House of Commons
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
Wales is receiving £46 million under the UK community renewal fund, 23% of the funding total, and 165 projects are being funded across Wales, including 14 in Denbighshire worth almost £3 million.
Dr Davies
Two weeks ago, as my right hon. Friend says, £2.9 million was announced from the community renewal fund for 14 projects in Denbighshire, including Blossom & Bloom, a charity in Rhyl that can now support 20 more mothers and babies. Of course, the community renewal fund is there to help communities prepare for the introduction of the shared prosperity fund. Will he outline what discussions he is having about that fund and whether capital, as well as revenue, will be available?
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend raises a very good question, and I hope he will take into account that we are looking at the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund and the community ownership fund, as well as the shared prosperity fund, in the round, and other potential funding proposals, too. When he sees the detail, I hope he will see that we address both capital and revenue.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
Wales is benefiting greatly from local growth funding, receiving above its population share from all three funds: 7% in the first round of the levelling-up fund, 9% in the first round of the community ownership fund and a remarkable 23% of the UK community renewal fund.
Owen Thompson
The principle behind the funds is fine, but the prioritisation of Tory-held seats in both Scotland and Wales reveals them to be just another example of pork barrel politics. Instead of meddling in devolved areas, will the Secretary of State accept that it would be beneficial to the people of the devolved nations to have greater control of decision making to do things for themselves? The Government should devolve more, instead of fiddling in devolved areas.
Simon Hart
I hope the hon. Gentleman is able to endorse what I am about to say because, of course, that is exactly what these funds do. For the first time, 22 local authorities in Wales and other stakeholders are having a say in devolution. The Welsh Government do not have a monopoly of wisdom any more than the UK Government do, and we are taking devolution to its dictionary definition. He will probably know this but, under the UK community renewal fund, Labour areas got 44% of the funding, Plaid Cymru areas got 24%, independent areas got 17% and Conservative areas were fourth at 15%.
Tommy Sheppard
Let us be clear that independent estimates tell us that, over the next five years, the difference between what the devolved Administrations would have got through structural funds and what they will get through the shared prosperity fund is £4 billion. Will the Secretary of State stop promulgating this myth, this deception, that there will be no difference as a result of leaving the EU and admit that this is just another Brexit broken promise?
Simon Hart
We are hearing a Brexit broken record, to be honest. The settlement for Wales has gone from £15.9 billion to £18 billion, plus £120 million from the levelling-up fund, plus £47 million from the community renewal fund, plus the community ownership fund, plus more than £300 million-worth of EU tail-off funds, plus £337 million of agriculture funding. It is impossible to come to any conclusion other than that this has been a fantastic settlement for Wales.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Wrexham was fortunate enough to win one of its two levelling-up fund bids, and Wrexham County Borough Council has committed to redefining the other bid and working with officials. Will the Secretary of State let me and the council know when round 2 of the levelling-up fund will be open for bids?
Simon Hart
It will be open in the early part of next year. Any local authority that was not successful in the first round will have a chance to discuss its bid with officials to see how the application can be nuanced to achieve success next year.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Montgomeryshire has not seen such a level of investment for decades. I welcome the Secretary of State’s levelling-up fund and community renewal fund—the list goes on. Mid-Wales has never seen such investment, and I implore him to continue with this proper devolution of working with local councils and asking local people about their priorities, and to get more investment into mid-Wales.
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that every single area of Wales has benefited from these schemes, which was not the case under the previous funding arrangements. It has been a joy to have the feedback and contributions we have had from local authorities across Wales, which really welcome and are getting engaged with this process.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
You would never guess, would you, Mr Speaker, that the allocation of funding can be quite controversial? However, with meaningful consultation, we can reduce the risk of that. Let us suppose that two thirds of the levelling-up fund was allocated to the one third of seats held by Tory MPs in Wales. We could ensure less risk of things being called political bias. In the light of the Institute for Government’s recommendation that the UK Government should consult the Welsh Government at every stage on the shared prosperity fund, and bearing in mind the scathing report by the Public Accounts Committee on the allocation of the towns fund, what in-depth discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Government on the shared prosperity fund, and when can we expect more information?
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady fixates a bit too much on the shared prosperity fund when there are so many other funding sources out there too. Aside from stressing that there is consultation on a range of these things, and I am hoping to meet the First Minister later this week to discuss them, I remind the hon. Lady that the Welsh Government are not the only game in town; we are engaging with more people, in more parts of Wales, than has ever been the case before, and the funding settlements reflect their priorities as much as anything else. I am astonished that she is not welcoming that.
Nia Griffith
I am sure the House will be well aware that the Welsh Government have always had a strong relationship with the local government sector in Wales and have always consulted on the sharing out of EU funds. Turning to the amount of those funds, the figures are indisputable: EU funding for Wales would have meant at least £375 million in new money for this year. So with just £46 million for the community renewal fund, the Tories are leaving Wales £330 million worse off, and that is not even counting the £137 million cut in the farm support. So will the Secretary of State now stand up for Wales and pledge that in this transition to the shared prosperity fund Wales will receive not a penny less than we had under EU funding?
Simon Hart
I think you would probably reprimand me if I went through all the numbers again, Mr Speaker, so I will have to leave it to the Official Report to enable the hon. Lady to check her figures and work out exactly how well Wales has done with the record settlement. It is beholden on the shadow Secretary of State for Wales to portray a rather more optimistic picture of the future of Wales. If we are interested in attracting investment and creating jobs in Wales, she should be championing our country, not denigrating it at every opportunity she has.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The UK Government are fully focused on levelling up the whole of the United Kingdom, through programmes such as the levelling-up fund. We are working closely and directly with local authorities and other local partners right across the UK to ensure that those are delivered quickly and successfully.
