cestrian Court, given the height of the building. I understand well why the emphasis to date has been on the height of a building, but I urge the Minister to consider some of these buildings, and look at how we can better co-ordinate fire safety at a local level, and ensure that the inspection of new properties does not leave residents vulnerable.
I urge the Minister to take Cestrian Court as a case study that demonstrates the disjointed system for leasehold arrangements in this country, and the impact of that on fire safety. Residents of Cestrian Court have been fortunate that there was no fire, but one wonders what would have been done without their persistence in raising this issue and arguing that things should be done. Companies such as McCarthy and Stone portray the dream of a retirement for the elderly through glossy brochures and TV adverts, but all they have sold in my constituency is a potential nightmare. If a fire had taken place in that building, there would have been a need for some prosecutions.
Importantly, anyone living in a McCarthy and Stone property today should ask what fire certificates and regulations have been put in place. Indeed, I urge every fire authority to go into McCarthy and Stone properties to check that we do not have the horror story that we have at Cestrian Court. I thank the residents of Cestrian Court for their doggedness and determination in raising this issue. I feel heartily sorry for them as they have been left in this position through no fault of their own. It is another example of where people make money out of developments, but those individuals who have often put their life savings into wanting a happy retirement are left out of pocket. I am sorry, but that cannot be right.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I commend and congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this debate, and on bringing this important topic before the House. It is a matter that we all believe to be of grave concern.
Let me begin by saying how important I and the Government believe it is that we further develop the later living and retirement housing sector. Many people in our country live in very large homes. That is fine for the many people who are happy to live in those homes, but we know full well that many people would like to downsize. It is economically sensible for them to do so, as well as good for their health and welfare. Unfortunately, however, there are not enough retirement and later living properties in our country in the right places, and with the right quality, care levels and social networks to provide that opportunity. We want to do more to help with that, but it is disappointing and concerning to hear the story that the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House, so I am very happy to look at the specifics that he has raised and work with him to ensure that the challenges that he has brought to our attention are addressed.
We have, however, introduced substantial reforms through the Building Safety Bill, which, with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, will strengthen our building safety regime. We have also taken action to ensure that care homes and residential places are safe, because we all want those living and working in retirement communities to feel safe. We have listened to concerns about fire safety in care homes and specialised housing, and we are currently exploring the evidence surrounding risks that may exist in buildings occupied by vulnerable individuals. We are also conducting a full technical review of Approved Document B, which is the statutory guidance to building regulations, where we will look at the fire safety provisions in care homes and specialised housing. As I say, I will also consider the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised about Cestrian Court and other places.
While we have already made important changes, we fundamentally need to change the culture so that residents’ concerns are listened to and, where problems arise, they are dealt with swiftly and efficiently. The Building Safety Bill is bringing forward the biggest reforms in nearly 40 years and will establish a building safety regulator. That means that in the future, later-living homes and specialised housing that are in scope will be covered by the new, more stringent building control regulatory regime during design and construction. This will ensure that corners are not being cut and buildings are built to a high standard. The new regime will strengthen regulatory oversight before building work commences; throughout construction, including before major changes are made; and when building work is complete.
Importantly, the Bill also paves the way for a national regulator for construction products to oversee a stronger and clearer construction products regulatory regime, which will apply to all four nations—both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That national regulator, which will be established in the Office for Product Safety and Standards, will have robust market surveillance enforcement capability to take action against companies found to be breaking the rules, including removing unsafe construction products from the market.
Mr Kevan Jones
I welcome what the Minister is saying about the future. I just wonder what can be done to ensure that not just Cestrian Court but other properties are safe. If Cestrian Court was built by McCarthy and Stone to the shoddy standards that left my constituents in peril, is there any way that McCarthy and Stone could be made to check—or that the Government could perhaps check, through the fire authorities—that the other facilities that it has built meet standards? I would hate to think that one of its other homes might go up in smoke, leading to the tragedy that we have, I think, very narrowly avoided at Cestrian Court.
Christopher Pincher
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We certainly want, through the changes that we are making, to improve the building control regime in local authorities around the country, and that is what we will achieve through the Building Safety Bill. I also draw his attention to the changes that we are making in the Bill to amend the Defective Premises Act 1972 to extend the period of retrospective action that people can take if they find their property to be defective. We are also including in that Bill a clause that will ensure that building owners or freeholders must take all reasonable steps to find ways of dealing with remediation, and exhaust those steps, before they pass on costs to the residents and leaseholders. I think those are two important steps in the Bill, which I hope will find support across the House.
Our package of reforms will help to make sure that construction products placed on the market are safe and that the public can be confident that products, including those used in the construction of care homes, will perform as they are intended to. The safety of retirement homes under 18 metres will be overseen by the building safety regulator, as part of its responsibility to oversee the safety and performance of all buildings. The regulator will work with the construction industry and technical experts, commissioning research and conducting consultations where necessary to make recommendations to the Government for improving building regulations. By doing so, it will drive both a culture change in the sector, and improve the safety and performance of all buildings. It will also drive improvements in building safety by overseeing the performance of building control bodies, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman, through a robust professional and regulatory regime for both registered building control approvers and local authority building control departments.
It is vital that the fire safety regime for these buildings is comprehensive and is working as it should. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires those responsible to ensure that they regularly assess risks from fire to ensure they can take mitigating action to reduce the risk, so it is as low as reasonably practicable. This is not a one-off process or tick-box exercise, but one that requires the ongoing, day-to-day consideration and management of fire risks. That is especially important for the safety and wellbeing of residents of care homes, and other later life and specialised premises. The duties placed on building owners and responsible persons under the fire safety order will be further strengthened by clause 136 of the Building Safety Bill, which takes forward proposals to place a small number of additional duties on them. They include improving co-operation and information sharing, providing residents with relevant fire safety information and enforcing compliance through strengthening the standing of guidance. That will help with compliance and more effective enforcement action in the future—the sort of thing the right hon. Gentleman was talking about.
The Home Office also intends to bring forward new regulations that will implement the majority of the recommendations made by the Grenfell Tower inquiry in the phase 1 report, which require changes in the law. The measures will help to make all residential buildings safer by placing new duties on responsible persons, which will improve fire safety for their residents and assist fire and rescue services in planning for, and responding to, a fire.
We want to support people to stay safe in their homes. Fire and rescue services visit homes and offer person-centred fire safety advice, providing smoke alarms and other fire safety equipment where necessary. To support those physical visits, the National Fire Chiefs Council has created an online tool to allow residents to make informed self-assessment choices and be guided on any other steps they can take to improve their fire safety. The Government are also playing their part, working closely with the National Fire Chiefs Council and local fire and rescue services to deliver the long-running “Fire Kills” campaign. Through a mix of media advertising, partnership working and promotional activity, the campaign has helped to drive down the number of fires and fire- related fatalities to its current historic low levels.
I know that there is a united desire across the House to ensure that those living in retirement communities feel safe in their homes, and I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing these issues to our attention tonight. Debates such as this are incredibly important as we work together to protect all residents. I assure him and Members across the House that the Government remain committed to helping residents in what we know is a most challenging situation, because in doing so, we will ensure that there is public confidence in the sector—a sector that we are determined to grow, and we have a mutual interest in doing so—and bring about lasting change in an industry that will put its residents’ welfare first. I am grateful to him and I thank him for his attention.
Question put and agreed to.
NatWest Crouch End and Hornsey branch
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (First sitting)
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. I remind hon. Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain distancing, as far as possible. This is in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper and then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to debate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the timetable available, I hope that we can deal with those matters formally, without debate. Nods all round—thank you very much. The programme motion, standing in the Minister’s name, was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill. Date Time Witness Tuesday 9 November Until no later than 10.30 am Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Dogs Trust Tuesday 9 November Until no later than 11.25 am Monkey World; The British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums; Zoos Expert Committee Tuesday 9 November Until no later than 3.00 pm National Farmers’ Union; Compassion in World Farming; The National Police Chiefs Council Tuesday 9 November Until no later than 3.30 pm Canine and Feline Sector Group Tuesday 9 November Until no later than 4.00 pm Battersea Dogs and Cats Home Tuesday 9 November Until no later than 4.30 pm British Veterinary Association Tuesday 9 November Until no later than 5.00 pm Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Tuesday 9 November Until no later than 5.30 pm Farmers’ Union of Wales
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25am on Tuesday 9 November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 9 November;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 16 November;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 18 November;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedules 1 and 2; Clauses 2 to 5; Schedule 3; Clauses 6 to 19; Schedule 4; Clauses 20 to 47; Schedule 5; Clauses 48 to 53; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 18 November.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Victoria Prentis.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Members by email.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Victoria Prentis.)
The Chair
The meeting in public is now resumed and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests in connection with this Bill?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I come from a farming family.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I am a veterinary surgeon, a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and a member of the British Equine Veterinary Association.
The Chair
All done; all declared.
We will now hear oral evidence from David Bowles, head of public affairs at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and from Paula Boyden, veterinary director of the Dogs Trust. Before calling the first Members to ask questions, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.30 am. Could the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Paula Boyden: I am Paula Boyden. I am veterinary director of Dogs Trust, the UK’s largest dog welfare organisation.
David Bowles: I am David Bowles, head of public affairs and campaigns at the RSPCA.
Victoria Prentis
Q
David Bowles: In general, we are very happy with the Bill. We are glad that the Government have brought the Bill forward. Obviously, it covers a number of main areas, such as sheep worrying, for example, which has not been reviewed for nearly 80 years. It covers the live export of animals, which is of course a Government manifesto commitment. We are very pleased to see that in there. It covers the licensing of and strengthens the rules on primate keeping, which has not been discussed under legislation for 11 years. The RSPCA is very happy with most of those issues. We believe that there can be improvements, as with any legislation. We are particularly concerned about the primate legislation. We would like to see a ban on keeping primates, rather than licensing, because we do not think that that will sort out the problem with private primate keeping and it will not sort out the animal welfare issues, which are primarily what the Bill is about.
On livestock worrying, we have a couple of tweaks to try to make enforcement better. On a broader point, we are concerned because Parliament, rightly, is passing legislation and looking to local authorities to enforce that legislation, whether that is complicated licensing legislation for primates or fairly simple legislation on transport rules, but the money has been cut. I think at some stage Parliament should be looking at how to enforce legislation, as well as passing more and more laws.
Paula Boyden: I will limit my comments to the areas around livestock worrying and illegal importation. Dogs Trust is broadly supportive of the proposals in the Bill. If we look first at importation, Dogs Trust has been very involved in the issue of puppy smuggling for a number of years. We are very supportive, in broad terms, of the raising of the minimum age of entry to six months. We would really like to see some science behind that. What I mean is a reintroduction of a rabies titre test and a wait period that is in line with the incubation of the disease. We think that is really quite important.
We very much welcome the reduction of the maximum point of gestation—when pregnant mums can be brought into the country. We would support a total ban on the commercial importation of pregnant mums. We see no reason for it to happen at all.
On the mutilation side of things, the provisions are again very welcome. We have seen an increase in dogs with mutilation, specifically docked tails and cropped ears, being imported. We would like to see a tweak to that, to ban not only the importation but the sale of such dogs; however, we would like a tightly worded exemption, so that as a rehoming organisation we could rehome those dogs. We have a similar situation with section 1 dogs, which we cannot rehome even if they are completely rehomeable dogs. That is really quite important.
Going back to puppy smuggling for a moment, we would really like to see a reduction in the maximum number of animals that can be in a vehicle from five to three. Sadly, we have to think of how the illegal importers work and what loopholes they would jump through. There is some science behind reducing it to three. Some work was done 10 years ago that showed that over 97% of dog owners have one, two or three pets. We have just undertaken a big dog survey with more than 240,000 respondents and we had exactly the same response—that over 97% of dog owners have one, two or three dogs—so there is good reason for that.
Like my colleague, I am broadly supportive of the livestock worrying provision, but we need some tweaks, particularly on dogs, and the definition of a dog at large in an enclosure or field. We feel that that needs tightening up to protect the livestock.
Victoria Prentis
Q
David Bowles: There are two issues here. The first is the welfare issue that you rightly raise. It goes back to the point about local authorities. If we need to get enforcement correct, we need to make the rules as simple as possible for the enforcement agents. This piece of legislation contains amendments to the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Unlike in the Zoo Licensing Act, under which a trained zoo inspector goes in with the local authority inspector, on primates we just have the local authority inspector, who could be inspecting a Chinese takeaway restaurant in the morning and doing this in the afternoon. That is a problem, because you are dealing with the same animal. A marmoset or tamarin in a zoo is likely to have better enforcement and better auditing than a tamarin or marmoset with a private keeper, so it is about trying to make the rules really clear.
We also have a problem with the licensing because the RSPCA is worried that we will have a cliff edge. We do not know how many primates there are in England, but let us say that there are something like 3,000 to 5,000. The RSPCA has been getting an increasing number of calls on the inappropriate use of primates in captivity. Mostly that is because they are kept singly, they are kept in birdcages, they are not given the right ultraviolet lighting, so their bones disintegrate, or they are not given the right exercise. In other words, their welfare is not catered for in terms of the five welfare needs in the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Under the Government’s plans there is a two-year period to bring in the licensing, and then a six-year period for the licence to operate. We worry that that is quite a long period for things to get out of control. We also worry that after two years primate keepers who have decided to give it up will suddenly abandon their primates. The RSPCA has proposed a ban on the private use of primates, but with grandfather rights, so you have a soft landing whereby if people have primates they are allowed to keep them until they die. Do not forget that marmosets and tamarins have a lifespan of about 10 to 15 years, so it will be a much softer landing.
The real concerns that we have on this are the enforcement issue and whether it is will improve the welfare of primates. Do not forget that we are 11 years on from the primate code that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did in 2010. I think everyone now agrees and admits that that has not worked, because it is too complicated for local authorities, they do not understand what it is, and most of them do not even apply it. I do not want to have the same situation in 10 years’ time, discussing why a licensing regime for primates has not worked.
Victoria Prentis
Q
David Bowles: Sure. You have to go back to what we are trying to do with the improvements to the pet imports, both commercial and non-commercial. We are trying to cut down the illegal trade in puppies. Clearly, under covid we have seen a massive increase in the illegal and quasi-legal trade in puppies coming in, particularly from Romania, in response to the huge spike in demand that happened during covid, when new dog owners wanted exercise, mental health improvements and companionship. Those are all very understandable reasons, but obviously supply in the UK could not keep up with that demand, and we went abroad.
We know that puppy dealers have continued despite England’s third-party ban because it has so many loop- holes. Puppy dealers have continued—indeed, they have increased—the number of puppies that they are bringing in. If you look at 2020, there were some of the highest-ever levels of declared legal commercial imports. That has continued into 2021 despite puppy prices actually stabilising and maybe even going down since January. Something strange is happening: puppies are still coming in and being sold at service stations and lay-bys, and people are still making money. The RSPCA have found that some puppy dealers are earning £2.5 million to £3 million a year. These are not small amounts of money.
In response to your question, I will refer to Paula’s excellent statistics. We do not believe that reducing the limit from five to three would make any measurable difference to legal and responsible owners going either on holiday or to dog shows, or to legal importers bringing dogs in, but it will clamp down on puppy dealers who basically make money on the misery of puppies.
Victoria Prentis
Q
David Bowles: No. Dogs Trust has better statistics.
Victoria Prentis
Paula, would you like to come in on that?
Paula Boyden: We have not done any work on that specific issue, but I can repeat the statistics that we have. A paper published back in 2010 by Murray et al. looked at dog ownership within the UK. It found that more than 96% of dog owners have one, two or three dogs, so you are dealing with a minority. Dogs Trust has just undertaken a big dog survey, for which we surveyed over 240 dog owners. The outcome of that was that 97% of dog owners have one, two or three dogs. The numbers are incredibly low.
As David has mentioned, my concern with the comments that we are getting is whether what the ferry companies are seeing is a true reflection of dog ownership, or is it people bringing puppies in for sale to make a profit? It is not normal activity to go out and buy yourself five puppies. Those are the sorts of things that we are facing.
The other thing we have to bear in mind is just how quickly those illegal importers will change their tactics. During lockdown, we were not travelling, so we saw this enormous shift over to commercial movement. We have to think of the unintended consequences of whatever happens. Reducing the number of animals to three per vehicle is an appropriate way to go, because at the moment, you could just pitch up at the port, pick up a couple of foot passengers and bring in 15 dogs.
Victoria Prentis
Q
To move on to livestock worrying for a moment, how do you think we can best encourage dog owners to act responsibly around livestock?
Paula Boyden: Part of that will be legislation, but that is only one part of it. We know that the majority of livestock worrying is actually by dogs who are not with their owners and have escaped from a garden, so there is an element of irresponsible ownership there. Certainly, some of the proposals within the Bill—about tackling those irresponsible owners, depriving them of their dogs and banning them from keeping dogs—are appropriate.
However, that is only one part of it, and the proposals could certainly be tightened up. As someone who has worked for the Dogs Trust, but also as a vet and a dog owner, I see no reason why a dog should be off a lead in an enclosure or field where there are livestock. My feelings would be that the species that are listed at the moment is limited. Why would we limit that list of species?
There are a couple of other elements we need to work on. We need to work with the farming community. For example, signs on gates are fine, but if that sign is up 12 months of the year, then folk become conditioned to it because they know that, at times, there will not be livestock in the field. We also need good, accurate recording and reporting of livestock worrying from the police force perspective, because we do not know the true extent, and if we put these measures into place, how do we know what is good or not?
Part of it will absolutely be around owner education, and I have concerns with some of the current wording in the Bill, such as a dog not being deemed to be “at large” if it is in sight of the owner and the owner has a reasonable idea that they can get the dog back. In sight of the owner could be two fields away. For me, that is not under control. I am not suggesting that every time a dog goes into the country, it should be on a lead, but in an enclosure where there is livestock, then I think it should be taken as read that a dog should be on a lead.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Paula Boyden: Not within a specific enclosure. Obviously, we have things like common land, and that is a different element; that is where we do have to rely on dog owners to be vigilant and to ensure, as best they can, that there are no livestock there before they let their dog off the lead. However, if I was in a field of sheep, why would I have my dog off the lead? Even with the best-trained dog in the world, can you 100% say that that dog will not go if a lamb runs away?
It must be proportionate. We do not want to be the fun police; we do not want to stop dogs having off-lead exercise because it is really important for their enrichment, but it must be proportionate. Aside from the financial impact, a dog worrying livestock is traumatic for the farmer. No farmer will want to shoot a dog, but that is the sort of resolution that will happen in those sorts of situations. We want to avoid that, both for the farming community and for our dog owners too.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
Going to the RSPCA first, this is a slightly odd Bill, in the sense that it is a collection of bits and pieces. While being careful to remain within the scope of the Bill, it is perfectly possible to imagine that there are other things that could have been included. Could you reflect on that first? What would your priorities be if you were drawing up this Bill from scratch?
David Bowles: Yes, it is a bit of a potpourri, you are right, but the RSPCA is not against that, so long as we can get improvements to animal welfare. The Government came in with something like nine or 10 animal welfare commitments, and we are delighted that they are moving on those commitments, whether it is the sentience Bill, this Bill, or the Animals Abroad Bill.
The RSPCA are glad to see the issues that are in there, and the main issue for us is ensuring that it is done properly; you only get one chance at this. I have mentioned primates, and I totally agree with Paula on the livestock worrying side of things. We need to make it as easy as possible for enforcement people. Having statements like “at large” is not an easy thing for an enforcement person to go out with and then work out.
The Scottish Government also passed legislation on this only this year. Unfortunately, their Act is not that helpful for us, because it also does not define “at large”. I think that will be a problem for enforcement agents. We should always look to write legislation that will be easy to enforce. Unfortunately, this Parliament—not this particular Parliament, but Parliament in general—has a track record of passing legislation that maybe has not done what it was supposed to do.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
David Bowles: It is very likely. Let us say that 3,000 to 5,000 primates are being kept. Some people keep them because they are exotic and very easy to get—all you need to do is go on the internet, google “buy me a tamarin” and hand over between £1,500 and £2,000, and you can get one. They do not come with any instructions. If you wanted to buy a washing machine, the person selling it would tell you, “You need to put it on this cycle”, but tamarins do not come with instructions. Is it any wonder that people do not know that they need UV lighting and a specific diet, or that they are social primates and therefore need company? Putting one in a birdcage on its own will obviously not meet its welfare needs.
A variety of people buy primates. Although some people get them because they know how to keep them, I fear the vast majority do not know how to do that, and therefore we run into welfare problems. Unfortunately, because the RSPCA is only tipped off by the public, we see only the tip of the iceberg—we know only what the public tell us. As I said, we have unfortunately seen an increase in the number of complaints on primates being kept. In many instances, when we look into those people, the primates are not being kept properly and have welfare problems, and sometimes the person will have to be prosecuted for not keeping them according to their welfare needs.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
David Bowles: Let us be realistic. There is only a finite number of places where we could put primates that have been confiscated—whether it is Wild Futures or Monkey World, who you are hearing evidence from after me—and they are full. We have to try and manage that problem, which is why, as I said to the Minister earlier, we need a soft landing.
The RSPCA is really worried that if there are licence requirements coming in after two years, there will be a cliff edge: people will keep their primates until the end of the two-year period and then abandon them, whether by turning up to an RSPCA centre or letting them loose—who knows. That really worries us, and that is why we have recommended a ban on the use of primates, rather than a licensing system, but with grandfather rights and a soft landing; as those primates die, they are taken out of the system.
Unfortunately, the primate legislation as written means that if you get licensed, you are still allowed to trade and breed those primates, so you are not going to reduce the primate population. If we want to improve the population of primates kept by private owners, we need to reduce it. Unfortunately, the Bill does not do that. I go back to the issue that the person inspecting and licensing is not an expert; they will not know what they are looking at. If you get licensed by the local authority and your licence lasts for six years, you can then breed your primate and make money from it. Those animals can be sold for a couple of thousand pounds, which is not an insubstantial amount of money. That is the worry for us.
Daniel Zeichner
I will try not to hog the witnesses, but may I ask two more questions?
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Paula Boyden: I completely agree. It is a huge worry to think that a dog could potentially be held indefinitely while proceedings go forward. There has to be a means of either expediting those investigations—I appreciate that that is easier said than done; we know that there is huge pressure on the judicial service and police forces—or, if it is appropriate, doing what the Scottish Government have just done, which is introduce a means to be able to move case animals on and rehome them. We see that with livestock worrying; as you rightly mentioned, we see it with section 1 dogs as well. We really need to address it so that we do not have dogs languishing in kennels, because that is not welfare-friendly either.
The whole reason the Scottish Government have introduced this measure is because of delays with animal welfare prosecutions. There was a case I am aware of in Scotland where the dog was kept in kennels for four years, because the defendant would not sign the dog over. We are compromising their welfare. The risk is that, with cases potentially going up to Crown court, they could take even longer. We need to look at that and work out how we can manage it so that we are not keeping dogs incarcerated for great lengths of time.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
David Bowles: The “A” in RSPCA is animals. I do not differentiate between dogs and cats—they are as good as each other, and have as many welfare needs as each other. We have to recognise that there are different markets for dogs and cats. The market for dogs tends to be much more breed-specific; cats tend to be moggies. The way they are brought to market is very different. There is no big trade in cats. There is some evidence that there may be a trade that is starting to rise in breed-specific cats, and that could be mimicking what is happening to dogs, but because the market is very different, I do not think that if we crack down on dogs, people will go on to cats to make money. Frankly, it is a different market and there is a completely different system for how people get their cats. It is also a different system in terms of what breeds they are looking for compared with what dog breeds they are looking for.
Dr Hudson
Q
Can you give us some evidence to help us in terms of tightening up the Bill through putting in numbers, such as six months of age; reintroducing health checks; the rabies titre test; and specifying mutilations such as cropped ears? The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about declawed cats as well. Can you give us specific asks? For example, how heavily pregnant should it be—is it in the last 30% to 50% of gestation? What can we do to tighten up the Bill to make the provisions clearer to the outside world?
Paula Boyden: You mentioned the minimum age of entry. The proposal is six months. We would really like to see that science, as there is a potential to start looking at older dogs. The reason I say that is because of the disease risk from those dogs, which I appreciate is not part of the scope today. We have 12 years of serology data on the rabies vaccination and the rabies titre test from the 12 years prior to the change in 2012. We know that the animals that are least likely to respond to the rabies vaccination are young dogs—young, naive animals—those under a year of age, I would say, particularly with large breeds. The wait period would bring the time period in line with the incubation of the disease—most cases of rabies will present between three and 12 weeks post infection. That measure starts to give us a good framework, should we want to expand that at a later date.
On pregnancy, David mentioned third-party sales. It is not a bad piece of legislation, but I go back to a previous comment—we need to take a holistic view. This is all about the supply of and demand for dogs. Illegal importation is one side, but the domestic legislation around breeding and sale is also important. We have to tie them together. Since that legislation on third-party sales came in, we have seen a significant increase in pregnant mums coming in. This time of year, we are seeing a surge because they are all coming in for the Christmas market, because it completely circumvents the ban on third-party sales.
As a minimum, we ought to be reducing the gestation period to a maximum of 30% —a maximum of one half to two-thirds pregnant. We had originally said 50% of pregnancy, and the reason for that was that the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999 protects unborn offspring at 50%, but having spoken to colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I understand that you can use ultrasound and the kidneys appear at about 42 days, so that could be quite a good indicator. The challenge with ageing at the moment is that it is very subjective. You are looking at the body weight, the size, of the puppy, but you are also looking at the eruption of the teeth—the adult teeth—which again is going to be variable. So having something that is a little bit more specific would be great, and if it were reduced to 42 days, it would mean that—well, certainly looking at the figures that we have, over 70% of the pregnant mums that were seized would have been illegally imported, compared with a smaller proportion. It is very, very difficult to say that a bitch is 50 days’ pregnant versus 54 days’ pregnant or whatever. The issue is having that specificity.
The journeys that these mums undertake are horrific—that is the only way I can describe them. They do not have enough room. There is no temperature regulation. Quite often, they are not fed, because if they are not fed, there is very little coming out the other end. They are given very little water. They have no breaks. That is not a way to treat a heavily pregnant animal of whatever species we are talking about. So the aim should be to reduce that and, as I mentioned, to absolutely ban the commercial importation of pregnant mums as well.
Sitting alongside that is the issue of mutilations. We very much support the ban on importing dogs that are mutilated—docked and cropped, and you mentioned cats that have been declawed. The one thing that does not happen at the moment is visual checks on importation. The checks are undertaken by the carriers, which we feel is wrong. That should actually be done by either an independent or a Government agency, so that there is no conflict there. But it should at least involve a visual check. We have demonstrated that on a number of occasions when we have actually imported a toy dog and nobody looked in the crate to see that it was a toy dog. We need that to see what the position is: “Does this actually match up? Does this animal actually need a physical examination?” We are not saying that we need to be hands on with every animal, but having a physical check is really quite critical in this respect.
In terms of mutilations, as I have mentioned, it is really important that we ban not only the importation but the sale of those dogs and cats so that they cannot be passed on, but we would very much welcome a very tight exemption so that, as a rehoming organisation, we could rehome them rather than the dogs being confined to our care for the rest of their lives. That is exactly what we have with section 1 dogs at the moment, because we cannot rehome them.
There is another thing sitting alongside this. We have spoken about the checks at the ports. I have two comments. One is that the risk with raising the minimum age of entry to six months is that we may see a shift from what we have at the moment, which is illegal importation, whereby the puppies are declared and have a passport but the information is wrong, to true smuggling, whereby they are hidden. We need to be mindful of that and look at how we can address it.
The other thing that we need alongside this, aside from the enforcement, is penalties, because the penalties just are not there. We have had approximately 2,000 puppies come into our care since we have been working with Animal and Plant Health Agency colleagues at Dover. Out of those, there have been three prosecutions and not one custodial sentence. If I use the analogy of cigarette smuggling, the maximum sentence there is seven years, whereas the maximum sentence for this is a year. I find it quite strange that if I were caught smuggling cigarettes, the last thing that would happen is that I would be given my cigarettes back, yet that is what has happened to the importers—they can claim their puppies back. One thing that we have seen through lockdown, because of the increased demand and increased prices, is more and more puppies being reclaimed through quarantine, because there is still a profit to be made. That is fundamentally wrong. At the moment, there is no deterrent to trying to circumvent whatever rules we put in place.
Dr Hudson
Q
Paula Boyden: It would certainly give clarity. I appreciate that there are benefits on either side. If the Bill goes through as it is, you can then bring something in under secondary legislation. Obviously, putting it in the Bill brings it in more quickly, but if secondary legislation allows us to make more changes, I think we have to weigh that up as to what is the most appropriate thing to do.
David Bowles: It is really important that the ban on importation, whether it applies to cropped dogs or puppies under the age of six months, applies to everything, because one lesson that we have learned from the puppy trade is that the dealers will make money out of anything; they will exploit loopholes. While I have total sympathy with people who are importing dogs from abroad that have had their ears cropped, it makes it really difficult for enforcement in the UK, because people then just say, “I’ve imported that dog with cropped ears”, rather than, “I’ve just done it myself last week”.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Q
David Bowles: There are three points—and there is no easy answer to this. The RSPCA has been working with the all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare to try to consider how we can improve this situation.
The obvious one is money, but then you get told that all the time. Secondly, there is training. There are a number of very good training courses out there for local authority staff, but there are also some very poor training courses. I worry that a local authority employee would just go on a poor training course and have the certificate for it on their wall, but they will not have the same competence as somebody who has been on a course run by, say, the City of London.
Thirdly, where you are seeing things moving is local authorities, because of the budgetary issue, starting to pool resources. There are some very good examples of where local authorities have joined together. There is a very good one in Wales, but there are also a couple of good ones in England, where local authorities have decided to pool their resources and work together on the enforcement issue. I think that is the way forward.
Olivia Blake
Q
David Bowles: There are two problems. First, once you have got a licence, you have got a licence for six years. That is a long, long time. If you are talking about the lifespan of a marmoset, that is almost half its lifespan. So that is a very long time. The RSPCA would like to see that licence period reduced to a year.
Secondly, you are right, because this is all about expertise. When you are dealing with animals, it is not just expertise on the enforcement side that is needed; expertise on the vet side is also needed. Obviously, I defer to the very experienced vet at your table. There are very experienced wild animal vets out there, but they are not all over the place. The difficulty is that if you are presented with an animal that you have never been presented with before and you do not have experience of that animal, there could be a problem to work out whether its welfare needs are being met.
Olivia Blake
Q
David Bowles: I would be concerned, and not only because the present legislation allows the breeding of primates from a licensed keeper and the sale of primates. So, there is a commercial trade element. How will those primates get from one place to another? They have to be transported. When you are dealing with primates that at the moment are not being kept in appropriate conditions—you know, kept in a parrot cage, with no enrichment, in a very small space, on their own—I worry that that person will also not how to transport their primate adequately.
Olivia Blake
Q
Paula Boyden: At the border, first and foremost we need cover at the right times. We know that there is limited cover at weekends and in the small hours. The importers know that too, and that is quite often when animals are illegally imported, because there are limited checks.
As I mentioned, it is really important that we consider shifting the checks from the carriers to a Government agency. That should involve a visual check. The analogy that I have used many times is that at the moment it is a bit like you or me walking through an airport with a paper bag over our head, because there are no visual checks. That is why we have been able to import toy dogs into the country on a number of occasions without being challenged. We really need to address that. We will need individuals with a level of animal welfare knowledge, so that if there are concerns, they can flag them and arrange for a full physical check.
Alongside that, the physical resources at the ports are limited. For example, if somebody sees a dog that they think is pregnant, where will she be taken to allow her first, to rest, and secondly, to be examined? She cannot be left portside in the middle of June when it is 25°. We need to think about that side of things as well. It is not just Dover; the importers are very clever, and we need to look at other ports around Great Britain as well.
Olivia Blake
Q
Paula Boyden: The Bill, by mentioning mutilation, is highlighting that it is not appropriate. Speaking as a vet as well as for the Dogs Trust, I can think of no medical reason why you would mutilate a dog’s ears. It is the wrong bit of the ear that you would operate on. I understand that in other countries, there are breed standards in which the ears are cropped. I suggest considering a time-limited and very tight exemption for individuals who are caught now—who perhaps already have a dog that is mutilated, and are truly relocating—to allow them to bring their dogs into the country, but that would have to be incredibly tight, because any exemption is a potential loophole. That is something that we could think about. It should be time-limited. If the dog was mutilated before the legislation comes in, obviously within 10 to 12 years that exemption should not be necessary.
I would endorse the point that if these dogs and cats are imported into the country, it would allow us to rehome them responsibly, and give them a much better quality of house. We probably have some of the best kennelling in the world, but it is not the same as being in a home.
David Bowles: I concur with everything that Paula said, but we should not forget that tail docking is permitted in certain circumstances, if the vet believes that that dog will be used for certain activities, whereas dog mutilation has been prohibited for many years. There are different reasons why that is done; as Paula rightly says, there is no reason to mutilate a dog’s ear. It is done purely from vanity, and because some societies believe that some breeds look better like that. It is totally bizarre.
There are different issues there. The RSPCA has been asked by, for example, diplomats in other places who have a dog with a docked tail whether they can bring it back in. Under the legislation, the Secretary of State can allow certain exemptions, and I think that is right. Again, I emphasise that if we have a loophole for rescue organisations, the puppy dealers will jump straight through that door.
Paula Boyden: David mentions that a lot of the imports come from Romania at the moment. The cropping of ears is illegal in all EU member states, so there is no reason why there should be cropped dogs in any EU member state.
David Bowles: Except it is legal in Serbia, and those Romanian dogs are Serbian dogs.
The Chair
Three Members have caught my eye: Dr Luke Evans, Apsana Begum and James Daly. I am mindful of the time, so if anybody else wants to ask a question, could it be tight, and could questions be—well, as full as they need to be?
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Q
Paula Boyden: That is a really good question. It is quite difficult with brachycephalics. We are always treading a fine line, because we do not want to demonise these breeds. We have been working very hard, as has the RSPCA, on groups such as the Brachycephalic Working Group, with the Kennel Club and breeders to try to improve breed standards, so that we are not breeding for extremes. That is obviously a slow burn; it is not something that will happen overnight. It is quite difficult to predict the next trend. Certainly, when I was growing up, it was Rottweilers and Dobermanns. There is a big surge in hybrid crosses at the moment.
We have to get the message across that health matters over the looks of a dog. Again, it is very easy for us to say that—we have all the information about how one should go about getting a dog—but unfortunately we live in a demand society, where it is, “I want that, and I want it now.” That is part of it. As it is all about supply and demand, part of it is educating those who are looking to get a dog, so that they take their time and get the right dog, rather than getting one virtually at the click of a button. That is one of the challenges.
Dr Evans
Q
Paula Boyden: The importers are very good and adaptable, and we have seen this. We have been running the puppy pilot for six years. You will not be surprised to hear that the majority of dogs that have come through our care have been French bulldogs, bulldogs and pugs; dachshunds are now the leading breed. During lockdown, because so many people were getting dogs, we saw a bit more variety, but they are the key breeds that are coming through, so we will see that adaptability.
Kennel Club registrations of French bulldogs went up exponentially, but only a small proportion of them were registered. If we do a back-of-the-envelope calculation, there were 9 million dogs in the UK at the time, with an average lifespan of 12 years. I am not saying that supply must equal demand, but it will. We therefore need 750,000 dogs a year. The Kennel Club registers about a third of that, so where do the others come from? That goes back to my comment about being holistic. We do not have true traceability. You need a licence to breed a dog only if you breed three or more litters a year, so where people produce fewer than three litters, we do not know who or where they are. That favours illegal importers, because they can easily advertise online.
One of my key points is that we need to step back and take a holistic view of the supply and demand of dogs. The demand is important. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing its “Petfished” campaign, which is fantastic, but we need to start joining these dots up a little bit more.
David Bowles: Certainly, importation has hugely satisfied the demand for cropped-ear dogs, and that loophole has led to an increase in dogs being cropped in the UK. With brachycephalics, it is really interesting. As you know, back in 2005, a handful of French bulldogs were being bred and registered each year, but now thousands are. Will that trend continue? Probably not. We are possibly seeing the start of a decrease in French bulldogs, but people will go on to something else.
You asked how to future-proof the legislation. At the moment, under the Animal Welfare Act, a breeder could theoretically be prosecuted for breeding a French bulldog that has not had its welfare needs cared for, because it cannot breathe. The difficulty is proving intent and where that started off. That is why there has not been any progress on that.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Q
David Bowles: Yes. The RSPCA is glad that, under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, conservation is in the Bill. The Bill will take that away and put it into the Secretary of State’s standards, but those standards are statutory. That is where we are very pleased that those standards will be statutory.
We have some concerns. There is a lot of power in the Secretary of State’s hands, because the Secretary of State can change those standards, possibly without consultation. We hope that if the Secretary of State is minded to change those standards, they would do a proper consultation and go out to everyone. But we are glad to see the standards becoming statutory.
We have slight concerns about the zoo standards, because different classifications of zoos seem to be being built up here. Obviously, the welfare needs of an animal are the same, whether it is in a big zoo, a small zoo or a medium-sized zoo. It is important that we focus through the lens of welfare, and try to improve the welfare of the animals, not worry about how big the zoo is.
Apsana Begum
Paula, did you want to come in on this?
Paula Boyden: No, I defer to David on that.
Apsana Begum
Q
David Bowles: Yes, there are issues around that. When does a farm that has a couple of exotic primates become a zoo? Again, we will come back to enforcement, but this is an issue. At least with zoo licensing, we have a zoo inspector who is an expert on zoos—but possibly not on the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that is another area to be looked at, raising their standards of understanding of the Act—and the local authority inspector. It is all about trying to make it as clear as possible for them when a zoo is a zoo, and what the welfare needs of those animals are in that zoo. As I say, making those Secretary of State standards statutory is a good thing. Hopefully, that will give us the flexibility to improve them when our knowledge of the welfare needs of animals in zoos becomes greater.
Apsana Begum
Q
David Bowles: It is a real concern for the RSPCA. You just have to look at the Bill and what additional things it is putting on local authorities primarily, such as primate licensing or the puppy issues. Who is responsible for making sure that puppies are imported and sold properly and, if they are sold on the internet, that that licence requirement meets the legislation? Local authorities. For me, that is pushing a lot of stuff on to local authorities, but there is no extra monetary provision.
Paula Boyden: I completely agree. It is important that we provide the right support for local authorities and, equally, for colleagues at the borders who are undertaking the checks. They need the resources and the right sort of training. Comments were made about local authorities getting together and having a central animal welfare inspectorate to undertake the inspections, so that we have that expertise. In effect, that is what we have in the City of London. They are doing this day in, day out, so they have that level of expertise that we need for this.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Q
David Bowles: You are probably aware that the RSPCA investigates probably about 85% of issues under the Animal Welfare Act. You are probably also aware that under our new strategy, we are in discussions with Government, the Attorney General’s Office and the police about the handing over of prosecutions to the statutory agencies. The primary reason for that is the changes in sentencing, which obviously we fought for and wanted. You will start to see a prison sentence of up to five years. We do not believe that it would be good for a non- governmental, non-statutory agency to be doing something where somebody could end up with up to five years in prison. A lot of the enforcements in this Bill are down to local authorities and down to the police.
The RSPCA will continue to investigate animal welfare issues—for instance, getting the calls on primates that are not being cared for properly. We will continue to enforce those. That is why we wanted a ban—because we want to make life easier not only for local authorities, but for us. I would love for the RSPCA not to have any calls on primates whatever, and for us not to spend the money investigating those cases and then trying to rehabilitate those primates. I do not believe, given how the Bill is written at the moment, that that will happen.
James Daly
Q
Paula Boyden: The devil is in the detail on that. One would hope, and what would be great to see there, is that within the seven days there is some sort of behavioural assessment of that dog—of whether it is appropriate to rehome it. It might involve an irresponsible owner who is not prepared to put the time and effort into training the dog, fencing their garden or whatever it takes. I would very much hope that there will be a little bit more detail about what happens within the seven days. I would certainly support the concept that we do not want dogs just languishing in kennels for protracted periods of time, but it has to be proportionate.
James Daly
Q
Paula Boyden: Again, it depends on the circumstances. If, for example, it is a repeat offender who clearly has not learned from the first time, I would hope that they would be encouraged to sign the dog over, because they are clearly not going to step up to the mark and do something about it. In that situation, rehoming might be the most appropriate thing for that dog. If it is a first offence, again, it depends on the circumstances. Anybody can make a mistake.
James Daly
Q
Paula Boyden: In those circumstances, there is the first stage—whether they need to take evidence and those sorts of things—so we assume that that is done. Obviously the person is innocent until proven guilty, so there is the question of whether it is appropriate for the dog to go back to that person, but again it will depend on the circumstances. If, for example, the dog has escaped from the garden, the sensible thing to do is to say, “Okay, we can get the dog back to you, but you’ve got to fence your garden first of all.” Then it depends on their commitment to doing that as to whether they have the dog back or it is deemed appropriate for the dog to be rehomed.
David Bowles: The RSPCA would share some of your concerns about some of these seizure issues. Paula has rightly talked about some of the kennelling issues with the police. I am not sure if you are aware, but the Scottish Government passed legislation this year—it has only been in place for two months—that allows the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to get rid of a seized animal, whether it is a farm animal or a dog, after 21 days, rather than waiting for the court case to take its route. We would like to see something similar happen in England. If the person is found not guilty, then there is a compensation process under the Scottish legislation. That safeguards the welfare of the animal, because they are not languishing in kennels. Do not forget that even before covid, some cases took two or three years to get to court; under covid, 2020 was essentially written off, and we are seeing a huge backlog in court cases.
I worry that we have a lot of dogs, in particular, languishing in kennels, and their welfare needs are not being cared for. Once the court case is finished, it will be up to somebody, perhaps the Dogs Trust or the RSPCA, to try to rehabilitate the dog.
The Chair
Order. We have come to the end of the allocated time for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses: David Bowles, the head of public affairs for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and Paula Bowden, veterinary director for the Dogs Trust.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Alison Cronin MBE, Dr Simon Girling and Dr Jo Judge gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Dr Alison Cronin MBE, director of Monkey World; Dr Simon Girling, chair of the Zoos Expert Committee, who will appear virtually; and Dr Jo Judge, chief executive of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums. For this session we have until 11.25 am. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Dr Cronin: Good morning. I am Dr Alison Cronin, director of Monkey World, an ape rescue centre in Dorset. I have been rescuing and rehabilitating primates from around the globe for the past 30 years.
Dr Girling: Hello. I am Dr Simon Girling. I am currently the head of veterinary services to the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and chair of DEFRA’s Zoos Expert Committee. I have been a veterinary specialist in zoo and wildlife medicine for the last 18 years.
Dr Judge: Hello. I am Dr Jo Judge, the chief executive of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, which is the professional association for good zoos and aquariums in the UK and Ireland.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Cronin: Yes. Over the years of rescuing and rehoming primates from the British pet trade, we have come across numerous individuals who have reached out to us to rehome the primates that they have kept as specialist keepers. I mean that in the true sense of the word. They are hobbyists who are dedicated to the care and welfare of their animals. They keep them in zoo-style environments with indoor and outdoor enclosures and access to professional veterinary care and social groupings. They feed them appropriate diets, stay up to date with the most current literature, and keep them as a specialist keeper, often contributing to conservation programmes that are zoo based.
I have received numerous calls from people of that type asking me to rehome their primates because they are getting elderly or see their circumstances changing, and want to do the correct thing by their primates. In those circumstances, I have often asked those individuals to keep their primates until the situation occurs where they feel that they can longer look after them, because I have so many that are being kept in bird cages, in solitary confinement and in people’s sitting rooms.
For me, it was a case of being practical and acknowledging that primates can be kept by private individuals to a reasonable standard of welfare if the appropriate guidelines and legislation are set out. The problem in existing legislation is that all marmosets, all species of tamarin, titi monkeys and squirrel monkeys—totalling 66 different species of primate—can be bought and sold over the counter or on social media like budgies or goldfish. No offence to budgies or goldfish, but those are animals with higher sentience, family groupings and greater physical and emotional needs, so greater concern needs to be given.
I am trying to be practical. I am trying to offer what I consider to be reasonable adjustments to current legislation and employing existing legislation, which is the strongest in the country right now that protects captive primates—the Zoo Licensing Act. I have just tried to offer a practical thing. I am not concerned about making a political statement about where the animals are kept; I am simply concerned about how they are kept. To me, the most important aspect is the health and welfare of these animals, not who is keeping them.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Cronin: I think giving people the opportunity to make the circumstances correct is probably the right thing—again, I am trying to be practical. Because there is no registration system for said 66 different species of primate that can be kept, we do not know how many are out there right now. Some organisations have tried to put numbers on it, but they range from 1,000 to 5,000. Which is it? Actually, we don’t know. Where will all those animals go? Monkey World has taken in more than 120 primates from the British pet trade, in more than 25 years. I have taken in 15 just over the last two years.
The number of species and individuals is clearly increasing. In order to deal with the situation practically, if there are circumstances in which some of these shorter-lived primates—I am still talking about 12 to 15 years—can have their needs met in a captive situation, should these animals be allowed to live out their lives in what is deemed to be appropriate and reasonable circumstances, rather than just taking a categorical stance? Again, as I am on the frontline picking up the pieces, I am trying to offer a practical solution, when I know I already have over 100 primates on my waiting list.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Cronin: Any form of this legislation will cause an increase in the numbers needing rehoming—that is just a fact. All organisations are agreed that something has to change so that the species with no registration system have some form of protection of their care and what they are provided. Everybody is agreed that something has to be done here, and we will do our best to accommodate and pick up the pieces.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Cronin: I have just recently—within the last few weeks—been taken on to the zoos expert committee. I have come in at a later stage, but I am impressed with what has been proposed. Perhaps contrary to what was stated earlier, it seems to me that the standards are put across a level playing field, focused on bringing perhaps the smaller zoos that are not ticking all the boxes up to the same standard, regardless of size.
I think I am pleasantly surprised, as a user of the Zoo Licensing Act, to see a bit more focus on conservation and spelling out what that is. I could go through details over and over again. In particular, recently I was very dismayed to see so many of the larger zoos in the country immediately claim, after only a few weeks of closure, that they would potentially have to euthanise animals if they did not receive financial grants from the Government. Our organisation is not a large zoo in comparison to most. I am dedicated to the care and welfare of my animals, whether it is for my lifetime or for one year, and I think that it is essential that zoos operate with a budget that enables them to close for one year. That is an obligation that they should have to the endangered species that they are protecting, and one on which they seem to have fallen short up until now. Details such as that are in the proposed legislation.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Judge: We would also support a licensing system. I agree with many of the points that Alison made about primates as pets. We think that you should be banned from keeping primates as pets in a domestic setting, but there are a number of responsible, registered—with BIAZA—keepers who keep their animals to a zoo standard, and their animal welfare is at the highest level. They play an important part in some breeding and conservation programmes. Although we fully agree that you should not be allowed to keep a lemur or marmoset in a birdcage in a living room, and would like to see that banned, we think that a well-resourced and effective licensing system is the way to go to enable the people who keep those animals at high welfare standards and contribute to conservation programmes to keep those animals. As Alison said, a complete ban would drive the trade underground and leave more animals in need of rehoming and more animals likely to be abandoned. We are very much in favour of banning them as pets but allowing a licensing system for responsible keepers.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Girling: Yes, I genuinely do believe that that is the case. We currently have 12 members plus myself on the committee. The members cover a wide range of disciplines, from veterinary surgeons who have worked for many years and are recognised as specialists within the community to those who are working in a variety of zoo licensed premises—from larger zoos to smaller ones. We have members from academia, covering various areas of welfare, ethics and education, and we have local authority representation.
In addition, the standards have not been drafted purely by the committee. The committee has involved the zoo community, the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums. A number of members of BIAZA’s groups have contributed. These are just a few of them: the reptile and amphibian working group, terrestrial invertebrates, the native species research committees, veterinary working groups, elephant welfare groups and great apes welfare groups. We have widely consulted with the industry, from zoos to aquaria, and across a wide range and spectrum of different zoo licensed premises to ensure that the standards genuinely represent both what the industry wishes to drive forward and what we feel is important, which is improving conservation and welfare in zoo licensed premises.
I am very pleased to have new members such as Alison on board to bring their expertise and scrutiny and to bring different perspectives on these new standards, which I genuinely believe will improve welfare and conservation in zoo licensed premises in the UK.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Girling: The conservation standards have not so much been absorbed but created within the standards. There was very little reference to conservation in the standards originally. Zoos have given many different examples over the years of contributing to conservation, including simply donating money to organisations that carry out conservation on their behalf or, in some cases, breeding species that are not on any sort of IUCN red list and saying that that is conservation.
We do not believe that, in a modern zoo, that actually represents conservation, so the Bill provides an opportunity for us to more clearly define what conservation is and how zoos can implement that, and to tailor it to ensure that it reflects the size of the zoological collection. We would expect some of the larger zoos not only to collaborate with conservation measures, but actively to lead them. It is an opportunity, which I believe the standards reflect, to significantly increase the definition of what conservation is and to improve it within zoo licensed premises.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Girling: Absolutely. Hopefully, the consultation will be out before the end of the year. It will be a 12-week process targeted to the industry and other bodies, such as local authorities that have a stake in the zoo world and veterinary organisations involved in it. There will be discussion—quite rightly so—and there will be some areas that people will want more detail on, but I am confident that the standards as they stand represent a significant improvement in clarity, particularly on welfare and conservation.
That will help when we are talking about local authorities potentially being able to implement penalties, because it will give them more teeth to deal with zoos that are genuinely failing. I am confident that the consultation will be out in the next month or so, so that we can get the standards into force. We have to remember that this is the first major change to the standards for nearly 10 years, so a significant amount of change has occurred.
Dr Judge: May I come in on a couple of those points? ZEC has done a fantastic job and has involved different individuals from different BIAZA working groups in its consultation, but BIAZA itself has not been involved in the consultation and has not seen the majority of the standards yet. Those experts have been involved in developing the standards, but at the moment there is no requirement for any consultation when the standards are reviewed. We would like to see some assurance that when standards are reviewed, now and in future, there is wider consultation.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Judge: Yes, we have, but it would be great to have a requirement set down somewhere that that will always happen when they are being developed rather than when they go out for wider consultation.
ZEC gives advice to the Government, and that advice is great, but there is no transparency about that at the moment. There is no requirement for it to publish its advice. We would like to see the advice around the standards brought into line with the new animal sentience committee, and it being given the ability to publish its advice, so there would be greater transparency, which would make the standards process more robust.
On moving conservation into the standards, we very much support the highest conservation requirements for zoos and aquariums. We believe that all modern zoos should provide impactful conservation, so we support that, but we would like assurances around consultation, transparency and accountability of the standards as they are reviewed.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
However, I listened very closely to your evidence, and you both said, “a number of”. A number can be anything from one to quite a few. I am not at all clear how many people we are talking about who are, in your words, in a position to keep primates to zoo standards. I would really welcome a stab from both of you at how many people we are actually talking about. That goes back to my question to the RSPCA: who are they? They are clearly not the kind of people we are trying to clamp down on, who are keeping primates in totally inappropriate conditions. How many can do it properly?
Dr Cronin: In our experience over the years, I can only comment on the numbers and proportions I have seen. Specialist keepers who have reached out to us or that I am aware of are probably one in 30. It is a very small fraternity of people—the personal hobbyists, if you will—who are prepared to spend the amount of money, time and effort needed to keep these animals properly. It is not straightforward; you have to invest a lot of time and effort into it and have back-up resources for going on holiday, or anything like that. So the number of specialist keepers is very small.
What has happened in the last decade is that social media has driven the trade in keeping exotic pets—primates in particular—in households to increase someone’s social media standing and the like. It has got out of control, and I think everybody agrees that that is the frontline that needs to be tackled first. Then, perhaps, additional legislation to deal with any outstanding issues surrounding those specialist keepers might be a follow-on. However, I think we all agree that the frontline triage is to stop the over-the-counter trade of primates being sold in birdcages to be kept in sitting rooms in solitary confinement. I do not think anybody has a problem with that being the primary focus.
Dr Judge: It is very difficult to put a number on it. We only have a handful of what we call our accredited associates, who are people who keep primates to that zoo standard in a private setting. There are also a number of sanctuaries that do not have a zoo licence because they do not allow visitors, which is what would tip them over into needing a zoo licence. At the moment, it is unclear how those sanctuaries would be affected by a ban. Presumably, with the licensing procedure, they would be able to carry on.
Those people are genuinely very passionate about their primates. The ones we deal with are very keen to be involved in conservation and breeding programmes; they are also people who will take animals that other people cannot properly house, and so on. They form a vital part of the safekeeping of primates in the UK. We do not know how many there are at the moment, but it is unlikely to be a massive number.
Dr Cronin: May I add one short comment? There is also an issue with pet shops and people taking advantage of loopholes in legislation by keeping primates in the pet shop, but not offering them for sale. Do those animals fall under the pet shop licence, or are they now in need of a dangerous wild animals licence, or the specialist keepers’ licence we are talking about? The whole issue surrounding pet shops needs to be tightened up. Also, as was mentioned earlier, there are all the farm parks that currently fall in between legislation. Are they zoos or not if they have a parrot and a marmoset? It is in those situations that animals are being neglected and falling short of legislation.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Judge: There has to be a reasonable period over which this is going to be implemented. If there are welfare issues, obviously, that should be paramount and there should be rehoming and the ability for that. The difficulty will be the capacity for rehoming. I know that Monkey World, for example, is at capacity—if not possibly over capacity—a lot of the time because of the rehoming that it does. While zoos will assist wherever they can, the actual capacity within zoos is restricted because it is not easy to take a pet monkey and put it into an established social group of primates kept in a zoo situation. Zoos have long-term management plans for all those animals, and they have a carrying capacity. The worst examples need to be rehomed as quickly as possible, but having a system whereby people are checked and then there is a longer period—I think it is two years at the moment—to get those into better premises could be useful. However, it all has to come down to the welfare issue.
Dr Cronin: There is a further twist in the tail there too and it falls back to the ZEC committee and the zoo’s licensing. A lot of the animals have come via captive-bred animals from zoos. When we are talking about breeding primates for so-called conservation purposes—and sometimes it is not actually so—so-called surplus animals are created that are then rehomed at various rescue centres or sanctuaries that may or may not be licensed, or they find themselves into the pet trade. That is where I suppose my worlds are colliding. There needs to be tighter legislation in the ZEC committee, in my opinion, to limit and control the breeding of species that are not conservation priorities and to ensure that those animals—that the zoos are obligated to care for what they breed. That is just a moral principle that we live by at Monkey World: anything that is born at the park I am obligated to care for for its lifetime, unless I can find a home of better quality than we provide already. That is something that needs to be fully embraced throughout the zoos up and down the country.
Dr Judge: In good, modern zoos, sending animals into the pet trade would never happen. It is against our sanctions. However, not all zoos are BIAZA zoos and the ones that do not adhere to those higher standards are the problem. It is those lower levels that we need to bring up to match the other standards. Within good zoos and aquariums, and the whole of BIAZA zoos and aquariums, breeding is very carefully planned and it can be done at a European level for conservation breeding, but they have to know what they are going to do with those animals when they breed them.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Girling: I genuinely believe that they will for a number of different reasons. The standards, as I am sure the Committee knows, have been altered to ensure that grey areas—ideas of best practice, so-called “shoulds” or “coulds”, suggestions that this is the best way to manage an animal—have been pretty much removed wholesale from the standards and replaced with “musts”. Consequently, it has inevitably resulted in an increase in standards throughout this document. I am confident that this new set of standards will improve the welfare of captive animals, including primates, and I certainly welcome the extension of welfare standards for primates from the zoo standards to all primates kept in captivity, just to echo what both Alison and Jo have said. Yes, I believe these standards will result in that and that may well result in some issues for some current zoo-licensed premises. They will have to improve their game or there may be the ultimate sanction of the local authority removing their licence if they do not come up to the new welfare standards.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Girling: It depends on the individual collection. They become the responsibility of the local authority in the first instance, because when the local authority removes the licence, it becomes responsible for the welfare and care of the animals. It then absolutely becomes a potential issue to rehome those animals to other zoological collections. As Alison has already acknowledged, many collections—zoos, sanctuaries and so on—are already at capacity.
We would expect that the standards will take some time to implement once they have been agreed, so there will be a lead-in period in which it would be plainly obvious to collections that the standards are improving. We sincerely hope that this will give everybody time to improve their game and to improve the welfare for their animals should it have fallen short of the new standards. Inevitably, yes, it may well result in animals needing to be rehomed, as Alison indicated.
Daniel Zeichner
I am not sure whether I feel more sorry for the animals or the local authorities. I will leave it at that.
The Chair
We have just under 25 minutes. I will tell the Committee which Members have caught my eye so that we make the best use of time: I have Luke Evans first, then Olivia Blake, James Grundy and Dr Neil Hudson.
Dr Evans
Q
To summarise, I am concerned about the public’s perception around welfare. It sounds natural and very obvious to say, “Let’s ban primates as pets.” What we are hearing from you guys is that, practically, that is very difficult because they are complex animals that may build relationships with a specific keeper. You cannot suddenly move them into another group very easily. Alison, you pulled a face there—that is what I am interested by, because I am coming at it as a lay person. If we choose a licensing system over an outright ban, how can the Government explain that to the public with the understanding and nuance in the message that you have just put forward?
Dr Cronin: I would be perfectly happy to accept a ban, but I am not, as I said before, trying to make a judgment on where the animals are kept—that is not my purpose. I am here to speak for those who do not have a voice: the monkeys and apes. I am concerned about how they are being kept. I am just trying to stay laser-focused, so to me, it does not matter whether they are kept at Monkey World, at Twycross zoo, or in somebody’s back garden.
Depending on who they are or how wealthy they are, somebody’s back garden might have higher standards than either Twycross zoo or Monkey World. I am trying to be practical in saying, “That can happen; that is realistic.” Why should a person be stopped, simply because they are a private individual, from doing a good job, potentially in both conservation and welfare? Should they become incorporated, and then would it be okay for them to keep those animals? I am trying to stay focused on the purpose and intent of what is being proposed, not on the moral principle of whether these animals should be kept in captivity.
On your comments about which animals become attached to people, I suggest to you that if they have become attached to people, they are perhaps not being cared for in an appropriate manner, because they should be living with others of their own kind and living appropriate lifestyles as marmosets, tamarins, squirrel monkeys or capuchin monkeys. We have not encountered primates that we have not been able to rehabilitate. We are known around the globe for taking some of the most difficult species, including great apes, and rehabilitating them into large, natural—well, natural when living in captivity—social groups. It is possible to do; it takes a lot of time, effort and money to do, and you have to be dedicated to that purpose. That is where the rescue work that we do at Monkey World is different from the average—I do not mean that in a derogatory way—zoo or wildlife park: we have a specific focus, and it can be done.
Dr Judge: I agree with Alison that it has to be welfare focused. The argument is that these people are keeping them to a very high standard of welfare, and that is what is important. As Alison says, it does not matter where that is, as long as their welfare is being adequately cared for.
Dr Evans
Q
Dr Evans
Human welfare is being looked after as well; that is good to see. Simon, I hope you got that question. The concern is that we need a good definition of conservation, but if it is too prescriptive we create a problem. What is your response to that as the ZEC?
Dr Girling: Thank you very much. It is a thorny issue, and I am confident that the conservation measures that are in the proposed standards that will go out for consultation are significantly increased in content and clarity. At the same time, they are not saying things like, “You need to donate £X to conservation in order to tick a box.” They focus more on the meaningful conservation measures that organisations can carry out. It is about enhancing and encouraging zoological collections—zoo-licensed premises—to engage in the process of research and conservation.
That does not necessarily mean that some of the smaller and less financially robust zoological collections have to release wildcats into England, or something of that nature. It is tailored to ensure that they are encouraged to collaborate, share data and information, and get involved in such things as local wildlife trust research and projects that are on their doorstep, all of which can be meaningful conservation. It is not about breeding animals that do not appear on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red lists, and calling that conservation. It is not about simply giving money to projects and saying, “That’s our conservation,” or “We’ve sold so many gifts at the gift shop, and we’re generating income for conservation.”
It is about being able to demonstrate to the inspectorate when it comes round for the zoo licence that they are actually engaging. Some of it is about outputs and publications. That does not necessarily have to mean peer-reviewed publications, but it is about communicating what they are doing to the wider public, contributing to organisations such as BIAZA, the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, and wildlife trusts and so on in a meaningful way that demonstrates their engagement in conservation, rather than it just being a tick-box exercise. As you rightly say, that should be without saying, “No, no, no—you have to do this one very specific thing.” Hopefully, this will allow zoological collections—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Simon, that is a very comprehensive answer. I just do not want anyone to have missed what you said. I did not realise that we were going to have an ongoing commentary about fire and leaving the building. Did everybody hear that answer, or would we like to wait a little while until the noise has stopped and hear Dr Simon again? I feel that we should give you the courtesy of being able to hear your comprehensive answer. We will hold off, and then, if it is fine with everybody, can I add this time on to the end? [Interruption.] I cannot. Okay, I just wanted to check.
Good—silence. Dr Simon, the floor is yours. We were all glued to what you had to say; it sounded comprehensive.
Dr Girling: The standards now have a specific section associated with conservation—[Interruption.]
The Chair
There you go—you heard that, Simon.
Dr Girling: That is excellent news. There is now a specific section within the standards that deals with conservation. That allows us to put more meat on the bone and to better explain what we mean by conservation: it is not about simply breeding animals that are not endangered and calling that conservation or about simply giving money, x pounds, to conservation. It is about being actively involved—rolling up your sleeves and getting involved with conservation.
Depending on the size of the zoo-licensed premises, that can be anything from reintroducing a species back into the wild, right the way through to actively engaging with universities, colleges and wildlife trusts by sharing data and getting staff involved in local conservation projects. It helps that there is a wide spectrum of activities that would qualify. It also means that it is not just about saying, “Well we exist and we generate income, and that is conservation because we have a zoo-licensed premises.”
I am hopeful that this will enhance conservation measures within zoological collections, make them easier to assess when the zoo inspectorate go out to grant licences and give confidence to the Committee that we are genuinely trying to drive up conservation standards.
Dr Evans
Q
Dr Girling: Yes, there are certainly many merits to traffic-light systems. I know that Jo and BIAZA have promoted a system similar to that, which will help the wider public understand conservation measures. We do not specifically address a traffic-light system within the conversation standards; we are trying to keep it to a series of “musts”, and then provide guidance on that.
An awful lot of very good conservation is done in zoos in the UK. However, no matter what is done, in a lot of cases we are not good at communicating about it to the wider public. Education is clearly one of the main planks of the zoo licensing system. Getting the message out there is a really important point: what are they doing, how are they doing it and what difference is it making? Is it having a measurable impact?
The Chair
We have only 10 minutes left and I am hoping to include a further three Members.
Dr Judge: To add to that, Simon is right that BIAZA are looking at setting up an accreditation system, whereby we would not just be looking at animal welfare, but at the conservation, education and research outputs of zoos. There would be some kind of system, whether a traffic-light or Ofsted system, that would be recognisable to the public. They would be able to tell from that system exactly what the zoos and aquariums were doing. Through that there would also be much more education and information coming from BIAZA about what our zoos were doing, and making it so that the public were much more aware.
Olivia Blake
Q
Dr Cronin: That varies; it depends on what species of primate you are talking about. For marmosets and tamarins, it can be anywhere from four months to six months, that kind of touch. The reproduction rate also needs to be considered. Marmosets and tamarins generally give birth to twins. It is sometimes triplets or even quadruplets, but the usual survival rate—in the wild, anyway—will be for twins.
The potential turnover of animals into the pet trade from breeders and dealers is high. As soon as infants are removed from a female who has given birth, she will immediately become receptive to the male and begin the process all over again, so you end up with females that are literally knackered from being used for breeding. It is quite tragic to see.
Olivia Blake
Q
Dr Cronin: We vasectomise everybody we get in. That is far less invasive than a castration, or a hysterectomy for a woman. There are permanent methods, but there are also temporary methods that can be used, such as implants. Pretty much the same available forms of human contraception can be achieved in non-human primates.
Olivia Blake
Probably not 100% then, based on humans?
Dr Cronin: No, we have had birth control accidents at our park using implants, intrauterine contraceptive coils and the pill. That does happen. There are permanent ways, if you were simply a hobbyist who did not want to breed animals yet wanted to keep them in a social setting.
Olivia Blake
Q
Dr Cronin: Sorry, it is my understanding—perhaps I have misread or misremembered—that there were suggested annual check-ups by the local authority within that six-year framework.
Olivia Blake
With the local authority, but not with a vet.
Dr Cronin: I thought it was with a vet, or a specialist.
Victoria Prentis
That is every two years, but for vets—hang on; let me find the right bit of the Bill.
Olivia Blake
Q
Dr Cronin: Being practical, that sounds untenable. The weight unloaded on local authorities has to be balanced. I am not sure that I see all this being dumped on the local authority on an annual basis. I think that every two years is acceptable. I would think that every six years is too long. I think that a fair medium has been struck.
Olivia Blake
Q
Dr Cronin: For a licence? With interim checks, that probably is acceptable—these are rather long-lived animals —so long as those biannual checks occur and circumstances have not changed. Part of the evidence we supplied is that there should be an amendment to the Bill that if amendments to a licence are requested, such as an increase in numbers or species kept or a change or deviation, that would immediately obligate another local authority check before the licence was amended.
James Grundy
Previous witnesses this morning suggested that putting the burden of inspection on local authorities might create too great a burden. The example used was that perhaps a chap looking at the tandoori place in the morning would be inspecting this in the afternoon.
Dr Cronin: Correct.
James Grundy
Q
Dr Cronin: Potentially, at the outset, it will be rather large. If all the individuals who currently keep primates in what I would call a bird cage or a parrot cage in their house step forward to register their animals, I suspect that what would happen would not be a whole lot different from what currently happens. We will see the effect of people not continuing to buy the animals as the legislation has duration, with the trade being limited and the grandfather clause.
The people who keep animals in bird cages in their sitting room may not be aware of the new legislation. Will they then step forward to announce, “I’ve got a marmoset in a bird cage in my sitting room” to the local authority? I suspect that will not happen. In the end, they will only be turned over by the friends and neighbours who report them. Then it will be up to the local authority, and that is sort of where we are right now.
I am sort of wondering whether the changes in law will actually have a dramatic effect on the animals being taken in or local authorities being overstretched. It is impossible to say how it will play out—you would need a crystal ball. However, I suspect that it will not be a radical change from where we are. My immediate hope is that the trade in selling these animals for commercial exploitation will stop; over time, I hope that all this will wind down, so that all we have left are primates being kept in reasonable conditions in facilities that are up to zoo standards throughout the country. That would be the goal and target for me.
James Grundy
Q
Dr Judge: Yes, absolutely.
Dr Cronin: Yes, absolutely. I have witnessed it. It is rare that I turn down people’s request to rehome their primates if I am able to take them in. However, in some circumstances I have seen private individuals who keep their animals in extremely good conditions; that is why they have approached us—because either their circumstances are going to change or they are getting elderly, and before their health deteriorates they want to ensure the health and welfare of the monkeys they keep.
The individuals are so dedicated to those animals that, at that point, I have to say, “Look, we have to do frontline triage with marmosets in bird cages. Perhaps you should keep them. When the time comes, I assure you personally that I will look after your monkeys.” Inevitably, those dedicated keepers want their animals sorted and they want it right now. I have seen good, dedicated keepers.
James Grundy
Q
Dr Cronin: Correct, but those specialist keepers are very few and far between. My take-home thought for everybody here today is about the head of the snake: the unscrupulous breeders and dealers who do know how to keep the animals correctly and are capable of breeding them at a high rate, but who are simply churning them out in order to maximise their profits. That needs to stop now.
There is also a huge human toll that is not often discussed. Well-meaning members of the British public are being taken advantage of. A lot of the animals we rescue at Monkey World come to us from people who did not realise. Ignorance is no excuse but, at the same time, it is currently legal to buy a monkey over the internet or from a local pet shop. They are told it is just fine to take it home individually in a bird cage—
The Chair
Order. We have come to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions and, indeed, for this morning’s sittings. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee: a big thank you to Dr Alison Cronin MBE, director of Monkey World; to Dr Simon Girling, chair of the Zoos Expert Committee; and to Dr Jo Judge, chief executive of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The Committee will meet again at two o’clock this afternoon in the Boothroyd room to continue taking oral evidence.
Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 9th November 2021
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 View all Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 November 2021 - (9 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Welcome to this morning’s sitting. I ask that everyone continue to respect the advice and rules on covid restrictions, and remind Members to submit their notes to Hansard and to turn off any devices or put them on silent.
Clause 2
Exclusion of review of Upper Tribunal’s permission-to-appeal decisions
Amendment proposed (4 November): 43, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) Notwithstanding subsection (1), subsections (2) and (3) shall not apply where the party refused permission (or leave) to appeal by the Upper Tribunal was the appellant before the First-tier Tribunal and—
(a) that party was without legal representation and the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal was not within legal aid scope;
(b) that party was not of full age or capacity;
(c) the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal was not an in-country appeal;
(d) the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal was subject to any accelerated procedure;
(e) the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was subject to any statutory restriction or direction concerning how that tribunal was to evaluate the credibility of the appellant or the evidence before it; or
(f) the application to the Upper Tribunal raises a point of law concerning the construction of any statutory provision for interpretation of an international agreement.”—(Andy Slaughter.)
This amendment is contingent on the interpretative provisions in Amendment 44. This amendment would provide a further list of exceptions to the ousting of the High Court’s jurisdiction that is proposed by Clause 2.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 3, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert—
“(c) that decision or the decision against which the Upper Tribunal has refused permission (or leave) to appeal is vitiated by any—
(i) bad faith, or
(ii) fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice.”
This amendment would expand the current exception in Clause 2 to ensure it applies to any bad faith or fundamental breach of natural justice.
Amendment 44, in clause 2, page 4, line 8, at end insert—
“‘accelerated procedure’ means any procedure for which procedure rules permit or require that less time is provided than is the case for another party before the tribunal bringing an appeal under the same statutory right of appeal; and includes an accelerated detained appeal under section 106A(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
an appeal is ‘not an in-country appeal’ if the appellant is only permitted to bring or continue the appeal from outside the United Kingdom;
a party is ‘not of full age or capacity’ if that party is—
(a) a child, or
(b) requires the assistance of a third party to understand the procedure or decision of, or issues before, the First-tier Tribunal and communicate effectively with that tribunal (whether or not that assistance is provided save to the extent to which the person requires an interpreter and one is provided)
an appeal is ‘not within legal scope’ if representation before the First-tier Tribunal does not fall within civil legal services under section 9 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012;
‘interpreter’ means a person whose sole function in proceedings before the tribunal is to translate between the English language and another language spoken by the appellant;
‘legally represented’ means having legal services as defined by section 8 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which services must be provided by a person who is not prohibited from providing them by any statute, court order or decision of any relevant professional standards body;
‘relevant professional standards body’ means a designated professional body as defined by section 86 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or such other body in England and Wales as may be designated by the Lord Chancellor, in Scotland as may be designated by the Scottish Ministers or in Northern Ireland as may be designated by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland;
‘an international agreement’ includes the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.”
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 43. This amendment would provide interpretative provisions for Amendment 43.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I wish everyone a good morning and look forward to another thorough day’s examination of this important Bill.
Amendments 43 and 44 seek to reduce the scope of the ouster clause by introducing numerous exemptions. Clause 2 is carefully constructed and consistent, and identifies the kinds of errors the court could make and deals with each separately. The upper tribunal will not be reviewable on errors of law but will be where it has made a true jurisdictional error or where there is evidence of bad faith or a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice. That is so we can deal with the inefficiency in the current system while providing adequate safeguards.
The exemptions outlined in the amendment would completely undermine the Government’s objective of tackling those inefficiencies, as a large number of cases would continue to proceed to the High Court on grounds of error of law without any good reason. I understand that some of the circumstances outlined in the amendment are particularly difficult for the claimant. However, we must trust the upper tribunal to take appropriate and proper decisions on all permission-to-appeal applications. Where there are particular sensitivities, we can be confident that the upper tribunal will have considered those in reaching its decision.
The very low percentage of Cart judicial reviews that actually result in a successful outcome for the claimant—as we have discussed, the figure is about 3.4%—illustrates precisely that point. There is no good reason to treat the sorts of cases that come before the upper tribunal—the majority of which are immigration cases—differently from any other sort of dispute that comes before our courts and tribunals by granting them a third bite at the permission-to-appeal cherry, as we have famously described it, which is what the Cart JR system currently does. The amendments would undermine the consistency of the treatment of appeal decisions by the upper tribunal, making it the final court in some cases but not others, simply because of certain factors relating to the claimant rather than to the nature of the error concerned. Our approach is consistent and justified, and properly empowers the upper tribunal to get on with its important business.
Amendment 42 aims to widen the exception to the ouster clause, which relates to bad faith and fundamental breach of natural justice. It proposes including decisions made by the first-tier tribunal as well as the decision of the upper tribunal. I consider the amendment unnecessary. I am sure hon. Members will agree that judges of the upper tribunal are entirely capable of identifying the sort of blatant and serious errors that constitute bad faith or a fundamental breach of natural justice.
The upper tribunal can be trusted to uphold the rule of law, and the drafting in the Bill sets out with sufficient clarity the exceptional conditions in which the upper tribunal should be subject to judicial review—namely, where it has breached the fundamental principles of natural justice or acted in bad faith. In any case, one would imagine that the upper tribunal knowingly upholding bad faith on the part of the first-tier tribunal would act in breach of the fundamental principles of natural justice. Therefore, including a further provision in the Bill outlining a situation that, in my view, is extremely unlikely to occur, is unnecessary. I urge the hon. Member for Hammersmith to withdraw the amendment.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Rosindell, for another sitting to consider this important Bill. I will respond briefly.
The Minister correctly said that the aim of the amendments is to reduce the scope of the ouster clause. That is exactly right, because we do not believe there are adequate safeguards. Without giving away the plot, we will come shortly to the clause stand part debate and our preferred option is to leave the clause out altogether. The amendments are our attempt to say that if the ouster clause were appropriate in the new circumstances, which we do not concede, it should not have such limited exemptions.
The Minister said that the amendment would defeat the Government’s purpose by increasing the number of cases that would still be subject to judicial review. It is my submission that that is not the right way to look at it. It is the justice of the case and the consequences for claimants that we should be looking at. To repeat what I said last Thursday, those consequences are often matters of life and death and severe. In addition, the use of judicial review in Cart cases is already heavily constrained. We have focused on the relatively small amount of money that Cart judicial reviews cost—relative in terms of overall judicial budgets—this would be a part of that sum.
The Government should not dismiss this issue. At the very least, they should think about the extent of the ouster clause. That is the purpose of this debate and I do not believe they have thought sufficiently about it. We are, however, coming to the clause stand part debate, in which members of the Committee will be able to express ourselves rather more clearly and fully. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
Under our current system, if a case is brought unsuccessfully to any chamber of the first-tier tribunal, it is possible to apply to the first tier for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal. If that permission application is refused, an application can be made to the upper tribunal for permission to have the case heard in the upper tribunal. If that fails, an application can be made to the High Court to judicially review the decision by the upper tribunal to refuse permission to appeal. This was the state of affairs brought about by the Cart judgment.
Since the Cart judgment, there have been on average 750 such cases a year. We do not believe that was the intention when the Supreme Court decided Cart. Therefore, clause 2 seeks to remove Cart judicial reviews, by way of a narrow and carefully worded ouster clause.
The Government want to remove Cart reviews because we firmly believe that the situation is a disproportionate use of resources in our justice system. Users of the tribunal system not only have the chance to seek administrative review—for example, if challenging a Home Office decision—but can appeal that decision to the first-tier tribunal and, upon losing that appeal, have both the first-tier and upper tribunals consider whether it is necessary to appeal that decision. To then be able to judicially review a refusal by the upper tribunal is an unnecessary burden on the system. That is not enjoyed in most other areas of law. We are yet to hear from the Labour party why it thinks that immigration cases should have such an exceptional additional right.
Our view is shared by some in the Supreme Court. Lord Hope of Craighead, who was one of the judges in the original Cart JR ruling, has stated that
“experience has shown that our decision has not worked”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2021; Vol. 811, c. 710.]
He agreed that it is time to end this type of review because of its inefficiencies.
The independent review of administrative law, from which the proposal of this clause comes, concluded that Cart reviews were effective for claimants only 0.22% of the time. That figure was the subject of much criticism, with several critics questioning the independent review’s analysis. Officials have worked with academics, judges, practitioners and non-governmental organisations to come to a more definite figure, and concluded that the claimant success rate for judicial reviews in this area is around 3.4%. It is a higher figure, but still incredibly low. Lord Brown’s words in the Cart judgment are relevant. He said that
“the rule of law is weakened, not strengthened, if a disproportionate part of the courts’ resources is devoted to finding a very occasional grain of wheat on a threshing floor full of chaff.”
We can consider that rate against the claimant success rate for general judicial reviews, for which the independent review found that the general consensus is that it ranges from 30% to 50%. Colleagues will recall Professor Feldman suggesting in evidence that the figure is around 50%. Either way, it is well over 10 times more than the figure for Cart JRs.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does the Minister think it is a little strange that while Opposition Members argue for those immigration cases to maintain having three bites at the cherry, they do not make the same argument for other cases with potentially higher success rate?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great expertise, for making that incredibly important point. Given her medical professional background, she is aware of the importance of the law in good public administration and why the proportionate use of resource is incredibly important. She is absolutely right: we and our constituents have still not heard an explanation as to why, uniquely, immigration cases should have this special right. I am bound to point out that the longer an immigration case is in our courts, the claimant could argue that they have a stronger case to be given a permanent right to remain on human rights grounds.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Given that the Opposition have spent so much time opposing all the steps the Government have taken to fit capacity into the system, does the Minister agree that there is a certain irony that they had planned to hold an Opposition day debate yesterday on how to sort out the court backlog?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend may have had sight of the speech I had prepared to wind up yesterday’s debate. In fact, I was ready to take part at 10 pm, when rumour had it that the Opposition might still go ahead with the debate. He is absolutely right. We have a serious backlog issue. We have been very open about that. The primary driver of the surge in cases was the fact that courts were closed during the pandemic, and social distancing measures have made it much harder to dispose of cases, particularly in the Crown court. In those circumstances, 180 days of a High Court judge’s time is a precious resource indeed, which is why we take the view that exceptions should not be made in these cases. That is not depriving potential migrants of rights because they would still have, to coin that old phrase, two bites at the cherry.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
If that is the case, and if the Minister is so concerned about the court backlog, does that mean that he will not support the Nationality and Borders Bill, which attempts to criminalise asylum seekers simply for coming to this country because they could not find safe and legal routes, at an estimated cost of an extra £400,000 per year, clogging up the court system even further?
James Cartlidge
It is a fair point, but the hon. Lady and my colleagues may be interested to know another statistic that we have discovered: the average time that these cases take from coming to court to reaching a conclusion is 88 days. That means that hundreds of cases are taking three months to be heard in the High Court. On that basis, we would not bring in new measures to toughen up sentencing on, for example, serious sexual offenders. If we did that, more people would potentially end up being found guilty of those crimes and going to prison for longer, which costs. That is precisely why we are taking measures to free up capacity. For example, in a later part of the Bill we will be remitting more cases from the Crown court to the magistrates court, because it is in the Crown court that those serious crimes will be heard.
James Cartlidge
I will take a second bite at the cherry from the hon. Lady.
Anne McLaughlin
I thank the Minister for that second bite. I know he was not deliberately conflating serious sexual offenders with asylum seekers, but I really want to make that distinction. We are talking about people fleeing for their lives from terrible situations, and in the same sentence he compares them to serious sexual offenders. Does he agree that there is no conflation there?
James Cartlidge
Of course. That is not the point I was making. To be absolutely clear, the point I was making is that we still have to deal with serious acts of violence and crime, whatever the crime may take place. If we do that, our actions may put more pressure on the courts, but I think our constituents would support that. Moreover, if someone comes to the tribunal system seeking immigration to this country, they will have two bites at the cherry—to use that phrase again—which is a consistent position.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady shakes her head. [Interruption.] She wants a third bite of the cherry. Well, I am going to ration them a bit, because there are oral questions soon. An inordinate amount of judicial resource is being used to review decisions of broadly equivalent judges who, importantly, are correct in refusing permission to appeal in the overwhelming majority of cases. However, if we take this away in immigration cases, there are still two bites at the cherry, which is consistent with article 13 of the European convention on human rights.
James Cartlidge
I will be very generous and offer the hon. Lady a third bite.
Anne McLaughlin
I have just served on the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee. I did not get a break between that and this Committee—in fact, last week the two clashed—so I know that what the Minister says is not the case. If asylum seekers arrive here by irregular means—in other words, if they come by boat because they cannot find safe and legal routes—they will not have an opportunity to apply for asylum, because they face offshoring and prosecutions. They will end up in the criminal court system before they even have an opportunity to go through the system that the Minister is discussing.
James Cartlidge
Let us be clear and differentiate here. If someone seeks to enter this country illegally, the rule of law and the law of the land apply. We have to deal with them through the courts, as is absolutely right. We think that judicial review is, in effect, an exceptional privilege used in immigration and asylum cases. Some 95% of these are immigration cases, and there are some other types of cases using Cart JR. We think that this is excessive. What we do not think is excessive to use the courts to use the rule of law and all the things that apply in a democracy to ensure that we have effective border controls which, after all, our constituents support. That means that we have the rule of law both at home and for people trying to emigrate to this country, either legally or illegally. The latter is something where our constituents feel particularly strongly that we must be strong in sending a signal that this country is not a light touch for people seeking to enter illegally, even if eventually their asylum claim is found to be legitimate. For those cases, we are generous, and we have shown that in what we have done in the Afghan settlement scheme.
Turning to the method by which are trying to ensure that there is a more proportionate use of resources, the Government understand that there are concerns about the use of these clauses, but we believe that clause 2 as drafted is clear in its intent. Indeed, the independent review of administrative law acknowledged that the use of an ouster clause to deal with a specific issue could be justified. Its nuanced approach emphasised that if there was sufficient justification, and the ouster clause was not too broad or general in scope, it would not undermine the rule of law.
As drafted, clause 2 addresses the previous concerns of the courts in six ways. First, as shown by proposed new section 11A(4)(a), the ouster clause applies only where there is a valid application for permission to appeal from the first-tier tribunal. This is not an extensive ousting of the upper tribunal—it removes only a specific route of review. Secondly, turning to new section 11A(4)(b), the ouster clause does not apply where there is true jurisdictional error. If it were the case that an invalid application was made or there was an application on a criminal law matter, and the court decided to adjudicate it, that would be outside its jurisdiction and open to judicial review. If the upper tribunal was not properly constituted—for instance, if a disqualified judge presided over a hearing—such a hearing would be outside the jurisdiction of the court. The ouster applies where the upper tribunal is functioning as normal, with proper composition of the panel.
Thirdly, two additional exceptions have been added to the clause, to further improve the “safety valve” aspect of the ouster clause. Once again, the Government are not trying to completely oust the upper tribunal’s jurisdiction; rather, they are concerned with ousting the ability to review errors of fact and law made by the upper tribunal. This does not include instances where the upper tribunal has acted in bad faith, or where there has been a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice, such as if the court decided to hear only one side of the case. These issues concern an abuse of the powers of the tribunal, and we do not see merit in ousting such abuses from judicial review.
Fourthly, the clause is limited only to courts. The wording of proposed new section 11A(2) is explicit that the measure involves removing the jurisdiction of courts from other courts—not executive bodies. The impression given by some of the commentary on the Bill since its publication has been that the clause is being used to remove executive power in general from the court’s oversight, but that is not the case. It is stopping one court reviewing another court of broadly equal standing.
Fifthly, as a notable point and in defence of the integrity of the Union, the ouster clause does not apply to challenges of decisions from the first-tier tribunal for which jurisdiction was or could have been granted by an Act of the Scottish Parliament or of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The clause is clear and explicit. The Government hope that the effect of drafting the above exceptions, and explicitly stating what is and is not covered by the ouster clause, will be to demonstrate that it is possible to develop such a clause that will be upheld by the courts and that it may well improve practice in future circumstances where such clauses are considered. This is a well-considered ouster clause that is designed to meet a clear policy objective and includes appropriate safety valves to prevent injustice. I hope that the Committee will support clause 2.
Tom Hunt
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. It is certainly the first time; I would have remembered otherwise. I will talk about clause 2 in a general sense. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Minister in my intervention, for which I was very grateful, there is a certain irony here. We have spent so much time debating the measures that the Government have proposed to free up capacity in the court system, but they are being opposed by the Labour party, which then has the cheek to hold an Opposition day debate on Monday purely about the court backlog.
The refugees who are arriving here illegally are potential refugees. Many will not be; many will be economic migrants who are fleeing from France, a safe European country. The 2011 Supreme Court decision that led to Cart JR in relation to these cases was a retrograde step, and in some respects has given judicial review a bad name. Judicial review is an important part of the justice system, but the influence of Cart JR has been negative and has given judicial review, which is very important for our justice system and our democracy, a bad name.
There is a debate about whether the success rate for Cart JR cases is 0.6%, 3% or 5%. A success rate of 5% is still extremely low, compared with 40% or 50% for other types of judicial review. We must bear that in mind. We hear that there are 750 such cases a year, at a cost of £400,000. I raised the issue of the financial cost last week, and this was belittled by a witness, who said that the cost was
“the same amount that DCMS spent on its art collection in 2019-20.”––[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2021; c. 52, Q75.]
Of course, that is not the key point. The key point is the wider pressure on the court system and on the time of our High Court judges. It is very clear that the pressure that Cart JR puts on the system makes it more difficult for our court system to get back on its feet after the impact of the pandemic. I am pleased with the practical steps that are being taken in other areas of the Bill to help with that.
This issue of the first, second and third bites of the cherry is interesting. I have not heard any practical reasons why immigration cases should be treated so differently from other cases by having a third bite of the cherry. We hear that, if there is one successful case, and even if only 2% or 3% of cases are successful, that is enough to justify Cart JR. If that is the only argument, why do we not have a fourth bite of the cherry, or a fifth? Can we say with certainty that, if we put the 97% of cases that are unsuccessful in the High Court to the Supreme Court, there will not be one or two that are successful? If one or two were successful, would that justify endless bites of the cherry? At some point, a balance must be struck. There is a limited amount of resources and significant pressure on the system. It is not unreasonable for the elected Government to make a determination about what is and is not reasonable. Even if the success rate is 5%, allowing endless bites of the cherry is not reasonable. It is not a justifiable pressure on the wider system.
Last Thursday, we also heard from the shadow Minister about many instances in which an individual had been successful in a Cart JR case in the High Court. Of course, such cases would have contributed to the 3% or 5%, but we would be here for about a week if we were to hear about each individual case that formed the 95%, or the 97%. Let us be absolutely clear: many of those individuals would be having a pernicious influence and a negative impact on our country—they would be illegal immigrants—and, frankly, the sooner we can get them out of the country, the better.
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Member is talking about the sooner we can get rid of these people out of the country. One of the people I spoke about on Second Reading was a Venezuelan man who fled after state actors murdered a friend of his. He knew that he was in danger because he had witnessed that. The first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal did not interpret his evidence correctly, according to the subsequent judge, after the Venezuelan man successfully got a judicial review. He is surely one of those people whom the hon. Member is talking about—the sooner that we can get rid of these people—because he would lose the right to have his appeal judicially reviewed, if the Member gets his way.