Alun Cairns
Is the Minister aware that Barry in my constituency and the whole of the Vale of Glamorgan did not qualify for European funds? Does he therefore accept that the levelling-up fund is a potential game changer for the Vale of Glamorgan? May I draw his attention to the excellent proposal for a marina for Barry, which would also recover some land to make available for appropriate development? May I also ask him to pay particular attention when this application comes in?
David T. C. Davies
My right hon. Friend has long been a doughty champion of this scheme, as he has of many other schemes, including the seven UK community renewal fund projects that are going to be delivered in the Vale of Glamorgan and are worth more than £1 million. I simply say to him that we would encourage as many good-quality bids as possible from the Vale of Glamorgan and other local authorities in Wales.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
On climate action, the UK must step up to provide the funding that is needed across the whole of Wales. Despite the lack of the funding that we would have seen from the EU, the Welsh Labour Government are already delivering on renewable energy and sustainable transport and achieving the third best recycling rates in the world. Will the Secretary of State tell us what discussions he is having with his Welsh Government counterparts to discuss more climate investment?
David T. C. Davies
I am delighted to answer that, because in addition to all the many programmes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has mentioned—the UK community renewal fund, the shared prosperity fund and the levelling-up fund—we also have the growth deals, which are delivering the very kinds of environmental projects to which the hon. Lady has just referred. Of course the growth deals are funded 50% by the UK Government and 50% by the Welsh Government, who will be receiving an extra £2.5 billion next year as a result of the most generous settlement they have ever had.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
There is tremendous enthusiasm for the levelling-up fund in both Denbighshire and Conwy, where the local authorities are champing at the bit to put in their bids. So will my hon. Friend please indicate when the second round is likely to open?
David T. C. Davies
I can indeed: it will be in the spring of next year. We look forward to receiving bids from my right hon. Friend’s local authority and local authorities throughout the rest of Wales.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister of Wales co-chaired the coal tip safety summit, to receive an update from the joint taskforce. The taskforce has co-ordinated work to identify and categorise tips in Wales and has undertaken inspections of all the highest-risk tips, providing reassurance to the communities that live nearby.
Alex Davies-Jones
Just a few weeks ago, my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked the Prime Minister for support for coal tip repairs throughout our local authority area; in response, the Prime Minister said:
“This is something that I do want to try to fix”—[Official Report, 3 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 923.]
and promised to talk to the Welsh Government. Will the Minister provide an update on those conversations? Is the plan for support being put in place, or is it just more empty words?
David T. C. Davies
I am not yet responsible for the Prime Minister’s diary, but I know that he welcomes engagement with the First Minister at every opportunity. With respect to the hon. Lady, coal tip safety is a devolved issue and the Welsh Labour Government do not seem to welcome our involvement in devolved issues. Of course, we have provided the Welsh Government with £2.5 billion of extra funding, so they have the powers and the money to deal with the issue. We urge them to get on and deal with it.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Wales’s dangerous coal tips loom over our industrial communities like spectres from our industrial past and remind us of how our natural resources were exploited, mostly for the benefit of others. Climate change is set to compound the risk posed by coal tips, and we expect rainfall to increase by around 6% over the next 30 years. This month, the COP26 President said it was vital
“that we help at risk communities adapt to the impact of”
climate change. How is the Minister’s refusal to settle the £600 million bill consistent with that statement?
David T. C. Davies
Included in the £2.5 billion of extra funding that will be given to the Welsh Government this year is an allocation of money precisely to deal with the sort of problems to which the right hon. Lady refers. She has often said that the UK Government should not get involved in devolved issues; this is a devolved issue, but we have provided the money for the Welsh Government to deal with it. If there are dangerous coal tips, the Welsh Government have the money and must get on and solve the problem.[Official Report, 22 November 2021, Vol. 704, c. 2MC.]
Liz Saville Roberts
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is an inherited issue. Our industrial communities still bear the scars of the scorched-earth policy inflicted by Prime Minister Thatcher. The green transition must be different.
Last week, the Crown Estate revealed that it is planning to build new wind farms off the coast of Wales. The profits will disappear into Treasury coffers rather than going to the people and businesses of Wales. Will the Minister support my private Member’s Bill, which would ensure that all Crown Estate profits made in Wales are invested in Wales?
David T. C. Davies
In one breath, the right hon. Lady criticises Margaret Thatcher for closing down coalmines; in the next breath, she says that we must not have coalmines because they are bad for climate change. She will forgive me if I feel there is a certain inconsistency there, but I will look with interest at whatever Bill she has introduced.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The UK Government are committed to supporting electric vehicle usage in Wales, as well as across the rest of the UK, which is why we have introduced a ban on the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 and introduced the on-street residential charge point scheme.
John Lamont
I welcome the rapid change to electric vehicles but am sure the Minister will agree that we must not let rural areas fall behind. This is an issue for Wales, but it also affects all parts of these islands, including my constituency in the Scottish Borders. What are the Government doing to support the installation of more rapid chargers in rural areas to encourage more people to make the switch to electric vehicles?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend will be aware that the UK Government recently granted £187,000 from the UK community renewal fund to help the project in his constituency to provide electric vehicle charging points across the Scottish Borders. The UK Government will continue to support the installation of electric charge points through various schemes, including the £2.5 billion that has been committed to plug-in vehicle grants and charging infrastructure programmes.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The Government have provided £2 billion to help businesses with electricity costs and to protect jobs in recent years. We also have various schemes in place—including the £315 million industrial energy transformation fund—to support businesses with high energy use, including those in Wales, to cut their bills and reduce their carbon emissions.
Mr Dhesi
Seventy per cent. of small and medium-sized enterprises believe that high energy costs will negatively affect the growth of their companies. We know that businesses will already be hammered by this Tory Government’s national insurance hike, so what are the Secretary of State for Wales and his ministerial colleagues doing to help support Welsh and other UK businesses to overcome their energy cost problems, to provide much- needed stability, to help them plan ahead, and to deliver the growth that our economy so badly needs?