Tom Hunt
The sad reality is that in any justice system in the world, every now and then, there will sadly be a case that is not—but can we say with complete confidence that every case heard in the High Court has the right outcome? Perhaps, as I was saying, that is having a fourth or fifth bite at the cherry. We also need to reflect on the fact that the vast majority of these cases are not a good use of our judges’ time. They are not worthy of a further bite at the cherry. What is the practical argument for why they should be treated differently from anyone else in the justice system, who has two bites at the cherry? There is no argument for it.
I will draw my comments to a conclusion. Broadly, I welcome the Government’s moves in clause 2. The vast majority of my constituents would support what is happening. They believe in a fair justice system, in which we have a right to appeal—which we have here; that is not being changed—but they are realistic about the wider pressures on the court and justice systems. They see the Labour party doing everything it can to oppose reasonable and justified means to free up capacity in the courts system, while coming up with no practical arguments for how it would do so or that would be better than what the Government have suggested. That is unreasonable. Also, it is wrong to say that everyone who is going to go down this Cart JR route is not abusing the system and our good generosity as a country, because many are.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am inspired to speak to this part in our consideration, partly by the Minister’s eloquent explanation of why the amendments are undesirable, partly by the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich on how the traditional system is in a way being besmirched by the gaming of it, in particular in immigration cases, and partly because of the delight of serving under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, which I have not done often, but am particularly pleased to do, under the watchful gaze of one of my political heroes, Joe Chamberlain, who began life as a radical and ended it as a member of a Tory Government, understanding, as you and I do, that liberalism is the triumph of frenzied licence over dutiful obligation. It is because of obligation and, in the spirit of Chamberlain, our patriotic respect for our constitution that we must resist the amendments.
To hear some critics of the Bill, one might think that the Cart was embedded in the settlement between Parliament and the courts, and yet it is a modern thing. As you know, Mr Rosindell, it is the product of a decision by the Supreme Court as recently as 2011, when it declared that the High Court could judicially review decisions of the upper tribunal to refuse permission to appeal from the first-tier tribunal, whereas previously it was held that it could not.
At the heart of our consideration of the Bill is a fundamental difference about the character of our belief in the character of judicial review, but also a difference in our understanding of the separation of powers. We saw that in our evidence sessions. We had evidence from academics, notably Professor Ekins who, by the way, authored the report by Policy Exchange—which I commend for its excellent work on this subject. He was very clear that some of the recent decisions by the Supreme Court and other parts of the court system have challenged the supremacy of Parliament.
We also heard from Aidan O’Neill, who said he was a constitutional lawyer, and I understand he is—quite a notable one, from what I read. He said that this was about mutual respect, but mutuality is not the basis of our constitutional settlement. The roles of Parliament and the courts are distinct—the separation of powers; the clue is in the name. Of course there is a relationship between them, because this place makes laws and the courts oversee laws, but judge-made law is not consistent with our constitutional settlement and some of the perverse decisions of the courts in recent years have led, in the words of Professor Ekins, to parliamentary sovereignty being openly questioned. He said:
“Parliamentary sovereignty was openly questioned and the rule of law was set in apparent tension with parliamentary sovereignty, which is deeply wrong, I think”.—[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee,2 November 2021; c15, Q9.]
The defence of the rule of law is not a valid one, as the Attorney General made clear in her speech on these matters very recently.
The issue before us in respect of these amendments is clear. The judgment that was made in 2011 opened a new avenue of judicial review and those Cart judicial review cases have mushroomed since. This is particularly true for immigration cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said a few moments ago—not exclusively so, as the Minister pointed out, but largely. This has to be changed. Given that a previous Labour Government tried to tighten the requirements for judicial review, it is surprising that the current Opposition do not understand that this is a return to a stable and steady position—a normal position—that enshrines judicial review as an important part of the way in which citizens can acquire justice, but does not allow it to become what it has become, a means for people to perpetuate political debates that they have lost earlier. This is using the courts to—I never thought we would be speaking so much about fruit during the course of our deliberations, but to use the word that has been used several times before—have many bites of the cherry. We ought perhaps to think about another fruit, just for the sake of variety, but I suppose cherries will do for the sake of argument.
As I pointed out when we last met, the Opposition were going to have a debate yesterday on the court backlog. The amendments seem to me to have the effect of doing the very opposite and do not address the issue of the court backlog. We know that a very small number of cases that are brought under Cart judicial review—something like 3%—are successful, and yet there were around 750 per year between 2026 and 2019. We have many cases being brought on a wing and a prayer, with neither the wing flying nor the prayer being answered in terms of the result of the case. There is a pressing need, just on those practical terms, to reform judicial review in this respect.
I say to the Minister—not provocatively, but I hope helpfully—that I think the Bill can go much further. I think it is a very modest reform of judicial review. I refer him again to Professor Ekins’s work. There is a good argument for changing the rules of evidence, for example, which would tighten the system considerably. There is a good case for dealing with the effects of the Adams case, the Miller case and the privacy case, which he will know had profound effects on judicial review and on the balance between Parliament and the courts.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am also inspired to speak in this debate. I think that I would be doing my constituents an injustice if I were not to say something on this really important issue. I give credit to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, who tried to give more of a human approach, through the experience of the person who went through the court proceedings to do with Venezuela. I appreciate her attempt to do that, although it was not very well received by Government Members.
I just want to share a few things. I do not come from a legal background, but I do come from a social care background, and I have worked with refugees and asylum seekers in the past. People may or may not be aware of some of the really abusive situations that they face when they are travelling from their country of origin and try to find passage over here. Some of the stories that I am aware of involving young people and children, although the clause is not necessarily about children, are absolutely horrific. People are raped, abused and threatened at gunpoint to be silent. It is very disturbing to hear of those cases. When there is not enough evidence, or evidence is not being received properly, during the first court hearing and the second, but it is found, during the third hearing, that actually there is a clearer understanding and a clarity that then would go on to save somebody from suffering a level of persecution if they were returned to their country of origin, I think that is worth while.
I do not want to take up too much time, but I will briefly talk about just one case that I happened to work on when I was working as a social worker. It involved a person who was seeking political asylum at the time. He went through the process three times and eventually received status in this country. But on one occasion, his parent was very ill and on the brink of death, so he decided to go back to his country of origin. I am not going to name names or countries, because of confidentiality, but he went back to that country to try to see his mother. Then his wife frantically came to me to say, “He hasn’t returned home on his flight. He’s been missing for two days. Can you help?” At the time, I did not know what to do to help, but I contacted the embassy, and the embassy contacted the country, and found out this person’s identity and that he had been put in prison. It was almost as if the keys had been thrown away because they realised who he was. After the contact that I was able to make with the Government, they were able to put him on a flight back, because somebody showed some care in his situation.
My point is that we are talking about human beings and human lives. We are talking about saving people from persecution and death if they return to certain countries of origin. I am talking specifically about asylum seekers and people who need refuge in our country.
Andy Slaughter
We are debating the merits of clause 2 as a whole. We will not support clause stand part for two reasons. First, we believe that it insulates serious cases from judicial review, and not a small number of those. Secondly, it opens the door to wider use of ouster, which should be resisted, or at least examined closely.
As I listened carefully to the Minister and Government Back Benchers, I identified essentially two arguments. One is that in supporting Cart judicial review there is some element of special pleading—the fruit-based analogy, if we can put it that way. The second is that the clause would in some way address the court backlog. I said a bit about that, but let me deal with it briefly. I am not entirely sure how a relatively small amendment, in terms of cost and the number of cases, to the way judicial review works will assist with the Crown court backlog of 60,000 cases. The idea that the solution is to get rid of Cart judicial review rather than having sufficient Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors, defence counsel and recorders or, indeed, a sufficient number of courts is a fantasy. Can we not set that aside?
Sir John Hayes
I do not want to prolong the hon. Gentleman’s peroration except to say that a third argument has been made, which relates to the integrity of judicial review per se. When only 3% of Cart cases are successful—20-odd cases out of 750—the very integrity of the system is undermined. Notwithstanding the backlog, surely he accepts that it is important that we reform something that is clearly going badly wrong.
Andy Slaughter
I do not accept that as a separate point. I understand that that has been the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument in Committee, but it is a criticism of his own Government rather than my approach. In my view, the Bill does not go far enough and does not approach judicial review in sufficiently robust or constitutional terms; rather, it is taking what we have described as a tit-for-tat approach. However, we are where we are with the Bill. That is a matter that he must take up with his own side. I will talk about the 5%, but I do not want to say any more about the backlog. It is an incredibly important issue, and I look forward to the debate on that resuming, but frankly it is irrelevant to our proceedings, and it is a stretch to introduce it.
On the matter of cherries, this has been characterised as simply an immigration matter. Most Cart judicial reviews are of immigration cases; that is important in terms of the consequences, but it is not solely about those cases. If one listened to what Government Back Benchers say, one would think it was solely about that, but as has been said several times, Cart was not an immigration case. This form of judicial review applies to upper tribunal cases, regardless of whether they are immigration cases. That needs to be on the record.
I was looking yesterday at written evidence from Justice on the cherry point—other Members may have seen it as well. It is brief so I will read it, because Justice puts in better than I could, and I think we probably need to take this head on. Justice says:
“Cart JRs are not about having a ‘third bite at the cherry.’ There is also an important wider public interest at stake. Cart JRs prevent the UT from becoming insulated from review, by ensuring that there is a means by which errors of law, which could have very significant and ongoing impacts across the tribunal system, can be identified and corrected. As Lord Philips said, Cart JRs ‘guard against the risk that errors of law of real significance slip through the system’. UT judges are specialists in their field, however as Lady Hale recognised ‘no-one is infallible’. Cart JRs mitigate against the risk of erroneous or outmoded constructions being perpetuated within the tribunals system, with the UT continuing to follow erroneous precedent that itself, or a higher court has set.
The Cart JR cases that succeed will involve either (i) an important point of principle or practice, which would not otherwise be considered; or (ii) some other compelling reason, such as a wholesale collapse of fair procedure. These are the second-tier appeals conditions that were set as a threshold by the Supreme Court in Cart, and are now in the Civil Procedure Rules, for a Cart JR to be considered. The Supreme Court sought to address the most significant injustices while making efficient use of judicial resources. It was in fact the Supreme Court’s intention that few Cart JRs would be successful, but those that were would be the most egregious and important cases with serious errors of law.
Due to the second-tier appeals conditions, Cart JRs involve only the most serious errors of law. If a Cart JR is successful, it will mean that the applicant had not been given a lawful ‘proper first bite of the cherry’ in appealing a decision to the FTT, and the UT had unlawfully refused permission to appeal the unlawfulness. Cart JRs also do not in any way determine the claimant’s substantive case, or whether the claimant should be allowed permission to appeal—this is for the UT to decide following a successful Cart JR.
It is also wrong and, as described by Lady Hale in Cart, a ‘constitutional solecism’ that since Parliament designated the UT as a ‘superior court of record’ Parliament excluded any possibility of judicial review. The decision in Cart did not involve the interpretation of any statutory provision that could be described as an ouster clause, and statutorily designating a body as a superior court of record, as Laws L.J. pointed out at first instance, ‘says nothing on its face about judicial review’.”
That is all I want to say about cherries this morning, but I think we have been led into the orchard erroneously on that point.
The Minister quoted one or two Supreme Court members. I could quote a number in aid of my submissions, but I will limit myself to three different types of advocate who would not always support Cart cases specifically. One, whom I think I mentioned on Second Reading, is Lord Neuberger, a former President of the Supreme Court. He said only a couple of weeks ago that it is “always worth remembering” that judicial review
“is what ensures that the executive arm of government keeps to the law and that individual rights are protected. Ouster clauses, for example, which are intended to ensure a particular class of decision cannot be judicially reviewed, carry with them the inevitable implication that whoever has the protection of the ouster clause has the right to break the law with impunity.”
One of our witnesses was Professor Feldman, who gave a balanced account of his view of the Bill. He said during our evidence session on this matter that
“I think it is important to note that parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law generally require that people should have access to courts to determine the lawfulness of action. There is a functional inconsistency between Parliament’s saying that there are limits to the powers of a body or person and, on the other hand, saying that that person or body can decide for themselves, effectively, what those limits are. That is quite apart from the importance of access to courts for the rule of law.”––[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2021; c. 25, Q24.]
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is making an argument about the importance of being able to review almost any decision. He said he accepts that judicial review in normal circumstances is looking at Government administrative decisions, and that is what it was set up for, yet in this particular case—the Cart case—it is reviewing a judicial decision. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore clarify whether it is his position and that of the Opposition that all judicial decisions made at this level should be subject to review, and that this third bite of the cherry, as the Minister has said, should not be open only to those undertaking immigration cases? As his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East said, those are serious and important cases, but other cases going through the courts also have serious and profound consequences for those taking part in them. Should everybody be able to review a decision that has been made at High Court level?
Andy Slaughter
The answer is that it is horses for courses, or Carts for carts. The hon. Lady says that this is just about immigration cases. Let me say first that it is important to correct decisions that have significant consequences for individuals or society more generally. However, the reason I gave a number of case summaries was to show not just that there are a number, but that they are quite compelling cases.
A little chill ran down my spine when I heard Government Members talking about gaming the system and getting out of the country. I wonder whether they would use those analogies in relation to other types of case. We have an extremely low success rate in prosecution and conviction for rape, but I do not think that the vast majority of those cases that do not result in a conviction would be described as gaming, in the way that apparently 97% of these cases are described.
Andy Slaughter
It is not a comparison. It is asking the Government to say why they think it is gaming if a case that has been prosecuted through the courts or taken to the administrative people is unsuccessful.
Dr Johnson
I am sorry if my question was not clear, but I have not really had an answer to it. Do the Opposition believe that all judicial decisions made at upper tribunal or superior court of record level should be subject to review in the way that the Cart JR provides specifically for immigration cases?
Andy Slaughter
We have explored at some length the effect of Cart as it operates at the moment, but I have not heard from the Government how they think those cases should be addressed, other than saying, “Well, every system has its losers and we will just have to live with the consequences of that,” either because of the financial cost or for some other reason.
Dr Johnson
Again, I am sorry if I am not explaining my question clearly, but does the hon. Gentleman believe that all people who take a case to court, perhaps with profound consequences on their lives, should have that third bite of the cherry? Is he arguing for all decisions to have judicial review, or does he believe that cases in the Cart—that is to say immigration cases—should specifically get an extra third bite that others do not get?
Andy Slaughter
I am not going to go back to third bites of the cherry again. I know there is an idea that somehow there is an unfairness or a special privilege or pleading that exists in these cases, but that is not the way the law has developed here. The Government need better arguments on how the type of cases that Cart deals with should be dealt with, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East said. If the answer in Cart cases is that we want to get people out of the country, that can result in torture, death, and people and their families being put in extremis, as we saw clearly in the case summaries I gave,. That is what I am not hearing.
I am repeating myself, Mr Rosindell, so I will not go on further and I will draw my remarks to a close. Something caught my eye the other night when I was looking at the Government’s response to the consultation they undertook when they were dissatisfied with Lord Faulks’s report. The responses to that consultation were also overwhelmingly against them, and they commented:
“Respondents argued that, at most, there are a handful of court decisions that were arguably incorrect and that, therefore, there isn’t a wider problem to address. This reasoning is predicated on the view that a problem is not a problem unless it happens often. The Government is not persuaded by that argument, since even a single case can have wide ramifications.”
That is their argument and, in some ways, it parallels what the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said previously about the need to look in more detail at types of judicial review to see if they are meritorious or not. The Government say that
“even a single case can have wide ramifications.”
If that applies to judicial review more widely, why does it not also apply in Cart cases?
Until the Government can sufficiently address how they will deal with successful cases in Cart, why they think this particular area of law needs the attention it gets in this Bill and why the development of judicial review here cannot be left to the senior judiciary, as it is in almost every other case, we will not support the clause and we will vote against the clause stand part.
Anne McLaughlin
I am told it will be a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am sure it will be.
As I often say in this place, we never know who is watching. We probably do not have a huge audience watching this debate, and I understand it is going out in audio only at the moment, unless that has been fixed. However, some people will be listening or watching, so it is worth repeating exactly what is happening here so that lay people understand. I will briefly go over it.
If an individual feels that a public body—for example, their local NHS, the Department for Work and Pensions or the Home Office—has failed to correctly apply the law in making a decision about their case, they can appeal to the first-tier tribunal. If that finds against them and the individual believes that there is an error of law, perhaps by overlooking vital evidence or by misinterpreting the rules, they can apply to the first-tier tribunal for permission to appeal at the upper tribunal. If the upper tribunal refuses to appeal the decision, right now that person can ask to have the decision judicially reviewed.
All sorts of criteria have to be met. Someone does not simply say, “Can I have a judicial review?” and get it, but right now they can at least apply. What we are discussing today—clause 2—would take that right away from them. There has been talk about how many bites of the cherry someone can have, but only the tribunal system is having the independent oversight of judicial review removed. All other judicial reviews will continue, and the Minister said that in his speech. I am not sure that is something to be proud of, because we know that the tribunal system often deals with the least powerful in our society. That is who we are removing the access and the right to justice from.
As the Law Society of Scotland has pointed out, decisions on appeal at the tribunal are often taken by a single judge based on the paperwork alone, so the person bringing the appeal has no opportunity to make their case in person, nor to answer any questions that the judge might have. In the last week, we have heard all sorts of arguments about how the powerful—in other words, MPs—have to have more opportunities to plead their case. In terms of the Committee on Standards, a huge number of Conservative MPs talked about how the case was decided on the paperwork, which it was not—that is not quite true—but a lot of the evidence was considered in writing alone, which is somehow wrong when it comes to powerful MPs, but right when it comes to people in vulnerable positions. The opportunity to judicially review the decision of the upper tribunal is a vital last line of defence in cases in which the most fundamental of human rights are engaged.
The Immigration Law Practitioners Association collated 57 real-life case studies of people who had accessed the right that they will no longer have once this legislation is passed. The case studies included a child who applied to remain in the UK in order to receive life-saving treatment, the asylum claim of a victim of human trafficking and female genital mutilation, and many other deportation and asylum decisions whereby, if deported—we have talked about the man who witnessed a murder in Venezuela—their lives would be at risk or they would be separated from their family. If we go ahead with this measure, that is what would happen, and I do not know how anybody here in Committee can justify that.
It is important to explain for anybody not au fait with the legal system that we have different layers of decision making because sometimes decision makers get it wrong. I will give a couple of examples. I sat on the Committee that considered the Nationality and Borders Bill, so I was not here for the first sitting of this Committee. I was astonished to read that a member of this Committee asked why any judge’s decision should be questioned. A fundamental part of our justice system is that we accept that decision makers, including judges, get it wrong and have to be questioned.
The justification given by the Government for ousting Cart and Eba in Scotland is the high volume of applications versus the real number of successful outcomes. Let us look at that. The evidence to support that position was so flawed that the Office for Statistics Regulation launched an investigation. It found that the real success rate was at least 15 times higher than the Government’s figures. Why did they use those figures in the first place? Was it because they knew that if people understood just how many people it does affect, they might have less sympathy with their position?
Anne McLaughlin
I certainly will. If we are talking about saving £400,000, here is my suggestion for another way to do it: do not criminalise legitimate asylum seekers simply because we did not supply safe and legal routes, and they were so desperate that they arrived in this country by boat. Some £400,000 per year is what it will cost to criminalise them, according to the Refugee Council of England. Just do not do that and we will not have to worry about that cost saving.
Dr Johnson
It is therefore the hon. Lady’s position that the Government should give legal passage to those people who are arriving on boats from France—perhaps put on ferries for them? Does she recognise that that could lead to increased trafficking of people and increased suffering?
Anne McLaughlin
No. I still think that is an absolute nonsense. If we are going to have a debate about the Nationality and Borders Bill and the wickedness of pushing back not boats, but people—human beings are on those boats—I am happy to do so, but I do not imagine the hon. Lady will be happy with that. I am happy to have a conversation about that afterwards.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Is it not the case that, because there are no safe and legal routes available, the Government have made that passage practically impossible, and the associated member states, which also have a responsibility, have made it impossible? Those individuals are falling into the hands of criminal gangs—traffickers—and are being exploited. Therefore, safe passage is not possible for many people.
Anne McLaughlin
I absolutely agree with that. I am happy to talk about this because I do not think the Government have a leg to stand on when it comes to how they plan to treat the most vulnerable human beings on our planet.
That takes me to some examples of why the Cart JR is so important. I talked about the case of the Venezuelan man, and a Conservative Member said that it was sad but true that some people would fall through the net. We are not talking about somebody appealing a parking fine; we are talking about somebody who is alive today because he was able to access—
Anne McLaughlin
Absolutely. I would love to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Anne McLaughlin
The “third bite of the cherry” is not about whether the case is correct or the person’s claim is correct; it is about whether they got the correct process and mechanics in the first place. If they were not able to access justice in the first place, they should have the right to have that heard by a judge.
Anne McLaughlin
I think the hon. Member is trying to trivialise what we are talking about and I am not going to entertain it any longer. To my mind, the justice system should not accept that sometimes people will end up dead because we did not get it right. We should be striving for justice always, not accepting injustice. I am not entirely sure that Government Members are interested, but I am going to look at some more examples given by ILPA, although I could probably give numerous examples involving my own constituents.
There is the woman from Uganda who could not live there because she is a lesbian. The first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal refused her case and her renewed permission to appeal because they received a letter from her saying, “I have come here for a job. I am not a lesbian. Sorry I am a liar.” Anybody can see that that letter did not come from her. The upper tribunal judge admired her candour, but it was not her who wrote it; it was the appellant’s homophobic housemate. We must bear it in mind that people are given housemates when in the asylum system; they do not go and choose them. Thankfully, ILPA stepped in, she was given the right to a judicial review and won her case. She is able to live as who she is and the person she is, not having to hide from violence or homophobia, thanks to judicial review.
Sir John Hayes
I wonder whether the hon. Lady will provide some clarity about the parameters within which she believes the system should work. Presumably, she cannot be saying that there should be unlimited rights of appeal. She cannot be saying that there should be no structure around how people can access courts and use them. She cannot be saying that every person who arrives in Britain should be able to appeal again and again. There must be some limits, some parameters, some rules and some grounds. What are they?
Anne McLaughlin
We have them already. I am perfectly happy with what is in place. It is the right hon. Gentleman’s Government who seek to change that and take away people’s access to justice. It is not me who is trying to change it. I am the one trying to stop them changing it and taking away people’s rights.
I will tell the Committee about another case. The claimant was in a relationship with a British citizen, and they had two children who were also British citizens, but the claimant’s partner suffered from serious health conditions. The claimant’s argument that removal would breach their right to respect for family life was dismissed by the first-tier tribunal and permission to appeal was refused. Following a Cart judicial review—the thing that Government Members want to take away from these people—the decision was overturned. The upper tribunal allowed the appeal under article 8. However, without the Cart judicial review, the family would have been separated.
The final person I want to talk about, from the Public Law Project’s evidence, is a Sri Lankan national who feared persecution, partly because of his involvement in diaspora activities in the UK. His perception was that he would be viewed as someone who was seeking to destabilise the integrity of Sri Lanka. It was argued that the first-tier tribunal judge had acted procedurally unfairly in refusing to consider all the evidence, including valuable video evidence, when deciding that the appellant was not actively involved in diaspora activities as claimed. Permission to appeal was refused by both the first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal, but was finally granted on appeal, where it was considered that there were legal and compelling reasons for granting permission. An order was made quashing the upper tribunal refusing permission.
Sir John Hayes
I wonder whether the hon. Lady will give me one more bite of the cherry.
Anne McLaughlin
I will finish this story. Before the hearing in the upper tribunal, the Home Office conceded the appeal and accepted that the appellant was a refugee. If Cart had not been an option, that man would have faced deportation and almost certain persecution. Having lived and worked in Sri Lanka, and having kept in touch with many people there and many Sri Lankans living here, I can tell Members that that man almost certainly would not still be here had he been deported and denied access to Cart judicial review—the thing the right hon. Gentleman wants to take away. I will let him come in and explain that.
Sir John Hayes
But 97% of these cases fail, and they fail on the grounds that the hon. Lady says she supports—she supports the existing system, as she made clear in her answer to my previous intervention. Given that she supports the existing system, and 97% of these cases fail, does she not recognise that something is going badly wrong?
When cases fail in respect of immigration, does she support the rapid deportation of people who have been through the system, sometimes more than once, and failed and had their case found to be wanting? Does she want those people who are found to be acting illegally to be deported, as we all do?
Sir John Hayes
I said 97% of cases fail. When they fail, those people have exhausted the legal avenues that the hon. Lady says she supports—the current system, criteria and means by which people can make their case. When immigration cases fail, does she support the speedy deportation of those people?
Anne McLaughlin
On the issue of 97% of the cases failing, if the decision-making processes at the beginning of the claim were better, we would not have all those people going through the tribunal system. I absolutely support improving the capacity and decision-making process in the Home Office.
Angela Crawley
Is it not the case that those figures have been widely disputed? We have covered that intensively already. The Government’s parameters for success and failure are defined fairly arbitrarily in comparison with what we would understand or define as a successful testing principle, which is what judicial review is designed for.
Anne McLaughlin
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. I foolishly accepted the 97%, knowing it was not correct.
Paula Barker
The hon. Lady has been generous with her time. Does she agree that, as we heard in the evidence session, Cart reviews are not just about immigration? They are also about sexual justice cases. It is starting to feel as if the Government wish to have a further bite of the cherry in their hostile immigration policy.
Anne McLaughlin
That is an excellent intervention and I absolutely agree. Interestingly, my notes state that we are not just talking about immigration. I agree about the hostile environment; it is vile. If I am right in saying that most of them could not care less about migrants, let us talk about cases of access to vital benefits for people with disabilities and others facing destitution and homelessness, who will be affected. Those are people who have been left without a last line of defence. This legislation will affect all four chambers of the upper tribunal. Individuals will no longer be able to apply to the High Court.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Lady said that she believes that we do not care about migrants. I find that deeply offensive. As a paediatrician I have worked with children who have been alone—unaccompanied asylum seekers—examining them and looking at their injuries and scars. We do care very much about migrants and reducing people trafficking—this evil, barbaric trading of people, which we need to stop.
Anne McLaughlin
What I find offensive is the way in which asylum seekers are treated right now, and the much more awful way that they will be treated if the Nationality and Borders Bill goes through in its current form—or, actually, in any form. I find that utterly offensive. I understand that on a one-to-one basis people will show kindness to individuals, but the hon. Lady is still going to vote for a system that will criminalise people who are desperate enough that they have no choice but to flee from their country, including people in Afghanistan right now whom we have not given safe and legal routes. They cannot wait any longer; they will die if they wait any longer. The hon. Lady will vote to criminalise them, or to offshore them, or to separate them from their families.
I am really pleased and absolutely certain that, one to one, the hon. Lady shows nothing but kindness and respect for people. However, that is very different from voting for a policy that does all the things that I just listed.
Angela Crawley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for also making that point. Is not the essence of the problem, therefore, that the criminality that should be targeted is that of the traffickers and those who are exploiting these vulnerable individuals, rather than the individuals themselves—individuals who, through no fault of their own, when they arrive in the UK, are in an absolutely destitute situation? To criminalise them for using an illegal channel does not get to the root of the problem, which the hon. Lady has already correctly identified.
Anne McLaughlin
I could not have put it better myself. I completely agree with that. I do want to go on to look at other people who will be affected. Let us imagine that the Members opposite are not that bothered about asylum seekers and migrants, but they do care about people with disabilities. Currently, 16% of the working-age population live with a disability. That rises to 45% of adults over the state pension age.
Nobody can guarantee that they will not, one day, have a disability—that they will not, one day, be absolutely dependent on being able to access disability benefits. If for some reason they were to be wrongly denied those benefits, as happens far too often, and appeal to the courts, they need to have the right to question the decision-making process because, as we have heard, decision makers do not always get it right.
Sir John Hayes
On a point of fact, could the hon. Lady tell us how many Cart cases are brought by disabled people?
Anne McLaughlin
Strangely enough, no I cannot. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us?
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady must know that over 90% of Cart cases are immigration cases, although it is possible that some of those people might themselves be disabled. If she then takes the fewer than 10% of cases that are not immigration cases, a small minority of those will be of the kind she is describing. Of course, the hon. Lady is right that when disabled people are disadvantaged and need recourse to law, they should have it. However, the idea that she is promulgating—that somehow the Government are acting in a way that is disadvantageous to significant numbers of disabled people in the way she is suggesting—is not only inaccurate but irresponsible.
Anne McLaughlin
I do not think I suggested that there were huge numbers of cases of people with disabilities. What I said was that there are huge numbers of people with disabilities and huge numbers of people who could have disabilities in the future, and that they will be denied access to justice if they do not get justice first time around. That happens so often.
Anne McLaughlin
I am very pleased to hear that the right hon. Member has given up. Feel free to intervene again. [Interruption.] I will say that, from a sedentary position, he says that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Anne McLaughlin
The right hon. Member can quote scripture at me all he likes. If we are going to talk about scripture, then we are going to talk about Christianity, which is surely about compassion. To say that it does not matter that this will affect people with disabilities because there are not that many of them who will be affected is just wrong.
Anne McLaughlin
That is what he implied. Anyway, I wanted to move on to ouster clauses.
Ouster clauses put decisions beyond the reach of the court. Despite the Government backing down after an outcry on proposals to include them in the Bill, they said:
“it is expected that the legal text that removes the Cart judgment will serve as a framework that can be replicated in other legislation.”
I agree with Amnesty’s proposition that the Government are explicitly using it as a test run for ouster clauses, and that it is a blatant and disturbing attempt to get rid of judicial oversight in other policy areas. As it also says, “The desire to get rid of judicial oversight in any area should be of the utmost concern to those who care about the rule of law and separation of powers.”
I suggest that we heed the warning of the Law Society of England and Wales that, “It is important to caution that ouster clauses have the effect of reducing legal accountability and preventing individuals who have been adversely affected from being able to secure a remedy.” They do not say anywhere, but there are not many of them, so let us not worry about it.
Judicial review may be inconvenient for the Government at times, but that is no justification for its removal. The implications of the Bill could be far-reaching, given the legal framework and its potential future use. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which I hope Members respect, said, “it is reasonable to say that ouster clauses are at odds with the rule of law.”
Finally, last week, in reference to the now former MP about whom the Standards Committee produced a report—I think all Members know what I am talking about—the Leader of the House said:
“It is not for me to judge him—others have done that—but was the process a fair one?”—[Official Report, 3 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 938.]
That is the crux of judicial review. If the Government believe that we do not need access to Cart judicial review, did those who used it to win and get justice—such as the Venezuelan man fleeing for his life, the child requiring lifesaving treatment or the family who could finally be together—not require it, or were they not worth it?
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I will speak briefly about Brexit, which, as we know, happened a couple of years ago. After speaking to many constituents, one of the main reasons that they voted for Brexit was immigration and control of the borders. It is still a huge topic when I go door to door every week to speak to my constituents. Having got Brexit done, the Government said that they would do everything in their power to take control of the borders. This important Bill is part of that. Opposition Members should remember that, although they oppose the Bill, many of their voters agree with it. It is important to get it through.
Anne McLaughlin
Does the hon. Member think that politicians and political parties should slavishly follow public opinion, or that they should propose their own values and principles, based on human rights, and seek to take people with them and change public opinion?
Nick Fletcher
The Government, and we as MPs, should listen to our electorate. I believe the Government are doing that. I understand that it is an extremely complicated subject, but I am afraid that when my voters see planes full of convicted criminals get last-minute reprieves and are taken off those planes, they lose faith in this place, in Opposition Members and in the entire system. It costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, too. I understand and appreciate that people sometimes fall foul of the system, but we have heard that it happens between 0.22% and 5% of the time—that is what we have heard. We must look after our borders and keep them under control.
Paula Barker
We are on day three of going through the Bill. Even at day three, what I have heard from the Government Benches is purely about immigration. What would the hon. Member say to constituents of his who are looking to go through a judicial review by the court from a social justice aspect? I have heard nothing from the Government Benches regarding that—it is all about immigration and having voted to get out of Europe.
Nick Fletcher
I think the hon. Lady has heard from the Government Benches many, many times that the majority of these cases are about immigration. When Labour Members have been asked how many bites at the cherry they want, we have never once had an answer. Would she like to come back on that? I assume not.
Andy Slaughter
If the hon. Gentleman is seeking an intervention, I will provide him with one. The hon. Member for Ipswich said that Cart cases were a small number of cases, and even if they were justifiable, mistakes happen. I do not agree with that, but he made the point. I think, with respect, that the hon. Member for Don Valley is saying that it would be a good thing if cases that were unlawful were covered by the ouster, which is about preventing judicial scrutiny. In Cart cases, whether free, 7% or 5%, those cases were unlawful. It is not that we are not prepared to put the resource in and do not believe we should prioritise that type of case. I want to be clear about this. Is he saying that it is good if we introduce the ouster in Cart because that will mean that cases where an unlawful act has taken place will still not be decided and that deportation, or whatever he wishes to see, will happen, contrary to law? From the once party of law and order, that does not sound right to me.
Nick Fletcher
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention but I believe, in all fairness, that he has reiterated what I said before, and my reply would be exactly the same. How many times do we have to keep coming back to this? It is the same thing. It is about the majority of immigration cases. We seem to be batting back and forth with this, but Opposition Members are not coming up with the answers that I am asking for, either.
Sir John Hayes
The reforms that we are arguing for are to restore the system that prevailed throughout the lifetime of the previous Labour Government. This change happened in 2011. If Opposition Members are so exercised about the need for the system to be as has prevailed in the past few years, why did they do nothing about it in the long period they had in government, when they presumably felt that the system that we are now trying to restore was perfectly adequate?
Nick Fletcher
I thank my right hon. Friend for that, but I want to move on because I am conscious of time.
I do understand that these people that are coming over here are leaving places that are in a terrible state and what they are leaving is sometimes awful, and I do have full sympathy for that, but there is a legal way of entering this country, and I believe that everyone should take the legal way into this country. When people get into these small dinghies they know they are entering our country illegally. If they are entering our country illegally, then they must have to deal with the consequences that go with that.
Anne McLaughlin
On a point of order, Mr Rosindell. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but is this within the scope of the Bill? This is not a Bill about borders or preventing people from coming in.
Nick Fletcher
I have almost finished anyway. If I keep being intervened on, it might take a little longer. My argument is that if people are coming into this country on their dinghies and entering illegally, then they will be dealt with through the system, and I do not believe that they should have a third bite at the cherry. That is all I am trying to say.
James Cartlidge
It is a pleasure to wind up this stand part debate, which has been passionate. We have had some excellent speeches and interventions from both sides, and I will refer briefly to a few of them. The hon. Member for Lewisham East said that we are talking about human beings. We have heard cases that all of us would be sympathetic to, but that is not the point. Those using all the other parts of the legal system, where it is absolutely standard to have “two bites at the cherry”, are human beings too.
If there is a planning case, for example, where some houses are approved and your parish disagrees, it can seek judicial review through the High Court. If that is denied, it can potentially—although it is unlikely—try the Court of Appeal. That is it: two bites. That is the standard procedure, and it will still apply for cases of immigration and asylum, including all the people we have heard. As to what would happen to those who were successful, that is where we have to make a judgment on proportionality and accept that there would potentially be some cases that would have been found to be unlawful. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said in an excellent speech, where do you draw the line?
The Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, quoted Professor Feldman in aid, but it was Professor Feldman himself who admitted that ultimately when we look at it—he took a very balanced view—this was a disproportionate use of resource, where 96.6% of cases are proving to be unsuccessful. When the rate of failure is so high, I wonder why legal representatives are advising their clients to go down that path. It calls into question whether it is, in effect, another route of appeal, and a chance to extend the case further, because, as I said earlier, it can be in the system for up to three months.
Andy Slaughter
I think the Minister makes my point for me. I deliberately quoted Professor Feldman because, yes, he did see some merit in the proposals of Cart, but he went on to warn about the wider dangers—the series of quotes that I gave was on this point, which I am sure the Minister will address—of opening the door to a much wider and further restriction through the use of ouster in future.
On the cherry point, the argument I put forward was that an unlawful decision of the first-tier tribunal is not being picked up by the upper tribunal—hence the illegality and hence the deportation, or whatever it is, happening contrary to the law—and is being picked up through Cart. It is the first bite at the cherry. It is correcting an error at first instance, which has not been picked up by the upper tribunal.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman has been asked repeatedly whether he thinks, on that basis, that we should extend the right to three bites at the cherry to all other areas of law. What would be the cost? How much more resource would that take up? If he does not think that, he must be saying to all our constituents that immigration and asylum are exceptional, and overwhelmingly that immigration cases should have that additional right. I think our constituents would disagree. It is right for the Government to exercise judgment on matters of the use of resources.
Sir John Hayes
This is precisely the point I made when I intervened on the hon. Member for Glasgow North East. What are the parameters? What are the limits? Where is the line drawn? We have heard none of that from any of the critics of the Bill and the Government are simply trying to re-establish the parameters that prevailed for most of time, which give the system integrity and substance, and which make it not only workable but defensible.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I want to correct one point about what happened under previous Labour Governments. It is quite extraordinary that the hon. Member for Hammersmith talks about this tightly drafted ouster clause somehow being a precursor to further ouster clauses that could go much wider. As I said on Second Reading, the Minister responsible for Labour’s Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), admitted in this sort of Committee sitting that they were trying to bring in the mother of all ouster clauses, so widely was it drafted. To be clear, it was not the same system. It was not the upper tribunal. There was a single-tier immigration and asylum tribunal. Judicial review was in that sense the second tier. They were going to remove it even where they did not have the upper tribunal in place. That is an extraordinary situation and it underlines that what we are restoring is a situation wholly consistent with the European convention on human rights.
James Cartlidge
I will take one more intervention from the Opposition, and then another from my right hon. Friend.
Andy Slaughter
I am not going to speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, who is better able to speak for himself. Let us imagine that the Minister was correct, and that that was an error. Why have the Government not learned from that? Why are they coming here to make the same mistake again, in the same terms?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman does not want to answer, because he knows he cannot defend it. He cannot answer the point. If he thinks it right that in order to find these few cases of legal merit, someone should have three bites at the cherry, why does he not apply that to all other areas of law? He either thinks it should be applied, in which case, clearly, we would be gumming up the courts with a much greater burden of pressure, which would make clearing the backlog completely impossible; or he thinks that immigration and asylum is an exception. You cannot have it both ways.
James Cartlidge
I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman again. I give way to my right hon. Friend.
Sir John Hayes
I want to emphasise what the Minister is saying. He is going much further than I did. I was giving the Opposition too much credit—saying that we simply wanted to return to a system that prevailed before 2011. The Minister has told us, revealingly, that the Labour Government wanted to restrict the system further. They wanted to do more than this Bill does. Frankly, on that basis, the Opposition case seems to fall at the first hurdle.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us be clear: the Labour party can take up as many positions as they want on ouster clauses, supporting them when in government, opposing them now, but a High Court judge cannot sit and listen to two cases at the same time. That is a fact. The question of resource is fundamental.
I want to return to the point about backlog. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich made an absolutely correct point. Of course this matters in the context of backlog—it is absolutely absurd to suggest otherwise. I have asked the senior judiciary about the backlog and the pressure points for capacity. Of course, there is a pressure point in terms of judicial resource, when we look at the limited number of very experienced High Court judges and so on. It is by definition a limited resource. I asked where we will find, for example, the judges to take murder cases. They will come from High Court judges. It may not be a judge that sits in the administrative court on this sort of appeal—it may not be someone who sits on a Cart JR—but it could be. The resource has to come from somewhere and more pressure on the courts, with hundreds of cases a year for something where the chance of success is so low, completely undermines our ability to deal with other serious cases. I am bound to point out that the Opposition voted on Second Reading against the entire Bill, which includes many other measures that reduce the pressure on the Crown court, as we shall hear later.
It is absolutely outrageous for the hon. Member for Hammersmith to bring in rape. It is totally indefensible for him to do so. He knows full well that in the wake of these terrible murders, all the focus of the Government and people across the country is on the great anxiety felt by women and girls about what is happening. We all share that. We all sympathise with the families who were hit by those tragedies. That is why we have measures in place across the board. We have published the End-to-End Rape Review precisely to increase the number of cases that the police choose to take forward, that the Crown Prosecution Service chooses to prosecute and which end up in court. That is the whole point of the review.
The key point is: a rape case is indictable. Where will it be heard? In the Crown court. In the Bill we have clause 10, which moves more cases from the Crown court to the magistrates so that we can free up 400 sitting days. That is a huge amount: 180 plus 400 is 580 sitting days. That is a lot of resource, so it does matter. I am sorry, but it is wholly unacceptable to conflate the two points.
Our constituents understand the basic point, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, that gumming up the courts with immigration cases with very low chances of success using a right not available to most of our other constituents through other forms of justice will have an impact on the backlog. They know that the right thing to do is to remove this route of judicial review. That is why I urge my colleagues, with the huge amount of common sense that exists under my merry band of Committee members, to vote for clause 2, so that we streamline justice in a way that is fair and equitable for all people in the justice system. The clause would ensure that we have proportionate use of resource so that we can bear down on the backlog. I urge colleagues to support clause 2.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 9th November 2021
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 View all Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 November 2021 - (9 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that they are expected to wear a face covering except when speaking or if they are exempt. This is in line with the recommendations of the House of Commons Commission. Please give one another 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 can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. Tea, coffee and any other drinks, apart from water, are not allowed during sittings.
Clause 3
Automatic online conviction and penalty for certain summary offences
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 3, page 4, line 29, at beginning insert—
“(1) Before this section may be commenced, the Secretary of State must—
(a) commission an independent review of the potential impact, efficacy, and operational issues on defendants and the criminal justice system of the automatic online conviction and penalty for certain summary offences as set out in Clause 3 of this Act;
(b) lay before Parliament the report and findings of such independent review; and
(c) provide a response explaining whether and how such issues which have been identified would be mitigated”.
This amendment would require a review of Clause 3 of this Bill before it is introduced.
Good afternoon, Sir Mark. It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith back to his place on the shadow Justice Front Bench. It was my privilege to serve as Parliamentary Private Secretary to our wonderful Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, when he was shadow Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend was a shadow Minister. I was pleased to learn from him then, and continue to do so today. It is also good to welcome the Minister to his place as we face each other across the room formally for the first time. I hope that this will be the first of many such opportunities.
I do not underestimate the job that the Minister has taken on, given the crisis in our courts, the record backlog in the Crown court and elsewhere, and a Justice Department stripped of resources over the last decade. Just in case he tries to rely again on the covid pandemic as an excuse, let me point out that it was all in a terrible mess long before covid and long before he arrived in his post. Just one of the facts that I have picked up is that in 2010 there were 152,791 Crown court cases, which took an average of 391 days to complete; in 2019, there were 107,913 Crown court cases, which took an average of 511 days to complete. Clearly, the Minister has his work cut out. We wish him well with it and will be happy to offer our contributions and advice along the way.
I also pay tribute to the Committee Clerks for their, as ever, first-class professionalism and support as we prepared for this Committee stage.
My final thanks go to stakeholders outside the House, including Justice, Fair Trials and Transform Justice, among others, for their energetic and constructive scrutiny and input, which have been of great assistance in identifying potential concerns about the Bill’s practical implications.
Given the amendments we have tabled—the first of which I shall speak to in detail shortly—it will be no surprise to the Minister that the Opposition have reservations about clause 3. However, we do very much recognise the need for, and indeed the benefit of, potentially moving some court processes online, so I will share our concerns in the hope that the Minister can provide reassurances to quell them.
The clause will create an automatic online conviction and standard statutory penalty procedure, which will provide automatic online convictions as an alternative to the single justice procedure. Through this process, a defendant could opt to plead guilty online, which would result in an automatic conviction without the need for a hearing. The Bill’s explanatory notes state that, to begin with, the procedure will apply only to offences involving
“travelling on a train or tram without a ticket and fishing with an unlicensed rod.”
It is critical to note that secondary legislation approved by the affirmative procedure may make additional offences eligible.
As currently drafted, the clause has limitations. For instance, the defendant must consent to use of the process, so they retain the right to opt for an in-person hearing instead. Furthermore, the procedure is only available in respect of non-imprisonable summary offences where the accused was aged 18 or over when charged. Although we agree that these limitations, such as they are, are appropriate, there are a number of areas in which we think the safeguards built into the procedure need to go further.
The proposal to introduce online pleas was first made in the Prisons and Courts Bill in 2017. Transform Justice noted:
“It had not been subject to any public consultation then and still hasn’t.”
The assumption behind the clause, as with the expansion of written pleas, which we will come to in a later debate, is that a plea hearing is a straightforward and purely administrative hearing. It assumes that people will straightforwardly know whether they are guilty and will need no direction, assistance or support in pleading guilty to a criminal offence. I said earlier that this procedure is an online alternative to the single justice procedure, but there is an important difference. The single justice procedure allows defendants to choose to enter a plea in writing or online for the same types of offences that the automatic online conviction and standard statutory penalty will apply to—that is to say, summary or non-imprisonable offences.
Those who plead guilty and do not request a hearing under the single justice procedure are convicted and sentenced by a single magistrate on the papers before them, and the defendant has the chance to submit mitigating factors to inform the magistrate in writing. If a defendant fails to respond to the letter setting out the charge within the 21-day time limit, the single magistrate will hear the case without any input from the defendant or prosecutor. However, the Bill’s explanatory notes make clear that under the AOCSSP—is there a way of pronouncing that? I do not know—cases could take place entirely online and without the involvement of a magistrate.
Under the single justice procedure, the magistrate can decide that a case is not appropriate to convict under said procedure, which provides at least a minimal level of safeguarding within the process. However, under the AOCSSP, as Justice notes, there is
“no independent judicial (or indeed, human) oversight whatsoever. Moreover, defendants who use the AOCSSP procedure will face a binary choice, with no opportunity to submit mitigating factors if they plead guilty, unless they choose to decline”
the procedure and take the single justice procedure route instead.
The complete lack of human involvement in the process worries me. As a consequence, the Opposition have tabled amendments that seek to build into the process at least some level of safeguards. Although we agree completely with the Government that any online procedure should be optional, I also share Transform Justice’s scepticism, in that the defendant may not feel that they have much of a choice at all. How does the Minister think those pitfalls can best be communicated to the defendant?
The current introductory letter to the single justice procedure notice does not mention the option of pleading in court at all; it is only on page 3 of the following document that it comes up. To be honest, if I received one of these notices, even as the shadow Minister for such matters, I am not sure I would understand from the document that I had a genuine option to make my plea in a physical court hearing, rather than online or by post. Even when defendants understand that such a choice is available to them, I do not think that the information accompanying the note enables them confidently to make the best decision in their case. Some legal expertise is clearly required to know the benefits of pleading in court as opposed to pleading online. Again, I admit that even as the shadow Minister—I do not have any legal training at all; I am a journalist by profession—I would not be able appropriately to weigh the benefits of one course of action against the other. I hope the Minister understands what I mean. I am not trying to be obstructive or frivolous, but I think that the lay person receiving such a notice is currently not particularly well equipped to make a decision about their plea.
Transform Justice’s briefing calls on the Government to
“conduct and publish research on defendants’ understanding of the concept of viable defence and of mitigation, and of the factors to be taken into account in waiving the right to a ‘fair and public hearing’.”
That is an important point. The briefing also notes:
“The European Convention on Human Rights requires that in the determination of a criminal charge ‘everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law’. It also guarantees specific minimum rights for those charged with a criminal offence, including the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to defend yourself in person, and to have the assistance of an interpreter. The right to a fair and public hearing can be waived by the defendant, but only if they fully understand the charge and the implications of waiving their entitlement.”
Experiences of the single justice procedure suggest that many defendants will not fully understand the charges and the implications of waiving their entitlement to a public hearing. Research into such experiences could be an interesting and productive piece of work for the Department. I would welcome his thoughts on it, or, if his Department has considered the matter already, I would be grateful for more information about its work.
Another concern that has been raised about the expansion of the use of online pleas is that it may inadvertently drive an increase in the number of defendants without legal representation.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Given the significant changes that are taking place in how people plead—online, by post and so forth—does my hon. Friend think that the Government should conduct a public consultation? From what I have read, that is not happening.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is correct, and she makes exactly the point that many of the people working in the sector are saying to the Government: we need better data and more examination of the data to drive the best legal system that we can possibly have.
There is a possibility that the expansion of online pleas may inadvertently drive an increase in the number of defendants without legal representation and, importantly, and as a consequence, worse outcomes for defendants. That concern was specifically raised by Transform Justice, which worries that encouraging defendants to plead online
“will lead to more defendants representing themselves … since the process of ‘doing it yourself’ may appear easy.”
I note that the current single justice procedure notice encourages the option of pleading online over the postal option. Pleading online, the defendant is told, is “quick and easy”. They are informed that they will receive a confirmation email, so that they know their plea has gone through—just like buying something from Amazon. The notice warns:
“You need to pay correct postage and allow enough time for delivery”.
That is helpful advice, but I worry that we are already seeing a push towards online pleas marketed as justice made easy for the defendant when that is not necessarily going to be the case. It may be easy, but it may deny them proper justice.
In fact, entering a plea can be a very complex decision. Transform Justice’s research on unrepresented defendants in the criminal courts found that entering a plea was one of the times when defendants without legal representation were most disadvantaged. As they note in their briefing,
“Unrepresented defendants did not understand when they had a viable defence and should plead not guilty, but also pleaded not guilty when the evidence against them was overwhelming, thus losing credit for an early guilty plea if convicted.”
I am aware that the explanatory notes to the Bill suggest that online pleas will be able to be entered only if the defendant has legal advice, and I understand that it is the Government’s intention that that would be done through the common platform. That would mean that the defendant would need to engage the services of a legal professional. However, I am concerned that that safeguard has not been put into the primary legislation. I will speak about that more fully in the debate on amendment 48 later this afternoon.
Even more worrying is the fact that paragraph 59 of the Bill’s impact assessment seems to suggest that that safeguard will be available only to those accused of more serious offences. As the Minister knows, the implications of a guilty plea, even for minor offences, can be significant, including a criminal record for life that can detrimentally impact employment prospects, among other things. I would be grateful for reassurances from the Minister that the online system will include information that ensures that the defendant is aware of all the possible impacts of choosing to enter a guilty plea. Again, I will speak to that point more fully in the debate on amendment 50.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
That’s not much, though, is it?
Alex Cunningham
That depends how much beer a journalist drinks these days; I think we used to put away many more pints than desk-bound journalists tend to now.
The process makes it easier for offenders to escape notice. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister acknowledge that that is the case and I look forward to hearing his proposals to ensure that we have the open justice we all strive for. He has said that he takes issues of transparency and open justice seriously, and I do not think this is an intentional consequence of the Government’s proposals, but it is potentially serious. Will he confirm that some measure of external scrutiny will still be possible under the AOCSSP? Will listings for all cases and their outcomes at least be made available to all? If not, it will be a serious blow to open justice.
I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on the suggestion that the AOCSSP could form a barrier to effective participation in the justice system. As Transform Justice notes,
“All online conviction processes will start with a postal charge. These charges are sent through ordinary mail and there is no proof of their receipt”—
no proof whatsoever. It continues:
“The fact that two thirds of defendants do not respond by submitting a plea indicates that any criminal process which relies on defendants responding to a postal charge seems to present significant barriers to effective participation.”
Janet Daby
The postal charge raises significant concerns. I know of constituency cases where people have changed address and their benefit letter has gone elsewhere, so they have ended up with frozen benefits. There will be huge problems ahead if things are sent by post and end up in somebody else’s postbox, or if people move and do not receive letters. I am particularly concerned about people with mental health issues and vulnerable people who, even if they do receive a letter, may not be able to interpret it.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend is correct and gives excellent examples. I had an example a few weeks ago of a constituent who found out that he was likely to be locked up because he had not paid his television licence. He had not received the letter because he was no longer at that address. I know that he had a responsibility to inform people that he had moved on, but the fact that nobody tried to find him before it got to the point of court bailiffs turning up at the previous property to take goods away to pay his fines and court costs is a nonsense. Clearly, that can happen.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s equality impact assessment does not recognise the issues that he has eloquently raised about the postal charge?
Alex Cunningham
Almost certainly. Our hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East talked about people with mental health problems or disabilities who are all disadvantaged by these proposals, because no adequate system seems to be in place to ensure that they properly understand what they are doing and what is happening to them. If they do not understand, they may choose to ignore it and end up with a conviction and a criminal record, which has terrible ramifications for employment and all manner of other things, including even entering another country. If they have a criminal charge against them, they may not be able to go on holiday to some countries.
Janet Daby
I find all this deeply concerning. I wonder whether the Government actually want the postal charge system to work.
Alex Cunningham
The last thing I expect from my hon. Friend is cynicism. I am sure the Government want the justice system to work correctly, so it is time they looked carefully at this. As I develop my arguments, I will talk about the need for research and data, which is absent. We have asked for it in the past, but no specific data exists on why people choose to ignore or do not even respond in any shape or form to postal charges.
We do not know why so few people respond to postal charges. It does not seem sensible to expand the use of postal charges until we have more data on the issue. One reason that has been suggested is that many defendants do not even receive the letter. I have already talked about that; it might be sent to an old address, for example. Perhaps the person does not even understand the letter that they have received. The defendant, as we have discussed, might have a mental health condition or a neurodivergent condition that presents a barrier to understanding.
Although phone calls for someone on benefits are now on a freephone number, the initial calls to the HMCTS assisted digital advice on how to fill in a physical online form are charged at local rates. Yesterday I received from the Minister the answer to a written question on support for some vulnerable defendants. I asked what training prosecuting authorities who use the single justice procedure, and who are not the CPS, receive on disability and neurodivergent conditions. The response stated:
“The Ministry of Justice is not responsible for training prosecuting authorities and thus cannot speak to whether they receive training on disability or neurodivergent conditions. In response to the Neurodiversity in the Criminal Justice System: A review of the evidence report, the Ministry of Justice is taking a whole system approach and are working with HM Courts and Tribunal Service, HM Prison and Probation Service, Home Office, Department for Health and Social Care and the Welsh Government to”—
here is the key word for me—
“consider neurodiversity training for all frontline staff within the Criminal Justice System.”
Surely, Minister, it should not be “considered”. It should be a case of deciding how we ensure that it happens and that people across the criminal justice system are fully equipped and trained to deal with people in these circumstances.
For people on low incomes, I worry that the proposals present a significant and unnecessary barrier to engaging with the process. Does the Minister have any thoughts on remedying that? Earlier I looked at the AOCSSP, which seems to disproportionately affect those on low incomes. In a normal court hearing and under the single justice procedure, defendants sanctioned with a fine are asked to state their means, to enable the judge to adjust the fine if necessary. Under the online conviction procedure, everyone would be made to pay the same fine, because there would not be any information on which to base a different decision.
I understand that the equality impact assessment suggests that defendants on low incomes will be made aware of the option to opt for an in-person hearing instead, so that their financial position can be taken into account. I have already spoken about my concern that defendants would not understand that there is a real choice to opt into an in-person hearing, so I am not sure that this is a sufficient safeguard for those on low incomes. Does the Minister have any thoughts on any additional safeguards to protect those on low incomes from being further disadvantaged, since that is identified in the Government’s own impact assessment? Under the AOCSSP, could it be made much clearer that it would be preferable for someone who needs their financial situation to be taken into consideration to opt for an in-person hearing? Is the Minister aware of any existing data relating to whether those who have pleaded under the single justice procedure and the automatic online conviction process have been the recipients of heftier fines than those who attended in-person hearings?
Another possible barrier to effective engagement could surface for defendants with disabilities. The Equality Act 2010 requires public bodies to make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities. I struggle to see how the AOCSSP will be able to support the use of reasonable adjustments. The Bill makes no provision for screening to see whether defendants will need reasonable adjustments to be made. I will speak to that point more fully in the debate on amendment 57, but it is important to consider the issue briefly at this point. Under the current process for a single justice procedure, defendants are asked to tick on the form if they have a disability. What if their disability has prevented them from opening the letter or understanding the form? How does the Minister think we can address that barrier to participation?
Alex Cunningham
I am glad the Minister is pleased. The amendment would mandate the Secretary of State to commission and lay before Parliament an independent review of the potential impact of the AOCSSP on defendants and the criminal justice system, its efficacy and operational issues.
I have spoken at some length about the numerous concerns raised about the procedure, and sought the Minister’s reassurance on many of them. The most appropriate form of reassurance would be an independent report into the impact of the procedure. The procedure marks quite a significant shift in the way we handle criminal cases and would establish the principle for all summary and non-imprisonable offences to be automated through an online plea, conviction and penalty website. The Opposition recognise the need to explore how we can deploy technology in the criminal justice system, but we do not agree that it can be done without a robust evidence base, especially when we are dealing with changes that potentially pose a threat to defendants’ rights, access to justice and the principle of open justice.
As JUSTICE has noted, the evidence base for the procedure is poor and none of the reports that the Government refer to in the Bill documents—Sir Robin Auld’s 2001 “Review of the Criminal Courts”, Sir Brian Leveson’s 2015 “Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings” and the Government’s own 2016 consultation, “Transforming our Justice System”—explores the real world consequences and risks inherent in the procedure. Furthermore, the 2016 Green Paper, in which the Government first proposed the introduction of an online conviction system, stated that the system should be using three offences before any decision was taken to make it permanent. It noted:
“We propose to test the system with a small number of summary, non-imprisonable offences in the initial phase of introducing the online conviction and fixed fine scheme, which would be: Railway fare evasion; Tram fare evasion; Possession of unlicensed rod and line. If this initial phase is successful, we plan to bring other offences, particularly certain road traffic offences, into the system in future.”
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It does seem to be a bit of a feature of this Bill. When we were dealing with clause 2, we heard that the abolition of the Cart judicial review was to be a template for other offences, and the same is happening here. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is slippery slope? [Interruption.] I hear the Minister snorting from a sedentary position—
Andy Slaughter
Even with the offences my hon. Friend has named so far—offences in which honesty is a factor—it is very important that the questions that he is asking are answered before we approve the Bill, especially if we are to get the number of offences increased through secondary legislation.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. That is why we have tabled the amendment, which would require data and proper research to be conducted, so the Government have something by which to measure their success or otherwise in introducing the procedure. My real concern is that future offences may well just come through the secondary legislation route, where the amount of scrutiny is somewhat limited. The Government propose using the procedure in the Bill initially for these offences, but nothing in the Bill suggests that the testing procedure the Government committed to in 2016 will actually be used to assess the procedure. Can the Minister confirm otherwise? That would be welcome.
As Transform Justice has pointed out, there is no evidence in the public domain about the online motoring conviction system, which was introduced in 2015. There is no public access to the postal charge paperwork, nor to the online form. There is no public data on how many people respond to the postal charge—we covered that point already—or how many complete the form online. There is also no data on how many people plead guilty or not guilty, or on the sanctions received.
The Government consulted on the automatic online conviction proposal in 2016, and many of the respondents raised concerns. None have been allayed in the interim. Indeed, the single justice procedure, which the procedure builds on, had only been in use for one year when the Government consulted on the online procedure. Since then, much more information about the workings and indeed failings of the single justice procedure has come to light. The Government have not explained how the current issues with the single justice procedure would not simply translate across to the AOCSSP procedure, or even be exacerbated, given the removal of any human oversight. JUSTICE has also said that it is not aware of any similar system deployed in other jurisdictions from which any advantages or disadvantages could be studied.
For those reasons, the Opposition believe that amendment 45 is vital. Significant changes to our justice system should be evidence based, and making evidence-based decisions now will save the Government and the justice system a lot of problems further down the line. I appreciate that I have sought rather a lot of information from the Minister thus far, but we are very keen that we go down the route where we get it right. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.
James Cartlidge
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Sir Mark, after your brief absence. That was a very important set of questions. Obviously, I am speaking particularly to amendment 45. Other amendments have been tabled to the clause and I think we will end up covering everything. I will try to answer the main questions, but hopefully by the time we get to stand part we will have broadly covered all the key questions.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and wish the same to him. He has a different style and approach from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, but they make an interesting pair, and I look forward to further jousting and deliberations on the Bill. The hon. Member for Stockton North said that it is not all the pandemic. He is right: most of the difficult decisions about funding criminal justice had to be made in the 2010-15 Parliament. There is a good reason for that. It was not a pandemic; it was inheriting a catastrophic economic position because of the mismanagement of the previous Government.
James Cartlidge
I am talking about 2010. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is no parallel universe in which difficult decisions did not have to be made. Had Labour stayed in power in 2010, they would have made significant cuts to the Ministry of Justice. That is a fact, but we are here today and looking to the future, and the future is digital. Digitalisation offers many ways to improve and streamline justice, but of course we must ensure that safeguards are in place. I will come to a few of the specific questions, and then to the amendment.
Probably the most important question is what happens if the defendant does not receive notification of the charge or conviction. How will they respond? What do we do? We may be confusing two procedures. There is the single justice procedure, and there is the new procedure—I simply call it the automatic procedure. The hon. Gentleman is right: even the acronym is impossible to remember, let alone the full name. In the SJP, it is worth stressing that defendants who have no knowledge of proceedings brought against them via summons or requisition until after a magistrates court has begun to try the case will be able to make a statutory declaration to restart the proceedings—that is, for example, if the correspondence was sent to the wrong address. To reassure all colleagues, in the automatic procedure, the person considered has to opt in. If they do not receive notification, that procedure will not be used. It is fairly straightforward, and an important safeguard.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm what would happen if somebody did not receive the post, the case went to court, and they were convicted in their absence? Could that happen, or would they have to be informed?
James Cartlidge
That is a very good question. To be clear, they have to opt in. If they received it and did not respond, they would not have been able to opt in. Therefore, the online procedure would not have taken place. I understand why my hon. Friend asks that question.
The previous Government consulted on this proposal from September to November 2016. The Government’s response in February 2017 to their consultation on transforming our justice system set out their intention to proceed with the new automatic online conviction and standard statutory penalty procedure, otherwise known as an acronym that I will not attempt, interesting as it is.
Open justice is a very important question. The hon. Member for Stockton North, as a former journalist, will very much respect the fact that matters of justice are of intense interest to the media and to journalists, and he is right that it is important in our democracy that we give them that access. We have to ask how much interest there would be in someone who has not paid a fine on an unlicensed fishing rod and so on, but to be clear, case information, including details of cases to be considered and outcomes, will be made available to the media and other interested parties in line with the criminal procedure rules.
The common platform is a very important question. There is possibly a slight confusion, which I can understand, as it is complex and there are lots of different clauses and procedures. Strictly speaking, in using the automatic procedure, the defendant is not using the common platform. It is a separate public-facing interface.
The common platform is used by practitioners and the criminal justice system. Clauses 6 and 8 relate to the common platform, because in those cases, the person would have to have legal representation because they could not enter, for example, an early plea online because it has to be done through the common platform and that has to be done through a practitioner. To be clear, there is a difference.
Alex Cunningham
I am interested in the issue of people having a day in court or saving a day off work. Many people will make the wrong decision when they come into contact with the justice system in that way. Is there not a real concern about individuals who do not know what they are doing, who may have mental health problems or other disabilities, and who cannot make the right decision? A day off work would not actually matter.
James Cartlidge
To be clear, I am not talking about a day off work. If they go into court, the issue is not having the income—for example, if someone is self-employed. It may be less of an issue for someone who is permanently employed; it depends on their contract. I think it is important for people to have the option, particularly if they are time poor. I stress that it is a choice.
Dr Johnson
What information will be provided in the letters when they are sent out, so that people can make the right choice? If the hypothetical plumber chooses to pay a fine, which may be less than the money that he would lose from missing a day’s work, he may think that he is financially better off because he is not going to court. Assuming that he is innocent, however, how will he get information about the consequences of the record? Will that be provided in the letters?
James Cartlidge
The answer is very simple. If the person concerned is innocent and pleads not guilty, the case is heard in court. This procedure is for people who are guilty and wish to plead guilty online to save themselves the hassle of going to court, given that they are guilty.
James Cartlidge
Hang on, there were simultaneous interventions. I will give way to the hon. Member for Blaydon.
Liz Twist
I wanted to address the issues in amendment 49 that we discussed at the evidence session with Justice, which is the class of case that will be dealt with through the system. I raise it now because the Minister is talking about the ease of going through the automatic procedure. Is he not concerned that people will be tempted to plead guilty just to get it over with, and will then find that they have a conviction? In my experience as a trade union officer, people accepted a caution because it got it out of the way, but then found that they had a criminal record that they had to declare to their employer.
James Cartlidge
It is a good question. I respect the hon. Lady’s background before she became an MP and she speaks with a lot of experience. These are non-recordable offences, such as not being in possession of a valid ticket on a train or tram or having an unlicensed fishing rod. They are all non-recordable, so they will not result in a criminal record.
I will amend what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. When I said “if a person is innocent”, I meant to say “if they intend to plead not guilty.” It is a semantic point but important to get right.
Andy Slaughter
I have a genuine question. If the provision is extended to other offences, is it the Government’s intention that any offences dealt with will be non-recordable in that way?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North made some really thoughtful points, which the Minister is now addressing. What I am getting at is that the court appearance is a sort of framing event, and that can work both ways. First, it avoids trivialising the offence: it concentrates on it, is public and has the effect of exhibiting the offence to the wider world. Secondly, it acts as a way of thinking about where the offence is going—there may be legal advice, the court itself may be able to advise and the process of going to court may alter the defendant’s disposition. Has the Minister thought about all that and about the type of offences to which the provision might apply in future?
James Cartlidge
If I address that, I will be straying into the territory of future amendments. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should say that we will cover those issues in considerable detail.
I will now crack on with the remainder of my comments about amendment 45, which is about a review. I appreciate that this is a very new type of procedure for dealing with certain minor offences and that we cannot be certain of its impacts. However, we are committed to reviewing the operation of the procedure, which is why we are proceeding with caution.
Only three offences have initially been proposed for prosecution under the new procedure: failure to produce a ticket for travel on a train; failure to produce a ticket for travel on a tram; and fishing with an unlicensed rod and line. As part of this initial implementation phase, we will carefully monitor and review the potential impacts of the procedure before we consider whether to extend it any further. The procedure has a number of safeguards, which I will set out in further detail when we discuss the next group of amendments and during the stand part debate. I want to stress that the procedure is entirely optional and that it will remain the defendant’s choice whether they wish to proceed with an automatic online conviction or opt for a traditional hearing in court.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and recognise that there are other issues to cover, which I mentioned in my speech; there are other amendments as well.
I am pleased to hear the Minister commit to carrying out a proper review of the procedure, as that is what the amendment sought. I see no need to press it to a vote. I thank him for his input and look forward to developing some of these issues during debates on the remaining amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 3, page 4, line 29, at beginning insert—
‘(1) Before this section may be commenced, the Secretary of State must publish—
(a) an equalities assessment concerning the impact the automatic online conviction and penalty process will have on individuals with protected characteristics, as defined in the Equality Act 2010; and
(b) an impact assessment on the effective participation for defendants with vulnerabilities, and must lay such assessment before Parliament.”
This amendment would mandate the Secretary of State to publish assessments regarding the impact of Clause 3 on individuals with protected characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010 before its commencement, as well as those with vulnerabilities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 3, page 4, line 29, at beginning insert—
‘(1) Before this section may be commenced, the Secretary of State must publish statutory guidance which sets out how prosecutors should provide and explain to defendants any information contained within the required documents in an accessible way.”
This amendment will mandate the Secretary of State to publish guidance for prosecutors on how to ensure that defendants fully understand the information provided to them.
Amendment 48, in clause 3, page 5, line 32, at end insert—
“(e) the prosecutor is satisfied that the accused has engaged a legal Representative”.
The amendment would provide that the accused cannot be convicted online via the AOCSSP procedure without legal assistance.
Amendment 57, in clause 3, page 5, line 32, at end insert—
“(e) the prosecutor is satisfied that the accused does not have any vulnerabilities and disabilities that impede the ability of the accused to understand or effectively participate in proceedings, having undertaken a physical and mental health assessment.”
This amendment would require that all accused persons considered for automatic online convictions are subject to a health assessment, and that only those who do not have any vulnerabilities or disabilities are given the option of being convicted online.
Amendment 50, in clause 3, page 6, line 6, at the end insert—
“(d) a document in clear and accessible language which—
(i) explains the consequences of agreeing to an automatic online conviction and penalty; and
(ii) directs the accused to legal advice and information.”
This amendment would include further information about the consequences of engaging with the automatic online conviction process and a signpost to legal advice within the required documents that are sent to the defendant.
Alex Cunningham
I thank Justice and Fair Trials again for their helpful input into these amendments. As a set, the amendments all deal with the need for safeguards in the procedure—we know the procedure that we are referring to—both by identifying possible issues before the procedure is used and by building in safeguards to the procedure itself. The Minister may think that he has covered the bases, but I want to help him to ensure that the belt and braces are in place, to best support justice.
Amendment 46 would mandate the Secretary of State to publish assessments on the impact of clause 3, before its commencement, on individuals with protected characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010, as well as on those with vulnerabilities. I have just spoken at length about amendment 45 and the need for the provisions in clause 3 to be well evidenced before they are implemented; amendment 46 addresses that point further. I am aware of the equalities impact statement, published alongside the Bill, which states that, in relation to the criminal procedures section of the Bill:
“we do not expect these changes to have a negative impact on any particular group, as the majority of these measures are designed to make the criminal court process easier for all court users by offering additional ways in which people can engage with the court that will significantly improve user experience and reduce user costs.”
Some may think that that’s all right then, but it certainly is not. The Government’s equality impact assessment deals with the impact of the procedure in two paragraphs and only discusses issues relating to income levels. However, there is evidence, predominantly from the single justice procedure, that suggests that the new procedure may disproportionately impact individuals with protected characteristics.
Stephanie Needleman, the acting legal director of Justice, shared such concerns with the Committee in the evidence session last week. She mentioned women as a group of concern, as the existing single justice procedure disproportionately targets women. APPEAL’s Women Justice Initiative notes,
“the vast majority of those being prosecuted and convicted of TV licence evasion are women.”
Its research shows what can happen in the absence of sufficient safeguards, with women facing criminal records despite not having received a letter, or where the letter was sent to the wrong address. Although there are issues that can affect anyone who receives a postal charge, the fact that women are more likely to commit certain so-called low-level offences means they are impacted to a greater extent. The Government’s impact assessment does not recognise that, and therefore does not suggest anything to address the issue. It is important that this disparity is recognised and is not replicated in this procedure. Stephanie Needleman he also raised concern about the potential impact on disproportionate representation of ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system, particularly as the new procedure has such minimal safeguarding built in.
The Opposition believe it is vital that further research is done to ensure that disproportionate numbers of ethnic minority individuals are not unduly criminalised through procedures that contain weaker safeguards than are currently provisioned under the single justice procedure. We are also concerned that the impact assessment makes no attempt to look at whether the new procedure will have a disproportionate impact on neurodivergent individuals or others living with mental health conditions and other disabilities. Justice’s report “Mental Health and Fair Trial” notes that criminal justice processes often do not account for an individual’s particular needs, which may hamper their ability to understand what is happening. This concern is then amplified within the single justice procedure where there is lack of opportunity to screen for health conditions or vulnerabilities and assess whether the process is suitable.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. I agree with a lot of what he says and I know the Minister will too, because he has been very sensible about the need to review this and consider it carefully before it is extended. In addition to the groups that the hon. Gentleman identifies, there are simply older people—people who do not have the wherewithal to navigate systems. They may not be people with mental health issues, although I take the point about that. They may simply be people who are not comfortable with online transactions. I would rather see far fewer things put online, by the way—I would like a move in the opposite direction in life and in the provision of public services generally, but the hon. Gentleman is not pressing for that; I am far more radical than him, I can tell. I hope he would include in his assessment, and I hope the Minister will too, those people who may simply struggle with online services.
Alex Cunningham
The right hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. I am most grateful to him. My dad is 90 and my mother is 88; she sadly has dementia but my dad still looks after her. As someone who is on the ball, I think he would really struggle in this sort of situation. I would not want that.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s very positive response to the first amendment. I am sure he is moving in my direction and I am very grateful. Perhaps when we come to a vote, the right hon. Gentleman will join me in saying, “Aye!” at the appropriate moment.
Alex Cunningham
Some might say he had gone a long time ago.
We are worried that the issue will only be further exacerbated by the new procedure, with the removal of any form of human oversight and involvement in the process at all. As I said in my earlier speech, the new process may represent a significant shift in our justice system as we look to increase the use of technology to maximise efficiency, but it is important that we do not take the step without knowing what it will entail for all types of defendants and place appropriate mitigations in place. The Government’s assessment further states:
“However, as is the case more generally across England and Wales, there is over-representation of certain people in the criminal justice system with protected characteristics”,
which will affect some of the proposed measures.
It sounds to me like the Government are simply accepting disproportionality as an inevitable consequence of our criminal justice system. That is simply not good enough, and that is why we want the Minister to go further with all these protections. It is also why the Opposition would like to see a more detailed equality impact assessment of clause 3 before it is commenced, as that will allow the Government to address the issues now rather than waiting until disproportionality is further exacerbated—when they say that they are committed to reducing it.
Paula Barker
Does my hon. Friend agree that not having the appropriate checks and balances in place, as the amendment suggests, could lead to further litigation down the line from those who are charged?
Alex Cunningham
Indeed, that is very much the case. The Minister talked about how a conviction made by a magistrate in the absence of a defendant can always be challenged down the line. I do not see where that fits with respect to this, and I hope the Minister will explain it.
I stress that I do not think that this is the ideal safeguard for identifying individuals with vulnerabilities—legal professionals are trained primarily in the law, not to identify issues relating to vulnerabilities. I have already said that that is not their responsibility and I do not want the Government to think that the Opposition are advocating placing that safeguarding burden on the legal profession. We are certainly not doing that. We are, however, in favour of more safeguards being built into the system. This is an important safeguard for all defendants, not just those with vulnerabilities.
As I said earlier, I am aware of the Government’s intention for online pleas to be entered via the common platform, which I understand might seem to address the concerns we express here. As it is not in the primary legislation, however, we do not feel sufficiently reassured, which is to say nothing of the ongoing issues with the common platform—I understand the senior presiding judge has told Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to halt the roll-out until it has been stable for at least three weeks.
I appreciate that the Government have looked at the matter, but I want to ensure that this works in some way, even if we do not agree with the method. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s thoughts on strengthening the safeguards in the legislation.
James Cartlidge
I will come to the specific amendments, but, once again, some wider points have been made. An interesting one, made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, was about whether the broad thrust of policy should be somehow to regress towards being more paper based than online.
That was a serious point. It was interesting that, in evidence, Aidan O’Neill from the Scottish Law Society—I asked him about the Scottish experience of the pandemic and use of technology, although my right hon. Friend will know of other areas of his expertise—made some positive observations about how technology had in many ways enabled access to justice to be maintained during the pandemic, precisely because people who would otherwise not be able to appear in court or take part in tribunals or other cases were able to do so because of the technology.
My view is that, while we have to have safeguards—I therefore totally agree with the hon. Member for Stockton North that we should go through the details of the safeguards—in principle we should never discount the sense in which technology gives more access to justice. After all, a generation of people do not have printers—they work not off paper, but off their phone. They might even feel slightly excluded if they cannot do things online.
That might seem like a strange point and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, some older generations might find that extraordinary. To be clear, however, someone could be not even analogue, but completely paper-based in how they work. My parents are pretty much like that if I am completely honest. These offences obviously exist in the single justice procedure, which is paper based. Or, as I have said throughout, people could simply opt to have their case heard in court in the traditional way.
Sir John Hayes
I do not want to delay the Minister because I am keen to get on myself, but the point really is not so much the test of convenience, which is the one he is describing, or even the test of accessibility; it is more the absence of personal interaction. The problem with moving to technologically based systems, across the private and public sectors, is that we take people out of the equation, and actually people are the cleverest thing we have. They have imagination and intuition, and sensitivity and understanding. When we systemise things, we risk losing all those virtues. By the way, long before I came here, I was in the information technology industry, so I remember well knowing that then, just as I know it now.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. There are some things that should always be done in person. A good example is parliamentary debates because we need interventions. When we had people appearing on a television screen, unable to intervene, how could we hold them to account for what they said? However, in the legal system—the Bill underscores this—some things must be done in person, and in respect of which the resource is so precious. Of course, we are talking particularly about trials in the Crown court, which are the most serious cases. A huge part of our focus is digitising relatively—I say that word carefully—straightforward or less serious procedures, so that we maximise at every turn the physical, in-person resource for the most important proceedings. That is important.
Before turning to the amendments, I will make one further point on the position of vulnerable defendants and give slightly more information, because this is a fair point. The procedure will operate in a similar way to the current written charge and requisition procedure, and the single justice procedure. Prosecutors using those methods of initiating proceedings have developed procedures for identifying those who may need additional support. Support channels will also be available to users who require clarification of information and processes ranging from web chat or telephone assistance to more intensive face-to-face assistance. The Department has recently awarded a new contract for significant support in that area, and I am happy to provide more information later.
Amendment 46 would require the Government to publish an equalities and impact assessment before the commencement of clause 3. When the Bill was introduced, an equalities assessment and an impact assessment were published on all the measures, including the new automatic online procedure. As such, we have already given consideration to the impact that the measure could have on those with vulnerabilities and protected characteristics, as the hon. Member for Lewisham East mentioned. We have recognised that the steps we are taking to digitalise criminal court procedures have the potential to affect groups that are less digitally enabled. That is why we will ensure that the online processes are easy to follow and understand, and that support channels, ranging from web chat or telephone assistance to more intensive face-to-face assistance, will be available to all defendants who might need them, as I said earlier.
The new procedure is completely optional, and it will remain the defendant’s choice whether they wish to proceed with automatic online conviction or opt for a traditional hearing in court. The number of disabled people using the internet is increasing, and defendants with certain disabilities might in fact welcome the introduction of a new online procedure, which will reduce their need to travel to court unnecessarily and enable them to resolve their case quickly in the comfort of their own home. As I say, the new procedure can improve access to justice in some respects. I agree that it is important to monitor its impact, including on those with vulnerabilities, and we will do so on the three offences initially before we consider whether to extend the procedure further.
Amendment 57 would require all defendants charged with an eligible offence to submit to an assessment of their physical and mental health before a prosecutor could decide whether it would be appropriate to offer them the option to proceed with the new automatic online procedure. The hon. Member for Stockton North made a reasonable case, and I share his concerns that the new procedure should only be used appropriately—that word is so important. As I think I said on Second Reading in my summing up, I am someone who is I would not quite say evangelical about, but strongly supportive of, using the internet to create efficiencies, improve access, increase productivity and ensure all those benefits; nevertheless, we have to have safeguards.
As I have already set out, that is why we have built a number of safeguards into clause 3. For example, a prosecutor will offer this online option to a defendant only once they have considered all the facts of a case and deemed it suitable for the procedure. All the options will be explained clearly to defendants offered the procedure, including their right to come to court if they wish to and the potential consequences of their choosing this route. Defendants who decide to opt into the new procedure will be guided through the process, and will have access to both telephone support and face-to-face support if they should need them.
Clause 3 also provides the court with the power to set aside a conviction in the event that the defendant did not understand the consequences of their decision to accept the conviction. The effect of the amendment may be to deter some people from using a procedure whose speed and simplicity they would otherwise welcome. Indeed, there would be no reason for defendants to opt for the new procedure if the resolution of their case would be swifter under existing procedures, such as the single justice procedure, where no mental or health assessment is required.
Amendment 47 would place an additional duty on the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance before clause 3 could be commenced. As proposed, this would be guidance setting out how prosecutors should provide and explain to defendants any information in the required documents. Clause 3 already provides for guidance under the criminal procedure rules to set out the detail of how required documents should be served on a defendant offered the new automatic online procedure.
As I have said, under the procedure defendants will be provided with all the information they need to make an informed decision, and that will be written in a clear and accessible way. The information will include details of the evidence against them, the potential consequences of choosing this route and full details of the prospective fine. Similar information is already provided on the single justice procedure notice currently sent out to defendants, which is drafted and regularly reviewed in consultation with a wide range of user groups.
If it is helpful, I will be more than happy to provide every member of this Bill Committee, either by email or even through the post if necessary, a sample of the single justice procedure, to show how it looks. I think that once members see it, they will agree that it is very clear. It is similar to what will be used in the new procedure.
Amendment 47 would require all defendants to have engaged a legal representative before a prosecutor could offer them the option to proceed with the new automatic online procedure. I stress that only summary-only, non-imprisonable offences that are straightforward and simple to prove will be eligible for the new procedure. As such, we intend the design of the procedure to be simple enough to ensure that it can be used without legal assistance.
Defendants would need to opt in actively to the procedure and could choose at any point prior to accepting the conviction to have their case heard in court instead—when they wish to plead not guilty or want the court to consider mitigating factors, for instance.
Amendment 47 is unnecessary and would contradict current practice where, generally speaking, cases of this type do not normally attract legal aid and the vast majority of defendants already represent themselves, whether under the single justice procedure or in court. That is an important point to stress—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I did make an announcement at the beginning about electronic devices, so I would appreciate it if you took cognisance of that. Thank you.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Sir Mark.
This is a new procedure; it is a new means of realising whatever the outcome of a case is. It is not a new form of justice—let me be absolutely clear about that. People plead guilty or not guilty to these offences every day and in the overwhelming majority of cases there is no legal representation because the cases are straightforward. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton North, but I hope he is reassured by the fact that defendants will be advised of their right to obtain legal advice under the procedure and will be entitled to request a full trial and obtain counsel at any time during the process if they so wish.
Amendment 50 proposes to insert an additional level of detail into primary legislation, which I would argue is unnecessary. It would require the documents served on defendants to explain the consequences of agreeing to an automatic online conviction and penalty, and direct the defendant to legal advice and information.
We have already been clear that defendants will be provided with all the information they need to make an informed decision. That specifically includes making sure that they are aware of the consequences of entering a guilty plea and accepting a conviction. The notice and online process for the procedure will be very similar to the one for the single justice procedure, which clearly sets out the consequences of making a plea. As I have said, I am happy to send copies of the single justice procedure document to colleagues.
The notice that defendants receive formally commences proceedings for the offences and gives them a set period of time in which to respond. The notice will advise defendants to use this time to obtain legal advice. As I said before, only summary-only, non-imprisonable offences that are straightforward and simple to prove will be eligible under the new procedure. As such, we intend the design of the procedure to be simple enough to be used without legal assistance.
I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton North will be reassured by the fact that we intend to implement the procedure for a small number of offences to begin with and will carefully review how it operates before deciding whether to extend it any further.
Liz Twist
I welcome the Minister’s assurance that the procedure will not be extended. However, he has just mentioned that the offences to be considered under the procedure will be reviewed. Concern was expressed during our evidence sessions that the procedure might be extended to other offences, so what further reassurance can the Minister give on that issue?
James Cartlidge
I was just about to conclude, but I think I am due to cover that point in detail when dealing with the other groups of amendments. If I am mistaken, I will make sure that it is covered, but I think I will go into more detail about that issue later, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.
As I have set out, we already have the appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that defendants are fully informed of their options under the new procedure. These amendments are therefore unnecessary, and I urge the hon. Member for Stockton North to withdraw them.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We have tabled these amendments because we want to be helpful—we are not trying to be difficult. We want to ensure that there is fair justice with fair access, and that justice is done for everyone at the end of the day.
I accept much of what the Minister said, but I still have real concerns about the information provided and the systems for providing that information. He has referred to what is included in the Bill, but I am still very concerned about how people will get the right information from the right person in order to make the correct decision, and I am most concerned about the vulnerable.
The other issue, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, is about what the next tranche of offences could be. Will we get to a point where more serious offences will fall under that process and will be recordable offences, which will have all the impacts on employment that we described earlier?
James Cartlidge
To be clear, I think the next amendment is very specific on that point, and I will definitely cover it.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister. On that basis, I will withdraw amendment 46, but will press amendment 47 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 47, in clause 3, page 4, line 29, at beginning insert—
“(1) Before this section may be commenced, the Secretary of State must publish statutory guidance which sets out how prosecutors should provide and explain to defendants any information contained within the required documents in an accessible way.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This amendment will mandate the Secretary of State to publish guidance for prosecutors on how to ensure that defendants fully understand the information provided to them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 3, page 5, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert—,
‘(4) An offence may not be specified in regulations under subsection (3)(a) unless it is—
(a) a summary offence that is not punishable with imprisonment; and
(b) a non-recordable offence, which excludes any offence set out in the Schedule to the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000/1139 (as amended).”
This amendment would exclude any offences which are recordable from the automatic online conviction option.
I come to the Opposition’s final amendment to clause 3, although we have already strayed into the territory that this covers. Amendment 49 would exclude any offences that are recordable under the new procedure. I understand that the Government intend the procedure to apply only to summary or non-imprisonable offences, but we think that this needs to be further restricted.
Examples of recordable offences that the new procedure could cover include the offence of failing to provide for the safety of children at entertainments under section 12 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or the offence of exposing children under 12 to the risk of burning under section 11 of that Act. Others are the offence of drunkenness in a public place under section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and the offence of selling alcohol to a person who is drunk, under section 141(1) of the Licensing Act 2003.
Particularly topical, given that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is in Committee in the other place, are the offence of failing to comply with conditions imposed on a public procession under section 12(5) of the Public Order Act 1986 or the offence of failing to comply with conditions imposed on a public assembly under section 14(5) of the Public Order Act 1986. The threshold for committing these offences will become significantly lower upon the introduction of part 3 of that Bill, where individuals could inadvertently commit an offence by causing “serious unease” or “noise”. Yet more examples relate to the sale of alcohol to children under the Licensing Act and a range of football offences, including the use of missiles and the chanting of racist language.
Those are just some illustrative examples. I do not believe that these sorts of offences are really appropriate for the new procedure, mostly because, as I have mentioned in my earlier speeches––it is important, so I stress it again––the consequences of conviction can still be extremely serious. The Government’s apparent justification for removing any human oversight in the procedure is that it will apply only to minor offences where the defendant faces no risk of imprisonment. But as Fair Trials points out,
“The absence of the risk of imprisonment should not, on its own, be a justification for trivialising criminal justice processes. Criminal convictions, even for minor offences (other than certain types of traffic offences), can have far-reaching and very serious implications on people’s lives and opportunities. The existence of a criminal record can, for example, seriously undermine someone's chances of finding employment, especially in certain sectors and professions (including nursing, social care, child-minding and teaching), accessing educational and training opportunities, obtaining certain types of insurance, or the ability to travel to certain countries. For those who are non-UK citizens, criminal records can affect the right to remain in the country.”
The Opposition believe that it is crucial that the procedure applies only to those offences for which convictions are unlikely to have these impacts on individuals’ rights and opportunities.
Justice has noted that it is likely that the new procedure
“as it currently stands, would act to incentivise individuals to plead guilty out of convenience, regardless of whether they have an arguable case. Without legal advice, this risk is all the more profound [and]… many will not fully appreciate the impact a conviction could have on their lives and future prospects.”
By limiting the new procedure to non-recordable offences only, we would ensure that automated convictions are limited only to the most minor offences, which do not appear on most criminal record checks. That would be a vital safeguard in the online conviction procedure.
I do not think we will be overly limiting the use of the new procedure if we include that further limitation. Between 40% and 45% of all criminal offence convictions each year are for non-recordable offences, so a significant proportion of cases could still be dealt with. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.
James Cartlidge
This interesting amendment covers some of the questions from earlier. Clause 3 provides that only certain non-imprisonable and summary-only offences can be specified as eligible for the new automatic online procedure. Amendment 49 would restrict it further to non-recordable offences. That is straightforward enough.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the initial three offences proposed under the new procedure—failure to produce a ticket for travel on a train, failure to produce a ticket for travel on a tram, and fishing with an unlicensed rod and line—are non-recordable offences. In fact, the vast majority of eligible offences in scope are non-recordable, with only a couple of exceptions. There is currently no intention to extend the procedure to any recordable offences. Once we have reviewed how it operates, we might consider extending to other similar non-recordable offences, such as certain road traffic offences—for example, low-level speeding and driving without insurance. Clause 3 enables us to do so.
However, for an offence to be appropriate, it would have to be relatively straightforward and simple to prove, with no complex grounds and a high degree of consistency in sentencing. Prosecutors would also have the discretion, based on the individual facts of any given case, to not offer the option of the procedure for an eligible offence if they felt it would not be suitable. Furthermore, any extension of the procedure to additional offences would be subject to the affirmative procedure and done by regulations, which would have to be approved by Parliament.
Alex Cunningham
That was a very interesting response. I think the Minister was confirming that what is in the amendment will, in fact, be the case going forward and that the Government will not seek to introduce any offences that would be recordable in the scenario I described. I ask the Minister why he does not accept the amendment if that is the Government’s intention. I invite him to intervene on me.
James Cartlidge
That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman. In this situation it is very standard to have a Bill with what is effectively a pilot. I would not quite say that it is formally a pilot, but it is effectively trialling these three non-recordable offences and will be reviewed.
However, as I said, any extension of the procedure to additional offences would be subject to the affirmative procedure and done by regulations that would have to be approved by Parliament. That is a very standard way of operating. We think that is more flexible. I do not want to invite a conspiracy that says there is a clear plan to move very soon to including recordable offences. As I say, there is currently no intention to extend the procedure to any recordable offences. We think that this way of legislating is perfectly standard. The amendment is not necessary.
Alex Cunningham
I am afraid that although I accept that the Minister is an honourable man, I would like to see this measure nailed in legislation so that a future Government cannot start to introduce recordable offences. There is no guarantee from what the Minister said that that will not happen. New Ministers can change things. The amendment will ensure that they cannot go beyond the guarantee that the Minister has offered today, and I intend to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
It is nice to see you back in the Chair, Sir Mark. I just want to make some quick remarks in support of clause 3 stand part. First, it is about speeding up the system and tackling the backlog, which we have and have all heard about in the course of proceedings on the Bill. It is important that we get to grips with the backlog. Using online technology to help to remedy it is, I think, incredibly important, but I do not think it should be the only way we do that. If someone does not want it or have it, that should be up to them. Representing a constituency with a higher-than-average-age population, I certainly understand the fears and concerns that my constituents have when we talk about putting things online, because they always feel as though they will not be able to access them, and accessing justice is incredibly important.
The offences that we are talking about are summary offences. As we have heard, the provision will be used only in a small number of cases, whether it is the non-payment of a train or tram ticket or the possession of an unlicensed fishing rod or line. These matters have to be dealt with, and the provision for automatic online conviction—no pun intended—allows that to happen going forward. I do not think a physical court is needed for justice. We have seen that in the course of the pandemic. We have to remember that technology, in all aspects of life, is not going to go away.
I also support the clause because the defendant can choose. They do not have to do this, and rightly so. It is something that people can opt in to; they are not forced to do it. These days, many people may actually feel more comfortable in the online environment than they would in the traditional one. Although they have committed an offence and are pleading guilty to it, that does not mean that we should cause them unnecessary pain and anguish through going to a court, which they might feel very uncomfortable with. We have to think about protecting them in every way we can, while punishing them for the crime that they have committed.
As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned before, it is important, particularly for those who are self-employed, who might have difficult work circumstances or who might have childcare issues to be able to access justice in this way. The Minister has already mentioned a number of the safeguards that are in place, and I thank him for that. Access to justice and the need to go to court are two very different things. I am pleased that the clause recognises that and I am very pleased to support it. I think that all of my constituents will be very pleased that our access to justice is not impeded by just having to go to court.
Andy Slaughter
I will be brief, Sir Mark. This has been a very interesting debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North has put forward some points that the Minister has engaged with. I am not sure that we are entirely happy with the responses. Disposing of matters online, without going to court, is a significantly different way to do things and makes a lot of differences. Some of the examples that my hon. Friend gave included the ability to get advice, the ability to monitor the quality of proceedings—including the way that the prosecution puts its case—the accountability of the defendant, and justice being done in public. Yes, it is more convenient in some cases to be able to deal with everything online in the way that most of our lives are dealt with now, but criminal proceedings are an important event. There are now many fewer courts than there were, but the process of going to court and appearing there is significant. It concentrates the mind, and it is an event. It frames the offence, and it makes the defendant think about the consequences of their actions.
What most concerns me is the point about open justice, which is very easy to lose. I am conscious that this afternoon the Justice Committee is taking evidence on the issue in relation to an inquiry done by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in which it tried to attend possession proceedings, which are ordinary in-chambers proceedings that go on every day in dozens of civil courts around the country. On a number of occasions, it was wrongly refused permission to proceed by the judge or the administrative clerk of the court, which is an increasing trend. It has been exacerbated by covid, because clearly much more has been done remotely during the pandemic. That may have been necessary, but when were are making changes to procedure, it is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is important not only that justice is done, but that it is seen to be done.
I am not persuaded that the clause has been sufficiently thought through at the moment. Therefore, I will listen to what the Minister and my hon. Friend may say in relation to that, but although the Government are aware of, and concede, the points that have been made, I do not think they have done enough to put safeguards in place. At the moment, I feel that we are not sufficiently reassured about the clause.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark.
I will move on from what I said this morning about dealing with my constituents. Again, I go back to what people say to me about these things on a daily and weekly basis: the law is only any good if it is enforced. The one thing that people see time and again is that somebody is caught in the act of doing something, yet it can take months to get them to court and to get them dealt with. That is bad for two reasons: it says a negative thing to law-abiding citizens, but it also means that charges are held over somebody’s head for a long time, which is no good. It is no good for people to have cases hanging over them. Punishment should be quick, cases should be dealt with, and people should move on very quickly, especially with small misdemeanours. The whole point of the clause is to clear the backlog in the courts. I have mentioned fly tipping, which is a real issue, and I know there have been backlogs with getting such offenders into court and dealing with them. The clause will expediate the court process and get swift justice to those who need it.
Before I was elected to this place, I got paid when I turned up to work. Other Members have referred to builders, plumbers and electricians, who do not have the luxury that a lot of people have. If they do not turn up for work, they can lose a day’s pay, which can be hugely costly to them, especially in these times. If they have made a small error, being able to deal with it very quickly online, maybe when they get in in the evening—saving them a day in court, which would increase anxiety for people—will be welcomed.
Alex Cunningham
I will be brief and will not repeat the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith on open justice and the requirement for safeguards. I have two points to make, which relate to our previous debate. First, although I feel my trust in the Minister building this afternoon as time goes on, sadly I do not trust a future Conservative Minister who may well decide to use the powers that the Minister is attempting to take to himself to do things that I would hope none of us would approve of, through having a series of online cases that could lead to recordable offences. That could have an impact on people’s lives. For that reason, it is important that we do not support the clause.
Secondly, there is the issue about the information that defendants have. The Minister was at some pains to point out what is already in the Bill. The fact that vulnerable people may not get the support, or not even be identified if they use this particular system, is of great concern. That is the second reason, in addition to those that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith mentioned, why we will not support the clause.
James Cartlidge
Again, some very interesting points have been made. I was only appointed not much more than a month ago—
James Cartlidge
It is interesting to have two shadows at once—I should probably take it as a compliment. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Hammersmith said that he would wait until he had heard my remarks and those of the hon. Member for Stockton North before taking his position. I hope the hon. Member for Stockton North has persuaded his hon. Friend. It is an interesting position, but there we are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport gave a very good speech. As he said, the physical court is not needed for justice in many ways these days. Of course, it is still crucial for many aspects of law. The best example is those big Crown court cases with a jury. There is no getting away from that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley mentioned the backlog. It is absolutely crucial that we remember that by increasing the use of digitisation, we free up resource elsewhere, effectively streamlining through the whole system.
We are not saying that this measure alone will clear the backlog—of course it will not, that is absurd—any more than the 180 days taken by Cart judicial reviews would somehow of themselves be the silver bullet to solve the backlog. I was obviously not saying that. It is the accumulation. If, for example, using this procedure causes less pressure or fewer cases to be heard physically in the magistrates court, the magistrates court in turn can hear more triable either-way cases coming from the Crown court. The whole point is a process to reduce the pressure and free up space where it is needed most, which is in those crucial cases in the Crown court, where the backlog is most severe.
We have gone through the main points and the safeguards in great detail, so I am not going to speak at great length. This is about choice. If a defendant wishes to plead not guilty or otherwise decides that they wish to have a hearing in a traditional courtroom or their case considered by a magistrate under the single justice procedure, the current arrangements will apply. By introducing this new online process for dealing with the most straightforward and minor offences, the measure will save court time, allowing magistrates to focus on the more serious cases and help deliver swifter justice. That is the essence of our case.
I have one final point to make, which is important to have on the record. I thank the Scottish Government for their support for this measure and note the legislative consent motion that they have approved. However, the motion contained within it reserves clauses that in the Government’s view do not engage the legislative consent motion process.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 4, page 9, line 34, leave out “16” and insert “18”.
This amendment would raise the age of eligibility for written procedures for entering guilty pleas from 16 to 18.
I will be relatively brief on clause 4, which extends the existing “pleading guilty by post” scheme in section 12 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. Under the provisions in the Bill it would apply to defendants who have been charged with a summary offence at a police station. If the defendant chose to make use of the written procedure, the court would then be able to try the case as if the defendant had pleaded guilty in court, but without the defendant—or the prosecution—having to attend. From 1957, when it was introduced, until 2015, the section 12 procedure was used by all police forces to prosecute mostly traffic offences, although it was also used for some other minor offences. Around 50% of all court cases were dealt with under it. Following the introduction of the single justice procedure in 2015, the section 12 procedure became relatively rare; it is still used for some cases that are not eligible to be prosecuted under the single justice procedure, for instance because the prosecuting body is not eligible to use it or there is a victim involved in the case. Given its current rarity and the limited likelihood of its future use now that the single justice procedure is available, I cannot really see the benefit, or indeed the point, of the extension of section 12, but the Opposition are not necessarily opposed to it.
Amendment 51 is straightforward; it would simply raise the age of defendant for which the procedure can be used from 16—that is, when the defendant is a child—to 18, when the defendant is an adult. I understand that under section 12, children aged 16 to 17 can be prosecuted in the youth court for summary-only offences under the section 12 procedure. Furthermore, under the same legislation, children under 16 can also be prosecuted for summary-only offences under the section 12 procedure, but only if there is an adult co-defendant in the case. However, I believe that the procedure has never actually been used in this way. Just because in 1980 it was decided the section 12 procedure should be able to apply to 16 and 17-year-olds, it does not mean that we have to extend that provision 40 years later. Just as the Government have decided not to extend the provision for children under 16 when there is no adult co-defendant, it could also remove 16 and 17-year-old children from the process altogether.
As it is drafted in clause 4(3), proposed new section (2A)(b) of section 12 allows for a magistrates court not only to accept guilty pleas from children aged 16 and 17 in writing, but to try, convict, and sentence them on papers. Following the accused child’s guilty plea, it would allow the court to sentence them at a court hearing in their absence. Other parts of the Bill, namely clauses 3 and 6, recognise that remote procedures are available only for accused adults—that is, those aged over 18—taking into account the fact that children need additional support and assistance to ensure effective participation. In addition, I understand that the provisions under clause 13, which mandate the involvement of a parent or guardian in proceedings involving a child, will not apply to the entry of a guilty plea by post by a 16 or 17-year-old under section 12. That also strikes me as odd, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the reasoning behind it. To us, it is not clear why the threshold must remain at 16 for this clause.
James Cartlidge
I should point out for the record, as I spoke to him privately, that I did discuss that intervention from the Chair of the Justice Committee, and explained to him what I am about to explain now.
Amendment 51 would raise the age of eligibility for the section 12 procedure—often referred to as “pleading guilty by post”—from 16 to 18 years of age for cases where the defendant is charged at a police station. The section 12 procedure has been available as a suitable means of summary-only prosecution against defendants aged 16 and over since 1957, as I believe the hon. Member for Stockton North rightly said. I am not aware of that having raised any particular issues of concern for child defendants during that time. In a case where the defendant is summonsed or charged by post and intends to plead guilty, the section 12 procedure provides the option to do so by post rather than having to attend court. The subsequent hearing will still take place in open court and the defendant can still attend if they wish, so this is not about online procedure as such.
This procedure is primarily used for minor offences, such as driving without due care or littering, and has seen a sharp decline since the introduction of the single justice procedure. Once again, the hon. Gentleman noted that point. The purpose of clause 4 is to ensure that prosecutors can also offer that long-established procedure for suitable cases where a defendant is charged in person at a police station. That will maintain the same age criterion that exists for prosecutions initiated by summons or postal charges for 16 to 18-year-olds. Prosecutors will decide whether it is appropriate to provide a defendant with the option to proceed with the section 12 procedure, and summons and postal requisitions served on children will always be sent to their parent or guardian, which will include details about the section 12 procedure if it has been offered.
When a child is arrested and held in police detention, existing primary legislation also requires that a parent or guardian must be notified of that as soon as possible, and legislation will continue to enable a youth court to require a parent or guardian to attend during all stages of the subsequent proceedings at court where that is deemed appropriate. The amendment would create confusion by applying different rules to a well-established procedure simply because the defendant is charged in a different way. It also ignores the safeguards in place to ensure that the rights of children are protected. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I make no apology for always raising every issue in relation to children when the Government are trying to convert them into adults. There are many more serious examples of that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is going through in the other place. The Minister will not be aware of this, but I spoke at length in the Committee on that Bill against the creation of adults from children. While I accept what he says about this being a relatively minor example in comparison to elsewhere, it is important that the Government recognise that children are children, and not adults. I worry at times that we will see childhood further eroded in matters of justice going forward.
James Cartlidge
Just for clarity—this is what I explained to the Chair of the Justice Committee—I can quite understand that, at face value, it looks from the Bill as if this is uniquely being set at the age of 16 compared with the automatic procedure, which is set at 18. Of course, they are very different things, so I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is purely a consistency matter within a well-established procedure—although admittedly, within the Bill next to the other part, it is easy to see why these questions have been raised.
Alex Cunningham
That is exactly the reason why I will not push the amendment to a vote, but I make the point again that we cannot go forward in this country’s justice system moving more to converting children into adults when they are 16 or 17 years of age. I worry that we will see further proposals that will be far more damaging to young people in the future, so I will continue to prosecute this matter, and the Minister will get very bored of me over the coming months as I do so. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
I will give a short exposition, because it is important to clarify the point that I emphasised in my last intervention. Section 12 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 is a long-established procedure, providing defendants with the option to indicate a guilty plea in writing to a summary-only offence. In such cases, defendants can also agree to be tried, convicted and sentenced to a fine at a court hearing, which neither they nor the prosecution have to attend. However, a magistrates court cannot impose a custodial sentence without bringing the defendant before the court. Nor can they impose a driving disqualification in the defendant’s absence without adjourning the case and giving the defendant an opportunity to attend a hearing.
Under the existing law, the procedure can only be applied to defendants whose prosecution is initiated by way of a summons or postal requisition. Clause 4 will change that, so that it can also apply when a defendant is charged in person at a police station and bailed to attend court for their first hearing. In circumstances, for example, where a defendant decides to plead guilty by post without having to attend the hearing, clause 4 also provides the court with a power to discharge the defendant from the need to surrender on bail. That means that prosecutors will be able to apply the procedure to suitable cases that would have otherwise been excluded simply because of the way in which the prosecution was initiated.
In all cases, opting to plead guilty in writing and be convicted and sentenced in absence will continue to remain entirely voluntary for defendants. The police and other prosecutors will continue to have the discretion to decide whether it is appropriate to apply the procedure to any case. Furthermore, all the current restrictions on the imposition of custodial sentences and driving disqualifications will still apply. Therefore, a defendant’s appearance at a traditional court hearing will always be available where necessary, or if the defendant desires it. Clause 4 is one of a number of measures the Government are bringing forward in the Bill to simplify criminal procedures and make our courts more efficient for its users.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Extension of single justice procedure to corporations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss New clause 1—Review of the Single Justice Procedure—
“(1) Before the Commencement of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission a review and publish a report on the effectiveness of the Single Justice Procedure.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the transparency of the Single Justice Procedure in line with the principle of open justice,
(b) prosecution errors under the Single Justice Procedure and what redress victims of errors have,
(c) the suitability of the use of the Single Justice Procedure for Covid-19 offences,
(d) the proportion of defendants who do not respond to a Single Justice Procedure Notice and the reasons why defendants do not respond,
(e) the suitability of the Single Justice Procedure for people living with disabilities or neurodivergent conditions,
(f) the possible introduction of training for prosecutorial bodies who use the Single Justice Procedure on identifying and supporting individuals with vulnerabilities or disabilities.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”
Alex Cunningham
We have already had a number of debates on our concerns about the extension of some of the powers. I have talked about the single justice procedure in detail, but it is now appropriate to give more direct and constructive criticism of that particular procedure. It is no good recognising the problems of the procedure in discussions of other clauses without any recourse to try to make improvements to the procedure.
I have become quite interested in the workings and failings of the single justice procedure in recent months, as I am sure the Minister is aware. I have raised my concerns with his predecessor at the Dispatch Box in Justice questions and requested a meeting with his predecessor to discuss the use of the procedure for covid offences, which the Minister’s private office has assured me is still in the works once his diary settles down a bit.
I thank Transform Justice, Fair Trials, and Big Brother Watch for the interesting and helpful briefings and discussions we have had on the topic in recent months, and I thank APPEAL and others who have researched and raised the alarm about elements of the SJP. For those who are not familiar with the procedure, APPEAL helpfully outlines it in its briefing “Conveyor Belt Justice”, which I will quote from at length to help Members better understand it:
“Summary offences which are not punishable with imprisonment may be tried by a single magistrate, with a legal adviser available, under what is known as the single justice procedure…Relevant offences include common assault and battery, truancy, non-payment of TV licenses and, from July 2020, offences under emergency Coronavirus legislation. Legal aid is not available to people charged with these offences.
In 2020, SJP prosecutions accounted for 47% of all criminal prosecutions in England and Wales.
Those prosecuted under the SJP receive a notice in the post and are asked to submit their plea within 21 days online or by post.
If someone receives a notice and does not respond, or if they respond and plead guilty, they are automatically convicted on the papers, in closed court. If no evidence is submitted of their financial circumstances, they are assumed to be able to afford the standard fine and costs, which can amount to hundreds of pounds.”
I am sure my fellow Committee members will agree that is a useful summary.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the single justice procedure and lay it before Parliament. The review would have to consider a number of issues with the procedure that have been raised by organisations working in the justice sector over the years.
The first issue the review would have to consider is how the SJP complies with open justice, which we knocked around a bit earlier in the day. In an earlier speech, I referred to the difficulties that Tristan Kirk has had accessing information on such cases. In its inquiry on covid-19 and the criminal law, the Justice Committee said that a lesson learnt from the use of the single justice procedure in relation to covid-19 offences was
“that the Ministry of Justice should review the transparency of the single justice procedure and consider how the process could be made more open and accessible to the media and the public.”
I know the Minister has commented on that, but I hope he can go a little further. The Opposition would echo that particular call. With almost half of criminal cases going through the procedure, the Government need to do more to ensure that justice is still seen to be done.
The second matter that needs to be looked at is prosecution errors under the SJP and what redress the victims of those errors have. In the last year, the error rate in the SJP was around 10%, according to a written answer that the Minister recently gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in which he said:
“A review of Single Justice Procedure…cases dealt with between 1st September and 30th October 2020 showed that legal advisers and justices identified errors in 10% of cases. The errors are not caused by the type of proceedings; work done over the summer of 2020 suggested that the primary cause was the volume of regulations and the constant amendments, combined with the speed of introduction and the conditions in which officers issuing fixed penalty notices had to work. In the autumn of 2020, work was done with police forces and justices’ legal advisers to reduce the errors. Anecdotally, and from limited data, the error rate with the new round of SJP proceedings appears to be lower than last year. As the regulations ceased in the summer, the numbers of Covid SJP cases are set to decline.”
I share the Minister’s hope that the error rate will decline. An error rate of 10%, when almost half of all the criminal cases in the country are being dealt with under the SJP, is quite something. It certainly is not justice at its best.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman is engaging—he is an engaging fellow and I am engaging with him. I am more than happy to do that. I understand his request for a meeting. I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss some of the questions he has raised about the single justice procedure. If I do not answer them in my reply, I hope that we can go into them at that juncture. That is important.
The new clause would require a review and report into the effectiveness of the single justice procedure before the Act could be commenced. The single justice procedure is a more proportionate way of dealing with straightforward, uncontested, summary-only non-imprisonable offences, which almost exclusively result in a financial penalty. Previously in such cases, defendants tended not to engage at all and trials often went ahead without them. Many of these cases reach the court simply because the defendant has ignored other more informal ways of resolving the matter, such as a fixed penalty notice. We introduced this more accessible procedure as a way of encouraging defendants to engage with the court process.
It is a matter for prosecutors to decide whether it is appropriate to prosecute a defendant under this procedure, but various safeguards are built into the process. All defendants can veto the procedure and choose a hearing in open court. In addition, the magistrate can decide to refer the case to open court if they think that it cannot be dealt with appropriately using the procedure. Defendants who choose to use the procedure have access to support throughout the process, either by telephone or face to face. The single justice procedure written notice and online process have been designed with input from users and a wide range of organisations at public user events. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is constantly working to improve the documentation and has developed a clearer and more concise single justice procedure notice and information pack, copies of which I will share. That was recently piloted and is now being implemented.
There is a specific question relating to disability and accessibility needs in the form. To my knowledge, the single justice procedure does not in practice disadvantage any particular group. Defendants who choose to opt into the single justice procedure will be carefully guided through the process and will have access to both telephone and face-to-face support. For those who decide to proceed with a hearing, the necessary adjustments will be made at court in the usual way.
I am aware that concern has been raised that the single justice procedure lacks transparency. However, the criminal procedure rules oblige courts to give certain additional information on cases upon request from the media and other interested third parties. This applies to single justice procedure cases as well. To improve transparency arrangements, a list of pending SJP cases is published each day on a common platform that is available to the public online.
I am also aware that concerns have been raised about errors, as they were by the hon. Gentleman. Errors can occur in any system and there are processes in place to correct them. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the error rate is higher under the single justice procedure than under ordinary court procedures. As with all types of cases that magistrates courts deal with, if an error is made by the court, whether upon conviction or sentence, the court will always notify the defendant and correct it, following the case being reopened. Similarly, the defendant has the automatic right of appeal to the Crown court against conviction and sentence. If a defendant was unaware of the proceedings, they are entitled to make a statutory declaration that revokes the conviction and recommences the proceedings.
Given the safeguards in place and our commitment to continually review and improve the single justice procedure processes––
Alex Cunningham
The Minister appears to be coming to the end of his remarks and I want to press him on the unlawful convictions under the coronavirus legislation. Is the Department moving to ensure, or at least to encourage, proactivity in getting these people’s convictions removed?
James Cartlidge
One reason that I am more than happy to meet is that we can go through more detail. There are a range of issues here that I would need to discuss with the hon. Gentleman.
On the new clause, I can see no reason for a formal evaluation and certainly not one that would delay the implementation of all provisions in the Bill. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Clause 5 makes it clear in law that the single justice procedure can be used to prosecute legal persons such as corporations as well as individuals. Often, corporations are charged with offences that are suitable for the single justice procedure, such as lorry overloading. The clause ensures that a corporation can benefit in the way that an individual can from the speed and convenience of having such cases dealt with under this procedure.
Alex Cunningham
I appreciate the Minister’s response on new clause 1. We can all accept that the SJP is not perfect. We are trying to persuade him of the need to look at data and consider how well it is working, when it is not working and where the problems are. I have illustrated where I think some of them are. The Minister is only a month into his role and is doing a grand job so far. It is important that these issues are explored and not just shoved to one side. I am grateful for his offer to meet and I am sure that will happen.
I will just make one final point on transparency. It needs to be better. There are some good things happening already, but the Minister recognises that transparency is an issue and I look forward to seeing the changes that he might make in the future. I have already covered the issue of unlawful convictions.
Andy Slaughter
Listening to this debate, I am reminded that I was on the Bill Committee when the SJP was first introduced. A lot of these concerns were raised at the time and the fact that we are still talking about them now means that there is some way to go. It should also make us wary about further innovations that could compromise justice being done openly, as happened before.
I mentioned the investigation today and it has provoked the Master of the Rolls to write to all civil judges to remind them about the importance of allowing media access. Recently, we have seen the head of the family division taking very important strides to open up family courts, which have often been a closed book for so long.
We should be doing more to encourage open justice and therefore I think we should be aware of these issues. I fully support what my hon. Friend has said in relation to these matters and his caution, even if he trusts the Minister more than I do.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Sometimes, it seems that we end up talking about the same things in every single Bill Committee when it comes to justice. I remember well the days on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill Committee, when my hon. Friend was leading for the Opposition. There were so many places where we felt that more information or data needed to be recorded to ensure that the justice system was working correctly.
However, as I said, on this occasion I am content not to press the new clause, and I look forward to working with the Minister in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Written procedure for indicating plea and determining mode of trial: adults
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 6, page 11, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the court has been provided with a physical and mental health assessment of the accused confirming that the written procedure will not impede their ability to understand or effectively participate in proceedings”.
This amendment would require that all accused persons whose cases are considered for the written or online procedure are subject to a health assessment, and only those who are considered not to have vulnerabilities or disabilities are able to indicate their pleas remotely.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 56, in clause 6, page 18, line 5, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must, before the changes to the written procedure for indicating plea and determining mode of trial are introduced, conduct a pilot in two police force areas to evaluate the impact of the changes on effective participation in the justice process. The evaluation should include—
(a) the proportion of defendants with disabilities affected by the changes;
(b) the impact on the effective participation of all defendants including those with disabilities; and
(c) the effectiveness of reasonable adjustment measures”.
This amendment would require the expansion of online pleas and online indication of pleas to be piloted in two areas of England and Wales, and the pilot evaluated with published results, before any further changes are introduced.
Alex Cunningham
Clause 6 adds new sections to the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 that enable defendants to engage with the plea before venue and allocation procedures in writing, rather than in court. The new sections apply in cases involving a defendant aged 18 or over who has been charged with an either-way offence. This effectively creates a new pre-trial allocation procedure, whereby an individual will be able to indicate a plea in writing for all summary-only, indictable-only and triable either-way cases. This would remove the need for a defendant to attend an allocation hearing in person, as is currently required. The provisions under the clause are not mandatory and a defendant could attend a physical hearing if they wished to do so.
As with other measures in the Bill, the Opposition are not necessarily completely opposed to clause 6, but we need further reassurance from the Minister and possibly amendments that would introduce safeguards into the procedure. That is because, as the Minister will be aware, deciding how to plead and deciding where a case may be heard can have significant consequences for a defendant. One example would be if a defendant chooses to proceed to the Crown court in a triable either-way offence. They may receive a harsher sentence than in a magistrates court, because of the greater sentencing powers of the Crown court.
Decisions regarding plea and the venue of criminal trials are crucial ones that determine the course of the trial and have serious implications for the rights of the defendant, which can be extremely difficult to reverse. Fair Trials states:
“In particular, pleading guilty amounts to a waiver of the accused’s right to a trial, and all the defence rights that are related to trial processes. Although the Bill purports to enable accused persons to only make an ‘indication’ of their plea, which can later be revoked, Fair Trials has doubts that many defendants would do this, unless they benefit from effective legal assistance.”
I will speak further about legal assistance when we discuss amendments 53, 54, and 55.
Fair Trials goes on to say:
“Moreover, the right to a public hearing with the presence of the accused person is of fundamental importance not only to the defence, but also to the public. First appearances in court are crucial stages of the criminal justice process, where important decisions regarding criminal cases and the rights of the accused are made. Clause 6 will mean that many of these hearings will effectively take place in secret....it is crucial that there are sufficiently strong safeguards to ensure that defendants entering their pleas online, or via written procedures make adequately informed decisions.”
The Bar Council believes that hearings that involve indicating plea and determining mode of trial should remain as in person. It explained in its briefing ahead of Second Reading:
“Moving to a written procedure would ultimately impede access to justice for defendants who are often vulnerable due to a range of additional needs, and a disproportionate number of whom (relative to the overall population) have literacy issues, and some of whom may not speak or read English as a first language… Any criminal charge is serious, an either way offence self-evidently so. Moving to a written procedure for an indication of plea and mode of trial increases the probability of defendants, even if entitled to legal advice, suffering a disadvantage. Consequently, there is good reason to question the fairness of such written procedures and we do not believe therefore that it would be in the overall interests of justice or efficiency to adopt such a new approach... Further, the early plea and mode of trial hearings are some of the most procedurally complex in the criminal justice system. In order to ensure that defendants are able properly to navigate the various issues which such hearings present, it is essential that they are able to secure representation at the moment at which they are required to make—and inform the court of—key decisions.”
The Bar Council also referred to the crucial role that criminal solicitors and junior barristers often play in the magistrates court in referring vulnerable defendants to support services that can offer them help. That possible moment for intervention is clearly lost when such hearings are no longer in person.
That is a serious catalogue of concerns levelled against the clause. I appreciate that it is not the Minister’s intention to cause those potentially extremely adverse consequences, but the reality is that potentially many thousands of defendants will face those and suffer worse case outcomes.
The Opposition understand the concerns and share the reservations of Fair Trials and the Bar Council, but we first seek assurances from the Minister that appropriate safeguards will be put in place. Amendment 52 would require that all accused persons whose cases are considered for the written or online procedure are subject to a health assessment, so that only those who are considered not to have vulnerabilities or disabilities are able to indicate their pleas remotely. That is for the same reasons that I outlined in my speech on amendment 57 to clause 3, so I will not rehearse all the arguments again. We are again concerned that the Bill does not address the risk of vulnerable defendants indicating pleas with insufficient knowledge and understanding of the implications. We therefore seek some form of screening safeguard to be put in place.
Amendment 56 would require the expansion of online pleas and online indication of pleas to be piloted in two areas of England and Wales, and the pilot evaluated with published results, before any further changes are introduced. Transform Justice’s briefing notes suggest that
“encouraging online pleas could act as a driver to lack of legal representation, worse outcomes, and exacerbates efficiency issues encountered later in the justice process such as difficulties obtaining full disclosure from the prosecution.”
The Equality and Human Rights Commission said in its briefing that the provisions for pleas in writing
“risk the ability of people with certain protected characteristics to effectively participate in criminal proceedings”.
Given those serious concerns about the impact of the proposals on effective participation in the justice process, the changes should be piloted in two police force areas and an evaluation of the costs and impact of the changes, including on disabled people, should published before wider roll-out is considered. I am interested to hear what safeguards the Minister has considered for the new allocation procedure for adult defendants. As I have said, plea and allocation hearings can have major impacts on case outcomes, and I am sure he agrees that it is vital that we get the procedure right before it is rolled out across the country.
James Cartlidge
The amendments relate to vulnerable defendants using the provisions in clause 6 that allow adults to indicate a plea online. To be clear, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Stockton North to ensure that vulnerable defendants, including those with disabilities, are able to engage effectively with online procedures. That is why we have built a number of safeguards into all the criminal procedure measures in the Bill, including this one.
Amendment 52 would ensure that a court cannot invite a defendant to indicate a plea online unless it has been provided with a physical and mental health assessment indicating that the online procedure will not impede the defendant’s ability to effectively participate in proceedings. It will be a matter for the court, in any case, to decide whether it is appropriate to invite the defendant to indicate a plea online before their first hearing. Not all defendants will be offered the option of engaging with the court online before their first hearing, and the courts will do so only where they consider it appropriate. Defendants will be under no obligation to accept an invitation to proceed online and can choose to discuss these matters at a traditional court hearing if they so wish.
Where a defendant fails to engage online, the proceedings will simply default back to existing court-based procedures. Those who do choose to indicate a plea online will be given information about the procedures available, how they work, the consequences if followed, and the need to obtain legal representation. They will only be able to enter a plea and allocation decision through their legal representative. As they do currently, legal representatives can help to identify if the defendant has any vulnerability that would mean that they cannot understand the process. Furthermore, any online indication of plea will remain just that—an indication. A defendant will be able to withdraw it. They still have to appear before a court to enter a binding plea where the court will be able to assess the extent to which they are making an informed decision. The court can set aside earlier steps in proceedings where it decides that a defendant has not made an informed decision when indicating a guilty plea online, and that indication of guilt cannot then be admitted as evidence against them in later proceedings.
Amendment 56 would require a pilot of the online indication of plea procedure to be undertaken and evaluated before the procedure is implemented to assess the impacts on defendants and, in particular, vulnerable defendants. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Stockton North about impacts on defendants but do not agree that a pilot is necessary. We have undertaken an equality impact assessment and have built a number of safeguards into the online procedures to protect vulnerable defendants. As with all criminal procedures, the operation of this new procedure will be closely monitored by the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. I have already set out the safeguards we have built into these procedures so that defendants will not be disadvantaged by engaging with the court in this way, and to ensure that any impacts are positive in minimising the stress of having to attend court unnecessarily. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendments.
Alex Cunningham
The crux of this matter is the defendant making an informed decision. The Minister referred to that. Coupled with that is the need for appropriate legal advice. The Minister also alluded to that. I do not know how we ensure that the person understands that they need to seek legal advice before participating in this process. However, given what the Minister has said, I am content and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 6, page 11, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (3) only has effect where a magistrates’ court is satisfied that the accused has engaged a legal representative, who is responsible for responding to the charge and giving any written indication of plea.”
This amendment would mean that defendants must be legally represented in order to indicate a plea in writing.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 54, in clause 6, page 11, line 29, after “plea” insert “and consequences of pleading guilty”
This amendment will require that an accused person informed about the practical consequences of pleading guilty, such as gaining a criminal record and what that may mean for the defendant.
Amendment 55, in clause 6, page 11, line 36, at end insert—
“(4A) The prosecutor must obtain proof of receipt by the accused of the information outlined in subsection (3)”.
This amendment would require prosecutors to obtain proof of receipt of the information relating to written pleas sent to defendants.
Alex Cunningham
Amendment 53 would mean that defendants must be legally represented in order to indicate a plea in writing. As I said in my previous speech, early plea and mode of trial provisions are among the most procedurally complex in the criminal justice system. The Opposition therefore agree with the organisation Justice that, as a minimum safeguard, defendants must have the opportunity to receive legal advice and assistance prior to indicating a plea or trial venue. Allocation decisions can currently be taken at court with the assistance of a duty solicitor.
As Justice set out in its 2016 response to the Government consultation, “Transforming Our Justice System”, in a physical court there is a network of informal assistance available for people that can help explain procedure and guide towards legal assistance where necessary—from the usher, to the justice’s clerk, the barrister waiting for their case to be called, or the magistrate if the case appears before them. This informal assistance can act as an important safeguard and support mechanism for those going through the often difficult and confusing process of being engaged in our justice system, and would be unavailable, on the face of it, for those able to engage in the new allocation procedure remotely.
The Opposition welcome the clarification from the Government, in the courts fact sheet accompanying the Bill, that defendants will
“not be able to access the online procedure for indication of plea or trial venue allocation decision directly”,
because submissions would be made through the common platform, for which defendants
“will need to instruct a legal representative to act on their behalf who will of course ensure they fully understand the process and will be able to identify any vulnerabilities.”
I am glad that the Minister recognises how crucial legal support and advice are for decisions concerning whether to indicate a plea before venue and deciding where the case should be heard, either in a magistrates court or the Crown court.
James Cartlidge
The amendments would all add further safeguards to clause 6, which allows adults to indicate a plea online. As I have said, I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Stockton North that defendants can engage effectively with online procedures. In the previous group of amendments, I set out the numerous safeguards included in the provision, which also apply here.
Amendment 54 would require that defendants who are given the option to provide an online indication of plea for an either-way offence are informed about the real-world consequences of pleading guilty to a crime at court and what it could mean to get a criminal record. The hon. Member for Stockton North is right that the prospect of a criminal record is not something that should be taken lightly. Clause 6 already ensures that the court must provide important information about the consequences of giving or failing to give an online indication of plea. I must stress again that this is an indication of plea and is not binding. That means that a defendant will have to appear at a subsequent court hearing to enter a binding guilty plea before they can be convicted. The court will need to be satisfied that the defendant has made an informed decision.
Defendants will also be able to withdraw an indication of guilty plea, and that previous admission of guilt cannot be used against them. They will require a legal representative to engage online, who I would fully expect to explain the serious implications of pleading guilty at court and getting a criminal record. If the courts decide that it would be appropriate to provide any additional information to defendants invited to plea online, the legislation enables this to be done under the criminal procedure rules. The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee was created by Parliament precisely for the purpose of making detailed rules of procedure for criminal courts in a flexible way. Delegation to the Committee is widely accepted as appropriate for this sort of secondary legislation.
Amendment 53 would provide that a court cannot invite a defendant to indicate a plea online unless the court is satisfied that the defendant has engaged legal representation. It is our intention to ensure that defendants seek legal representation at the earliest opportunity in all criminal proceedings. As I have said, they will already require legal representation in order to indicate a plea online. That is because the online procedures are made possible through the common platform, which is not accessible to defendants.
Amendment 55 would require prosecuting agents, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, to obtain proof that a defendant had received all the necessary information sent to them by the court about the new written procedure for indicating a plea online for an either-way offence. There are already procedures in place to ensure that information is sent by the court securely and to the correct correspondence address of the intended recipient. These procedures will continue to be followed as normal. I appreciate that there may be occasions when an invitation does not reach the recipient, but that will not disadvantage any defendant. After all, it is up to a defendant if they want to provide an indication of plea online. If they do not—because they choose to ignore the invitation or never received it in the first place—the proceedings will simply begin, as they do now, at the scheduled first hearing. The absence of a response will not be held against them.
I remind the hon. Member for Stockton North that it is also our intention to ensure that defendants seek legal representation at the earliest opportunity in all criminal proceedings. They will need to do so in order to indicate a plea online. Their legal representative will be qualified to ensure that they understand the procedure, have all the information they need to make an informed decision and understand all the consequences that come with it. It would be disproportionate and inefficient to mandate the prosecutor to obtain proof of receipt for each and every invitation that was sent by the court, especially when we have all these safeguards in place, paired with the fact that some defendants will have absolutely no intention of engaging online, opting for a traditional first hearing instead.
Alex Cunningham
I have a simple question about receipt of the charge. Through the post office, people can have a recorded delivery and actually sign for a letter. Why are the Government resisting that? They would know that the person had definitely received the charge, because there would be a signature saying that they had.
James Cartlidge
There are pluses and minuses to that approach. To repeat the point I made earlier, if they never received the notice in the first place, the proceedings would simply begin, as they do now, at the scheduled first meeting. In that sense, there is not a fundamental difference. I think I have covered all key points on this group of amendments and I urge the hon. Member not to press them.
Alex Cunningham
I will not detain the Committee long. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about doing everything possible to make sure that the defendant accesses legal support. I would prefer to see that on the face of the Bill to make sure that it definitely happens, so I will push amendment 53 to a vote but not press amendment 54 or 55.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
James Cartlidge
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 7, page 18, line 10, leave out lines 10 to 20 and insert—
“(1) This section has effect in the circumstances set out in section 17A(7) (indication of not guilty plea by accused at hearing), 17B(2)(d) (indication of not guilty plea by accused’s representative at hearing) and 22(2B) (scheduled offence found at hearing to be triable either way after indication of not guilty plea).”
This amendment and Amendments 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 remove drafting inconsistencies to do with the applicability of section 17BA of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 as inserted by clause 7.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 5 to 7, 10 and 11.
Clause stand part.
James Cartlidge
This group contains minor and technical amendments to clause 7 and schedule 2 to the Bill, as well as the clause stand part.
When a defendant indicates a not-guilty plea to a triable either-way offence at magistrates court, the court must embark on the allocation decision procedure to establish whether the case should be tried in a magistrates court or at the Crown court. The sequence of this procedure is dictated by primary legislation and currently means that if the court decides that a summary trial at magistrates court is suitable, it must have deliberated and reached that decision before asking the defendant if they want to overrule it and elect for a jury trial at Crown court instead. Sir Brian Leveson, the former president of the Queen’s bench division, highlighted the inefficiency of the current sequence in “Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings”, stating:
“The allocation procedure could be conducted more quickly if the defence was invited to indicate at the outset if the accused intends to elect Crown Court trial.”
Clause 7 will provide defendants with the opportunity to elect for a jury trial at Crown court before the court embarks on the allocation decision procedure. It will help to save valuable court time and resources by ensuring that time is not spent considering the suitability of a case for summary trial where the defendant intends to elect for jury trial in any event. The Government amendments to the clause are minor and technical in nature, and amend the drafting to ensure that clause 7 can apply consistently in all suitable circumstances. They will have no practical effect on policy.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Second sitting)
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
This afternoon, we will hear first from Minette Batters, President of the National Farmers Union, who will appear virtually; Peter Stevenson, chief policy adviser for Compassion in World Farming, who will also appear virtually; and Rob Taylor from the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s livestock priority delivery group. We have until 3 pm. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Minette Batters: Thank you so much. Minette Batters, President of the National Farmers Union.
Peter Stevenson: Peter Stevenson, chief policy adviser for Compassion in World Farming.
Rob Taylor: Good afternoon. I am Rob Taylor, the all-Wales wildlife and rural crime co-ordinator for the police. I am also the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s chair of the livestock priority delivery group.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
Q
Minette Batters: Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee. We respect the Government’s manifesto commitment on live animal exports, but our main concern is the double standards of the approach. If we take the Australian trade deal as an example, we are allowed to move animals in Australia for 48 hours without any water at all, or overseas for boat journeys lasting up to a month. That has caused enormous concern for members. Farmers in this country passionately want to maintain and grow our animal welfare standards, but we are concerned primarily about the double standards of the approach with other trading partners, which will potentially undercut farmers in this country.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Minette Batters: I think there is a case to be made on unintended consequences, potentially for Northern Ireland to Great Britain, GB to Northern Ireland, the Isle of Wight, and the highlands and islands. We need to be very clear for future reference about precisely what the movements are when they are crossing water.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Minette Batters: Yes, it has been a massive problem, and we really welcome the new terminology in the Bill about attacking as well as worrying. We have never felt that worrying really does justice to what is going on. We face a situation where 15,000 sheep have been killed every year. That is information provided by SheepWatch UK. We feel very strongly that the terminology needs absolute clarity of thinking for farmers, dog walkers and the police. A dog at large should be a dog on a lead of no longer than 2 metres, to avoid confusion. A dog “with its owner” is not always with its owner, so we feel there needs to be absolute clarity that a dog at large is on a lead.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Minette Batters: If that were needed for clarity, it would be quite easy to facilitate. It would be in the farmer’s interest to make sure their dog is controlled but, if it were needed for clarity, we would support that.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Minette Batters: I think it needs to be like that to cover everything.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Peter Stevenson: Yes, Compassion in World Farming is pleased that the Bill includes a prohibition on live export for slaughter and fattening, but the Bill does not prohibit the export of high-value breeding animals, which we accept—we have never campaigned for that.
I have worked on this campaign for 30 years, and it began long before I started, probably 50 or 60 years ago. Of course we are pleased, and I congratulate the farming sector. The height of the trade was in 1993, when Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food figures showed that we exported 2 million sheep and an unbelievable 500,000 calves, nearly all male, to the continent for slaughter. The farming sector has got those figures down, and they are now much reduced. We export about 30,000 to 45,000 sheep a year and, in practice, calf exports from Great Britain stopped about 18 months ago. There have not been any pig exports for slaughter or fattening for some years. The farming sector has done terribly well.
I am sure some farmers have misgivings about this ban, but I urge them to say, “Yes, please impose it.” I think it is right that this chapter now comes to an end.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Rob Taylor: Very much so. This has been a long journey. I represent the police forces of the UK, and I was the team manager for North Wales police in 2013 when we started the first designated rural team of its type anywhere in the UK. We now have more than 25 dedicated teams throughout the UK. The problem of livestock attacks previously existed in our rural and farming communities, but it was never identified. The main reason is that no dedicated team existed, and the Government and the Home Office do not require the police to record the statistics. In a very short time of managing the team, I saw the sheer scope and scale of the horror of livestock attacks in our rural communities.
On average, in north Wales alone, we were seeing 125 attacks a year under the antiquated law, with the death of many sheep and dogs, including those that were being shot or euthanised. Over the following years, I decided to try education, which did not work.
I am a big believer that there needs to be an end result of rectifying this problem. We engaged four other forces to go on this journey with us and to find statistics that show it is not just a north Wales problem. As a force, we had recorded our stats voluntarily, but the other four forces had not and had to take six months to get those statistics up to a certain level. Their statistics replicated ours, and they showed the pure horror of livestock attacks throughout the UK.
I am now in charge of rural events in Wales, so I have oversight of all four forces in Wales, and three of them are voluntarily providing statistics. Those statistics remain high and continue to increase, with the death of many sheep and dogs, and at substantial cost. The law is antiquated and does not cover the offence as it occurs, and it does not support the police in the investigation of such offences.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Rob Taylor: Yes, and I say that with some authority as we have worked on the law for the past eight years, and we have worked intensively with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the National Sheep Association and other interested parties to get it to this point today. I have been in many meetings where many amendments have been made. I have read through it in detail and know it back to front. I am more than convinced that it will give the police and the courts the power to move us forward, so that the Bill will make a huge difference to not only policing, but irresponsible dog owners throughout the UK.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Rob Taylor: It is an interesting question. I would say lead in certain circumstances. If someone is in a field with cattle, the issue is that with the dog on a lead, the cattle will stampede. People have been killed in such environments. It is not straightforward. However, in a field with sheep, we definitely recommend that it take place.
The law is many years old, and there are a number of things in that that actually will be in place for 2022, such as obtaining DNA sampling. The big one for me is that previously you could not ban a dog owner. If a dog killed 100 sheep, the owner would appear before the court and receive a maximum fine of £1,000. The next day, they could go back, buy three dogs and continue the offence. I think it is ludicrous that that still occurs in our countryside in 2021.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
Minette Batters: No, and it would be interesting to hear from the police on that. We feel that there need to be stronger controls. While I have the opportunity, the same applies for hare coursing. It is still far too easy to commit a crime with a dog without a severe penalty. We have a severe penalty on hare coursing with vehicles, but at the moment that cost falls to the police. We need to see that being tightened up.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Minette Batters: With the loss of livestock at the scale that we are seeing at the moment, no, there is not. It is perfectly avoidable. The real challenge is that once a dog has attacked and killed a sheep, it will do it again. We have to have zero tolerance to stop that happening in the first place, otherwise it will continue to happen.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Minette Batters: Well, with the climate we have here, air throughput is absolutely essential to ensure that animals are travelling comfortably. However, in banning live animal exports and opening up our market to a much greater level of raw ingredients, I think that there is a very strong case to be made on competitiveness. We are seeing rising standards of animal welfare and animal transport and the banning of live animal exports, but we are not seeing any recommendations to impose any of those laws on other countries. That is quite a major challenge as we move forwards. We all want to see higher levels of animal welfare, but, above all else, we want things to be fair.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Peter Stevenson: Until it finally becomes law, the key issue is still bringing an end to the export of animals for slaughter. As I said, calf exports in effect ended at the end of 2019, when Scotland decided to no longer export them. However, that trade could resume. We are seeing young animals—between two and five weeks—exported from the UK all the way down to Spain, and then, in certain cases, after a period of fattening, re-exported from Spain for slaughter in Lebanon and Libya. Let us try to finally get that through and make it an Act of Parliament.
Although it is not in the Bill, I am aware that DEFRA has been consulting about changes for journeys in the UK, on shorter journey times, more space, more headroom and greater care about making sure animals are not overheating during journeys. All that is welcome. I know that the farmers had a number of concerns about DEFRA’s proposals; DEFRA’s response to the consultation struck a reasonable balance between welfare concerns and farmer’s concerns. I know that DEFRA is still talking to stakeholders about that. So yes, I think even within the UK we should be having shorter journeys. We have always campaigned for a maximum journey time of eight hours for slaughter and fattening. DEFRA says, and I know this from supermarkets too, in practice most journeys to slaughter are below eight hours.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Peter Stevenson: There is a potential loophole, but it is not really possible to assess how much the loophole will, in practice, exist. The Bill exports from England, Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland; because of the protocol, it would not legally be able to include Northern Ireland. There is a danger here, which I am hoping is theoretical rather than actual, that people in England, Wales and Scotland could send animals to Northern Ireland that then go on to the Republic and on to the continent. In practice, it does not sound that likely; the only ferry service to Northern Ireland from Scotland, which is the route that has been traditionally been used from Cairnryan to Larne, is operated by P&O and they have a very clear written policy of not taking animals for slaughter or fattening. A colleague of mine checked with Stena Sealink, which also operates from Cairnryan to Belfast, and they said that they are not licenced to take animals, and they seem to have no desire to get involved in that trade.
I am hoping that we will not see animals going from GB to Northern Ireland, and then on to the continent. However, there certainly is a danger of that. In the regulation-making powers that are given by the Bill on live exports, DEFRA could consider including some sort of requirement that, for people who are taking animals from GB to Northern Ireland, there is some way of certifying that those animals are genuinely destined for Norther Ireland and not bound for re-export to the Republic and the continent.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Peter Stevenson: A bit like breeding animals, there has not been evidence of real problems with poultry over the years in the way that there has been with the export of sheep and calves. As far as I am aware, all the poultry being exported are day-old chicks; they have a yolk sac that for a certain amount of time is providing them with energy and liquid. Under current EU law, as long as the transport is finished by the time they are 72 hours old, they can be transported for 24 hours. I think DEFRA proposed to let that law remain in place.
When we look at the science, I think the figures could possibly be revisited; perhaps 24 hours is a bit long—perhaps 16 hours would have a better effect for the health and welfare of these tiny chicks. There is an argument for saying that those journeys should be completed within 48 hours of hatching—not 72. I think there should be some revisiting there, but we are not saying that the export of these day-old chicks should be brought to an end.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Taylor: Absolutely. As I said previously, I think bridges were crumbling between the police and farming communities, going back 20 years. Since 2013, I have seen a huge upsurge in the way in which the police deal with rural and farming communities. I highlight the fact that there are over 25 rural crime teams, which are expanding week on week. In Wales alone, we have over 40 dedicated rural officers, and I am dealing with them, along with four sergeants, as the all Wales crime co-ordinator. The resources are definitely there. On the 125 cases in North Wales, I can speak with authority as the previous team manager. Every single case is dealt with professionally and thoroughly from cradle to grave by a dedicated rural crime officer, and that is the same for Dyfed-Powys Police, Gwent Police and South Wales Police, who are currently coming on board. The same applies to a number of teams that exist throughout England as well.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Taylor: I firmly believe that it will lead to the outcomes that we are hoping for. Having dedicated officers makes us more efficient in how we deal with things. For example, if you go back 15 years, I was a young police constable in North Wales, dealing one day with a shoplifter and the next expected to go to a farm to deal with a livestock attack involving 10 or 15 sheep. I did not have a clue what I was doing—that was the case before dedicated teams came in.
I give North Wales as an example, but North Yorkshire has exactly the same kind of team, based on ours. I worked with them to start up that team a number of years ago, so I can speak with authority for them as well. They are experienced officers who will go to a farm, know exactly what the issues are, deal with them efficiently and quickly, and take everything on board. The new law makes it easier for officers to deal with the problem. In the olden days, you could not get DNA to prove an offence, so you had to try, try and try, and spend lots of time trying to prove the offence. The new law gives us the power to do that more efficiently by using dedicated officers. I am an absolute firm believer that this law will give us the power to do what we need to do, and do it better.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Q
“a constable has reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or a road or a path…The constable may seize the dog”.
There is some more wording, but what is clear from subsection (3) is that the owner of the dog in those circumstances has seven days to reclaim it. There is a suggestion that at the end of that period, if it is not reclaimed one of the options open to the police is the destruction of that dog. Is that your understanding of the position?
Rob Taylor: No, it is not. My understanding is that the dog could be rehomed or passed on to someone else. It is not destruction—that is not my understanding.
James Daly
Q
Rob Taylor: The dog will be placed in the care of a dogs home, then it will be up for relocation to a suitable home. The problem that we have at present is that we seize a dog, and as soon as the owner turns up we have to give it back. Otherwise, we seize a dog and are stuck with it until whenever, and it is a really difficult one.
James Daly
Q
“The constable may seize the dog and detain it—
(a) until an investigation has been carried out into whether an offence under section 26 has been committed by reason of the dog attacking or worrying livestock, or
(b) if proceedings are brought in respect of such an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn.”
Effectively, that means that we have one situation where there is seven days and another situation under clause 27(8) where the dog can be kept until the end of criminal proceedings. What is the difference between the two? Is it that under clause 27(8) the person has been charged with the offence and the dog will then be kept potentially on an indefinite basis, compared with the seven days I just referred to?
Rob Taylor: I would have to read through it again in detail, but I think part 2 relates to the risk that the dog is going to reoffend. I would need to read through it again to make sure, but from the meetings I have been in that is the belief I have. We see time and again that a dog will offend, be taken back by the owner and then at the scene, and the next day go out and kill three or four sheep. The next day it does exactly the same again. My belief is that the power there is for detaining the dog until the case is completed.
James Daly
Q
Rob Taylor: Absolutely.
James Daly
Q
Rob Taylor: It would be kept in kennels until such a time.
James Daly
Q
Rob Taylor: The dog would be kept in kennels and would be fed and watered properly, as other dogs seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are. The first situation applies when the dog owner is not known. The second applies when the dog owner is known. The dog could be kept to prevent it from reoffending again. Over the last 15 years I have been dealing with dog offences, I would say that that power has probably been used once or twice. It is an extremely rare situation.
James Daly
Q
Rob Taylor: I have never come across that.
James Daly
Q
Rob Taylor: Absolutely. Court orders are given many times for people who commit offences against badgers or other similar offences of cruelty. They are given a banning order, which prevents them from keeping dogs. It is for them to actually dispose of the dogs or they commit a further offence of being in possession of a dog while subject to a court order.
James Daly
Q
“Any dog taken into possession in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) or (2)”—
which is the disqualification order—
“that is not owned by the person subject to the disqualification order is to be dealt with in such manner as an appropriate court may order.”
That covers a number of different circumstances. I am concerned that dogs that have not acted in an inappropriate manner, shall we say, are potentially going to be disposed of and destroyed. That seems remarkably unfair.
Rob Taylor: No, absolutely. We see it time and again with wildlife offences and other such offences. If you are subject to a disqualification order, it is your responsibility to dispose of those dogs, whether by rehoming them, giving them to somebody else or making sure that they are given to a dogs home. You cannot possess those dogs. Previously in my evidence I said that the problem we have is not with the dogs. It is about irresponsible dog ownership. You could have a great dog, but if the owner is a bad owner, they are going to continue to commit these offences. This is exactly the same. I am aware of numerous people in north Wales who are banned from keeping animals. There are numerous people throughout the UK who are banned from keeping animals, and quite rightly so. They are irresponsible and they treat animals in an appalling manner.
James Daly
Q
Rob Taylor: I do not see an issue with that.
James Daly
Q
Rob Taylor: If people are caught hare coursing or badger baiting and they have a disqualification put on them, it is their responsibility to rehome the dog and move it on; otherwise, they commit further offences. It is as simple as that. The two choices we have here are that we actually do that or we let the person commit an offence, such as the 100 sheep killed in Kent a few years ago. That person might go out and buy five Alsatians the next day. Where does it stop? There has to be a point at which that person is recognised as an irresponsible dog owner and not fit to keep dogs.
James Daly
Q
Rob Taylor: But that dog has done nothing wrong whatsoever up until that point. Dogs have a natural instinct to chase and attack. If the person’s dog that has committed the offence is no longer being walked, that person is walking his two whippets, Jack Russells or Yorkshire terriers and is irresponsible. That person remains irresponsible and that dog, once it attacks, will have a natural ability to chase. If the person decides to walk his dogs through a field without a lead or suitable responsibility, they will commit an offence and we are back to square one. We then have to get a disqualification order for the dog, which gets disqualified, and we carry on disqualifying that person, who could then have 20 dogs. We would spend 20 years trying to get that person not to be able to take their dog for a walk.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Q
“within sight of a person and the person—
(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and
(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.”
Do you think that this may have unintended consequences for your ability to enforce to the law?
Rob Taylor: No, not at all. It needs to be clarified here that an act that takes somebody to court is the upper echelon. I can see five phases with regards to a livestock attack. If a dog is at large in a field or is loose beyond the control of the handler and no sheep have been chased or worried, that would be a word of advice or a lead letter, which is a standard letter that we send off. If there is an attack where a dog is chased, it moves up to a community resolution, whereby we can impose things such as the dog owner having to have control. It is a bit like a yellow card in a football match. It can then move up to a caution, then it moves up again to a prosecution. The prosecutions and destruction orders tend to be the ones that are repeat offences or where the dog handler is irresponsible from day one. That is a decision for the police managers, such as me, to make.
There are five phases. It does not mean that every single offence would go straight in at level 5 and that we would prosecute; there are various ways we deal with this. The problem we have is that the people who are at level 5, who are irresponsible and keep committing the same offences, keep buying dogs and keep going out and letting their dogs attack sheep. The problem we have is at the level 5 area, but I should say level 1 is that we do not take any action. Level 2 would be advice, level 3 would be community resolution, level 4 would be a caution and level 5 would be prosecution and possibly destruction.
Not every prosecution ends in a destruction. That would be a decision for me as to whether there are aggravated features within the offence, such as the dog has done it twice or three time before, it is a continued offence or the number of animals killed is on such a massive scale. For example, 11 cows were chased in Anglesey and had their udders ripped off. They ran across walls, broke all their legs and died—£22,000-worth. In my opinion, that would be a high-scale offence. Sadly, that offender was never caught.
Ben Lake
Q
Rob Taylor: It would possibly make it simpler.
Ben Lake
Q
Minette Batters: An attack can cost tens of thousands of pounds to that farming business. We feel that it has to be proportionate to the crime committed and at the moment it is not. It is probably not for us to put a figure on it, but it is not proportionate to the crime at the moment.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Q
“a working gun dog or a pack of hounds”,
and given their use in the countryside? Rob or Minette?
Minette Batters: I am simply not close enough to the detail. I think it would be an extraordinary situation for a pack of hounds that are hunting by trail anyway to end up in this position, so I cannot see either scenario happening in my opinion.
Rob Taylor: I think that was previously included in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, and it was just left in as it stands. I agree with Minette. I do not think it is contentious and it is quite limited if it were to occur. That is the reason it is in there.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Q
Rob Taylor: I think the word “working” means actually in the process of working, for example, retrieving a pheasant.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Q
Rob Taylor: We did a survey of the five police forces, as I said, between 2013 and 2017. We recorded the best stats we could. Luckily, North Wales had incredibly good stats because we would voluntarily record them every 24 hours, so we were very accurate. In North Wales, in excess of 70% of attacks were where the owner was not present, so that is a big one. The other four forces were Devon and Cornwall, North Yorkshire, Hertfordshire and Sussex. They came in with figures that were slightly less than that.
My frustration over the year is that everybody comes out with dogs on leads campaigns, whether it is a local council, the RSPCA or farming unions, whereas most of the time the problem is not that the owner is not present, but that the dog may have escaped, gone off or is some distance from the owner.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Q
Minette Batters: I think the evidence speaks for itself. As Rob has just said, in 70% of attacks nobody was present, but ultimately the dog has not been constrained within the garden or on a lead. The bulk of these attacks happen with dogs out on their own with nobody in the vicinity at all.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Q
Rob Taylor: There is also a third one. I have been to many livestock attacks in my years; I was a warranted Sergeant until 2016, when I retired and became a manager as a civilian, so I have been to these attacks with my team myself. The third scenario is that the dog jumps out when the car boot is opened. That is quite a common one; we see that a lot, or people just take their dog out for a walk and think it would never do it. A common thing that people say to us is, “My dog would never attack,” and lo and behold it has just killed three sheep. Those are the common ones. I would like to think it lessened when more people were home due to lockdown, and I would be interested to see those statistics.
However, as we know, more people at home bought more dogs, so that emphasises the problem itself. The main problem would be that somebody would buy a dog. Predominantly, about four years ago, everybody went husky-crazy and bought huskies. I am not sure if it was from a TV programme that featured huskies as quite a part of it, but something like 70% to 80% of the attacks we had that year were huskies. People just went crazy for huskies, and of course, after they stopped being puppies, they left them in their insecure gardens and went to work. Quite commonly, we would have an attack, go around to the house, and the owner would not even know the attack had happened until we followed a trail of blood to their back door and saw that the dog had blood on its fur.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Q
Rob Taylor: There is a real mix. I started looking at full moons and all sorts, because I really thought there was some theory in it. I believe it was similar when Harry Potter was very pro on the TV and in films, and everybody was buying barn owls. I will not name the programme, but there was a similar thing with a very famous programme, which I think has finished now, and people started buying huskies left, right and centre, and that was the problem. Those who know dogs know that huskies are a very difficult breed to keep because they can run all day, sleep for one hour, and eat some blubber on ice. Having them in a garden backing on to a field full of sheep is probably the worst-case scenario.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Q
Peter Stevenson: Yes, I am encouraged that it will. Obviously it is not going to tackle all sorts of things, but specifically on the prohibition on live exports for slaughter or fattening, I believe that will improve welfare. As I said, until very recently, several thousand calves per year were being sent from Great Britain down to Spain. We also have sheep that were being sent to a variety of countries for slaughter—to France, the Netherlands and Belgium—but in 2019, there were some sheep going all the way to Hungary and Bulgaria. The big worry there is not just the length of the journey—although that is a big concern—but the fact that the animals may be re-exported.
As I said, in 2020, if I remember rightly, an animal welfare organisation was able to film calves with UK ear tags being loaded on to a ship in Spain—having been sent to Spain, and after a period of fattening—to be sent on to Libya, and also slaughtered in Lebanon. This will stop that risk of UK animals being sent on huge, long journeys.
In terms of other things, yes, I totally agree with your point: we have the problem, and have had it for many years, that the local network of small abattoirs has been rapidly disappearing because of economic constraints. We need Government to come in and help with that by providing funding, because otherwise there is a danger that we continue to have long journeys here, just within Britain.
It is also important that there are a number of farmers who want to engage in what are called private kills. They want to send their animals to a local abattoir, and then have the carcass back so that they can add value and sell it directly to customers. That is beneficial because it means a short journey to the abattoir for the animal, but in terms of boosting local rural economies, that is important, and we certainly need a network of small abattoirs. We also need to see some of the longer journeys within Britain coming down. Most journeys to slaughter are already under eight hours, but we really want to see all of them under that. Of course we recognise that there has to be an exception for very remote parts of Britain, such as the highlands.
Dr Hudson
Q
Minette Batters: I think everyone regrets the fact that we have lost the small local abattoirs. The fact is they have gone, and the distribution centres are so consolidated that we have lost our local routes to market. I used to have two local slaughterhouses within 20 miles. There is nothing now in that mileage range, and that will be the same in many parts of the country. We have lost the small abattoirs: it was too impossible for them to run. Everybody would like to get back to that, but it is just not available at the moment. There have been many conversations about mobile abattoirs, but we do not have the legislation in place to achieve that.
Everybody is supportive of the local agenda, but we drove that out and it has gradually got worse and worse. We have fewer and fewer abattoirs. We would need to bring them back and we would need to incentivise and empower that more local, added-value way ahead, which—like Peter—I am very supportive of. At the moment we have totally diminished it. Can you remind me of your other point?
Dr Hudson
Q
Minette Batters: We should not forget how hugely important that point is, both on genetics and on welfare. The position on border control posts has been hard-fought, and is still at some risk as negotiations on the Northern Ireland protocol continue. It is essential that we prioritise breeding stock—it is a number of 30,000 and it is important for both sides, the UK and the EU. We must avoid any unintended consequences. I remain concerned, on the European side, that we get this in place. Things are moving forward, but it is not a done deal yet.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
Q
Minette Batters: I think Rob backed up what I said. It is not impossible to train a dog out of that behaviour, but once a dog has attacked a sheep it is extremely hard to turn that dog around and it would need supervision at all times with livestock to avoid that scenario happening again.
James Grundy
Q
Minette Batters: We have to bear in mind that if a dog has killed a sheep it is not the sheep that it has an affinity with; it is the fact that it has drawn blood. You then have to ask yourself what other damage it could go on to do, whether that be to other dogs, other animals in general, or indeed people. Once a dog has made an attack it is really in a very vulnerable place, for the damage it might go on to do.
James Grundy
Thank you for the clarification, which I think was helpful for the Committee.
The Chair
Are there any further questions from Members? In that case, I thank our witnesses: Minette Batters, President of the National Farmers Union; Peter Stevenson, chief policy adviser for Compassion in World Farming; and Rob Taylor from the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s livestock priority delivery group. Thank you very much indeed.
Examination of Witness
Rob Quest gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Rob Quest, the chairman of the Canine and Feline Sector Group, who is appearing virtually. We have until 3.30 pm for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself?
Rob Quest: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Rob Quest. I am the current chair of the Canine and Feline Sector Group.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Rob Quest: Interesting. I think our consensus would be that we would support dogs on a lead in an enclosed field with cattle. That is easier to enforce than the general “at large” wording that was there, but we understand that the main concern with worrying is dogs that get out of people’s houses and have no one anywhere near them.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Rob Quest: Yes. I think the guidance would be that if cattle come towards you and there is an issue, you have to let go of the lead or take the lead off the dog, because we understand the dangers there.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Rob Quest: Wearing my hat as chairman of the CFSG, and with my local authority experience of whoever knows how long, we would not support an exemption for rescue animals. The puppy issue is one thing, but we have problems with rescue animals as well.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Rob Quest: We get some of the same problems that you have with puppies—false paperwork, fake vaccine certificates and so on—with rescue dogs as well.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: We would support three. It is probably easier for the enforcers if there is just a blanket of three, but we understand that there are also issues if you limit it too much. When families are travelling, they may have more than three. We understand from the data that it is very unlikely that individual families would have more than three animals, but if more than one family were travelling they may have three. Overall, we think that three is a good number.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: Yes, we would support cats being treated in the same way as dogs, and the same rules applying to cats as to dogs. From an enforcement point of view, again that makes life easier. Families may have dogs and cats, and to have different rules confuses things, so we would support treating cats the same way. There is evidence that the number of cats being imported has increased. Certainly, through Heathrow airport our cat seizures have gone up over the last two years.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: We agree wholeheartedly with banning the import of cropped and docked dogs. My experience at Heathrow airport is of a big increase in the number of dogs coming in from the USA with cropped ears. As part of our remit, we also know that there has been an increase in breeds such as the Dobermann coming from Europe with cropped ears. We would fully support a ban on the import of those.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: We have a concern about dogs coming in through the ports and on the train, because the requirement of the checkers is just to check the microchip numbers. They do not get them out of the containers. If they are flown in through an airport—as I say, we get cropped dogs coming in from the US—they will generally be released into a kennel, and it is very easy to see that they have cropped ears, but we have a concern that they are not inspected fully by the pet checkers, which are usually the ferry company or the train company, when they come in on that route. That is something that we highlighted in our response.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: You need to have a visual check; otherwise, you will not know whether the animals have been cropped and docked.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: If they do a visual check, it is easy to tell that a dog has had its ears cropped. It could be a requirement to do visual checks, or the whole checking process could be handed over to officials, but that comes with another pile of issues.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: Resources would be the main one, and the priorities of officials at ports. If the checkers could be properly resourced and part of the official enforcement authority, that would be a good result, but we understand that issues of resources go along with that.
James Daly
Q
Rob Quest: Yes, the Canine and Feline Sector Group is made up of a wide range of organisations, such as Dogs Trust and the RSPCA, which you have already heard from, and the British Veterinary Association.
James Daly
Q
Rob Quest: Overall, animals in kennels under long-term official control are usually under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, rather than this legislation, but we would always advise that dogs should be in kennels for the absolute minimum amount of time. The sooner we can get them out of kennels and put in a proper home, the better.
James Daly
Q
Rob Quest: No, if a dog is not compliant on import it would have to go into one of the authorised quarantine kennels. The maximum time in those kennels to make a dog compliant is currently four months, and then it can come out. The minimum time is generally 21 days, but it may be less, depending on what subsequent paperwork turns up regarding that non-compliance.
Dr Hudson
Q
Rob Quest: No, we have not, but that might because, as you say, it is much more difficult to know if a cat’s claws have been taken out. We have not noticed that, but it is certainly something we could look for in future. As you say, it is very easy to see if a dog’s ears have been cropped when they are taken out of the container. We have not seen anything like cropped claws. I imagine that would be mostly from the States, because that is quite routine practice there.
Dr Hudson
Q
Rob Quest: I would agree.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Q
Rob Quest: We do not see many ferrets being imported, to be quite honest. We see literally thousands of dogs and cats, but a handful of ferrets.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, I thank Rob Quest, chairman of the Canine and Feline Sector Group.
Examination of Witness
Mike Webb gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Mike Webb, head of policy and public affairs at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. We have until 4 o’clock for this session. Will the witness please introduce himself?
Mike Webb: My name is Michael Webb. I am the head of policy and public affairs at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Mike Webb: It will probably not surprise you to learn that I am in the three animals per vehicle camp, for reasons similar to those explained by colleagues earlier in the day. We still are yet to bottom out the intention behind setting the limit at five. It is worth recognising that the change to expressing this per vehicle rather than per person is incredibly welcome. That will make a significant difference.
We are arguing in favour of three simply because we do not believe that it will affect dog owners to a significant degree, given that so few people own more than three dogs. There are different figures being banded around. We have used the Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association figures, which say that 94% of dog owners have two or fewer dogs. That means that by extending it beyond three we would not capture too many legitimate dog owners, whose lives we certainly do not want to make difficult.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Mike Webb: It is a legitimate concern, although where I had some concern from the information from Brittany Ferries this morning was how many of the people travelling with more than three dogs in their party are a dog owner with two dogs and another dog owner with two dogs. Actually, four dogs in a car is quite a lot. How many of them are people who are passing those dogs off as their pets when, in fact, they are not? That is exactly what this law is trying to stop.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Mike Webb: Yes, given the loophole that was expressed earlier. We run an academy at Battersea that is focused very much on working with rescues, both domestic and international, to try to improve standards. One of the things we are working on is trying to prepare as well as we can for the advent of this legislation. My feeling is that most people recognise that it is necessary and that, if there were to be an exemption for rescue dogs, a significant loophole would be open to abuse. So for the time being at least, we would agree with that.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Mike Webb: I think the issue with cats at the moment is that although the trade is perhaps less lucrative and less well known or understood than with dogs, we know that it is increasing. We have seen a steady increase in the number of cats brought into the UK over the last five or six years. The number we have been quoting is an estimate from PDSA that suggests 48,000 cats were brought into the UK between the start of the pandemic and May of this year. That is quite a sizable increase on five or six years ago, and it is continuing to grow. Our view is that the Bill puts forward some really sensible and welcome provisions for dogs, and it just makes sense to extend those to cats. This is a really good opportunity to significantly improve animal welfare. By extending some of these measures, particularly around pregnant cats, this is a great opportunity to improve animal welfare across the board, not just for dogs.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Mike Webb: Clearly, the Bill is trying to strike a sensible balance. We share the concern of some others that some of the definitions currently in the Bill perhaps muddy those waters a little. There is no need for some kind of blanket ban on off-lead walking. At the same time, however, if people have a reasonable suspicion that there is going to be livestock in the area, it is absolutely essential that they keep their dog on a lead. From our perspective, this is about people’s livelihoods. Dogs should not be walked off-lead in areas where there will be livestock present.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Mike Webb: We welcome the seizure powers in the Bill, because if people are bringing animals in for a less than reputable purpose, ultimately there is no reason why those people should have those animals back. However, there are still a few areas that we feel need ironing out. In particular, with the move towards border control posts, which I believe are due to be operational from January, what happens if someone, either innocently or otherwise, takes their dog to the wrong place? One assumes that there will be adequate kennelling facilities at the designated border control post for animal movements, but what happens elsewhere? Our concern is that people might be given the dog back and told to return whence they came, thus exposing the dog to a hazardous journey. On how the imports system will continue to operate, we think the Bill makes some pretty sensible proposals. We hope that in some areas greater clarity will come out during Committee stage and in further scrutiny.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, I think that we are good at identifying problems, but solutions are sometimes more difficult.
Mike Webb: If I may propose a solution on the imports idea, it seems to me that there is a great opportunity for partnership working here. Obviously, border control posts, the police or Border Force, will only want to keep kennelled animals for a period of time. It seems to me that what they will require is partners to move those animals to thereafter. There is a strong and very dedicated network of rescue centres around the country, so we would encourage Border Force, for example, to get to know their local rescue centre, which might have kennelling space that they are able to help them with.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Mike Webb: In a perfect world we would have one easy-to-access database, but we do not live in that perfect world and we are unlikely to. Ultimately, these are commercial entities and it would be very expensive and complicated to get back to a position of there being only one microchipping database for dogs, and that is before it becomes compulsory for cats, which we expect in the coming months. It is really essential that there is one simple, easy-to-access place that vets can visit to find out which database is holding the information on the chip they scanned, rather than having to go through, I think, 13 currently compliant databases—plus however many non-compliant databases. If there was one simple portal with the capacity to access the different databases that vets need, that would surely save them a whole lot of time.
Dr Hudson
Q
Mike Webb: Not yet, but it stretches credibility to think that it is not going to happen eventually. As we see more and more animals coming in at the border with relatively little checking, and certainly no visual checking, it seems only a matter of time. This is already a consistent worry for rescue organisations, as you can imagine. When we see an animal that causes any sort of suspicion, we separate it into our isolation kennels. That is not a particularly nice experience for the dog, but happily so far every time that has happened we have done the necessary blood work and it has come back with nothing to worry about, but we have to remain ever vigilant.
Dr Hudson
Q
Mike Webb: I think it would provide the public with greater security and confidence in the animal that they are bringing in. We remain somewhat sceptical of whether people are as aware as they might be of the risk of animals that they bring in.
Dr Hudson
Q
Mike Webb: Yes, and we certainly see people who are unaware of behavioural issues with animals that they have bought that come into Battersea. We have seen that increasingly throughout the pandemic. We are seeing a greater proportion of our intake of animals that have particular behavioural problems. It may well be that over time we see the same with health problems too.
Dr Hudson
Q
Mike Webb: Yes, but they are still fairly small numbers. I looked it up this morning. Six years ago, in 2015, we had only one animal with cropped ears, and last year we had 12. They are still fairly small numbers, but that is how these trends work. We see this time and again with rescue centres. Trends tend to hit us a bit later because of the nature of how we source animals. A lot of animals are given up to us for whatever reason. We do not necessarily perform the same role that a breeder would in the animal supply process. We tend to see trends a little later, after they have taken root. We monitor social media discussions and we are seeing an awful lot more promotion of animals with cropped ears. That is why we feel that the Government are acting in a timely fashion. Ultimately, these are mutilations that for a long time have been considered illegal in this country. If it is illegal for a UK vet to perform this kind of procedure, surely as a country we should consider it similarly illegal for someone else to do it and bring the animal into the UK. We would absolutely include the declawing of cats in that.
Dr Hudson
Q
Mike Webb: We do, and I would add that the definitions under section 5 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are actually quite clear that anything that is not of medical benefit to the animal should be considered an unacceptable mutilation under the Act. We support that and think the Bill strengthens the provision already in law very well.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I will thank the witness, Mike Webb, head of policy and public affairs a Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, on behalf of the Committee. Thank you very much. Our next session will be at 3.45 pm.
The Chair
We will now hear from Justine Shotton, president of the British Veterinary Association, who will appear virtually. We have until 4.30 pm. Could the witness please introduce herself for the record?
Justine Shotton: My name is Justine Shotton, and I am the president of the British Veterinary Association, which is the national representative body for veterinary surgeons in the UK.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Justine Shotton: Thank you very much for the opportunity to give evidence. We are absolutely in favour of the livestock worrying part of the Bill. We have one area of concern: there need to be safeguards in the Bill to ensure that any seized dogs are not held in kennels for long periods, because we are worried that that could affect their welfare. That is really our main concern in that area.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Justine Shotton: We feel that this is an area where we really need to focus on not just journey times but the overall experience of the animals. In some instances, the journey time may be shorter even if they are going abroad. We need to be mindful of the whole picture and the welfare impacts on the animals, so it is a bit more nuanced. We need to be really aware of not only the quality of the journey overall, but whether such things as time spent in markets or collection centres will affect the journey and will be considered in terms of the journey time. We need some tightening up of the welfare experience of animals in collection centres and markets. We also have a concern about how the Bill could affect rural areas, in terms of travel time from the highlands and islands. We want to ensure that a ban on exports does not oversimplify the issue when there are other welfare considerations.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Justine Shotton: Yes.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Justine Shotton: Yes, and we are very happy to support and feed in where we can.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Justine Shotton: We support a reduction in the number of animals per consignment in general, and the ability to restrict imports on welfare grounds, as in other areas that are detailed. If the reduction goes ahead, we ask for a tightly worded exemption, so that people relocating permanently back to the UK who have more than three pets can bring them all. We are concerned about that in particular, but we support measures in general that reduce the number of animals per consignment.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Justine Shotton: To some extent, the numbers are relatively arbitrary, but overall we feel a reduction is sensible. We have some key asks on the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets. We feel there should be mandatory pre-import testing, particularly for dogs with unknown health status coming from countries where we know that diseases that are not present in the UK are endemic. That is partly to protect our dog populations, but also to protect public health, because some of these are zoonotic diseases. We are seeing an increasing incidence of such diseases as Brucella canis. We would really like an amendment to be tabled on that.
Victoria Prentis
We have seen your evidence, and of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border asks questions about that frequently. Thank you; that is all from me.
The Chair
I am sure he will ask some more, Minister. We now go to the hon. Member for Cambridge.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: We have a very detailed annexe to our briefing, which we have sent you, so I refer you to that on specific wording changes. We are particularly worried about single-kept primates—how changes to the number of primates you might be holding could lead to primates being on their own, which has serious welfare implications for such a social taxon. If a licensing scheme is implemented, rather than a complete ban, then we want that to be as tight as possible, with very high standards, so that keeping primates really is the exception rather than the rule. That would involve experienced keepers, who would be part of international breeding programmes, for example, so the standards were at least as per zoos, if not higher. We know that local authorities will need support and resourcing to enforce this, and we can absolutely support vets, in terms of instructing them around the training that they require, and acting in their areas of competency.
There are a few asks on the detail. We feel that the licence length is far too long at six years, and want that brought down to four years, with inspections every couple of years. We also want a reduction in the rectification time from two years to six months, because two years is a very long time for welfare issues in primates.
A key concern around this part of the Bill is that it could be applied to other wild animals, and if that goes in there, there needs to be a caveat: species-specific needs should be considered and relevant stakeholders engaged before it can be applied to other species. It could work well with primates if we can get a few changes in there, but we do not think it is appropriate for it to apply to other species at this point.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: We would prefer a ban, unless the licensing standards are extremely high, so that licensing really is only for the occasional individual with legitimate reasons, where we can adequately ensure the welfare of those animals.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: We do feel that dogs should be on a lead. We do not want to discourage people from walking their dogs in the countryside. We know the welfare benefits for the dogs, as well as for their owners and their mental health, but we think it is appropriate to have dogs on leads when they are around livestock.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: I think we would have to engage with our stakeholders in more detail to see exactly what that looks like, but it is about ensuring that the welfare needs of animals can be met throughout the journey—a lot of injuries and welfare compromises happen around loading and unloading—and around being fit to transport in the first place. We want to ensure that anyone in charge of those animals at any point along their export knows how to meet their welfare needs. They need adequate veterinary-led training in that.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: I think it how it is applied depends on the country. There are a number of different tests for different diseases, but we would want to see those put on an import certificate that came with a dog that had been declared to be free of certain diseases via testing, and we would want to see adequate results from approved laboratories. That is the way it works for other diseases and other species, when it comes to imports and exports.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: Yes. We have a number of additional asks. For example, we would like the reintroduction of tick and tapeworm treatments for cats as well as dogs, and a reduction in the amount of time before animals—dogs and cats—come in for the tapeworm treatments. As a general rule, we think that the diseases are slightly different, depending on the species and the country, but ideally pre-import testing would apply to both groups.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: Absolutely. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which is our regulator, uses the term “specialist” to refer to vets who have achieved the highest academic level of qualification, which is a diplomate status in a certain field. When they have achieved that level, they can be called “specialist,” so it is a particular term in a professional context.
For example, I am a zoo vet. I have worked in a zoo for seven years and I look after primates on a daily basis, but I am not a specialist. I could be considered an expert in primate care, I suppose, and I should be considered one of the people whom it would be appropriate to have look after primates and ensure that their welfare needs are met, but I am not a specialist. That is why we would like that wording changed.
Dr Hudson
Q
Justine Shotton: That is to protect not only those animals, but animals in the UK. Certain parasites can be detrimental and harmful to human health, so we want to ensure they are eliminated before those animals come in. The timeframe is important in terms of the elimination. There are also some nasty tick-borne diseases. This would protect not only our pets but public health, and the timeframe is important because of the lifecycle of those animals and the timeframe in which they breed infection.
Dr Hudson
Q
Justine Shotton: Absolutely.
Dr Hudson
Q
Justine Shotton: I would say that the numbers are relatively low. Very few zoos have staff vets—they are mainly the big zoos—so we are talking about just a handful of people. Some of the smaller zoos and wildlife parks use local vets with a level of expertise that would be appropriate. It is a relatively small number. I could not give you an exact figure, but off the top of my head, it is probably fewer than 50.
If there was a licensing scheme, rather than a complete ban, we would need to make sure that since the licensing standards were so high that really it would apply to a very small number of animals, so that the vets would be able to service those animals and look after their welfare needs appropriately.
Dr Hudson
Q
Justine Shotton: Again, it depends on how many licences would be granted. From my personal perspective, zoo vets can be very busy, and they may not, in terms of biosecurity, want to be going off site to look at primates in other areas and other collections. I think we need to be mindful of that. There are vets in practice who could service a need if appropriate, but it would need to be relatively small numbers. That is my personal opinion.
Dr Hudson
Q
Justine Shotton: Unfortunately, we do not know the exact numbers. I never came across that when working in private practice. In small animal practice, I never saw a primate as a pet. There was a local wildlife park that had primates, and it was looked after by a zoo practice.
I think it would be hard to define the numbers exactly. We worked with the British Veterinary Zoological Society on our response, and it did not know the numbers either, so I think they are small. However, there could be places where there are legitimate keepers who keep primates as part of, for example, breeding programmes that may be helpful for international conservation work. The numbers would be low, but that could be a legitimate reason.
Dr Hudson
Q
Justine Shotton: Exactly. I know personally from my zoo experience that that is the case for other species. We have worked with organisations that have that, and it could be a useful place for animals to go and to come from the zoo populations. Most zoos only trade as part of international breeding programmes with other zoos, but there is a small place where this work could be needed when it comes to primates.
Dr Hudson
Q
Justine Shotton: Clarity is really important. On primary or secondary legislation, we do not have a particular view, as long as it is robust and enforceable. We feel that if there is secondary legislation, particularly around imports of pets, perhaps some of our asks around tick and tapeworm treatment could go there; it would be even easier to amend that. On gestation, in an ideal world, we would support the ban of importation of any pregnant bitches, but we understand how difficult that is, particularly without ultrasound scanning, which is why either a proportion of gestation or, when you visually assess it, around 42 days seems appropriate. It is not the ideal situation, but it would be impossible to enforce below that.
Dr Hudson
Thank you. Hopefully the Minister and the Government can help us through this process. It is really helpful for us to hear that your view is that this important stuff needs to be done in either primary or secondary legislation, but on some of these issues, such as the health status of animals, it needs to be done quickly, so we can stop diseases coming in and stop cruel practices. Hopefully the Government can work with everyone on that.
Dr Evans
Q
Justine Shotton: Our main concern is that these are under review, and we and other stakeholders have not had sight of the new standards. We also do not know whether there will be a transition period. That is really important, particularly for some of the smaller, less resourced zoos and particularly after the pandemic. Zoos have really struggled during the pandemic, even the very big ones. We absolutely support higher welfare standards in zoos, but we need to be mindful that if there are changes that will take time, zoos need time to make those changes, otherwise there could be welfare harms to those animals, particularly with the challenges we are seeing around exporting zoo animals at the moment, which is very difficult. They could go into other areas of trade where their welfare may be compromised. Our key ask is around having sight of the new standards and a legitimate transition period for those smaller zoos in particular.
Dr Evans
Q
Justine Shotton: Again, I think we would want to see what it entails. Personally, I work for a conservation-focused zoo and I think conservation is really important and absolutely a key part of why zoos should exist in society. However, in terms of our comments on conservation more broadly, we would want to see what that would look like before we could comment, how achievable it is and exactly what it would cover.
Dr Evans
Q
Justine Shotton: Yes, probably more can be done in both of those areas in terms of communicating to vets and other members of the zoo community about welfare and what zoos can do. We do a lot of animal welfare assessment, for example, in zoo animals. We have published a lot on that in our zoo in particular. I think sometimes the public do not realise the breadth of what goes on in good zoos to maximise animal welfare, so I think public education is vital as well.
Olivia Blake
Q
Justine Shotton: In terms of breeding in general, if there was licensing, that would have to be very tightly worded around breeding itself. It calls for neutering in another part of that wording, and we want to be really clear that that also includes contraception. Primates live in these social groups, and if you neuter rather than contracept them, sometimes that can really disrupt the group dynamic. There are a lot of methods of safe contraception available that experts in primate medicine would be able to advise on, which is why, again, it fits in with the annual health check that we are recommending. The vet would be able to have that conversation with the primate keeper and discuss the appropriate method of contraception or, in possible circumstances, breeding if it was part of a legitimate reason for breeding.
Olivia Blake
Q
Justine Shotton: Yes, as I mentioned, making sure that the welfare issues of single kept primates are met, so that if there is a change in the number of primates that people are proposing to keep, it is assessed on a case-by-case basis. We want to make sure that the licensing and rectification periods are reduced, as I mentioned already, and that there is adequate resourcing for local authorities as well as training. The other thing we would be calling for under a licensing system is a centralised database of primate keepers, so that it is easy to access and see where all these primates are being kept.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, I extend our thanks to Justine Shotton, president of the British Veterinary Association, for joining us.
Examination of Witness
Mike Flynn gave evidence.
The Chair
We move straight on to our next witness, Mike Flynn, who is also joining us virtually. He is the chief superintendent of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Could you please introduce yourself?