David T. C. Davies
I am sorry that we cannot persuade members of the Labour party to support a small increase in taxes to protect the national health service, but that is a matter to which we can return.
The UK Government recognise that, as we transition from energy sources such as coal and gas, there will be a cost challenge, which is why we have committed to minimising energy costs for businesses through, for example, the £470 million that has been given in relief to energy-intensive industries through a combination of compensation and exemption.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend ensure that the efforts that the Government are rightly making to decarbonise electricity generation do not unfairly disadvantage high energy industries, because if they do, we will be exporting carbon emissions, not reducing them?
David T. C. Davies
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The Government recognise that potential issue, which is why, for example, £470 million has been provided to high energy users through a combination of compensation and exemption. It is a very real problem to which she refers, and one that is recognised and being dealt with by the Government.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
High energy costs act as a disincentive for investment from international steel and other manufacturing companies and other investors, with the UK seen as a less favourable investment environment than other countries. Other countries with less dramatic price rises are putting in prompt measures to proactively support their industries, so why are this Government so slow to act? Can the Minister outline what discussions he is having with colleagues across Government to follow similar interventions to support the steel and manufacturing industries in Wales?
David T. C. Davies
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had, and will continue to have, a range of discussions with colleagues in other ministerial Departments as to how we resolve this problem, but the hon. Gentleman will surely recognise that we are making a revolutionary transition from high carbon emitting sources, such as coal and gas, towards renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and possibly nuclear, and that they do come with costs. They are more expensive. Members across the House will recognise the need to make that transition. The Government are leading that transition, and we are also putting in place schemes to support those who may face challenges as a result.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about cross-border connectivity, including the A5, which is a vital artery connecting north Wales to the west midlands.
Dr Evans
The A5 is a really important road joining Wales to England. There are pinch points all the way along, none more so than the most bashed bridge in Britain, right in Hinckley in my constituency. Road investment strategy 3 will be really important for joining up Wales to England, so what conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Department for Transport on decision point 1 for RIS 3 in March?
Simon Hart
I used to drive that road regularly when I was working in north Wales years ago. I met the Transport Secretary this week. Cross-border connectivity and this particular road came up in the conversation. We are very conscious of the economic impact of making sure that these things are looked at in a holistic, cross-border way. It has not helped that the Welsh Government have decided to introduce a moratorium on road improvements in Wales. That has slowed down the whole business of economic recovery quite considerably.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
Mr Speaker, the answer will be worth waiting for, I promise you.
I am hoping to meet the First Minister with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in Cardiff later this week to discuss how we can best support jobs and economic growth in Wales, including through the various initiatives announced at the autumn Budget.
Chris Elmore
I am glad that the Secretary of State is with us and awake; that is always nice to see.
Let me return to the shared prosperity fund, rather than levelling up, because the Secretary of State did not actually answer my question. We have seen months and years of dither and delay, and today we have heard questions from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) about when the shared prosperity fund will be delivered and when we will have dates for local authorities so that they can plan. Will the Secretary of State simply set out when the shared prosperity fund will be confirmed, when the dates for bidding will take place and when local government will get the information it needs in order to bid for this long overdue funding?
Simon Hart
In my conversations with 22 local authorities, they take a much more benign approach to the funding streams than the hon. Gentleman. He obsesses about the UK shared prosperity fund. We have been clear about when that is coming through, with further announcements this year and into next. He deliberately ignores the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund, the community ownership fund and all the other funds that have been such a success in Wales. I say to him what I said to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith): it would be a whole lot better for future investors and job creation if he spent a little more time championing Wales and a little less time criticising it.
Alex Cunningham
Well, the Secretary of State dodged that question, just as he dodged Question 1. He knows that there is a real dearth of information on the Government’s shared prosperity fund, which needy communities across Wales desperately want. The same communities drove real change with the European social fund—probably a better levelling-up fund than the Government could ever deliver. This is the Secretary of State’s second chance: when are we going to get the detail and the dates, so that in Wales and across the rest of the country we can get on with planning to spend the shared prosperity fund?
Simon Hart
I have repeated the answer to this question on countless occasions this morning. We are looking at a whole range of funding provisions in Wales. The Chancellor was able to provide a record settlement; this is the best settlement for the Welsh Government and local authorities for 20-plus years, and the hon. Gentleman should be acknowledging that.
We have actually stuck to the timescales that we have set out on numerous occasions in Welsh and other questions. The hon. Gentleman really does need to change the record. We are now witnessing record sums of money going into parts of Wales which never even qualified before; that is something that we should be championing, rather than denigrating.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Wales will benefit significantly from the levelling-up fund, with projects focused on delivering jobs, promoting growth and levelling up communities. In Denbighshire and Wrexham, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Clwyd South, communities will benefit from over £16.4 million in UK Government investment through round 1 of the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund.
Simon Baynes
How would the Minister assess the long-term economic, social and cultural impact of, and benefits arising from, the levelling-up fund in Wales, particularly our Clwyd South bid, which he has mentioned, which will send a great deal of badly needed investment into the world heritage site at the Trevor basin, projects in Llangollen and Chirk, and a steam railway in and around Corwen?