Mike Flynn: I am Mike Flynn, chief superintendent of the Scottish SPCA. I am delighted to be here.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Mike Flynn: I am absolutely delighted that you have worked with the devolved Administrations. If certain parts of the Bill are not UK-wide, that will open up loopholes for everyone. Take cropping dogs’ ears, for instance: if it is not banned in Scotland, they would import them into Scotland and transport them down to England. It really has to be UK-wide.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Mike Flynn: On the importation of dogs and the import and export of livestock for further farming, I think you are on the right track. I have spoken to people in the Scottish Government and they are happy with that—I believe a consent motion has already been laid before the Scottish Parliament. As I said in my previous answer, if there is one part of the UK that is exempt, it will open up loopholes and encourage people, especially in the puppy trade, to exploit that loophole.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Mike Flynn: That is way above my pay grade, I am afraid. That will bring many problems, but it is something that the UK Government and the Administrations will have to work through.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Q
Mike Flynn: I think what David Bowles of the RSPCA was referring to was in the protection of livestock and dogs attacking and worrying sheep, the definition of on the lead or under close control. We argued at the time that if a dog is not on a lead in an area where there is livestock, it is not under close control. Your Bill states they must be on a lead less than 1.9 metres long. I have been in this job for 34 years, and I have never known an occasion when a dog has attacked a sheep when on a lead, because you have physical control. Some say a dog always comes back and if they whistle it will do that, but that is not the case. Some dogs will just run blind. They may have walked past the same sheep day after day for years, and then one day it could just go. The devastation is horrendous for the farmers and the animals involved.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Thank you. I think we have answered the “lead or no lead” question.
James Daly
Q
Mike Flynn: Yes. It was in the original 1953 Act. The Member’s Bill that Emma Harper put through last year updated it to include a wider definition of livestock—ostriches, llamas and all that kind of stuff—and to increase the penalties up to 12 months’ imprisonment and a £40,000 fine.
James Daly
Q
Mike Flynn: The case that Paula referred to earlier of a spaniel did take just under four years to conclude in court, because it kept getting postponed, for various reasons. Thankfully, the law in Scotland has recently changed—as recently as a month ago. Up until then, in any case that we took—because we are a reporting agency to the Crown Office, authorised by the Scottish Minister—we had to keep the animal as a production if the person refused to sign it over, until the conclusion of the criminal case. It was that or we had to take a civil case against them, which could cost up to £60,000. So that led to animals being kept in our kennels. We have the best staff and best kennels in the world, but it is not welfare friendly to keep a young dog, which is a two-year-old adult by the time it gets out of there. The law has recently changed the emphasis: animals that are seized in certain circumstances can now be disposed of after a three-week period. We have to issue a decision notice on the person, stating our intention is to dispose of the animal. “Dispose” does not mean destroy; we can rehome it, but it can be put down on veterinary advice. The person can appeal that decision, but that would be very, very unlikely.
This was originally designed for the big puppy farming cases, because we have had cases where—well, the biggest that I think we had was one where we seized 109 dogs, and they were in our care for just under 18 months. First, it is very bad for animal welfare; secondly, it is a horrendous cost to a charity, because we never get that money back. I think the biggest cost we have had was from a case with 58 dogs that had been in for 23 months. It works out at £15 per dog per day—that cost us £440,000.
There is a compensation element. W have to notify the person in the event that they lose the case or the sheriff decides otherwise. They are compensated for the current value when the animal was seized. In that individual case, the maximum compensation would have been £25,000, so we would have saved £415,000 and protected animal welfare.
James Daly
Q
Mike Flynn: Well, there is provision to recover reasonable costs, but sometimes the people that we deal with—I am sure the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals experiences the same—have no financial means. Where is the punishment in £5 a week for the rest of their life or something like that? If the animals are signed over, or with the new provision, we can get them into loving new homes a lot quicker and then it does not matter how long it takes for the criminal proceedings to commence. If Westminster has any power, I am sure the RSPCA would love you to introduce something similar down there.
Dr Hudson
Q
Mike Flynn: There must be several examples, but one that springs to mind is that until about nine years ago, when a consequential amendment to sentencing powers was brought in, somebody banned in England was not banned in Scotland. It was not UK-wide until that amendment came in, so people from Manchester and Liverpool who were banned were moving up to Scotland and evading the ban—I am sure there would be Scottish people doing the same. But the amendment closed that, so if people are banned in England and Wales, they are also banned in Scotland, and vice versa. So you have things like that.
Lucy’s law has been widely talked about, but there are loopholes in that. Somebody can say, “I bred it myself.” People who bring in pregnant bitches did not breed the dog, but they hand the bitch over when it gives birth. Let us be honest: a lot of the people we deal with are out-and-out criminals. I am talking about the puppy trade. They just use puppies as a commodity, and if they can find a loophole, whether it is through England, Wales or Scotland, they will find it and use it because the profits are so huge.
Dr Hudson
Q
Moving on to a different species, in the evidence we have taken today we have not covered horses and ponies. I see from your experience, Mike, that you have worked with all creatures great and small, and you have some experience in the equine world as well. The export of livestock in the Bill covers horses. We on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have taken evidence that not one horse has been legally exported to the EU for slaughter, but potentially thousands have been exported illegally. A lot of that comes from identification issues and people passing the animals off as going for competitions and suchlike. Do you feel that the Bill will help shut that loophole and improve the transport of animals so that horses move around only for legitimate reasons? Will the Bill help the equine world?
Mike Flynn: I do not see that it can do any harm. As you have just explained, a lot of the movement of these animals is illegal in the first place. You have to sign the horse out of the food chain, and that does not happen. You just need to go back to the horsemeat scandal many years ago. Our main port in and out of Scotland is Cairnryan, which has a direct link to Northern Ireland. There was a regular trade of equines going from Scotland to Northern Ireland and down into southern Ireland. Where they went after that, I have no idea. Anything to deal with that will help. The legal issue in my opinion is exporting for further fattening or immediate slaughter.
Dr Hudson
Q
Mike Flynn: There is a whole other debate on that being taken up by mainly the British Horse Society and World Horse Welfare about the identification of equines and how it can be forged and misrepresented and all that kind of stuff. So, yes, you have got that.
On the dogs side, you heard earlier—from Paula, I think it was—about how there might be dogs coming in from Romania and the lack of border checks. We have had animals coming in. We are not swamped with them like down south, but we do get quite a large number of dogs coming in from Romania being delivered directly to people in Scotland. The last case is pending prosecution. The paperwork had been checked by APHA, the Animal and Plant Health Agency, at the port of entry, but nobody had actually looked at the dog, and that dog should never have been transported. It was in an appalling condition.
We have stopped a lot of puppy dealers and agents. They have microchip certificates and they have six dogs, but there is no guarantee—we have proven it many times—that the microchip certificate with a number on it matches the dog that is in the car. That could be, “Yes, I’ve got this dog, but it has not been vaccinated as it was claimed it has been.” The Scottish Government are bringing in another provision about rehoming a vanload from outwith Scotland into Scotland. If it is a dog that comes in from a European country, part of the condition is that it must be checked by a UK-registered veterinary surgeon before it is delivered to its final destination because of the standards of veterinary care elsewhere, and the number of forged documents that come in is phenomenal.
Dr Hudson
Q
Mike Flynn: What we have picked up is the number of very disturbed dogs that are coming in. A lot of the ones from Romania come from alleged kill shelters. They were just strays, rounded up off the street, so you have a lot of behavioural problems. There are a lot of health problems with the dogs. I have not come across one that has infected another dog here, but there are huge welfare issues, which could be easily addressed by a physical examination as they come in.
Dr Hudson
Q
Mike Flynn: Without question, because as I say, they are not being checked. Because there are not enough pups in the UK we have a massive problem with them coming over from Ireland, but there are not even enough of them at times, so they are bringing them in from Romania, and charging people vast sums of money to get a dog delivered to them—in one case, at midnight on a Saturday, and in an appalling condition. You have all the veterinary fees that you are incurring. You have the welfare of the individual dogs. All that could be avoided through sensible legislation such as this, and proper enforcement.
Ben Lake
Q
Mike Flynn: I know that David Bowles from the RSPCA voiced a concern earlier. From my 34 years’ experience—we do not directly deal with this, but we assist the police quite often—I have never known a dog that has attacked or savaged a sheep that has been on a lead in the field with its owner attached to it. It is very rarely intentional. The majority say, “My dog would never do that,” until the day that it does. The dog runs wild. Some people say, “But the sheep was still standing when I got my dog back.” They do not realise that it has aborted about an hour later. From the trauma, they can die of stress an hour after you have regained your dog. If your animal is on a lead, it cannot attack something; it is as simple as that.
The Chair
Mike Flynn, chief superintendent of the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, thank you very much indeed for your time.
Examination of Witness
Dr Hazel Wright gave evidence.
The Chair
We move on to our final witness of the day, Dr Hazel Wright, senior policy officer at the Farmers Union of Wales, who is joining us virtually. We have until 5.30 pm. Dr Wright, please introduce yourself for the record.
Dr Wright: My name is Dr Hazel Wright, and I am the senior policy officer for the Farmers Union of Wales.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Wright: Yes; they are huge and longstanding. The Bill is well overdue in that regard. We have repeat attacks and offences on farms. A National Sheep Association survey said that one farm had been hit up to 100 times in one year. The financial and emotional consequences of that are huge. Surveys from North Wales police, which was the first police service to record the data, gave estimates of about 300 or 400 attacks in about three and a half years, which is one every three days. That is just in north Wales. In a system that has low profitability and low margins, those kinds of attacks are make or break for some businesses, especially those that have built up their breeding stock over long periods. They have managed to build businesses up from scratch. Some of them are having problems with succession, for example. It is a massive issue, which I cannot be overestimated in the current climate.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Wright: Everything that I say from now on is caveated with the fact that the Bill is incredibly welcomed and is good news. However, I do not think it goes far enough to define under close control or proper control. We need to have a situation where dogs are on a lead in fields near or adjacent to livestock. I notice that the Bill says that if somebody believes their dog will return “reliably and promptly” then it is under close control, but I honestly do not believe that anyone can be confident that that would be the case when their dog is in a field near livestock. Dogs are natural predators—it is in their genetic make-up. I feel that the Bill needs to go one step further and ensure that dogs are kept on a lead.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Wright: No, I do not, actually. Because there are repeat offences, I feel that the seriousness of this in the past has not reached the critical level to be a deterrent for people. If we want it to be a deterrent and we want it to work, the fines have to be serious. They have to relate to the amount of financial devastation that there has been on farms. We are talking about tens of thousands of pounds of losses on some farms—and those losses are just financial, and do not include the other indirect losses with breeding stock, and so on. We have to take it seriously, and the fines should be increased.
Ben Lake
Q
Dr Wright: The length of “1.8 metres or less” seems reasonable. I cannot see a problem with that in and of itself. As you say, the Bill says “under proper control”, which is an arbitrary statement. It depends on the confidence of the dog walker, which may or may not be real-life situation confidence. I think that many people assume that their dog would come back when, actually, in that situation, it would not. It is a lack of understanding. I know I am reiterating what I said before, but it is so important for our membership to get this part right. I do not have a problem with the 1.8 metres, but I think dogs have to be on a lead when near or adjacent to livestock.
Ben Lake
Q
Dr Wright: According to the National Police Chiefs Council’s data, that is about 80% of attacks. Obviously, keeping dogs on leads would combat many of those issues.
First, the powers in the Bill for DNA sampling and evidence gathering are essentially crucial for that. Even when dogs are with dog walkers, the attack might not be witnessed and the dog might not be in the field when the farmer approaches it. We need to have a situation where police can gather evidence. Quite often, the police are aware of the dogs in the area that are the likely culprits of an attack because they tend to be repeat offenders.
The other thing we need to look at is mandatory reporting of those attacks, which allows you to look at regional approaches that might be different in different areas. For example, if you have data that says it is dogs escaping from dog walkers in one area, but it is dogs that have escaped from home in another, you can tailor your mitigation measures based on that data. Without data, you waste resources because you use them ineffectively.
The FUW ran a Your Dog, Your Responsibility campaign last year, which asked members of the public if they knew where their dog was when they were not at home. We talked about appropriate boundaries in fencing for those animals because we know, from the data, that 80% of dog attacks occur when the owner is not around. We would not have run that campaign without those data, so we have to start making sure that we record such information in order to adopt regional approaches and, as I say, to have the mitigation measures match where the problems are.
Ben Lake
Q
Dr Wright: You could do it through the civil courts, but that is very onerous and difficult for the farmer. In the past, it has been very difficult to prove which dog was responsible for an attack. I am hoping that the new powers offered to police under the Bill—as opposed to the 1953 Act, which basically left them powerless—will give people more confidence in forces dealing with the attacks, which will bring more farmers forward in order to start proceedings against individuals. I would like to see that it is easy, simple and straightforward, and not expensive, for a farmer to do that. At the moment, farmers are victims of a crime, but they are not being recompensed for that in the way that maybe another victim of a crime would have support.
We need a support network for farmers who have gone through this ordeal. We have 12 regional county officers who provide support to our members. Official and proper support is also needed to deal with the emotional and financial impact, and to signpost farmers to how they go about launching legal proceedings. We should not expect them to take the burden upon themselves, especially at a time when it could be very difficult financially for them.
James Grundy
Q
Dr Wright: Yes, I do think that. I also think that that is part and parcel of poor ownership. We talk about dog attacks, but a lot of this is actually to do with the irresponsible ownership of a dog and how a dog has been allowed to behave in the past. I am certainly not an advocate for saying that every dog that attacks sheep should be destroyed—of course not. Every case has to go on its merits, but given the data that I have seen and the conversations that I have had, it tends to be repeat offenders in many cases.
James Daly
Q
Dr Wright: We have had a lot of conversations with members about how things happen with livestock worrying after the horse bolted, because, in effect, you are trying to find the culprit of an attack that has already happened. I do not think that we will ever get to a situation whereby we can prevent every single attack—that is absolutely correct. I am hoping that the Bill will increase the seriousness of the offence, so that people understand that even if they are not present at the time and there are no witnesses, a police officer could knock at the door with a warrant, take a DNA sample from the dog and compare it with DNA collected at a crime scene. You do not have to have been around at the time of the offence.
I am hoping that intelligence within communities will help as well. When you do not legitimise something and say that it is just one of those things, when legislation comes in and says, “Actually, we’re taking this seriously, because this is a very important issue,” the fines, the powers for police, the enforcement and the investigation display our strength with this and how important we feel it is, and that will feed back to communities where there have been problems and help the police in their ability to do something about it. In some respects, I know it is after the horses have bolted, but I am hoping we can close the door to stop any more horses escaping. That is the analogy I give to farmers, because as you say, you would never solve it 100% of the time. What we need to get to is that when dog owners are thinking about their dogs, they understand that there are serious consequences to this.
There is a responsibility on industry to communicate that as well. I happen to sit on the Animal Welfare Network Wales, which has a lot of animal charities on it as well, and I have been using their groups to disseminate to their members—the people who would not necessarily speak to the union but would speak to, say, other animal charities about how to look after their dogs. So there are ways and means to get the intelligence out there to those people who maybe would not have known about it before. As you say, we are not going to get everyone, but I am hoping that by committing what we have done so far to it we can potentially stop future attacks.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Q
Dr Wright: It is interesting, because we provide signs for members but we have been constrained by what we can and cannot say legally, because we cannot say that dogs must be kept on a lead near livestock. What we say is, “Please keep your dog on a lead” near livestock at the moment. I am hoping, with the Bill, assuming that I get the change that I would like to see, which is that they must be on a lead and not just with this arbitrary “proper control” definition, that members can put more enforcing signs up that are a bit more important than the ones they put up before. When a dog walker sees a sign that says, “Please keep your dog on a lead”, it is quite gentle, is it not? If the sign says, “It is a legal requirement for your dog to be on a lead in this field”, it is a different conversation. I would like a farmer to be able to do that. Without the Bill allowing them to do that, you put them in a position where they are still having to just be polite, and I would like them to be backed up by legislation to do that.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Q
Dr Wright: That is a really important point and I am 100% certain that members are receptive to that. It is just that they have felt at the moment that they have not had the power to say the things they have wanted to say. Of course, members who have approached members of the public in a field with a dog off a lead have sometimes been victims of verbal abuse, and many of my members have said they are just not prepared to engage with dog walkers under those circumstances, because they have not been able to say, “You must do this.” I feel that is what we have been missing before.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, on behalf of us all, I thank Dr Hazel Wright, senior policy officer at the Farmers Union of Wales.
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
Photographic Reconnaissance Unit: National Memorial
(3 years 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
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking in the debate, in line with guidance from the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to take a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming onto the Parliamentary estate, which can be done either at the testing centre or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering or leaving the room.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered a national memorial to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I have a confession to make today: until seeking this debate, I knew little to nothing about the Royal Air Force’s Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. I knew little to nothing about the heroism, the bravery, and the contribution of the men who flew in the PRU and can quite legitimately claim to have turned the tide of that war against evil in Europe between 1939 and 1945.
I was—I admit this now that the debate has been granted and we are all gathered here today—doing a friend a favour. Luke Graham, the former MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, first sought a debate on this campaign for a national memorial to the PRU back in 2019. Sadly, in December of that year he ceased to be the MP for that constituency. When asked if I would carry the baton forward and continue this campaign in Parliament, I heartily agreed.
To be clear, I do fully believe in this campaign. I fully believe that the PRU deserves a national memorial. However, this campaign only became real to me yesterday when, by chance, following a phone call to my office from a Mr Menzies of Conon Bridge in the highlands Scotland, who had read an article on this debate in the Sunday Express, I was put in touch with Mr George Pritchard of Northampton—one of four living veterans of the PRU still with us .
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend’s peroration so early; I am sure it will be excellent. However, I did not want to allow the opportunity to go by without expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend for his reference to George Pritchard, who is a resident of Duston in my constituency of Northampton South. At a magnificent 97 years old, he is a lively, active, living tribute to the outstanding work that he and his fellow PRU personnel undertook in defence of our freedom. This early intervention is my opportunity to say that my hon. Friend’s campaign has my full support.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I heartily agree. It was in speaking with George yesterday who, as my hon. Friend says, at 97 remains as sharp as a tack and very much on the ball, that this campaign was really brought home to me. George flew Mosquitoes over enemy lines to gather crucial intelligence for the allies, and he made clear to me just how important this campaign is. There will come a time, which is sadly fast approaching, when there will be no veterans of that great conflict left with us. Therefore it lies with us—we who are free to stand in this Parliament today, in this country, on this continent, because of the actions of men like George—to commemorate and remember them.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate today, and in this week of all weeks, when the nation will fall silent as we remember all those who fought and did not return; those who did give their tomorrow for our today, 378 of whom flew with the PRU and 143 of whom lie with no grave. They really were the few.
Early in the morning of 5 March 1942, 22-year-old Alastair “Sandy” Gunn of Auchterarder in Perthshire climbed into his Spitfire AA810 at RAF Wick, taking off into the cool, blue dawn with one instruction: to get eyes on the Tirpitz. The Tirpitz was the sister ship of the Bismarck. She had escaped unscathed from an RAF bombing raid on Wilhelmshaven where she lay in build and, since evading the Royal Navy, local intelligence and RAF aerial searches for months, the pride of the German fleet had been seen in Trondheim harbour.
It was a beautiful late winter morning—one of those seen only over the North sea—giving Sandy no cloud cover whatsoever. Not that that mattered very much, because the Luftwaffe, from their listening station in Kristiansund, had scrambled two Messerschmitts. As with all photographic reconnaissance aircraft, Sandy’s Spitfire was stripped of guns and plating, which were replaced with cameras and enough fuel for long-range missions. Hon. Members will agree that that takes incredible bravery—to fly those most dangerous of missions, over enemy lines, with no armaments whatsoever with which to defend oneself. Diving down, the Messerschmitt found Sandy’s oil system but, as it closed in, blinded by spray, could not hold course and broke away. The second Messerschmitt, pressing home the attack, sprayed its 20 mm cannon into Sandy’s wing, bursting a fuel tank. The Spitfire was on fire, falling fast.
Sandy ejected, and parachuted into the snow-covered mountains. Two Norwegians climbed to meet Sandy with skis—and with all the daring resolve of their underground resistance. His Spitfire, the AA810, remained on the mountainside. Badly burned, Sandy was in no state to attempt a cross-country escape across occupied Norway. Instead, he handed himself in to the Germans. Interrogated for 21 days, Sandy held his resolve, and held his silence, before he was sent off to the infamous Stalag Luft III. Punished for a first, failed escape, he then set himself at the slow and steady work of tunnel Harry and, alongside his fellow inmates, made his great escape on 24 March 1944. Looking to find neutral Sweden, riding on the axles of freight trains, he and Flight Lieutenant Casey were one day’s walk away from the Baltic coast. Sadly, they were caught and, given up to the Gestapo, interrogated. Sandy was brought outside and shot, on Hitler’s direct orders.
Sandy was one of over 1,000 who flew with the PRU and one of over 378 who fell, giving the PRU the second-highest attrition rate of any unit in the entire second world war. However, in delivering over 20 million images of enemy operations and installations—from Norwegian fjords to the Burmese jungle; for D-day, Amiens and the Dambusters raid; first spotting the V1 and V2—the PRU opened up the terrific German war machine cog and piece apart, and gave a sight of victory. If that sounds familiar to the Minister, it is because the first camera systems were fitted into the Spitfires and Mosquitoes at RAF Farnborough, in his constituency, and the men who did so taught at the RAF School of Photography nearby.
The Photographic Reconnaissance Unit was formed on 24 September 1939. Throughout the second world war it operated, as I said, in highly dangerous, clandestine photographic reconnaissance operations in all theatres of operation.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and for his tenacity in bringing it back post 2019. He mentioned Sandy Gunn and his bravery. Sandy Gunn flew from Wick during that campaign, but he was briefly at Leuchars. Given that the hon. Member is describing the history of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, it would be remiss of me not to detail the fact that it was based at Leuchars airfield from late 1942 to early 1944. I hope that the hon. Member will join me in seeking to honour the memory of all those men and to ensure that all air bases are recognised in the memorial.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I completely agree: all the air bases from which the PRU flew should be commemorated, and all the men who flew, from whatever airfield, should be commemorated if we are able to succeed in getting a memorial erected in a prominent position in the country in the coming years.
In 2019, Mr Tony Hoskins recovered Spitfire AA810—Sandy Gunn’s Spitfire—from the Norwegian mountainside where Sandy had ejected all those years ago. Tony Hoskins established the Spitfire AA810 Project to restore the plane to flight, which it is hoped will be completed by 2023. The project also established the Sandy Gunn Aerospace Careers Programme, which was launched at Cranfield University on 27 September 2019—what would have been Sandy Gunn’s 100th birthday.
In 2019, the Spitfire AA810 Project began its campaign to establish a national memorial to the PRU and the brave men who flew for it from wherever they were based. This year, the project established an advisory board, with representatives from industry, academia and both Houses of Parliament, to drive forward the establishment of a national memorial to the PRU. The young pilots who flew for the PRU performed their duty in highly dangerous conditions, without armour and alone. The work of the PRU and the intelligence it gathered were crucial to allied planning and strategy throughout the war. They were critical to the success of countless operations, saving the lives of thousands of servicemen in the process.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I apologise to you, Mr Davies, and to the Minister that I cannot be here for the whole debate because I am about to attend a remembrance service in the Guards’ Chapel. No disrespect is intended.
May I pay a family tribute? My late father, Reginald Francois, was on a minesweeper on D-day. There were many reasons why Operation Overlord succeeded, but one undoubtedly was the ceaseless courage of the unarmed PRU pilots who flew multiple missions to successfully reconnoitre the Normandy coast so that the allied invasion could be best planned. From the son of a D-Day veteran, I offer my hon. Friend unstinting support for his campaign, and thank him and his predecessor for having the courage to raise it in this place. We wish him Godspeed.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and that very personal family tribute. His father, like many, served in the second world war, and they were only able to do so and complete their missions because of the bravery of men like Sandy, George, and all the others who flew with the PRU, giving Allied Command the intelligence that they required to navigate their way through incredibly difficult situations. I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his tribute and his contribution, and for his support for the campaign to get a national memorial established.
The PRU’s pilots and the reconnaissance aircraft in which they flew are, sadly, largely unrecognised in history. Their story, their success, and their sacrifices are, as I have said, mostly untold. Furthermore, the highly dangerous conditions in which the pilots of the PRU served meant that it experienced a tragically high death rate. Although it was a relatively small unit, the PRU suffered horrendous losses from its inception in 1939 through to the end of hostilities in the far east in 1945, with records now showing that—as I have said—its survival rate was the second lowest of any allied aerial unit during the entire war.
Some 1,287 men have so far been identified as having flown operational photo reconnaissance sorties, but only 29% of them have been confirmed as having survived the war. Even more tragically, due to the solitary nature of their work, 12% of those who flew are still missing to this day, their final resting places unknown and unrecorded. A permanent national memorial to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit would be a fitting tribute to those pilots, navigators and observers who undertook those dangerous missions in the service of our country, and would serve as a de facto headstone for those who served in the PRU but have, as yet, no known grave.
So, I come to the ask—except, exceptionally for Westminster and, I am sure, to the relief of the Minister, I make no financial ask of the Government. I simply request that the Minister meets with the campaign for the national memorial, and gives support to the efforts to establish a national memorial in an appropriate location in London: a memorial to the 1,287 men who flew for the PRU; to the 378 who did not return; to the 143 who lie with no grave; to Sandy and all those like him; and to George and the three others, the last of the few.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Davies. First, I thank the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) for leading such an important debate, and for the way in which he expressed his request to the Minister. I am sure that the Minister’s response will be positive and helpful.
This important debate reiterates the necessity of remembrance, coming up to Remembrance Sunday. I, along with others in this Chamber and outside of it, look on Remembrance Sunday as one of the most special days of the year. There are other days in the year that are incredibly special, but I always enjoy—if that is the right way of putting it—Remembrance Sunday, because it cements for me the sacrifice of all those who have given so much for us.
Were it not for this debate, I would not have known all about what happened with the PRU; I would have been aware of it, but not with the intensity with which the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine has expressed himself today, with such knowledge and power.
This morning, along with others—some have done so yesterday; others will do so today—we will lay a wreath or a cross in the remembrance garden just outside this building. The sacrifices that the hon. Gentleman referred to took place during the second world war, but it is good to remember the ongoing sacrifices of others.
At this time of year, most of us partake in the wearing of poppies to celebrate and remember those who gave their lives for our future and, for many of us, the war effort is collectively remembered.
At times it is right and proper that we remember the essential cogs in the war machine that did tremendous work in fighting off the violence and intrusion that threatened to damage our nation. The PRU was one of those essential cogs. When the United Kingdom perhaps felt like it was standing alone against Germany, the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit was there. I am thankful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a reason to delve into history and learn new facts to teach my grandchildren to let them know why we have a democracy. We have freedom and liberty today because of those people and what they did. I am also thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who passed on some detailed information from a constituent. That informed me—indeed, enthused me— about this debate today.
The PRU was formed in 1939 and its operations were considered highly dangerous. Its purpose is well known in this place. It was the first foray into clandestine photography. The unit was ordered to capture images of enemy operations and installations during the war. The success of the photographic units is well documented. It was because of the unit’s operations that lives were saved, as referred to by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and towns and cities were kept safe. The intelligence gathered was highly secret and was used by all Britain’s armed forces. The unit took over 20 million images. Information and images were not collected, as they could be today, by typing a code into a computer to task a satellite to move. Innovative secret cameras were carried and used by people who gave their lives to get the right shots. It was about getting the information in the right way and then getting it back home. Collecting so many images was nothing short of incredible.
I love, as I suspect others here do, the History Channel, where one can see stories of how the photographs were taken, and where the terrible danger that the unit was in is clearly illustrated. When one sees the grainy photographs, one wonders what they could prove or achieve, but the photographs were well taken and the detail was examined. We all know, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, some of the things that happened—for example, the flying rockets and the launching pads that were photographed and then ultimately destroyed.
From its creation in the early stages of the war, the unit suffered horrendous losses, which should be remembered and respected. The survival rate was proportionally the second lowest of any aerial unit in the entire war. Approximately 500 men became casualties, and 144 of them have no known grave. That highlights how this debate should be warmly welcomed across the House, as all forms of remembrance should be.
It is no secret that I love this history of this place—we probably all do—and the history of the surrounding streets here in London. The intelligence provided by the PRU that was used in the Cabinet war rooms—now the Churchill War Rooms located underneath the Treasury a short distance from where we are today—was instrumental in the planning of major operations such as D-day and the Dambusters raid, the monitoring of major shipping movements by such as the Bismarck and Tirpitz, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, and the locating of the VI and V2 rocket launching site at Peenemünde, among other major intelligence successes throughout the war. A monument is a proper thank you to the memory of those who flew the Spitfires and to the large numbers of pilots and personnel who never returned.
The hon. Gentleman described how the Spitfires had no armament and no protection. They had extra fuel and were—it is perhaps not fair to use this term—sitting ducks for the Messerschmitts that came to take them on. The conditions under which the men carried out their work were dangerous, with an extremely high death rate. Some 1,287 men have been identified as having flown operational photo reconnaissance sorties, but only 29% of them have been confirmed as having survived the war. We have heard today of at least two, to which the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) referred. Furthermore, 12% are still missing to this day, with no known identities or closure for families. We all know how important it is to get closure. Having come through the tragedy of Northern Ireland and the terrorist campaign, I often think of the disappeared and those families who have perhaps never had somewhere to lay their loved ones to rest, which is important.
Two notable organisations have been set up in memorial to the PRU: the Spitfire AA810 Project and the Sandy Gunn Aerospace Careers Programme, to which the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine referred. They commit time to encouraging young people to partake in the engineering sector and to informing them of possible careers and employment opportunities. There are many ways of fighting a war, but they are all cogs in the big machine that make things happen. The service is entirely free to participants. I encourage young people to take advantage of that experience, and I urge the Secretary of State for Education to raise awareness of that type of practical training for young people. When the Minister responds, perhaps he can tell us whether there has been any engagement with Education Ministers about doing our best to ensure that those opportunities are taken up.
Spitfire AA810 Project emphasises that it makes no financial ask of the Government, which—let us be honest—is important in this day and age, so the Government can easily endorse the proposal. That is not to dismiss their contribution; it is important that the Minister responds and understands what we are trying to achieve. I have no doubt that he will recognise the importance of that work.
I urge all hon. Members to wholeheartedly support the cause and the effort to establish a national memorial in an appropriate location in London. The efforts of all the contributors deserve respect and remembrance. The risks associated with the duties undertaken by the men of the PRU must be acknowledged. I thank the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine again and the Backbench Business Committee for ensuring that the PRU is remembered and thanked. I fully support what he said, and I am convinced that the Minister will also endorse it.
I hope that the Minister will come back with a positive response. We recognise that the PRU played an integral and important part in the battle against tyranny and against the evil of Nazism and fascism. We sometimes stood alone, but the PRU was a cog in the wheel of the victory that we needed.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. In responding for the Scottish National party, I offer my full support on the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who really is a friend, has brought to Westminster Hall. He achieved a rare thing: he has educated the House. Although I am sure that we all read our briefs before the debate, I certainly learned more from his speech, for which I thank him.
I acknowledge the work of the former Member for Ochil and South Perthshire in first raising the issue when he was a Member. It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I do not necessarily share his disappointment at the result in that seat, as I was one of the main speakers at the big fundraiser to achieve the result that we did, but I do acknowledge that Luke Graham is a good person and he was right to bring the issue forward. For those of us who are acquainted with the Scottish Conservative group, it is no surprise that the issue is still alive with them, as it should be.
It is an anomaly that there is no national memorial and I am sure that can be rectified. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the PRU managed to gather more than 20 million images that were used to secure the victory in the war that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) ended his remarks on. It has been mentioned that those images, which were vital to our success, were gained with no protection whatsoever. Mr Davies, can you imagine being sent over enemy lines under those circumstances? But they did not blink. They got up and did the job that they were asked to do. As the hon. Member for Strangford rightly said, they were a vital cog in the machine of the war effort.
In return, the PRU had one of the lowest survival rates of any unit during the war, with over 500 casualties, more than 140 of whom—I believe 144—have no known grave or marking. I am sure we all agree that that is wrong and is something we can resolve, not least because this is possibly the only debate I have attended in Westminster Hall where there is no financial ask of the Minister from whom we hope to hear positive responses.
I want to commend the work of the Spitfire AA810 Project to secure that national memorial. I pay tribute to their tenacity, their resolve, their imagination and their determination to ensure that that national memorial is forthcoming. As has been mentioned, all of us are sitting here wearing red poppies, rightly so at this time of year. This is a useful time, not just to reflect on those who were part of that war effort, as we have done this morning, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, but to recommit ourselves to the values that created that world we inherited, and that the men of the PRU and so many other parts of the war effort secured for us.
That is a useful thing to do, given geopolitics right now, particularly in Europe. We must always have robust political debate, discussion and disagreement. I suspect, Mr Davies, that you and I do not agree much on those affairs. What we do agree is that we must remember and be grateful for those who sacrificed their lives to ensure that we could have the kind of exchange that we enjoy. What better way to recognise the efforts of the PRU than to rectify the injustice of having no national memorial by securing one in a fitting place?
I offer full-hearted congratulations to my hon. Friend and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place. I hope that we can hear of positive developments from the Minister.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and his predecessor on securing this important debate. I am pleased to respond on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
British intelligence services are widely recognised for playing a major role in the allies’ world war two victory. Every element of our armed forces made an incredible contribution to our safety and security, and they have done so throughout our history. Although much of that is recognised, the incredible work of some parts of our armed forces is less well known. One of those is the aerial arm of our intelligence services, as has been highlighted this morning, not least by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
During the second world war, our aerial reconnaissance technology advanced at a truly remarkable pace. Having previously lagged behind Germany on aerial photography, Britain developed a world-beating capability to capture and develop images to provide detailed intelligence. The PRU took a total of 20 million photographs throughout the war and the rapid advance in intelligence played a tremendous role in the allies’ success. From helping to identify day-to-day enemy movements to informing D-day tactics, the intel provided saved countless lives.
Through their lifesaving work, the young pilots who flew our planes put their own lives at great risk. Not only did they operate in temperatures reaching minus 50°, at altitudes rarely reached before the second world war, but their Spitfires were stripped of any armour or protection. In those dangerous conditions, if engaged by enemy aircraft, the pilots had only their skill and bravery to rely on. With survival rates exceptionally and tragically low, every member of the unit deserves to have their bravery commended and their place in history cemented, not least those who were never afforded the dignity of a headstone.
As we begin this year’s remembrance week, there has never been a more suitable time to ensure that the Spitfire AA810 Project has the full support of the Government and the House for a national memorial. People born in 1939 will reach the age of 82 this year. As more time passes since the second world war, we must ensure that we never allow our collective memory to fade. My grandfather, who served in the RAF during the second world war, would have been 100 years old this year. I am incredibly proud of him and his contribution, just as I am of everyone who put their life on the line and fought for our liberty. I know that many in Barnsley, like me, are committed to keeping alive the unique stories of our family members and our town, and the part they played in the war effort, whether that is paying tribute to those in the RAF who lost their life after their aircraft suffered tragic fire, taking pride in the contribution of our miners to the war effort, who completed a job so vital that they were exempt and sometimes forbidden from military service—well known as the Bevin boys—or remembering those evacuees who found refuge in our town, escaping the blitz in London and Sheffield.
We cannot keep this history and the tradition of remembrance alive without education, memorials and opportunities to truly understand what happened. When Experience Barnsley, our local museum, hosted an exhibition featuring a Spitfire like those used by the PRU, the town hall said it was the busiest it had ever been. That success shows that although it might be difficult for many of us to imagine what war must have been like, memorials can bring those experiences to life for future generations. That is why, on behalf of the Labour party, I am pleased to support the campaign for a national memorial to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am delighted to be here, answering for Her Majesty’s Government. It has been a positive and interesting debate. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) on securing the debate and speaking so movingly about the remarkable and innovative role of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for their collegiate and constructive contributions. I am pleased that our former colleague Luke Graham, the former Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, was also referenced.
I was particularly moved by the way that my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine referenced first George Pritchard. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South was able to chip in and report back that George Pritchard, a veteran of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, is now 97 years old and in good order, living in Northamptonshire. I note that he is one of four veterans alive today who flew Mosquitoes in the PRU.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine also referred to the remarkable and moving story of Sandy Gunn, who, while reconnoitring the area for the German battleship the Tirpitz, was shot down in 1942. His story of being shot down, rescued by Norwegians and then imprisoned in Stalag Luft III, thereafter to escape and be brutally murdered by the Gestapo, encapsulates and reminds us of the remarkable scale of bravery of the members of the PRU. It is also a fitting time, as we move this week into remembrance. So I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the remarkable story of Sandy Gunn.
My hon. Friend knows—he referred to the fact—that the Ministry of Defence cannot finance or commission new memorials. However, in answer to his question, it is, of course, a wholehearted yes. I would be delighted to meet him and others as soon as is practical—very soon, I hope—to discuss that further. I note the remarkable tenacity and energy behind the campaign, and I think I am safe to judge that it will undoubtedly meet with a positive response, especially among the wider public.
As we move into the formal week of remembrance, today is a good opportunity to dwell on the remarkable story, broadly, of the PRU. From humble beginnings as a single semi-civilian flight in 1939, it grew to encompass 10 squadrons, and as the second world war progressed, elements of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit were based in the UK and overseas and became a remarkably valuable strategic asset. Throughout the war the intelligence that they gathered was crucial; it spanned the continent, stretching from the tip of Norway to the south of Italy. As with modern-day aerial reconnaissance, the main role of the PRU was to identify enemy formations and facilities, and to conduct battle damage assessment. The PRU’s ability to assess critical sites, before and after artillery or aerial strikes, allowed commanders to adapt their strategies accordingly. It was unique and innovative; it was also a force multiplier.
Beyond providing a unique picture of what was happening on land across Europe, the intelligence that the PRU gathered was also crucial to maintaining the safety of Britain’s convoys at sea. They had a key role in locating German capital ships; we have mentioned the Tirpitz—sunk in 1944—but they also had a key role in locating the Bismarck, which was sunk in 1941. These were prize targets, the destruction of which had a huge and strategic impact on the ability of the German military machine to dominate the high seas; it was a singular advance in the ability of our forces to fight back.
Perhaps even more significantly, but not immediately obvious, was the PRU’s hugely important contribution to the combined Anglo-American strategic bombing campaign. Among many other achievements, they identified the many German oil refineries and synthetic fuel facilities right across Europe; the destruction of those effectively grounded the Luftwaffe and rendered German Panzer divisions immobile during the latter stages of the war—having a hugely important strategic impact on its course. The PRU’s reputation for identifying vital targets was built on successes such as the location of the German research facility in the Baltic. That allowed the Bomber Command attack that significantly delayed the development of the V1 flying rocket and the development and dispatch of the deadly V2 rocket. Similar to the strategic bombing campaigns, that saved countless lives.
While a huge amount of technological advancement has taken place since the second world war, what is key to the legacy of the PRU is the human capability at the heart of all of this. Since the second world war, intelligence gathering from the air has remained a critical asset of the Royal Air Force, and our armed forces as a whole. In 2002, the intelligence elements from a number of RAF Squadrons were combined to form the Tactical Imagery-Intelligence Wing; you could say that where the PRU had pioneered that capability, the TIW formalised it. In 2016, the Wing became the 1st Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing—the 1st ISR Wing. Its role today demonstrates the ever-increasing close collaboration we have with our allies; the output of this Wing is used right across a number of platforms for both the UK and our NATO allies.
As the 1st ISR Wing has continued to grow, we are reminded that it is a vital element of the Royal Air Force’s ISTAR capability; Members will know that means intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine will know about the build-up of our P-8A maritime patrol aircraft capability at the Royal Air Force station in Lossiemouth. That demonstrates our ongoing commitment militarily to Scotland, as well as our plans to boost our ISTAR capability, particularly with the introduction of the E-7 Wedgetail to that station. If my intelligence is correct, I think he may be visiting that station later this month. The P-8A is strategically hugely important; it is a powerful tool in our anti-submarine operations and a valuable enhancement to the UK’s search and rescue capability. The E-7 Wedgetail is a significant advance on its predecessor, the E-3D Sentry, and is capable of simultaneously tracking multiple airborne and maritime targets, heightening the already considerable abilities of our combat air platform and warships.
As we track the amazing technological advances that have taken place since the second world war, there is no doubt that a pivotal and pioneering role was played by the PRU. While technology has evolved, it is pertinent that many of the analysis methods refined during the war are still used today. Hugh Hamshaw Thomas, a leading paleobotanist at the time, employed his talents to examine the black-and-white photographs that the pilots sent back. I thought that was most interesting. Those methods are still used extensively on modern black-and-white electro-optical images, which remain widely used. We have come a very long way in technological terms. The Royal Air Force not only has colour imagery and moving imagery on the Typhoon and Reaper platforms, but those skills developed during the second world war are still entirely pertinent.
We have reflected on the remarkable human skill and courage of the PRU pilots. It was fitting that a number of colleagues mentioned the fact that these individuals were entirely unarmed when they were flying into enemy lines. They used a remarkable combination of speed and altitude, and they depended on their guile, agility and raw wits to stay alive. That was extremely high-risk, and they were extremely courageous. Today, despite technology having advanced, that same human spirit is alive in the Royal Air Force in 1 ISR Wing. They are highly trained, dedicated people, who are trained to analyse imagery in real time. We need look no further for the modern inheritors of the tradition of courage from the early days of the PRU than the young men and women in the Royal Air Force of today in 1 ISR Wing.
I thank all Members for having contributed so positively and interestingly. I reindorse my response to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and I look forward to meeting him very soon. I am also grateful to him for calling the debate at a very fitting time. As we move this week into the formal element of remembrance, we remember the remarkable sacrifice of those who have gone before us. The debate has been a very fitting tribute to the sacrifice that we have discussed today in the form of the activities of the PRU.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his response to the debate and for his acknowledgment of the campaign. I also thank him for agreeing to meet me and other members of the campaign as we seek to get a memorial established.
As I said in my speech, it is an opportune time to be holding this debate about a national memorial, because the few are getting fewer. We are very lucky to be the last generation to have known and been lucky enough to speak and listen to the men and women who fought in that great conflict of 1939 to 1945 to free our continent from the tyranny of the Nazis and fascism. It falls to us to carry the stories of their bravery and heroism. That greatest generation enabled us to continue to speak and debate freely, as we do every day in this place, in this country and to a large extent across the continent of Europe.
The campaign to get a permanent memorial to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit—a unit that is so little understood and known about, but which deserves so much more recognition—is, I believe, one way that we can carry that torch forward and take these stories on to a new generation. We must never forget those that fell for our freedoms. We must never allow the stories of the great deeds done for our own sake by that greatest generation to fall into distant memory. I thank every one of my colleagues for their contribution. It is very much a cross-party campaign, and I thank everyone for coming along and contributing. I thank the campaign for bringing the cause to my attention and the nation’s attention, which they have done by getting the debate today. Thank you, Mr Davies, for chairing the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered a national memorial to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit.
East to West Chesterfield Cycle Route
(3 years 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
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking in the debate, in line with guidance from the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to take a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate, and this can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering or leaving the room.
I will call Toby Perkins to move the motion and the Minister to respond. As I am sure they both know, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered East to West Chesterfield cycle route.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I welcome the Government scheme that will help towns such as Chesterfield to develop new cycling infrastructure. I am very much in favour of creating a strong cycling and walking network in Chesterfield and encouraging cycling across the country. I would not want anyone to characterise my contribution to this debate as being anti-cycling or as being a dispute between cyclists and motorists.
It may surprise you, Mr Davies, that I am an occasional cyclist myself, and many of my constituents will have seen me whizzing past them down the hills, or agonisingly plodding up them. In Chesterfield we have better cycling infrastructure than most towns of our size, but I support Derbyshire County Council’s restlessness to improve that infrastructure. I am very aware of the limitations of our current network.
Many positive benefits come from further investment in cycling and walking, which can transform our communities. Cycling and walking are great for physical health, for mental health and for our communities. Being able to get out and about means that people can actively participate and engage with their community, which helps to address social isolation and loneliness. Having more people cycling and walking will also do wonders for our local shops and town centres. People who are on foot or bike are less likely to travel as far and are more likely to shop local.
At a time when the high street is under pressure and local shops are closing, we should be cognisant of the powerful rejuvenating effect that both cycling and walking can have on the backbone of our economy. In the week following the start of COP26, when the whole world comes together to discuss how we can combat climate change, we need to acknowledge the environmental benefits of cycling.
This does not mean that we should blindly support each and every project, or that new cycling infrastructure does not need a proper consultation process, which is what people are concerned about when it comes to the east to west Chesterfield cycle route. The controversy surrounds two aspects of the plan. To the east, without any consultation, the council closed Crow Lane, an extremely steep hill that links the Riverside estate with Brimington Common, in May 2020. Initially for an 18-month period, the council now plans to make the closure permanent. This proposal was part of Chesterfield Royal Hospital’s plan to encourage people to cycle to work. One of the critics’ key objections to the plan is that closing Crow Lane adds to the traffic on the A632, which is exceptionally busy and is the only route to Chesterfield Royal Hospital. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was driving up the A632 on a Friday and had to pull over, with traffic stood still in both directions, as an ambulance attempted to wind its way down this busy road in an emergency. That is a common situation.
To the west, the proposal is to narrow the extremely busy A619, which links Chesterfield with Bakewell. It is the main road to Manchester and, particularly in the summer, is thronged with visitors to nearby Chatsworth House. We always encourage people to visit our beautiful town and to avail themselves of the Peak district and wonderful Chatsworth. We want visitors to linger in our town centre, not in a traffic jam on the A619. It is important that we do not have proposals that only add traffic to an already fairly congested road.
I have been contacted by countless residents, those who have been most affected by the proposed route, who did not receive any consultation letter or information leaflet from Derbyshire County Council inviting them to give their views. Residents living on the roads off Chatsworth Road, where the biggest impact of the route will be, and many of the people in the Brimington Common area, who are affected by the ongoing closure of Crow Lane, have reported to me that they have had no contact from the council.
I wrote to residents last week, when I secured this debate, to ask whether they had been consulted. Within 24 hours of receiving that letter, 70 residents had already come back to me. Those opposing the scheme outweighed those who supported it by a ratio of about two and a half to one. It is by no means a universal opinion—there are many people who support the route—but in all the consultations I have done, there is a majority against.
In June 2020, along with Stuart Brittain, the then councillor for Brimington, I sent a survey to residents of Crow Lane. We received 283 responses, 63% opposing any closure and 27% supporting it. In response to the letter that I sent last week, both constituents who supported the route and those who opposed it told me that they had never received a consultation letter. Those concerns cannot be dismissed as just disgruntled people unhappy with the suggested route. Even those who support the route say they have never been consulted on it.
The lack of contact from the county council has resulted in my constituents feeling that the proposals are being forced through, while excluding the views of the people who will have to live with their impact. The county council claims that 4,000 letters were sent out and that a small number of people responded, with a majority in support. It is implausible that 700 people should sign a petition against it; that 283 people in Brimington Common alone should respond to my survey, the details of which I sent to the county council; that 70 people should respond with 24 hours of receiving my letter this week; yet only small numbers responded to a consultation that the county council claims to have conducted.
I am sure the Minister agrees that a consultation that fails to hear the views of the people most affected should not be considered legitimate. It feels to me and many of my constituents as if the council made the decision on the route that it wanted and gerrymandered the consultation to match the decision it had already made. That means that alternative routes and legitimate concerns about the current proposals have been wilfully ignored.
Before I go into more detail about the merits of the individual decision, it is relevant to discuss the politics, in the hope that it might make the Minister think twice about it. The east-west cycle route was an issue in the Derbyshire County Council elections in 2021. It pains me to inform you, Mr Davies, that the 2021 Derbyshire County Council elections were a considerable success for the Conservative party, which ended the election with eight more councillors than it started with.
The main variation to that Tory success was in Chesterfield, specifically in the divisions attached to the cycle route. We went into the elections with the two wards most affected having one Labour county councillor representing them and one Conservative county councillor. The Labour councillor in Brimington was elected but the Conservative councillor was not, I think uniquely among Conservative councillors. Both publicly and privately, he has blamed this ill-conceived cycle route for his defeat, and I share his view on that.
I also share the view of local councillors such as Councillor Dean Collins in Brimington that Derbyshire County Council had been provided with better options than using Crow Lane to the east or Chatsworth Road to the west. On that western route, a cross-country path from Somersall to Holymoorside has been in the pipeline for many years and still makes the most sense, in reducing the impact on residents and providing a much more pleasant rural and safer cycling route. The only obstacle to that route was landowners who required clarity about liability for prosecution and upkeep of the route. The county council seems to have used those legitimate concerns as a rather flimsy excuse to scrap the more rural and sympathetic route and instead pursue the idea of narrowing the A619.
Alternative routes have been suggested to the east, which would mean that Crow Lane could be reopened. The route could use the far less developed Dark Lane, instead of Crow Lane, which would help to cut commuting times for my constituents in Brimington and reduce traffic on other heavily congested roads.
The proposed scheme could have an adverse effect on emissions in Chesterfield. The closure of Crow Lane has forced cars on to busier roads such as the A632 which, as I mentioned, serves the Royal Hospital, as well as affecting people wishing to travel to Bolsover and other districts to the east. The road is already blighted by slow-moving traffic. The narrowing of Chatsworth Road is likely to cause traffic to become heavily congested, with the potential for large heavy goods vehicles having difficulty passing one another on that road. I fear that the gains made from encouraging more people on to their bikes could be undermined by the added traffic jams, which would mean that cars remain on Chesterfield roads for far longer than before.
Chatsworth Road is one of the busiest roads in Chesterfield. It is the primary route between the M1 and Manchester for those travelling between the south and the north-west of England. It has a significant amount of HGV and commercial traffic, and is vital for Chesterfield businesses. On Chatsworth Road, as is standard with many urban A and B roads, hatched-line medians are in place to improve safety. These enable vehicles to move towards the median, away from emerging traffic, to overtake parked vehicles more easily and maintain a better distance from the pavement, and they aid safe right-hand turns. The proposals put forward by Derbyshire County Council will see the median removed and the available road narrowed. With such large vehicles using Chatsworth Road, I am concerned that these measures will make it considerably more dangerous.
The plans also reduce the number of pedestrian crossings and they do not extend across the proposed cycle path, creating an additional risk to pedestrians. I share the concerns of many constituents regarding the danger and the traffic congestion that will be created at the junctions along Chatsworth Road. These problems would be avoided with the proposed route through Holymoorside to Somersall Park. I am anxious about supporting any scheme that has the potential to increase the risk to pedestrians, cyclists and all other road users. The county council needs to listen to constituents and provide answers to their concerns. We need a plan that is right for Chesterfield, not just one that meets the funding criteria decided in Whitehall.
The residents who have contacted me are generally people who are very much in favour of improving our cycling infrastructure, but they have genuine concerns about the safety of the proposed route along Chatsworth Road, the ongoing unfair disruption caused by the Crow Lane closure, and they worry that the plans will lead to more congested roads.
The closure of Crow Lane, which the council wishes to make permanent, has been handled in a completely unacceptable fashion, which has led to widespread anger among constituents in the Brimington Common area and in Calow in the Bolsover constituency. Those constituents now have longer commutes to work, spend more time sitting in traffic and have added difficulties on the school run. The closure of the road was initially proposed during the first lockdown; we were informed that it would be for three weeks. It was a measure that I supported to help staff in the heat of the pandemic to be able to cycle to work and avoid public transport when travelling to work. I have to say that cycling up Crow Lane to the back entrance of Chesterfield Royal Hospital is not for the faint-hearted—it is a very steep hill. When surveys have been done, there are very small numbers of Royal Hospital staff cycling to work. Without any consultation or communication with residents, Crow Lane’s three-week closure turned into an 18-month closure and it now appears it is going to be made permanent.
The voices of residents and the representations from local councillors and me have been completely ignored, and the closure has remained in place without any real discussion. We have seen the same disregard for local representatives in the county council’s consultation. The county council emailed me to ask about my availability for a meeting to discuss the cycle path proposals. My office provided details about my availability, but instead the county council picked a date when I was out of the country. We contacted the county council again to make it clear that an alternative date would be needed. The local ward councillors—including the leader of Chesterfield Borough Council, Councillor Tricia Gilby, who is a huge supporter of cycling—and the local county councillors also made it clear that an alternative date was needed. There was plenty of time for an alternative date to be found, but the county council went ahead with the meeting, entirely disregarding local representatives. That feels like a deliberate attempt to silence the voice of local people.
I therefore call on Derbyshire County Council to pause their plans and re-engage with residents in the affected areas, so that their views are heard and fully considered. I have also raised a complaint with the local government ombudsman regarding the consultation and the decision-making process. I would appreciate the Minister’s views on this situation and his saying whether or not he is satisfied that a scheme funded by his Department is going ahead without the views of local residents being heard, apparently with a deliberate attempt to diminish the voices of those who oppose it. Does the Department for Transport have any guidelines for local authorities on the minimum standards required for the consultation process, in order that they can access funding from the Department’s scheme, and will the Minister investigate to see whether Derbyshire County Council’s consultation adheres to those minimum standards?
Three years ago, I pressed the Department for Transport to provide ring-fenced funding for local authorities for cycling and walking infrastructure, so of course I welcome any such funding that we can secure in Chesterfield. However, I am absolutely determined that such funding should not be set up so that projects are designed to fit centrally developed criteria, rather than being based on what cycling infrastructure is best for an individual town and its people.
It has been suggested that the funding that the Government have brought forward in this respect would not be available for a rural scheme and is only available for urban schemes. If that is the case, I would be interested to hear from the Minister why that is so.
Would either the Minister or his colleague—the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who is responsible for cycling infrastructure and who, I understand, was unable to attend this debate; he very kindly contacted me to say that he already had a commitment to be in Saudi Arabia—be willing to meet me to discuss the funding scheme, the current proposals and whether other routes would qualify for funding, as well as the question that I have asked about the consultation process?
In conclusion, I do not want this debate to become one that pits cyclists against motorists, because the majority of my constituents who have contacted me support cycling infrastructure; they just have concerns about this particular route. Unfortunately, however, Derbyshire County Council’s approach has polarised opinion and left many of my constituents feeling ignored and disenfranchised.
With every major planning decision, there will always be people who remain opposed to it and remain angry, but if a proper consultation process has been followed, with every view given equal weighting, then at least people know that the process has been fair. I do not believe that Derbyshire County Council’s process has involved a fair consultation. That is a failure of process and of democracy, so I urge the Minister to do whatever he can to ensure that Derbyshire County Council pauses its plans and undertakes a proper consultation with my constituents. After that consultation, if DCC still presses ahead with its proposals, that will be fair enough, but at least the people of Chesterfield, particularly those most affected by these proposals, will have had their views fully heard and considered.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I start by thanking the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) for raising this important issue.
May I also say how happy I am personally to respond to a debate on cycling, because my constituency of Pendle is home to Hope Technology in Barnoldswick, which created the bikes used by Team GB at the Tokyo Olympics? My constituency is very proud of its record on cycling, and I echo much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of supporting cycling.
Before I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s specific concerns about the east-west cycle route in his beautiful constituency, let me say a few words about Government support for cycling and walking, or active travel, which I am pleased he supported in his speech.
We really are at a now or never moment when it comes to reducing emissions and stemming the rise in global temperatures. As transport is our biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, we need more people to change their travel habits, choosing cleaner, more sustainable and healthier ways to get around.
We must also recognise that the profile of walking and cycling has never been higher. The pandemic has fundamentally changed our relationship with travel. We went from a car-dependent economy, where a quarter of all journeys by car were under 2 miles to one where active travel has ended up flourishing. Cycle rates went up by 46% in 2020 compared with 2019, and a million more people started walking for leisure. Travel restrictions obviously played a part in that, but there was clearly pent-up demand for active travel, which existed before the pandemic brought about the conditions for a release valve. That is why I am confident that we can achieve the Government’s ambition of ensuring that half of all journeys by 2030 are cycled or walked.
We are building on the momentum we have seen over the past 20 months by investing an unprecedented £2 billion over the next five years, delivering new walking and cycling routes, wider pavements and safer junctions across the country. We have already issued 400,000 bike repair vouchers, delivered £18 million of Bikeability training for children and parents and helped extend the Walk to School outreach programme to 1,000 primary schools. Step by step, we are giving people the confidence to see active travel as a practical means of transport, rather than just a form of leisure or sport.
To maintain progress, we need the help of local authorities. We need bold and ambitious proposals that deliver real change for active travellers. That means properly segregated cycle lanes, street architecture that encourages people to walk, and measures that treat cyclists as vehicles, not pedestrians. Last month we doubled down on our commitment to active travel. The spending review set out a significant uplift in funding through the £5.7 billion city region sustainable transport settlements, which gives transport authorities the flexibility to plan and deliver long-term improvements to cycling and walking.
We are making it easier for local authorities to make these changes. Our recent changes to the highway code will help with this, as will our support for school streets to enable more children to walk to school. We are also updating our design guidance for streets to ensure local authorities make decisions that prioritise people and places over motorists. This design guidance, which will help create more sustainable, healthy and active communities, should be published next year.
I realise that in recent months there have been a lot of negative comments about measures to support active travel, but opinion surveys regularly show that the majority of people support these improvements to their local communities. Two thirds of respondents to a Government-commissioned survey were supportive of reallocating road space to walking or cycling across towns and cities in England. Making our streets more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists is without doubt the right thing to do, because it is not just active travel that benefits; we all do. More people cycling and walking means fewer cars on the road, less congestion and an economy that is not held up by gridlock. It means cleaner air and less pollution, creating healthier communities and better spaces to live and work.
I will now turn to the specific scheme in Chesterfield, about which the hon. Member spoke so eloquently. One thing that can be said for sure about any meaningful cycle lane is that it will have its supporters and its detractors. Reallocating road space in favour of people cycling inevitably means less road space for other modes of transport, so getting the design right is critical. There is always a balance to be struck. It is not for central Government to design cycle lanes in Chesterfield—or anywhere else for that matter. Local authorities are the ones who must decide where the balance of the interest lies, taking into account the statutory network management duty guidance, which we have made available.
The guidance makes clear that in many cases a traditional consultation exercise may not fully capture local views. The results of traditional consultations can sometimes be deceptive, because respondents tend to be those who are most passionate, either for or against the scheme in question. That is why genuine and thorough engagement with local people is so important, including through the use of objective methods, such as professional polling, to provide a genuine picture of local opinion, rather than listening only to the loudest voices.
The Department has always said that local authorities should seek the views of a representative sample of the local population as a whole on their proposals. Our own public opinion surveys suggest that there is often a silent majority who are either in favour of or neutral about new cycle lanes or low traffic neighbourhoods. That is not the impression that we get from media coverage or from traditional consultations that tend to polarise the debate. Of course, local authorities must listen to the opponents of schemes as well as those in favour, and must make sure that any changes make sense. No meaningful active travel scheme is ever universally popular. Local authorities should not expect or require universal support for their schemes, and should avoid allowing any group to exercise a veto on them.
Given all the benefits of active travel, it has one of the best returns on investment for the Government. The economy, the environment and public health all receive an active travel dividend. Cycling and walking must be a core part of that future. Schemes must be properly designed to the appropriate design standards, and local authorities must listen to the views of local people. Getting more people walking and cycling is the right thing to do, and the pandemic, for all its disruption and devastation, has given us a golden opportunity to make a lasting change. Let us not waste that chance.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said today. I am more than happy to meet him, and I know that the Minister with responsibility for cycling, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), will be happy to meet him. I am also sure that the hon. Gentleman’s council has heard his remarks loud and clear. I thank him once again for calling this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
SMEs: Access to Finance
(3 years 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
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I remind hon. 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 also remind hon. Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre 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, and make sure that mobile devices are turned off.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to finance for small and medium sized enterprises.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful that this timely debate was granted. Following the UK’s departure from the European Union and our ongoing economic recovery following covid-19, the UK has a unique opportunity to shape a diverse financial services sector that serves a fair, robust and competitive economy with small and medium-sized enterprises at its heart. Research by the Industrial Strategy Council, economists at Sheffield University and the International Monetary Fund concluded that the UK is the most regionally imbalanced country in Europe when it comes to the productivity of its economies.
It is worrying that the job opportunities and livelihoods of most UK citizens depend on where they live. We know that skills and talents are spread throughout the country but opportunity is not, and so it is with SME finance. The Prime Minister has rightly made levelling up his key mission, examples of which I am already beginning to see in my constituency, with the establishment of the Darlington Economic Campus providing life-changing new opportunities for the Tees valley. I and my Conservative colleagues look forward to the levelling up White Paper and the opportunity that it will provide to right some of the imbalance in our country that has perpetuated under Governments of all colours for decades.
How does regional inequality relate to small businesses up and down the country? As Mark Carney said when Governor of the Bank of England in his speech at the Lord Mayor’s banquet for bankers and merchants in 2019, SMEs across the country face a £22 billion funding gap. A recent inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), my good friend, found that SMEs report significant problems in accessing finance.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I recently met representatives of the British Business Bank, who ran through their full range of offerings, including optional learning modules for entrepreneurs, which are an excellent way to mitigate lending risk and provide entrepreneurs with the knowledge they need to be successful. Does he agree that that is an excellent initiative and should continue to be funded and expanded?
Peter Gibson
There is a lot to be learned in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and his APPG have been championing much of that learning, and I am sure the Minister has his listening ears on today.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s 2019 paper, “Equity Finance and the UK Regions”, confirmed that finance is too concentrated in London and the south-east, further increasing regional disparities, with London and the south-east of England receiving 67% of all equity deals and 75% of all invested funds in the UK between 2011 and 2017. The UK’s current financial system, which has historically been dominated by four large, shareholder-driven banks, is not fit for purpose in helping to address this issue. While a Back Bencher, my neighbouring MP, the Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), said in his report, “A New Era for Retail Bonds”, that
“limp competition is likely to result in less availability of credit, higher prices and poor service for SMEs.”
SMEs tend to take smaller loans, and by nature tend to be riskier borrowers. The profit-maximising big four banks will steer away from lending to this demographic, especially when they are able to lend to larger, more profitable and secure companies.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a good point about smaller loans. Last year, the Government—BEIS and the Treasury—did a fantastic job in rolling out SME finance schemes during the crisis. When those schemes were launched, the banks were initially only interested in lending amounts above £25,000—sometimes above £50,000. We were told there was no demand for smaller loans. Bounce back loans then came along and have been a huge success—£50 billion of lending. It is important we get money right to the bottom—to the smallest SMEs that are so critical.
Peter Gibson
I know how much work my hon. Friend put in last year to ensure that bounce back loans were available to small businesses, and I pay tribute to him for that effort.
Moreover, big banks tend to require large amounts of financial data from businesses when assessing their eligibility for loans. For a new or small company, this data simply does not always exist, but should that prevent them from being eligible for finance? SMEs need to be assessed on their business model and their economic potential in local areas and their wider potential contribution to society, not just on existing balance sheets—qualitative rather than quantitative. Yet this process is too time consuming for banks, preventing SMEs from crossing the first hurdle.
Due to the concentration of finance within large, shareholder-driven banks, SMEs are often not even aware of alternative lending providers and think that rejection from a big bank is a life sentence with a lack of finance. The current bank referral scheme, originally designed to help businesses access finance once rejected by a bank, fails to provide adequate information on a diverse range of borrowing options and fails to help SMEs understand why they got rejected, what financial products are best suited to them, and how they can optimise their application to get the best chance of success.
This environment discourages SMEs from continuing their search for finance, despite competitive, socially responsible and trustworthy alternative lenders being out there and wanting to lend to SMEs. In fact, as found by the Federation of Small Businesses in 2018, 73% of SMEs in the UK would rather grow more slowly than borrow. The Centre for Policy Studies also found that the UK is ranked 13th among the 14 OECD countries in the proportion of start-up businesses that grow to 10 people or more in three years.
I recall the huge leap of faith and risk I had to undertake when I began to grow my business. Moving from five to six employees was a big hurdle to overcome, as were the leaps to 15 and to 20 employees. The smaller you are, the bigger the hurdles. Moving from one employee to two is a doubling of the payroll, which will inevitably put a strain on small and fledgling businesses’ cash flow. Because that is so difficult, many businesses do not grow to their full potential.
The critical lack of diversity in the business lending market is detrimental to the resilience of the UK economy. As we continue to debate how the future regulation of the financial services sector should look, we must consider parts of the world where they are already doing well. Take one often-cited example from the critical post-recession period of 2008 to 2013: total bank lending to non-financial business in the UK dropped by about 25%. However, during the same period in Germany, where regional mutual banks and co-operatives are commonplace, lending increased by around 20%.
This critical lack of funding for SMEs is also detrimental to growth of the UK economy. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Office for National Statistics estimate that SMEs represent 99% of businesses. Their abundance means they have the potential to increase UK productivity. They are areas that the UK has struggled with for many years. More specifically, many SMEs contribute greatly to their local communities through increasing local employment, contributing to local economic growth and improving livelihoods. As the recent report of the APPG on social integration, which I chair, recently reported, SMEs were at the forefront of community volunteering during the pandemic.
I know the Minister is a good man. Although the Westminster Hall debate he is responding to today does not have the fireworks of yesterday’s, I can assure him that the solutions are within our grasp. It does not need years of planning and strategising; the solutions are out there. They just need support and political will.
First, we must deliver a strong local finance option for businesses in the UK. We cannot continue to deprive hungry and ambitious businesses of access to finance and scaling up, simply because they do not have access to the right financial product. We need to provide capital to community development financial institutions and regional mutual banks, to allow them to increase their offering.
Community development financial institutions are private finance institutions that are dedicated to providing responsible, affordable lending to disadvantaged communities and individuals. They do not prioritise profit, but prioritise allowing local-income areas to flourish. By providing finance as well as financial support and knowledge, CDFIs look at the wider benefits that each SME can provide to its local area, financing businesses that can make the biggest impact, even if they have been rejected by the big four.
Regional mutual banks have a more regional structure, prioritising relationship banking and making use of soft information to assess SME customers for credit.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a good point on regional mutual banks, and I congratulate him on bringing forward this important debate. It is also a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr Pritchard. Might my hon. Friend consider, in conjunction with his fellow MPs in the Tees Valley and the excellent Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, taking forward an initiative to set up a Tees Valley regional mutual bank?
Peter Gibson
That is an excellent idea, which I am sure my hon. Friend would be keen to help us spearhead. I am sure that Mr Houchen and the Tees Valley Combined Authority would relish the opportunity to bring more investment to the Tees Valley.
These finance providers tend not to have capital stock but are owned by their members, who have a say over the governance of the fund. Both regional mutual banks and CDFIs bring a refreshing approach to finance, prioritising local growth over profits—an approach that is much needed in today’s market. I know, too, from my own experience in business over 15 years before entering this place, that those relationships, with a dedicated relationship manager, are crucial.
Put simply, we need local solutions to local problems. Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen is leading the way in the north-east, having recently launched a new back to business fund worth £250,000, granting small and medium-sized businesses in the hospitality, tourism and events industry the help they need in their journey to recover from the pandemic. That is local leadership with local solutions.
Secondly, we need to turbocharge the challenger bank and non-bank lending sector. Such companies have provided a welcome challenge to the big four banks in recent years, yet they are currently hamstrung by disproportionate regulation. Reforming the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—MREL rules—and providing access to the term funding scheme for non-bank lenders, will create a more level playing field for challenger banks in competing against the big four.
Thirdly, we need to continue Government initiatives to unlock patient capital from pension funds, by using social usefulness criteria, an idea currently used in France. We can unlock that money for investment in long-term, socially important companies.
Fourthly—last but certainly not least—we must ease the finance application process to encourage borrowing for growth. We need to ensure that business support services, such as local enterprise partnerships, the bank referral scheme and the British Business Bank—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for mentioning it—are properly funded.
Small businesses are the backbone of this country— 99% of businesses in the UK are classed as small. They play an essential role in strengthening our local economies, creating job opportunities and introducing innovation to their local communities. They are the businesses that support our local charities and volunteer groups. They are the people who sponsor the local football, cricket or rugby club, and they are the lifeblood of our towns across the land.
As we bounce back and build back better, we must take advantage of this opportune moment to reshape the financial services sector in a way that puts those hard-working businesses at its heart. Improving access to finance will provide SMEs with ample opportunity to scale up businesses and communities and improve employment chances across the country. In short, we need a financial services sector fit for everywhere, from Devon to Darlington—fit for the whole United Kingdom, not just the City of London.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on bringing forward this important debate. It is very important, particularly in these times, to refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Although I am no longer directly involved in my business, I led and built a business for the best part of 30 years. Access to finance is the critical factor in wanting to grow and scale a business.
As my hon. Friend set out, SMEs are so important in the UK in terms of the dynamism of our economy. Some 60% of the private sector workforce and 50% of our private sector turnover comes from SMEs. We are facing some huge challenges that are relevant to our economy, not least the demographics of costs in the future. We recently had a debate in Parliament about how we pay for the covid crisis and pay for social care, but we have some even bigger challenges in terms of balancing the books. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that because of healthcare costs, social care costs and pension costs, our debt to GDP ratio, which is currently about 100% or £2.2 trillion, will be 400% by 2060 if we do not change our tax system or change the dynamics of our economy to pay for such costs over the next few decades.
The only way of paying for that is to make the economy more productive and more dynamic. I know, from my experience in running a business, that one thing that made our business more productive and more dynamic was competition. New competitors appearing on the horizon made us more efficient and more productive. We need a much more dynamic business environment. That is why my hon. Friend’s comments are so relevant, particularly on the statistic he cited from the APPG’s report, “Scale up to level up”, which I know the Minister has seen. Some of its conclusions are so important, but so are some of the facts behind it.
As my hon. Friend said, 73% of SMEs would rather grow more slowly than borrow. That means that we have a real problem, because we need those businesses to scale up. Not every business wants to do that, of course. Some businesses are happy to stay at a lifestyle kind of level. But part of the problem we have, as was very well articulated by the Chancellor when he was a Back Bencher, is that we are No. 1 in the OECD report in terms of start-ups, but No. 13 or No. 14 in terms of scale-ups—the number of small businesses that employ 10 people or more after three years. That is a real problem.
It is our belief, which is certainly borne out by anecdotal conversations with businesses, that because of the fall-out of some banking scandals—which came as result, principally, of banks trying to restore their balance sheets after the difficult recessionary problems of the global financial crisis—withdrawal of finance to business in the five-year period post 2008 has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington set out, damaged confidence between business and banks. We need businesspeople to feel that they can scale up and grow, which means taking finance, taking risks, and, in most cases, putting their house on the line. I think my hon. Friend and I have both put our houses on the line in the form of personal guarantees and others. These are big risks that businesses have to take. If we expect them to do that without the confidence that banks will see them through a crisis, then many fewer businesses are going to take that risk.
This is where Germany has won and got it right: regional mutual banks. In fact, it is not just Germany. Every G7 country has a significant regional mutual banks sector as part of their lending mix, and the UK is an outlier in that sense, having just commercial banks. That is important because, particularly post the financial crisis, we saw banks prioritising their own finances, shareholders and balance sheets over the SMEs, which led to tens of thousands of businesses going to the wall.
That withdrawal of finance between 2008 and 2013 saw a 25% reduction of lending to SMEs from our commercial banks in the UK. At the same time, the Sparkassen and Landesbanken in Germany, the community and co-operative banks, increased lending by 20%. That is an incredibly important statistic, because that is when the SMEs needed the finance. There is an old adage we quote in our report—I heard it from my father when I was a young boy—which is that the banks will give you an umbrella when the sun is shining and take it away when it is raining. That proved to be the case in the worst financial crisis—the five-year crisis—we have had in this country and that, again, damages confidence.
That is not to say that our commercial banks are not part of the solution. Clearly, they are, and I must say that they did a fantastic job in 2020 in terms of getting finance out of the door to our SMEs—about £80 billion in coronavirus business interruption loans and bounce back loans. However, I wonder—although I probably do not have to—how much of that money would have been lent had the Government not stepped in to give them guarantees. How much of that money would have been lent if the Government had not taken away the responsibility for a forward-looking viability test? A fraction, I suspect.
Shareholder-driven banks will tend to look after the shareholders in these crises, whereas mutual banks and community development finance institutions, which are effectively not-for-profit co-operatives, really look after businesses. Clearly, some businesses will go to the wall if they are not fit for purpose in the current or future climate; we do not want to see zombie businesses. Nevertheless, we want businesses that hit problems because of a short-term recession to be helped through that period and into the better times ahead.
From my experience in the property sector, we had a good business going into 2008, when we had 210 staff members. However, we were not treated as a good business with longevity by our bank when we went into that crisis, and we had to make huge cuts. We cut our staff from 210 to 65 in a very short period. That was short term—we eventually picked those jobs back up—but we could have been helped through that crisis much more effectively. If the banks had not had shareholders as their priority, and if they had had customers as a priority, then I think we would have seen something different.
Margaret Ferrier
Does the hon. Member agree that high street banks could benefit from investing more time in understanding the SMEs they lend to, really taking the time to understand the business model and the entrepreneur throughout the whole lending process?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is such an important point, and I appreciate the hon. Lady’s intervention. Again, going back to my days as a child going with my father to see the bank manager, Mr Ron Taylor of Barclays bank, my father had that one-to-one relationship with him. He knew a good business from a less good business; he knew which ones he would support in difficult times. That type of relationship between big banks and SMEs has largely gone now, and the lending decisions have moved away from those relationship managers.
That is a worry and a concern, and it is what CDFIs and regional mutual banks can bring back. In this report, there is clear evidence from the sector, academics and people in the German banking sector that big banks primarily lend to big businesses—not exclusively, but primarily—and that big banks did not want to lend to SMEs, did not want to lend below £50,000, even though they were effectively Government-backed loans, until the bounce back loan scheme was brought forward and businesses could get a loan on demand. That is because that relationship with SMEs has principally gone now.
That relationship is something we need to restore. The CDFIs and regional mutual banks are those smaller banks, and it was great to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington would consider a Tees Valley version of that. I am very keen to work with the Mayors and the council leaders across Yorkshire. They are in talks now, trying to set up a Yorkshire regional mutual bank. That would be a fantastic step forward. It would not require any money from the Treasury or the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, from Government, other than a guarantee or loan, because the money comes back. The money is lent to businesses sensibly. It will then be returned to the Treasury, and with interest, on the basis that that will create tax receipts, which are good for the Exchequer. It would be a very sensible move to pump-prime a number of regional mutual banks, which would have that patient capital approach in the down cycles.
Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington set out, what the Treasury and BEIS did in pumping out the money last year was tremendous, and my hon. Friend the Minister did a great job of engaging with businesses. One mistake we made, though, was that we made bounce back loans so cheap—which was a great thing to do to get that finance out to SMEs—that it was not possible to borrow from wholesale markets to lend at 2.5%. It meant that only the big banks had access to very cheap capital through the term funding scheme for SMEs. It meant that, whereas we had seen about 59% of SME finance in recent years coming from the challenger banks and non-bank lenders, suddenly that was down to 11% as the big banks took a great big market share. For people such as iwoca, Tide and others, their market share dropped dramatically and they lost, potentially, thousands of customers during that period.
We will have to do this again at some point, so we might as well be ready for it. I have asked Andrew Bailey about this. It was not all in the Treasury’s gift to sort the term funding scheme for SMEs; it is a Bank of England scheme. Nevertheless, we can square that circle in a couple of ways. Either we find a way for the term funding scheme to work for non-bank lenders, or we put requirements on the banks so that if they access that scheme, they also have to lend a proportion of those moneys to non-bank lenders and the like. It is very important that we get this right now. We must not simply forget some of the things that we learnt last year but actually put those things in place today to ensure that we are prepared for the future.
I say that because there is another challenge ahead, and this is the second requirement that I am going to refer to—there are only three, Mr Pritchard. This is another APPG initiative—Bankers for NetZero. It is a world-leading initiative; we are now one of the key chapters in international financial regulation in terms of how we decarbonise our economy and how we bring the UK finance industry together with business and provide the capital to decarbonise—that will be a critical part of the conversation. We are going to have to do something at some point to provide capital to businesses so that they can decarbonise, because significant investment will be required in lots of businesses to be able to do that. We do not want to simply pull the plug in terms of SMEs that could contribute towards decarbonisation. We should not be thinking, “Oh, they’re businesses that operate in old ways, using what is probably less green technology, and therefore we’re not interested in them. We’re going to pull finance from those people and go to new businesses.” That would be a significant mistake: the scale would probably be a multiple of two or three times what it was during the financial crisis when we pulled money from certain businesses. We should be allowing these businesses to invest in decarbonisation.
To give a simple example, there is a very good business in my constituency—I have used this analogy many times for people who listen to my repetitive speeches—called the York Handmade Brick Company. It makes handmade bricks, as can be imagined, and employs about 20 people in my constituency. It is a very good business. I am not saying that it has any kind of liquidity or capital issues; I am sure that it has not, because it is a very successful business. But that business fires all its bricks in its kilns using natural gas. Nobody has yet invented a different solution to that problem, although no doubt there will be solutions on the horizon—biogas and the like. But whatever it has to do to make the business less carbon intensive will cost money—cost investment. Then it will have to find some capital to invest in new technologies. What we do not want to see, of course, is a bank coming along and saying, “Actually, our own business and our customer base have capital requirements that require us to not lend to businesses with a large carbon footprint,” and simply withdrawing finance from those kinds of business. It is a significant problem—a significant danger.
We will have to ensure that capital is made available, probably at a cheaper rate, a discounted rate, to decarbonise such businesses. For example, a term funding scheme for net zero, which the report on mainstreaming net zero proposes, is something that we should consider. We must get that right to ensure that all lenders can access those things. The Conservative Environment Network, of which I am proud to be a member, is also looking at this, and we had a conversation earlier today. It is very clear that we need finance for environmental reasons as well as for economic reasons. I could not put it better myself. The Conservative Environment Network is also very worried about divestment.
The last report to which I will refer is “Resolving insolvency”, because the Minister has responsibility for this area as well. It is a very important report. Today’s debate is not just about businesses that are growing but about businesses that might hit difficulty. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has made some very important changes to insolvency over the last year or so, giving businesses that are under pressure and having difficulties time to restructure. That is absolutely right.
However, what we have not addressed yet, although the Government have legislated to address it, is reform of the insolvency industry. The report highlights some very concerning conflicts of interest between insolvency practitioners and, for example, banks and private equity. There was a very disturbing recent case in which KPMG was fined £13 million in relation to Silentnight. That certainly highlights the kinds of conflicts that occur between secured lenders and insolvency practitioners.
The report recommended that the Government set up a totally independent regulator, as they have set out to do in the past. Currently, insolvency is regulated by recognised professional bodies—membership organisations. It is the only significant part of our economy that is not properly and independently regulated. We urge the Government to introduce changes to put in place an independent regulator, an ombudsman, a statutory code of ethics and a central database of repossessions.
My final comments relate to another change that the APPG on fair business banking has worked very hard to bring about. Following the global financial crisis, the APPG advocated an increase in the coverage of alternative dispute resolution. The Financial Ombudsman Service now has jurisdiction over businesses with a turnover of up to £6.5 million, up from £1.8 million previously, which is good. However, there is a scheme that looks at historic complaints and covers businesses with turnovers of up to £10 million. The Business Banking Resolution Service is a voluntary scheme involving seven banks, but at the moment it is an embarrassment to the banks that established it. It hears very few cases. Of the 626 cases that have currently applied to the scheme, only 90 are likely to be deemed eligible. Some of the cases fall into what is called the concessionary cases area, and of the 10 cases that the BBRS is recommending that the banks accept into the scheme, only one has been accepted, which is absolutely wrong.
The BBRS needs more independence and greater jurisdiction. I saw comments in The Times today about this particular issue to the effect that the APPG on fair business banking and the SME Alliance unanimously approved the eligibility rules for that scheme. That is absolutely not what we said. We said that we will have a watching brief over the scheme. It is not working. It needs urgent reform. I have talked to the Minister about this before, and I am sure that he will take those comments on board.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on securing this very important debate. He gave us a very full and interesting speech, full of issues that I recognise. In terms of regional inequality, he has it spot on. When looking at regulation in different types of banks and those in Germany and France, and where small and medium-sized enterprises can receive their finance, he gave us a thoroughly good and interesting lesson.
The chair of the APPG on fair business banking, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), followed—I apologise to him for my not perfect attendance at that important APPG—and gave us a quick run through a number of reports produced by the APPG, all of which were interesting and relevant to the subject we are talking about. During this time of COP26, I especially take on board his words about decarbonisation and small businesses looking forward environmentally. That could well become really important and another block to gaining finance in the future.
After the financial crisis, many SMEs were left to sink or swim when bank lending dried up, despite MPs from all parties calling for access to finance. That mistake must not be repeated. It was only right that firms were given furlough, coronavirus business interruption loans and bounce back business loans to get them through the coronavirus crisis. Since March, those have been replaced by the recovery loan scheme, administered by the British Business Bank. Loans are available through a network of accredited commercial lenders; I will come back to that point later. Term loans, overdrafts, invoice finance and asset finance are now available.
The Scottish National party welcomed the autumn Budget 2021 announcement that the scheme would be extended until June 2022, because it was originally due to close at the end of 2021. However, from 1 January the scheme will be open to small and medium-sized enterprises only and the maximum amount of finance available will be £2 million per business. The guaranteed coverage that the Government will provide to lenders will be reduced from 80% to 70%, which could have a huge impact on small to medium-sized enterprises.
Moving from the previous loan system could be difficult for small to medium-sized enterprises. The flexibility of the bounce back loans for small firms, as well as automatic approval and repaying only when the firm is growing, is no more. This is huge. It is beyond belief, and will mean that schemes will be axed before firms have been lent the amount promised.
As well as access to new finance, the SNP has concerns about firms being able to cope with debt levels accumulated during the coronavirus pandemic, and the economic future is looking even more uncertain. After the last crisis, many SMEs were left bankrupt when they could not repay their debts, despite MPs from all parties calling for access to finance. That is another thing that must not happen again.
However, the risk is rising. Last month, the Financial Times reported that the Bank of England has warned that a
“third of the UK’s small businesses are classed as highly indebted, more than double since before the Covid-19 pandemic”.
It went on to say that the Bank of England said
“two-thirds of the £79bn increase in UK corporate debt between the end of 2019 and the first quarter of 2021”
was held by firms who would not have been able to borrow pre-pandemic. The report continued:
“The research showed 33 per cent of SMEs held debt levels of more than 10 times their cash balances, versus 14 per cent before Covid-19 hit. The percentage of those with high debt relative to both cash balances and monthly inflows trebled to 10 per cent from 3 per cent over the same period.”
The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee warns starkly:
“Although debt appears affordable in the near term, insolvencies are likely to rise from 2021 Q4 as government support is withdrawn as planned.”
There is a clear blueprint that the UK Government can adopt from TheCityUK, which the SNP has supported since its publication. TheCityUK’s report, “Supporting UK Economic Recovery: Recapitalising Businesses Post Covid-19”, warned that, by March 2021, £100 billion of unsustainable debt was owed by UK businesses, with £35 billion from Government loan schemes. Much of that came through coronavirus business interruption loans and bounce back loans, which were taken to support firms and the economy through the pandemic. Under current rules, responsibility for chasing up businesses that are struggling to pay back their coronavirus loans falls on banks and other lenders, which will only force a rerun of the post-financial-crisis saga of SMEs being bankrupted by banks collecting debts. That the Government will be forcing them to do so is beyond belief, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said.
TheCityUK came up with a business repayment plan that would let very small businesses pay back their coronavirus loans via a long-term, student loan-style system, with small repayments made every month via the tax system; and a business recovery capital option allowing larger small businesses to convert their coronavirus loan into a long-term, unsecured loan, again to be gradually paid back. TheCityUK plans would also enable some larger businesses to convert their loans into shares in their company on which they paid regular dividends, but that is unlikely to apply to many SMEs. All that would be overseen by a proposed UK recovery corporation, which in conjunction with the UK Government would administer these repayment schemes. Repayments will be a huge drain on SMEs and the economy for a long while to come. Mike Cherry, national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, recently suggested that small businesses should repay their coronavirus loans only once they are turning a profit:
“A guarantee that they won’t have to start making repayments until they’re turning a profit would give them the confidence to invest and hire today, rather than further down the line when such activity may prove too little too late.”
Rising overheads are a key factor behind a slump in Scottish business confidence, according to new research from the FSB in Scotland. Some 77% of Scottish businesses say that the cost of running their business has increased since this time last year, compared with only one in 20 —some 5%—that are seeing a decrease. The FSB’s Scottish small business confidence index fell steeply to +1.2 points in the third quarter of this year, from +20.5 points in the second quarter. The UK’s index also fell, although not quite so steeply, meaning that the typical Scottish business is now less optimistic than the UK average, a reversal of the situation in the summer.
The FSB warns that rising overheads are making it difficult for businesses to invest in measures to grow their operations or tackle their environmental impact, which will hold back efforts to recover from the covid crisis in a sustainable way. Andrew McRae, FSB’s Scotland policy chair, says:
“Scottish business optimism bounced back over the summer but has slumped in the autumn. That’s partly because the easing of Covid restrictions delivered a big confidence boost that’s waned over time. However, punishing rises in business overheads are also taking their toll on the trading outlook. And with a rise in payroll taxes on the way, there’s no end in sight. Spiralling overheads are one of the biggest headaches for our members. Smaller businesses neither have the statutory protections of consumers, nor the bargaining power of the biggest firms. That’s why FSB has been campaigning for the UK Government to take action to help these operators, at the very least easing the VAT burden on their gas and electricity bills.”
One business hit by those rising costs is Equi, which has a number of shops. They are concerned that a high increase in their overheads may cause them to cut corners and cut staff, as happened in the past, which will mean that they are not as successful as they have been in recent years.
A separate FSB report calls on our policy makers to launch a new voucher initiative called “Help to Green” to help small businesses to reduce their environmental impact. The scheme would give businesses grants of up to £5,000 to become more energy-efficient. Andrew McRae said:
“In the short term, we need to help firms manage the overnight spike they’ve seen in their bills. Next, we need to support local and independent firms to reduce the amount of energy they use.”
All that has happened during COP.
Smaller businesses know that they have to take action, but only a third have a plan in place to reduce emissions. Governments in Edinburgh and London need to put together a package of help and support to help firms move in the right direction. SNP Members would prefer indebted firms that are held back from growth by interest payments to have their debt converted to equity or grants.
The UK Government should not force banks to take coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and bounce back loan debtors to the cleaners, as that will prevent them from rebuilding their businesses and, therefore, the economy. The Tory Government’s plan for business-as-usual debt collection is totally inappropriate following what we hope was a once-in-a-century economic shock.
The Chancellor said that total departmental spending will increase by £150 billion over the Parliament, which means a real-terms rise in spending across the board, with Scotland’s Barnett funding up on average £4.6 billion annually. All funding is welcome, but we need to be cautious. The Scottish Government are getting less funding for day-to-day spending in every year of the spending review period than this year. Most of the increases are likely to be in capital.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady is making some good points, but I am nervous about turning a loan into a grant or making it non-repayable, as I think she outlined that TheCityUK suggested. Lots of businesses did not take loans and used their own funds to keep going, and lots took loans and paid them back. Would there not be a moral hazard in effectively saying that some businesses could have free Government money when others did not take it?
Marion Fellows
I take the hon. Member’s point, but I think my point was worth making. We have to be so careful, because businesses took those loans on and are now likely to be hounded by banks that are mainly interested in providing money to their shareholders. The hon. Members for Darlington and for Thirsk and Malton spoke about the mutualisation of banks and local regional banks, which are also on the SNP wish list. I take the point, but my main point is that businesses should not be forced out of business because they borrowed money at a time when they were able, and perhaps would not have been able in the past.
The Chancellor invoked Margaret Thatcher and said:
“The budgets are set; the plans are in place; the task is clear. Now we must deliver because this is not the Government’s money— it is taxpayer’s money.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 279.]
That makes it clear that we must be wary of warm words. The Scottish Government will have to consider the detail of the Budget when it has been confirmed. The £150 million small business fund for Scotland should be disbursed by the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise, not the UK Government or the British Business Bank exclusively.
Although the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and bounce back loans were offered, not all our constituents could access them due to their business banking accounts not being with one of the big banks on the list. They tried to access them through feeder accounts from other banks such as HSBC, but continue to be denied access to any financial support. They were mostly SMEs, many of which were forced to close.
Will there be any guarantee that those who were unable to access those loans but managed to survive with grants from, for example, the Scottish Government will be able to access the recovery loan scheme? Will the scheme allow those forced to close to rebuild their business? I hope the Minister can give assurances on those matters and take on board TheCityUK’s plan and the warnings from the Bank of England, FSB Scotland and nationally.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for proposing the debate and to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the APPG on fair business banking for their work on the issue.
As we have heard, small and medium-sized enterprises are at the heart of the economy. They employ millions of people and are responsible for much of the innovation and creativity that makes this country such a special place and such a dynamic economy. They have, of course, been through a tough time over the past 18 months or so. Many small businesses could not trade at all for much of the period, and others only in very restricted circumstances. In that context, programmes such as the bounce back loan scheme and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme were important and welcome. As we now unwind from that level of Government support, it is important that the repayment mechanisms and the schedule are realistic. The SNP spokesperson referred to the burden of debt that has been left. It is also important that we have a proper assessment of the level of fraud and the use of public money in those schemes. A lot of money went out of the door and it is important that the taxpayer gets good value for money in support schemes of that nature.
As we recover from the pandemic, many SMEs are facing labour shortages, rising crises in materials and other effects, and our capacity to recover economically from the covid pandemic will depend to a large degree on how SMEs meet those challenges and manage to fare over the coming years. There are, as we have heard, particular traditions when it comes to access to finance for SMEs here in the UK. They include a dependence on loans from a relatively small number of traditional high street banks, a major focus from banks on mortgage and other property lending, a relatively new group of challenger banking entrants and less-developed non-bank sources of finance that are not always easily available to SMEs. The hon. Member for Darlington mentioned community development financial institutions in that regard and I believe they have an important role to play. I am familiar with the role of the Black Country Reinvestment Society, which operates in the area I represent. It has been able to step in at times and offer loans when the main high street banks have turned people down, and I believe it has helped around 1,500 businesses in the west midlands region over the years. I am sure it is a similar story in other parts of the country with other CDFIs.
The debate has also seen some discussion about the challenger banks and their potential to do more. The Minister heard the points made by the hon. Member for Darlington about MREL funding. That is important, because there is an active debate between the banking sector and the Bank of England about how that operates. The concept of bail-in debt was introduced after the financial crisis to avoid the situation where the taxpayer has to step in if a bank goes belly up—or, as it was termed, privatising the gains and nationalising the losses. With bail-in debt the bondholders are supposed to be on the hook, not the taxpayers. That is the right thing from the public interest point of view, but inevitably it entails a cost that will be applied to those who are lending to banks under those circumstances.
In this country, once a bank’s balance sheet increases above the range of £15 billion to £25 billion, the MREL bail-in rules kick in, although the Bank of England has indicated recently that the staircase for compliance will be shallower and over a longer period than was previously the case. The thresholds elsewhere are much higher. In the European Union, the threshold is €100 billion. In the United States, it is $250 billion. That means that bail-in in those jurisdictions is aimed at much bigger banks. There is another factor, which is related to the different ways that deposit insurance works in those jurisdictions, which has an impact on the risk appetite of regulators, but those are still much higher thresholds than in the UK and they allow medium-sized banks to grow before having to adapt to this new regime.
The challenger banks argue that if the threshold for requiring bail-in debt was higher, that would release more capital, which could be lent to the SMEs that are the subject of today’s debate. When the Minister winds up, I would be really interested in his reflections on the debate about challenger banks and the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities.
For the purposes of clarity, I should say that this is not a Brexit issue. The differential balance sheet limits for MREL predate Brexit, but challenger banks have all made the point that it places a ceiling on their capacity to grow.
Kevin Hollinrake
The changes that the Bank of England has made on MREL are very modest and will not help a bank such as OakNorth, which is a very successful challenger bank, in terms of its ability to lend more, which it could do if the limits were changed. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it seems perverse that bail-in requirements are there to try to protect the taxpayer and to take away the systemic risk, but the biggest systemic risk is having all the banking concentrated in a few big banks?
Mr McFadden
There is a potential tension here between competition and safety. The rules were brought in to insulate the taxpayer, but, at the same time, the Bank of England, the Treasury and the Government—everybody—subscribe to the idea of more competition in the UK banking sector, so I believe this discussion will continue.
More broadly, the issue of access to finance is also related to the question of economic growth. Economic growth has been sluggish in the UK for the past decade, averaging just 1.8%, which is significantly lower than pre-financial crisis rates of growth. Once we strip out the covid effects of huge plunging growth last year and a sharp bounce back this year and next, the recent report from the Office for Budget Responsibility, published at the same time as the Budget, predicts a return to those sluggish growth rates, averaging just 1.5% between 2024 and 2026.
Let us be clear: taxes are increasing because economic growth has been low. It has been low for more than a decade, and the Government cannot continue to blame that on the past. This low growth has left the country less wealthy than it would have been, and it has made it harder to fund public services adequately without upward pressure on taxes. Low growth is the foundation for the series of tax rises that the Chancellor has announced over the past year. That is a much bigger factor than the pandemic; the OBR report makes that clear. In fact, in that report it downgraded the long-term impact of the pandemic on GDP from 3% to 2%. Its estimate of the long-term impact of the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal was a hit to GDP twice as high as that from the pandemic.
We are talking about the financial services industry today. It was hung out to dry in the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal. It is not that the Government fought for market access and lost—the Government did not even try. This is 10% of the UK economy, hundreds of thousands of jobs around the country. It was simply left by the wayside when the Government negotiated the Brexit deal.
It is in everyone’s interests to address the issue of the UK’s sluggish economic growth. If the economy grows more, tax revenues will increase without tax rates having to rise. The country will become more prosperous and we will be able to pay our way. That is another reason why a healthy and properly financed SME sector is so important. Businesses need access to finance to be able to invest in expansion, to make the new idea happen, to be able to buy the new piece of equipment that might be able to do the job in a greener or more efficient way, to move into new premises, and to increase capacity to meet new orders. That is the foundation of economic growth, and right now we do not have enough economic growth. That of course is not the only thing that will impact growth.
If we talk to many businesses, they will tell us about business rates. In advance of the Budget, we called for an increase in the threshold for small business rate relief from £15,000 to £25,000. That could have lifted many small businesses out of paying business rates altogether, but that did not happen. Nor did the more fundamental reform needed to ensure that business property tax fits the economy of today and tomorrow, rather than the economy of yesterday. There will be other factors, too—not least our education system and whether we are equipping the workforce of tomorrow for the labour market of the future. Every time talent or potential goes unfulfilled, it is a drag anchor on economic growth, and that denial of opportunity is not just socially unjust, but economically destructive. We need to examine everything that can contribute to economic growth, and that means an SME sector firing on all cylinders.
This debate calling for more access to finance for SMEs is timely, but access to finance is not an end in itself. It is a contribution to the economic growth that the UK needs if it is to escape the high-tax, low-growth trap in which it finds itself, and for which households and businesses will have to pay the price in the tax rises recently announced, which will kick in over the next few years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on securing today’s debate and on how he framed it. I pay tribute to him for his work as chair of the APPG on personal banking and fairer financial services. It is important that we continue to shine a spotlight on that. He has been a staunch advocate for smaller businesses both in his constituency and around the country, and he brings his own experience to bear on that. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is a vice chair of the APPG and has brought so much fresh, new thinking to these areas, which is important for me, for the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and for the Government as a whole. We continue to respect and listen to the views of both my hon. Friends.
The business experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has been instrumental in the framing of his words. Both my hon. Friends illustrated how deeply they care about small businesses and their contribution to the economy, which, as we have heard, provides millions of jobs. SMEs will be the backbone of the drive for growth, innovation and jobs, and we are absolutely determined to support them. That is why during the pandemic we protected small firms with our income support schemes, grants, and nearly £80 billion-worth of Government-backed finance to more than 1.6 million businesses. However, as we start our economic recovery, we need to shift our focus from emergency support to policies that will help businesses create jobs and invest. As the Chancellor has said, our plan is to make the UK the best place to start, grow and scale a business. The logic is simple. More start-ups and scale-ups will in turn help us in our mission to level up the country.
Margaret Ferrier
We need to ensure access to affordable finance UK-wide, so can the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to make sure that Scottish SMEs have the right level of accessibility?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I mentioned levelling up the country, and she is absolutely right that we need affordable, diverse finances for SMEs right across the country, and that includes in Scotland. I want to make sure that we go further to make the UK the best place to start growth. It should not matter where we are in the country. It should still be the best place to start to grow and scale a business. That is as equally true of Scotland as it is of Wales, England or Northern Ireland. Brilliant businesses can be found everywhere in the UK. However, access to finance is undoubtedly skewed towards London and the south-east, and we need to rectify that.
At the Budget, we took some major steps towards redressing those regional imbalances. For example, the British Business Bank’s start-up loans have been helping entrepreneurs since 2012 with viable ideas that might otherwise struggle to obtain finance from more traditional sources. In fact, the bank has made 165 loans to businesses in Darlington, totalling more than £1.5 million. At the spending review, we built on that success, pledging another 33,000 loans over the next three years. That is not all for Darlington—it would be a significant number of start-ups there—but across the country. That is money that will get other great ideas off the ground.
Members have spoken of the need for strong local options for business; we absolutely agree. That is why the Budget committed a further £150 million to the bank’s successful Regional Angels programme, which helps entrepreneurs obtain early-stage finance across the UK. We also announced more than £1.6 billion for the British Business Bank’s regional funds, which provide debt and equity finance for SMEs to help them with their next stage of growth. Across those funds and start-up loans, CDFIs will continue to play an essential role to help get finance to underserved SMEs.
To answer the points hon. Members raised on CDFIs and mutual banks, community development financial institutions play a massive role in the landscape of alternative lenders, including those essential lenders providing credit to SMEs. They are such an important delivery partner for the start-up loans programme; 11 of the 21 start-up loans delivery partners are CDFIs. They account for approximately 30% of the loans issued through the scheme in 2021. More widely, the British Business Bank was working with 21 CDFI delivery partners, across a range of programmes, at July 2021. That includes the regional funds and the recovery loan schemes.
In addition, 14 CDFIs were accredited lenders for the covid loan schemes. In the wake of the spending review, we will continue to explore opportunities for collaboration between the BBB and CDFIs. The Government are also supportive of efforts to establish the regional mutual banks that we have heard so much about this afternoon across the UK. I understand that some prospective mutual banks have had success in raising capital from various sources, but they have also encountered some challenges. There are no plans directly to capitalise regional mutual banks, but I know the Government have been engaging with prospective mutual banks and are willing to explore solutions that are practical and proportionate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is not only not far from the Treasury in this place and constituency neighbour to the Chancellor, but the Treasury is moving a number of its operations to Darlington, his home town, which he represents. He will not have too far to go to knock on the door to further his case for regional mutual banks. I am sure he will be delighted to know that businesses will continue to obtain funding through all those schemes, along with those in the north-east and the wider south-west of England for the first time as we get regional funding for the British Business Bank increased.
The new regional funds the British Business Bank is setting up in Scotland and Wales, while building on its existing activity in Northern Ireland, will bring levelling-up opportunities for businesses across the UK. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said in relation to Scotland, it is important that we support businesses wherever they are. The regional funds will support a wide range of businesses, including the innovative, high-growth firms that play such a big part in creating prosperity and opportunity. We are further turbocharging those firms through the £375 million Future Fund: Breakthrough, which sees the Government co-invest with private investors and businesses that are heavily focused on R&D.
Finally, as we have heard, the Chancellor announced the extension of the recovery loan scheme to 30 June 2022. From 1 January, the scheme will be open only to small and medium-sized enterprises and the maximum amount of finance will be £2 million per business. The guarantee coverage that the Government will provide to lenders will be reduced to 70%.
We also heard from Members about patient capital, and we are looking to improve access to longer-term sources of finance. We absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington that we need to unleash the hundreds of billions of pounds in pension funds and other institutional investors for long-term investment. That is not just good for the wider economy, because it will support growth, but good for the customers who will benefit from the opportunities for returns offered by UK long-term assets. It is an area where we know we can and should make more progress. I am happy to say that this Government are taking significant steps in that direction.
We are implementing a plan to unlock more than £20 billion to finance growth in innovative SMEs. As part of this, British Patient Capital, a subsidiary of the British Business Bank, is supporting UK companies with high-growth potential to access the long-term financing they need to scale up.
We have also taken significant action to remove barriers to pension scheme investment in a wide variety of asset classes. Members may recall that in the Budget, the Chancellor announced the consultation on further changes to the auto-enrolment charge cap to remove barriers to higher-return investments, while ensuring vital member protections remain in place.
Kevin Hollinrake
I would like to put on record my thanks to the British Business Bank, which has done a fantastic job in engaging with the APPG over the last 18 months or so and a tremendous job in helping to get that money out of the door. In terms of releasing equity capital—the Minister talked about pensions, which is a very good move by the Treasury—I think Octopus also suggest we allow ISA investments into unquoted companies which, again, could provide a source of equity finance for some of the good, high-growth companies he was talking about. Would the Minister consider having a discussion with the Treasury about this?
Paul Scully
That is certainly something the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will have heard and will consider as we look to diversify finance, especially in longer-term projects. We have established the productive finance working group, which is an industry-led body, which has now published recommendations setting out how we can unlock new investment in those long-term assets. I am pleased to say the Financial Conduct Authority has just published its rules for a new long-term asset fund structure, which will make accessing illiquid assets easier and encourage investors to look increasingly further ahead.
Finally, we are encouraging asset management and pension funds to play their part. I am delighted to say that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are planning an institutionalised investment summit later this autumn, which will be a chance to celebrate the progress and commitment to further industry-led action.
Although we undoubtedly need to do more to widen access to finance for business, we should not overlook the great support that existing lenders provide to our SMEs. Last year, in fact, members of the Finance & Leasing Association provided SMEs with more than £16 billion to fund new equipment, plant and machinery, or software. According to the British Business Bank’s “Small Business Finance Markets Report”, banks provided £104 billion in SME lending, up 82% compared with in 2019.
I am delighted that some major lenders are helping our Help to Grow scheme, which aims to boost productivity by giving entrepreneurs management training through the Help to Grow Management scheme, and helping them to adopt digital technology through Help to Grow Digital. I encourage all hon. Members in the Chamber and further afield to promote those schemes to their SMEs because they are incredibly important opportunities to boost productivity wherever they are in the country.
Margaret Ferrier
Government Department procurement processes usually mean that the cheapest quote wins the contract, which might mean that SMEs struggle to compete or operate at greater cost to their business. What steps are the Government taking to level the playing field for these contracts and encourage SMEs to apply?
Paul Scully
The Government have gone a significant way to try to simplify procurement options for SMEs. There is undoubtedly an unlevel playing field, as big businesses have the resource and capability of procurement specialists, which SMEs clearly do not. SMEs inevitably have to join the framework as subcontractors, which is not as easy for them or as good for the taxpayer, because it adds extra cost and extra levels. The Cabinet Office is always looking at the procurement framework to see what more we can do to have greater access for SMEs.
The greater the choice of finance options for small firms, the better. We know that challenger banks, including those in the FinTech sector, have the potential to make a real difference so, following the recent Kalifa review, we are rolling out initiatives that will help these organisations try out new ideas and grow.
To boost competition, we have also raised the banking surcharge allowance to £100 million from £25 million, which means that 35 banking groups will fall out of its scope completely. The British Business Bank has a specific objective to support diverse finance markets, and 94.5% of the finance supported by the bank’s core finance programme in 2020-21 was delivered through smaller, newer or alternative finance providers, exceeding its 94% target. I am sure that, over time, these measures will help to further widen small businesses’ finance options.
On the British Business Bank and its objectives, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton talked about delivering net zero. Indeed, we have implemented a net-zero objective within the British Business Bank, and therefore everything it does has to adhere to that objective.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) talked about MREL, and the Bank of England is currently leading a review of that and its approach to setting a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities. The Treasury is working closely with the Bank, which is considering the responses to its consultation—the Bank will respond in due course. The Government and I thank the banks for their continued engagement. He also talked about bail-in debt, which is primarily a matter for the regulators, and it fits into that review, too.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) asked what will happen to the Government’s pandemic loan schemes, and we clearly have to get the balance right in ensuring taxpayers’ money is used well. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, a number of businesses that borrowed money did not necessarily need it, but they wanted the extra protection and are still sitting on the money. He is right that converting the money into a grant is probably not appropriate in ensuring that we get best value for money.
We clearly want to make sure that we address fraud, and we will have further updates on our estimate for fraud in the Department’s annual accounts, which will be published shortly and will be available to be inspected. We also have the pay-as-you-grow schemes. We have listened to businesses and have made sure to extend the exceptional support, allowing them to repay their bounce back loans on terms that work best for them. Businesses will be responsible for repaying any facility they have taken out, as is right and proper, but they will not necessarily be able to make repayments for the first 12 months or pay the standardised low interest rate of 2.5% afterwards, but the pay-as-you-grow options provide additional support to businesses throughout the life of their loans. We are trying to make sure we can flex as best we can to ensure that businesses have the best chance of recovering and succeeding.
This Government champion small businesses, and we have heard about the wisdom of people who run small businesses. This is not a macro consideration, and it is not just about a unit of economic activity. Entrepreneurs are taking a risk to set up their business, and they often take a personal hit to ensure that those who work for them can pay their bills. From my experience of running small businesses, I know that it adds a totally different perspective on life when someone is responsible for other people’s livelihoods. It is important that we have the human cost of getting it wrong at the forefront of our minds and that we see that small businesses can get the just rewards that they deserve for the risks that they are taking. However, it is also important that the people who work within small businesses get the opportunities that small businesses and SMEs inevitably can and will create as we recover and build back better. We want to ensure that the UK is a great place to be an entrepreneur. As I hope I have shown, we are focused on giving firms throughout the country the right tools to succeed, including access to finance to both launch and grow.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members once again for their excellent contributions to the debate. I look forward to working with everybody on this most important of issues over the months ahead.
Peter Gibson
I have thoroughly enjoyed this wide-ranging debate. Despite the small number of speakers, we have certainly covered a varied range of topics. As we have heard, access to finance is not an end in itself. We have covered issues such as the future recession preparation, helping to tackle carbon reduction, servicing of covid finance loans, regulation of the financial services sector, diversity in funding, the need for growth, regional inequalities, unlocking pension funds and the need for mutual banks.
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who has been an incredible support to me since I arrived in this place. I am grateful for all he does with the APPG on fairer business banking. He was right to highlight the need to tackle the issue of decarbonisation with the banks.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for highlighting the work that the Federation of Small Businesses is doing and the need to tackle regional inequalities in this area. I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for her interventions during the debate and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who highlighted the need for growth and his concerns about how banks are capitalised.
I turn now to the Minister’s speech. I know that he is a real champion of small businesses and that he understands business and listens. He knows, as do I, that small businesses are the backbone of what will drive the economy forward. I know that he is committed to the cause of our SMEs, and I am grateful for the role that he is fulfilling. I am delighted to hear that the Treasury is prepared to listen on the need for mutual banks.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to finance for small and medium sized enterprises.
Shrewsbury Town Centre Redevelopment
(3 years 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
Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are 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. I will call Daniel Kawczynski to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Shrewsbury town centre redevelopment.
We are very proud of Shrewsbury, the county town of Shropshire. The Minister may know that Shrewsbury has more listed buildings than any other town in England. That is quite a unique attribute. Having more listed buildings than any other town in England means that we have outstanding architectural beauty in our historic town. Edwardian, Elizabethan and many, many other architectural periods have thrived in Shrewsbury. It was the birthplace of Charles Darwin and his home where he studied at Shrewsbury School before pursuing such a famous and important career.
The historic beauty of the town, surrounded by the beautiful Shropshire countryside, means that tourism is one of the most important major income generators for our town. I am very pleased to have secured a direct train service between Shrewsbury and London. This is extremely important for additional international tourists visiting our town. We have also now secured the funding for the north-west relief road—a vital artery in the ring road around Shrewsbury that is going to be built shortly.
Having secured those two important infrastructure projects in recent times, my mind now turns to how, as a local Member of Parliament, I can support the unitary authority, Shropshire Council, in its attempt to redevelop our town centre. I spent the summer recess extensively lobbying the previous Secretary of State for what is now the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and his junior Ministers. We had many meetings and conversations about the extraordinary opportunity that we have in the heart of Shrewsbury to convince the levelling-up fund that this is a project that needs investment. Unfortunately, the reshuffle that took place saw almost a clean sweep of all the Ministers. However, I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his position. I think, from my conversations with him, that he will make an outstanding Minister in the Department, and I am very grateful that he is here today to hear my appeals for this project directly to him and his officials.
In the recent round of levelling-up fund announcements, Shropshire did not secure the £20 million that our local council had asked for to redevelop the town centre. I will come on to explain how the council has now got control of three major shopping centres in the heart of our town, and prime real estate. Nevertheless, we were very disappointed that the council’s attempt to secure this funding was unsuccessful. I want to use this debate to try to tease out a little bit more information from the Minster as to why we were not successful, and what we need to do to turn this from a failure into a success.
We see massive investment in cities in our region such as Manchester and Birmingham. We see huge investments in the so-called red wall seats, in places such as Stoke-on-Trent. If I had £1 for every time I have heard that levelling-up funding was going to Stoke-on-Trent, or one of the other red wall seats, I would have been able to retire by now. I understand why and how red wall seats and inner-city areas in the midlands and the north need levelling-up funds. However, I want to express my concern that in the—quite right—levelling-up process that this Government are putting the country though, which is seeing more money spent in the midlands and in the north rather than the uniquely prosperous capital city in the south-east, we should take a moment to look at how that money is being distributed, and what percentage of that money is going to inner-city conurbations such as Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and others.
I would argue—I will continue to be asking a lot of written parliamentary questions on this—that unfortunately, in the great thrust to redistribute this money to the midlands and the north, it is going primarily to those inner-city conurbations, and the rural shire counties are losing out. That has been my experience over the last 16 years as a Member of Parliament. Already in Shropshire, we receive a fraction of the investment in health, education, roads, and many other public sector services and works—indeed, a fraction of funding across the board—in comparison with those inner-city conurbations.
Therefore, we need greater clarity on the process, how these decisions are taken, when the next round will take place in the levelling-up fund agenda, and what criteria are being used to assess the economic benefits of the levelling-up investments. That is extremely important for the Minister and his Department, because as taxpayers we are particularly interested in value for money and the return on the investment from how that taxpayers’ money is being spent. When a project wins levelling-up funding, it is essential that the Department shares with the electorate not only how the money has been spent, but also the consequences of the public sector investment in that project and the outputs of investing that taxpayers’ money, in terms of gross value added uplift for the local economy and, indeed, jobs and economic prosperity.
Shropshire Council has not heard about future growth deals—when I spoke to Professor Mark Barrow, a senior officer at Shropshire Council, he wanted me to make this point. The council is not cognisant of future growth deals and needs clarification about the local enterprise partnerships. We have heard some quite different assessments and opinions about the LEPs and their long-term sustainability and operability. I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the long-time LEP head in our area, Mandy Thorn, a local business lady who has done an outstanding job of managing our LEP. However, will the Minister clarify what he perceives to be the future of the LEPs and what role, if any, they will play in the redistribution of taxpayers’ money, so that my council, the LEP and others can plan for these changes?
On the specific nature of the bid, Shropshire Council has purchased three large shopping centres in prime real estate in the town centre: Pride Hill, Darwin and Riverside. There is controversy about this because the council purchased them at a time when their price tag was much higher than what the whole site is worth today. Inevitably, it sows concern with the local electorate and residents when the council makes a purchase of this nature, for tens of millions of pounds, and the value goes down.
Why has the value of the site gone down? We know about the rapidly changing circumstances of British high streets and the huge changes that are taking place in the way retail shopping is carried out, with more and more being done online. On the one hand, I can understand why some people may be concerned that the council has bought the site, but on the other hand the previous private-sector owners did almost nothing to the site, and we were not confident that they were able to develop it in a way that would benefit Shrewsbury.
Nevertheless, the council now owns this prime real estate in the heart of the county town of Shropshire. Bearing in mind what I have said about the changing nature of the high street and how we have to adapt to create lucrative and exciting opportunities for people to visit our high streets, it is now critical that we set aside the controversy over the purchase. We must do everything possible to help our council to develop the site in a way that is in the interests of the local community and is economically beneficial.
We can have a debate as to whether town centre redevelopment should be done by the public sector or the private sector. I have spent as much of my time working in the private sector as I have in the public sector: 16 years. There are weaknesses and strengths on both sides—that I know. The debate is not about whether the private sector or the public sector should develop the site; it is about the reality of the situation: that the council owns the site. As the Member of Parliament, I need the Minister to be cognisant of this opportunity.
I have heard from Professor Mark Barrow that there are already many opportunities and many private-sector companies that are seeking to invest in the site once a decision on how it will be redeveloped is made. Professor Barrow informs me that, when there is a plan for the demolition of some of these sites and redevelopment can start, there will be hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in Shrewsbury town centre. Very prestigious hotel chains have expressed an interest in buying plots and building. There is also an opportunity to reduce retail space to match the changing nature of retail shopping, which will help some of the small, independent retail outlets on Pride Hill, something for which Shrewsbury is famous, rather than the huge superstores that there are in Telford and elsewhere. Reducing retail space is also very important for sustainability.
There is also an opportunity to build a lot of commercial housing, including affordable housing, on the site. That is increasingly important for councils and the Government to take into consideration, bearing in mind how difficult it is for young people today to get on the housing ladder.
Of course, there are other modern facilities that will attract people, not just from Shropshire but from mid-Wales, into the town centre. We are very proud in Shrewsbury, as a border town, to be the gateway to Wales, and we benefit a great deal from many people coming not just from all over Shropshire but from mid-Wales to do their shopping in Shrewsbury.
I ask the Minister to arrange for Peter Freeman and his team at Homes England to meet Shropshire Council officials to discuss the best way forward for this development. The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), appointed Peter Freeman as the new chair of Homes England in October 2020. Peter Freeman is co-founder of the property developer Argent and is well known as one of the visionaries behind the revival of King’s Cross, as well as major developments in Birmingham and Manchester. He has a track record of planning and delivering the regeneration of local areas, and of creating spaces that are socially and economically vibrant. I would like the Minister to please engage with his experts in the Ministry, including Mr Freeman, who has a national reputation for having the expertise and knowledge to support and successfully move forward these types of projects around the country.
On bended knee, I ask the Minister to seriously consider the £20 million that is desperately needed now to redevelop the site. I heard somewhere today—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that my council spends 84% of all revenue on adult and children’s social care. My council is desperately short of funding. We have a rapidly ageing population and a ticking bomb with adult social care costs in the county. This injection of cash into our town centre would economically regenerate the prosperity of the town and give the council and the whole community a huge boost. I ask the Minister to look on our bid kindly and mercifully.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O’Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and to listen to the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). I congratulate him on securing this important debate and on his unwavering commitment to advocating for his constituency, which I know about from talking to him at first hand. I strongly agree with him that the levelling-up agenda is for the whole country, not just some parts of it, and on the essential importance of accountability, value for money and better understanding what use taxpayers’ money is put to. I will use the time that remains to talk a bit about how the levelling-up agenda can serve Shrewsbury and the rest of his constituency.
The levelling-up agenda is about empowering local leaders and communities. It is about boosting living standards, particularly where they are lower. It is about spreading opportunity and improving public services, particularly where they are weak. It is also about ensuring that communities right across the UK can take pride in their neighbourhoods and the places they call home; my hon. Friend spoke passionately about some of the glories of Shrewsbury and some of those things that people are rightly proud of. I have been encouraged by what I have read about Shrewsbury and the vision and plan of local leaders, particularly in Shrewsbury’s “Big Town Plan”, which is extremely exciting and includes the ambitious redevelopment of the Riverside shopping centre, which was included in the bid that my hon. Friend spoke about.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Chancellor recently announced the first-round award of £1.75 billion to 105 successful bids from the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund. Bids were assessed completely impartially by officials against four components: value for money, deliverability, strategic fit and characteristics of place. In the interests of transparency, alongside the winning bids my Department published an explanatory note detailing the levelling-up fund assessment and exactly how bids were shortlisted and decisions reached.
Sadly, many more bids were received than funding was available for in the first round. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that it was a competitive process with lots of strong bids. I assure him, however, that that is not the end of the process. Although Shropshire Council’s bid to support Shrewsbury’s regeneration was not successful in this round, I strongly encourage it to bid again in the second round of the £4.8-billion fund, which, to answer his question, is expected in spring next year.
The levelling-up fund is not the only mechanism through which we are supporting levelling up in Shrewsbury and Shropshire, and it is not the only opportunity that will be available. I will touch on some of the things that we have done. As part of our ambition to rebalance the economy, we have invested more than £6 million in Shrewsbury’s transport infrastructure in the last five years. Funding from our local growth fund supported the Shrewsbury integrated transport package to improve road junctions, invest in sustainable transport and improve the town’s commercial centre. I congratulate my hon. Friend on helping his area to secure the important improved train connection that he mentioned.
In 2019, that funding was complemented by a further £2 million from the local growth fund to help to restore the iconic Shrewsbury Flaxmill Maltings, which is home to the world’s first iron-framed structure and complements all the other wonderful heritage buildings that my hon. Friend spoke about. More recently, I was pleased that £5 million from the getting building fund supported Shropshire Council’s remodelling of the Pride Hill shopping centre, which will create 250 well-paid jobs.
My hon. Friend will agree that that is levelling-up in action and is testament to the Government’s ambition to support Shrewsbury to grow and thrive in the coming years. We recognise that more needs to be done, however, and I know that some of the projects mentioned today have been supported by European funding in the past. Now that we have left the EU, there is scope to go further and faster.
That is one of the reasons why the Chancellor confirmed more than £2.6 billion for the forthcoming UK shared prosperity fund over the spending review period, which is another opportunity to level up Shropshire. That will ramp up to £1.5 billion a year by 2024-25 and the total spending will, at a minimum, match the size of EU funds in each nation of the UK. We will publish further details about the shared prosperity fund in due course, and I encourage my hon. Friend to ensure that Shropshire Council is aware of the opportunities that the fund presents.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am listening intently to my hon. Friend. Before he finishes, I take the opportunity to invite him to Shrewsbury in the Christmas recess so that he can see the town centre.
Neil O’Brien
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s invitation and I will try to find a time—nothing would give me greater pleasure; it sounds wonderful. I am interested in how the levelling-up agenda can help places such as Shrewsbury.
My hon. Friend rightly focused on regeneration, which is a challenge that all places face at the moment as we move towards more shopping online and as town and city centres have to change to meet the challenges of the new era. He will have noticed the funding that the Chancellor set out in the spending review for brownfield regeneration, through which there may also be opportunities for the local council, including, as he mentioned, by talking to Homes England and to the high streets taskforce. I will endeavour to make the connections offline between central and local government officials that he asked for.
We all agree that, however far Government funding goes and however many different good and targeted spending streams we have, spending by the Government alone can go only so far in fulfilling our levelling-up agenda. We want to encourage strong local leadership to truly deliver and power the productivity growth that is essential for rebalancing our economy and our country. One only has to look at the success of some of our metro Mayors, such as Andy Street, in attracting private sector investment, spurring growth and acting as powerful ambassadors for their regions, to see the tremendous potential of further devolution beyond our largest cities.
That is one reason why, where there is strong local support, we want to roll out those powers and opportunities to the rest of the country too, using county deals. My hon. Friend has expressed a strong interest in how such a deal could support local regeneration and drive growth across Shropshire. I look forward to discussing that further with him as my Department prepares to publish its levelling-up White Paper. It will set out our plan to improve livelihoods and opportunity in all parts of the UK, building on our work so far, including on devolution and urban regeneration.
My hon. Friend mentioned local enterprise partnerships and the great work of Mandy Thorn. I agree with him on that, and I pay tribute to the work of people in local enterprise partnerships. Earlier this year, we initiated a review into the role of local enterprise partnerships. We now intend to consider the future role of LEPs and the local business voice in the White Paper that I just mentioned, alongside our commitment to extend devolution and strong local leadership into county areas, so my hon. Friend will hopefully not have to wait too long for greater clarity on the future role of LEPs. Our levelling-up taskforce is also working closely with relevant Departments across Whitehall to ensure that reform in multiple different policy areas all comes together to empower local leaders and ensure that levelling up will be greater than the sum of its parts.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate and for securing it. I will reflect on the very important points that he made, and I will continue to engage with him—hopefully, I will take up his offer of a visit—and to work with local partners to support their efforts and pursue this very important agenda. The Government intend to equip areas with the tools, funding and resources they need to become the masters of their destiny. This mission has arguably never been more important than it is today, as we forge a national recovery out of the covid pandemic.
The forthcoming White Paper will set out further details of our approach and how we can support places such as Shrewsbury to realise their ambitions and plans for growth. As my hon. Friend set out so eloquently, Shrewsbury has a rich history as a vibrant and enterprising town. Together, I believe that we can build on his work and that of his local partners, to ensure that Shrewsbury’s future is as bright and prosperous as its illustrious past.
Question put and agreed to.
Nuclear Power Funding
(3 years 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
Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are 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 they come on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. They should also give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I call Virginia Crosbie to move the motion.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for nuclear power.
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on funding for nuclear power. The UK has a long and proud history of pioneering nuclear power. In the 1940s, British scientists were pre-eminent in the development of nuclear energy. In February 1955, the Government published a White Paper entitled “A Programme of Nuclear Power”, announcing the first purely commercial programme, building between 1,400 and 1,800 MW electrical Magnox capacity by 1965, and investigating the future use of fast breeder reactors. In 1956, we established the world’s first civil nuclear programme, opening our first nuclear power station, Calder Hall, at Windscale. At the peak of 1997, 26% of the nation’s electricity was generated from nuclear power. Since then, several reactors have closed, and the share is now about 16%. However, almost half of our current capacity is due to be retired by 2025, and other plants are rapidly reaching their use-by dates.
Our most recent plant, Sizewell B, began to generate electricity more than 25 years ago. Hinkley Point C, which has been under construction since 2014, is expected to begin generating energy by at least 2026, with a construction cost of about £23 billion. Therein lies the problem. Before we discuss it in more detail, I should like to put into context why nuclear power is important at the moment. First, I urge Members to consider our commitment to the planet. The Government have committed to achieving net zero by 2050, and as the Prime Minister has rightly said, our strategy sets the example for other countries to build back greener, as we lead the charge towards global net zero. He has stated that the world is at “one minute to midnight”, having run down the clock and waiting to combat climate change. It is time to move from “aspiration to action” if we are to slow global warming.
While our seven advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactors have been the most productive low-carbon assets in Britain’s history, all will be retired by 2030. Even before those retirements take effect, we have begun to see increased, not decreased, carbon emissions. This year, our emissions from energy generation are expected to be higher than they were last year—the first year-on-year increase since 2012. If we do not replace the current fleet, it is estimated that emissions will increase by 200 million tonnes by 2035.
Secondly, I urge Members to consider our commitment to the people of the UK. In the past few weeks, we have seen that both our energy security and our stability are at risk. In September, a fire at the Kent interconnector, which connects the UK and French power systems, led to soaring energy prices in the UK. Britain usually imports 3 GW of power from France—enough to supply 3 million homes—and the fire showed just how fragile our energy security is when we rely on other countries for production.
The fire coincided with cold weather, post-covid increased commercial demands for power, gas supply issues from Russia and Norway, and unusually cloudy but calm conditions, which created price increases and what the media dubbed “an energy crisis”. That combination of events illustrates how much our power systems are under pressure from the closing of conventional plants and our growing reliance on inconsistent renewable energy such as wind and solar.
Meeting the sixth carbon budget’s requirements will require all new cars, vans and replacement boilers to be zero carbon in operation by the early 2030s. Meeting the sixth carbon budget’s requirements will require all new cars, vans and replacement boilers to be zero carbon in operation by the early 2030s. However, to move people towards the use of electricity while hitting net zero production by 2035, we must quickly move away from generating that electricity from fossil fuels. Britain currently has slim spare capacity in electrical power generation to feed those changes, leaving both our energy supply and our security under threat.
We should also consider the wider role that nuclear energy can play in achieving net zero. As well as my passion for nuclear, I am a fan of hydrogen. I am delighted that the Government are supporting the Holyhead hydrogen hub in my constituency of Ynys Môn. Our nuclear industry stands ready to provide a significant kick-start to the UK’s hydrogen economy, which will enable us to pull ahead in the global hydrogen race. Others are moving fast to beat us. Emmanuel Macron wants France to be a world leader in green hydrogen by 2030, achieved by producing green hydrogen at scale from nuclear energy. We can outmanoeuvre France and other nations by taking steps such as expanding the renewable transport fuel obligation to cover nuclear, even if just for a time-limited period, to stimulate investment in hydrogen production and support a quicker roll-out of hydrogen, with buses, trains, lorries, ships and planes, all of which can be made in the UK.
Finally, I ask Members to consider jobs and our levelling-up agenda. When we are importing gas from Russia and electricity from France, where are the jobs generating that power located? Who is getting the value added from what we are paying for that power? British people are paying their electricity bills and they are not always funding jobs. At its peak, a large-scale nuclear plant employs around 10,000 people. At the moment, while constituencies such as mine of Ynys Môn suffer low gross value added, underinvestment and a lack of quality, well-paid local jobs, we are paying our continental neighbours to provide us with energy. For all those reasons, the UK needs to look closely and urgently at its energy strategy.
There is an answer. The road map to net zero published earlier this year by the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear power states:
“Nuclear is the most powerful and jobs-rich form of low-carbon energy.”
Nuclear has the ability to give the UK energy security and stability for decades to come, but we need to get to grips with nuclear sooner rather than later. For years, successive UK Governments have prevaricated, argued and changed position about what we are going to do with nuclear energy. I was delighted when the Government announced their Nuclear Energy (Financing Bill), which had its Second Reading last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and I have been pressing for that since setting up the nuclear delivery group last year.
The need for that Bill brings me back to the fundamental problem with nuclear. Yes, it has by far the lowest land footprint and thus the lowest knock-on environmental impact of any clean energy source. Yes, it would create an estimated 90,000 well-paid, quality UK jobs, along with huge supply chain opportunities. Yes, it would keep producing reliable energy regardless of whether it is sunny or windy. And yes, it would give the UK energy security and stability. But—and it is a big but—building a large nuclear plant takes time and money, and therein sits the big grey elephant in the room.
As I have already outlined, Hinkley Point C began construction in 2014 and it is not expected to begin energy production until at least 2026. It is not possible just to say, “I’m going to build a nuclear plant,” and then begin construction. It takes years to go through the planning and environmental concerns, submit a development consent order, and consult, debate and clarify before getting an agreement even to stick a spade in the ground. Fifteen years is a long time to expect an investor to wait to see any return on their capital, and that is why the financing of large nuclear plants has been such a big issue. It was cited as the main reason why Hitachi withdrew from Wylfa Newydd in my constituency of Ynys Môn, pulling the plug on nearly 20 years of hope for my constituents. Traditional sources of private and commercial funding for large-scale infrastructure developments include pension funds and investment vehicles, but they are generally less willing to come forward for projects that will take 10 to 15 years before there is any return on investment.
Financing for small modular reactors is potentially more straightforward, and I welcome the Government’s work on funding for SMRs. I also welcome the fantastic news today that Rolls-Royce has funding for its SMRs, thanks to a lot of hard work in both private and Government funding for this UK initiative. As modular builds, advanced modular reactors require less in up-front costs and time, but they are intended for local energy production and are still in the development stage. A single SMR on Anglesey could produce enough energy for north Wales, which is primarily a rural area, and a large plant in the same location would power the whole of Wales, with a little bit left over for England, if we were feeling generous.
That is why the Government are progressing the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill through Parliament, to de-risk new nuclear projects and attract private sector financing for large-scale and advanced nuclear power projects through the RAB—regulated asset-base—model. Under this model, an independent regulator sets a price which a developer is subsequently allowed to levy on consumer bills in return for the provision of certain power infrastructure, even before they begin generating power. This allows developers to have a guaranteed return on their investment and lower costs when raising the capital required for building a power station, which accounts for much of the costs of nuclear projects. RAB is already used in other UK infrastructures, such as the Thames Tideway tunnel.
After months of raising the issue, I am keen to see the Bill progress, and I hope that it will lead to large-scale new nuclear power development across the UK. I implore colleagues to support its passage through the House. Although the debate last week was poorly attended compared with other more thrilling rides, such as the Environment Bill, it could none the less be the most significant piece of legislation that we pass for the long- term benefit of our country.
We should seek to use the Bill to fund not just one but several large new nuclear builds. Building one plant takes time, as we see at Hinkley Point C, but if we act now, those specialist resources can be redeployed on our next plant, and the next and the next. With each plant, we develop more specialists, which means that build time is shorter, costs are relatively lower and efficiency is greater. Each time, we will develop local specialists, employ local apprentices and leave generations of local people with high-quality, specialist well-paid local employment.
The Bill is incredibly welcome, but we may need other financing tools initially in addition to the regulated asset base and contract for difference models. We must continue to explore other innovative ideas. We need to give our scientists and innovators the help and support that they need to overcome barriers beyond financing. The Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill is a great example of how we can do that.
The recent Budget allocated £1.7 billion of public funds to support new nuclear projects, and we have seen the Government commit to £385 million in the advance nuclear fund; £215 million for small modular reactors; £170 million for research and development on advanced modular reactors; £120 million for the enabling fund announced in the net zero strategy; and an additional £40 million for developing regulatory frameworks and supporting UK supply chains.
By embracing nuclear we can secure not only our future energy security, but our future employment security, as the levelling-up agenda and the net zero agenda coincide. When Hitachi withdrew its development consent order for Wylfa Newydd at the beginning of the year, citing programme financing as the main factor, my constituency was devastated. Companies such as Bechtel, Westinghouse, Shearwater and Rolls-Royce are all keen to establish new nuclear on Anglesey and are looking at other sites in the UK.
The model proposed in the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill could be the starting point for regenerating areas of the country that desperately need levelling up. Alongside the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill and other initiatives and legislation, it offers hope for a new tomorrow. With that in mind, I appeal to colleagues across Westminster: now is the time for us to come together and embrace the opportunities before us. We cannot afford to stay in our partisan corners and we cannot afford to stay silent. We cannot afford to let this opportunity slip through our fingers. New nuclear has the potential to be a game changer locally, regionally and nationally.
To conclude, I welcome with open arms the finance and support structures that the Government have put in place for new nuclear. For the sake of our young people and future generations, I ask that we all put our political differences aside and work together to make them a reality. Diolch yn fawr.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I would love it if my hon. Friend were here, Mr Sharma, but sadly he is in his constituency. I am sure Hansard will correct the record shortly.
Gavin Newlands
That is okay, I am used to it—although my hon. Friend has a ginger beard, so I am not sure what that says. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie)—I will try to pronounce her constituency correctly—on securing today’s debate. It is an issue, to be honest, that deserves a better turnout than we have today, although she said there was a poor turnout for the Bill last week, so it is probably no surprise that a Westminster Hall debate on the same issue will not generate a large crowd either.
She said it was one minute to midnight, which we have heard a number of times from different politicians over the past few weeks, particularly at COP26, and she is right about that. As a Scot and SNP Member of Parliament, that makes me wonder why the Government continually put up barriers to Scotland’s renewable industry, not least by not getting involved in the grid connection charges, as Scotland has the highest in Europe.
Had I known that there would not be many Members here today, I might have prepared a longer speech. I will certainly leave plenty of time for the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead). The hon. Member for Ynys Môn spoke about the elephant in the room. With this Government, it is the mammoth in the room, such is the old-school thinking on this country’s future energy needs, and the fact the Government are utterly blinkered on the issue of nuclear. Nuclear industry lobbying has convinced them that nuclear is not only desirable but essential for the future. That is simply not the case.
Hinkley Point C is the most expensive power station in the world. The Government’s rationale was that building a suite of large-scale nuclear power stations would lead to competition and cheaper costs. However, the piecemeal approach of nominally awarding sites to different preferred bidders meant that EDF was the only game in town. There was no competition whatsoever when negotiating the contracts. EDF had been beset with problems with prototype stations in Finland and France, so it had to be a bit more cautious in its pricing. It is no surprise to anyone that the UK Government had to sign such a bad deal. The extraordinary strike rate of £92.20 per megawatt-hour for a 35-year contract, compared with the cost of offshore wind at £40 per megawatt-hour, for just a 15-year concession, meant that Hinkley C was not just a bad deal, it was economically illiterate.
In the Budget, the Chancellor committed £1.7 billion to progress Sizewell for a final investment decision. That was in addition to the £500 million earmarked for the development of nuclear. As I said, the Government’s previously stated position was that building a suite of new large-scale nuclear power stations would lead to competition and cheaper costs. If they are using the same design as Hinkley, and a second station is easier and cheaper, as they have told us time and again, why do the Government need to commit a further £1.7 billion up front for outline design and costings? I am sure the Minister will answer that in his summing up.
Let us remember that that is essentially £1.7 billion just to make a final decision on its construction or otherwise. The truth is that not only is nuclear hideously expensive now and for the 35 years following construction, it will be horrendously expensive for hundreds of years to come. It will cost £132 billion just to deal with the existing nuclear waste legacy. Tories are usually keen on dealing with issues now and not leaving them for future generations to deal with. That is the excuse they give us when they freeze public sector pay or remove the £20 universal credit uplift. Why do they want to create another costly, needless and dangerous waste legacy for future generations to deal with?
The Minister rather let the cat out of the bag by essentially admitting in a recent letter that accompanied the Bill that the Government were introducing an alternative funding model that might save the taxpayer between £30 billion and £80 billion, and that the Hinkley Point C project was very poor value for money. I am certainly not going to argue with that. That being the case, how much money does the Minister estimate has been wasted on Hinkley? Crucially, how many billions of pounds are the Government willing to commit bill payers to, and what are all the future costs locked into nuclear power? If they say that they can save up to £80 billion, there would surely have to be a commitment of hundreds of billions of pounds.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn alluded to the announcement made yesterday that Rolls-Royce has essentially match-funded the £210 million from the UK Government to develop small modular reactors. Initially, the hope is to have five SMRs at an estimated £2 billion a pop. We all know what happens with estimates in the nuclear industry, but that is another £10 billion that will likely end up on our energy bills in capital cost alone.
What else could we do with that amount of money? For starters, as the Minister has heard many times from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), Scotland is crystal clear. We do not want any new nuclear power stations. A YouGov poll showed that only 30% of Scots want nuclear to have a major role. The experts are clear that we do not need nuclear energy to decarbonise. In the 2019 world nuclear industry status report, Mycle Schneider, who was the lead officer of the report, said that nuclear power
“meets no technical or operational need that these low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper, and faster.”
The previous chief executive of National Grid, Steve Holliday, said that the idea of large power stations for baseload was “outdated”. He went on to say:
“From a consumer’s point of view, the solar on the rooftop is going to be the baseload.”
We could upgrade our homes to energy performance certificate band C. We could have wave and tidal generation, in which Scotland currently leads the world. This is a position that will be under threat unless this Government can find a fraction of the money that they are committing to new nuclear to help scale this up. There needs to be much greater investment in carbon capture and storage. The Government really must reverse their disgraceful decision not to select the Acorn Project cluster bid at St Fergus—the stand-out project—as one of the track-1 CCS projects. If the Tories were serious about decarbonisation, they would have approved the St Fergus carbon capture, utilisation and storage site, instead of the lesser pork-barrel options in the red wall.
There is a false argument, made by many in this place, that nuclear is required for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. Pumped storage hydro, a renewable energy source that utilises surplus grid energy to fill the reservoirs and dispatch electricity when required, is cheaper, greener and more efficient. Pumped storage hydro is the perfect complement for intermittent renewables. An Imperial College London report suggested that there could be a system saving of £700 million a year from using pumped storage hydro instead of nuclear. Why should Scottish bill payers be forced to pay for nuclear energy that they do not want or need? This is another democratic deficit for Scotland, especially when so much of our renewable energy is not being supported at the moment and we are stuck with the highest grid charges in Europe.
To conclude, Scotland is very poorly served by UK Government energy policy. It is crystal clear that we need to control our own energy decisions through independence; that day will be coming a lot sooner than the Members in this room think.
Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)
I want to apologise for getting mixed up with the names.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I have been confused in the past with Phillip Whitehead, the MP from some while ago, and also I have been called Alan Whitehouse on a number of occasions, which is a slightly less felicitous comparison.
I am delighted to say a few words on behalf of the Opposition. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing this debate, and on putting her case so well and succinctly. She is a powerful advocate, from the point of view of her constituency, for the future of Wylfa nuclear power station. I share her great concern that what looked like a future for the new Wylfa power station a little while ago was dashed in the way that it was. I had conversations about that with her predecessor, Albert Owen, who was also a strong advocate for Wylfa and the area.
The case the hon. Member makes is essentially about how Government can secure the future of power stations by ensuring that they are financed and organised in the best possible way so that they actually do go ahead. The UK has had a serious problem over the past 10 years or so. Originally a number of consortia were interested in bringing forward a nuclear power station. There was the Horizon consortium, associated with Hitachi, which brought forward the Wylfa proposals. There was NuGen, associated with Toshiba, which brought forward proposals for a power station at Moorside. There was also, of course, the EDF consortium, which at the beginning of the decade brought forward proposals for Hinkley C, which is now being built, for Sizewell C and for Bradwell in Essex.
All of those consortia have, in one way or another, bit the dust. They have suspended their operations. In the case of Wylfa, the Horizon consortium first suspended operations and has now this year finally declared that it no longer has an interest in Wylfa as part of its future nuclear programme. All of that came about essentially because of the Government’s insistence on trying to secure new power stations by means of private sector investment. Wylfa and Moorside were closed down even after discussions with Government about assistance; the consortia did not like the way in which the arrangements would have been structured. There were some quite high-level discussions with the Japanese corporations involved in both of the consortia that I mentioned. A combination of their own balance sheets, their ability to fund those projects themselves and what they thought was on offer from the UK Government led them to decide that the projects should not go ahead.
As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn mentioned, building and financing a nuclear power station is a really hefty commitment. One has to put the money forward and not get any return on it for about 14 years, while the processes of generic agreement for the reactor, planning, construction and so on all proceed. One does not make a penny from the production of electricity from the power station before that. We know that funding new nuclear by private sector means is not a viable way of financing new nuclear. We must put that behind us.
EDF is building Hinkley C power station partly with its own finances, and that has caused a lot of problems for the viability of the company as a whole. However, it is aided in this build by a second form of nuclear financing, which is, effectively, a foreign Government part-financing the operation. In this instance, that is the 35% interest in Hinkley of the China General Nuclear Power Group, which was the result of a deal brokered by the then Chancellor, George Osborne, in 2015. The Chinese state nuclear corporation would have a 35% stake in Hinkley C, a 20% stake in Sizewell C and complete control of the third programme in that consortium’s plans, the Bradwell power station, whereby the China General Nuclear Power Corporation would install its own reactor—known as the Hualong One, I think—and have complete control of the financing, the planning and the operation.
As we have seen, that way of doing things appears to no longer be regarded as tenable. The Government have not said this explicitly—it would be interesting to hear whether the Minister is able to do so this afternoon—but the Bradwell proposal under Chinese control is no longer a reality because of the Government’s desire to remove Chinese influence from the future of the UK nuclear programme. I am sure we will discuss that further when we debate the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill over the next few weeks, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. That second financing option—namely, getting a foreign Government involved—is probably not a good idea. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) said, the latest Budget costings include a sum of £1.7 billion, which I understand is to be put towards not only the development of and early works on Sizewell C, but buying the Chinese out of their Sizewell stake. I do not expect the Minister to confirm whether that is the case, but I think it is fairly probable that at least part of that sum will be directed towards removing that 20% stake from Sizewell C.
Further on financing, there is the possibility, as was tried with Hinkley, of funding the end product of the power station—that is, the energy that comes out when the permissions, the planning and the construction are finally complete. In the case of Hinkley, that will happen a long time after the original date of 2026 or 2027. I distinctly remember the then chief executive officer of EDF saying we would be roasting our Christmas turkeys on new nuclear power from Hinkley C in the winter of 2017. That is how far they are behind the original plans. I have on my wall the chart of the original EDF plans for the development process for Hinkley.
As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, the contract for difference arrangement for Hinkley was probably one of the worst deals that could be entered into for nuclear funding. Although it was supposed to introduce a back-loaded arrangement to secure the price for production and therefore increase investor confidence that the project would generate income when construction was concluded, the deal struck was disadvantageous for the customer and for this country’s electricity production. The CfD deal is at twice the likely market price for electricity over the period, and we are stuck with that for 35 years down the line. It is very unlikely that such a deal would be repeated, especially since it does not overcome the problem of how investors get any money back from their investment before the plant has started production. Hence the RAB—regulated asset base—arrangement that the Minister and I will discuss over the next few weeks as the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill makes its passage through the House.
The RAB arrangement has advantages and risks. An advantage is that it enables investors who might not have put their money into Wylfa or Moorside to invest in a project because they know they will begin to get a return on their capital before production starts. The RAB model, among other things, allows that to happen by setting, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn mentioned, an allowable cost ceiling, which enables that cost to be distributed throughout the life of the project rather than only at a certain point. It has a substantial advantage from that point of view, but at the same time it has risks. It is a deal that lands on the public consumer’s purse. It effectively puts a levy on energy bills for the whole life of the project––40 years from now for Sizewell C––on consumers’ backs at various levels at various points of the process. There is a high levy during construction and a tail-off as the project proceeds.
Should the project not go well––go over cost or, as at Hinkley, go well over time—there is an increased risk to the consumer. There is an even worse risk if the project does not go ahead, as was the case with a couple of projects in the United States that were built on the RAB model. Consumers then have nothing to show for a large amount of money they have spent in their bills in the expectation that there might be a plant that would give them cheaper electricity in the end. I know that the Government have taken some steps in the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill to mitigate that risk and ensure that there are ways out of a company being unable to deliver. Nevertheless, the risk remains. Using RAB repeatedly for new projects simply adds to the cost of consumer bills by aggregating the total levies, making it potentially even worse for the consumer, if that is the model that is proposed.
That leaves one method of financing, which is simply that the Government pay for the construction of a new nuclear power station and then lease it out to the operator at the end of the construction period. I am not suggesting that the Government get together their own workforce to build it. They would put the contract out for bids to build the power station, which would be owned by the public and leased out for operation. That will have to be considered for any further nuclear power stations, rather than these various devices that, to a greater or lesser extent, have either failed or have some risk attached to them.
From our side, as the Minister knows, we gave the Second Reading of the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill a clear run and we look forward to Committee discussion when we deal with some of the finer points of RAB. Nevertheless, we will go forward on the basis of a supportive environment for the construction of Sizewell C, since it is the only nuclear power station that could conceivably get under way before 2030, because of all the other withdrawals.
We look forward to our debates in the House and to discussing some of the issues I have raised this afternoon about how best to finance nuclear power for the future. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn made a powerful case for ensuring that Wylfa at least gets noticed in the next phase of discussions, but I suspect that if that happens, it may be under yet another model of financing and different from Sizewell C’s.
Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)
Before I ask the Minister to respond, I would appreciate him leaving a few minutes for the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) to wind up.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
It has been an excellent debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing this timely and important debate. Having met her as recently as yesterday to discuss these vital issues, I know how important this subject is to her and her constituents, although I am sure she would agree, as she did in her speech, that the topic is also of national importance.
Our net zero strategy puts the UK on a trajectory to meet carbon budget 6: a 78% reduction in emissions over 1990 levels by 2035. Ambitious goals are vital as we are currently hosting COP26 and mobilising global efforts to tackle climate change. Integral to achieving carbon budget 6 is our new ambition to fully decarbonise the power sector by 2035, also referred to by my hon. Friend. This will mean the UK is entirely powered by low-carbon electricity, subject to security of supply.
The future energy system will be predominantly made up of wind, solar and other renewable power, but as was clearly set out in the net zero strategy, following the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan and the energy White Paper, and as I was pleased to reiterate last week at COP26, nuclear has a crucial role to play in meeting our targets for reducing emissions and ensuring our energy security. It is a source of continuous reliable and low-carbon electricity which, as my hon. Friend said, has been a central part of our electricity system for 65 years, since the 1955 White Paper and the first civil nuclear power plant anywhere in the world at Calder Hall. Nuclear energy acts as a firm foundation for the remarkable progress we have made in decarbonising our power sector, reducing the UK’s total emissions by 44% since 1990.
My hon. Friend also referred to the benefits of nuclear power beyond simply keeping the lights on. High-skilled, high-productivity jobs, which are much needed in her constituency, in the civil nuclear sector contribute billions of pounds to the UK economy. More than 60,000 people are employed in a truly national industry with key hubs in Wales, Scotland and across the south, west, east and north of England. With 12 of the UK’s 30 current nuclear reactors scheduled to close between 2022 and 2030, if we are to reach our net zero goals, we need new nuclear power and the reliable, emissions-free electricity it provides.
My hon. Friend welcomed hydrogen power, and I know she is a great enthusiast for every aspect of our energy strategy. There is definitely more for her in the hydrogen strategy, which we launched in August. She mentioned Hitachi at Wylfa. The great advantage of the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill—a significant piece of legislation—is that it will allow more optionality, flexibility and more types of finance to come in, including British pension funds as well as institutional investors. I am delighted, as she and I well know, that Westinghouse Electric Company, Bechtel and others are interested in this new financing model. She asked about building multiple plants and whether we need more plants. The answer is that the Bill will not be technology specific within nuclear. It will allow for large plants. AMRs and SMRs can all be financed using the means in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) made some familiar points. He described the UK Government as being blinkered, but I would say that the same charge might be made against him in letting down communities in Scotland that are reliant on and determined to have nuclear power, with fine nuclear traditions, and electricity customers benefiting from a cheaper, more resilient, lower-carbon electricity system going forward. He asked why the £1.7 billion in the spending review is for Sizewell C. It is not specific to Sizewell C. He said that we do not need nuclear to decarbonise. Well, actually, the United Nations, no less, disagrees with him. The UN Economic Commission for Europe has stated that international climate objectives will not be met if nuclear power is excluded.
Of course, the Acorn cluster has not been rejected. The Acorn cluster for the CCUS—carbon capture, utilisation and storage—decision a few weeks ago is first reserve. It is very much not rejected but very much recognised. We look forward to continuing to work with the Acorn cluster.
The hon. Gentleman then attacked the Government for choosing two projects that happen to be in the north of England and said that was favouring the Government’s levelling-up agenda. I think he implied that there might have been something not quite right about it, but that is actually not the line that the Scottish National party has been following in the past couple of weeks. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) was here only two weeks ago congratulating the two successful clusters on being designated as such by the UK Government.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) rightly points out Opposition Front Benchers’ in-principle support last week on Second Reading, which we very much welcome. In terms of his specific questions, he is right that the RAB model has advantages and has challenges. We agree, but we think that it will save the average bill payer about £10 per annum over the 60-year life of the project’s construction and operation. On Bradwell, the Government’s position has not changed: it is not a decision for now. In any case, CGN does not have regulatory approval for its reactor. He asked about Hinkley Point C, which we think will save the equivalent of 9 million tonnes of CO2 during operations over an estimated lifetime, again, of 60 years. On Sizewell, he asked whether the £1.7 billion is designed to buy CGN out of Sizewell. No. CGN has a 20% stake in Sizewell up to the point of final investment decision. Negotiations are ongoing and no decisions, including on the final configuration of investors, have yet been made.
We are fully committed to our key nuclear objectives of approving at least one large-scale nuclear project during this Parliament and supporting the development of exciting new technologies, including small modular reactors. Good progress has been made on both counts. We have been engaged in constructive negotiations on Sizewell, as I mentioned, and we have also, just overnight, had a major announcement about funding for the Rolls-Royce SMR project. Funding for that project will be matched by private investment. The question at the centre of this debate—that of funding nuclear projects—is one of the key challenges given the scale and complexity of nuclear plants and the time they take to build.
We have already mentioned the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill. I am delighted that it will now start its progress towards Committee. I am looking forward to engaging with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test on it as early as next week. It will be a good chance to work together across all parties to show that the UK can do this. The spending review set out a series of other measures in terms of extra financing—the £1.7 billion already referred to and the new £120 million future nuclear enabling fund.
In conclusion, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn for securing this debate. With her constituency in mind, and both the historical and current contributions that Wales makes to the UK nuclear sector, I am excited for the opportunities in Wales overall, and on Ynys Môn in particular, which could be unlocked by the measures that we have described. As I said, new nuclear is crucial to addressing climate change, ensuring our long-term economic security, and supporting national prosperity. I look forward to further engagement as we continue the passage of the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill.
Virginia Crosbie
I thank the Minister for his detailed answer and his ongoing support, enthusiasm and commitment to new nuclear. I look forward to welcoming him to Anglesey, so he can see at first hand why the Prime Minister is such a fervent supporter of Wylfa Newydd. I would also like to thank the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) for their contributions to this timely debate.
I am the Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn, which is also known as energy island. We have wind, wave, tidal, solar and nuclear power. Nuclear is very important to me and many of my constituents. Ynys Môn used to be known as Môn, Mam Cymru—mother of Wales—because years ago it used to feed the whole of Wales. With the right financing in place from the Government, Ynys Môn can once again be Môn, Mam Cymru, but instead of food, it will provide Wales and beyond with energy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered funding for nuclear power.
Written Statements
Common Frameworks: Quarterly Report
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
I am today laying before Parliament a report, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 March to 25 June 2021”. I am laying this report because it is a legal requirement under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for quarterly reports to be made to Parliament on the progress of the work to develop common frameworks. The report is available on www.gov.uk and details the progress made between the UK Government and devolved Administrations regarding the development of common frameworks. This report details progress made during the twelfth three-month reporting period, and sets out that no “freezing” regulations have been brought forward under section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. A copy of the “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 March to 25 June 2021” report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The publication of the report reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency.
[HCWS384]
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The right hon. the Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton has replaced the right hon. the Lord Jopling DL as a Member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
[HCWS383]
Central Bank Digital Currency
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The UK, like many countries, is actively exploring the potential role of a retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) as a complement to cash and bank deposits. A retail CBDC would be a new form of digital money, denominated in sterling and issued by the Bank of England, for use by people and businesses for their everyday payments needs. Exploring the opportunities that a CBDC could offer is aligned with the Government’s wider agenda to remain at the forefront of innovation and technology in financial services.
Earlier this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a taskforce jointly chaired by HM Treasury and the Bank of England to lead the UK’s exploration of a UK CBDC, along with forums to engage a broad range of stakeholders from across our economy and society, including consumer groups, think-tanks, businesses, academics, financial institutions and technology experts. The taskforce will ensure the UK authorities adopt a strategic and co-ordinated approach as they explore a CBDC, in line with their statutory objectives.
No decision has been taken by the Government and Bank of England as to whether to issue a UK CBDC, which would be a major national infrastructure project. A decision will be based on a rigorous assessment of the overall case for a UK CBDC and will be informed by extensive stakeholder engagement and consultation.
Exploring and delivering a UK CBDC, if there were a decision to proceed, would require carefully sequenced phases of work, which will span several years. I am today setting out the next steps for the exploration of a UK CBDC.
The UK authorities are currently engaged in a process of research and exploration to examine the opportunities and implications of CBDC. As part of those explorations, HM Treasury and the Bank of England will publish a consultation in 2022 setting out their assessment of the case for a UK CBDC, including the merits of further work to develop an operational and technology model for a UK CBDC.
If there is a decision to proceed following the consultation, a development phase would include the publication, by the Bank of England, of a technical specification to explain the proposed conceptual architecture for a UK CBDC. This development phase could involve in-depth testing of the optimal design for, and feasibility of, a UK CBDC.
Following this, a decision would be taken on whether to move into a subsequent build and testing phase. Given the scale and national importance of such a project, this phase would likely take several years and could involve the development of large-scale prototypes and live pilots.
Were the results of each of these phases to conclude that the case for CBDC were made, and that it were operationally and technologically robust, then the earliest date for launch of a UK CBDC would be in the second half of the decade.
The Government are also committed to continuing to work closely with international partners on the cross-border implications of a potential CBDC. The UK, through its G7 presidency, has been leading the global conversation on the opportunities and implications of CBDC. G7 central banks and finance ministries have developed a set of public policy principles for CBDC, and a full report capturing these principles was published in October. These international principles for CBDC represent a step change in the global conversation and are intended to support and inform exploration of CBDCs in the G7 and beyond.
[HCWS381]
Financial Services: Future Regulatory Framework Review
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government have today laid before Parliament the second consultation on the future regulatory framework (FRF) review, “Financial Services Future Regulatory Framework Review: Proposals for Reform” (CP 548). The FRF review provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that, having left the EU, the UK establishes a coherent, agile, and internationally respected approach to financial services regulation that is right for the UK.
In his speech at Mansion House on 1 July 2021, the Chancellor set out the Government’s vision for an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens across the UK. Delivering the outcomes of the FRF review is a key part of achieving this vision.
An initial consultation was published in October 2020. HM Treasury received over 120 responses and has carried out significant further engagement with the sector. The consultation document laid today sets out the Government’s response to the feedback received, and the proposals to deliver the intended outcomes of the FRF review.
The consultation sets out a number of proposals to build on the strengths of the UK’s existing domestic framework of financial services regulation, including by:
Ensuring that, as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) take on greater responsibility, their objectives continue to be appropriate. To reflect the importance of the sector as an engine for growth across the wider economy and the UK’s position as a global financial centre, the Government intend to introduce a new secondary growth and international competitiveness objective for both the PRA and the FCA.
Moving to a system where the financial services regulators take responsibility for setting many of the direct regulatory requirements which were previously set by the EU, establishing a comprehensive FSMA model of financial services regulation for the UK. This will be achieved by repealing the majority of retained EU financial services legislation, with the regulators given powers to replace the current requirements with their own rules. This will ensure a more agile regulatory framework for the future while supporting the UK’s commitment to high standards of regulation.
Ensuring that there continues to be appropriate democratic input into, and public oversight of, the regulators’ activities. This means strengthening the mechanisms through which Parliament holds the regulators to account and which underpin the regulators’ relationship with HM Treasury, in addition to proposals to improve stakeholder engagement in the regulatory policymaking process.
This publication is available on www.gov.uk and will be open for responses until 9 February 2022.
“Future Regulatory Framework Review: Proposals for Reform”: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-regulatory-framework-frf-review-proposals-for-reform.
[HCWS382]
Post-16 Education: Capital Funding
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
Today I am announcing details of the Government’s capital investment of £83 million in 2021-22 to help eligible post-16 education providers[1] accommodate the expected demographic increase in 16 to 19-year-olds. Post-16 Education Provider Local Authority Aston University Engineering Academy Birmingham Barton Peveril Sixth Form College Hampshire Bedford College Bedford Bilborough Sixth Form College (Better Futures MAT) Nottingham Brokenhurst College Hampshire Christ the King Sixth Form Lewisham Cirencester College Gloucestershire City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College (Potteries Educational Trust) Stoke-on-Trent City of Wolverhampton College Wolverhampton Dixons Sixth Form Academy (Dixons Academies Trust) Bradford Durham Sixth Form Centre County Durham East Kent College Group Kent Hereford Sixth Form College (Heart of Mercia Academy Trust) Herefordshire Hills Road Sixth Form College Cambridgeshire Huddersfield New College Kirklees Inspire Education Group Peterborough Itchen Sixth Form College Southampton Joseph Chamberlain 6th Form College Birmingham Kirklees College Kirklees Long Road Sixth Form College Cambridgeshire Luminate Education Group Leeds Luton Sixth Form College Luton Milton Keynes College Milton Keynes New College Pontefract (New Wakefield Collaborative Learning Trust) Wakefield Notre Dame Catholic Sixth Form College Leeds Peter Symonds College Hampshire Portsmouth College Portsmouth Queen Elizabeth Sixth Form College Darlington Ron Dearing University Technical College Kingston upon Hull Runshaw College Lancashire Sandwell College Sandwell St Francis Xavier Sixth Form College Wandsworth St Vincent College (Lighthouse Learning Trust) Hampshire Suffolk New College Suffolk TEC Partnership North Yorkshire The Henley College Oxfordshire Woking College Surrey Wyke Sixth Form College Kingston upon Hull
Thirty-nine post-16 education providers have been awarded a share of the multi-million capital funding for projects that will enable them to add extra capacity where there is a pressing need to ensure there are enough places in their local area to absorb an increase in 16-19 learners. This investment will lead to providers being able to accommodate an extra 14,000 learners. We launched a bidding round for the funding on 18 May 2021. These post-16 education providers will be able to develop new high-quality flexible buildings and facilities, to ensure there will be sufficient places for 16-19 learners in their areas to gain the skills they need to progress and help the economy to grow.
The 39 education providers which will benefit from post-16 capacity funding are:
This investment should be seen in the wider context of our reforms to further education. The White Paper “Skills for Jobs Lifelong Learning for Opportunity and Growth” sets out our vision of enabling everyone to get the high-quality skills employers need in a way that suits them. The reforms set out plans to transform technical education, boost UK productivity, build back better from the coronavirus pandemic, and create a more prosperous country for all.
[1] Eligible education providers that could apply to this fund were: FE colleges, designated institutions, Sixth Form Colleges, 16-19 academies, including free schools, UTCs, Studio schools and Maths schools.
[HCWS385]
Correction to Written Parliamentary Questions
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I would like to inform the House that a written answer I gave on 24 September 2020, No. 90063, and subsequent to that, answers 97759, 117196 and 117198, to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), were incomplete.
In 2018 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published guidance on Hearing loss in adults which advises against ear wax syringing due to its associated risks. However, I recognise that by incorrectly implying that ear wax syringing is solely an enhanced service this could have been interpreted to mean that necessary and clinically appropriate ear wax removal should not be free at the point of use on the NHS.
GP practices are increasingly recommending self-care methods as the primary means to support the safe removal of ear wax and to prevent its build up. If, however, a GP practice considers removal clinically necessary, ear irrigation or micro-suction—as clinically appropriate—should either be undertaken at the practice—if they have the expertise and equipment— or the patient should be referred to an appropriate local NHS service.
Local commissioners are responsible for arranging for the provision of medical services to the extent they consider necessary to meet the reasonable needs of the people for whom they are responsible. Therefore commissioners should ensure that there is appropriate access to ear wax removal services, where these are necessary and clinically appropriate for a patient, which are free at the point of use.
[HCWS380]
International Travel Update
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
This statement provides an update on international travel.
From 4 am on Monday 22 November, the Government will recognise vaccines on the World Health Organisation’s emergency use listing (WHO EUL) at our border.
In practice, this means that Sinovac, Sinopharm Beijing and Covaxin will be added to our list of approved vaccines for inbound travel, benefiting more fully vaccinated people from countries around the world. The WHO emergency use listing process includes a review of quality, safety and efficacy data performed by WHO experts, and many countries including the United States, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Iceland are already recognising the WHO EUL vaccines. These vaccines are in addition to the existing vaccines we recognise at the border, namely, Oxford/AstraZeneca, Moderna, Pfizer BioNTech and Janssen (Johnson and Johnson).
As such, from 4 am on 22 November, travellers who have proof of vaccination with a full course of these approved vaccines will be treated the same as those fully vaccinated in the UK, and so will not have to self-isolate on arrival or take a pre-departure test, and need to take only a lateral flow device (LFD) test post-arrival (with confirmatory PCR if positive). This will benefit passengers with proof of vaccination from the over 135 countries and territories in scope of the policy.
Further, all under-18s coming to England from non-red list countries will be treated as fully vaccinated at the border and will be exempt from self-isolation requirements on arrival, day eight testing and pre-departure testing.
While public health is a devolved matter, the Government work closely with the devolved Administrations on any changes to international travel and aim to ensure a whole-UK approach.
The Government continue to keep our measures under review and will not hesitate to act if we perceive a risk to public health.
[HCWS386]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, 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 as soon as the Division bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Green Gas Support Scheme Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Green Gas Support Scheme Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, since this draft SI was laid before the House on 9 September, a minor correction has been made to the Explanatory Note to highlight that the scheme is intended to end in March 2041.
The UK is the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Between 1990 and 2019, our emissions have decreased by 44%, which is the fastest reduction in the G7, and we are continuing to advance sustainability through the Government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, the net-zero strategy and, most relevant to this policy, the heat and buildings strategy.
Currently, the heating of our homes, businesses and industry is responsible for 21% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. The decarbonisation of heat is recognised as one of the biggest challenges in meeting our climate targets, requiring virtually all heat and buildings to be decarbonised. Increasing the proportion of green gas in the grid is a practical, established and cost-effective way of reducing carbon emissions and contributing to the UK’s net-zero target, lowering carbon emissions from both domestic and industrial gas boiler use.
The green gas support scheme is a Great Britain-wide tariff-based scheme supporting new biomethane plants injecting biomethane produced by anaerobic digestion into the mains gas grid. It is expected to contribute 3.7 million tonnes of CO equivalent of carbon savings over carbon budgets 4 and 5, and 8.2 million tonnes of CO equivalent of carbon savings over its total lifetime. This is equivalent to taking approximately 3.6 million cars off the road for a year. The green gas support scheme is expected to help support high quality jobs in the renewable energy sector at a time when economic recovery is, of course, so important. It is anticipated that, when taking into account both direct and indirect jobs, the green gas support scheme could support up to 1,600 jobs per year during the construction phase of plants and up to 1,000 jobs once plants are fully operational.
Our analysis suggests that over two-thirds of existing biomethane plants are in fact located in rural areas, with 80% of all GB plants located in areas with a lower than average gross value added. We expect plants supported by the scheme to follow similar trends and therefore contribute to the Government’s levelling-up agenda. The Government believe that it is appropriate for gas consumers to pay towards decarbonising the gas grid, and therefore we have taken the decision to fund the green gas support scheme through a levy. The levy will be the sole funding source for the green gas support scheme and will be applied to all licensed fuel gas suppliers.
Of course, the Government acknowledge the impact of rising gas prices on consumer energy bills, and we are implementing stringent budget control measures to ensure that the costs of the levy are as low as possible and cannot rise unexpectedly. The cost to an annual gas bill will be relatively low, starting at around £2.50 per year, and it will peak at around £4.70 per year in 2028 for an average gas bill, assuming that we make a transition to a volumetric levy.
During peak years of production, biomethane plants incentivised by the green gas support scheme will produce enough green gas to heat around 200,000 homes, which would otherwise have been heated by natural gas.
While we are launching with a per-meter point levy that provides a high certainty of costs to both suppliers and consumers, the Government recognise the benefits of a volumetric levy that aligns costs more closely to gas consumption. We have committed to transition to a volumetric levy as soon as possible, subject to overcoming the feasibility issues, which include the impact on energy-intensive industries and other important UK businesses.
In conclusion, the scheme established by this statutory instrument will support ongoing investment in the biomethane industry and enable the development of new production plants for the injection of biomethane into the gas grid. In supporting this investment in new anaerobic digestion capacity, we expect to support more jobs, growth and innovation in the biomethane industry, while delivering important carbon savings, which are a vital part of meeting our overall net zero targets. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the House.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I have come to learn rather than to criticise or analyse in much depth. I was on the Select Committee on energy in the other place and I have tried to keep up to date with developments. I congratulate my noble friend on the fact that, according to his statement, we are the first in the world to go down this track.
My questions are really exploratory. I looked particularly at page 70 of the extensive documentation. First, I have a question about energy crops. It seems that if we are starting in a new area, the bringing together of waste collection is quite a challenge, whereas energy crops by definition are probably on a 12-month cycle. Therefore, the 50% limitation that is mentioned here, while probably the right strategy in the medium term, seems a bit of wishful thinking, certainly in the initial stages. You have to have energy crops to get the thing going.
Secondly, what is the estimated time required to set up any of these plants? Are we talking about a year, 18 months or two years? That is fairly key.
Thirdly, there is the question of the intermix of the gas provided by this route alongside gas from the North Sea. As far as I can see—I have not done an in-depth analysis—there is no reference to this. Is there complete compatibility or does there need to be treatment one way or the other to ensure compatibility in the mix of gases going into the grid?
There is another area that concerns me. Like so many others, I was previously in local government. How will we ensure that local government waste collections collect food waste and other waste suitable to feed these new plants? I do not know the proportions, but at this point in time we in central Bedfordshire are separating only recyclable and non-recyclable waste. I do not know what is happening in the rest of the country, and an update on that would be very helpful.
I thank my noble friend for taking this forward; it is crucially important. I will do my very best to help him on the journey forward.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations before the Committee. They are important, because they establish the new green gas support scheme as a replacement for the renewable heat incentive, which closed to new applicants on 31 March this year. This scheme will begin on 1 April 2022, with a reach back to the scheme’s launch date, due to be 30 November this year.
This new scheme is for new deployment and excludes equipment and plants used to register under the RHI scheme, so can the Minister confirm that there will be no crossover of payments between the schemes and that there is therefore little likelihood of much new biomethane coming forward, certainly during the retrospective six months but also for some time to come as new plants come on stream? How soon, and in what number, does the Minister’s department expect applications for new plants to be built and come on stream? It would appear to be quite quickly, as payments will last for only 15 years in a scheme of 19 years until 2041. I presume that the department has confidence in the speed of decision-making, the planning process and the construction phase, all of which will need to go smoothly to encourage speedy deployment.
I must also admit to having some déjà vu moments as I read through the details of the scheme, with recollections of how Conservative Governments regarded such schemes in the past. When I read under paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum that tariff rates
“will be set at a level that aims to encourage continued deployment and ensure value for money”,
and, then, under the very next paragraph, that
“a degression mechanism … will reduce tariffs if certain triggers are met”,
I recall the devastating cutbacks introduced by the Conservative Cameron Government, which slashed support for wind and solar, devastating the industry and undermining investor confidence so tragically. The misprint in paragraph 7.4—
“compromise of an annual tariff review”—
only underlines the impression that undermining support for deployment, especially in conjunction with some sort of levy control framework coming back disguised as a budget cap, will be another feature of this scheme.
It also suggests that few lessons have been learned by the Government. The levy control framework became a politicised mechanism that defied industry understanding and eventually had to be scrapped. Can the Minister give more details today to give confidence that the balance between encouraging deployment and payback to investors will not suddenly lurch towards ill-defined value-for-money analysis being undertaken at the stroke of the department’s pen? Those lost years after those experiences for the solar industry, as well the jobs that were lost, have contributed to the climate emergency that is yet to be recognised fully across government.
Continuing further into the details, I commend the Government on the impact assessment accompanying the regulations. It gave greater insight into the set-up of the scheme and the changes from the RHI regime. This scheme will mandate biomethane producers to produce at least 50% of their biomethane from waste. On page 70 of the impact assessment, the full feedstock energy mix is identified, with 50% of the waste expected to be food waste. Can the Minister confirm whether there is a full definition of food waste that includes food waste in all its various unfortunate and distinguishing forms? My understanding is that this refers not merely to restaurant, domestic household and other post-consumption end-of-the-food-chain waste. It should also include waste that does not even reach the food chain, such as food being rejected or suddenly no longer wanted by supermarkets; this can befall farmers and growers, especially in salad crops and vegetables.
Has the Minister’s department worked closely with colleagues at Defra who are working to reduce food waste through recycling schemes and local authorities? Can he also say what analysis has been undertaken by the department to consider the effects on the renewable fuel obligation undertaken by the Department for Transport, which reuses cooking oils?
I am not aware of the definitions and analysis of “food waste” under the RHI scheme, but I remember that, at one time, miscanthus growing was an important feature of biomethane production plants. In the department’s analysis, maize is the next important feedstock, at 20%, along with agricultural waste. However, I note, under “Non-monetised costs and benefits”, which the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks, the effect on the rural economy. The analysis states that
“two thirds of … plants are located in rural areas, with 80% of all GB plants located in areas with a lower than average GVA.”
I welcome the positive effect that this will have on rural areas. I also note that many properties are not on the gas grid in these rural areas.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let me start by thanking both noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. The need to make progress with decarbonisation of course remains an absolute priority for the Government, so we have to keep up the pace of change to fuel what will be a green, sustainable recovery as we build back better from the pandemic. So, to keep us on track, as noble Lords will be aware, the Government recently launched a landmark net zero strategy setting out how the UK will secure 440,000 well-paid jobs and unlock £90 billion-worth of investment by 2030—all on our path to ending a contribution to climate change by 2050.
However, to meet net zero, we are of course aware that virtually all heat in buildings will need to be decarbonised. Moving away from burning fossil fuels for heating is a great challenge, but it presents enormous opportunities for jobs, growth and levelling up. We are clear that achieving net zero will require a range of technologies and solutions for buildings, and that there is no single silver bullet. It is not a question of choosing whether electrification, hydrogen or heat networks are the answer, but of doing something on all of them, and everything that we can to deliver on all these fronts.
As I said in my introduction, within that framework biomethane has a clear role to play in decarbonising our energy supplies. The Committee on Climate Change stated that biomethane will be valuable across all decarbonisation pathways and recommended continued government support. Injecting biomethane into the gas grid means that more of the gas used in a gas boiler in a home or in industrial processes across Great Britain will be from renewable sources, meaning lower carbon emissions and a lower impact on climate change. Continued policy action is essential for maintaining investment in the biomethane industry and enabling the development of new production plants for biomethane to allow injection into the gas grid.
The green gas support scheme will also help to meet our commitments made in the 2019 Spring Statement and 2020 Budget to increase the proportion of green gas in the grid. It will help to promote a circular economy by encouraging the use of domestic and industrial food waste to heat our homes and businesses. It will contribute to achieving short-term carbon budgets and our broader target of net zero emissions by 2050. In addition, it will support high-quality jobs in the renewable energy sector as well as the development and diversification of the rural economy, in line with our net zero levelling-up agenda.
My noble friend Lord Naseby made a point about energy crops. Using waste feedstocks can contribute to carbon savings and to a circular economy, but given the uncertainty around food waste availability, a higher threshold could have had a negative impact on plant deployment and encouraged unintended competition within the anaerobic digestion industry. We will undertake a mid-scheme review in 2023 to review the waste feedstock thresholds, and we will adjust if necessary. My noble friend asked about the length of time needed to set up a plant. The answer depends on the size of the plant and the location, but in general it is about 12 to 18 months. He also asked how we will ensure that local government will collect waste to feed the new plants. We certainly expect food waste volumes to increase significantly over the lifetime of the green gas support scheme as a result of Defra’s household food waste collection policies. Those are outlined in the Environment Bill, which the House is debating as we speak.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who asked whether there will be crossover payments from the NDRHI and the green gas support scheme. We have carefully ensured that the regulations do not allow one plant to receive payments from both schemes; that would clearly be unfair to the taxpayer. We understand from market intelligence that roughly 53 plants will be deployed on the scheme, and we hope that building will begin on several of them later this year. The noble Lord also asked about value for money for the scheme. The degression mechanism will act to prevent the risk of overcompensation for deployment that exceeds forecast expenditure thresholds in year. The mechanism has been designed specially and revised in the light of the lessons learned under the RHI—for example, the degression triggers have been adjusted to mitigate some of the dynamics that were seen under the RHI. As always with these schemes, we need to balance our ambitions for biomethane plant deployment against the possible impact the scheme will have on the bills of domestic and industrial consumers. Budget management measures are designed to ensure that the decarbonisation of the gas grid occurs at the best possible value for money for bill payers.
Moving on to the noble Lord’s question about the definition of food waste, my department works closely with Defra, including on the waste hierarchy. This requires the prevention of waste in the first place; that is a good starting principle. Where that is not possible, we support the reuse, reduction or recycling of materials before, ultimately, disposing of any remaining waste safely through incineration, with the appropriate energy recovery. My department also works closely with the Department for Transport to ensure that the green gas support scheme and the renewable transport fuel obligation seamlessly work together to support industry, again ensuring no element of double subsidy.
On the question about miscanthus, energy crops are allowed on the scheme—up to 50%. As I said earlier, that threshold will be part of the mid-scheme review. On the noble Lord’s question about whether this levy will bring about any new levies on hydrogen, it is important to confirm that the green gas levy is the sole source of funding for the green gas support scheme. The Government have set out separate hydrogen and net-zero strategies, with the intention that, from 2025 at the latest, all revenue support for hydrogen production will be levy-funded. This is subject to consultation and the appropriate legislation being in place.
The noble Lord also asked me about reviews of the scheme and, as I said, a mid-scheme review will take place to ensure that it is meeting its aim to look at the balance of food stocks and energy crops. The broader decarbonisation of gas in the round is considered in the recently published Heat and Buildings Strategy and the various consultations alongside it.
On the noble Lord’s question about how this will impact households in fuel poverty, the Government’s impact assessment found that, even at the peak of the levy, the impact on both the number of people in fuel poverty and the size of the fuel poverty gap was minimal across Great Britain compared to the baseline scenario, where the levy is not imposed. The Government recognise the benefits of a volumetric levy, as opposed to a meter-point levy, which aligns cost more closely with gas consumption. We have committed to transitioning to a volumetric levy as soon as possible, subject to overcoming the various feasibility studies of which the noble Lord is aware, including the impact on energy-intensive industries and other important UK businesses. We are clear that any volumetric levy design must be simple to administer and must deliver and minimise the costs to consumers. Before we proceed on this, we will ensure that we fully consult on any new proposals in this area.
The noble Lord also asked how the Government will manage the cumulative impact of levies. The Government are committed to ensuring that the costs of decarbonising the energy system are fair and affordable for all energy users. We are considering the benefits and costs of the different approaches and, as always, are committed to working with industry and consumers to keep costs down and identify ways to incentivise behaviour change towards decarbonisation. As we announced, we will launch a fairness and affordability call for evidence on options for energy levies and obligations to help rebalance prices and support green choices, with a view to taking final decisions on that next year.
I think I have dealt with all the questions that were asked of me and, with that, I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations were laid before the House on the 28 September 2021.
Following the emergence of Covid-19, the Government quickly implemented the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which introduced a set of permanent and temporary measures aimed at helping companies through the shock effects of the pandemic. In addition, many businesses have also benefited from an exceptional economic package of support from the Government in excess of £400 billion through the furlough and self-employed income support schemes, and through various grants and loans, and business rates and VAT relief.
Since their introduction last year, these measures have proved invaluable in protecting many businesses that were unable to trade from unnecessary insolvency due to the restrictions imposed in the national lockdown periods to deal with the pandemic. Most of the temporary insolvency measures, including the relaxation of wrongful trading, lapsed at the end of June this year, but the restrictions on company winding-up petitions were extended for a further three months until the end of September.
Without doubt, the pandemic has presented a huge challenge for us all, but we have listened and taken action to protect businesses whose very existence has been threatened by the lockdown restrictions that were necessary to keep us all safe. However, we recognise that these measures, and in particular the restrictions on the use of company winding-up petitions, are a severe restriction on creditors’ rights to enforce recovery of their debts and as such should not remain in place for longer than is necessary.
Now that we are back to full trading following the successful completion of the Government’s four-step roadmap out of lockdown on 19 July, all businesses are able to fully reopen without restriction. The signs are indicative of a strong economic bounce-back and the time is right to begin to restore the insolvency regime to its normal operation by returning some creditor rights.