David T. C. Davies
The successful levelling-up fund bid at the Pontcysyllte aqueduct and the canal world heritage centre will obviously maximise tourism in the area and provide significant long-term economic benefits to my hon. Friend’s constituency. However, it is just one small part of a much larger programme including the £121 million levelling-up fund, the £46 million community renewal fund and £2.5 billion extra money in a record block grant for the Welsh Labour Government, showing that this Government are committed to strengthening the Union, supporting Wales, and ensuring that jobs and prosperity flow to all parts of the United Kingdom.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
One of the problems that we have in the Rhondda is a large number of disused former coal tips, one of which, as the Minister knows, slid down into the river last year. It cost us £14 million to rectify that, and we have another five similar tips in the Rhondda. Can we please have some more money to ensure that we do not have another Aberfan disaster?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as I said earlier, this is a devolved matter. He will also be aware that more than £2.5 billion of extra money has been provided to the Welsh Labour Government. If there are dangerous coal tips in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I urge him to talk to his colleagues in Welsh Labour, ask them to provide the money and get the problem resolved as quickly as possible.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
As I outlined in my previous answer, I am hoping to meet the First Minister later this week to discuss a range of issues. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the M4 is central to cross-border connectivity, and improvements are well overdue if we are serious about levelling up.
Selaine Saxby
I can see south Wales from my North Devon constituency and I am very keen to secure a ferry crossing from Ilfracombe to south Wales, popular on both sides of the Bristol channel, with visions ranging from a Dylan Thomas literary tour through to a Barry booze cruise. Will the Secretary of State meet me to see how to progress this project?
Simon Hart
There used to be a ferry from Tenby to North Devon back in the old days. I would be very happy to see that introduced. Until the Welsh Government honour their 2016 manifesto commitment to improve the M4, the quickest way of visiting each other will be a 30-year-old ferry chugging across the Bristol channel.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Jonathan Edwards
The Prime Minister will be aware of the considerable public concern in relation to the impression that significant political donations can help acquire a peerage. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) will publish a Bill later today that will prohibit large party donors from being nominated to the other place for a period of five years. Will the Prime Minister offer full Government support to my hon. Friend’s efforts?
The Prime Minister
I will study his proposals with care when the Opposition parties commit to stop taking funds from the unions in order to control their politics.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for what she does to represent her hospital, and I thank the NHS staff for the amazing work that they are doing. We are supporting them, as she knows, by recruiting 50,000 more nurses and putting another £4.5 billion into the NHS over the rest of this financial year. The best thing we can do to protect our NHS over this winter is for everybody to come forward and get their booster vaccination.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Trust matters, and after the last fortnight the Prime Minister has got a lot of work to do. A central plank in this Government’s promise to the north of England is a Crossrail of the north with at least an entirely new high-speed rail line between Manchester and Leeds. A Crossrail for the north; an entirely new line—that is the promise. It has already been made, so I do not want the Prime Minister fobbing off the House about waiting until tomorrow; he can say today: will he stick by that promise, yes or no?
The Prime Minister
He should wait and see what is going to be announced tomorrow, because we will produce a fantastic integrated rail plan—[Interruption.] I am not going to spoil it for them—why would I? We are going to produce a fantastic—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I expect Front Benchers to behave better than they are doing at the moment. If you do not want to listen to the answer, let me know now. I do, and I cannot hear when you all shout together. We want better politics. I expect better politics from both sides. Let us show a little more decorum than we are seeing at the moment.
The Prime Minister
When we produce our integrated rail plan tomorrow, people across the House and across the country will see what we are doing to cut journey times to make life easier and better for people in the north-east, in the north-west and in the midlands—across the whole of the north of the country—with the biggest programme of investment in rail for a century. What we are doing is giving people in those communities the same access to commuter-type services that people in the south-east of this country have felt entitled to for more than a century. That is going to be levelling up across the whole of the UK.
Keir Starmer
That was a lot of words, but it was not a yes, so that is one important promise to the north that he will not stand by. Let us look at another. In February this year, the Prime Minister told this House:
“I can certainly confirm that we are going to develop the eastern leg as well as the whole of the HS2.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 325.]
The whole of HS2—that is a new high-speed line, running continuously, no gaps, between Birmingham and Leeds. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he stands by that promise?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in danger of getting hoist by his own petard. He needs to wait and see what we announce tomorrow, because I think he will find that the people of Leeds, the people of Nottingham, the people of Sheffield and the people of the whole of the north-west and the north-east of this country will benefit massively from what we are going to announce.
Keir Starmer
Again, a lot of words, but not a yes. So that is two important promises to the north that the Prime Minister will not stand by. No wonder trust in the Prime Minister is at an all-time low. Across the country, and belatedly across this House, there is now agreement that Owen Paterson broke the rules and that the Government should not have tried to let him off the hook. Many Government Members have apologised— the Business Secretary has apologised for his part, and the Leader of the House has apologised for his part, but they were following the Prime Minister’s lead. Will he do the decent thing and just say sorry for trying to give the green light to corruption?
The Prime Minister
Well, yes, as I have said before, it certainly was a mistake to conflate the case of an individual Member, no matter how sad, with the point of principle at stake. We do need a cross-party approach on an appeals process. We also need a cross-party approach on the way forward, and that is why we have tabled the proposals to take forward the report of the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life of 2018, with those two key principles: first, that everybody in this House should focus primarily and above all on their job here in this House; and, secondly, that no one should exploit their position in order to advance the commercial interests of anybody else. That is our position. We want to take forward those reforms. In the meantime, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can clear up from his proposals whether he would continue to be able to take money, as he did, from Mishcon de Reya and other legal firms. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Prime Minister, as you know, and I do remind you, it is Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.
Keir Starmer
That is not an apology. Everybody else has apologised for the Prime Minister, but he will not apologise for himself—a coward, not a leader. Weeks defending corruption and yesterday a screeching last-minute U-turn to avoid defeat on Labour’s plan to ban MPs from dodgy second contracts. Waving one white flag will not be enough to restore trust. There are plenty of Opposition days to come, and we will not let the Prime Minister water down the proposals or pretend that it is job done. We still have not shut the revolving door where Ministers are regulating a company one minute and working for it the next. There are plenty of cases that still stain this House. There are two simple steps to sorting it out: proper independence and powers for the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, and banning these job swaps. Will the Prime Minister take those steps?