We must bear in mind, however, that many businesses, particularly those sectors that were most affected by the lockdown restrictions for over a year, such as retail and hospitality, have been severely impacted and their solvency will be endangered by accrued debts and low cash reserves before they have been given a chance to trade back to profitability and financial health. As such, it is crucial that we do not pull the rug completely at this pivotal moment and instead allow the previous measures to end in a controlled way that provides affected businesses with a further period of protections.
These regulations therefore introduce a new kind of temporary restriction on winding up companies that is less of an impediment to creditors and tapers the version that has been in place since last year. The instrument replaces the previous high bar for winding-up petitions on the grounds of inability to pay debts, which required that petitioners satisfy a court that the debts were not Covid-19 related, with new targeted criteria for creditors which seek to encourage dialogue with their debtors prior to pursuing a winding up.
The new and temporary criteria for petitioning creditors, which came into force on 1 October 2021 for a period of six months, are: first, a requirement for creditors to demonstrate that they have sought to negotiate repayment of a debt before seeking to wind a company up; secondly, that the debt owed must be at least £10,000; and, thirdly, that a company winding-up petition cannot be brought in respect of a commercial rent as described by the provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020.
On the first of those criteria—a new requirement for creditors to demonstrate that they have sought to negotiate the repayment of a debt—before presenting a winding-up petition a creditor must send a notice to the company giving it 21 days to respond with proposals for paying the debt. Creditors will then be required to confirm to the court that they have sent the notice, whether they have received any proposals from the company and, if so, state why they are not satisfactory. A creditor is not obliged to agree to the proposals put forward by the company. However, the court will be able to draw on its existing discretion to refuse to make a winding-up order where it appears that a creditor is attempting to abuse the winding-up process.
I am aware that, throughout the pandemic, many creditors and debtors have continued to work closely to find solutions together. I know that many businesses have come to agreements, and I thank them for their efforts in what are challenging circumstances for both sides. This measure reinforces the Government’s message that creditors and debtors should collaborate to find solutions to address arrears that have accrued as a result of the pandemic.
The second of the temporary criteria is that to present a company winding-up petition the debt owed must be at least £10,000. Ordinarily, there is no minimum amount that must be owed before a winding-up petition can be brought, although, when it is based on a statutory demand, the debt owed must be at least £750. A temporary increase in the minimum debt level to £10,000 will prevent petitions for relatively small debts that would otherwise be presented. In particular, this is likely to reduce the number of petitions presented against SMEs, which tend to have smaller debts and less cash reserves, making them most in need of additional support. The £10,000 limit also aligns with the current £10,000 limit for issuing proceedings in the small claims court and is easily identifiable as a measure to prevent winding-up petitions being presented for small debts and to allow businesses to focus on recovery.
The final element of the criteria is that a company winding-up petition cannot be presented in respect of commercial rent. The Committee will be aware that, during the summer, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced an extension of the moratorium on the forfeiture of commercial tenancies until 25 March 2022. This is to allow time for the implementation through primary legislation—the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill, which is being introduced to Parliament today—of a rent arbitration scheme to help industry deal with commercial rental debts that have accrued to a significant level during the national restrictions periods. Subject to parliamentary passage, it will come into force next year.
The restrictions on the commercial rent arrears recovery scheme have also been extended to 25 March 2022. This carve-out in relation to winding up is necessary in order not to destabilise the proposed rent arbitration scheme before it is introduced, and again reinforces the Government’s message that, wherever possible, creditors and their debtors should work together to find a way to come to amicable agreements on rent debt accrued during the periods of national lockdown. We recognise that this could cause continuing uncertainty for commercial landlords who themselves may be under pressure as a result of the pandemic. However, the rent arbitration scheme will deliver certainty to both the landlord and the tenant when an agreement to pay lockdown rent arrears has been unachievable. Furthermore, while rent debts accrued during lockdown are ring-fenced for the purpose of the arbitration scheme, all commercial rent owed after 19 July 2021 should be paid in full as and when it falls due.
In conclusion, these new targeted criteria demonstrate that the Government have listened and taken into account the concerns raised repeatedly about the potential cliff-edge scenario leading to a sharp increase in insolvencies when government regulatory and fiscal support end. The new targeted criteria reinforce the importance of striking a balance between the rights of creditors and the further protections needed by businesses most affected by the pandemic. I cannot stress enough that discussion is crucial between creditors and their debtors, as the best way to recovery will be the one where they work together. I ask them please to continue to negotiate and find solutions together, wherever possible. That would be my message to both sides. With that, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, this is the latest instalment of long-running legislation, which may well come to an end fairly soon. None the less, there are a number of issues, and I should be grateful for clarification.
A recurring issue has been the relative absence of any cliff-edge arrangements to prevent a high number of business and personal bankruptcies. With the relaxation of the insolvency constraints from 1 October, the number of bankruptcies has already begun to accelerate and may well get worse. Further problems will come when businesses need to repay their Covid loans and, inevitably, their cash flows will be squeezed. The Government made a fundamental mistake in not taking an equity stake in large businesses; if they had done so, those businesses would not have to repay the loans and interest and their cash flows would have been preserved for productive use and investment in productive assets.
As far as I can make out, the statutory instrument does not amend the sections of the Insolvency Act 1986 that deal with the disposition of property between the presentation of a winding-up petition and the date of the winding-up order. This suggests to me that banks are perhaps already able to freeze the accounts of their clients, which might actually force some into bankruptcy. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether that is the case.
The Minister also referred in passing to the 16 January 2021 announcement in a press release entitled Eviction Protection Extended for Businesses Most in Need, in which the Government promised that they would legislate to ring-fence Covid-related rent arrears that had been accrued as a result of trading restrictions placed on businesses, and introduce a system of binding arbitration for landlords and tenants who cannot come to a negotiated settlement on payment. Could the Minister say when this legislation will be enacted? I might have missed something; I am not aware that it has been enacted.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
It has been? You may be right; I probably missed it.
Why are the same arbitrations terms not available to individuals? Why are they restricted to commercial landlords and commercial property? The increase in the threshold—from £750 to £10,000—for presenting a winding-up petition may give temporary reprieve to some small businesses, but the Government have missed an opportunity to offer permanent help to small businesses in matters of bankruptcy. This would have required a change in the order in which the creditors of an insolvent business are paid. Currently, secured creditors, which include banks, private equity, hedge funds and wealthy individuals, walk off with most of the proceeds from the sale of the assets of a bankrupt business, leaving little, if anything, for unsecured creditors, comprising employee pension schemes and supply-chain creditors, including many small businesses.
The insolvency law is forcing employees to forgo some of their pension rights. It also strangles many small businesses, because, in their capacity as unsecured creditors, they will receive next to nothing from the bankruptcy of a large customer. So, unlike financial conglomerates, they are forced to bear a highly disproportionate amount of risk arising from the bankruptcy of their clients. I cannot think of any moral or economic reason that justifies financial conglomerates being able to walk away with most of the assets of a bankrupt business, leaving small businesses and pension schemes with little or nothing.
It would be helpful to hear what moral and economic justification the Minister can offer; it is actually strangling SMEs and damaging employee pension interests. Could the Minister indicate whether, perhaps before the end of this Parliament, the Government have any plan to introduce legislation that will facilitate the equitable sharing of bankruptcy risks among all creditors? As I said, there is no economic or moral reason why secured creditors have to be prioritised. That law goes back to the 18th century, and here we are in the 21st century still not having changed it. Is it not time that we did?
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister has said, the statutory instrument introduces new temporary tapering measures that restrict the use of winding-up petitions. From 1 October, this instrument introduced a tapering effect, we are told by government, to protect companies from aggressive creditor enforcement as the economy opens up. The new temporary measures will be in place until 31 March 2022, but, ultimately, it is an extension of some support and a withdrawal of other support in the way it has been tapered.
We believe that it is right to maintain restrictions on serving winding-up petitions under Schedule 10 to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. It is vital that businesses that have sustained so much pressure during the last 18 months be supported right through to the end of the pandemic. This pressure was clearly demonstrated by the recently published annual report from the Insolvency Service, which found that although some measures had mitigated the impact of the pandemic on businesses, the number of people who have accessed the Redundancy Payments Service was up around 20% on normal levels.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I first thank both noble Lords for their interesting and valuable contributions. Throughout this pandemic the Government have helped the companies that have been most affected by the restrictions that were necessary and were introduced to keep us all safe. Some of the issues raised today highlight how essential it is that we do not withdraw prematurely the help and support for those companies, now that they are able to reopen. We do not want to risk allowing them to fail now, because to do so would mean that all the support we have given so far is rendered pointless; and, of course, there would be a negative effect on the economy—on businesses and people’s jobs.
These new criteria seek to strike the right balance between the rights of creditors, who have not received payment for many months, and of their debtors, who would otherwise be viable were it not for the pandemic. In many cases, an unnecessary insolvency would be the worst outcome for all involved: for the company in question, for the employees and, of course, for the creditors.
These measures underpin the Government’s consistent message that discussion is essential between creditors and their debtors. They should continue to negotiate where possible to promote a return to full profitably for all involved, allowing debtors to return to their full pre-Covid financial health and to repay all their debts, not just debts to petitioning creditors.
The points raised have highlighted the importance of tapering the effects of the current temporary measures, and these targeted criteria seek to minimise the risk of unnecessary insolvencies while facilitating a gradual return to the normal operating of our world-class insolvency regime. These regulations will continue to provide much needed support for businesses, allowing them to concentrate their energies on continuing to trade and build upon the foundations of our economic recovery.
I will move on to address some of the points raised, starting with those made by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. The SI does not amend the section of the Insolvency Act 1986 relating to winding-up orders. I note the point raised by the noble Lord about freezing bank accounts on a petition, but this was intended as part of the return of the framework back to normal operating. The noble Lord also raised several issues relating to company and insolvency law, none of which relates to this particular statutory instrument. A number of them went well beyond the scope of these regulations, but I can tell the noble Lord that we keep wider company and insolvency law frameworks under constant review and will not hesitate to bring forward amendments to the House if and when needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked how many stakeholders the Government have consulted and asked about user criteria. We have been in close dialogue with businesses and professional groups about these measures and their likely impact. Given that the effects of the Covid-19 crisis are still with us and businesses are still dealing with its impact, the consensus was that these measures are necessary to provide ongoing support to businesses that need it, while restoring some creditor powers.
The noble Lord asked how the court would decide whether a repayment proposal is reasonable. The courts are well versed in adjudicating on the grounds upon which a company winding-up order should be made and will be able to draw on their existing discretion and experience in that regard. If the company has had the time to present its proposals for repayment and still cannot satisfy the creditor, in many cases it is right that it should be wound up. However, having said that, the court will be able to refuse to make a winding-up order where it appears that a creditor is attempting to abuse the winding-up process.
The noble Lord also asked why the moratoriums preventing the forfeiture of commercial leases and the suspension of the CRAR regime end on 25 March 2022 when the rest of the measures expire on 31 March 2022. The primary objective of the tapering measures is to allow a gradual return to the normal operation of the insolvency regime, whereas the commercial rent element was included so as to not undermine the rent arbitration system before it is introduced.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that I said in my opening remarks that the legislation is being introduced in the House of Commons today. The Government will monitor closely how this temporary measure is working and, as ever, we will bring amendments to this House if necessary. No petitions were made during the period that the noble Lord referred to.
I think I have dealt with all the questions that were asked. I thank noble Lords again for their contributions to this debate and commend these regulations to the Committee.
Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance for Children and Young People) (Consequential Modifications) (No. 2) Order 2021
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance for Children and Young People) (Consequential Modifications) (No. 2) Order 2021.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order, which was laid on 7 September 2021, be approved. This order, which delivers for the people of Scotland, is fully supported by the UK and Scottish Governments. It is the result of close contact between the two Governments over the past year and highlights the importance the UK Government place on the effective functioning of devolution and the strength of the union.
We have a long tradition in this country of supporting children with extra needs through disability benefits. Since the mid-1970s, we have provided support through the attendance allowance and mobility allowance and, since 1992, the disability living allowance. There are nearly 43,000 disabled children in Scotland entitled to the disability living allowance. These amendments will ensure that their treatment is equitable to the 479,000 children in England and 27,000 in Wales. Children must be able to access adequate care, including unpaid care from family members. The order before noble Lords today will ensure that can happen by making the child disability payment a qualifying benefit for the carer’s allowance in England and Wales.
The Scottish Government have the authority to deliver new forms of disability assistance, using social security powers devolved to them through the Scotland Act 2016. The Scottish Government introduced their first form of disability assistance for children and young people on 26 July 2021. This is called the child disability payment. The child disability payment will operate in a very similar way to the existing benefits currently provided by the DWP. It is therefore the intention of the UK and Scottish Governments to ensure that there is equal treatment for child disability payment recipients to those who receive similar benefits in England and Wales.
I shall explain the purpose and effect of the order. The UK Government have agreed that, as the child disability payment will operate as broadly equivalent to the disability living allowance for children, provided by the DWP, it should also act as a qualifying benefit for the Christmas bonus. The Christmas bonus is a one-off tax-free £10 payment made annually before Christmas to customers who get certain qualifying benefits in a certain qualifying week.
For this change to happen, the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 must be changed to list the child disability payment as a qualifying benefit to determine entitlement to the Christmas bonus. This order is being taken through Parliament now to ensure that those who are in receipt of the child disability payment in the qualifying week will be eligible for the Christmas bonus. A delay to the order being in force could result in eligible people missing out on reserved payments.
The order also makes some amendments relating to the carer’s allowance for England and Wales. There is the possibility that someone living near the Scottish border but outside of Scotland may be caring for someone in receipt of the child disability payment in Scotland. Although these cases are likely to be rare, this change to legislation in England and Wales would ensure that someone in this situation would still be entitled to the carer’s allowance.
This order also amends UK legislation to ensure that the child disability payment can be treated as a qualifying benefit for entitlement to class 3 national insurance carer’s credit, which protects individuals’ state pensions. This credit can be awarded, on application, to people who are looking after one or more people for at least 20 hours a week and the person being cared for is receiving the disability living allowance for children. To ensure equal treatment, we are amending UK legislation to ensure that the child disability payment can also be treated as a qualifying benefit for entitlement to the carer’s credit.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, I hope that I have the right statutory instrument and that I am not speaking on the wrong one. I am particularly pleased to welcome this statutory instrument, which means that children will not have to go through compulsory face-to-face assessments and will not have to undergo repeated applications. I gather that clinical reports will be collected as a matter of course. I make a plea that a disabled child under three should, if eligible, be entitled to the highest mobility component so that parents are able to apply for a Motability car. It sounds as though lessons have been learned from the recent pilot and that the whole experience surrounding the benefit will be as stress free as possible.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for his clear exposition. We support this order and think that it is beneficial. We understand the effect to be that the child disability payment will be treated as a qualifying benefit for Christmas bonus, carer’s allowance and carer’s credit in the same way as the disability living allowance for children is currently treated, and that that is the primary purpose of the order for Scotland. I hope the noble Viscount can confirm that that is the position.
Can the Minister help me on two issues? In accordance with the correct procedure, this is a draft order, hence the name of the Secretary of State has not been put in at the end. The noble Viscount referred to this having effect for the “qualifying week” for the Christmas bonus. Can he indicate when this will come into force? If one looks at the beginning of the draft it says “made” and “coming into force”. Obviously “made” depends upon today, but I am not sure what date is envisaged for coming into force. Can the noble Viscount indicate what it is and what the qualifying week is for the purpose of the Christmas bonus?
I understand the key bit of this measure to be paragraphs (3) and (4) of the draft order. Does paragraph (3) get the disability payment to be treated in the same way as previously? What is the significance of
“the care component of child disability payment at the middle or highest rate in accordance with regulation 11”?
What does that mean? Is there an alternative that could have been used that might have been better?
Moving on from the technical detail of the order, the noble Viscount said that the DWP was in close contact with the Scottish Government on these issues. The compounding cost of living crisis, with rising energy bills, rising taxes and cuts to universal credit, has made the position of many families in Scotland particularly difficult. Has the department or the Minister had any discussions with Scottish Ministers about why it has taken so long for the Scottish Government to use the powers afforded to them to devolve benefits in Scotland? It will now take until 2025 for some benefits to be devolved after the Scottish Government sought to delay implementation. Why is that?
In our view, the Scottish Government have not gone far enough with those benefits which have been devolved—they could have made the carer’s supplement permanent or made eligibility for disability benefits fairer, but they have failed to do either. Has the Minister or his department discussed with Scottish Ministers their approach to the social security system, which seems more in keeping with the approach of the DWP in England than with a separate system? Has the Minister or his department identified any areas where savings could be made for the Scottish taxpayer—for example, by using existing UK government infrastructure to make payments, rather than setting up costly new methods which replicate those which already exist?
I end by expressing appreciation for the approach that the noble Viscount has taken in laying this statutory instrument before Parliament. As I said, it is one we support, so that families can receive the payments they are entitled to ahead of and during what could be a very difficult winter for many.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for their comments. I shall try to respond to as many of them as I can.
The first point raised by the noble Baroness was on assessments of children and how many were face to face. Although I cannot answer that, what I can say—which would be the sensible thing to say and I am sure is true—is that assessments with children must be kept to the minimum, because I have no doubt that they could be challenging or traumatic. I shall definitely write to the noble Baroness if the answer to her question is any different from that which I have given. The handling of disabled children is a very sensitive matter and must be done with great care. I hope that helps.
Perhaps I may start by making some general comments, which I hope will help with some of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord. We believe that this order is a sensible and pragmatic step on the part of the UK Government to ensure that CDP can be treated as a qualifying benefit for the Christmas bonus, carer’s allowance and carer’s credit. To reiterate what I said at the outset, the UK Government are fully committed to devolution and honouring our commitments. All sections of the Scotland Act 2016 are now in force, meaning that the Scottish Parliament is able to legislate in every area where the Act has given it the power to do so.
We continue to work closely with the Scottish Government and have made significant progress in transferring the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It may help to answer one question raised by the noble and learned Lord to say that our discussions with the Scottish Government are important and ongoing, and I have no doubt that the points that he raised are discussed regularly with them.
This order comes on top of other initiatives. On the back of what we have been doing, Scottish Ministers have been able to launch the child disability payment, the job start payment, child winter heating assistance, Fair Start Scotland, carer’s allowance supplement, Best Start Foods scheme, the young carer’s grant and funeral support payment as a result of such powers having been passed to the Scottish Parliament.
Let me address the specific question asked by the noble and learned Lord about what this order does. I can confirm that it will ensure that the child disability payment is added to the list of qualifying benefits for the annual Christmas bonus payment. It will also ensure that the carer’s allowance can be paid in England or Wales to those who care for someone in Scotland who is in receipt of the child disability payment. Further, it includes some time-limited provisions in relation to the carer’s allowance and carer’s credit in Northern Ireland. I think I said that, but I want to reiterate that that is what this order is about.
The noble and learned Lord asked about timings and when the order will come into force. That is a fair question. The target in-force date for this order is 17 November 2012—quite soon—and is obviously subject to parliamentary approval. He asked about the qualifying week for the Christmas bonus. It will be the first week in December. I hope that helps.
The noble and learned Lord also asked why it has taken the Scottish Government so long to deliver this. Again, that is a fair question. It is, as he will expect me to say, a matter for the Scottish Government. To give a little more breadth to this answer, let me say, as the noble and learned Lord might expect me to, that, to be fair to the Scottish Government, Covid-19 has had a major impact on the delivery of this measure. It is complex. Both the Scottish and UK Governments are committed to delivering this in a safe and secure way that makes sure that people continue to get the right money at the right time. However, as I say, it is for the Scottish Government to answer the noble and learned Lord’s question.
I was asked why the Scottish Government are not doing more and whether they are doing enough on these particular measures. I would argue that that is a little outside the scope of this order, but let me finish by saying what I said at the outset: we believe that the order is a sensible and pragmatic step in continuing the devolution of social security powers.
I believe that I have answered most of the questions from noble Lords. I hope that I have satisfied the noble and learned Lord. I will look carefully at Hansard to make sure that everything has been covered. I finish by thanking the noble and learned Lord for his time and interest in this order.
Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, first, I bring to your Lordships’ attention a matter relating to one of the SIs to be debated in Grand Committee today. It relates to the SI that covers the removal of the car and trailer driving test, which was due to come into force on 15 November and was debated in the other place yesterday. For procedural reasons, the SI will now be unable to be approved by the other place by 15 November, so we are exploring all options with the House authorities about bringing in an identical SI with an amended date in the future. I hope that noble Lords agree with me that it remains appropriate to debate the substance of these SIs, as planned, in Grand Committee today.
These two statutory instruments, along with the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021, which follows the negative procedure, are a package of measures designed to increase driving examiner availability and allocate this time to test heavy goods vehicle drivers, thereby helping to reduce the acute HGV driver shortage in this country. This is a global issue. It has affected the haulage industry for many years, but it has been further exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic, which meant that driver testing had to be suspended for much of last year. During this time, the shortage increased further as new drivers could not join the industry to replace those leaving.
The shortage of HGV drivers affects the supply chains not only of fresh food but of fuel, medicines and medical equipment across Great Britain. We therefore need to tackle this matter with urgency, and these SIs are part of the 30 interventions that the Government are putting in place to tackle the shortage of drivers.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome these proposals. Having said that, I have a number of questions to ask my noble friend. First, why is Northern Ireland not included? I am sure there is an obvious reason, but it is not clear to me. I note that, in paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, there is a statement, allegedly from the industry,
“reporting shortages of around 76,000 drivers.”
From the inquiries I have made within the industry, it is nearer to 100,000, so I wonder what the evidence really is for 76,000. Was that figure given to the department some months ago, before the build-up we have now? That is a concern.
I also made some inquiries about the EU. Quite frankly, it appears that we are top of the list of shortages. I have not covered the whole of the EU, but it seems that the major countries with which we are competing do not have the extent of shortages that we have now. That is a major worry. I put it to my noble friend that if we did not know about the challenge from Brexit in January 2020, we must have known of the beginnings of these difficulties in the summer of 2020. Here we are, well past the summer of 2021, and, at best, we will see the benefits of this early in 2022. Somehow or other, we have allowed ourselves to drift, which seems particularly damaging to the UK economy at this time.
I come on to timing specifically. Let us assume these go through, as I am sure they will, as they are welcome, how long before we can expect to see some change on the ground with new people driving heavy goods vehicles? Do we anticipate this will be in three, six or nine months? It cannot be a very short time, certainly not before the middle of 2022.
While one should always be cautious about one’s position, I declare an interest in that I applied for my driving licence. I was advised that it was speedier to do it online, so I carefully did it online towards the end of September. I got an acknowledgement online on 1 October, saying that it had been received, so I have the reference and everything. Here we are on 9 November, which is nearly six weeks later. I am no different from others; I have talked to some colleagues in my former constituency and they are all waiting six, eight or 10 weeks. I would like to know from my noble friend whether this is because the processing is being done by staff at home or is because the staff are in the department, but something is holding up the issue of these licences. To the best of my knowledge, my licence is clean, so this should be straightforward. My application was accepted. I am having a problem, as are others in my former constituency. This is a real problem, and I wonder whether my noble friend can address it.
I come back to two other areas that I have raised before. I put it to my noble friend that the loan scheme that was closed in 2019 should be reopened. Is it not to be reopened because Her Majesty’s Government think that the industry should do all that work, or is it that the Co-op, which was mentioned in the briefing I got, was helping to sponsor it? As a member of the Co-op, I am certainly more than happy to go back to it and suggest that it should continue to sponsor the scheme, if it was the sponsor. I say to my noble friend that, at this particular point in time, when there is a huge difficulty that will be there for a long time, it does not make sense that those people who would benefit from the loan scheme, particularly some of the younger people, should have to rely on what is currently available. I know what is currently available, and I do not think that it is sufficient.
Finally, I understand that drivers coming in from the continent on a short-term basis—that is to be welcomed—are doing so on a cabotage basis. I must say that that has gone down like a lead balloon among UK drivers, who are now asking, “Why can’t we have cabotage for a short period in this difficult time?” All is not well in this area. There are huge difficulties. I recognise that the Minister is doing her best but, nevertheless, this is a huge challenge. It seems to me that it will not get any easier for a considerable time, unless I have missed some particular point. I will listen to my noble friend when she replies.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, my first task is to apologise most profusely to the Committee for not being here at the start of the Minister’s comments. I am sorry about that; business progressed a bit faster than I anticipated.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her careful explanation of the new regulations. I should declare my interest: I hold a C+E HGV driving licence and am a qualified HGV driving instructor, albeit out of date. In addition, I hold what is called an H licence, which covers a track-laying vehicle that is steered by its tracks. From time to time, I drive vehicles in circumstances that require an H licence on behalf of the REME Museum and others. In the past few months, I have driven a tank transporter with a gross train weight of around 80 tonnes, so I think I know what I am talking about.
The Minister explained the reasons why these changes are desirable. I do not disagree with her thinking. She has also made changes to the drivers’ hours regulations, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, have tabled fatal amendments. I know that the usual channels are working hard to find us time to debate those regulations, but part of the problem is that the debate would not fit into a 60-minute dinner break business slot. It is unfortunate that, despite the severe problems arising from the shortage of HGV drivers, we still have not debated those regulations.
The regulations before the Committee are fairly technical. The No. 2 regulations dispense with the requirement for a separate test to drive a light vehicle towing a trailer. Since I passed my car test in the 1970s, I have always had a B+E entitlement. The proposed changes are relatively low risk and worth while, although the Minister should monitor the effect carefully. I do not believe that it is worth the effort of an additional test for light trailers. The vast majority of drivers would seek advice from a more experienced person before attempting to tow a trailer, but it is not a hugely complicated issue. The Committee should note that the regulations make a review at the three-year point mandatory. I point out that I see quite a few incidents involving light vehicles and trailers and know not whether inexperience was a factor, although I think that it is unlikely.
A more urgent issue with light trailers is the fact that such trailers are not subject to statutory annual testing. Furthermore, these trailers are often shared between friends and colleagues. In the past, I borrowed one and it collapsed under a modest load—it was quite a surprise. This would be a much more profitable area to regulate, rather than an additional driving test.
Turning now to the HGV testing regime and the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations, I can provide strong support to my noble friend the Minister. I shall explain why. In the past, I have trained both military personnel and civilians within a commercial context to drive all types of heavy goods vehicles. One of my pupils, whom I will call Paul, went on to drive articulated vehicles carrying Formula 1 motor racing teams and their precious cars around Europe.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, because, as the Minister knows, I waited five months for my licence.
Listening to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, it is important to bear in mind that he has considerable experience. To me, experience is at the centre of all this. I note, and bear in mind in my comments, that one of the things he said was that passing the test does not make someone an HGV driver because this takes a lot longer.
Taken together, these SIs set out to simplify driving tests. They are part of the litany of what I understood to be 25 crisis actions—I gather it is now 30—that the Government are taking to try to tackle the shortage of HGV drivers. The logic is that, if you streamline driving tests, this will free up slots for tests, enabling more people to qualify. They will make the process of training to qualification quicker and easier, so the staged process is being abandoned.
I will make some general comments then ask some specific questions. Here, I bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said. How has this crisis been allowed to get so bad? In a previous debate, the Minister told us that there had been a shortage since 2010, so it has hardly happened suddenly. The Government say that the crisis is of long standing and worldwide, but we are the worst in Europe. In percentage terms, only Poland has a greater percentage shortage of drivers, and that is a totally artificial situation because it services the rest of Europe—a very high percentage of Polish lorry drivers drive almost entirely, if not entirely, abroad—so we have the most acute shortage. The No. 2 order blames Covid, although the No. 4 order has the grace to admit that Brexit might be a factor and quotes shortage figures of between 39,000 and 100,000 drivers. To put that in context, the total requirement is estimated to be around 300,000.
Clearly the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has driven trailers on many occasions, but I ask how many people in this Room—there is no need for noble Lords to put up their hands—have driven trailers? I reckon backing a trailer to be the trickiest driving manoeuvre that I have ever undertaken. It takes experience, judgment and the kind of steady nerve that only comes with practice. I wonder whether anyone has seen a trailer jack-knife? I have, on the M5. It blocked the road in both directions for two hours and led to some serious injuries. The cause, although one can observe only from the outside, was that it was a windy day and the driver was going very fast. That was probably the cause, and it was probably due to a lack of experience. Frankly, I am astonished that, having got themselves into this mess, and despite warnings from the haulage industry, the Government’s reaction is to simplify tests in a way that could have an impact on road safety. The Government admit that themselves. The Explanatory Memorandum to the No. 4 order says:
“Any impact on road safety ... may therefore be marginal”.
That is a hopeful statement, but it implies that there will be an impact.
However, although the consultation was held over the summer period and was relatively short—four weeks—it led to 9,541 responses, some of which, we are told, led to serious concerns about road safety. There has been no response by the Government to the public consultation yet; when can we expect that? The Explanatory Memorandum says that, of those who responded,
“the majority of people supported this proposal”.
I would be interested to know the percentage of people and organisations that supported the proposal because haulage organisations have expressed serious concerns. On 4 November, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which I am a deputy chair, took note of the concerns of its road user behaviour group that the changes to the testing system and the relaxation of drivers’ hours, to which the noble Earl has referred, are a threat to safety. So why did the Department for Transport rush to announce these changes to driver training and testing two days before the end of the consultation period?
The Government have said that they will review this, which I am very pleased to hear, but the review period is very long—an awful lot of driving is going on in a period of three years. I believe that we can see a pattern very much sooner than that. Is the Minister in a position to give us a commitment that the Government, informally at the very least, will keep this under continuous review and take swift action if there are problems with safety?
There is a clear interaction between the availability of HGV drivers and that of bus drivers. Bus companies are already complaining about a shortage of drivers, who are being attracted into lorry driving because the pay has gone up recently. I am afraid to say to noble Lords that bus drivers’ wages are one of my hobby horses; I think they are seriously underpaid for the level of responsibility they take on. A shortage of bus drivers is having an impact on bus services, but I am concerned about any impact on the levels of experience and expertise that we can expect in future from newly qualified bus drivers. We are talking here about the safety of passengers as well as that of other road users.
One way in which the Government are trying to simplify the system is by reducing the required levels of expertise and qualification for those who can supervise a learner driver. This is a very risky path. Some years ago, a previous Government recognised the need for a certain level of experience before you could supervise. Decades of evidence indicate that you are much more likely to have an accident in the early years of your driving career. That underlines my point that experience counts.
One of the actions proposed to be taken is that backing the trailer should not be part of the main test but should be assessed by training organisations. Can the Minister explain in detail how this will work? I noted that she said that the Government “recommend” that people undertake this training rather than it being compulsory. I thought that it was going to be compulsory, but that it would happen not as part of the test but as part of training with a training organisation. If my original understanding is correct, can the Minister explain how the organisations will be chosen and accredited and how we can be sure that individual drivers have passed that aspect of the training?
One is endlessly concerned these days about the ability of organisations to fulfil the contracts they are awarded. A major question is whether these new tests and licences will be fully recognised in Northern Ireland and hence in the Republic of Ireland. Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum for the No. 2 regulations refers to the fact that people may wish to take the B + E test for employment purposes. Is the implication therefore that some companies will still demand full qualification? It also refers to people wanting to take both tests in order to drive outside Great Britain.
Are the Government saying that the provision will not be recognised in the EU? The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, raised that, I believe. That will not just have implications for commercial HGV drivers; it will also have implications for people towing horseboxes, and dozens of other examples. When we left the EU, we were promised that there would be no watering down of standards, but here we are in a situation where that is effectively what is happening. Last night, in the police Bill, we concentrated on road safety, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, know. The message of that was that we should be dedicated to raising standards, yet that is not the message that we are getting with these two SIs.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, most of my comments will be directed towards the (Amendment) (No.2) regulations and to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which homed in particular on that order.
Under these regulations, the obligation is removed for some car drivers towing a trailer to have to take the additional test. As the Minister said, that is to free up capacity and enable more test appointments to be fitted in each month for heavy goods vehicle licences in a bid to address the current shortage of HGV drivers. No doubt the Minister in her response may wish to comment on the extent to which that shortage has been eased or the extent to which it continues.
The regulations also remove the requirement in relation to the staged access route to licence acquisition for heavy goods vehicle and bus licences, which will also free up driving examiner time and shorten the amount of time that it takes for a driver to become qualified to drive the largest heavy goods vehicles.
I understand that the category B towing test will not be abolished, because it is still needed by anyone wishing to drive a trailer in the EU. The regulations simply remove the obligation to take the test before towing in the UK, and will be reviewed after three years and then every five years after that, which frankly suggests that the Department for Transport see these changes to all intents and purposes as being permanent, rather than being a short-term measure to address the current heavy goods vehicle driver shortage—unless, of course, the Department for Transport envisages that shortage going on for years and years.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn the attention of the House to the regulations, not least in respect of the potential safety implications. There are, apparently, about 1,000 collision injury accidents or incidents involving trailers each year. It is not clear whether the Government do or do not expect that figure to be affected by the removal of the towing test. Frankly, at the moment, I do not think the Government even have a view, since the Department for Transport has indicated that a risk assessment on road safety will form part of the impact assessment, which is fine, apart from the fact that the impact assessment will not be cleared for publication until the end of this month at the earliest. I note what the Minister said at the beginning, and that the regulations were intended to come into effect this coming Monday.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said:
“We view this as poor practice.”
It is right. Once again, the Department for Transport has been slow to react, caught out by a driver shortage that it did not address in time, despite it being in large measure of the Government’s own making, thanks to their own particular brand of hard Brexit. The committee commented:
“It is part of the purpose of an IA”—
an impact assessment—
“to provide information on what options, including non-legislative options, were considered and why they were not adopted. Because the IA has not been made available to the House alongside the instrument, we are unclear about why possible alternatives were rejected … From the date this instrument comes into effect, any car driver will be able to tow a trailer but DfT has provided no estimate of the additional numbers that that might attract or the likelihood of incidents that might follow.”
However, the department asserts:
“There is not currently any statistical evidence to suggest that competence and skills will worsen if drivers do not take a statutory test to tow a trailer … it is therefore difficult to identify how much the car trailer test … has made a difference since it was introduced in 1997 or that there is a causal link between road safety and the test.”
I do not know for how many years that has been the Department for Transport’s view—perhaps the Minister could respond to that point in the Government’s reply—but if the Government do not know whether there are any safety benefits to the statutory test to tow a trailer, and have not taken any steps over the past 11 years to find out, that does not appear to say much for their much-vaunted campaign to reduce bureaucracy and unnecessary red tape.
Safety was, however, a concern of a significant percentage of those responding to the consultation on the amendment to the regulations: a third of the 8,750-odd respondents expressed safety concerns. As I understand it—I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong—the DVSA advises that anyone intending to drive a car with a trailer for the first time should still first take training from a driving instructor. What steps are being taken to publicise this advice?
Moving on, is it not the reality that the Government hope that people affected by these regulations will, either individually or through their firms, still undertake the aspects of the required training that these regulations will remove? This was indicated frankly in the Minister’s response to the chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in which there was a reference to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
“exploring industry-led accredited training that could offer a standardised non-statutory testing approach. The DVSA has received strong support for an accreditation training scheme which is also generating considerable interest from companies who tow as part of their business and we are progressing discussions urgently.”
That letter also stated:
“We know through DVSA’s stakeholder engagement, that there is a strong indication from professional business users that they will continue to undergo Category B+E training to ensure staff are safe and competent and that their corporate responsibilities are fulfilled.”
This certainly indicates that, as far as professional businesses are concerned, they regard the B+E training as necessary to ensure that staff are safe and competent. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded:
“The Department failed to provide any indication of the instrument’s wider effects when the instrument was laid and, in response to our follow-up questions, DfT was unable to explain what effect the removal of the BE licence will have on road safety.”
I conclude by simply asking whether the Government will in their response comment on the recommendations of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its report on the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021. The first was,
“We recommend that the DfT should review the current complex arrangements for what car and van drivers are permitted to tow and, if needed, replace them with a simpler licensing system. That decision should be based on evidence rather than the current experimental approach”.
Secondly, it said that the department should
“provide an annual Written Statement setting out towing accident figures as a reassurance that it will be in a position to undertake remedial action swiftly if a problem emerges”
and, thirdly, that the Minister should provide “more specific details about” the “wider safety implications” of the instrument, since the House
“has insufficient information to enable proper assessment of the policy”.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today and for enabling this debate to go ahead in the circumstances. I am very grateful, and I have appreciated the input of all noble Lords. I have listened to their concerns and suggestions very carefully, and I will write, as there is a bit of extra detail that I will give.
Returning to the overall driver shortage, the Government have been aware of it since 2010, but the issue is that it so is multifaceted that it is very difficult to pin down. We estimate the size of the acute shortage to be around 39,000, but there are numbers out there of 70,000 and 100,000, so what is not being delivered if those drivers are not available? I have asked the sector many times. The reality is that the lack of those drivers is about sector resilience and ensuring that people who are in the sector are not feeling that their shifts are too long, or whatever. We believe that the acute shortage is around 39,000. I am not going play EU bingo with the various shortages in the other countries. Suffice it to say that there are shortages in other countries, and they are something we are all dealing with.
To briefly pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about visas, I will check that, because we do not do late parliamentary questions. I think it is because it might have gone to Defra, and that will be the reason—not that it does late parliamentary questions, but there is the transfer, if you know what I mean.
There is an international shortage. We sort of know the size of the shortage, but I would love firmer data on it. It is incredibly difficult to assess a precise number in this fast-moving environment. It has got better. One of the things that I have been following very closely is the number of people asking for application forms from the DVLA to apply for an HGV provisional licence, which has gone up massively, as has the number of licences and provisional licences going out of the other end. Now we have to get those people into the training system and then into the testing system. Having sorted out DVLA and testing, I am now turning my attention to the bit in the middle, which is obviously a private sector affair, but we will be working with it so that it increases its capacity as much as possible.
I am so sorry to hear about my noble friend’s issue with his driving licence. I have some good news: my daughter passed her driving test a couple of days ago, and she received her licence like that. I am happy to take up any concerns noble Lords have about their treatment by the DVLA, but I am pleased to say that on HGV licences it is back to normal processing times. That also applies to buses.
On the road safety aspect of this, it is incredibly complicated and we are working at pace. I appreciate that we do not have an impact assessment that noble Lords can point to, so I will do what I can to assuage noble Lords’ concerns.
Again, there is a significant challenge with data here. People will often come up with anecdotes about how they saw a trailer doing X, Y, Z—I have seen cars and buses doing all sorts of dreadful things—but actual data is one of our big challenges. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out, in STATS19, 865 incidents involved a car or vehicle with a trailer, which is 0.45% of the total incidents in the entire year. That is a very small amount, but it does not matter; it still has to be considered.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, may I make a suggestion? I believe the noble Baroness has ministerial responsibility for the Highways Agency. Will she ask it to do 100% reporting to the department on incidents involving trailers, because then she would find out whether we are having a sudden influx of accidents caused by novice drivers? I do not think that will happen, but it would give her some data to which we could return later on.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend makes a good suggestion. I am responsible for National Highways, but it does not collect incident data; it all comes from the police. We will of course look at any data that we can get from various sources. This will be part of the work we do in the coming period because the other issue in all this is that incidents often happen because of poor trailer maintenance. That has nothing to do with the B+E test; it is caused by people driving around trailers that are not roadworthy. DVSA enforcement picks up vehicles that are not roadworthy all the time, and may prohibit them from being on the road, but again, that is not related to the B+E driving test. I am happy to have a meeting with my noble friend about the H licence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, brought up the response to the consultation. The consultation closed on 7 September and we announced it on 10 September. We were able to do that so quickly because much of it came through electronically, and we were monitoring responses as we went. There is a short summary of our response on the web, but we will issue a fuller response in due course.
I am not entirely sure about the issue with us reducing the standard of bus driver trainers. If the noble Baroness writes to me, I will look into that more, because we have not changed the standards for trainers in the bus sector at all. Again, they have no delay in getting licences or tests; it is the bit in the middle. But many bus companies have good training departments, so I am pleased about that.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the impact assessment. We recognise that we need one and that it cannot be rushed because it requires an awful lot of analysis. We will try to publish it as soon as possible, once it has been through the Regulatory Policy Committee. Once again, I am happy to have a meeting with noble Lords once that is available.
On recognition overseas, my noble friend Lord Naseby asked about Northern Ireland, which is responsible for its own road regulations. It would therefore make its own decision about this. GB licences continue to be recognised in Northern Ireland. Drivers who travel abroad will be covered under international road traffic regulations. We are in discussions with other countries to make them aware of these changes and will report back if there are significant changes to this.
The accreditation scheme is one of the other factors we need to think about when it comes to road safety. When it is set up, it will be targeted at everybody who wants to tow a trailer of any weight when, previously, training was very much for people who needed it to pass the test or tow a heavier trailer. We will be looking at all people towing trailers, particularly the 16 million of us—I sense noble Lords are in the same bucket as me—who have grandfather rights: “I am going to tow a trailer. I have always been able to tow a trailer. I have just chosen not to, as I prefer larger articulated lorries when I am given the opportunity”. This is one of the other factors that we need to consider. It may well be that we will see a significant increase because all sorts of people will take up this accredited scheme because it is available and widely communicated. We will work with the industry and all sorts of people to make sure that people are aware of the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about employers, who we know are very keen on this—but that is not unusual. Employers often provide a higher level of training for their workforce for all sorts of different reasons. It is not just the case that you pass your driving test and head into a haulage firm, for example, and that is it, your training is done. So, whether it be for a vehicle and a trailer or an articulated lorry, it is always the case that more training goes on, so I am not surprised to hear that that is what the industry will do.
I have rattled through most of what I wanted to say. I will definitely pick up Hansard to make sure that I have gone through all of the points, and I would be very happy to meet noble Lords in due course, perhaps to chat about this again, when the accreditation scheme is developed a bit further and when we have the impact assessment. We can look through all of the information we have at that time.
Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
School Admissions Code 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
That the Grand Committee takes note of the draft School Admissions Code 2021 and the School Information (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/570).
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am not so much concerned with these regulations, which seem to me to be a good thing, but I really want to encourage the Government to go further because the school admissions system needs some attention. If it were a set of teeth, it would not need a trip to the dentist, but it would certainly need the attentions of a hygienist. It has accumulated a lot of tartar, is not working well and needs improving.
Admissions regulations perform a set of very important functions in the education system. They are there to give everybody a chance of getting to a decent school and of knowing how to get there. Parents need to be able to tell what the chances of getting into an individual school are and what they have to do to establish their rights to do that. They also have a strong role as a driver for school improvement. Parental choice works well only if parents are actively choosing.
As things are, this does not work. If you look at an ordinary local authority publication on school admissions, you will find that most of the data is not there. So many schools are now their own admissions authorities that all the central source of information says is that information is available from the school. You cannot look at one document, in one place, and begin to have an idea of which schools you might actually get into.
You have to go round each individual school and ask it for the information—it is often not easy to find. You have to compare this year’s admissions policies with last year’s, to guess at how these are working. This is hard work for someone who is time-rich and capable and absolutely impossible for someone whose life is at all stressful or who does not have the necessary resources to do it. They are thrown back on going to the local school, because that is the only thing they can be sure of in the time they have. The whole business of school choice ceases to operate.
This is really just a matter of getting schools to do as they should and provide their local authority with the data on how their admissions structure works, so that the local authority can put it in its brochures. It is a matter of enforcement. Parents need this and it should not be hard to do. I really hope that the Department for Education will take that step.
The second set of problems comes from a lack of consistency between local authorities. Each local authority displays its information in its own way and with its own structure. There is no common format. If you live close to the border of a local authority, you are faced with learning two different ways of interpreting schools data and looking at what is going on. This also prevents anybody producing a coherent, consolidated app or website which could really inform a parent as to which schools they might have a chance of getting into and how to go about applying to them.
One company tried to gather this data once and it cost it £250,000. That was in the days when there were not a lot of individual schools that you had to “FoI” to get the data out of them. It is now completely impossible for anybody to gather this data and look at ways of making life easier for parents, which is why nobody does it. However, it would not be difficult or costly. All that has to be done is to require local authorities to make this data available in a standard format. They all have this data in an electronic form and converting data from one electronic format to another is not an expensive thing. All you have to do is produce a database that they can dump the stuff into and there it would be.
The immediate consequence of that is that there would be a scramble by commercial companies—I rather suspect that my own Good Schools Guide would be one of them—to pick up this data, make useful tools for parents with it and allow them free access to them. The department would not have to spend anything on using the data. This would happen because it is such an obviously wonderful thing for parents to have and quite a lot of organisations want parents to look at their websites.
Without doing anything that requires investment—and it does not require much effort—the Government could make huge improvements to the effectiveness of the school admissions information system and make it work much better for parents individually, in terms of finding the best school for their child and really knowing what schools are available, and for the operation of parental choice as a mechanism for improving what is going on in schools.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I want to make a number of comments about school admissions, and follow up on some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made. On the statutory instrument, I do not have any particular issues, although maybe there are a couple of questions. On the issue about catch-up and the code, that will help parents, particularly those of disadvantaged pupils.
The whole business of school admissions is fraught with all sorts of problems. You cannot just wave a magic wand, even with increased data, and expect that everybody will get the school that they want. That just does not happen. What is true is that parents who can afford it will often move house to get into the catchment area of a local school so they can get their child or children into that school, whereas disadvantaged parents and pupils obviously cannot do that.
I remember from my experiences in Liverpool before the advent of academies that it was an absolute nightmare. Often, decisions were made not on what a school was achieving or not achieving; it was often the case that inner-city schools with very successful examination results were disregarded by parents, who wanted to go to the leafy suburbs. So you had the leafy suburbs and aided schools with huge waiting lists, while inner-city schools such as Paddington Comprehensive, which was built in the early 1970s, a 10-form entry school with state-of-the-art equipment, ended up with one and a half forms of entry. As an aside, I remember trying to persuade Shirley Williams, who at the time was Secretary of State for Education, to turn it into a tertiary college—but she was having none of that.
I make these comments just to show how difficult the whole situation is. Yes, it is important to have all the data, and the composite way in which the data is portrayed will help parents. But when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talks about local authority schools he is, presumably, talking about academies as well. Academies choose their own admission requirements so, if we are going to have a standardised approach, it should be for all schools. He made the point, which I do not disagree with, that from looking at the various websites you realise that the workload of the staff means that it is something that they have not given their full attention to. Equally, when looking at the websites of academies, one might say the same as well.
The school admissions process, especially where it helps disadvantaged children or children in care, is hugely important. It is one way in which we can change life chances. We want to ensure that every child is treated in a fair and accountable manner, with local schools and local authorities working together to make sure that the needs of young people in that community are met. Sadly, we often see that that is not the case where schools almost jealously guard their independence from a local authority, and both sides do not want to collaborate in the way they should. Local authorities should have responsibility for place planning to ensure that academies co-operate in providing places. While it is slightly beyond this SI, we think that schools should be able to set aspects of their own admissions policy in compliance with the national code that allow them to specialise in, for example, music or business if they so wish. However, the local admissions process to administer the policy and allocate individual children to schools should be carried out by the local authority rather than by individual schools.
Where the code refers to the oversubscription criteria, are we talking about the waiting list? Is that what we mean? When I have had parents contact me and say, “Oh, I didn’t get a place, but the school’s put me on the waiting list”, is that what we mean by the oversubscription criteria? Would looked-after children be top of that list of criteria, irrespective of the type of school it is? If not, why not?
We talk about admission for disadvantaged children, but we do not define what we mean by disadvantaged children. Perhaps we ought to. It is a very general term. I presume that we are talking about looked-after children, or are we talking about children with special needs? Can they be in separate categories? The explanatory note just talks about disadvantaged children. Maybe I have missed something.
I welcome the fact that mid-term admissions are more codified—that absolutely makes sense, so I do not have any problem with this SI.
I did not realise that the year 7 catch-up premium had been discontinued, for the reasons stated. I presume that there was an SI to establish it. When we have the arts premium, will there be an SI for that?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, may I start by saying how grand it is to be back in the Grand Committee Room after pretty close to two years? I always enjoy debates in this particular Room.
I should declare an interest of sorts, in that I have a son, aged 10, and we have just made an application for his senior school through the admissions policy applying in our London borough. I have no reason to believe that we will not be successful, but it has sharpened my preparations for this debate.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling this take-note Motion allowing noble Lords to debate these regulations and the wider issues around school admissions that he outlined, with which I would agree. I found the Explanatory Memorandum to the school information regulations very helpful in providing clarity on links with the new admissions code.
I shall not say much today about the removal of the year 7 catch-up premium grant. I challenged the Minister’s predecessor on this on more than one occasion last year, principally concerning fears that the overall amount allocated from the national funding formula would not meet the level of support provided by the year 7 grant. However, I noted that, in July this year, the Government announced that the amount allocated through the secondary low prior attainment factor for the 2020-21 academic year would increase from £924 million to £973 million, so it is only fair that we give the benefit of the doubt and reassess that position in a year’s time.
I think it is fair to say that there have long been concerns about the fairness of in-year admissions. The DfE’s own Review of Children in Need, published in June 2019, found that such children
“were more likely to seek a school place outside the normal admissions round and that delays in securing a school place in-year could lead to children missing education.”
Children in care are among the most vulnerable in society, of course. Surely it is of paramount importance that a school place that is in the child’s best interests is found as quickly as possible. We therefore welcome the DfE’s decision to reform the admissions code to give priority to children in care, or those who have previously been in care, in its oversubscription criteria. It is hoped that this will improve the clarity, timeliness and transparency of the in-year admissions process to ensure that all vulnerable children can access a school place without delay.
We also welcome the additions to the fair access protocol outlined in chapter 3 of the code. There are, it is fair to say, more serious deficiencies in the admissions code, which raise questions about social inequality. That is why Labour believes that local authorities should have responsibility for school places, with oversight and control of all admissions within their boundaries. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Storey, support that change. Surely it is nonsense that, at present, councils have legal responsibility for finding a school place for any child arriving in their area, yet they cannot force an academy to accept a child even if the academy is not at capacity. Surely that is not an efficient way to operate school admissions.
All too often, the current system results in school segregation by family income, which has implications for social mobility—or social justice, as I prefer to call it. The point here is the extent to which a child’s family background determines their success. If a child’s chance of attending a high-performing school is effectively determined by their family income, that will clearly act as a major brake on social improvement. There is also a further issue around the social and political implications of young people from different socioeconomic backgrounds being educated separately. That hardly seems likely to assist in building a fair and cohesive society—something that, it might be assumed, is a key component of the Government’s much-vaunted levelling-up agenda.
The Minister will know that many education specialists, commentators and school leaders have called on the department to make further changes to the admission code to close the disadvantage gap, which has spiralled due to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. The leaked presentation on the needs of schools and pupils following the pandemic from the Government’s sadly short-lived recovery tsar, Sir Kevan Collins, revealed:
“Children from poorer households, who have often struggled most to learn from home, have lost most learning with the attainment gap expected to widen by 10-24%”.
Labour has committed to an education recovery premium, which would support every child to reach their potential by investing in the children who faced the greatest disruption during the pandemic, from early years to further education. We also advocate doubling the pupil premium for children in key transition years, delivering additional support for the children who need it most.
The former Chief Schools Adjudicator, Sir Philip Hunter, has warned that, although the admissions code requires schools
“to adopt, publish and administer admission criteria which are objective and reasonable”,
the very criteria that allow schools to
“give priority to children who live closest to the school, live in a defined catchment area, have siblings already at the school or, in the case of aided schools, are members of a particular church or religion … will, if unregulated over time, result in priority being given to children from privileged backgrounds”
at the expense of their disadvantaged counterparts,
“so the criteria will need to be even more rigorously applied”
as this will lead to schools becoming “yet more selective” and “more elitist”.
On disadvantage, the Minister may have had drawn to her attention by her officials what I regard as a worrying report, published three months ago by Humanists UK. Entitled Careless or Uncaring? How Faith Schools Turn Away Children Who Are or Were in Care, the report found that, in their admissions policies,
“41% of all state secondary schools of a religious character discriminate against children who are or were in care not of their faith … In Kensington and Chelsea, 50% of all state secondaries (religious or otherwise) discriminate against children who are or were in care not of their faith.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for the welcome he gave at the beginning of this debate and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of the new school admission code and the School Information (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which came into force this September, without objections from either House. I depart from my noble friend on his dentist analogy but, apart from that, we are in agreement on the new code.
Our priority as a Government is to ensure that the admissions system fully supports parents to secure a suitable school place for their child. It is important, as the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, emphasised, that the admissions process works effectively for all children, particularly the most vulnerable, so that children can secure places in a timely way.
In contrast to the description given by my noble friend, we believe that, on the whole, the normal admissions round and the overall admissions process work well. However, there have been delays to in-year admissions, which can have a particular impact on vulnerable children, who we know are more likely to move school in year. That is why our recent changes focused on improving in-year admissions.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about the importance of co-operation and stressed the role of the local authority on admissions in an area. The anecdotal feedback I received is that, particularly during the pandemic, there was much closer co-operation between local authorities and multi-academy trusts, which all would like to see continue.
The changes that we have made involve setting a clear process for in-year admissions, including clear deadlines for processing applications and strengthening requirements to make better information available, which I know my noble friend will be particularly pleased to know. This will enable parents to navigate the system more easily and to secure places more quickly. We have also made changes to improve the fair access protocols, which are of course the safety net used for the most vulnerable children.
The noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Watson, asked about where the focus has been in ensuring that the most vulnerable children get school places quickly. The top of the list in this regard are looked-after children and previously looked-after children, including those who have been adopted from state care outside England. For other children, priority was increased or the mandatory category was extended to include them: children on a child-in-need or child-protection plan, children in refuge, children in formal kinship care arrangements and children who have been out of education for four or more weeks. There are other categories, which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is aware of, I am sure, including homeless children, which go some way to addressing the points about disadvantage that he rightly raised.
As I mentioned, overwhelming support has been shown for these changes, and we now know that schools and local authorities are taking the necessary steps to ensure that they are being implemented. We have had a bit of anecdotal feedback about how that early implementation is going. Inevitably, there are some teething issues in some areas, but I was very encouraged to hear that we have had direct feedback saying that local authorities felt that they had been supported to get really quick decisions for these children in a matter of days, where previously they dragged on for much longer, quickly placing children in a school, which we all know to be critically important.
I now turn to the specific points raised by my noble friend. I start by saying that, clearly, we share his ambition of having a simple admissions process and ensuring that parents have the information that they need to make the best choices for their child. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, articulated so well, choosing a school for a child is one of the most important decisions that a parent makes. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, gets the school of his choice for his child.
A variety of information is available to support parents in making that decision. Local authorities are required to publish annually, and then keep up to date, a composite admissions prospectus that needs to be published online, with hard copies available, bringing together all the information on school admissions within their areas. I know that my noble friend suggested that this does not always happen. I agree with him that they vary in the approach that they take, and some perhaps appear more accessible than others, but I ask my noble friend perhaps to write to me with examples of where he thinks it is not happening so that we can follow that up, because I am not aware of that.
Individual admissions authorities are also required to publish a range of information on their websites, all of which is designed to support parents in making good choices. My noble friend also talked about the need for information about the likelihood of getting into a particular school. That is one of the things that is stipulated: the number of preferences expressed for places at each school for the previous admissions year is one of the elements that it is stipulated that local authorities must publish, so that, as my noble friend said, parents can judge how popular a school is.
There are also websites, such as Get Information about Schools, and the department’s performance tables, which provide links to Ofsted reports. They give easily searchable databases for parents to compare local schools, including information on performances. Finally, school open days are a key opportunity to hear directly from school leaders and teachers about local schools.
We believe that requiring the admission arrangements to be published in a machine-readable format would be another pressure on schools and local authorities and would duplicate information they already provide in formats that, we believe, are already accessible and friendly to parents.
My noble friend questioned the effectiveness of the system more broadly. As I am sure he is aware, in the past year 93.4% of secondary applicants and 98% of primary applicants received offers from one of their top three school choices. We look at appeals from parents and, on average, about 20% are upheld in favour of parents and about 2.7% of admissions are heard at an appeals panel. If we look at the role of the schools adjudicator in assessing the fairness of admissions policy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred, 123 cases were referred last year. The other critical point in all this is that if a school has availability, it must take all the children who apply. We will continue to keep the system under review to ensure that it works effectively for parents and that they are able to navigate it and secure a good place for their child in a timely manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked what we mean by oversubscription. Oversubscription criteria are used to judge all applicants, not those on a waiting list. We do not have an oversubscription code, but both looked-after and previously looked-after children are at the top of the oversubscription criteria. The noble Lord also asked what we mean by disadvantage; we are referring to children in receipt of the pupil premium.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, challenged the role of faith schools. They play a very important part in our education system and have done for centuries. Faith schools remain popular with parents and are more likely than other schools to be rated by Ofsted as good or outstanding. As the noble Lord knows, schools that are designated as having a religious character are allowed to prioritise children for admission based on their membership or practice of the faith when a school is oversubscribed but, if places are available, all schools with a religious designation must admit children of other faiths or of no faith.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, rightly challenged what the Government are doing to make sure that particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged children have access to a good school. He will be aware that the proportion of good and outstanding schools has risen over the past few years from 68% to 86%, so the best thing we can do for all children, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged children, is to make sure that they go to a good or outstanding school.
I close by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today. I hope I have gone some way to reassuring your Lordships that the support we have in place for parents to make informed school choices is effective and enables them to obtain a good school place for their child. We believe that the new code will greatly improve access to schools for all children, especially the most vulnerable.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her careful explanation of the regulations and her replies to our various comments. I will certainly take her up on the offer of writing to her with examples of information not being provided well. If she will allow me, I will also pick up again the argument about a machine-readable format. If somebody is telling my noble friend that this is difficult, what she is being told is not right.
This information is in a machine-readable format in local authority systems, so it is merely a question of flicking a switch and dropping this out into a common system. That should not take a local authority more than five minutes and, as there are only 100 of them, nationally this will take a few hours’ effort. It would do enormous good because parents need to know which schools their children might get into. If they have to research each school individually, they will never see the ones that are a little further away or a little more obscure that happen, for one reason or another, to be available to them because of their particular characteristics and admissions criteria.
You can get into some very good schools on some very odd criteria. If you are disadvantaged and not well-informed, and you have to research everything individually, you will never get there. This becomes a privilege for the middle classes. Making things available automatically means that all those who are setting out to help the disadvantaged suddenly have all the information at their fingertips; it is as easily available to them as it is to everybody else. If I may, I will put that to my noble friend.
These regulations make some decent improvements to the way that looked-after children and similar children are treated. I very much hope that my noble friend will gather information over time as to how they are working. From what hints I have been able to gather, I suspect that the previous facilities were not as well used as they should have been and that many looked-after children were not helped to take advantage of the privileges they had to get into really good schools. We should know that the advantages being given to them are being well used, or else understand why they are not. That said, I am immensely grateful to my noble friend and I thank her for the attention she has given to this Motion.
House of Lords
Sport: Transgender Inclusion
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Triesman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Sports Council Equalities Group’s Guidance for Transgender Inclusion in Domestic Sport, published on 30 September, and in particular the conclusion that “the inclusion of transgender people into female sport cannot be balanced regarding transgender inclusion, fairness and safety in gender-affected sport where there is meaningful competition”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to promoting diversity and inclusion, as well as safety and fairness, across all levels of sport. We believe that this guidance is well researched and well considered. It acknowledges the complexity of balancing inclusion, fairness and safety and it provides a decision-making framework to help individual sports decide what is right for their circumstances. It thereby helps to address a gap which has been present for too long in the sports sector.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response and I declare my interest as a former chairman of the Football Association. In 2009, we successfully invested £11 million to boost a brilliant sport: women’s football. As with all sports, the aim was to compete in a fair way and to do it with integrity, player safety and inclusion. The Sports Council Equality Group’s report makes it undeniably clear that including male-bodied transgender people in most female sports vitiates these principles and will undermine those sports. Sports administrators admit that their current confused approach is not fit for purpose but they fear an angry response. Will the Minister meet me and other sports administrators to generate advice on securing appropriate transgender involvement while protecting the fairness and safety of female sports—advice which will wholly guarantee women’s genuine sporting competition and integrity?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I will start with the very opening words of the foreword from this guidance:
“We want sport to be a place where everyone can be themselves, where everyone can take part and where everyone is treated with kindness, dignity and respect.”
The guidance is based on evidence and research and it took a lot of views and consultation. It is right that sports bodies have their own rules and will work on implementing these in relation to their own sport. It probably will not be for me to meet the noble Lord, but I will certainly take the request back to the Sports Minister and I am sure he will be happy to have that meeting.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the latest guidance allows for the possibility of testosterone suppression to permit transgender women to take part in women’s sports, but this is costly and intrusive for them and does not guarantee fairness for women. Does my noble friend agree that for almost all sports, the only rational solution which is safe and fair for all is to have two categories: an open category for everyone and one reserved for natal women only?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The guidance looks into the question of testosterone suppression, and many people working or competing in sport do not consider that that has created fairness or safety in their individual sports. The evidence is clear that there are retained advantages in strength, stamina and physique for the average transgender women, with or without testosterone suppression; that has not proved the silver bullet that many hoped it would be. That is why the sports councils are encouraging governing bodies to consider alternative approaches for their sport. In some cases that will be universal participation and in others it will not, but it is right that they do that on a case-by-case basis.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not refer to the debate around this question but I am deeply concerned about the public debate around trans issues and trans women in particular, and the continuous depiction of them as a threat. Therefore, does the Minister agree that whenever we raise issues with regard to any minority, we should be specific and evidence-based and should never knowingly or unwittingly fuel prejudice, hatred or misrepresentation, especially against minorities such as trans women, who daily face dangerous defamation and misrepresentation?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I strongly agree with the noble Lord and I am pleased to say that the sports councils’ work has followed that approach. The intention of their guidance is to encourage sports to think in innovative ways to ensure that nobody is left out. I am mindful that these exchanges will be followed by many people affected on a personal level, so I want everyone to hear very clearly that we want everybody to have every opportunity to enjoy, compete in and excel in sport.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does not that mean that we should ensure that there is a way to have full, open and tolerant debate; and that those organisations that proselytise a “no debate” concept and accuse people who raise legitimate issues of being transphobic should desist? The Minister cannot instruct sports organisations what to do; he can encourage them to have courage to take on board what is in this guidance.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Again, I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of tolerant debate, such as we have in your Lordships’ House. As the sports councils say in their guidance:
“We hope to see sports bodies across the UK engaging in the conversation in a respectful way and develop policies in this area which help facilitate access for everyone to participate.”
A number of governing bodies have already said what they will do in the light of it, and we encourage others to look at it as well.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the report seems a fairly reasonable attempt to try to square a circle between the safety and integrity of sport and the right of inclusion. Will the Government assist those governing bodies in making sure that they do not have a policy that excludes people from low-level recreational sport if they are in the trans category? Will they also ensure that it is not used in any way to restrict people in sports where men and women compete on even terms? I refer to the equestrian sports as a starting point.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, I agree. The sports councils’ guidance supports that as well, as it aims to help governing bodies determine the right position for their particular sport. As the guidance says,
“what is right for one sport may not be right for another.”
Of course, it looks at low-level and recreational sport as well as competitive sport, and that is a job for the governing bodies then to take forward in relation to their sport.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, for many of us, sport is a unifying force, whether it is taking to the pitch with a diverse group of teammates or supporting a team from the grandstand. As the Sports Council Equality Group noted, the two main views on this matter “couldn’t be reconciled”, requiring
“a reset and fresh thinking.”
Rather than attempting to shut down this exercise, as some might, does the Minister endorse the group’s suggestion that individual sports explore whether more than one version of their sport can be offered in order to meet different aims?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, as the guidance says, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach that covers every sport at every level in the country, and that is why it is right that the governing bodies look at what might be appropriate in their particular sport, so that they can balance, as far as they can, inclusion, safety and fairness.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, allegedly, the Ministry of Defence’s inclusive language guide, which quotes verbatim from Stonewall, advises staff to take care using “female”. The aim is to avoid erasing gender-nonconforming people and members of the trans community. As this risks erasing women instead, and cuts across the Defence Secretary’s drive for the military to become more female-friendly, is this an example of a lobbying group obstructing the policy of the elected Government?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will leave colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to answer about their guide, but the sports councils’ guidance does not contain this wording or offer any advice on language. It aims to helps sports consider how to be inclusive without erasing anybody.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister would agree that we should do all we can to increase participation in sport, so does he share the aspiration of the five sports councils to see increased transgender participation in sport and support their message to create novel or modified versions of some sports to increase inclusion?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, increasing everybody’s participation in sport is the main aim of the Government’s strategy, Sporting Future, so I certainly support the message from the sports councils to individual governing bodies to think in innovative and creative ways to ensure that no one is left out. As the noble Baroness says, that might involve novel or modified versions of their sport. Creating the right environment is important so that everybody, whoever they are, can take part and get active.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is clear that trans women cannot belong in the female sports category because they have a male performative advantage, however they identify, which is inherently unfair. Obviously, trans women should be able to compete fairly in sport. Will the Minister meet Dr Nicola Williams and colleagues from Fair Play for Women, which has some excellent, detailed proposals for including trans people in sport without disadvantaging women, and is courageous enough to open up the debate, not close it down?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this varies from sport to sport. I took part in your Lordships’ full-bore rifle shooting match against the other place, which I regret to say that we lost. That is a sport on which men and women already compete on an equal basis. Some sports are games of skill, some of stamina and some of strength. That is why it is right that there is a case-by-case approach for each sport. I will take forward the meeting suggestion, as I did for the noble Lord, Lord Triesman.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, sport really does have the power to change lives. I saw that when I was Sports Minister. Competition is also hugely important for enjoyment in sport, but it must be fair and it must be seen to be fair. Does the Minister agree that the evidence increasingly suggests that the approach of simply measuring testosterone levels in the blood does not take into account the full breadth of biological differences between those who have gone through male versus female puberty, and that this can lead to unfairness in competitive sport?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, the sports councils looked into this and said that
“the research that we currently have shows that testosterone reduction or suppression does not negate all the physiological advantages of having developed testosterone-driven strength, stamina and physique.”
That is why the advice to the individual governing bodies is to look at what is right for their sport and to balance inclusion with fairness and safety, so that people can enjoy sport, whether it is competitive or recreational.
Sarah Everard: Home Office Inquiry
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria they will use in deciding whether the Home Office inquiry into the matters arising from the murder of Sarah Everard should be converted into a statutory inquiry by way of the Inquiries Act 2005.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Home Secretary, in consultation with the chair, determines that if the inquiry cannot fulfil its terms of reference on a non-statutory footing, it can be converted to a statutory basis.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, just yesterday we read that the Centre for Women’s Justice is proposing to judicially review the Home Office on this matter, complaining that correspondence with that department has been substantively unanswered from the middle of last month. Does the Minister not agree that the breadth of concern, the depth and importance of the problem, the need for independence to be seen and done and the need, unfortunately, for powers to compel co-operation, all point to every rational criterion for a full Lawrence-style statutory inquiry having already been met?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the duty to co-operate is already in place. It has been in place since February 2020. Regarding the Centre for Women’s Justice, we have not ignored the letter. We have been focused on identifying a chair so that the details of the inquiry’s scope and how it will operate can be confirmed as quickly as possible. The inquiry can then start addressing our concerns, those of the public and those of organisations such as the Centre for Women’s Justice. We will respond to them as soon as possible.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, the Macpherson report has been quoted many a time in this House because it stands for many changes in the legal system and beyond. In the case of Sarah Everard, many women up and down the country are demanding a judge-led inquiry where witnesses can be called to give evidence. I know how important it is to have a judge-led inquiry. As in the Stephen Lawrence case, the truth must come out, so will Her Majesty’s Government support a public inquiry into the Sarah Everard case?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I could not agree more with the noble Baroness that the truth must come out—both at pace and conducted in a way that would satisfy the family. As I have said, if the non-statutory inquiry cannot meet its commitments, it can be converted to a statutory inquiry.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
The Minister must be aware of the deep public concern following the Sarah Everard case. Does she not agree that the fiercely independent Macpherson inquiry and report into the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence went a long way towards restoring the trust of the black—and wider—community in policing? Can the Minister suggest any reason why a similar, judge-led inquiry with similar powers, now under the 2005 Act rather than the Police Act 1996, would not be the obvious best way of examining predatory police culture in certain quarters and restoring the trust of young women in this country in our police force, which is surely a vital consideration today?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think the House agrees that trust and confidence in the police must be restored. We wish this inquiry to proceed at pace and to get to the nub of the various issues that it will look into. If the Home Secretary is not satisfied that a non-statutory inquiry is fulfilling those commitments, she can convert it to a statutory inquiry, but I must say that I think the whole House seeks the same end from this inquiry.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, on a slightly separate, but related, matter, what are the implications of the Sarah Everard inquiry for the Daniel Morgan inquiry, which reported in June, described the Met as institutionally corrupt and found numerous failings? Some work has already begun but, given the potential for overlap here and the Morgan family’s long wait for justice, will the Government consider including the delivery of the panel’s recommendations in their cross-government task force?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that there is inevitable overlap here. HMICFRS is already inspecting the Metropolitan Police Service in relation to vetting and countercorruption, at the Home Secretary’s request, and findings from this will feed into the broader inspection that she has asked HMICFRS to undertake across all forces. There is work ongoing in the Metropolitan Police Service and in the Home Office to respond to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel recommendations, and the Home Secretary has already committed to provide an update in due course. Of course, any relevant evidence from this work can then be considered by part 2 of the independent inquiry, which will look more broadly at standards in policing.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We have made it clear that there must be a full statutory inquiry. The Government say that a statutory inquiry is too slow, yet the Home Office review of the Daniel Morgan case, which has already been referred to, took years, precisely because its work was made more difficult by the fact that the panel was not established under the Inquiries Act 2005, with its powers of compulsion. The evidence also indicates that the public spotlight of a statutory inquiry, and what it reveals during the hearings, promotes action while the inquiry is in progress and makes it harder for the final recommendations to be ignored or watered down, which is at least as important as any issue over the length of time the inquiry takes. Why do the Government continue to resist a full statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, in which the public can have full trust and confidence?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, given the need to provide assurance as swiftly as possible, this will be established as a non-statutory inquiry because we want to get to the stage where conclusions are reached and changes are recommended quickly. This cannot be an inquiry that takes years to get to that stage. A non-statutory inquiry allows for greater flexibility, can be tailored to the issues and is likely to be faster, but we are able to turn it into a statutory inquiry if need be.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Minister keeps saying that the truth must come out at pace, but the Macpherson inquiry—a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act—took 20 months and the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel took eight years, mainly because the panel did not have powers of compulsion. What makes the Government think that the police have changed, when Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary only a few weeks ago described a “culture of colleague protection” in the police service?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that at the time there was not that duty to co-operate. The various things the noble Lord mentions will all be looked at in the course of the inquiry. He is absolutely right that some of the culture and practices will be interrogated deeply to see whether any changes are needed.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, having served on your Lordships’ Select Committee examining public inquiries legislation, I am still baffled as to why the Government are reluctant to announce having a statutory inquiry now. Why the prevarication? Surely when there is great public disquiet, particularly as to the safety of women, the Government’s preference should be for a statutory inquiry. No one, particularly the police at the highest level, should be able to avoid giving evidence on oath if the powers are there to compel the giving of such evidence.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I have said, there is the duty to co-operate. That has been in place since last year. I take this opportunity, given that the noble and learned Lord has served under every Prime Minister from Wilson to Blair, to wish him a very happy 90th birthday for last week.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I might have the answer why the Government do not want to make it a statutory inquiry: since the inquiry can compel police officers and other witnesses to come forward and tell the truth, what comes out might be extremely embarrassing for not only the police force but the Home Office. Could it be that the Government want to protect those organisations rather than hear the truth?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, if the Government wanted to protect the organisations, we would not be calling an inquiry. We absolutely want to get to the bottom of this for every woman and girl in this country, or any mother or daughter, who feels so keenly what happened to Sarah Everard.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Gametes and Embryos: Storage Limit
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the rapid implementation of their decision to extend the storage limit for gametes and embryos.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
The department has been working with the regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to ensure that it gets a chance to input into how the new scheme is implemented and that the fertility sector is properly prepared for any future legislative changes. The department has just completed a focused technical consultation that informs the final policy detail for certain categories of storage. We will bring forward legislation to enact the new policy when parliamentary time allows.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of the HFEA. For years, there has been disquiet over the arbitrary 10-year storage period for frozen eggs, which has forced women to make less than optimal decisions about their careers and fertility. My Bill to extend the period was in 2019 and the Government’s consultation closed in May 2020. In September 2021, the Government rightly responded that the period should be extended to 55 years, but that has not happened yet. Thousands of women know that the period will be extended but face the misery of seeing their eggs destroyed because it has not yet happened. The two-year pandemic extension will soon expire. Will the Government commit to making that change now by an amendment to the Health and Care Bill or by regulation? Will they put a moratorium on the destruction of any frozen eggs right away?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government are still considering the responses from the technical consultation in terms of extension of storage, but as I said previously, and I hope the noble Baroness will be assured by this, we hope to bring forward legislation to enact a new policy when parliamentary time allows. If an amendment is laid, we will give it due consideration.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, accurate information about the benefits, risks and success rates of egg freezing is essential to enable women to make their own decision. What progress is being made by the Competition and Markets Authority and the Advertising Standards Authority to investigate whether the provision of information is done accurately and ethically?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising this very important issue, because not everyone is aware of the biological facts around fertility, particularly the decline of fertility with age. If a woman freezes her eggs in her 20s, she has a higher chance of success than if she does it in her 30s. In fact, while IVF treatment has improved over the years, the success rates of IVF are still only around 30%, so it is important that as many women and couples know as much as possible. On the detailed questions that she asked, I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously encouraged by the Minister’s warm words and look forward to holding him to account for them. We know that women have a much better success rate when freezing their eggs at a younger age. However, the Minister knows that there are also proposals to introduce requirements to renew storage permissions every 10 years. What arrangements is the Minister considering to put in place to ensure that this does not become a bureaucratic nightmare and does not create disappointment for those who somehow do not keep up to date?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his work on the subject when he was the responsible Minister to help change the policy so that all people, regardless of medical need, may benefit from greater choice about when to start their family. The 10-year renewal periods will be put in place to give people the opportunity to decide whether they wish to continue with their storage of gametes or embryos. The department is currently working with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to set out the plans for detailed implementation, including on how the renewal periods should be handled by fertility clinics to ensure that they work.
Fertility clinics will be expected to contact people storing their gametes or embryos a year before a renewal period has ended, so there would be 12 months’ notice. In addition, people will have a six-month grace period following the expiry of any renewal period, in which they can get in touch with clinics to re-engage storage if they wish. I am sorry that I am going on longer than usual, but this is an important issue. It is our view that we would provide an appropriate amount of time for clinics to contact their patients, and for patients to decide what they wish to do with their gametes or embryos in storage.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I return to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, because we need some clarity here. For some people, months count. They will be having their eggs destroyed now, in the next few months. Therefore, while I congratulate the Government on the regulations that added two years to the 10-year period in recognition of the need to provide an extension during the pandemic, the Minister needs to be absolutely clear because time is fast running out. Are the Government going to provide interim transitional arrangements before the legislation is before the House? From these Benches, we are very keen and across the House there is an enormous amount of support for this to happen. Frankly, if the Minister brings forward the regulations tomorrow, they will go through.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that very kind offer, but we have already stated that it is the Government’s intention that no one misses out on the opportunity to extend the storage of their eggs, sperm or embryos. As she will be aware, in 2020 in light of the Covid pandemic, we took steps to extend the storage. We are currently considering options to make sure that no one misses out on the benefits of the new policy. Given the detailed consultation we have just been through, we hope to announce details in due course. Of course, if an amendment is laid to the forthcoming Health and Care Bill, we will consider it.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will have seen in the press today the case of Megan and Whitney Bacon-Evans, a lesbian couple required to undergo 12 cycles of treatment before they can access NHS-funded fertility treatment. In effect, that makes it impossible for them to access safe, well-regulated healthcare in this country. That is contrary to the aims of the Act under which lesbians were enabled to access fertility treatment, so will the Government move to stop it?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point about same-sex couples’ access to insemination services. In England, details of the local fertility services are determined by the clinical commissioning groups, which take account of the NICE fertility guidelines. These were updated in 2013 to include provision for female same-sex couples who have demonstrated a clinical infertility. The criteria in the guidelines were developed as a way of achieving equivalence between opposite-sex and male or female same-sex couples. However, it is clear that the NICE guidelines are now outdated, and the department has therefore agreed with NICE to start a review of these fertility guidelines. We want the same thing as the noble Baroness: equality.
Ministerial Code
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change the Ministerial Code.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Ministerial Code is the responsibility of the Prime Minister of the day and is customarily updated and issued upon their assuming or returning to office. Any amendments to the code are a decision for the Prime Minister.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, that is a disappointing but not unexpected Answer. However, does the Minister agree with me that the ways in which the Prime Minister dealt with the Hancock affair, the Jenrick planning fiasco and the Priti Patel bullying saga—where the wrong person resigned—were not exactly models of integrity and transparency, as required in the code? Will the Government now reconsider the recommendations of the Institute for Government and others that the code should have a statutory underpinning and that the independent adviser should be given some real powers before our parliamentary democracy becomes a laughing stock around the world?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord’s more general observations. I agreed with Mr Speaker in the other place yesterday that we should speak softly on these matters. The Prime Minister’s constitutional role as the sovereign’s principal adviser means that the management of the Executive is wholly separate from the legislature. The Prime Minister alone—we have discussed this in this House before—advises the sovereign on the exercise of powers in relation to government, such as the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignation of Ministers. Therefore, it is right constitutionally that the Prime Minister of the day has responsibility for the Ministerial Code, and I cannot see the Government being persuaded that a statutory basis for an inherently prerogative function would be appropriate or desirable.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
Does the Minister to any degree share my sense of shame and outrage at the extent to which the requirements of the Ministerial Code have been trashed by this Government? As there are no planned changes to the Ministerial Code, can we at least anticipate that the Government will take their existing responsibilities seriously as a solemn and binding duty to the British people?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, of course. Again, I do not agree with the political comment at the outset. The Government will carefully consider comments made by parliamentarians in both Houses, as well as the work of Mr Nigel Boardman, the CSPL and PACAC, when the committee reports. We will make a policy statement in due course but, as your Lordships would expect, we intend to consider these matters carefully.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is not present. I call the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
Will my noble friend agree that, while some Members of your Lordships’ House may have had memory blackouts of before 2010, they have always previously been very happy for this to be a non-statutory body? Does he agree that it is right that the Prime Minister, who is elected, is the sole arbiter of who serves in his Government.
Lord True (Con)
I agree with my noble friend, but I will continue my policy of not throwing political stones—we all know that they exist. The Prime Minister is accountable to the electorate, as well as to Parliament. As my noble friend says, the electorate will be the ultimate judge of what I consider to be his high service to this country.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, does the Minister understand why the Ministerial Code being made statutory is such an issue now? I put it to him that, whether it is ignoring the judgment of HOLAC about the appointment of Conservative Party donors to your Lordships’ House, ignoring the judgment of the independent adviser on allegations of bullying by the Home Secretary, or the shenanigans that have brought shame on Parliament as the Government attempted to defend Owen Paterson and defy the Commons standards commissioner and the committee, there is increasing evidence that this Prime Minister considers the rules to be for other people and not to apply to him or his close chums. Will the Minister now accept, as many others have done, and as my noble friend Lord Foulkes raised, that this Prime Minister—this Prime Minister—cannot be trusted to uphold the Ministerial Code?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is fully briefed on the report last week from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Paragraph 2.25 says:
“It is clear to the Committee that the degree of independence in the regulation of the Ministerial Code … falls below what is necessary to ensure effective regulation and maintain public credibility.”
Do the Government accept this criticism and, if so, are there plans to strengthen the independence of the adviser on ministerial interests?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have partly answered that, in saying that the Government are obviously considering all the very important and thoughtful reports that have been presented on these matters in recent weeks and months. We take matters of ethics extraordinarily seriously, as I believe every Member of your Lordships’ House does, on all sides. I give an assurance to the House that we will come back with a Statement on these issues in due course.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the vast majority of Ministers, of all parties, have been honourable, decent, hard-working people, committed to the public weal, and that the current Ministers have been facing a challenging pandemic and emergency of unprecedented character, and that the sound of the wolf pack in your Lordships’ House is particularly disedifying?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I would never characterise Her Majesty’s Opposition as wolves, but my noble friend makes a point of great importance. We should all reflect that the overwhelming character of British government and public life is not corrupt but driven by a sense of public duty that goes right to the top of this Government.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I feel for the Minister. I know him—indeed, I think the whole House knows him—to be a particularly honourable Member, and we value everything that he has done here. However, I have to ask him whether he is at all ashamed of some of his colleagues in the other place.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not comment on the other place, but I refer noble Lords to the observations made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the outset of the debate in the other place yesterday.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
My Lords, the Speaker in the other House invited the Members to speak softly. The Prime Minister took that literally, because he was 400 metres away—
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
I beg noble Lords’ pardon; I have moved rather too quickly away from imperial measures.
The Prime Minister certainly did not contribute—he spoke softly. The issue is not one of changing the code. Is not the real problem getting the Prime Minister to implement it?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have explained the constitutional position. So far as the Prime Minister’s movements are concerned, I am thankfully not responsible for them, but he was on a prearranged official visit to the north-east. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who heads up the Cabinet Office and is responsible for this, led in the parliamentary debate. The Speaker was informed that both my right honourable friend and the leader of the Scottish nationalists would be unable to attend.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, until a generation or so ago there was almost no statutory regulation of Ministers, Members of the other place, or Members of this Chamber. Does my noble friend the Minister see a danger that the proliferation of codes, statutes and commissions skews incentives, encouraging politicians to tick the boxes, rather than asking themselves whether their behaviour is, in the broader sense, moral or edifying? Is there not a danger that we are replacing a culture of conscience with one of compliance?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to say that the background, provisions and guidance have changed and evolved over time, and they will continue to evolve.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, when you are in position of leadership, asking people to do things, it is always good if you can set an example? Can he give us two examples of where the Prime Minister has done something under the code to set an example to other Ministers?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, with nine seconds left, I deliberately gave rather a short answer to my noble friend to enable the noble Lord, who I very greatly admire, to make his point. I wish it had been a better point. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister adheres to high standards of behaviour, and he expects the highest standards of behaviour from Ministers every day—far more than on two occasions; every day.