The Prime Minister
I have called for, as you know Mr Speaker, and as you have called for, a cross-party approach to this. What I think we need to do is work together on the basis of the independent report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life to take things forward and to address the appeals process. What I think everybody can see is that in a classic, lawyerly way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now trying to prosecute others for exactly the course of action that he took himself. What I think the nation wants to know, because his register is incomplete, is who paid Mishcon de Reya and who paid the £25,000? Who paid him for his—
Mr Speaker
Order. Prime Minister, I do not want to fall out about it. I have made it very clear. It is Prime Minister’s questions; it is not for the Opposition to answer your questions. [Interruption.] Whether we like it or not, those are the rules of the game that we are all into, and we play by the rules, don’t we? We respect this House, so let us respect the House.
Keir Starmer
That new-found commitment to upholding standards did not last long.
Here is the difference: when somebody in my party misbehaves, I kick them out. When somebody—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Clarkson, Mr Francois—[Interruption.] Order. Look, this is not good. We have lost a dear friend, and I want to show that this House has learned from it. I do not want each other to be shouted down. I want questions to be respected, and I expect the public actually to be able to hear the questions and the answers, because I am struggling to do so in this Chair. I need no more of this.
Keir Starmer
When somebody in my party misbehaves, I kick them out. When somebody in the Prime Minister’s party misbehaves, he tries to get them off the hook. I lead; he covers up.
Let us try another issue. We know that Owen Paterson was a paid lobbyist for Randox. We know that he sat in on a call between Randox and the Minister responsible for handling health contracts. We know that Randox has been awarded Government contracts worth almost £600 million without competition or tender. Against that backdrop, the public are concerned that taxpayers’ money may have been influenced by paid lobbying. There is only one way to get to the bottom of this: a full, transparent investigation. If the Prime Minister votes for Labour’s motion this afternoon, that investigation can start. Will he vote for it, or will he vote for another cover-up?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to publish all the details of the Randox contracts, which have been investigated by the National Audit Office already. But talking of cover-ups, I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but we still have not heard why the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not tell us—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Prime Minister, sit down! Prime Minister, I am not going to be challenged. You may be the Prime Minister of this country, but in this House I am in charge, and we are going to carry on. That is the end of that. I call Keir Starmer.
Keir Starmer
I think the Prime Minister just said he is happy to publish all the Randox papers in relation to these contracts, so we will take that and we will pursue it. I remind the Prime Minister that when I was Director of Public Prosecutions, I prosecuted MPs who broke the rules. He has been investigated by every organisation he has ever been elected to. That is the difference.
Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money handed to their mates and donors; Tory MPs getting rich by working as lobbyists, one not even bothering to turn up because he is in the Caribbean advising tax havens—and the Prime Minister somehow expects us to believe that he is the man to clean up Westminster! He led his troops through the sewers to cover up corruption, and he cannot even say sorry. The truth is that beneath the bluster, he still thinks it is one rule for him and another for his mates. At the same time as his Government are engulfed in sleaze, they are rowing back on the promises they made to the north, and it is working people who are paying the price. Is it any wonder that people are beginning to think that the joke isn’t funny any more?
The Prime Minister
It is plain from listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he seeks to criticise this Government while refusing to explain his own position. You have ruled on that, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] You have ruled on that, Mr Speaker, and I hear you, I hear you—but his own “Mishconduct” is absolutely clear to everybody. [Interruption.] His own “Mishconduct” is absolutely clear. Meantime, we will get on, on a cross-party basis—we will get on, on a cross-party basis —with taking forward the business that I have outlined. And we will get on with the business of this Government, which is leading the country out of the pandemic and—
Mr Speaker
Order. Prime Minister, I am struggling to hear, but if I am correct about what was said, it was about the Leader of the Opposition and misconduct. We cannot accuse somebody of misconduct. [Interruption.] Order. Before the Leader of the House gives me an answer, all I am going to say is that I cannot hear. If it was said, I want it withdrawn. If it was not said, I will accept that. [Interruption.] Just a moment! I call the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I referred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s “Mishconduct”, because that is what he is guilty of.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think today has done this House any good. I will be quite honest; I think it has been ill-tempered. I think it shows the public that this House has not learned from the other week. I need this House to gain respect, but it starts by individuals showing respect to each other.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaign against local Labour government overtaxing and delivering inadequate services. The local boundary commission will look at the boundary reviews, but in the meantime I will support him in any way that I can.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It used always to be said that the Tory MPs were behind the Prime Minister, but—my goodness—look at the gaps on the third, fourth and fifth Benches. The rebellion has clearly started.
This Tory sleaze scandal has now been hitting the headlines for the past 14 days, yet it is pretty obvious that the Prime Minister spent less than 10 minutes coming up with yesterday’s half-hearted, half-baked, and already half-botched proposals. These so-called reforms do not even scratch the surface. This sleaze scandal runs far, far deeper. Month after month the public have witnessed scandal after scandal: peerages handed to millionaire donors; VIP lanes; gifted covid contracts to Tory pals; dodgy donations for luxury holidays and home renovations. The Prime Minister and his Government have been up to their necks in sleaze. Will the Prime Minister tell us exactly which one of those scandals his proposals would have stopped?
The Prime Minister
I thank the humble crofter, as the right hon. Gentleman refers to himself, for his question. What I think we can do is pursue a cross-party approach, based on the report of the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life, which has much of profit in it. Among other things it says is that it is important that this House should be augmented with outside experience of the world, and it is important that Members of this House should have experience of the private sector, as he does. On a cross-party basis we should proceed with the couple of reforms that I have indicated.
Ian Blackford
This is about Tory sleaze and Tory corruption, and the Prime Minister has basically admitted that not one of this Government’s sleaze scandals would have been stopped by his so-called plan. Perhaps we should not be surprised, considering that the Prime Minister has been at the rotten core of all these scandals. The trail of sleaze and scandal all leads back to the funding of the Conservative party. Since 2010, the Tory party has made nine of its former treasurers Members of the House of Lords, and every single one of them has something in common: they have handed over £3 million to the Prime Minister’s party. That is the very definition of corruption. It is the public’s definition of corruption. Will this Government finally accept that this is corruption, or is the Prime Minister the only person in the country who has the brass neck to argue that it was all one big coincidence?
The Prime Minister
I will not comment on the missing £600,000 from the Scottish National party’s accounts, but what I will say, in all sincerity and heeding what you said earlier, Mr Speaker, is that I think that these constant attacks on the UK’s levels of corruption and sleaze do a massive disservice to billions of people around the world who genuinely suffer from Governments who are corrupt, and who genuinely have no ability to scrutinise their MPs. This is one of the cleanest democracies in the world, and people should be proud of it.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I had the good fortune to walk Offa’s Dyke very recently. I am delighted that English and Welsh organisations are working together to protect that fantastic national monument, and Historic England has committed to give almost £300,000 more to that great cause.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Ambulance response times are now the worst ever, people are waiting for ambulances longer than ever, and with A&Es in crisis, patients are stuck in ambulances outside hospital longer than ever. Waiting times are not statistics; they are about people—people often in great pain and in danger—so why are this Government closing ambulance stations in parts of our country? Why is the West Midlands ambulance service closing up to 10 community stations, including in Rugby, Oswestry and Craven Arms? With this health crisis for our ambulance services and in our A&Es, injured, sick and elderly people are being hit. When will the Prime Minister deal with this health crisis?
The Prime Minister
I appreciate that ambulance crews and ambulance services are doing an amazing job, particularly at this time of year, and I thank them for what they are doing. We are supporting them with more cash. Another £450 million was awarded to 120 trusts to upgrade their facilities, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are putting another £36 billion into dealing with the backlog, which is fundamentally affecting the NHS so badly at the moment, through the levy that we have instituted, which I do not think he supported.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who is totally right to focus on the issue of future-proofing homes and making them low carbon. By 2025, our future homes standard will ensure that new homes produce at least 75% fewer CO2 emissions.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
First of all, I want to thank GPs for everything they are doing, particularly during the booster roll-out. As well as recruiting as many GPs as we can, we have 10,000 more nurses this year than last year and 25,000 more healthcare professionals altogether. There are more people now working in the NHS than at any time in its history, and because of our investment—the extra £36 billion that we are putting in—there will be even more, and I am afraid that the hon. Lady voted against that investment.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is quite right to champion carbon capture and storage, which has a great future in Scotland in spite of all the gloomstering of the SNP. The Scottish cluster remains on the reserve. We will continue to study it and, we hope, bring it forward in due time.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the River Tyne is a massive economic asset for the whole of the north-east. It has suffered from historic contamination, but we are going to work with the North East local enterprise partnership to invest another £6 million to help to develop clear plans for sustainable economic growth along the whole of the estuary.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not aware until today that Crawley was bidding to become a city—
The Prime Minister
—but I will look at it very carefully. I am sure there is an excellent case in there somewhere.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is a passionate campaigner in this area. One way or another—I will get back to him on the exact way—we will legislate to allow parents of children in neonatal care to take extended leave, giving them more time during the most vulnerable and stressful days of their lives.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind invitation. I will certainly keep it mind. The Government are absolutely committed to reforming technical education through new T-levels. That is why we are investing a further £65 million to develop teacher retention, and support and recruitment for teachers in further education. As for the potoroos in his area, are they wild? I will do my utmost to come and inspect them.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing this to my attention. I will certainly make sure that we get a proper meeting with the representatives of the nuclear veterans that she mentions.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much, and she has much relevant experience from her work for Save the Children in Greece. Our only credible way of fixing this is with our new plan for immigration. That will be made possible with our new Nationality and Borders Bill, which will make it possible for us to distinguish at last between those who come here legally and those who come here illegally. I hope very much that it will command the support of the whole House.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
In May, part of Northwich station in my constituency collapsed. I have asked the Transport Secretary to intervene and build back better and fairer to allow access for people with disabilities. He has declined my kind offer, so I ask the Prime Minister to intervene: no bluster, substance, build back better and fairer Northwich station—it is in the north of England.
The Prime Minister
I am tempted to invite the hon. Gentleman to wait and see what we do for rail funding tomorrow, but I will certainly look at what he had to say about Northwich station with keen interest.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend; she is campaigning on a very important issue. Too often, we find that our armed forces fail to provide the wonderful women in our armed forces with the support they deserve. That is why I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has secured a parliamentary inquiry into this for the first time. It is vital that we support and encourage women in our armed forces, who make a massive difference to those services.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It has cost businesses in Northern Ireland £850 million to date to operate the failed and suffocating protocol. Lord Frost is today in Belfast. When will the Prime Minister fix this by legitimately activating article 16?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I think the word that I would fasten on in his question is “legitimately”. There is no question but that the use of article 16, which, after all, has been done by the EU Commission to stop vaccines being exported to this country, is something that is perfectly legal and within the bounds of the protocol.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
What I would say to my hon. Friend and her students is that nothing that is said or takes place in this House—none of the argy-bargy, the repartee and the occasional abuse to which we subject each other—should in any way deter anybody from seeking a career in politics, because it is a wonderful privilege and we are all very lucky to be here.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
In my constituency of Edinburgh West, numerous people come to us with delays from the Department for Work and Pensions with pensions and benefits, to add to the delays that others are facing with passports and with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Can the Prime Minister tell us who—among the many jobs being done at the moment—is making sure that the Departments of Government are running smoothly and quickly?