Afghanistan: Food Shortages
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D’Souza
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they are having with the Government of Afghanistan regarding food shortages and what assistance they are providing civilians in that country.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. In doing so, I declare an interest as the co-founder of a school for girls in Kabul, more than 20 years ago. I also note that there is a drafting error on the Order Paper. The Question should say: “the authorities in Afghanistan”, not “the Government of Afghanistan”.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, as we all know, the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is dire and of deep concern. It has been a central subject of all our conversations with all players, including at an operational level with the Taliban. We have pressed the Taliban directly to respect humanitarian principles and to allow aid agencies to operate freely. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has announced that the UK will double its assistance to Afghanistan to £286 million this financial year and, on 31 October, my right honourable friend allocated £50 million for immediate needs. This will provide around 2.5 million Afghans immediately with life-saving food, emergency health services, shelter and warm clothing.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. It is agreed generally that there is no time now to use food or indeed money as bargaining tools. The severe food shortage in Afghanistan has long been anticipated, and the purchase, transport and distribution of large amounts of grain takes time and organisation. I ask the Minister to work not only through the UN but with a larger number of NGOs, both here and abroad, that still have a presence in Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries, which, if co-ordinated with judicious cash injections, could help to stabilise market grain prices and distribute food in the worst-hit rural areas.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, and I assure her that the Government are doing exactly that. I myself, as the Minister responsible for our relations with Afghanistan and south Asia, have been working closely with near partners. We have been working directly with UN agencies, including OCHA, UNHCR and UNICEF. We have been having regular calls on this issue. I am happy to discuss the engagement in detail with her. Yesterday, for example, I had a further meeting with UNICEF on the importance of humanitarian support and health provision in Afghanistan. We continue to work with key partners and other international near neighbours as well as the wider global community.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, many people are in danger of starvation in Afghanistan and the death rate will be highest among young children. To stop huge numbers of deaths, action is imperative. Will the Government intervene to secure the release of some of the Afghan assets that have been frozen in the USA and elsewhere, doing so in a targeted way that will support the prevention of complete economic collapse in that country? Will the Government provide additional funding for the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is continuing to operate in Afghanistan across public services, including education, but especially in the provision of healthcare?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s first point, we are working with international partners including international financial institutions on the issue of cash that is held, but of course there are notable provisions and conditionality in terms of releasing funds to the current Administration. On her second point, I further assure her that I have met Peter Maurer at the ICRC on a number of occasions, and part of the £50 million funding that I have announced will be in support of the ICRC programmes on the ground.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House, which I served on when we carried out our inquiry into Afghanistan, laid bare the challenges, particularly for women and young girls, and this crisis will have a disproportionate impact on them. One month ago precisely, Simon Gass, the Prime Minister’s envoy, met the Taliban. Part of that discussion was about the normalisation of relations. On a number of occasions the Minister has directly indicated to me that we will not be working directly with the Taliban. Have the Government received any commitments that humanitarian aid and foodstuffs through international bodies will actually be directed via Taliban authorities to the people who need it most? What assurances have the Government been given that the humanitarian assistance committed to will get through to the people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am engaging directly with a number of women leaders. Most recently I met Hasina Safi and Fatima Gailani to inform our policy in the medium term, particularly on the issues of girls’ education and women’s health. On the point about direct humanitarian aid, we do not intend in any of our support to give money directly to the Taliban. Its co-operation is required but the money will be handed to established players operating on the ground, such as the ICRC and the Aga Khan Development Network—I recently met with it—which is operational and is a respected partner for the UK as well.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, no one who heard the interview yesterday with John Simpson could have failed to have been moved and angered. Will my noble friend assure me that Her Majesty’s Government will raise this matter as one of urgency at the United Nations Security Council with a view to getting an international delegation to assess the situation and act urgently on it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as far as the Security Council is concerned, I assure my noble friend that I myself directly engaged in a recent debate on Afghanistan. On delegations, we are engaging at senior level with near partners, including other key countries such as Pakistan and Qatar, and we are of course working directly with the UN agencies that are already on the ground. Now is the time to get aid through the door and to the people, and that is what we are focusing on.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
While I welcome the Minister’s comments, on 18 October only £35 million of the £286 million had been allocated, according to the Government. I welcome the £50 million he has announced today, but David Beasley—who I know, and the Minister knows—is not one for hyperbole, and he has said that the position is absolutely dire and that the WFP requires $220 million a month. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we get that aid out quickly to stop the disaster that David Beasley said would happen?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I share the view that the noble Lord has expressed, and indeed of what my noble friend said about the report of John Simpson. I have met directly with those fleeing the Taliban, and I have been long engaged on the evacuation process. These heart-rending stories are not just stories for me; they have been direct testimonies. I assure the noble Lord that I am engaging on practically a daily basis to ensure that our funds are allocated at the earliest opportunity through trusted partners, some of which I have already named. Equally, we implore other countries to stand by their verbal commitments to ensure that money and, importantly, humanitarian support get through immediately.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an ambassador for the Halo Trust, a charity engaged in mine and improvised explosive device clearances in Afghanistan. Looking at this objectively, we invaded the country and left the people to fend for themselves—is not the least we can do to save them from starvation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Lord, and that is exactly what we are focused on.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, it is quite clear that one of the reasons for starvation in the country is that so many women and girls are now no longer able to work and are being deprived of that. One of the conditions that must be imposed on the Afghan Government is that those women and girls can go back to proper employment and not be barred, as they are today.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Again, I agree with my noble friend, who speaks with great insight on this issue. Let me assure him that we are focused on dealing directly with women leaders in identifying which provinces we have seen real progress in. Indeed, in certain provinces we have seen girls returning to higher education and to work and employment. We are focused on ensuring that the objectives that he just highlighted are part of our discussions.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the urgency of the situation is such that we should surely not be overeager to impose conditions on aid. Can the Minister say where the bottlenecks are? Is the Taliban fully co-operating with efforts to provide aid?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have not minced my words. I do not believe the Taliban has changed; I have always sustained that belief. However, with every dark cloud there is a glimmer. For example, we have recently seen the Taliban supportive of the continuation, or restart, of the polio campaign, and we need to take encouragement from that. But logistics are a challenge, and that is why we must work with trusted partners which have the established networks. The ICRC, UNICEF and the Aga Khan Development Network are three organisations which have such structures in place.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister care to look at and reflect on the experiences learned from the early days of aid distribution in Afghanistan, which quite frankly were a total mess even from the aid community and the head of the whole body? Maybe there will be some lessons learned going forward.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure your Lordships that we have learned the lessons of other conflicts as well, including those in Yemen, and ensure that those lessons are put into practice here.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, 22.8 million people are identified as food insecure in Afghanistan, a position that has become more acute with the Taliban takeover. While I welcome the financial announcement today, could the Minister indicate what further work will be undertaken with the World Food Programme in Afghanistan, with particular reference to addressing poverty and reducing malnutrition?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we have engaged at the highest level with the World Food Programme, established agencies on the ground and, indeed, all UN partners. I have engaged directly with the Secretary-General, the Deputy Secretary-General and all the heads of the different agencies and we are working directly with the World Food Programme. What is needed is co-ordination on the ground and that is why we have implored the UN to ensure that all humanitarian activities are co-ordinated. I assure your Lordships’ House further that both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the new Foreign Secretary, my right honourable friend Liz Truss, are engaging directly on issues with key partners. Indeed, she is currently visiting Asia, where she will be having discussions specific to the role of the Muslim world in leading on ensuring that the Taliban stands up for its promises. She will be having discussions with the likes of Indonesia, and continuing discussions with the likes of Qatar and Pakistan.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister agree to revisit the list of ODA cuts to NGOs that are running programmes of volunteering within Afghanistan to do with health, education and food distribution, such as VSO, for example, to check whether, in these circumstances, instead of their budgets and programmes being cut, they could be cranked up and reinforced instead of being decommissioned?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already said that the Government have announced an increase in funding to £286 million, but it is appropriate that we allocate this funding in a structured way, with trusted partners, to ensure support gets through to the people who need it most. On the issue of volunteering, the challenge in Afghanistan is that volunteers at the moment, particularly non-Afghans, are unable to enter. Equally, Afghan nationals are unable to operate.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, may I say how pleased I am that the Minister mentioned the role of Muslim countries? What discussions has he undertaken with the Administration of Afghanistan and the leadership of Qatar to ensure that not only the ICRC, the World Muslim League and the Qatar Foundation are taking a lead, but also that we do not become oblivious to the vulnerable families while they become statistics of gross poverty, death and destruction, as has happened in Yemen?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that operationally, as I said, Sir Simon Gass and Martin Longden met with the Taliban and pressed on the importance of human rights within Afghanistan, as well as humanitarian corridors. Through our close liaison with UN agencies, we have seen that those corridors are operational and that support is beginning to get through, but it needs co-ordination. The picture is sketchy, depending on which province of Afghanistan we talk about. On the role of the Muslim world, and the Islamic world in particular, I am very clear that there is no better way of challenging the negative narrative on women and girls that the Taliban peddles than through esteemed leaders who are from the Muslim world—and, yes, they are women as well. We need to ensure that we reel in behind them to show that Islam does not negate women’s rights but actually promotes them.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, co-ordination with the Taliban is clearly crucial if aid is to get through to the people, but, alas, the Taliban is not wholly in control of Afghanistan—certainly not of large swathes of it. To what extent does the Minister assess that the conflict between the Taliban and ISK will hinder the delivery of aid to the people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord speaks from great insight and experience of the region. He is quite right about the situation with ISKP, but he will also be aware that there is fragmentation within the Taliban; there are different parties within the Taliban who are also wrestling for control and, depending on who has the greatest influence, they will have the greatest influence over respective regions. We are working through the nuances of that. There is one thing I will say about the Taliban—it is realising that it may have wanted administration, but being in government is not an easy job.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am sure the Minister knows well enough that even prior to the national takeover by the Taliban, large swathes of Afghanistan were in effect controlled by the Taliban, and in those areas, although it is patchy, there was co-operation between the Taliban administration and NGOs, food agencies and the like. Can he tell us whether that is still the case now that there has been a national takeover? If not, what circumstances have changed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. Indeed, in the initial stages of the takeover by the Taliban of Afghanistan, it was very clear that in those areas that had been under its control—not in all, but in some—there had been operational co-operation with aid agencies: UNICEF, for example. My first meeting very early on, in August, verified that fact and, indeed, UNICEF has increased its footprint, not decreased it, since the Taliban takeover. The other area we are still working through, of course, is that until we have the security in place to ensure that aid can be delivered, we need to work province by province and ensure that, whichever agency has the greatest influence on the ground, we can leverage its operational capacity and support it accordingly.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allocated for this PNQ has now elapsed.
Environment Bill
Tuesday 9th November 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 63-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (9 Nov 2021)
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 31D, and do not insist on its Amendment 31C in lieu to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, this is a momentous month for the environment. We are hosting the world at COP 26, the world’s best chance to reach agreement on the action needed to avert catastrophic climate change and support those already experiencing its effects. Huge global progress has already been made in this forum. Over 130 countries representing more than 90% of the world’s forests have committed to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. We have secured an unprecedented $20 billion to protect the world’s forests. Financial institutions with assets worth nearly $9 trillion have committed to align with nature. We secured the commitment from the big multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, that they too will align their portfolios not only with Paris goals but with nature as well. And, crucially, we secured a commitment from the 12 biggest buyers of agricultural commodities—including China Oil and Foodstuffs Corporation—that their buying policies will be aligned with 1.5 degrees and our overall deforestation goals. Each of these commitments is new and unprecedented; combined, they are mutually reinforcing, and this represents a turning point in our relationship with the world’s forests. Our job is now to inject real accountability into the process and to ensure that these promises are kept in full. This landmark Environment Bill, which we hope is now so close to its conclusion, will be an integral part of that action.
Noble Lords will have seen that this Government have moved significantly on a number of the issues which your Lordships’ House insisted on at Third Reading. I will begin by discussing Amendments 31C and 75C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Amendments 31A, 31B, 75A and 75B which have been re-tabled by my honourable friend Minister Pow in the other place.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for their work in this important area. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in particular for his conversations with me and with the Secretary of State on the power in the Bill to offer guidance to the OEP. As a direct result of those conversations, there are a number of points that I would like to put on the record today, 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 OEP is and must be an independent body capable of holding public authorities to account on their environmental responsibilities, including through the use of their enforcement functions. That is why the Government have given the OEP a remit and powers of unprecedented breadth in this Bill. In order 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 this 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 this 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 they 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 Defra, 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 retains the ability and discretion to make its own decisions and is not bound to act in accordance with the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others have previously raised concerns that the Secretary of State might be able to use guidance to preclude the OEP investigating a broad category of individual cases or subject areas, such as nuclear power stations. I must say unequivocally that it is our view that the power could not lawfully be used in this 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 diverts OEP scrutiny away from entire policy areas, outside 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 government. The provision for guidance on how the OEP intends to exercise its functions means that the guidance will in its nature be on the OEP’s approach to these 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 ultimately must 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 goes against these existing provisions and 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 huge and broad remit, the OEP will be able to scrutinise all public authorities, including many expert scientific bodies. This ability will be important for the OEP to be able to take a broad view and identify systemic issues.
Although I am sure the OEP will be extremely effective, it will be a relatively small body with a broad remit. The decisions of organisations such as Cefas, for example, 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 this in its own decision-making when scrutinising these bodies. It is important to get this balance right to maintain confidence and integrity within existing regimes, and guidance could help to address this.
We believe that this 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. I can also confirm that this Government will not issue guidance to the OEP before its initial set-up or before it has had the chance to develop its own enforcement policy.
I recognise the points that noble Lords have raised, which is why the Government previously reintroduced a provision for Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise any draft guidance before it is issued. I hope my assurances regarding what this power could and could not be used for, as well as the additional parliamentary scrutiny we have provided for, serve to reassure noble Lords about this provision.
Turning to Amendments 33B and 33C, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this topic, but in particular the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for his detailed and continuously constructive conversations with me and my officials. On environmental review, the key area of debate has been the remedies available in the event that a breach of environmental law is confirmed by the court. At the heart of this 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 this 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.
Lord Krebs
Leave out from first “do” to end and insert “insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 31D, do not insist on its Amendment 31C in lieu to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason, and do propose Amendment 31E in lieu—
“(1) The OEP has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions and in preparing and publishing its budget (but subject to this section).
(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6), but this should not include matters relating to the enforcement of environmental law against the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
(2A) The OEP must have regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcement policy, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.””
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Bill team for the very helpful discussions that I have had with them throughout, and particularly during the last week. In spite of this, here I am with a further amendment, and I feel slightly embarrassed to be pressing yet again on the matter of the independence of the OEP. However, the strength of opinion across this House was clear at the first stage of ping-pong, when my amendment passed with a majority of 51.
The Government clearly have an umbilical attachment to the guidance powers in Clause 22, and my amendment makes a major concession in that it does not seek to remove the guidance power. I expect that there will be some noble Lords who believe that this concedes too much. However, the proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment would introduce a specific constraint on the Secretary of State in issuing guidance, namely that guidance cannot be issued on
“matters relating to the enforcement of environmental law against the Secretary of State”.
The aim of this subsection is to prevent the Secretary of State having a conflict of interest. Without it, he or she could, in effect, mark their own homework.
The proposed subsections (1) and (2A) of my amendment state that, in spite of any guidance, the OEP
“has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions”,
and that, while it
“must have regard to the guidance”,
the OEP does not have to follow it if
“there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.”
These subsections are designed to ensure that the OEP has the operational independence that we all want, in spite of the guidance power.
I turn to the Minister’s opening speech and quote back two key sentences. The first is:
“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 Defra, given that there would be a conflict of interest.”
The second is:
“the OEP would be expected to have regard to any guidance issued, but it retains the ability and discretion to make its own decisions and is not bound to act in accordance with the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so.”
Although the wording is slightly different from my amendment, the implications of the points made in the Minister’s speech are more or less identical. I hope that, later in this debate, the Minister will confirm that my interpretation is indeed correct. The only piece that is left out is the OEP setting its own budget, but there are some other safeguards in other parts of the Bill.
I consider it a great pity that the Government were not prepared to accept my amendment, as the Minister’s speech implies that its intent has indeed been accepted. However, as the Minister stated at the start of his speech, ministerial statements in Hansard could be used by the courts in future as an aid to statutory interpretation. I look to the lawyers, because it is well above my pay grade to judge the value of that statement and, therefore, whether what we have heard is a sufficiently robust protection for the OEP’s independence.
The Minister also made three other important points that respond to earlier concerns expressed about the guidance power. First, the guidance power could not be used to preclude the OEP from investigating a broad category of cases. The example I used in an earlier debate was new nuclear power stations. Secondly, it is up to the OEP to decide whether cases have national implications. For instance, a case that has specific and local implications, such as the destruction of a unique habitat, could also be of national significance. Thirdly, the Secretary of State will not issue guidance to the OEP before the initial setup and before the OEP has had a chance to develop its own enforcement policy.
I thank the Minister for his speech. I believe that we have converged on a way forward that protects the operational independence of the OEP. The solution may not be perfect, but it gives me some reassurance on this absolutely central plank of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, it appears that there has been some sort of rapprochement—albeit, I suspect, reluctant. On the one hand are us, from all sides of the House of Lords, who wish to see a strong and independent OEP; on the other side is the current Defra team, which still, I get the impression, wishes to guide its activities as far as is politically possible. It would appear that we are gradually getting closer together. Sadly, however, we are not seeing a total volte-face by the Government, as we have over sewage and CSOs—or, for that matter, on breaches of parliamentary rules on lobbying.
Unfortunately, the independence of the OEP, a body that has yet to exist, is a concept too esoteric for the public to even know about, let alone to get hot under the collar about. If they knew about it, bearing in mind the Government’s behaviour in recent weeks, I should have thought that they would be concerned that future Secretaries of State could be exercising guidance over this body, whose primary function, let us face it, is to hold the Government, its Ministers and their quangos to account.
As my noble friend Lord Krebs said, his Motion A1 is very much in line with what my good friend Rebecca Pow, the Minister in the other place, has already said on the Floor of that House, as echoed by the Minister in this House today. It would have been good to get it on the face of the Bill to make the sentiment more certain and, above all, more durable, because that is really what matters. Bearing in mind that we are unlikely to get another environment Bill for some decades, I for one would have preferred us to move beyond just the commitments of this excellent team of Ministers and to a properly constituted, independent OEP that will stand the test of time. However, although I strongly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Krebs, I recognise that the rapprochement we have achieved is now probably as far as we are going to get.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, that we have achieved some rapprochement, I was looking for total independence for the office for environmental protection and the consequences of that for Northern Ireland. While welcoming the progress, I am therefore still disappointed that the Government have rejected attempts to strengthen the independence of the office for environmental protection in law. I felt that needed to be placed on the face of the Bill.
I have carefully read what the Minister in the other place, Rebecca Pow, said yesterday on this important matter and note that she put some helpful statements on the record, including to confirm that the Government have no intention of issuing guidance before the OEP is up and running and has developed its own enforcement policy. She also recognised the conflict of interest inherent in this guidance power involving the implementation of environmental law by the Defra Secretary of State.
While these are welcome statements, my fear is that they could be forgotten or ignored by future Secretaries of State. I repeat the point made in several debates on the importance of future-proofing. I recall that I had amendments about the need for the independence of the OEP in Northern Ireland in Committee, on Report and during the last ping-pong. My great wish remains for such assurances to be written into the Bill, but sadly—like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington —I believe we have achieved as much as we possibly can. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, I will write to the DAERA Minister in Northern Ireland to ask for similar assurances to be provided.
I ask the Minister here to tell the House whether he is confident that the Bill and this OEP will be totally accountable, and what discussions he has had with the DAERA Minister in Northern Ireland regarding the accountability of the OEP. We have a five-party Executive in Northern Ireland, and it is not always easy to achieve consensus on a wide range of issues. I would welcome answers to those questions.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, having pestered the Minister since well before Second Reading for meaningful judicial remedies on environmental review, I will speak to Motion B and Commons Amendments 33C and 33D, which I believe are the product of negotiations between a variety of departments —some of them powerfully opposed to what they see as constraints on development.
While I thank the Minister and his colleagues at Defra for shouldering that task, I sense that the imprint of the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities is visible on the end result. The good news is that the courts are now to be trusted with a discretion over whether to grant a remedy, even if substantial hardship or prejudice may be caused to developers or other third parties. The bad news is that this discretion is, as the Minister has said, weighted: weighted in favour of the developer. Uniquely in our law, the court will be barred—save for an exceptional public interest reason—from granting a remedy in such cases, even if it is satisfied that a remedy is necessary to prevent serious damage to the environment or to public health. The Minister’s example of the harmfully polluting factory makes just that point.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, spoke in Committee of an underlying feeling that environmental law is to be
“a grade below some other laws so that, although you fail to comply with it, you can still be all right”.—[Official Report, 30/6/21; col. 815.]
I regret that, while this amendment does achieve a limited upgrade for environmental law, a good deal of truth remains in his comment.
It was tempting—but would in the end have been futile—to fight on so, making the best of it, I end with two positive remarks. First, I draw attention to the helpful indication that the Minister has just given about what is intended by the obscure phrase “exceptional public interest reason”. By his own account, such a reason will exist whenever the public interest in preventing serious harm to the environment or to human health substantially outweighs the interest in preventing hardship to a third party. Less benign interpretations of that phrase might have been imagined, so I am grateful to him and his counterpart in the other place, Rebecca Pow, for their clarity and their express acknowledgment that their statements may in future be drawn on by the courts as a legitimate aid to statutory interpretation under Pepper v Hart.
Secondly, I take comfort in the fact that even after what we must assume to be the passage of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, the full panoply of court remedies will remain available on judicial review—if not at the suit of the OEP, which will be allowed to bring judicial review proceedings only in urgent cases, then at least to other claimants with a sufficient interest. In that context, I note the Government’s view, expressed from the Dispatch Box on 30 June, that
“the OEP’s complaints and enforcement functions would not affect the rights of other persons to bring legal challenges against public authorities by way of a judicial review”.—[Official Report, 30/6/21; col. 823.]
In those circumstances, with profound thanks to the noble Lords from all parties and none who have signed and supported various amendments on this theme, and to the Minister and the Bill team, I offer a qualified but sincere welcome to Amendments 33C and 33D.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak specifically on Motions A, A1, B and D. My noble friend Lady Quin will then return to Motion C later in the debate. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, for their perseverance and commitment to achieving proper OEP independence and enforcement powers. As we have said repeatedly, these measures are necessary to ensure that the environmental standards set out in this Bill, and indeed elsewhere, are protected for the longer term. I am also grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for listening and engaging on the issues that we have raised.
However, what we have before us today is not ideal, and we believe that the Government could have gone further to amend the Bill to give the assurances for which noble Lords across this House have repeatedly pressed. Throughout the process, we have supported the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in his determination to protect the independence of the OEP. This has been a fundamental issue and we continue to support Motion Al, which he has tabled today. We believe, as his amendment sets out, that the OEP should have complete discretion to carry out its functions free from the interference of government.
In this context, there have been a number of areas of detail which have been helpfully clarified by the Government in the Commons and, again, in this Chamber by the Minister today. For example, despite the Government’s insistence on the right to issue guidance to the OEP, we welcome the recognition that this should be limited to the areas of OEP enforcement policy listed in Clause 22. Quite rightly, it has been made clear that the Secretary of State cannot issue guidance on enforcement issues against the Defra Secretary of State, as this would be a clear conflict of interest. It has also been helpfully clarified that it would be within the scope of the OEP’s remit to investigate broad categories of individual cases that might have a common theme. This includes cases that have a discrete local impact but national implications.
We also reiterate our support for the proposal that Parliament should scrutinise the draft guidance before it is issued. All this goes some way to providing reassurance on an issue that we nevertheless believe continues to represent a flaw in the overall construct of the legislation. Can the Minister also assure us that before the Government publish any draft guidance, they will consult the OEP? Can he also assure us that the framework which will be agreed with the OEP will also set out its commitment to a five-year indicative budget? These are issues which the Minister will know are outstanding from earlier debate.
On the issue of enforcement, we welcome the tabling of the Government’s amendments to Clause 37(8), which address the concerns that the threshold for achieving a successful judicial review was insurmountable and anyway gave precedence to the interests of third-party polluters rather than those of the environment and the community. The amendment recognises that, on occasions, granting a remedy to address behaviour or damage will be necessary even if it may cause substantial hardship to the rights of a third party.
We have argued from the beginning that the courts should have the discretion to weigh all these factors equally in the balance. The Government’s amendments do not achieve that objective, but nevertheless we support the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in the view that this compromise wording is a step forward and the best that we will get at this stage of the process. No doubt the exact meaning of “the exceptional public interest” test will be played out in the courts in years to come, and we very much hope that the widest possible interpretation of it will become the norm.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we still have reservations about the final wording in the Bill on these issues, but nevertheless, we accept that progress has been made, and hope that he can reassure us on the remaining outstanding questions about the OEP’s independence.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Motion C, introduced by the Minister.
Members of both Houses of Parliament and the public have become increasingly aware during the passage of this Bill that our rivers, of which we are so proud, are being despoiled every day by sewage discharges, both legal and illegal. The BBC and national newspapers have carried so many disturbing stories and even Ministers have learned to what extent our aquatic environment is being continuously mistreated.
I thank the Government for tabling in the other place the amendment in lieu, which the House of Commons passed last night by a large majority. I also thank Rebecca Pow, the Environment Minister, for discussing the amendment with me last Thursday and I thank several Ministers and the Secretary of State for various meetings which we have had in recent weeks.
Since this House passed the cross-party amendment on 26 October, which placed
“a duty on sewerage undertakers to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged”,
there has been considerable public support for this wording. Even Water UK, the industry body which represents the water companies, put out a statement the following day that MPs should back the Lords amendment to strengthen the Environment Bill. I was surprised by this as I had assumed that the water companies would oppose my amendment, but they want the Government to go further. Specifically, they want the Government to instruct regulators—I assume that means Ofwat—to authorise investment in sewers. From the Minister’s words when moving the Commons amendment, it appears that the Government will be giving suitable directions to Ofwat. The government amendment requires by law that the water companies secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impacts of discharges. I particularly welcome the reference to “public health” in the new amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my coughing is not Covid, in case anybody is concerned.
I am so sad and disappointed that we have got to this place: we are under pressure, because of the primacy of the other place, to pass a Bill that is not as good as the one we amended. It seems that the Government do not understand what they have done in stripping out some of the safeguards we have put in. This will come to haunt MPs, because people will not forget the campaign to stop the sewage discharges into our rivers. Some people were also concerned about the office for environmental protection. This will not be forgotten.
I know the Minister said that this was not true, but I would argue that the Government have legitimised the sewage discharges that will be happening from now on. There is no timetable and there are no targets. Quite honestly, it seems that the Government do not understand the pressure that is coming from the grass roots—from dog walkers, fishing enthusiasts, Surfers Against Sewage and wild swimmers, who have seen this and really care about it. We have returned to the 1970s version of ourselves as the “dirty man of Europe”.
I hope that the Government will now admit the deliberate confusion that they created about the cost of stopping any further discharges. The figure—was it £60 billion or £600 billion?—that they put forward was absolutely outrageous; of course, they quickly withdrew it when people started to check. The Government could loan the money to the water companies to put in the infrastructure that we need to prevent discharges in a relatively short space of time. However, that would mean, of course, that those water companies could not pay dividends to investors, senior people and shareholders until the debt was paid off. If we had a tough regulatory system, the scandal would never have been able to escalate in the way that it has. It has been a failure of the Government, Ofwat and the Environment Agency and, unfortunately, the Environment Bill does nothing to deal with our relatively toothless system of enforcement.
I had hoped that we would be able to pressure the Government even more. Quite honestly, if any votes are put this afternoon—I cannot give up—I will vote for them, because the Government have still not achieved what we hoped would be achieved and what the general public want us to achieve: a cleaner Britain. I am hoping that the Government will at some point come forward with more safeguards, but at the moment I am not holding my breath and, as I said, I will vote for any amendments that are pressed.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on bringing us this far and I add my congratulations to my noble friend the Minister.
I want to ask two small questions. My noble friend said that he would look for the water companies to achieve a progressive reduction in the discharge of sewage over a period and admitted that this would go beyond one price review. As we are so far into the current price review, what will the level of expenditure be within this review, and does he admit that the majority of expenditure will probably fall in the next price review?
He is aware of my concern about the delay in introducing the regulations under Schedule 3 of the water Act 2020. Does he not share my concern that we will still potentially be front-loading raw sewage as surface water will be allowed to mix with the overflow from the combined sewers, pumping more raw sewage into the rivers? I am deeply unhappy that we have not yet fulfilled one of the outstanding requests of the Michael Pitt report from 2007, when surface water flooding first became an issue, and even after the awful floods that we have had since. We have not managed to achieve an ending to the automatic right to connect and, until these regulations are introduced, we will not do so.
Is my noble friend able to put a timetable on when these regulations will finally come into place, so that we can have a pincer movement on the raw sewage going upstream and downstream, as addressed by the amendments before us this afternoon?
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion C1. I know enough about military strategy to know that where a Duke of Wellington does not lead a forward manoeuvre, it may be unwise to try to advance when he is not leading. So I am very mindful of the views of the House, and other noble Lords will speak before I decide whether to press Motion C1.
The point he made, which I think still holds, is that, although there has been movement on the part of the Government, in two key respects—the scope of the duty on water companies and the timescale in which it is intended to be met and in which we are intended to see improvements—the amendment that the Government have moved is unsatisfactory. I think there is general recognition in the House that we are not talking about a minor matter. We are talking about 400,000 discharges of raw sewage into Britain’s rivers in the last year alone. All the evidence is that the number is increasing, not reducing. We are not moving in the right direction; we are moving in the wrong direction and indeed, because of the impact of Brexit and the supply chain problems and all of that, and the shortage of relevant chemicals, the Environment Agency has issued formal advice exempting water undertakings from having to meet their prior conditions.
The noble Duke’s first amendment referred to taking “all reasonable steps”, which would imply a short timescale, and my amendment refers to
“a period specified by the Secretary of State”
in which defined objectives are to be met. My question to the Minister, which I think will be of great importance to the House since there is no reference to any timescale in his amendment, is: in what timescale does he envisage that there will be significant reductions in sewage discharges?
The second issue relates to scope. The noble Duke’s amendment put a direct duty on water companies to improve the performance of sewerage systems to get at the heart of the problem—inadequate sewage treatment facilities to reduce discharges of raw sewage. Now, the Government’s amendment refers to reducing
“the adverse impact of discharges”,
which is an indirect duty and does not require at all, necessarily—but certainly not in a defined timescale—significant improvements in the performance of sewerage systems. I ask the Minister why the Government are so focused on the indirect impacts—which we accept are important, and the noble Duke referred to that—rather than a direct duty on water companies to improve the performance of their sewerage systems?
A final point of some significance is: who can enforce this duty? Because, as everyone has accepted, without enforcement the duty will probably go unfulfilled. Philip Dunne—to whom we pay tribute and who has done great work in the other place on this issue—in his speech yesterday referred to his continuing concerns about enforcement, particularly in the context of a cut in the Environment Agency’s staffing and budget of two-thirds in the last 10 years, which has dramatically reduced its capacity to enforce or indeed even to inspect—and of course, unless you have inspected, you cannot enforce.
The noble Duke’s amendments would have given any individual or body corporate the power to enforce or to bring enforcement action or legal action because of the non-fulfilment by a water company of the duty. I think in particular of local authorities. Of course, it is local authorities that best know what is going on in their area and have the professional staff who are able to make assessments. Under the Government’s amendment, only the Secretary of State and defined state institutions can hold water companies to account for the enforcement of their duties. That is a very significant limitation on the noble Duke’s amendment.
So my third question to the Minister is: why are the Government not prepared to allow local authorities and non-state bodies, many of which are highly expert in this area, to bring proceedings against water companies that are not fulfilling the duty that is now set out in the Government’s amendment?
To me, these are three very significant issues: timescale, the scope of the duty and enforcement. In all three respects, the Government’s amendment is wanting at the moment. It does not lead me to have any expectation that the noble Duke’s aspirations, which we all share, will actually be fulfilled, because the timescale for meeting these objectives could be inordinately long. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords, and in particular of the Minister at the end of the debate, before I decide whether, even if the noble Duke himself is retiring from the field, others of us might feel that it is in the public interest that we should attempt to advance none the less.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, in response to the public outcry at the Government’s opposition to the noble Duke’s original amendments, the Government promised us that they would deliver the wishes of the public in a new amendment, in keeping with the intentions of the Duke. That is something that we really should bear in mind today when we consider the intricacies of the back-and-forth of the various comments that have been made.
It would have been better if, yesterday evening, our MPs had stood firm and insisted on clarity and action by Ministers. That is what is needed to stop our rivers and seas being treated like an open sewer by the water companies. It is the case that the public must never again be faced with an annual figure of 400,000 releases of raw sewage into our rivers and seas.
In that regard, I have three quick points to make. Will the Government confirm that they will, in due course, do three things? First, will they work with the Environment Agency to immediately start setting tougher permits for sewage works and CSOs, and on the monitoring, inspection and enforcement regimes, by way of ministerial direction? Secondly, will they tell Ofwat that it has a central role to play in cleaning up sewage using existing regulations, and will they make Ofwat accountable to Parliament on an annual basis for progress in reducing sewage discharges? Finally, will they strengthen current schemes to generate clear investment plans, backed by resources, to begin eliminating the worst and most damaging sewage pollution?
I think we all understand that the public will be watching, particularly in the towns and villages represented by those MPs who supported the Government so robustly in the other place last night.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Although this is not strictly relevant, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the important international agreement on rainforest protection in recent days. I am so pleased.
I am content with the government amendments as outlined by my noble friend the Minister, especially the improved parliamentary scrutiny that is provided for on guidance. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, or indeed with the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, which we have not really been able to debate properly. I think we are on the way to a cleaner Britain through these proposals, so I am extremely grateful for them.
However, I have a question for clarification on the new untreated-sewage provisions, which I do not think has been covered by what has already been described. How will we know what is happening in terms of the success of progressive improvements in sewage disposal into our rivers and the sea? What are the monitoring arrangements? These are important to all of us and to the water companies, on which we rely for our water and for investment, whatever the agreed timetable on the new proposals.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Motion C. I begin by giving my renewed congratulations and thanks to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for all his efforts, which have not only caused the Government to concede in various ways but highlighted the issue to the wider public, so that many of our citizens who were previously unaware of the extent of sewage discharges are now very much engaged and determined to see that these large-scale problems are addressed. It is a pleasure to have been involved in the cross-party work with the noble Duke, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates. I wish the Government had included all the elements of the noble Duke’s amendment, but I recognise some of the commitments that have been included, and which represent a considerable improvement.
I will make three brief points which I think have not been fully covered so far. The first point is about cost. There is a lot of controversy about the costs of the clean-up, and the Government’s estimates of the costs have been challenged by many people as being far too large. I hope that the Government, in determining the costs as they move forward, will consult widely—not just with the water companies but with all stakeholders and communities—particularly looking at the claims of some people who believe that much more can be done quickly and relatively more cheaply than the Government claim.
For example, the Thames tideway scheme is claimed to be able to eliminate 90% of storm overflows at a cost of £20 to £25 on London water bills a year, which is not a huge cost, given some of the figures that have been bandied around. Many individuals and environmental groups think that a substantial reduction of spills can be achieved in the short term without, for example, having to replace wholescale networks of Victorian sewers. We need to look at what can be achieved with a fairly modest increase in water bills.
Secondly, I still believe that we need improved take-up of technology by the water companies. For example, when looking at the figures on smart meters and comparing what is happening in this country with the United States, we can see the introduction of technology in a much more widespread way in the United States.
Thirdly, we need a holistic approach to particular rivers and coastal waters. It makes no sense to upgrade—as sometimes happens—one treatment works on a river but not another one just a few kilometres downstream, which means that the environment for aquatic life improves only for the distance between the two and there are no proper, fundamental effects. Within an overall approach, there must also be priorities. I believe that the chalk streams and the SSSI areas—particularly sensitive coastal areas and places where there is an effect on health—should still be very high priorities.
I share some of the frustrations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, particularly when she talked about European battles of the past. I remember campaigning, a long time ago, and feeling ashamed that our own country was so far behind in, for example, the clean-up of waters around our beaches and coastal areas. It is very depressing that we need to once again express shame for what is happening in our rivers and coastal waters today.
In conclusion, I welcome the progress that has been made during the course of the Bill’s passage, but the issue remains a crucial one. I hope that the Government will find themselves under close scrutiny from all parties, across both Houses, to ensure that they deliver on their promises, and that we will see an end to the appalling amount of sewage discharges which have occurred in recent months and years.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, on Motion C, I too congratulate my noble friend the Duke of Wellington on all his amendments throughout the passage of the Bill to which I have added my name. It has been a pleasure to work co-operatively across the House, including with the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates.
Indeed, noble Lords’ scrutiny has achieved many important improvements. I therefore thank our excellent Ministers—my honourable friend Rebecca Pow in the other place and my noble friend the Minister—my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, and the entire Bill team for their engagement, hard work and willingness to be persuaded to finally accept the need to place duties on the water companies. I also commend the work of my honourable friend Philip Dunne in the other place, who did so much to move this forward.
At last, the Bill places a direct legal duty on the water companies. The government amendment seems to me to produce what we and my noble friend the Duke of Wellington were aiming to achieve with the most recent amendment. There is considerable public concern that the Environment Agency is not using its existing powers, has relied too much on self-reporting and has consistently tolerated repeated illegal discharges which damage our waterways and public health. I am grateful to the Government that they have now specified both the environmental and human health aspects.
It will also, as other noble Lords have said, be important to monitor and oversee sewage discharges far more rigorously and to track and reduce such unacceptable discharges so that companies do not rely on not being caught as the most cost-effective way to proceed. I have sympathy with the frustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I believe that, although in an ideal world we would not want to start from here, we are not dealing with the situation that we would all wish to see. After years of neglect and companies having behaved so egregiously, I do not believe that this can be addressed instantly. Therefore, it will take time to undo the neglect. I believe that the Government must and will take the necessary actions, but of course we will see over time.
Currently, we have two excellent Ministers who are committed to the aims of the Bill, for which I am most grateful. I also briefly congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, on the pressure they have put on to improve the independence of the OEP. Overall, I believe that this House has achieved a significant amount. We have pushed the Government as far as we possibly can, and I hope that we will now accept the government Motions and be rightly proud of this landmark Bill.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have rightly stayed silent up to now, having been content with listening, as I have done throughout. I think noble Lords are hugely to be congratulated for encouraging and indeed pushing the Government into a much more favourable position which I think, as the noble Baroness has just said, we ought to accept. I remain particularly concerned about one thing: the discharge of sewage into rivers and chalk streams. How on earth will the Government really see that this is properly monitored? Because if it is not monitored, it is a waste of time.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Very briefly, I was very keen that all the amendments in your Lordships’ House, when they went down to the other place a couple of weeks ago, should be accepted, but we are where we are and it is a good illustration of a degree of co-operation between the two Houses. I do wish that the other place would not look on us as competition, or adversaries, but rather as a complementary Chamber very much influenced by those with real knowledge and experience, as has been marvellously illustrated this afternoon by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
Led by our Cross-Benchers, we have achieved a considerable degree of improvement to a Bill that started out as a somewhat flawed flagship. I think now we can take a certain quiet pride. It is not perfect; it would have been better had more of our amendments been accepted and had those before us not been doctored a little, but we must not be churlish. However, I do hope that the other place will come to regard your Lordships’ House as not a competitor or an adversary but a complementary Chamber that can add real value. If one compares the depth of the debate in your Lordships’ House with what happened rather briefly in another place, we can be gently satisfied and quietly proud of what this House has achieved.
It would be churlish to sit down without saying to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park that we appreciate what he has done. However, in future Bills it would be a good idea if Ministers in your Lordships’ House were given a little more latitude to be responsive at the Dispatch Box—a little more authority, because they deserve it, and my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park has given a lifetime of service to the causes embraced in the Bill. This is a satisfactory afternoon and it would be spoiled by any Division.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, with regard to the Minister and his team’s unfailing co-operation and ambition for the Bill, which is the most important Bill on the environment that we have seen in this country for at least the last 30 years. When it came to us at Second Reading, all of us welcomed it but said that it needed to go a lot further. It would be churlish not to reflect on the fact that it has gone somewhat further, if not as far as most of us—perhaps including the Minister—hoped we might be able to achieve.
On the three final hills on which we have chosen in this House to fight today, we are in the position of having to accept that we are where we are, given the majority of the Government on the other side. On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—he has indeed been a champion redoubtable—on pushing for remedies for the OEP, that is an incredibly important issue and it is of deep regret that it will not go into the Bill. However, I hope, like I am sure other Members around this Chamber, that the assurances that the Minister has given today can bear fruit should there be—as I am sure there will—instances in the future in the courts as these issues are challenged.
On the independence of the OEP, on which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, led so skilfully on behalf of this House, he is right to say that the Government seem to have an umbilical attachment to not wishing the OEP to have the independence that absolutely all in this House agree that it should. It is of deep regret that that has not made its way into the Bill. However, I think all of us in this House have confidence in the current holders of the OEP, and we hope that they will use the discretion given by Rebecca Pow in the other place so that they are not bound to the guidance if there are good reasons for not taking it forward. I hope that they will make full use of those powers and challenge the Government should they so feel the need.
Personally, where I am most concerned that the Government still have that guidance power to contain the independence of the OEP is on the issue of planning, which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned. The Government still retain the ability to perhaps constrain the OEP from taking enforcement measures on planning applications, which may appear local and discrete but have nationally significant biodiversity implications. Given the fate of the biodiversity in our country at this time, we know just how important that may be.
Finally, on the issue of sewage, we on these Benches—particularly my noble friend Lord Oates, who has worked so closely with other colleagues from other Benches—thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for the campaign that he has taken forward, and indeed Philip Dunne, who I see is with us this afternoon. It is good to be able to say to them that we in this House thank them both for their campaigning to bring this appalling issue, which is really important for both the environment and human health, to the attention of the Government and the public more broadly. On behalf of all of us, I thank both of them for doing that.
As I say, we have probably pushed the Government as far as they are prepared to go on this issue. However, in having made the general public so aware of what is at stake, the Government can be under no illusion that, while we have done our job here today and in preceding weeks, if they do not listen, act and take the necessary steps to stop these appalling sewage discharges, the public will notice, and it will not just be the environment that pays the price in the future. The Government will pay the price at the next general election.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will particularly address the amendments from the Government and in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis on water quality, in Motions C and C1. First, I thank the Minister and Defra officials for their time in listening to our concerns throughout the passage of this Bill. While we welcome the government amendment to improve water quality, we must be clear that the Government did not want to include stronger provisions in this Bill to improve and protect our rivers and waterways, including from sewage discharges. We have the government amendment before us today because of the refusal of your Lordships’ House, Philip Dunne in the other place and in particular the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to give up on campaigning to protect both our environment and public health. Once again, the Minister has been dragged back to debate this because people have been disgusted that the situation was allowed to continue. The Government truly brought the pong into ping-pong.
While the government amendment before us today does improve the Bill, noble Lords have said that they are finding it in some ways unsatisfactory, as it does not go far enough to address some of the concerns that have been raised today. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, talked about the considerable public support for his amendment, including from water companies, which he said just want more public investment from the Government in order to improve the sewerage system. He also expressed concern that the government amendment is considerably weaker than his in some aspects. We strongly supported the Duke on this issue, and believe that his original amendment was better than the government amendment before us today, and it is disappointing that Government refused to just accept it. My noble friend Lord Adonis has now picked this up, and he clearly laid out his reasons for doing so: his concerns that discharges have been increasing; that enforcement has not been what it should be; and that this is partly down to cuts to the Environment Agency, which have reduced its capacity to both monitor and take action.
I will now draw particular attention to three concerns raised by my colleague Luke Pollard in the other place. First, on prosecutions—the noble Duke mentioned their lack—will the Minister commit to reviewing the system of fines and penalties? The current penalties clearly do not have the effect of stopping certain water companies form routinely dumping raw sewage into our waterways. Penalties must be meaningful so that they change behaviour, or they are pointless. Water companies and the regulator, Ofwat, have consistently failed to stop damaging discharges. They know they that they are currently allowed to discharge raw sewage only in exceptional circumstances, but take no notice, which is why penalties and fines must be reviewed. Southern Water had committed no fewer than 168 previous offences before being fined this summer.
Secondly, we need to strengthen the duty of Ofwat to take action, to give water companies a clear direction on targets, ensure that there is a priority to clean up the most polluting discharges, and have oversight on progress from the relevant parliamentary committees. The regulator should have environmental experts available to strengthen its decision-making.
Thirdly, can the Minister further clarify what is meant by “progressive reduction”—the timescales mentioned by my noble friend Lord Adonis? By when, and by how much? Yesterday, I attended COP 26, as mentioned by the Minister in his introduction. Much is being made there of the importance of putting nature and the environment at the centre of policy-making and legislation. We know that one consequence of climate change in the UK is likely to be heavier rainfall. Without progressive reduction being pinned down properly, we are a very long way away from seeing an end to this persistent pollution.
In yesterday’s debate in the other place, the Minister, Rebecca Pow, ran out of time to respond to these questions from my colleague, so I would be grateful if the Minister could take the opportunity to answer these points today. I also look forward to his reply to other concerns raised by noble Lords in this debate, including my noble friend Lord Adonis, and whether he can reassure the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that there will be proper parliamentary oversight and progress on ending the practice of discharging raw sewage into the waterways, because without proper oversight on progress, it will, as I said, take a very long time to change this behaviour at all.
I also look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions from my noble friend Lady Quin and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding the true cost of tackling this issue. If he cannot answer these questions, can he explain why the Government are refusing to commit to addressing these very real concerns, which we have raised time and again?
Noble Lords are right: the Bill is in a better place now than when it started, and that is mainly down to concerns raised by your Lordships. But it is a shame that the Government have not been able to completely accept today’s important improvements.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank your Lordships for your contributions to this debate. This is a landmark Environment Bill, the benefits of which will undoubtedly be felt by future generations both in the UK and, as a result of, for example, our due diligence legislation and more besides, internationally. I thank your Lordships for the collaborative and expert manner in which you have approached this Bill. Your constructive support and knowledge have been invaluable in enabling the passage of this Bill and making it better than when it first came to this House.
I will begin by addressing points made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, whom I thank again for sharing his expertise, time and patience on this important issue, and for his words today. I am happy to reiterate my earlier statement, also in response to questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that, in exercising its discretion in individual cases, the OEP would of course need to have regard to a range of relevant factors but ultimately must take all its decisions objectively, impartially and independently of government. Furthermore, I am happy to confirm that the Government are committed to ensuring the operational independence of the OEP.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked whether, in preparing the guidance, we would consult the OEP. The answer is, of course, yes we would. She also asked whether the framework document that the Government will agree with the OEP will make explicit reference to the Government’s commitment to a five-year indicative budget ring-fenced within each spending review period. The answer is that the framework document will make explicit reference to the five-year indicative budget and Defra will provide a ring-fence within each spending review period, in line with previous government commitments. It will also add detail that will guide and give further clarity to the relationship between the OEP, Defra and the rest of government.
To answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I assure her that Defra Ministers and officials continue to have very regular discussions with DAERA, as has my noble friend, who I see up in the Gallery now, as they have throughout the passage of this Bill. Northern Irish Ministers have consistently sought parity as far as possible between the two Administrations with regard to the OEP. I know that my friend, Minister Pow, will continue these discussions and will support Northern Ireland in setting up a fully independent OEP.
Turning to Amendment 33B on the environmental review measure, I reiterate that the changes made by the Government in the other place will provide discretion to the court to grant remedies if it is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the environment or people’s health, and there is an exceptional public interest reason to do so. They also ensure that a high bar is still set for the granting of remedies where third parties may be affected.
I place again on the record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for his important contribution to improving the Bill and the manner in which he has engaged with me and my officials. I am glad that my words have at least gone some way to reassure him sufficiently today.
I turn to Amendment 45B in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and Amendment 45C tabled by Rebecca Pow on storm overflows. The Government’s new amendment in lieu will underpin the storm overflows measures in the Bill by requiring water companies to secure a progressive reduction—I will come to the definition of that in a moment—in the adverse impacts of their storm overflows. It will make our expectations unequivocal in law and enforceable with the full suite of sanctions available under the Water Industry Act 1991.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I appreciate the new provisions for real-time monitoring, which are obviously a move forward, but how do they get added together to make sure that we are tackling the sewage issue? That is what I was concerned about.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
If the monitoring is done in the manner in which this legislation requires, that data will become immediately available, but it is for the regulators—indeed, the Government—to ensure that the data is processed and understood and that it informs next steps. It is hard to be more specific; that is the Government’s job and if the Government fail in their duties there are a number of other accountability mechanisms which we are introducing through the Bill—not least the OEP—to ensure that the Government do their job.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about timelines. We have committed to review Schedule 3; I have put that on the record in the past, work has begun, and the review will report early next year.
I hope that I have answered the questions that were put to me today. I thank all those who have contributed to this debate and to the hours of debate since the Bill was introduced. It has had a challenging passage, but I have sincerely appreciated contributions—or most of them—from across the House and in the other place in support of the environment that we all cherish.
I once again thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments throughout the passage. I also thank the stakeholders, who have used their voices so effectively. I particularly thank my counterparts on the opposition Benches—the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I very much take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about the pong in the ping-pong, but the work—
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
I am so sorry—I have just transferred that brilliant joke to another party. It may have been a brilliant joke but there was some truth in it—many a truth is told in jest, as someone said. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, makes a very good point, but I genuinely believe that the work of this House has removed much of the pong, and the ping-pong has, as a result, improved the Bill considerably. I genuinely thank her and others across the aisle for the work that they put into this.
I equally thank my exceptional private office staff, who have worked above and beyond the call of duty. This has been a very long process; it is one of the biggest Bills we have had to deal with. They have been working—in some cases—around the clock and I am very grateful to them and of course to the Bill team, who have been absolutely superb and extraordinarily patient, not just with colleagues in this House but with Ministers. I really appreciate their efforts and I look forward—as I know many in this House do—to the Bill continuing the crucial work that we have already begun to restore our appallingly depleted natural environment, improve the quality of our air and water, and end the scourge of plastic waste pollution. I commend this Motion to the House.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate and will reiterate something that was said at earlier stages of the Bill. The amendments I have been involved in, and many of the others, have been genuinely across all groups, and it has been a particular pleasure for me to work not only with the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter, but with colleagues on the Conservative Benches: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank and others. The concerns we have expressed are not partisan: they are genuine concerns about wanting to improve the Bill and protect the environment for our grandchildren and generations to come.
I also thank the Minister. In his reply, he did indeed utter the words I was hoping he would: namely, that the Government’s intention is to protect the operational independence of the OEP. I am very grateful to him for confirming that.
In concluding, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said it far more eloquently and succinctly than I could. We have worked hard to try to improve the Bill and we have made significant gains, but there comes a point at which we say, “Enough is enough. We have done the best we can. We have brought our experience and expertise to bear on the Bill and we think we have got about as far as we can. It may not be perfect, but it is better than it was when we started.” On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33B to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 33C and 33D in lieu.
(8A) Condition A is that the court is satisfied that granting the remedy would not—
(a) be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person other than the authority, or
(b) be detrimental to good administration.
(8B) Condition B is that Condition A is not met but the court is satisfied that—
(a) granting the remedy is necessary in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or to human health, and
(b) there is an exceptional public interest reason to grant it.”
(5A) Condition A is that the court is satisfied that granting the remedy would not—
(a) be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person other than the authority, or
(b) be detrimental to good administration.
(5B) Condition B is that Condition A is not met but the court is satisfied that—
(a) granting the remedy is necessary in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or to human health, and
(b) there is an exceptional public interest reason to grant it.”
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 45B to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 45C and 45D in lieu.
“Reduction of adverse impact of storm overflows
In Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 141EB insert—
“141EC Reduction of adverse impact of storm overflows
(1) A sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England must secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impact of discharges from the undertaker’s storm overflows.
(2) The reference in subsection (1) to reducing adverse impacts includes—
(a) reducing adverse impacts on the environment, and
(b) reducing adverse impacts on public health.
(3) The duty of a sewerage undertaker under this section is enforceable under section 18 by—
(a) the Secretary of State, or
(b) the Authority with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State.””
“( ) section (Reduction of adverse impacts of storm overflows) (reduction of adverse impacts of storm overflows);”
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 75A and 75B on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 75D, and do not insist on its Amendment 75C in lieu to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, before we move to next business. I think we will have a small pause to allow the Front Bench and other noble Lords to change places.
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(3A) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (3)—(a) a condition may be specified under subsection (1) whether or not it is connected to the specified UK qualification or specified UK experience concerned, and(b) a determination mentioned in subsection (2)(b) or (3)(b)(i) may be made—(i) on the basis only of the overseas qualifications or overseas experience concerned, or(ii) on such other basis as the specified regulator considers appropriate (such as on the basis of the overseas qualifications or overseas experience concerned together with the results of any test or other assessment given by any person).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about the additional conditions that may be specified in regulations under subsection (1) of the Clause and makes provision about the basis on which a determination mentioned in subsection (2)(b) or (3)(b)(i) of the Clause may be made.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be back debating the Professional Qualifications Bill on Report. I thank noble Lords for continuing to meet my officials and me over the Summer Recess, and I think we shall see the fruits of those meetings as we progress through this stage of the Bill today.
May I also take this moment to wish many happy returns to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who I understand is celebrating his birthday today? We all find our pleasures in different ways, but I can think of no better way to celebrate one’s birthday than on Report on this Bill.
I thank noble Lords for their careful consideration of this Bill and for the positive reception accorded to the previous iteration of this amendment in Committee. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his careful and helpful consideration of the government amendment in Committee. I also thank him for his own amendment to Clause 1.
As I have said on a number of occasions, regulator autonomy is crucial to maintaining our world-class professional standards and high-quality services, and the public’s confidence in them. This includes, of course, making sure that regulators can take into account all relevant factors when considering applications for recognition. Since Committee, my officials and I have engaged extensively with regulators and have taken legal advice on how to best articulate this in Clause 1. There was consensus from Peers in Committee, and regulators throughout our engagement, that the amendment I previously proposed was helpful. However, there was recognition—and I am happy to acknowledge this—that we could make it yet clearer. I am therefore presenting a new amendment that provides three important clarifications.
First, the amendment would add to Clause 1 a new subsection (3A)(a) stating that other conditions, which could, for example, include regulatory criteria required to practise, can be specified in regulations under Clause 1(1). This is regardless of whether those criteria are connected to the specified UK qualifications or experience. These criteria must be satisfied before an individual is treated as if they had the specified UK qualification or experience.
Secondly, the amendment would add to Clause 1 new subsection (3A)(b). This changes how the conditions in Clauses 1(2) and 1(3) are interpreted. It provides legislative assurance that when regulators are obligated to put in place a process to assess individuals under Clause 1, they can assess applicants’ knowledge and skills on whatever basis they consider appropriate.
Thirdly, the new placement of the word “only” in new subsection (3A)(b)(i) makes it clear that a regulator can consider only overseas qualifications or experience, or—this is important—on any other basis it considers appropriate. This could, for example, include both overseas qualifications and experience, and the results of any test or assessment carried out in the UK. To avoid ambiguity in how this amendment is read, an illustrative example is also now included in brackets in proposed new subsection (3A)(b)(ii).
As I set out in Committee, regulators, including the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, welcomed the previous clarificatory amendment to Clause 1 tabled in my name. I have continued these discussions in recent months and tested this revised amendment with them. They appreciated the clarifications that this amendment provides.
I have also carried out extensive engagement with other regulators. For example, I met with the Bar Council to discuss Clauses 1 and 2. I am happy to reiterate that the power in Clause 1, taken alongside the condition in Clause 2, does not act so as to remove powers from regulators where they already have them. I also met with representatives from the Education Workforce Council to discuss the Bill. I would like to reassure them that it is highly unlikely that the council would be specified in regulations under Clause 1. This is because, quite simply, as I understand it, they already have a global route in place to recognise overseas qualified teachers, underpinned by express legal powers in Welsh legislation, to help meet the demand for the services of their profession.
Clauses 1 and 2 are not intended to affect the existence or scope of any existing powers of a regulator in relation to recognition of overseas qualifications or experience. They are not intended to, and do not, constrain in any way a regulator’s ability to recognise overseas qualifications or experience derived from any other legal source.
Taken as a whole, this means that the amendment provides legislative assurance that the Bill will equip regulators with the tools that they need to make a thorough and rounded assessment and that, in so doing, the UK’s world-class professional standards will be maintained. I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his input, and I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his introduction to his amendment and for speaking to this group, and for his very kind words about our very constructive discussions. I reciprocate by saying how much I have appreciated the discussions he and I have had and the support of the Bill team in bringing forward a number of amendments on Report which respond directly to the debates that we had in Committee. And government Amendment 1 is exactly such an amendment.
As my noble friend quite rightly said, we had general agreement that there was a need for the national authority, when making regulations under Clause 1, to do so in ways that enabled somebody with overseas qualifications and experience to be brought into the UK profession on the basis of those or other relevant qualifications or experience, or other factors.
The difficulty with the original Amendment 10, if colleagues can remember back to Committee, was the nature of the word “only” in that context, which ran the risk of being interpreted as meaning that it would either be on the basis of overseas qualifications and experience or on the basis of other relevant and appropriate factors. We did not want that to be the case; we wanted what my noble friend has put into Amendment 1, which says at proposed new subsections (3A)(b)(i) and (3A)(b)(ii) that it will be
“on the basis only of the overseas qualifications or overseas experience … or … on such other basis as the specified regulator considers appropriate”.
That is clarified with the words:
“(such as on the basis of the overseas qualifications or overseas experience… together with the results of any test or other assessment given by any person).”
To keep it simple, if, for example, a language requirement needed to be specified, it could be specified as an additional requirement by the regulator and then be combined with the overseas qualification or the overseas experience to give, in total, the appropriate basis on which to be admitted to the UK profession. For my part, I am very happy that the Government have brought forward the amendment in this form.
The purpose of my Amendment 2 is to make it clear that a UK regulator may have requirements for entry to a profession which extend beyond the relevant UK qualifications and experience. So while somebody from overseas might have something that is directly comparable to that qualification or experience, that is not the sum total of the professional requirements to be on many professional registers. Many regulators also examine people’s background, experience and suitability, and they look to fitness to practice requirements. We do not need to dwell on this at length, just to say that there is potentially a gap between qualifications and experience in a formal sense and fitness to practice in its total sense. If regulators need that gap to be filled, Amendment 2 says that they should be able to do so; the conditions should be specified in a way that enables that to happen.
Looking at it, I am content that, as long as the appropriate national authority consults the relevant professional regulators when making regulations, the power none the less exists in Clause 1 to make the condition one that extends beyond qualifications and experience into all the fitness to practice requirements that might be applied by a regulator in this country. That being the case—and we have the benefit of the consultation requirements that we are going to come on to later, which give us further assurance on this—I think we are in a position where the conditions in Clause 1 would be wide enough without the benefit of my Amendment 2.
In my own defence, I tabled Amendment 2 back in early July, so I am slightly defending Amendment 2 in the light of having not, at that point, seen all the amendments that are coming forward, not least from my noble friend. That being the case, I think we can be fairly confident that Clause 1 will be robust enough if need be, so I have no intention of pressing Amendment 2.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 1. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who has urged and pushed, with perhaps a little more oomph than we could have done from this side. We are very grateful for what he has been able to do there.
I think the Minister will be thanked by quite a few people in the next couple of hours, though there may still be one or two people with a “please” in there for him. He knows that, right from the introduction of the Bill, we were worried about the ability of independent regulators to decide who is fit to practice. The words that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, used are useful ones around being fit to practice and whether the ability of regulators to decide that could be undermined by a government diktat to set up a new system to recognise overseas practitioners wanting to come here, and therefore potentially lowering standards to meet a government view that there is a homegrown shortage in the relevant profession.
That was a concern not just to us but to the users of regulated service providers. Their confidence in professionals stems very much from the high standards and, indeed, from the enforcement that our independent regulators are able to give in the interests of consumers. But the Government have heard these concerns.
When most of us were away during the summer, the Minister spent a lot of time in meetings, and that is reflected in Amendment 1, which confirms that the regulators can apply their chosen standards as to who should practice in this country. The Minister has already referred to some regulators, and we know that the Nursing and Midwifery Council, for example, and others, have signified that they are content with the amendments. It clearly has to be for a regulator both to determine standards and to make a judgment on who has actually achieved those and therefore can be let loose on consumers or users in this country. So on this amendment, it is a “thank you” from me, and it does not require a further “please”.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for having met with me and for having, as I know, consulted extremely widely on the Bill. I seek a tad of reassurance from him on his Amendment 1, fully accepting the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made on the issues around fitness to practise. It would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm that the ability of any regulator to determine fitness to practise and other issues will be up to that regulator, and that that consultation will extend across the four nations of the UK.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I first apologise for arriving a tad late; I was at the Economic Affairs Select Committee and had to sprint down the Committee Corridor when I saw the Bill coming up.
When this Bill went on its holiday in July, after Committee, I think we were all pleased that there would be a moment of reflection—and it has come back a much-refreshed Bill. The Minister did not go on holiday but worked with us across the Floor to help the refreshing process. We see evidence of that in both this and later amendments. At the beginning, we on these Benches shared the same suspicion that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, had: Clauses 1 and 2 looked as though they might have been Trojan horses for something far more dangerous to the system than the Minister wanted us to believe. This amendment works very well in dispelling that suspicion, so we are very supportive of it.
Briefly, on Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I agree with him that the combination of government Amendments 1 and 12, which will come later, do a good job in handing over the role that he envisaged to the regulatory authorities. In that respect, we believe that it is no longer necessary. So we welcome government Amendment 1 and look forward to rest of this debate, in which we will continue to make a few comments on outstanding issues.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I first thank the Minister for his kind wishes on my birthday. Where else would I want to be but at the Dispatch Box responding to the debate? This will be my only appearance on the Bill today. I did think when I became Opposition Chief Whip on 1 June that the House had earned a rest from listening to me speak at the Dispatch Box. People will have had views as to whether that was a good or bad thing, but it does not seem to have worked out that way; I am still here.
I feel at a bit of a disadvantage, having looked back at the debates and seen the quality of the contributions of Members who have spoken with vastly more experience than I have on these matters. At this point, I particularly want to pay tribute to my noble—but also dear and good—friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town for all her work for the Opposition on this Bill and as Deputy Leader of the Labour Lords. We have been involved in several battles over the years—always on the same side, I am pleased to say—and I look forward to her work in her new role as chair of the International Agreements Committee.
Government Amendment 1 seeks, as we have heard, to address the concerns that we raised in earlier debates and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, he put into his amendment. In that sense, we as the Opposition are very happy with what has been proposed by the Government and we look forward to the next steps. In particular, I saw the point he made about the need to address those important clarifications—to ensure that we give legislative assurance to regulators that they will have the tools they need to ensure that overseas qualifications are effective, recognised and appropriate for the work that people do in our jurisdiction. I will leave it there, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, it is even more of a pleasure to do this Report with the debate having started in such a positive way. I thank noble Lords for that and say unreservedly that the scrutiny and discussions that I have had with noble Lords over the last few months have improved the Bill to the point that it has reached today.
It is a great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, back to the Front Bench, perhaps for the last time, and, of course, I have not seen the last of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town; I look forward to dealing with her in her role as chair of the IAC. If I may say so, I have never seen the noble Baroness lacking oomph in any way whatever, and I am sure that will be the case in her new role. I thank, in particular, my noble friend Lord Lansley for his input into this amendment. The eagle-eyed scrutiny that my noble friend gives to the legislation in front of this House always ends with improvements being brought forward.
I can completely reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that fitness to practise sits absolutely with the regulators—we will be reaffirming this perhaps even more strongly when we discuss regulatory autonomy later on—and that all four nations will of course be considered on their merits. There is no desire whatever to impose any form of uniformity where it does not exist. With that, I thank noble Lords for the comments that have been made and beg to move my amendment.
“(5A) Regulations under this section relating to a regulated profession may not be made unless—(a) they have been published in draft form, and(b) the relevant regulators have been consulted on them for a period of three months beginning with the day on which they are published.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we have moved faster than I anticipated. I rise to move Amendment 3 but give notice that I will in due course want to withdraw it in favour of government Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. It is in one way so obvious that regulators must be consulted that we would have hoped not to have to write it into the Bill. However, the Bill was published without even a complete and correct list of the affected regulators, and some were, as we have already heard, very worried at the start about their position. We also know that the Government have been a little tardy in consulting with the devolved authorities. This is about consulting regulators, so it is in a sense due to the experience of a slight lack of consultation—not in the Minister’s work over the summer, it is true, but prior to that—that we felt the need to write this on to the face of the Bill.
So it is partly because of that history, but it is also good for Parliament that this consultation must take place. It means that the regulators will be doing some of our job. They will be consulted, and they can alert your Lordships’ House and, indeed, the Commons, should they see any problems arising in this regard. Since they will have to be consulted, they will in a way be our eyes and ears over the implementation of the Bill and will alert us should anything be done contrary to the great reassurances that we have had. I am sure that that will not be the case, but it gives comfort to know that this consultation will have to happen. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her amendment and on her appointment as chair of the IAC. I too welcome and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing forward his government Amendment 13. I also thank him and his officials in the Bill team for the meetings that I have had since we originally discussed this and other parts of the Bill.
I would like to put one question before we come to discuss later amendments of mine in relation to a later clause. Why have the Government limited their Amendment 13 to apply only to Clauses 1, 3 and 4 when there are other, even more—or just as—important parts of the Bill that I think would benefit from the amendment? We can come on to discuss this, but only Clauses 1, 3 and 4 will benefit from the amendment. I would be very interested to know why it has been limited to those clauses, for reasons that we will come on to discuss later.
I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Bruce, for co-signing Amendment 4 and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his support. We are hoping to require the national authorities to consult on draft regulations under the Bill. I am sure my noble friend would agree that the measure contained in this clause is important and wide-ranging and affects a considerable number of professions—I think it is 160, as stated in the Explanatory Notes. Governments across the UK cannot be expected to have the in-depth knowledge of all these professions to enable them to legislate without pre-legislative consultation.
Let me repeat the remarks made by my noble friend the Minister in responding to a similar amendment I moved in Committee:
“I fully agree that it is important for the relevant national authority to engage with a range of stakeholders before making regulations. Because of the complexity of these matters, it would be the height of foolishness not to do that.”
I agree entirely. Does he therefore agree that in making the regulations, the range of interested parties should include the professions and others? I know that he had hoped—I think this is in connection with these amendments—that there would be agreement from the devolved Assemblies, and it would be interesting to hear why they were unable to agree legislation to put in place in this regard.
Amendment 7 is voiced in similar terms. Clause 3 grants a power to Ministers to amend legislation to put into effect provisions negotiated in free trade agreements, or other types, relating to the regulation of professions, such as the recognition of professional qualifications. We are seeking to introduce a similar requirement to consult before regulations are laid to implement international agreements under Clause 3. To quote again from my noble friend’s comments in Committee:
“In all international negotiations relating to professional qualifications, a key concern for the Government has been ensuring the autonomy of regulators and protecting UK standards, as I said earlier. In light of the Government’s concern, and the importance that we attach to this point, there are already extensive engagement mechanisms for consulting before and during these negotiations … I hope my noble friend is reassured that the Government, of necessity, would have concluded extensive engagement ahead of this point in order to actually create the free trade agreement in the first place.”
We would like an assurance from my noble friend the Minister this evening that there will be an obligation to consult, not just an intention to consult. There can be lots of good intentions, but they are never actually brought to fruition. It would also act as an aide-memoire for the Government to engage with those bodies and individuals who might be affected by the implementation of the international agreement.
Noble Lords will see that there is a theme here. Clause 5 looks at the revocation of the general EU system of recognition of overseas qualifications, and Amendment 8 seeks to pin down what will be a very wide regulation-making power. Accordingly, I ask my noble friend to agree that there will be a proper consultation. Amendment 8 introduces a requirement to consult before laying regulations that make consequential amendments following the revocation of the existing EU-derived recognition system.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister said:
“I envisage that these enactments would be very limited in scope. They are necessary purely to tidy up the statute book after revoking the existing EU-derived system, for example by removing cross-references to the current system in other regulations. Given that these are primarily small fixes, it would be disproportionate to consult on them. The Government will, of course, work closely with interested parties to ensure that there are no unintended impacts of bringing forward these consequential amendments.”—[Official Report, 9/6/21; col. 1500.]
These amendments have come from the Law Society of Scotland, for whom I hold no brief. However, as a non-practising Scottish advocate—a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates—we always look to solicitors to give us instructions at the best of times.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, having co-signed three—and I probably should have co-signed four—of the amendments she has tabled. I will not repeat what she has said but I hope the Minister will answer her questions about why his amendment does not cover all the sections and exactly why the devolved Administrations are hesitant at this stage. However, I see from the report in the Scottish Parliament that it has acknowledged that amendments not yet passed might alter the position. Does the Minister have any intelligence as to whether the Scottish and, indeed, the Welsh authorities might be a little more inclined to recognise it? He acknowledged in Committee that consultation was effectively necessary, so it needs to be in the Bill.
There are one or two Scottish aspects where the professional standards are distinctively different, particularly in relation to teaching and, obviously, to law. It is probably worth commenting on the very disappointing decline in standards of education, particularly Scottish secondary education, in recent years. That is in no way attributable to the quality of training or the performance of the teachers, but because of the dysfunctionality of the curriculum and its failure to interact effectively with the exam authority, which of course is in the process of being abolished because of its proven long-term incompetence that has done so much damage to Scottish education.
This is not a question of pretentiousness or exceptionalism and saying that somehow Scotland has got it right. It is about recognising that Scotland is proud of the fact that it has pioneered an all-graduate teaching profession and certainly would not wish it to be eroded. It is also true that Scotland has had rather variable performance in recruitment and retention of teachers. Some years it has trained too many and not been able to absorb them, and in other years not as many have come out as are needed and it has had to recruit from Ireland and Canada. There is no suggestion that there is not scope for importing a professional qualification but there is a perfectly legitimate reason to say that, if the UK Government were minded to allow for them, they should take full account of Scottish circumstances and allow the Scottish authority to be consulted and indeed to comment on and shape things.
Similarly, Scots law—criminal law, land law and other aspects—is distinctively different. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will know much more than I do about that. There are areas of law that are similar and areas that are clearly different. I would find it bizarre if a Secretary of State who is effectively in an English department felt able to pass legislation that affected practising law in Scotland without consulting the relevant body. The question quite simply is: would it not be better to make it clear on the face of the Bill that consultation would be a statutory practice, rather than something that is there for a matter of good will?
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also mentioned European qualifications. There was an aspect of the trade agreement—the Brexit agreement—where it appeared that the potential for professional qualifications to be better recognised in future than they have been in the past was in the offing. It may still be in the offing. However, for that to be secured, it clearly requires a highly delicate determination of professional qualifications in the context of the single market and other aspects of trade negotiations that the Government will be pursuing.
I finally say to the Minister that it would be good to have reassurance that, in pursuit of these amendments, the Government will recognise that they have to take account of all aspects of professional qualification recognition both with the EU that we have left and with the other countries with which we are trying to engage, and not trade the one off against the other. Professional bodies that represent these qualifications in the UK need to be consulted in advance of that, rather than being presented with a fait accompli that may damage both the ability to recruit people to meet the UK’s needs and UK-qualified people having the opportunity to practise abroad. If we lose one because it is traded off against the other, that is not a win-win; it is a lose-lose.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie—if I have got the pronunciation right. Bennachie is a wonderful part of Scotland but he reminds me that maybe I should declare an interest. I am a proud father in that my daughter is a teacher and therefore registered with the General Teaching Council. I am just as proud that my granddaughter is training to be a nurse so she will come into one of these categories as well. I am not sure that I really have to declare that interest, but it is nice to say that anyway, is it not?
I am also pleased to be one of the three signatories to some of the amendments; in other cases, I am one of four signatories, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. That makes for all-party support for the amendments, most of which are the brainchild of our mutual friend Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland, for whom we have to give many thanks and wish him well, at the moment particularly. I was thinking that not only is it an all-party amendment, but that the route from Pickering to Bennachie via Cumnock would be a wonderful trip for Susan Calman. I hope you all watch that wonderful programme where she drives a little campervan called Helen, named after Helen Mirren. I am not sure if that is a compliment or not, but it is certainly a very good programme. I am probably running off the topic a little. Fortunately, the Chair does not have the same powers here as I used to suffer from in the other place when I was drawn to—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Oh! I will see the noble Baroness later; I thank her for drawing my attention to that.
I wholly support what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has put forward. This is the only speech I am going to make today although I support a number of other amendments. I want to make two points. I take every appropriate opportunity to criticise the UK Government. I did so earlier today at Question Time, so no one can accuse me of not being critical when it is appropriate. However, today I join in with what others have said to the Minister. From all that I have heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Hayter, and from a number of others, the Minister has been really helpful in taking account during the summer of all the representations, and all credit to him for that.
My second point is that sometimes I feel in some areas—not in all—the UK Government are a bit better than the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government are not good at consulting. They do not consult local authorities. They do not devolve powers in the way that they should in Scotland. Scotland is a third of the land area of the United Kingdom. It is a big country. Scotland is not a unified, homogenous country. It is a very diverse country. The highlands are very different from Glasgow, which is different again from the borders, which are different again from Edinburgh and different again from Dundee. They are very different and I am afraid that the current Scottish Government do not seem to fully recognise those differences and take account of them from time to time. I am very pleased that we are suggesting two things today. One is that they should consult all the appropriate regulatory bodies; I agree with that. That is what we are talking about today in these amendments; I am in order now. Also, later we should consult with the devolved authorities in areas where they have competence and an interest. It is right to do that.
Sometimes we talk about treating them as equals; I have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others do so. I do not want to disagree with those noble Lords, but they are not equal. We should treat them with total respect, but they are not equal to the UK Government. The UK Government are the sovereign Government of the UK, and devolved authorities are devolved. There is a big difference between devolution and separation. The SNP tries to forget about that and elide the two, pretending that one just moves into the other, but it does not. Devolution is power devolved from the UK Government. There ought to be more power devolved in England; that is where the democratic deficit is.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has drawn attention to the fact that I have not put my name to these amendments, although I have done so to Amendment 10. It was an accident; it was just that at the last moment we were trying to gather together who was to sign up to what. I fully support these amendments, just as I do Amendment 10. In some respects, the case for consultation is stronger in the case of these amendments because they are talking about regulations, not just advice, which is what Amendment 10 is talking about. It is particularly important when one is drafting regulations that complete information is obtained before regulations are finalised.
To pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, I want to mention that Craighead lies north-east of Cumnock and is a convenient way to get to Bennachie, so we are all part of the same bit of geography.
The noble Lord made the point about Scots law being different from English law, which of course it is. There are two important aspects of Scots law that are very different from English law, apart from land law, and are much more frequently encountered: family law, which is entirely different, and criminal law, the procedures and much of the substance of which are very different too. That is just a reinforcement of the point that the noble Lord was making about appreciating and understanding the differences before the regulations are finalised.
I support entirely the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in introducing this group. She mentioned a point that I want to pursue, which is the question of whether the Welsh and Scottish Administrations were willing to support a consent Motion. I am a member of the Constitution Committee, and one of the advantages that I have had of doing that—I am waiting for the Minister to listen to this because it is rather important—is that we took the opportunity to go to Wales to meet members of the equivalent committee in the Senedd and to Scotland to meet members of the committee in the Scottish Parliament. One point that came across in both meetings was grave disquiet about the way that the legislative consent process is being handled.
The worst example that was quoted frequently is what happened in the case of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. I would be grateful if the Minister would say a bit more about the process with which he was involved in consulting with the Welsh and the Scots with a view to obtaining consent to this measure. Among the points made was that they were consulted too late, they were not given enough information to be able to form a view and, when changes were made to the Bill, they were not fully informed about what those changes were in time for them to rethink and reconsider.
I know I am pressing the Minister to a point that he may not be fully prepared for and, if so, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me to explain what went on. I am speaking on behalf of the Constitution Committee when I say that we would be very interested to know from the perspective of the UK Government about how the process was handled. Did they give the Government enough reasons for not wanting to give consent? Was there enough of a dialogue to enable the disagreement to be flushed out and see whether it could be resolved? These are very important issues that extend well beyond this Bill, and any help that the Minister can give about how the process was handled would be extremely helpful.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me, but I want to intervene briefly in the debate. I am Lord Lansley, of Orwell, which is nowhere on the route that has been mentioned; it is not even between the locations in Scotland and Boscobel. You could not even go via Orwell to get to Boscobel, which is where I hope we are going to end up.
I shall say just a couple of things. First, I was interested in what the noble and learned Lord was saying about the Constitution Committee and the legislative consent Motion process, but I have to say, in relation to this Bill, that we completed Committee stage at the end of June and I tabled my amendments in the early part of July. We are now in November. There has been no lack of opportunity for the devolved Administrations to see precisely what the Bill is intended to do, what the remaining issues of controversy might be and what the intended outcome looks like. Frankly, they have had every opportunity to consider a legislative consent Motion and to have passed one, so if they do not then I do not know why not.
Secondly, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh. She was looking at why we are consulting with regulators over the powers to make regulations in Clauses 1, 3 and 4—that is in Amendment 13, which I support—but not other clauses. As it happens, I agree with my noble friend, or at least I hope I do, that Clauses 5 and 6, in so far as they are about tidying up the statute book, are not really appropriate for consultation processes; they are essentially just working out the legal statute-book consequences of the Bill.
However, I suddenly realised that there is a regulation-making power in Clause 10 that the Government are not intending to consult upon. I thought, “Hang on a minute, I thought I agreed with the Government because I tabled an amendment at the beginning of July to press the Government on the question of consultation with regulators”, so I looked back at it. Of course I subsequently withdrew it when the Minister tabled his own amendment, but when I looked at it I realised that what I said originally was, and I quote myself:
“Prior to making regulations under this Act, other than those made under sections 5, 6 and 18”—
that is, Clauses 5 and 6 relating to retained EU law and Clause 18 on commencement—
“the appropriate national authority must consult such regulators of regulated professions as appear to the authority to be likely to be affected by the regulations.”
So my amendment would have included consultation on the regulation-making power in Clause 10, which relates to the duty to make information available to overseas regulators. I freely confess that I had not noticed the difference and that gap. While I very much support what the Minister has tabled in Amendment 13—I very much endorse it because it largely achieves what I was hoping for in the amendment that I tabled way back in July—I ask him to explain the process of thinking by which Clause 10 has been left out.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Bruce in his questions. As other noble Lords have indicated, this is an opportunity for the Minister to give a clear position on the situation regarding legislative consent Motions. If the Government are not able to provide an assurance that there will be LCMs during the passage of the Bill, we will be in the uncomfortable position of now having a number of Acts where there have been no LCMs and the Government will have considerable regulation-making power over devolved regulators if the Westminster Government believe that the devolved Government are not acting. This could create those sensitive areas where there are devolved regulators which will then be instructed under regulations to change their procedures for areas where the UK Government will have considered that there is unmet demand but the devolved Administration may not, and there is no vice versa equivalent. Therefore, if there is no LCM process, and the Government will be acting over the top of the devolved Administrations, this will be a potentially problematic area, not least in those professions that are not likely to be exempted under these areas. So transparency will be helpful, if the Minister could give that indication.
Regarding consultation, this will be a consistent theme that the House will return to time and time again. We did so on the Internal Market Bill, and here, and, until the common frameworks are in a state of readiness—and I understand that they are quite far away from such a state—we will have to press the Government on how operations will cover the whole of the UK. Could the Minister give clarity on that?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Opposition have been clear through the passage of the Bill that regulators need statutory protections to ensure that they are consulted on the regulations made under it. That is why my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town tabled Amendment 3. Other amendments in this group, Amendments 4, 7, 8 and 9, seek to achieve the same thing. I had a very positive meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, a couple of weeks ago, and was happy to see a copy of his Amendment 13, which we support. It is welcome. The Government have listened, as the amendment requires the appropriate national authority to consult the regulator of a regulated profession before making regulations under Clauses 1, 3 and 4. We are happy to accept that, and my noble friend has no intention to divide the House on her Amendment 3.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, made some very important points on consultation with the devolved Administrations. I very much agreed with those, and with the comments of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock that we must always treat the devolved Administrations with respect for their mandate and the work they do. Equally, the United Kingdom Government is on a different level, and we are all proud citizens of the United Kingdom. I support the comments he made, and of course enjoyed his speech very much. I hope on his trip he will pop down to the London Borough of Southwark, a wonderful borough with historical connections to Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Michael Faraday, John Ruskin and many others.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Yes, absolutely. But if he cannot, I know that he knows it is a wonderful place and I enjoyed his speech very much. I also agree with the key points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that it is different in Scotland. We recognise that. So I am very pleased with the amendment from the Government Front Bench and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to the amendment in my name on consulting with regulators, and then respond to the other amendments in this group. A later group deals specifically with consulting the devolved Administrations, and I will leave the points raised by noble Lords in relation to that and to LCMs until then, which is the appropriate place. That would include the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who spoke from the perspective of the Constitution Committee. I will write to him as he requested, but I do not recognise at all the description he gave of the process I have undertaken with the devolved Administrations. I will come back to this, but nobody could have reached out more than I did, or held more meetings with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations. The schedule of the meetings that my officials have held with the devolved Administrations runs to several pages, and I will make sure that I give that information to the noble and learned Lord when I write to him.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, will he permit me to pursue the issue raised in a more general regard by the Law Society of England? It is concerned that legal services can be dropped too easily from current and future negotiations. I used Australia and New Zealand as a model, but can he give us an assurance that, in his view, that will not happen?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I am absolutely happy to give that assurance to my noble friend. Legal services are a very valuable part of the export of services from the UK. This is something we absolutely seek to protect and extend in free trade agreements, rather than in any way seeking to curb. I am very happy to give my noble friend that complete assurance.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply, and my noble friends Lord Foulkes and Lord Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Bruce, Lord Lansley and Lord Purvis, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for their comments. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes both mentioned the Law Society of Scotland, and I think my noble friend mentioned Michael Clancy. Maybe those of us who know him can do a shout-out for his return to full health.
The Minister is right to say that we will discuss the main part of consultation with the devolveds in a later group, but we should point out two things. First, the government amendment will automatically mean that the relevant devolved regulators would be consulted, but also, in response to my noble friend Lord Foulkes’s comment about the Scottish Government not always being willing to consult, it will require them to consult with their relevant regulators. Maybe that is why they are withholding their consent Motion—I am not sure.
The problem I still have is why the government amendment does not cover the regulations in Clause 2—or actually Clause 10, which I had not noticed before. Clause 2 is quite important. In responding, the Minister used the words—I hope I got them down correctly—that it would be a duty to consult regulators “shaping any regulations made under this Bill.” He did not use the words “shaping regulations under certain parts of this Bill”, but “shaping any regulations made under this Bill”. However, his amendment does not do that. My concern is that, if there is no duty to consult, then there might be no consultation.
The Minister then said, “Oh, well, it doesn’t really matter because they may be very minor”—those were not quite his words; they were far more correct than that. Actually, if you read his amendment, it is a requirement only if
“the regulator is likely to be affected by the regulations”.
So if it was such a minor regulation that did not affect a regulator then it would be excluded from the duty anyway. I am slightly worried about that.
I wonder whether the Minister would agree to some further discussions about Clause 2 and why there is no consultation on it. Perhaps he might even be willing for us to bring this back at Third Reading if it looks as if it is actually an error and there is no good reason to exclude regulations made under Clause 2, which is the big one for some of the regulators—this is the one about whether there is a shortage of professionals. I do not know whether the Minister could indicate assent to some further discussions, so that we could clarify this at Third Reading.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I believe the reason why we are not consulting on Clause 2 is that it has no regulation-making powers in it. The regulations dealing with the whole question of shortages are made under Clause 1, where there is a duty to consult. I stand ready to be corrected if anybody wants to look at the text of the Bill, but the regulations that would relate to Clause 2 are made under Clause 1, and there is a duty to consult on that clause. I hope that completely answers the noble Baroness’s question.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, would be looking at me now and saying, “Any good barrister knows not to ask a question to which you do not know the answer”—I just broke that rule. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
This group has two amendments, which do indeed relate to Clause 2, in my name and, for Amendment 6, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. I am grateful for her support.
Noble Lords who were involved in Committee will recall that this clause, as my noble friend just explained, sets out the conditions under which the power to make regulations in Clause 1 might be used. To quote subsection (2):
“The condition is that it is necessary to make the regulations for the purpose of enabling the demand for the services of the profession … to be met without unreasonable delays or charges.”
Quite understandably, the central question is: what constitutes unmet demand? The discussion in Committee was around what we mean by “unreasonable delays or charges” in this context, and how people are to have sufficient clarity about the circumstances in which the national authorities concerned would deem it necessary to make regulations.
Noble Lords will recall that some of what the Government have outlined in the policy framework that we saw early on, and which has been amplified most recently in the fact sheets issued last week, sets out in some detail the process of thinking about what constitutes unmet demand for a profession. An illustrative scenario set out in the fact sheet enables those who want to explore this to see how it might work in practice. It includes consulting with regulators. The illustrative scenario includes talking to relevant professional bodies. It includes looking at costs and, interestingly, at value for money—the implication being that unreasonable charges are ones that do not constitute value for money. It includes vacancy rates, which are mentioned in Amendment 6, workforce statistics and modelling—again mentioned in Amendment 6—and whether an occupation is on the shortage occupation list.
I take comfort from the fact that the description the Government have given of the process by which a national authority would look at whether there was unmet demand corresponds with a set of factors that we set out in Amendment 6. I am comforted and glad that is the case, because they derive from the Government’s own explanations. It is just that I am afraid that I still do not think, even today, that Clause 2 in the form it is written tells people that that is the case. The guidance, the fact sheet and the policy framework tell people how it is to be done, but it is not all set out in the clause itself. What I set out to do in Amendments 5 and 6 is take out the offending words “unreasonable delays or charges” and incorporate all these factors into Amendment 6—which is, I take it, why the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, signed it, because she felt that it served the purpose.
How do we proceed? Do we do so simply by taking the Government’s approach? It is not for me to make their argument; they might well say that we do not need to put all this in the Bill, because when people look at what constitutes unmet demand they will be able to look at the fact sheets and the guidance, and all these factors will be there. I am looking for the Government either to say that we do need to make a change, or to be sufficiently clear about the factors that will be brought into account, that they correspond directly to what we have set down in Amendment 6, and that we and other people can rely on them in future and look to what is said today as a basis for understanding how this process is to proceed.
In passing, let us just think for a moment about resting on the question of delays and charges alone. Charges in professional services are not necessarily always the product of the availability of professionals. Sometimes it is very much to do with the scarcity of specialisation within professions. So, trying to deduce that higher charges in a profession are necessarily the consequence of a lack of overseas practitioners is a difficult judgment to make. Many of the professions we are talking about are clinical professions, conducted, in the most part, in the National Health Service, where delays are the product, as we all know, of many factors, not just the availability of professionals, and where charges are very often irrelevant—they do not exist. I am afraid the idea that one can arrive at a conclusion about the necessity to bring overseas professionals into some of these clinical professions on the basis of delays and charges in the NHS is somewhat moonshine.
We need the other factors—workforce modelling, shortages in the occupational list, vacancy rates and all these other issues—to be there. We just need to make absolutely certain that they are there, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to give us the assurance that we are looking for today to enable me to withdraw Amendment 5 in due course. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, I have added my name to the second of the amendments in this group. There are two parts to the Bill, as we know. One arises from the trade talks, where the Government may want regulators to talk to their opposite numbers in relevant third countries. The other, which is what we are looking at now, is about enabling—or maybe requesting—regulators to process overseas qualified people where there is deemed to be a shortage here. Unmet “needs” is the word used. That is where I and some of the regulators have some concerns.
In many sectors, such as nursing, it already happens. Structures are in place and there is no need for the Government to intervene. The powers are there, everything is fine at the moment. However, there are two serious questions that need answering. First, is there any danger that consumer interests are at risk if underqualified people practise here because the Government say, “We have not got enough of that particular profession”? I do not need to go into why that is a risk; it is fairly obvious.
Secondly, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, covered, is how the shortage is to be defined. He already referred to why high fees are not always an appropriate measure. Sometimes, there are high fees because there is an international shortage; the price is set on an international market and therefore bringing in more of that profession would not solve anything. Or will it be defined by users or consumers who need those services? Amendment 6 sets out some far more objective criteria, which is why I was happy to support it.
Since we are on this bit, I should raise the other concern of the Law Society, which was not raised earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It does not expect to be covered by Clauses 1 and 2, but were they to be applied to it, and should the SRA get involved in such discussions, the Law Society wonders whether this would jeopardise the perceived independence of the legal profession as seen abroad by foreign Bars. Clearly, the consultation is very important, but—I am not saying that it said this because it was high fees—I think it would have a concern if there appeared to be any interference by the Government that would in any way question the independence of the legal regulators, which I know is so important for our international reputation in the world of law. For the moment, the main issue is the definition of where there is unmet need and whether the assurances will cover what we have set out in Amendment 6.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to agree very substantially with what she said and of course, the noble Lord, who made a strong case. I, too, commend the Minister because, as we have indicated in previous groups and as my noble friend said, the Bill may have had a pause, but the Minister did not. He and his officials have worked hard in engaging with us and with those who will be affected by it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am conscious of the time, so I will not speak for long. A number of important points were raised in this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made a clear and compelling case for his amendment and I hope that the Minister takes up his challenge and sets out very carefully and clearly the reasons why it will not be necessary to test the opinion of the House. Amendment 6, in the names of the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, sets out, in proposed new paragraphs (a) to (f), points that are absolutely right and need to be taken into account. I will leave my remarks there, and I hope the Minister will respond carefully so that the noble Lord will not need to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his amendments, which would alter the unmet demand condition in Clause 2(2). First, I give a complete reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, that the amendment I will bring forward later about regulator autonomy absolutely preserves the independence of the legal profession and prevents any dilution of standards. That amendment, if accepted by the House, completely puts the determination of standards in the hands of regulators and is not something the Government can override in any way.
My noble friend’s amendments require the appropriate national authority to consider a specific set of factors to determine whether the unmet demand condition is met. I completely agree that the appropriate national authority should be transparent when determining whether the unmet demand condition is met. I find it hard to disagree with the factors set out in the amendments, because they are likely to form part of a sensible basis for making this determination for many professions. Your Lordships will have seen the recent publication referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, explaining how the unmet demand condition might be determined. That factsheet sets out that this assessment should be tailored to the circumstances and context of each profession.
Appropriate national authorities are best placed to determine which factors to consider, according to the individual circumstances of a profession. For example, a devolved Administration will be best placed to determine the factors relevant to assessing whether there is unmet demand for a profession in an area of devolved competence, and it is important that they are able to decide how best to make such determinations and form their own views on which factors are most relevant to their own situation. Indeed, I absolutely agree that some of the factors proposed by my noble friend are good practice, although they may not be essential in every case to understanding unmet demand. For example, the views of professional bodies and workforce modelling may or may not be relevant, but it should absolutely be for the appropriate national authority to take those matters into account if it so determines. Having to work through, in a statutory sense, every factor on this list could cause delays and unnecessary administrative burden when there is an urgent need for regulations and the condition, as drafted, is clearly met.
However, I hope that it gives my noble friend complete reassurance when I say that the Government plan to publish guidance to support appropriate national authorities in their determination of unmet demand, and I undertake that the factors in his amendment will be included and explained in any such guidance. That answers, at least in part, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I note that one of the factors listed by my noble friend includes whether the profession is on the occupation shortage list; that will be covered in the guidance.
Immigration is a different matter from the recognition of professional qualifications. The Government have introduced a new skills-based immigration system which treats people from every part of the world equally. I hope that a skills-based immigration system would properly recognise the quality of professionals seeking to practise their profession, but it is outside my remit to go further into the immigration system, as I hope the noble Lord appreciates.
Lord Fox (LD)
On that last point, I am interested to know, if the appropriate national authority has determined that there is a shortage but that profession is not on the Home Office’s list, which trumps which?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I think these are both looked at from different perspectives, so I do not think it is a question of which trumps which; the question is “What is the appropriate decision to come to?”, looking at it from the perspective either of immigration or of considering professions or occupations where there are shortages.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I think, on immigration matters, the Home Office is the primary decision-maker.