The Prime Minister
I think that actually the Department for Work and Pensions, under the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), has performed outstanding service. It has performed miracles. Among the things that it has achieved is helping to get millions of people effectively back into employment, in spite of all the difficulties that we have faced. We now have unemployment running at virtually record lows, in spite of all the difficulties we have faced in this pandemic and as we come out of furlough. That is largely thanks to the work of the DWP. Of course there is more that can be done and people can always up their game, but I think that the DWP and its officials working across the country —huge numbers of men and women—have done an outstanding job.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
In July 2019, I was in Manchester when the Prime Minister committed to building a new line, Northern Powerhouse Rail, between Manchester and Leeds. That commitment was reaffirmed in our manifesto in November 2019, and last month it was reaffirmed in the Prime Minister’s conference speech in Manchester. Were the voters of the north right to take the Prime Minister at his word?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and they should wait and see what is unveiled tomorrow, when my right hon. Friend may learn something to his advantage.
Points of Order
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just received word on the wires that the Leader of the Opposition—I did not hear this at the time, because there was so much noise—called the Prime Minister a coward. Surely that is in breach of “Erskine May”, is improper and should be withdrawn.
Mr Speaker
There was a lot of language that I could not hear today. I certainly do not want words like that. “Coward” is not used in this House; I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will withdraw it.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I withdraw it—but he is no leader.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Alongside the hon. Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), and our friend in the other place the Bishop of Durham, we have been pressing Ministers in the Home Office to permit a cross-party visit to the Napier barracks.
On 7 September, the Minister for future borders and immigration—the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—declined our request for an in-person visit. The Select Committee on Home Affairs was refused a visit in July. On 27 October, we again requested an on-site visit and asked the Minister to respond by 10 November; we have yet to hear anything. Despite the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons finding early this year that there were serious concerns and failings in the provision of accommodation at Napier barracks, the Government have extended the use of the barracks until 2025 and have stated that the site will be used to pilot the design of future accommodation for asylum seekers.
You can see that a visit is now more than pressing, Mr Speaker. Could you advise me whether it is in order for the Government to refuse Members of Parliament access to this important site?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It is for the Government to decide whether to invite Members to visit the barracks. That said, the use of the barracks has been a matter of public concern and debate, and of course I would always encourage the Government to agree to such requests from right hon. and hon. Members, not least to ensure that they are able to hold the Government to account in a well-informed manner.
I accept that there are occasions when it is legitimate for the Government to refuse a request for a visit—on security grounds, for example—although I should stress that I do not know of any reason for a refusal in this case. However, those on the Government Benches will have heard my view, namely that in principle I would hope that such requests for visits could be accommodated. At the very least, I hope that Home Office Ministers will discuss the matter properly with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that it does not take too long to contact him.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I had had no intention of raising a point of order until I heard the Prime Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) who chairs the Defence Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces. The Prime Minister indicated that there would be a parliamentary inquiry, based—I think—on that report. Given that we have seen a tenfold increase in reporting of rape and sexual assault of women under the age of 18 in the armed forces, Mr Speaker, can you tell the House why the Government, and the Prime Minister in his answer today, have not met the demands of my hon. Friend, and are not implementing the Wigston review?
Mr Speaker
That was actually a continuation of an earlier question, but I will say that we take seriously the point that has been made. If the hon. Member for Wrexham feels that she needs a statement, or that an urgent question could possibly provide an answer to her wishes to continue this, I am sure that it could be viewed favourably.
I assume that there are no further points of order. It is certainly very quiet.
BILL PRESENTED
Peerage Nominations (Disqualification of Party Donors) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Angus Brendan MacNeil, supported by Ben Lake, Douglas Chapman, Liz Saville Roberts, Patricia Gibson, Carol Monaghan, Hywel Williams and Jonathan Edwards, presented a Bill to prevent persons who have donated £50,000 or more to a political party within the previous five years from being nominated for a peerage.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 192).
Disposable Barbecues
Wednesday 17th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Disposable Barbecues Bill 2021-22 View all Disposable Barbecues 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
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of disposable barbecues on open moorland; to give local authorities the power to prohibit the sale of disposable barbecues in their area; and for connected purposes.
This year alone, at least two wildfires have been caused by disposable barbecues in High Peak, destroying hectares of farmland and environmentally significant peatland. In 2019, a fire in Marsden Moor near Huddersfield raged for four days and damaged more than 700 hectares of moorland. A similar fire in April 2021 caused an estimated £200,000 worth of damage. Alongside that crude financial cost lies an environmental one. This is damage that will take hundreds if not thousands of years to repair, with peat accumulating at a rate of only about 1 mm per year. Distressed sheep farmers have conveyed to me the pain that they have experienced in being forced to clear up the charred remains of their own livestock.
Every year, from spring to summer, communities across the country live in fear of wildfires that are entirely avoidable. A local gamekeeper once told me that there were three main causes of wildfires—men, women and children—but more specifically, a large number of fires are caused simply by people not disposing of their barbecue properly, leaving it unattended on the ground where its residual heat or a stray spark is enough to start a fire.
The aims of this Bill are simple. They are to reduce the risk of wildfires and protect our beautiful countryside, to protect local communities faced with the threat of wildfires, to protect hard-pressed farmers’ livelihoods, and to protect carbon-capturing peatland, which is so vital in our fight back against climate change. That last point is particularly important, especially given the recent climate change agreement in Glasgow. The Glasgow agreement is an important step forward: 65 countries have committed themselves to phasing out the use of coal power, some of the world’s largest car manufacturers have agreed to make all new car sales zero-emission by 2040, and the leaders responsible for 90% of the world’s forests have pledged to end deforestation by 2030.