I believe that including these factors in the guidance will improve the clarity of decision-making by appropriate national authorities that my noble friend’s amendment seeks to achieve. I am grateful for the considerable thought that he has put into this.
Finally, my noble friend has questioned whether it is appropriate for a national authority to consider whether delays and charges are unreasonable. After consideration over the summer, and I have thought about it a lot, I believe that this is a useful qualifier. Retaining “unreasonable delays or charges” in the unmet demand condition ensures that a national authority considers whether there is consumer detriment—this was a matter that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was concerned about—as a result of the delays and charges to access a profession’s services. I hope that your Lordships can agree that while there is merit in the factors set out in the amendment, it is not desirable to fetter, in a statutory sense, appropriate national authorities’ discretion by enshrining these in the Bill. As I have said, these are sensible factors to take into account, but it is more appropriate to include them in guidance, and I commit to do this. As such, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and other colleagues who participated in this short debate. We do not necessarily need to change the legislation for people to be able to look at our debates and what my noble friend has been able to say from the Dispatch Box by way of clarification and, in due course, to look at the guidance to understand the nature of decisions being made. I hope it will be clear to people in future that delays and charges are an important factor but not the only factor; other things may go to help construct it. If we were starting the drafting process again, we might draft it slightly differently but, given that we are where we are and with the assurances that my noble friend has been able to give, I certainly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(1A) Before making arrangements under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—(i) consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and(ii) following that consultation, seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland Department.(1B) If consent to the arrangements is not given by any of those authorities within the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is sought from that authority, the Secretary of State may make the arrangements without that consent.(1C) If arrangements are made in reliance on subsection (1B), the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining why the Secretary of State decided to make the arrangements without the consent of the relevant authority.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and seek the consent of the devolved administrations prior to making arrangements for the assistance centre.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in a brief meeting with my noble friend Lord Grimstone earlier this week, he made a very good point, which was elaborated on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, a moment ago. My noble friend had met the devolved Administrations and had some success with the Northern Irish devolved Assembly, but was disappointed that the Welsh and Scottish devolved Governments were not prepared to agree to a legislative consent Motion. Now that we have come to what I think is the appropriate moment, I should be very interested to understand a little more about why that is the case.
In this little group, Amendment 10 is grouped with Amendments 10A and 14, which I will leave the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, to speak to. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for lending their support to my amendment, and apologise if I was precipitate in attributing support from the noble and learned Lord for my earlier amendments, for which I apologise. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has not started the road trip without us; perhaps he has just gone to make it warm, comfortable and hospitable for our arrival.
It may be asked why I am pushing Amendment 10 in connection with Clause 7, which relates specifically to the assistance centre. The reason I think that is appropriate is that, in the fact sheet that was issued recently, the Government labour the importance of the assistance centre to encourage foreign professionals to come and practise their profession here and our home professionals to go and practise their professions elsewhere. That makes the case for me why I am introducing Amendment 10. It requires the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations prior to making arrangements for the assistance centre—which is in place, but which, I understand operates under a different name.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, I would like to namecheck Michael Clancy for his help in preparing this and my other amendments this evening, and we indeed wish him well and a return to his normal good health. He has been enormously helpful in many Bills, not least the internal market Bill and this one.
The Law Society of Scotland welcomes
“the provisions regarding the assistance centre to provide advice and assistance about entry requirements to those seeking to practise a profession in the UK or to those with UK qualifications seeking to practise overseas.”
It further notes
“the obligation on regulators contained in subsection (2) to provide the designated assistance centre with any information it may need to carry out its functions.”
I argue that that is entirely appropriate in the circumstances.
Why am I asking for consent to be given? Because the obligation to make arrangements for the assistance centre lies on the Secretary of State. However, the assistance centre will provide advice and assistance covering the whole UK. It is entirely appropriate, and important, that the Secretary of State should consult such persons as he considers appropriate before making the arrangements and, having consulted, seek the consent of the devolved Administrations. This last approach reflects that contained in Sections 6, 8, 10, 18, 21 of, and Schedule 3 to, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. I further argue that consulting appropriate persons and seeking the consent of the devolved Administrations is important where the assistance centre may be providing advice relating to professions which are within the devolved sphere, and reflects the acknowledgement of the role of the devolved Administrations in earlier clauses in the Bill.
If the consent of the devolved Administrations is not provided within one month of being requested, the Secretary of State can proceed to make the arrangements without that consent. That addresses the specific point raised on amendments we debated earlier this evening tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. We should hear from my noble friend Lord Grimstone in response to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as to why the devolved Administrations—in particular, in this case, the Scottish and the Welsh—have not come forward with a legislative consent Motion. I have regard to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in relation to an earlier group of amendments about how regrettable a position it would be if legislative consent Motions were withheld.
For all the reasons that my noble friend and the Government have set out in the fact sheet for the specific importance of the role of the assistance centre, and because I am mindful that my own profession of law is so different in Scotland from England, it is very appropriate that they consult and seek the consent of Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland department in this regard.
I hope that my noble friend will take this opportunity to set out in more detail why Amendment 13 does not apply to Clause 7, which I argue it should, and why, in his view, an LCM has not been forthcoming from the Welsh or Scottish Ministers. I echo the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It is incumbent on the Government to be very clear and as helpful as possible in the spirit of co-operation with the devolved Administrations and Governments. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, hit the nail on the head: we in this place are the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. The devolved Administrations are very conscious that they are devolved, but they hope to have as much advance notice of any changes to legislation in draft as possible, so that they can prepare their views.
I look forward with great interest to hearing the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, when she moves her amendment relating to common framework agreements, which have already been alluded to this evening but, with those few remarks, I look forward to hearing from the Minister and I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I wish to intervene, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will, and he may be able to comment on what I am about to say.
The noble Baroness has explained quite clearly what the purpose of the amendment is, and I do not need to repeat that, but we are engaged with the interaction between the Bill and the internal market Act. That is the nub of where the suspicion has arisen. I take account of the fact that the Minister has explained the consultations that have taken place, but they did not take place for the internal market Act, and that has led to a legacy of suspicion which has not gone away. This is where the problem arises. The Minister will clearly want to say that things have moved on, but he needs to reassure the devolved Administrations that that is genuinely the case if we are to secure their consent, unless there are other valid reasons that we have not heard about.
In answer to an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the Minister previously said that immigration is one thing and professional qualifications are something else—but they all impinge on each other. We all know that the Government are out in the world looking for all kinds of agreements, post Brexit, which they feel will liberate the UK and create huge opportunities, whether it is exporting skills or importing skills. Yet professional bodies are saying, “Is this going to threaten our standards?”, and the devolved Administrations are saying, “Are our specific circumstances going to be overridden by those priorities?” I contend that that is the nub of the problem.
I have signed this amendment, as have others, because I believe it is trying to put in the Bill a requirement that would categorically state that the concerns of the devolved Administrations and their politicians would not be justified if the consultation was statutorily required and the particular safeguards were in there. That still allows, of course, for the Secretary of State to override the devolved Administrations, but not without going through a clear, spelled-out process of both consultation and explanation, as and when and if an override is likely to be applied.
I am not sure I need to say more, other than that I think the Minister has acknowledged that he is suffering from a legacy that was not of his making. But it is there and, if it is not addressed, it will poison the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment because it is crucial that the arrangements that are made under Clause 7 are designed to give accurate and complete advice and assistance. The people who are seeking that advice and assistance are of course coming with at least a rather imperfect knowledge of the systems and the professions which they are seeking to engage with, and it is crucial that the advice and the assistance is well founded. I am quite sure that that is what the purpose of Clause 7 is, but this amendment is intended to reinforce that.
I hope that what I said in the earlier group, about the way in which the legislative consent process was handled by the Minister, was not thought to imply a criticism of him or the way in which he was handling it. If there was any such implication, I absolutely withdraw it. I am quite certain that he handled the discussions with the care which has characterised his handling of the Bill, at all stages in this House. We have appreciated greatly the depth of knowledge which he has brought to bear and the care and consideration which he has given to every issue that has been raised. I am certain that the discussions will have been conducted with the same courtesy as we have enjoyed in this House. It was not meant to be a criticism of the noble Lord at all.
I was searching for information; it is very unusual for us to be able to refer to the absence of a legislative consent Motion while we are in the course of a debate during the passage of a Bill. That is perhaps one of the shortcomings of our procedures; we do not know what is going on, and the Constitution Committee is in ignorance of what is going on. The purpose of my intervention on this point was to seek information to balance out the rather depressing impression we have been given by the devolved Administrations—including Northern Ireland, I should have said. If there is a balance to be struck, the information that the noble Lord will give me in the letter will be important. I hope he will allow me to share his letter with the Constitution Committee, because it would be extremely interested to know what he has to say.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I do not normally intervene where devolved matters are concerned but I was so surprised to see the amendments tabled in this group that I felt I had to make some observations.
To start with Amendment 10 and Clause 7, I was very critical of Clause 7 in Committee, in that it was setting up an advice centre which I could not see the real need for. Nevertheless, if one is going to have one, it should be complete and accurate; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has referred to that. The existing advice centre under EU law, which will be migrated into the one under this Bill, is certainly not complete and is therefore not accurate.
While I believe that the arrangements being made would benefit from scrutiny, I am not sure what the purpose of adding on a consent mechanism would be. The arrangements should be between BEIS and whoever is providing this advice centre to have complete and accurate information, and I do not think anybody needs to consent to that at all, because that is perfectly obvious. While I do not see any need to have that additional mechanism, it is good to have scrutiny on the centre’s input, but that can be done by informal means; it does not need the seeking and giving of consent.
Similarly, in the case of Amendment 10A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, I could not see anything in Clause 9 which could possibly be incompatible with a common framework agreement for professional services, if and when one emerged. All it says is that if somebody in one part of the United Kingdom wishes to practice in another part of the United Kingdom, the regulators in the two parts have to give each other information about that individual. It seems that there would never be any circumstances, under any form of common framework, where that would not be an essential part of it.
Lastly, on Clause 14 and Amendment 14, I was also mystified, because Clause 14 seems to respect the devolution settlements. It specifically creates the national authority’s powers in relation to things that are within the devolution settlements, so I could not see what would be added by the arrangements that Amendment 14 seeks. I could not think of any tangible, practical reason for the devolved Administrations to want to get involved in those areas in the way in which this is drafted. For me, this is something of a mystification. It may be partly explained by the bad feeling left by the internal market Act, but I genuinely do not see an issue of substance here that noble Lords should be getting excited about.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness put her finger on it when she referred to the bad feeling engendered by the internal market Act. That has undermined confidence between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. But there are also good, practical reasons why they need to be consulted. I support these amendments because it is absolutely crucial that, at the centre of this, the assistance centre truly represents the whole of the UK and can provide accurate information.
The history of this Bill is that the whole thing is a lot more complex than the UK Government originally thought. I think that the Minister would acknowledge that. The noble Baroness has played her part in pointing that out to the Government. It is not just a courtesy to seek consent. Things are different in different parts of the UK. I speak in this debate from the perspective of Wales, where our difference is partly underlined by language issues of significance. If you are looking at the clinical professions, or teaching, language is important in the delivery of those qualifications.
However, there is a key issue here in the interaction between this Bill and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, which was designed to undercut devolved powers and which, despite some amendments, still has the power to do so. The UK Government deal internationally with what I am sure they see as the interests of the whole of the UK but, to give one example, the international trade deal with New Zealand provoked dismay in Wales because of the impact that it will have on Welsh sheep farmers. That may not be of direct relevance to this Bill, but it underlines the fact that, just because the UK Government are intending that it should benefit the UK, that does not mean that it will actually benefit the whole of the UK. The same applies with professional qualifications and the terms in which there could be an impact from an international trade deal on those qualifications.
The lack of legislative consent Motions is a symptom of the problem. Common frameworks are there and should be there to ensure harmonious working, but those of us speaking in this debate who are members of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, my noble friend Lord Bruce and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who was here earlier—know that common frameworks have been applied so far in a fairly haphazard manner in some situations, and therefore we cannot entirely rely on them yet. I am very pleased to see the amendments that relate to them, because that reinforces their importance in improving relationships between the Governments within the United Kingdom. Therefore, I support these amendments.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I start by saying a personal thank you to my noble friend Lady Hayter for her wonderful support over the past few months. We go back many years and we have worked on some very difficult issues, so it has been a great pleasure. I thank my noble friend Lord Kennedy for stepping in as a result of the very positive news of my noble friend Lady Hayter moving on to pastures new. I know that she will continue to bring all her enormous knowledge to bear.
I also thank the Minister for his unfailing patience and his recognition of the complexities of this Bill that were not fully appreciated when it first came forward for our consideration. There have been some extraordinary contributions from all sides of the House that exposed the original drafting, which have been incredibly important.
Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that a role for the devolved authorities has been overlooked in the drafting of this Bill and recognise that there is strong concern from them, as we have heard in this debate, about the legislation. Perhaps it is not an enormous surprise, given the Government’s track record, because the experience of the devolved Administrations is that they have been excluded too many times, going right back to the Brexit negotiations, as we have heard, and the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, with UK powers imposed over devolved competences. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said very clearly something which struck home very forcefully: there is a legacy of suspicion. We would all do very well to remember that.
We also remember when it came to light that the devolved authorities only saw this Bill a week before it was published. Either the Government forgot about them or something else was happening, but again that growing suspicion has permeated the discussions that we have had throughout.
The importance of their engagement was underlined in the Government’s factsheets on the Bill, which were published at the end of last week and stated that professional qualifications and experience can vary across the four nations—surely in itself a reason for this concern. As we have heard, the concern is shared across the House, as demonstrated by Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Bruce, which we strongly support.
This was the formula for the engagement of the devolved authorities, which the Government accepted with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. It would oblige the Minister to seek the consent of the devolved authorities but would allow them to proceed, albeit with a published explanation if no consent is received within a month. It is not an absolute veto, but it starts on the assumption of working towards consent. Her Majesty’s Opposition recognise the strength of feeling from the devolved authorities and, again, as has been so eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that is why we have tabled Amendment 14, which would apply this consult, seek and UK Government backstop formula to all regulation-making powers in the Bill.
Why are the Government against taking this approach with this Bill, which they accepted in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill less than a year ago? Surely at the very least we need some consistency across post-Brexit legislation. Amendment 10A also seeks to ensure that the Bill does not impact on the development of a common framework on this issue. Can the Minister confirm that this will be established and in operation by the end of the year? As I understand it, there is still some confusion about departmental responsibilities on common frameworks post reshuffle, so can he also confirm which Minister and department are now responsible for them? We accept that the mood of the House has, with some exceptions, coalesced around Amendment 10, and we strongly support it, as I have said.
I would like to hear clear commitments from the Minister that the Government remain committed, first, to continuing engagement with the devolved authorities to find a way through on this issue, and, secondly, to amending the Bill as appropriate to reflect the devolved authorities’ concerns. As the Bill starts here in the Lords, the Government have ample time to bring forward amendments in the other place. If the Minister is not able to say this today, I will seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 14. I will be listening very closely to his reply.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, before I start, I will thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for the courtesy of his comments. I assure him that I took no offence at the words that he used in the earlier group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for her Amendment 14, which I will address first. I unreservedly agree with the noble Baroness that the Bill has been greatly improved during its passage through the House, and I commend and thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for the work that they have done.
This amendment from the noble Baroness provides for the Secretary of State to consult appropriate persons. It then requires the Secretary of State to seek, on a time-limited basis, the consent of all the devolved Administrations before making regulations under powers in the Bill. If that consent were not forthcoming within one month, the UK Government could proceed to make the regulations without it, but would be obliged to publish a statement setting out why they had proceeded without consent.
I appreciate that this amendment recognises that there are occasions when the Government may need to make regulations without consent. It is a best-efforts approach, which requires the Government to evidence that they have made these efforts. However, as I have set out previously, it is absolutely not the Government’s intention to make regulations in relation to matters on which the devolved Governments could legislate without seeking their views. I have put this assurance on record many times, including in correspondence with my ministerial counterparts in the devolved nations. Perhaps because I am relatively new to the House, I was not tarnished by some of the discussions on the internal market, and I think I have maintained good and constructive relations with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations.
I am not convinced that the proposed amendment is preferable to the Government’s own, more flexible, proposals. However, I agree that working with the devolved Administrations is the way to make this Bill operate best for all our UK nations. That is why I wrote to my devolved Administration ministerial counterparts ahead of Report, offering to put a duty to consult with devolved Administrations on the face of the Bill. The offer was made to them and it also included a commitment to publish a statement setting out whether and how the regulations take account of any representations made in response to the consultation. I can give the House an assurance that we will continue to engage with the DAs, and if securing the LCMs, which is something that I would very much like and feel committed to do, means that we need to amend the Bill, this is something that we could consider. I am happy to give that assurance to the House.
Noble Lords will also be aware that the amendment tabled in my name on a duty to consult with regulators extends to regulators in the devolved nations; so, in addition to the consultation we would normally expect to undertake with the devolved Administrations, whenever appropriate we will be engaging directly with those in the devolved Administrations who are closest to the issues before making regulations.
I will continue to engage with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations to persuade them of the merits of the Government’s approach. If noble Lords from all sides of the House wish to join me in trying to convince them of this, I would very much welcome that. A Bill such as this, which provides benefit throughout all four nations of the United Kingdom, would be best dealt with on a consensual basis between the devolved Administrations.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am very interested in what the Minister said, and the House will welcome his initiative. In order to help that process, would the Minister consider placing his letter to the devolved Administrations in the Library, along with any reply that comes? Then we would at least know what the current situation is—but I welcome the Minister’s initiative.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome. Let me consider that: I am not prepared to agree to that right away, because these letters, of course, contain a number of matters that are the stuff of correspondence between one part of the United Kingdom and another. There is nothing suspicious about my saying that, but, if I may, I will just review the letters to make sure that I am not breaking any confidences with the devolved Administrations before agreeing to do that. I repeat, however, that I will continue to engage with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations to persuade them of the merits of the Government’s approach.
I turn now to the next amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. This seeks to place a requirement to consult relevant persons and then seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before making arrangements for the assistance centre. With all respect, I believe that this is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Government will, of course, ensure that provisions for the future assistance-centre service work for all four nations of the UK, and the service will be designed to complement the roles of regulators and professional bodies. No issues have arisen from the approach taken by the UK Government in providing a single centre operating across the whole of the UK to date. This centre has been in operation for well over a decade, and these issues have never arisen during the course of the last 10 years. Of course, it would not be in line with normal practice—it would not be expected—for the UK Government to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before tendering for, or launching, a support service. The Government regularly consult devolved Administrations on these things in the course of business, but I fear that introducing this as a statutory requirement here would create a significant and frankly unnecessary precedent.
Much interest was shown in the assistance centre in Committee. I have often felt at times that the interest shown in the assistance centre was out of kilter with the actual, rather restricted body that it is. As I have said previously, it will offer a very modest, targeted service, similar to that already provided by the UK Centre for Professional Qualifications. A heavy-handed consent requirement therefore feels disproportionate for this. Many regulators and professional bodies already have productive working relationships with the current assistance centre and have welcomed its continuation in the Bill.
I turn now to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, on common frameworks. This amendment seeks to ensure that nothing in the information-sharing requirements under Clause 9 will prevent the establishment or operation of a common framework agreement relating to professional qualifications. Noble Lords will recall that this issue was raised in Committee. Again, I say without reservation that I share the House’s firm commitment to effective common frameworks.
I previously explained that there had been a hiatus in the development of the recognition of professional qualifications common framework while work paused during the election period in Wales and Scotland, but I am very pleased now to be able inform the House that, since Committee, officials across all four UK nations have made very good progress on a common framework on the regulation of professional qualifications to ensure a collaborative approach on powers that have returned following our exit from the European Union and that intersect with devolved competences. This has included two workshops and correspondence that focused on co-design, with officials from all the devolved Administrations, following which my officials continue to drive development of the framework, in line with these discussions.
In addition to co-operation in relation to returning EU powers, the Government have offered, if the devolved Administrations would find it helpful, to include proposals on consultation and collaboration on the operation of the Professional Qualifications Bill, once enacted, in that framework. Let me be clear, in answer to the noble Baroness’s concerns and those expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that the provisions of the Bill in no way cut across the establishment or operation of a common framework. This is a separate process. As the common framework will be non-legislative in nature—a proper consensus developed with the devolved Administrations—I worry that referencing the common framework in the Bill may be confusing and could hinder rather than help the development of the common framework.
The development of the common framework is a collaborative process, not one that the Government can or should impose. However, as I have outlined, this process is now reinvigorated, and I am confident that the professional qualifications common framework can be agreed in provisional form by the end of this year. I will of course keep noble Lords in touch with this to make sure that those who have spoken in the debate in relation to this are kept properly informed of its progress. I hope that I have been able to address the concerns of this House in relation to this, and I ask that this amendment is withdrawn.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his response and to all those who have spoken. I am a little concerned, because we have not really got to the nub—unless I have missed it—of why there is no legislative consent Motion from the devolved Administrations, so that is still a source of concern. It leaves open the question whether, if my noble friend was minded to bring forward a government amendment in connection with Amendment 14 in this group, the Government would be minded to do that in the other place after the Bill has left this House. That would be a concern.
I am a little disappointed that the Minister said that it would set an “unnecessary precedent” to consider accepting Amendment 10 in my name and those of others. I argue that it would not set an unnecessary precedent, and it is certainly not seeking to introduce a layer of complexity or bureaucracy. The Government’s fact sheet says:
“Professionals and businesses can find it difficult to navigate the UK’s regulatory landscape. They need clear and accessible information about how professional qualifications can be recognised. Improved transparency and information-sharing between regulatory counterparts, where appropriate, will support better decision-making and more informed use of the framework.”
That is precisely why I argue that Amendment 10 is needed in this regard, because if you are not going to consult and seek consent from the devolved Administrations, at which point will the regulatory counterparts and the devolved Administrations have the right to make their case?
I listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lady Noakes said about her hesitation over the assistance centre. The Minister, my noble friend Lord Grimstone, went on to say that it has been in existence for 10 years. In that time, it was probably not needed, because if I was able to find out how to practise in another European country, many of my kinsfolk—Scottish advocates, Scottish lawyers, English lawyers, English nurses or whatever—were probably likeminded to do so too. But we have now left the European Union and are no longer covered by that umbrella of free movement.
So I will not press my amendment this evening for the simple reason that, if the House is going to take a decision on an amendment, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, may well cover the same clause that I seek to cover because it would cover all clauses for which regulations are required. So, at this stage, I thank my noble friend for the reassurances that he has given. I hope that he commits to bringing forward a government amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 10.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to answer one of the points made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. If she wishes to find out why LCMs have not been granted, I suggest that she addresses that question to the devolved Administrations, because I have been trying. I repeat what I said earlier: we will continue to engage with the DAs, and if securing the LCMs means that we need to amend the Bill, this is something that we could consider.
Royal Assent
Tuesday 9th November 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 63-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (9 Nov 2021)
David Fuller Case
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the Statement and its contents, and I fully welcome the Government’s announcement of an independent inquiry into this unspeakably vile and horrific crime. Across the House, our thoughts and hearts go out to the families of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce and those with deceased loved ones. These 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? What steps are being taken to identify the 19 victims yet to be identified?
I also pay tribute to local Members of Parliament across Kent and Sussex who have spoken up on behalf of their communities in recent days. ln particular, the MP 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.”
This is why the inquiry is so crucial. Can the Minister set out its timetable and say when the terms of reference will be published? Can he confirm that its remit will allow it to make recommendations for the whole NHS, as well as for the local NHS trust?
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 look at the way in which the HTA reviews hospital mortuaries, as well as its standards and how they are enforced? Will it be asked to recommend new processes that the Secretary of State will put in place if it is found that a mortuary fails to meet the necessary high standards for lone workers, security and care? If the HTA’s role is not to be included in the inquiry, how will this work be undertaken by the Government and within what timescales?
The requirement for NHS trusts to review their procedures and ensure that they are following current HTA rules and guidance is very welcome. This procedure must include the requirement for all mortuaries to document and record the access of all staff and visitors entering a mortuary, ensure that CCTV is in place comprehensively across all mortuaries, and that CCTV standards on usage and access records are fully enforced. Can the Minister confirm this? What is the timeframe for hospitals to adopt the extra rules that have been announced on CCTV coverage, swipe access and DBS checks in every single hospital and mortuary? Can the Minister confirm whether this will be guidance or a statutory requirement? 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 the authority’s remit be extended? Will the inquiry look at regulations for other premises where bodies are stored?
The Minister will agree that the conduct of the inquiry itself will be very important for victims’ families. Will they be allowed to give evidence on the devastating impact that the crimes have had on them? When our loved ones are admitted into the hands of medical care, that is done on the basis of a bond of trust that they will be cared for when sick and accorded dignity in death. That bond of trust was callously ripped apart here. I repeat the offer from our shadow Secretary of State, Jonathan Ashworth, to work with the Secretary of State to ensure that something so sickening never happens again.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
[Inaudible]—but that such a prolonged period of abuse was able to take place without it being noticed. We echo the sincere condolences to the families and friends of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce, as well as the many families and friends of those whose bodies David Fuller so foully desecrated.
The Statement says that the families and friends will have access to mental health support and counselling. That is good, but can the Minister confirm that it will be available for as long as they need it and will not be time limited? Will the staff at the mortuaries and hospitals, as well as the police and the over 150 family liaison officers involved in this case, also have access to counselling? They too have had to deal with this very distressing series of events.
We must obviously be very careful in our discussions today pending the sentencing of David Fuller, but we welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement for the upgrading of the trust’s independent review to an independent inquiry, to be chaired by Sir Jonathan Michael.
In August 2018, the Health Service Journal reported that 58 mortuaries that had been inspected in 2017-18 revealed that more than 500 “shortfalls” were exposed during that period. Worryingly, that included eight critical failings. At that time, the Human Tissue Authority as regulator and the various other regulated bodies undertook to look at the large increase in failings that year and to review practice. What actions were taken following those 2017-18 reports and were measures on access by staff to mortuaries among them? I ask this because, looking at the Human Tissue Authority’s codes of practice online, almost the entire focus seems to be on those whose role is to be involved with bodies. In Code A: Guiding Principles and the Fundamental Principle of Consent, the only reference I can find that does not relate to those with direct responsibilities for bodies is in paragraph 14 on page 7, which begins:
“Quality should underpin the management of human tissue and bodies.”
It goes on to say that this means that:
“practitioners’ work should be subject to a system of governance that ensures the appropriate and safe storage and use of human tissue and which safeguards the dignity of the living or deceased”,
and that
“premises, facilities and equipment should be clean, secure and subject to regular maintenance”.
One of the concerning issues relating to this case is that Mr Fuller ceased to be an employee of the Tunbridge Wells health authority in 2011 when the maintenance contract was subcontracted out. Will the inquiry look at not just whether employees of subcontractors working in sensitive areas are subject to DBS checks but whether there is a duty on their employer to report any findings to the hospital, or in this case the mortuary? Mr Fuller had a previous criminal record, but it is reported that the hospital did not know this.
There is another issue which I have not heard referred to either here or in the Statement in another place yesterday, and that is our criminal justice system’s approach to the desecration of bodies. The respected criminologist Professor Jason Roach from Huddersfield University has analysed the policing of and law in Britain towards necrophilia. He found an almost complete absence of case studies, which is not true in the rest of the world. Indeed, it was not until the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that necrophilia became a criminal offence in its own right, but he says there is no evidence that anyone has ever been prosecuted. He reports that, as part of his research in 2016, he was told by one senior police officer that it was very unlikely that the police would ever urge the Crown Prosecution Service to charge an offender.
One hypothesis that Professor Roach explores in his 2016 work “No Necrophilia Please, We’re British” is that
“the attitude of the British criminal justice system towards necrophilia echoes that of the British public, i.e. one of embarrassment, whereby those caught are either not charged with a criminal offence or, perhaps for the sake of the deceased’s family, are charged with a less degrading offence such as grave robbing. Both routes will produce less attention-grabbing stories”.
Can the Minister say if the review will look at police and criminal justice system attitudes towards necrophilia or other forms of desecration of bodies? One of the deeply unsatisfactory legacies of Jimmy Savile’s extended abuse is the suspicion of his undertaking such activities. However, perhaps through embarrassment, there has been no real examination of that case and the cultures of the places where he was able to have access to the dead.
Can the Minister say if any lessons learned so far will be reported and implemented straightaway, before the full independent inquiry reports, to give the public confidence that hospital mortuaries are safe and secured? As ever, if the Minister does not have any of the answers to my questions to hand, please will he write to me with them?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, this is one of the most difficult issues that we have had to address and discuss in my short career at the Dispatch Box. It is one of those crimes that are beyond imagination. Who could think that an act of such depravity would occur? David Fuller has pleaded guilty to the murder of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce, and all our thoughts are with Wendy and Caroline’s families and friends.
In recent days the courts have heard about a series of David Fuller’s shocking and depraved offences. He is yet to be sentenced, so I am sure noble Lords will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of the case while the legal process is still in progress. However, I will try to address as many of the questions about the response as possible.
This is a profoundly upsetting case that has involved distressing offences within the health service. I 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 that they are feeling. 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, somewhere all of us would hope to feel safe and free from harm, makes it all the more harrowing. This has been an immensely distressing investigation, and I thank the police for the diligent and sensitive way in which they have approached it. I also thank Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust for co-operating so closely with the police.
I am sure that in the inquiry all matters will be considered and that it will be as full and comprehensive as possible, but it is critical that we investigate this case thoroughly to ensure that lessons are learned. My right honourable friend the Health and Social Care Secretary is replacing the trust investigation with an independent non-statutory inquiry, which will look into the circumstances surrounding the offences committed in the hospital as well as their national implications. That will help us to understand how these offences were allowed to take place without detection in the trust and then to consider the wider national issues, including for the National Health Service. My right honourable friend has also asked the Human Tissue Authority to advise on whether changes are required to the existing legislation.
What will the independent inquiry do? We thank the NHS trust and its leadership for its quick initial work in setting up the investigation, but we have a duty to look at what happened in detail and to make sure that it never happens again. The Secretary of State has appointed Sir Jonathan Michael to chair the 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 has been leading the trust investigation and will be able to build on some of the work that he has already done. The inquiry will be independent and will report to the Secretary of State.
The noble Baronesses asked about the timeframe. Sir Jonathan will split his time into two parts. The first report will be an interim one, which has been asked for early in the new year. The second and final report will look 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. Sir Jonathan has been asked to discuss with families and others to ensure that their feelings are fully considered and that they input into the process. Sir Jonathan’s findings will be public and will be published.
We all know that this is a shocking case. None of us ever thought that we would have to take part in a discussion such as this. Specialist police officers have contacted the families of the victims directly and privately. We want to, and we must, respect the families’ privacy at this difficult time. There is a comprehensive package of support for the families affected. This includes dedicated caseworker support, a 24/7 telephone support line and specialist support, such as mental health support and counselling, as needed and as appropriate. The trust is also talking to family members who wish to be contacted.
Kent Police has set up a major incident public portal and contact centre to manage calls, collect any relevant additional information and direct people to other sources of support. If people are interested in looking at that, they can search online for the major incident public portal and select Kent Police and Operation Sandpiper. We know that this is distressing for many people, both the families and more widely.
Wider support can also be accessed through the Ministry of Justice Victim and Witness Information page, which provides links to local support according to postcode, the 24/7 Victim Support helpline and My Support Space, a platform providing many guides and tools and access to a 24/7 live chat function. The trust has worked closely with the police to put in place a comprehensive package, and we thank the NHS trust for the measures it has put in place. We also recognise that, as the noble Baroness said, all those working in the trust and wider health service are profoundly shaken by the nature of these offences. The trust has put support in place for affected staff.
The trust and NHS Resolution are considering the right approach to compensation, but that involves getting further legal advice. The trust will provide support to the families concerned. As we have said, it is also important that we understand what is happening.
The police have so far found evidence of 100 victims of the offences committed in the hospital mortuary and have been able to formally identify 81 victims. They are seeking to identify all the victims, as is appropriate. Specially trained family liaison officers have spoken to all the families of those identified to date.
It is important to make sure that this is investigated thoroughly, and I want to be careful not to pre-empt the inquiry’s findings. Under the current regulations, the Human Tissue Authority regulates licences and inspects organisations that run mortuaries where post-mortems are carried out. Mortuaries that do not carry out post-mortems may not need to have a licence from the Human Tissue Authority. It is the responsibility of the organisation running a mortuary licensed by the HTA to ensure that the HTA’s licensing standards are met, including those relating to security. It is also for the organisation running the mortuary to ensure that safety procedures are in place.
I was asked about the DBS regime. In July the Home Office announced an independent review of the disclosure and barring regime. The review will consider the adequacy of current arrangements for criminal record checks for jobs that entail contact with the deceased. Ministers are finalising arrangements for the review, and further details will be announced as soon as possible.
I apologise to noble Lords if I have not answered their questions. I hope I will be able to follow up with answers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the appointment of Sir Jonathan Michael will be very welcome; I have no doubt that he will do a very robust piece of work. My noble friend mentioned support for families, and the Minister made a number of comments about the support given, including care worker support and compensation. If families wish to appear before the inquiry, will the department consider making financial support available to those families in relation to legal advice, so that they can articulate their concerns before the inquiry?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid I am not able to answer the noble Lord’s question directly, because clearly there are some legal issues around it. I am sure he will understand if I try to find an answer and write to him.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former police officer, although it was some years ago. I warmly welcome the Statement made in the other place, particularly its tone in reference to the victims and those left behind. Among all those who have taken part in this horrendous episode, I pay particular tribute to the police and police authorities, particularly for the £1.5 million victim support package and the training and deployment of 150 family liaison officers. When does my noble friend the Minister, or the Secretary of State, expect the NHS England report to be made on the progress of measures? If he does not know at the moment, could he write to me?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As my noble friend anticipated, I am afraid I do not have a detailed answer. I am sorry; I wish I did have the answers, but I will write to him.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has quite correctly said that Sir Jonathan Michael has great experience of the NHS. Sadly, it is in the nature of this shocking case that his inquiry will have to range more widely than the NHS. Will the Minister therefore suggest to Sir Jonathan that he consults the National Association of Funeral Directors? It has a lot of experience, through the guidance it has issued on access to mortuaries, and advice that it could give the inquiry. I think it would welcome consultation. We must do all we can to restrict access in mortuaries to only those people who have an essential reason to be there.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. As far as I understand, the inquiry will be as wide ranging as it can be and wants to include input from as many people and stakeholders as possible who are affected by, or will be affected by, the implications of the investigation. There are already a lot of calls. A number of people have spoken to me today informally, for example, with a number of suggestions, making me recognise how much wider this goes. It is not just about the storage of bodies in hospitals but in other places, including funeral directors’ premises. I am sure that the suggestion will be considered, but I will confirm that.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and welcome the inquiry that is to be set up. I hope that lessons will be learned from it. The Minister mentioned the question of compensation and how legal advice was being sought in relation to that. I think that advice will indicate that the law is extremely complex in this area, unsurprisingly perhaps. Of course, it is also complex in the criminal area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out.
On the question of civil compensation, there have already been certain stories to the effect that millions of pounds of compensation are going to be obtained. There is the likelihood, I suspect, of there being some great case—as there was, for example, in the Alder Hey body parts litigation, and I declare an interest as being one of the lawyers involved in that. I respectfully suggest that that is not something that will benefit very much all those affected by these dreadful events. I respectfully suggest to the Minister, for consideration by his department, that, rather than embark on long, complex and uncertain litigation, it would be wise to set up a scheme to provide some form of statutory compensation for a set amount which would be an appropriate recompense for these dreadful events.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. As we are all aware, there is a wide range of experience across this House, and it is important that we draw on that when it comes to considering the terms and parameters of the inquiry. The trust and NHS Resolution are considering the right approach to compensation and, as the noble Lord acknowledged, that does involve getting further legal advice. The trust has been quite clear that it will provide support to the families concerned. One of the things that this Statement has brought out is the wide range of experience and the suggestions that have been made by noble Lords for helping the inquiry along. I welcome those suggestions and will feed them back into the department.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
Will the Minister very kindly pass on the condolences of this House to the families concerned? Will he accept that the presence of CCTV, as used by local authorities, can readily deter a great deal of crime, due to the fear of crimes being caught on camera? Pilot schemes have been tried out in Scotland and have been found to be very effective. I ask the Minister not to rule out the possibility of CCTV playing an increasing role against appalling crimes.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that suggestion. In conversation today with my officials, as I was preparing for the response to this Statement, the issue of CCTV did come up. At the moment, it is clear that we do not want to draw any conclusions yet. The inquiry will be as wide as it possibly can be and will carefully consider such suggestions but also make sure that we are aware of the consequences of any suggestions, including possible unintended ones, and where there might be concerns about further use of CCTV. We have to make sure that we get the right balance. We know that, where CCTV has been deployed in the past, there have been concerns about civil liberties. That may or may not be relevant here, but we always have to be aware of concerns that, whenever the solution might appear simple to us, we understand the consequences, intended and unintended.
Public Health England (Dissolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That this House regrets that the Public Health England (Dissolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/974) have been introduced further to (1) the dissolution of Public Health England, and (2) the establishment of the UK Health Security Agency, via secondary legislation and without proper consultation or scrutiny.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this regret Motion raises concerns about the lack of consultational scrutiny of the regulations introduced by secondary legislation associated with the dissolution of Public Health England and the establishment of the UK Health Security Agency. There is an important background to bringing this regret Motion before your Lordships’ House. The regulations are marked out by a lack of consultation and stakeholder engagement, the creation of a culture of blame for the shortcomings of government, confusion, and ongoing concerns about how the new arrangements will operate and be held to account.
In looking at how this came about, it is difficult to keep up with events, but, for the benefit of this debate, I will attempt to do so. In August 2020, during the parliamentary Recess, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock, announced in a press release that the Government were forming a new organisation, the National Institute for Health Protection, bringing together the existing health protection responsibilities discharged by Public Health England with the new capabilities of NHS Test and Trace, including the Joint Biosecurity Centre.
The press release advised that the new organisation was to be operational from 2021 and led by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, who was appointed as the agency’s interim executive chair. This was followed by a Written Statement in March 2021, in which Matt Hancock announced the formal establishment of the UK Health Security Agency, which was previously the aforementioned National Institute for Health Protection, to take effect from 1 April 2021 and to be led by Jenny Harries, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England.
Later in the year, on 1 October 2021, the Government announced the launch of the UK Health Security Agency in a press release. On the same day, the Government also announced the launch of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, to be led by the incoming Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England. Confusion and obfuscation reigned throughout all of this, with the 2021 regulations—the subject of this regret Motion—being laid before both Houses of Parliament on 3 September 2021 and coming into force on 1 October 2021, as an instrument under the “made negative” procedure.
The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted in a report published on 16 September 2021that the regulations were “an instrument of interest”, due to the regulations making consequential changes to legislation that had referenced Public Health England. While Parliament was denied scrutiny and consultation was conspicuous by its absence, reaction to the dissolution of Public Health England was far from positive, with more than 70 health organisations, including the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the Faculty of Public Health, signing a joint letter.
The signatories were “deeply concerned” that the plans paid
“insufficient attention to the vital health improvement and wider functions of Public Health England”,
including necessary measures to target smoking, obesity and alcohol and to improve mental health. The signatories argued that it was a “false choice” to
“neglect vital health improvement measures”
to tackle Covid-19. I reflect that this is an observation repeatedly pursued in debates and Questions in your Lordships’ House.
Alexis Paton, chair of the Committee on Ethical Issues in Medicine at the Royal College of Physicians, argued that the decision to dissolve Public Health England was an attempt by the Government to save global face as a result of their response to the pandemic. Ms Paton stated that Public Health England had nearly 60 targeted programmes to improve health and well-being across the population, and that the loss of any of these services was too high a cost to pay. At the same time, the chair of the British Medical Association’s ruling council, Dr Nagpaul, queried the timing of this decision, questioning whether it was the right time for a major restructure, given the very immediate need to respond to the pandemic. Clearly, it was not the right time. The King’s Fund also stated that the Government’s decision to replace Public Health England with two new bodies would
“increase complexity locally and nationally”,
and indeed this is the case. There were also warnings that the restructuring of Public Health England would sap morale and focus and should have waited until the end of the pandemic.
I am grateful to the BMA for its views on this matter, including that the solution was not to reorganise in the middle of a pandemic but instead to restore funding and capacity, including increased support to local public health services. The BMA observes that previous reorganisations of public health services have not improved public health provision or the experience of the workforce, and that health inequalities have in fact worsened since the last reorganisations—even more so during the pandemic. Concerningly, the BMA also reports that morale is low, with widespread fatigue and burnout, while staff have also experienced inadequate consultation on the restructuring, despite the fact that they would have had so much to offer.
In a survey of public health doctors at the beginning of the year, over 60% said that they believed that the new form of organisation would actually worsen doctors’ ability to respond to public health challenges. Nearly two-thirds said that they were not confident that they would be able to contribute to the design of the new system, and almost three-quarters of respondents to a survey said that they had no confidence that the successor organisation to Public Health England would be sufficiently independent or able to speak truth to power. This is a serious charge sheet from those who work in the field and seek to improve the health of the nation by prevention rather than cure. I put it to the Minister that in the face of all this, it is hard to see how the new bodies could be independent or effective. They are not set up in statute and were created without parliamentary scrutiny or approval. I will be listening closely to the Minister’s response to the substance of this regret Motion. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to take the opportunity of this debate, arising from the dissolution of Public Health England, to pay tribute to PHE and its chief executive, Duncan Selbie. I also want to ask the Minister to tell us more about the Government’s intentions regarding public health, a matter that certainly deserves consultation, as my noble friend Lady Merron has insisted, and more than the perfunctory scrutiny—or non-scrutiny—normally given to a statutory instrument.
With other parliamentary colleagues—including a good number from your Lordships’ House—in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing, I worked for some years with Mr Selbie and others in his team at PHE. At a time when the Department of Health, NHS England and clinical orthodoxy were far from recognising the significance of the well-being agenda, social prescribing and the potential of the arts to support health and well-being, PHE was positive and far-sighted. During the three-year period of the inquiry which led to the publication of the APPG’s report, Creative Health, in 2017, PHE worked constructively and thoughtfully with us.
The three key messages in Creative Health, underpinned by evidence, were that the arts can help keep us well, aid our recovery and support longer lives better lived; help to meet major challenges facing health and social care, including ageing, long-term conditions, loneliness and mental health; and help to save money in the health service and social care. Duncan was one of a number of distinguished people, including Professor Sir Michael Marmot, who publicly endorsed the findings of Creative Health. He said:
“This is an impressive collection of evidence and practice for culture and health”.
The publication of Creative Health was, I think it is fair to say, a turning point in the recognition by the health establishment of the importance of social prescribing and the engagement of individual creativity in promoting health and well-being.
In a speech at the King’s Fund in November 2018, the then Health Secretary, the right honourable Matt Hancock, explicitly acknowledging the significance of the Creative Health report, said that from now on prevention must be fundamental to NHS strategy and social prescribing must be fundamental to prevention. He stressed the value of the arts and culture in social prescribing, and the NHS Long Term Plan of 2019 reaffirmed the centrality of prevention. Mr Hancock established the National Academy for Social Prescribing later in 2019.
Much has happened since then. While I can well understand that the new Secretary of State is preoccupied with Covid-19, the clinical backlog that Covid has so much worsened and the pressures on the NHS workforce, I would ask the Minister to reaffirm that the Government’s commitment to their prevention strategy is not diminished and that they continue to recognise the importance of personalised health and of the arts and culture in contributing to health and well-being.
I hope the Minister will also pay tribute to Duncan Selbie and PHE. When it was announced that PHE was to be abolished, I was shocked. It was hard not to believe that PHE institutionally and Duncan Selbie personally were being scapegoated for the Government’s own failures in the early stages of the pandemic. Of course, I wish the successor institutions well and look forward to working with them through the APPG and the National Centre for Creative Health. It is a shame, however, that Mr Selbie was cast aside.
I am concerned that the “build back better” plan envisages shifting the NHS towards prevention only as a long-term priority. However, integrated care systems surely offer an early opportunity for the NHS to work better with local authorities and the voluntary and community sector, including arts providers, on prevention. Will the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities be working with other government departments responsible for education, housing and employment in addressing the social determinants of health?
I hope we can be reassured this evening that the Government recognise their error in having reduced the public health grant by no less than 24% per head over the last six years, with terribly damaging consequences, and that the restructuring that has now occurred is intended to provide more, rather than less, support for public health.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. I very much look forward to the day when he will be able to rejoin us here on the Floor of the House. He has made an immense contribution during his parliamentary life, both in the other place and here, and I associate myself with and endorse all his comments about the arts and health. But I wanted to make another, more parliamentary point.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I will intervene briefly to support my noble friend’s Motion to Regret. She has outlined the government by press release approach that has been taken. I find myself in considerable agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. In fact, I remember him reacting last week or the week before to a Statement that had in its title on the annunciator “Announcement to the media”. The noble Lord quite rightly said that it is not the business of this House to have to debate something that has already been put out to the media. Ministers are supposed to come to the Dispatch Box and give the House the information directly.
I entirely agree on the issue of secondary legislation as a way of making progress rather than primary legislation. Although there are difficulties with primary legislation—look at the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is a mega Bill if ever there was one, so there are disadvantages even for large Bills—in general I support my noble friend’s Motion to Regret. Although this is not a matter for a vote, I hope the Minister will take back something of the cross-party unease expressed by the noble Lord, with which I find myself in considerable agreement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lord Howarth’s tribute to Mr Duncan Selbie, the former chief executive of Public Health England. He is a very fine public servant who led PHE with great skill and aplomb over a number of years. I feel very sad indeed that his career ended in the way it did. Shame on Ministers who allowed this to happen.
I also have to say shame on Ministers for the way in which Parliament has been bypassed in relation to these crucial decisions about the future of our national public health arrangements. Were it not for the fact that staff had to be transferred, there would be no parliamentary debate or scrutiny whatever about these important changes.
Why did it happen? It would seem to me that it was simply a panicked reaction which was merely a front for Ministers’ own mistakes, and the attempt by Mr Hancock and his fellow Ministers to shift blame for their own inadequate leadership in responding to the pandemic is really all too characteristic of the way the Government approached it. It was dishonest because Ministers pretended that PHE was an independent body that had its own life, but it did not. I know that PHE’s record is not without criticism, but the fact is that it was fully part of the Department of Health. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, legislated for that and deliberately wanted to make it like that, and for Ministers to try to shift the blame from them to a group of officials —and they are officials—was simply not acceptable.
My fear is that the new arrangements are being set up in the same way, with the same uncertainties about who is actually accountable for what they do. The UKHSA is an executive agency sponsored by the department, so it is the same category of organisation as Public Health England, which was described on the Government’s website as
“an executive agency with operational autonomy.”
It is noticeable that, on 13 July, the Government published a document setting out UKHSA’s remit and priorities, in the form of a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, to Dr Jenny Harries, the UKHSA’s chief executive. It stated that:
“UKHSA is accountable to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Innovation”,
which I think means to the Minister, but unlike PHE, the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, made no reference to UKHSA having operational independence from the Government. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, whether that omission was deliberate.
I have the same question about the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. We are not debating that tonight, but it comes within the package of new measures that are being brought in. This is not, I understand, an executive agency but is described on the Government’s website as “a high-profile group”. The website does state that
“OHID is part of the Department of Health”,
So, again, there is no pretence at independence.
We are at risk of repeating the same mistakes that occurred with PHE. Ministers proclaim these new bodies, they are given a veneer of independence, but as soon as something goes wrong, or Ministers do not like the messages—and they often do not like the public health messages these bodies give out—Ministers jump in and attempt to micromanage. Accountability is confused, reporting lines are blurred, the public are certainly confused and Parliament is unable to scrutinise them effectively because they come within the Minister’s responsibilities as part of the department.
Of course, the ultimate test of these arrangements is how they will work if another dreadful pandemic hits us, or in relation to how we will improve the overall health of the people of this nation. Clearly, the jury is out on that—we do not know—but I would have more confidence if these bodies were more independent and subject to much greater parliamentary scrutiny than they are apparently going to be.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it was not my intention to speak in this debate—I wanted to come and listen to it—but I am prompted by a number of contributions just to say one or two things in response to the debate and before my noble friend has a chance to reply. I share with my noble friend Lord Cormack his support for my noble friend in taking on these responsibilities, and nothing I have to say reflects on his role in this. Indeed, I think it has been handed on to the Secretary of State as well, so in a sense we have a new team and I hope they will think about things sometimes in new ways.
I want to make a few, very simple points. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is absolutely right: Public Health England was an executive agency. It worked for the department. In so far as it had operational autonomy, that was not in the legislation; it was a choice made by Ministers. At any stage, as was the case during the Covid crisis, Ministers had all the powers they required in relation both to Public Health England and to the NHS under the emergency legislation.
Let us remember that this House went through the 2012 Act in scrupulous—I might almost say excruciating —detail. It arrived at a conclusion that NHS England should be independent and Public Health England an executive agency. Notwithstanding certain measures put into the legislation to make sure that Public Health England would be more transparent and accountable, that balance was struck not least because I and my colleagues on behalf of the Government said, “We want the NHS to be seen to be independent. We want Ministers to take personal responsibility for public health.”
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, referred to one or two things that happened afterwards. I want to share in thanking Duncan Selbie for what he achieved. I want to make it absolutely clear that I understand that Ministers subsequent to the establishment of Public Health England did not give to public health the resources, either for PHE itself or for local government with its responsibilities, that were intended back in 2010-12 under the coalition Government. That did not happen.
Let us remember that, at the beginning of 2020, the King’s Fund produced a report saying that it thought that the public health reforms had worked but they had not been sufficiently funded. Internationally, Public Health England was regarded as being as prepared for a pandemic as virtually any other country in the world. That things fell down needs to be thoroughly examined by an inquiry. An inquiry has not even begun, yet we are already at the point where people have made judgments, reached conclusions and found scapegoats. Heads and deputy heads have rolled.
We are not going about this in the right way. I want Ministers in due course to think again in the light of the report of that inquiry about what constitutes the right mechanism for managing their public health responsibilities. They need an organisation that understands public health in its entirety. How many of us think that the pandemic was unrelated to the extent of non-communicable diseases in this country, to the extent of disparities in this country and to extent of the obesity epidemic that we suffered?
We have so many interconnections between inequalities and public health problems, and our resilience against communicable diseases, that we should never think of managing public health in separate, siloed organisations again, but that is exactly what the Government are doing, without, frankly, having thoroughly understood what happened in in 2020 and 2021. I hope that they will go back and say, “Prevention is not the job of the NHS. Prevention is the job of the Government.” Public Health England was the organisation whose job it was to do that. If it was not strong enough in 2020 to do it, Ministers might look at what they did in the preceding years that might have undermined that role and think carefully about how they should take on the responsibility of building an integrated and fully functioning public health organisation for this country in the future, certainly not simply fragment it.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
From the Liberal Democrat Benches, we support the Motion of Regret in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, are absolutely correct that this House does not like the fact that once again the Government have chosen to use secondary legislation to make major changes to the way the Government manage their business—in this case, public health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has set out the chaos of a series of announcements from August last year, followed by a variety of procedures and changes when the Government kept getting things wrong. I absolutely support her concerns, and, as have many other speakers, I start from the position that major reorganisations during a global pandemic are unsound and unhelpful, not just to dealing with the pandemic but to the performance of any successor bodies, including the UK Health Security Agency and the Office for Health Promotion and Disparities, with disparity work continuing in NHS England. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and others on the work of all the PHE staff, and Duncan Selbie in particular.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for securing this important debate on secondary legislation in relation to the Government’s public health reforms, and also for this opportunity to explain why they were made, and the context.
Since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, the country has faced its greatest health and economic challenge for decades. The pandemic has highlighted the immense economic, societal and personal costs that ill health can bring, particularly to the most vulnerable. It has also identified weaknesses in our public health system. That is why, in August 2020, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced the Government’s intention to reform the public health system in England. Since that announcement, we have worked to transform our national health protection capabilities to put prevention of ill health and the tackling of health inequalities at the heart of government and to more deeply embed prevention and health improvement expertise across local and national government and the National Health Service. These reforms are driven by lessons learned from the pandemic and by the need to make sure that we have a public health system fit for the future.
From 1 October this year, a new public health landscape was established, and Public Health England was closed. The health protection capabilities of Public Health England, the at-scale operational capacity of NHS Test and Trace, and the analytical capability of the Joint Biosecurity Centre have been brought together into the new UK Health Security Agency to lead the response to Covid so that we now have an organisation dedicated solely to identifying, preventing and managing threats to health. As some noble Lords have acknowledged, the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has been created in the Department of Health and Social Care, and the OHID will help our health system to go further in promoting good health and tackling the top preventable risk factors for poor health and disparities.
One noble Lord raised the issue of prevention and cure. One of the conversations I have had with many health experts in my short time in this job has been about how we make sure that we save more money and lives and achieve better health by focusing on prevention rather than, necessarily, cure. I know that noble Lords will remember the debate we had the other day on obesity and what is being done by the OHID there. Now, working with a new cross-government Cabinet committee for health promotion, we will drive and support the whole of government to go further in improving health and tackling health disparities. Alongside this, we have strengthened NHS England’s focus on prevention and population health, transferring to it important national capabilities that will help drive and support improved health as a priority for the whole NHS. Important national disease registries have also moved to NHS Digital.
On the recently laid secondary legislation and the question of ensuring that there is consultation and scrutiny, the amendments themselves do not give effect to the establishment of the UK Health Security Agency, or OHID, or the dissolution of PHE. Public Health England and the UK Health Security Agency are executive agencies of the Department of Health and Social Care, and NHS Test and Trace was part of the department. The restructuring of public health functions in England was therefore an administrative process. The regulations in question were made and laid in accordance with the negative resolution procedure. They make minor consequential amendments to existing legislation, to ensure that the statute book accurately reflects the administrative changes that have taken place. They are not the vehicle for implementing the substance of our public health reforms. There will be further regulations containing references to Public Health England, which need to be updated. I assure noble Lords that they will be amended in accordance with the affirmative resolution procedure and will be debated in Parliament.
I turn now to some of the individual points made. On engagement with stakeholders, since the reforms were announced, a senior stakeholder advisory group was established to advise the Department of Health and Social Care on the best arrangements for national prevention and health improvement functions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for pointing out that praise for Public Health England was not universal. Many will have read articles from health experts, probably the most damning of which was You Had One Job. Questions had to be asked, but we looked at the stakeholder advisory group—its membership and terms of reference are published—and the group included public health, the third sector, think tanks, the health service, local government and other expertise. It worked quickly and we are grateful to all who contributed. Throughout the reform programme, we actively supported and welcomed views from key stakeholders across the spectrum of public health.
We have engaged quite widely, commensurate with the need to make quick progress and not foster a lingering uncertainty for staff, delivery partners and stakeholders. A Written Ministerial Statement was made in March, when we formally established the UK Health Security Agency from 1 April. We also published our evolved proposals in March, including the establishment of what is now OHID, and we invited views on a number of questions to support the successful implementation of the reforms.
Going forward, there is a new cross-government Cabinet committee for health promotion. This means that, across government, we will drive forward action on the wider determinants of health, ensuring that health is a shared outcome and priority. We will make sure that we work across government in a joined-up way.
Also, the creation of OHID—with the “D” for disparities—makes sure that, right at the centre of public health, we are looking at inequalities in the system. Far too often across this country, public health has been seen as the preserve of the privileged white middle class, as opposed to poorer communities. It is important that we make sure that this is no longer the preserve of the privileged white middle class, but of the working class, other people and immigrant communities, who understand some of these disparities in their communities.
Our reforms are explicitly designed to ensure that the different dimensions of public health have the dedicated national attention that each threat faces. The UK Health Security Agency focuses on health security; the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, on better health and tackling these health disparities; NHS England, on delivery of NHS services to protect and improve health; and NHS Digital, on securing our gold-standard disease registers.
This year, we increased the local authority public health grant and allocated over £100 million of additional funding to local authorities. We are also investing £500 million over the spending review period to improve the Start4Life offer, and we have confirmed additional investment of £300 million to help people to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Rather than proposing a one size fits all, we are also looking at pilot projects. We look at this as a process of discovery; we all have to admit that we do not have infinite knowledge and sometimes do not always foresee unintended consequences. By piloting projects and allowing the discovery process to take place, we can learn more.
In terms of the pandemic and future pandemics, the UK Health Security Agency’s sole purpose is to ensure the UK is protected from all future health threats, including pandemics, and to make sure we continuously assess our preparedness plans for infectious disease outbreaks. In future, critics can no longer say, “You had one job; why didn’t you do it?” We are focusing on health security.
We are hoping that the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will work on prevention across all parts of government, given the cross-cutting nature of public health, making health improvement and disparities a focus of government. We are looking at a number of projects and key Covid programmes, making sure that we build back better and that we learn from the issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about independence and accountability. The public health system in government needs a trusted source of independent scientific advice on health improvement to support evidence-led national decision-making and a focus on health inequalities. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will continue to make available and publish public health advice, research, evidence and data analysis, as Public Health England did previously, through a newly recruited Deputy Chief Medical Officer. The Chief Medical Officer will provide professional leadership for the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, while Ministers will remain in charge of and responsible for policy decisions in that direction.
We hope that these reforms to the public health system that have been explained today will do that, and keep us safe and healthy into better times ahead. Vigilance, prevention and reform are the key words to keep us all safer and, I hope, improve the health of the nation, not only in certain communities but to tackle those disparities where they may have felt ignored in the past.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that scrutiny by Parliament is essential?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Maybe it is because I speak rather quickly, but in my remarks just now I talked about the difference between the negative and affirmative procedures, and the affirmative procedure needing parliamentary scrutiny—so I do agree.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this Motion has given an opportunity to put dissent and concern on the record, and we have heard that through voices from across the House. I am left thinking as a result of this debate that any reorganisation, particularly one such as the one we have discussed, would have greatly benefited from proper parliamentary scrutiny. I literally regret that this was not the case.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and consideration. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport in giving thanks and appreciation of Public Health England and the entire team, led by the chief executive as was, Duncan Selbie.
Improvement of the health of the nation and the equal chance to live a long, happy and healthy life is paramount. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, sidelining Parliament is not the way in which to tackle this advance. Similarly, my noble friend Lord Hunt highlighted the fact that there had been a shift of blame from Ministers to officials—which again, as we have heard in this House, cannot be an acceptable way forward. I hope that the Minister heard his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who called for an inquiry and for Ministers to think again about the best way in which to manage public health responsibilities. I am sure that the Minister will listen to those words as well the others that we have heard today.
While I appreciate that the Minister has been left somewhat holding the baby on this one, I have heard what he has said. Although I am disappointed in many of the conclusions that he has drawn, I beg leave to withdraw.
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]
Tuesday 9th November 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Professional Qualifications Act 2022 View all Professional Qualifications Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 36-I(Corrected) Marshalled list for Report - (8 Nov 2021)
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, there are three amendments in this group, characterised by the fact that they appear more or less in the same place in the Marshalled List. My Amendment 11, which leads the group, relates to the very specific point, to which we have referred on a number of occasions: whether secondary legislation, and regulations under the Act, should be able themselves to modify primary legislation. The amendment’s intention is of course to restrict that possibility and limit it to subordinate legislation and retained EU legislation. Of course, there is a separate power in relation to the very specific EU retained legislation relating to the recognition of overseas professional qualifications.
I will not make a long argument about this, because the time is late. Ministers will say that there is a lot of private legislation out there relating to these professions, but as it happens, we are amending the primary legislation relating to architects in the Bill. I am not sure to what extent, given all we know and have discovered about the processes of seeking to recognise professional qualifications from overseas, just how often they will need to amend primary legislation and whether it really is impossible to achieve it through a route that exposes the changes to primary legislation to the proper scrutiny of this House.
Because it is linked to this, I reiterate a point I made in Committee. Ministers will acquire a power under the Bill to implement international regulatory recognition agreements and these aspects of international trade agreements by secondary legislation. I hope that the Minister—I know it is his stated intention—would expect new significant trade agreements, wherever they impacted on our legislation, to be the subject of legislation brought forward for this purpose. I do not want us to find that the legislation we see in future relating to trade agreements leaves out the recognition of professional qualifications because it can be achieved through subordinate legislation and we are therefore not able to examine it in the same way as we can other issues relating to a trade agreement, through primary legislation.
I will not talk about the protection of regulator autonomy; that is very much for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who raised these issues in detail in Committee, as did my noble friend Lady Noakes. I am rather grateful to my noble friend Lord Grimstone—as we are in many other respects—for bringing forward government Amendment 12, which would put a pretty cast-iron clause into the Bill to give the regulators the confidence about their future autonomy that they seek.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I welcome Amendment 12, which the Minister will speak to shortly. As has been said, right from the start we worried about the independence of regulators and indeed, as I suggested earlier today, the Law Society still retains a slight frisson of concern there, although I note the Minister’s words. Regulators have been worried about their independent ability to decide who was fit to practise in this country and that that might be undermined by a government diktat to co-operate with another country to accept their professionals or to drop standards in order to meet a government trade objective. As the Minister mentioned earlier, given that I am now looking at trade deals, I think he realises that I will be able to keep a beady eye on that as we go forward, along with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who will be looking at that as well.
As I mentioned before, it was also of concern to the users of regulated services in case their trust in professionals, which stems from a regulator keeping to standards and high quality of enforcement, might be in any way in jeopardy. However, the Government have recognised these concerns and have come forward with the very welcome Amendment 12; it must be good because there is even a Lib Dem name attached to it, so we know that this government amendment is well received. Needless to say, of course I still prefer the wording of Amendment 15, which was short and to the point, but I am content not to press it in favour of the Government’s own amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
On the subject of Amendment 11, I have full sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If my noble friend Lord Purvis were to speak, he would remind the Committee that at the outset we were promised primary legislation for trade deals, and I am gratified that at least two noble Lords will be keeping an eye on the overall process.
In Committee, back in July, the very first amendment that we discussed, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Purvis, was very similar to Amendment 15. Its purpose from the outset was to protect the autonomy of the regulators. In that respect we are both delighted that the Minister has listened and, through the process of discussion, has come up with Amendment 12. It does a lot of the heavy lifting in dealing with what I referred to earlier as the Trojan horse of suspicion.
In protecting regulatory authorities from Clauses 1, 3 and 4, the amendment very much creates a situation where they are allowed to go about their business in the way that we want. It is for that reason that I took the unusual step—at least, unusual for me—of countersigning the Government’s amendment, which clearly indicates our support from these Benches for what we see as a welcome and important addition to the Bill.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, throughout our consideration of the Bill I have been critical of my noble friend the Minister and the Government for riding roughshod over regulatory autonomy, so I very much welcome Amendment 12 in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
I have a residual concern. While this protects the autonomy of regulators over whom they may admit to practise in their profession, there may still be a concern that significant costs will be loaded on to regulators from having to comply with the obligation to consider individuals or institutions overseas, because that is what has been negotiated as part of a trade treaty, which would result in a considerable cost for the predictable outcome of not approving those individuals or institutions, and those costs would inevitably be borne by UK professionals because there is nowhere else for costs to go. To some extent, therefore, I was unhappy with the formulation of Amendment 12. However, taking it in combination with the amendment that we have already considered relating to consultation with regulators, I have to hope that the Government would never proceed with regulations that imposed unreasonable burdens on UK-regulated professionals in the pursuit of something that would not be achievable, in terms of the recognition of individuals within an overseas profession. I think that taken together those amendments are okay, but I have a residual concern that burdens might end up on professionals.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, from the outset of the consideration of the Bill, the Opposition have been clear that this legislation must not undermine regulators’ independence and that the Government cannot force them to accept professional qualifications. The public rightly expect that high standards of health, public safety and consumer protection will be maintained through the process of recognising overseas qualifications. This was repeated to us time and again in the meetings that my noble friends had with regulators and organisations across different sectors and professions.
My noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town spoke in Committee about
“the Bill’s potential to undermine the independent standard-setting and public interest duties of what we have seen as autonomous regulators.”—[Official Report, 22/6/21; col. 201.]
A Bill compelling regulators either to enter negotiations with an overseas regulator or to put in place a process for recognising the qualification of applicants trained abroad, in order to fulfil a promise made by the Government in a trade deal or to fix a skills shortage as defined by the Minister, would not be compatible with the regulators’ independence. That concern was shared widely across the House during debates.
From looking through Hansard, I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who said that regulator autonomy needs to be in the Bill to recognise its importance. It was clear to many noble Lords that this could impact on our current domestic standards, with regulators perhaps being forced to accept lower levels of training requirements or changes to fit in with practice in the UK.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to the amendment in my name on regulator autonomy and then respond to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.
As your Lordships know, I am a great advocate of the autonomy of our regulators. I have no doubt that regulators are best placed to determine who is fit to practise in their professions. The consequence is that to interfere with this could undermine public confidence in those who provide important services.
The Bill absolutely will not undercut regulators’ ability to make determinations about individuals with qualifications, experience or skills from overseas. I have previously given this assurance to your Lordships. However, picking up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I began to realise that the mood of the House was not to rely on assurances in this area. No matter how eloquently I argued the case for assurances, it would not cut the mustard. I absolutely recognise the continued strength of feeling on this issue. That is why I am proposing to make the protection of regulator autonomy clear in the Bill, and to do so specifically for Clauses 1, 3 and 4.
Protecting the autonomy of regulators is particularly relevant to these clauses, because this is where regulations made under the Bill will most directly intersect with regulators’ existing powers. This could be through empowering regulators to assess individuals with overseas qualifications, enabling them to enter into recognition agreements or placing substantive obligations on them.
These clauses also attracted particular interest from the DPRRC, and your Lordships rightly asked for more assurances. The amendment in my name places two conditions on regulations made under Clauses 1, 3 and 4. The first condition is that the regulations cannot remove regulators’ ability to prevent unfit individuals practising a profession. The second is that the regulations cannot have a material adverse effect on the knowledge, skills or experience of individuals practising a regulated profession. To put it simply, regulations cannot lower the required standards for an individual to practise a profession in the UK or, importantly, part of the UK. Taken together, these two conditions will make sure, enshrined in statute, that regulators will retain the final say over who practises in their profession and that the standards of individuals practising professions are maintained.
I also reassure your Lordships that this does not ask regulators to change expectations where they differ between different parts of the UK with good reason. In the case of devolved regulators, such as the General Teaching Council for Scotland, this would mean the requirements of a regulator for part of the UK.
As I said, in framing this amendment I have drawn inspiration from contributions made in this House and from discussions with regulators. Indeed, I am particularly pleased that it has been recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who has chosen to put his name to this amendment. I hope that this will be the first of many amendments that I bring forward at the Dispatch Box that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will feels able to do that to going forward.
I turn now to Amendment 11. Of course, I recognise that my noble friend wants safeguards around how powers that could modify primary legislation are used. That is entirely reasonable. But I hope that my explanation of the regulator autonomy amendment in my name provides reassurance that the Government have listened to both noble Lords’ and the DPRRC’s concerns that regulations made under the Bill will be an appropriate use of the powers in Clauses 1, 3 and 4.
In particular, I know that some noble Lords have questioned how regulator autonomy will be safeguarded in trade deals. First, I repeat what I have said previously: in all negotiations, a key concern for the Government is ensuring the autonomy of UK regulators and protecting UK standards. Now, of course, the regulator autonomy amendment in my name ensures, in statute, that this concern is reflected in any regulations made under Clause 3.
I come to the point that my noble friend Lord Lansley made in asking for an assurance that primary legislation will be used to implement any consequences of free trade agreements that affect professional qualifications. I am not able to give that assurance because, by this Bill making it statutory that we cannot undercut the autonomy of UK regulators and diminish UK standards, it is appropriate that secondary legislation will be used to implement those aspects of future trade deals.
This new clause that I am putting forward means that Clause 3 cannot be used, for example, to require the automatic recognition of overseas qualifications—it would not be possible to do that. Before regulations are made, the Government will engage extensively with regulators on trade negotiations. Earlier today, I spoke about how I have formalised that in the new regulated professions advisory forum, which provides regulators with a mechanism to inform UK objectives for trade negotiations and the implementation of commitments that we make in them. If I have learned anything from the Bill, it is that regulators will not shy away from telling the Government when they have concerns about their autonomy.
Should any of your Lordships remain in doubt about whether powers in the Bill should be used to modify primary legislation, I remind the House that the relevant sector-specific legislation can be primary or subordinate legislation. Why we have these differences is lost in the mystery of time, but there is no consistency at all between professions in this matter. For example, the qualification and experience requirements to be a doctor or vet are set out in primary legislation. By contrast, the requirements for pharmacists or social workers are set out in subordinate legislation. That is why regulations made under the Bill may need to amend both primary and subordinate legislation in order to work for all regulated professions.
To give a further example, Clause 4 ensures that regulators can be authorised to enter into regulator recognition agreements with overseas counterparts. Many regulators already have this power; however, not all do. The Architects Registration Board and the General Dental Council are examples of regulators which do not have this power and may therefore benefit from Clause 4. But their powers are set out in primary legislation, so my noble friend’s amendment would prevent them being authorised to enter these agreements under Clause 4 if necessary. To give a further assurance, of course the Government envisage that regulations made under Clause 4 would be made at the request of the regulator. It would seem unfair to prevent them entering into recognition agreements simply because their powers are set out in one type of legislation rather than another. There frankly is no rationale or sensible reason for this difference. I hope that I have provided the House with the necessary reassurance that we have taken seriously the concerns about the use of delegated powers. For this reason, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for speaking to Amendment 15, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her contribution. My amendment addresses the same core concerns as Amendment 15. Both amendments —I understand that the noble Baroness’s amendment was very well intentioned—ensure that the Bill does not require regulators to allow those whom they determine to be unfit to practise and that the Bill cannot lower professional standards. Amendment 15, however, would further specify the protection of regulators’ autonomy regarding flexibility in assessment practice. The ability of regulators to make assessments as is most appropriate is already accommodated in the amendment in my name to Clause 1.
Finally, Amendment 15 also seeks to prevent anything in the Bill affecting a regulator’s ability to determine to make a regulator recognition agreement. This point is unnecessary. FTAs—such as the UK’s current deal with Canada—often contain frameworks for agreeing regulator recognition agreements. However, there is no obligation on regulators to enter into these agreements in any deal the UK has entered into. I am concerned that specifying this in legislation could unhelpfully suggest that the Government are unsupportive of such agreements. The Government are keen to support regulators agreeing them, where they wish to do so. In view of my own amendment, I formally ask the noble Baroness not to press her own.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I thought that my noble friend gave an extremely helpful response to the debate and explanation of the relationship between the Government’s new clause in government Amendment 12 and Clauses 1, 3 and 4. Regulators in particular looking at this debate will, I hope, look at subsections (2) and (3) of the Government’s proposed new clause and share their view with us. If that holds, it provides a central piece of protection for regulators in future, in relation to all the substantive powers made available through the Bill. I am grateful for what the Minister has brought forward, and what he has said this evening. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 11.
“Regulations: protection of regulator autonomy
(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations under section 1, 3 or 4 only if satisfied that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are met. (2) The condition in this subsection is that the regulations do not remove the ability of any regulator of a regulated profession to prevent individuals who are unfit to practise the profession from doing so.(3) The condition in this subsection is that the regulations will not have a material adverse effect on any regulated profession in terms of the knowledge, skills or experience of the individuals practising it.(4) The reference in subsection (2) to individuals who are unfit to practise the profession is a reference to individuals who are unfit to practise the profession by reason of their character, a lack of knowledge, skills or experience or otherwise.(5) A reference in this section to practising a profession includes a reference to undertaking activities that comprise the practise of the profession or using a title associated with the practise of the profession.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the appropriate national authority making regulations under section 1, 3 or 4 unless satisfied that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) of the new Clause are met.
“Regulations: consultation with regulators
Before making regulations under section 1, 3 or 4, the appropriate national authority must consult a regulator of a regulated profession if the authority considers that—(a) the regulator is likely to be affected by the regulations, or(b) it is otherwise appropriate to consult the regulator.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the appropriate national authority to consult a regulator of a regulated profession before making regulations under Clause 1, 3 or 4 if the authority considers that the regulator is likely to be affected by the regulations or it is otherwise appropriate to consult the regulator.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“Protection for existing recognised qualifications
Nothing in this Act prevents, qualifies or otherwise affects the ability of those with existing recognised qualifications to continue practising the profession to which the qualifications relate in the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, as I said in Committee, there is a clear need to give those who already have their professional qualifications recognised in the UK certainty and confidence that this legislation will not affect them negatively, especially because, in many cases, the professionals and people working in these areas already live in our communities, have decided to call the UK their home and are people on whom all of us so often rely, particularly for our vital public services. Amendment 16 seeks only to enshrine the Government’s own central promise from the Explanatory Notes that
“nothing in the Bill prevents, qualifies or otherwise impacts the ability of those with existing recognised qualifications from continuing their areas of practice in the UK”.
The Minister said in Committee says that he completely agrees with
“ensuring that professionals who have already had their qualifications recognised in the UK should be able to continue to rely on those recognition decisions.”
Then why not put it in the Bill? Without this simple amendment, how can the Minister provide the reassurance that these workers so desperately need? He also stated in Committee:
“The regulations which commence Clause 5(1) will include saving and transitional provisions”
to
“ensure that professionals whose qualifications were recognised from the end of the transition period to the point when the 2015 regulations are revoked are unaffected”,
and to
“support a smooth transition to the new framework for recognising overseas qualifications.”—[Official Report, 14/6/21; cols. 1734-35.]
When will we see these regulations, and what does “a smooth transition” actually mean? Will it ensure that no one with qualifications recognised today will lose out on job prospects tomorrow?
We feel strongly about this issue, and I look forward to hearing unequivocal and clear commitments from the Minister tonight
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, an issue raised in Committee that it would be helpful for the Minister to provide an update on—in writing would be satisfactory to me—concerns those European Union workers who had been providing services, with their qualifications recognised, and had applied for settled status but on the fast-track element, which did not ask them to provide any more information about the qualifications recognition. With Clauses 5 and 6 revoking the previous EU scheme and the move towards the domestic schemes, there is still potentially a grey area for those workers who will have to provide proof of their qualifications recognition if they change employer, or indeed if they seek new rental or property agreements, et cetera.
Previously, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, indicated that the Government were aware of this, and he provided assurances. It would be very helpful if the Government could say how many of these workers could be in this position. It emphasises the point made by the noble Baroness, which I agree with, that, even if there are unintended consequences of putting at risk some of these workers, we can ill afford it.
The second element is that it would be helpful to know the Government’s intentions for the timing of the revocation of the EU scheme. Previously, the Minister indicated that it would be when the Government were ready to do so but that they were not in any rush to do it. It will be helpful to know what timeframe we are looking at, because the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in a Statement he provided to the House in September, said that the Government were now carrying out a substantial review of previous European legislation and retained EU law. Are professional qualifications separate from that review or will they be considered as part of it? If the Minister could give some reassurance on that, I would be grateful.
Finally, because this will probably be my last comment on the Bill in this House—which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, will be pleased to hear—I want to put on record how she and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, have engaged in this process. I have been in this House a number of years, and we hear at the Dispatch Box fairly frequently that the Government value the input and scrutiny from this House and take on board whenever we amend legislation, and we always welcome that. But our amendments quite frequently get buried in the dust in the other House, when all our great counsel and wisdom is turned back.
The benefit of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord listening and then acting by tabling the government amendments is that this is now government policy, and the Bill is now substantially changed. If I understand it correctly, this will be the first time that the autonomy of regulators will be respected in primary legislation. That is a considerable achievement for the parliamentary process of a Bill of which we had been not only sceptical but critical at the early stages, but which we now support. Therefore, I commend both Ministers and their teams for the work they have done. Personally speaking, I think the Bill is in a much better position. For the benefit of our regulators and those who receive services that the professions operate, it is a better Bill as a result.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his kind words; I will certainly try to continue to do my best at the Dispatch Box. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for her amendment. In Committee, the House sought confirmation that professionals who have already had their qualifications recognised in the UK will be able to continue to rely on those recognition decisions. Indeed, those professionals will be able to continue to do so, provided of course that they meet any ongoing practice requirements. Nothing in the Bill, nor the regulations anticipated under it, will interfere with or reverse such decisions.
Regulations commencing Clause 5 will include saving and transitional provisions to ensure that professionals’ existing recognition will continue to be valid, and applications made before revocation comes into effect by the commencement regulations will continue to be assessed under the relevant retained EU recognition law. It is possible to make similar provisions in regulations under Clause 6.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked what a smooth transition would look like. It will include regulations which ensure that the UK meets its international obligations under the EU-UK withdrawal agreement, EEA EFTA separation agreement and the UK Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. It includes saving and transitional provisions to ensure that professionals’ existing recognition will continue to be valid, and applications made before revocation has commenced will be assessed under the EU system. Commencement of Clause 5(1) is timed to avoid burdening regulators or creating gaps in their ability to recognise overseas qualifications. The Government took a similar approach when amending retained EU recognition law in 2019 to ensure a smooth transition for businesses and professionals following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
The noble Baroness also asked why, if we are so committed to protecting the ability of those with existing recognised qualifications to continue practising, we are not putting this on the face of the Bill. We believe that this matter is best dealt with through saving and transitional provisions in secondary legislation. The UK Government and devolved Administrations took this approach when amending EU legislation on recognition of professional qualifications to prepare for leaving the EU. We see no reason to depart from this approach and enshrine this commitment in the Bill.
The revocation of the general EU-derived system will not impact the ability of professionals with recognition decisions awarded under that system to continue practising in the UK. This applies even where a professional takes a career break and chooses to return to a profession in which they were awarded recognition. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked about the fast-tracked settled status of EU citizens. We are unable to provide the House with the precise timetable at present, but we will engage with stakeholders as we go forward.
Professionals who do take a career break should check with their regulator to establish what, if anything, they will need to do to continue practising or to return to practice. This will of course vary between professions. If a profession has a continuing practice requirement, that will also apply for individuals currently practising. For example, where a registered medical professional has a licence to practise, they must revalidate their registration every five years. Similarly, when a professional returns to the UK, their first port of call would be to the relevant regulator in the UK to ascertain requirements for recognition.
The Bill does not make commitments in these areas, because that would be interfering with regulators’ ability to regulate. The main reason that this amendment has been proposed is to protect those with recognition decisions, but there is no threat from this Bill to those decisions. The Professional Qualifications Bill respects existing recognition decisions and any ability a regulator has to set professional standards. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment, if I have provided sufficient reassurance.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his comments.
I think I can honestly say that there is still concern. I have heard it particularly from those professionals who are not practising at the moment—so there is a continual need for reassurance. However, I thank the Minister for her comments and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 17. I remind the House that if Amendment 17 is agreed to, it will pre-empt Amendment 18.
Clause 16: Interpretation
Amendment 17
“(3) For the purposes of this Act, a regulator is a regulator of a regulated profession if it is listed in Schedule (Regulators of regulated professions).(3A) The appropriate national authority or the Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Regulators of regulated professions) so as to insert additional regulators.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will move Amendment 17 and speak to its associated Amendment 20, which would place the list of regulators covered by the Bill into a schedule.
I know that the Minister is familiar with this because we argued it in Committee, but, interestingly, in asking a rather simple question—“Which regulators are covered by the Bill?”—we discovered that not only did the Minister not know but nor did the officials and indeed some of the very regulators covered. At the time, as we rather playfully looked through the list, we discovered that one of the regulators on the Minister’s list was the body regulating bouncers—which were hardly the professionals we quite had in mind on a trade deal, nor where we thought there was likely to be an unmet need. But there we are. We also found that others on the list already had the powers to authorise incoming professionals, so it did not actually require an ability for Ministers to make that possible if their own statute did not.
At the time, we noticed that the Minister was slightly uncomfortable with the absence of a comprehensive list and he very graciously said:
“I accept, without reservation, that it is not good enough that these lists have been incomplete and that noble Lords must have felt they were playing a game of blind man’s buff in trying to see who the Bill applies to.”—[Official Report, 22/6/21; col. 161.]
I confess that I was never very good at sticking the tail to the right end of the wretched donkey and I understand that it has taken BEIS a little time to get it right. I think we have had two updates of the list, with some regulators added and some gone. I see that the pig farmers have gone from the latest list and the aircraft engineers have also disappeared, as have analytical chemists. However, we have in their place chicken farmers, schoolteachers and waste managers—so it seems that the Government can turn flying pigs into chickens.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I think it was in the briefing before Second Reading that I first asked which regulators were covered by the Bill—one of those naive questions where you are often surprised by the answer that you get. My noble friend the Minister said he would write to me, which he duly did, and it was a surprise to other members of the committee when we got the letter—and things sort of went downhill after that. We had another version of the list, with more regulators on, and then a more definitive version that appeared more recently and is on the website.
For me, this struck at the competence with which the Bill was put together, and nothing that has happened has made me change my view that it was not put together in a competent way. But I am satisfied that the Government have done a very considerable amount of work to try to establish the scope of the Bill and to whom it applies, and are committed to keeping an updated list on the website. So I am happy with where we have ended up—but, my goodness, it has been an extraordinary journey.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I think we can all congratulate Members on their persistence on this issue and I have to tell noble Lords that my vocabulary has expanded at an enormous rate by being involved in the Bill. I have never heard the expression, “I am not assuaged” quite so often, but it clearly shows that we are moving in the right direction. As we have heard, there are still concerns and, given the lateness of the hour, I just want to add that with Amendment 18 we really feel that we would like to see statutory protection to ensure that the list is regularly maintained and updated. That is the question we have: we have achieved so much through the debate here, but how can we be reassured that the list will be kept updated and maintained, and how often will it happen? Because of our experience, we need a reassurance that the list will not be removed once the Bill has received Royal Assent. I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think no one has had a bigger headache on this list than the Minister himself and the department, but it was a headache, frankly, of their own making.
I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on this: I think it should be a separate schedule. We proposed a mechanism in Amendment 19 by which this schedule might be created and maintained. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, talked about keeping it updated: if it had not been for the scrutiny of your Lordships and the constant harrying of the Ministers, this list would not have been nearly right now. I suspect there are still amendments to go into it. For that reason, we think Parliament should hold on to a regulatory process and, through a statutory instrument, that schedule can be updated.
What we have sought to do in Amendment 19 is not to second-guess where the list is now—because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, pointed out, that is like catching a knife—but to give the Government a process by which a definitive list may be created, put in a schedule and updated easily and, I would say, flexibly through a statutory instrument. Why? Because this is not just a list of organisations on a website: there are rights and responsibilities that come with being on this list and, indeed, not being on this list. Which professions are going to be scrutinised to see whether demand is met or unmet? This is a really important issue that Parliament should continue to maintain scrutiny over.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about the responsibilities of those organisations, but also the rights—which ones have the autonomy that the Minister’s amendment has granted and which are not part of this list? Furthermore, when the conversations are being had with the devolved authorities, a list gives weight to those discussions and gives a very clear indication of which professions are in and which are not. So, one way or another, putting it in the schedule is really important, as is a way in which that can be flexibly maintained, whereby Parliament maintains its ability to scrutinise that process; because without that scrutiny, where would we be now?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake of Leeds and Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, for their amendments. These amendments return to the debate about the regulators and professions to which the Bill applies, a topic which has covered me in embarrassment at various stages during the Bill’s passage. I admit that it was not our finest hour. Noble Lords rightly asked that the Government fully and precisely articulate who meets the definitions in the Bill.
The Government too, of course, and the regulators want to be clear about who the Bill applies to. It was for this reason that I asked my officials to carry out a comprehensive exercise to determine all those regulators and professions that meet the definitions in the Bill. My officials worked closely throughout the summer with other government departments, devolved Administrations and regulators. I am grateful to all those who contributed. Every regulator that meets the definitions in the Bill has been directly contacted by my officials, and is aware that the Bill applies to them. My officials have also contacted those regulators that we no longer consider the Bill applies to. I have written to my counterparts in the devolved Administrations to confirm the professions and regulators that operate in those parts of the UK. I am pleased to report that they have fully co-operated in this exercise. This extensive engagement culminated in the drawing up of a list of regulators and professions affected by the Bill, which we published on GOV.UK on 14 October. This exercise has provided the additional clarity rightly demanded by this House. The Government remain absolutely committed to regularly updating a list of professions and regulators to which they consider the Bill applies, and to keeping that list in the public domain.
I have also asked my officials to ensure that the assistance centre will also publish the list and will signpost professionals to all the professions and regulators identified on it. This will be part of our future service requirements and our contractual requirements for the assistance centre. Building on our work with regulators to prepare the list, my officials will continue engaging with this network of regulators through a variety of avenues to ensure they are kept updated on our work in this area. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, I say that it would not be sensible to use the new forum that we are setting up as a means for doing this. The forum would be so large that we would probably have to go to Rome to use the forum there for its meetings, and it would frankly be unwieldly to have a forum of that size. That forum is going to have a cross-section of all the regulators on it. We will refresh that cross-section from time to time to make sure that all regulators from all parts of the UK have a chance to put their views. Of course, we will have other networks where we will engage through a variety of avenues to ensure that regulators are kept updated on our work in this area.
Perhaps picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I say that the regulators will of course want to know that they are on this list, because a regulator who is covered by the definition gets the benefit of regulatory autonomy. There is therefore a positive reason for a regulator wanting to be included.
Lord Fox (LD)
On that note, in the event that I happened to be the chief executive of a regulator that was not on that list, it would help to know what the process was by which one sought to join the list or, indeed, to be taken off it. If we are not going to have a schedule as we discussed, the process by which a regulator puts itself in the frame or seeks to put itself in the frame would be really important, as well as publishing the list. Discussing that process would be useful.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
Of course, the interesting thing is that this process derives entirely from the legal definition of a regulator that is governed in law. It is not a matter of grace and favour to say whether a regulator is included or not; it is a matter of fact as to whether the regulator statutes make it a regulator engaged in law.
Lord Fox (LD)
It is more about having to draw attention to the fact that they believe that they are within the law. I cannot imagine that the department will have enough resources to continually trawl the horizon and find them, so individual organisations may find themselves asking how they go about getting on the list.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I think the simple answer is that they should write either to the Minister responsible, whoever that is—if it is me, of course, I will attend to that—or to the senior officials within the department or within the devolved Administrations. This will obviously be something that officials will monitor and keep up to date.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I start with an apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: of course it was her. In fact, I have just seen in my files the letter where it was shared with her and then, afterwards, with us. I apologise for that oversight.
Something that the Minister said has caused me great concern. I was suggesting that, as a way of having someone overlooking the list on GOV.UK, it be linked to in the agendas or whatever for the forum. The Minister then seemed to suggest that it would be an enormous collection, but his own policy statement says that there are about 50 regulators, and around 45 went to the first meeting that he held, so there is not a great number. We are talking not about hundreds of regulators but about what has sometimes been 61. The most it has ever been was 80, and we are down to 70 at the moment, I think—I am sorry, but I do not have the absolutely up-to-date figure in front of me. My concern is that those are not all invited to the forum, which the Minister has given me to understand that he will, on the whole, chair—he may not always be able to, but that would give it a certain kudos. I am not saying that every regulator would want to turn up, but I would find it a bit surprising if he is setting up a regulator forum but not inviting all the regulators covered by the Bill to it.
I am not expecting him to pop up now and give me that assurance, but it may be that an exchange of letters afterwards could do so—because the regulators’ forum was seen by a number of us as something that is very important. But I hope that it will not just be a hand-picked selection of the 50 or 60 regulators that are covered. Having said that, as I said at the beginning, I will not test the opinion of the House on this. I still think that I am right and he is wrong, but there you are—it happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.