However, when we speak of international co-operation, we should not forget the importance of nature-based solutions to climate change. Peatland restoration is an essential part of that. Wet, healthy peat soils absorb and trap carbon dioxide. It is estimated that, worldwide, peatland contains more than 550 gigatonnes of carbon—more than is stored in all the world’s forests put together. Since it regulates the flow of groundwater, restoring peatland also reduces the risk of flooding, improves water quality and enhances biodiversity.
Since being elected, I have actively campaigned for the restoration of our local peat moors. I asked my very first question in this House on this subject and I am proud to have secured a significant increase in funding for this vital work. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s England peat action plan to restore, sustainably manage and protect peatland, as well as the increase in the nature for climate fund to £750 million by 2024-25, with the aim of restoring 35,000 hectares of peatland across England.
I have seen first-hand the fantastic work that funding makes possible. On Rushup Edge and Brown Knoll, one of the highest hills in the Peak District, the Moors for the Future Partnership has been hard at work restoring peatland. Recently, I took the farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), to meet Hope Valley Farmers and to see the work on Brown Knoll. I am encouraged by the leadership that the Government have shown in this issue.
That work is meaningless, however, if we are to continue to allow a reckless few to destroy this precious resource by wildfire. I did not come into politics to tell people how to live their lives, and this Bill certainly does not set out to do that, but, as a conservative, I firmly believe that we hold a duty to future generations not only to conserve what we have today, but to provide them with an inheritance greater than our own.
While this Bill represents only a modest change to the law, it would be a mistake to overlook its significance. The aims of the Bill are not new, but build on work that a range of organisations have already undertaken. The New Forest and Peak District National Park Authorities, for example, have already banned the use of disposable barbecues within their boundaries and called for local retailers to stop their sale. I have had considerable success in convincing retailers to remove them from sale within High Peak; I pay tribute to responsible businesses such as Morrisons, which has removed them from sale in its Buxton store, while the Co-operative Group has also removed displays of disposable barbecues in 130 of its stores that border national parks.
The National Fire Chiefs Council, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, the Moorland Association, the Moors for the Future Partnership and the National Trust, among others, have all warned of the danger that disposable barbecues present and have called for tougher regulations on their use. This Bill provides just that.
While the countryside code already sets out an expectation that visitors should only barbecue where it has been deemed safe to do so, there is no law to enforce that guidance. Without one, there is widespread confusion and ignorance, sowing the seeds for future wildfires. The Bill seeks to clarify the law, banning the use of disposable barbecues on open moorland.
I am incredibly grateful to colleagues on both sides of this House for the positive, cross-party support that the Bill has received. I have worked hard with a range of partners to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and I will keep working in a bipartisan spirit to do so. I am aware that, as a ten-minute rule Bill, there is little chance of this Bill progressing into law at this stage. None the less, I seriously urge the Government to listen to the concerns raised in the Bill, to act on disposable barbecues and to redouble their efforts to promote, and to educate people on, the countryside code. To prevent wildfires, to protect farmers’ livelihoods and to build up our existing defences against climate change, this Bill offers a small but significant way forward. With that in mind, I humbly request that the Bill be given due consideration and be passed into law.
Mr Speaker
May I personally thank the hon. Gentleman for this Bill? As he knows, I was affected by those severe moorland fires in my constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Robert Largan, Mr John Baron, Karen Bradley, Damian Green, Andrew Gwynne, Simon Hoare, Helen Hayes, Kevin Hollinrake, Simon Jupp, Jason McCartney, Munira Wilson and Sammy Wilson present the Bill.
Robert Largan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 193).
Opposition Day
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Randox Covid Contracts
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House the minutes from or any notes of the meeting of 9 April 2020 between Lord Bethell, Owen Paterson and Randox representatives, and all correspondence, including submissions and electronic communications, addressed or copied to, or written by or on behalf of, any or all of the following:
(a) a Minister or former Minister of the Crown,
(b) a Special Adviser of such a Minister or former Minister, or
(c) a Member or former Member of this House
relating to the Government contracts for services provided by medical laboratories, awarded to Randox Laboratories Ltd. by the Department for Health and Social Care, reference tender_237869/856165 and CF-0053400D0O000000rwimUAA1, valued at £133,000,000 and £334,300,000-£346,500,000 respectively.
At the heart of this debate are two very simple questions. Do the Government have anything to hide? And will Members opposite now vote for a clean-up or a cover-up? I say “Members opposite,” but there are not many Members opposite to say it to.
The Prime Minister, just minutes ago, said in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
“I am very happy to publish all the details of the Randox contracts”.
If that is the case, the Prime Minister should vote for our motion and publish all the documents and correspondence related to the Randox contracts and the dodgy lobbying that went on around them.
The motion before the House is very simple. We already know that the former Member for North Shropshire broke the rules on lobbying. We already know that Randox was awarded nearly £600 million of taxpayers’ money without a tender. We already know that Randox was awarded a second £347 million contract having failed to deliver on a previous £133 million contract. And we already know the decision was made after a conference call involving the then Member for North Shropshire and the then Health Minister, Lord Bethell.
What we do not know is what happened in those meetings, who else was present, what was discussed and what was decided.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about who was at the meetings. It is not just a convention but an absolute necessity that, when a Minister meets a Member of Parliament or, indeed, an outside body, they are accompanied by civil servants who make a record of the meeting. Can we be certain as to whether the Minister was accompanied by civil servants who took those notes?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes a good point. He has been a Member for a long time, and he is aware these conventions and procedures are there to ensure that process is followed and recorded, but we do not know what was said in any of the correspondence before or after, including from private email accounts and phones. We do not know why or how these contracts were awarded. I hope the Minister for Care and Mental Health can give us some insight. We do not know what rules might have been broken and what role the lobbying of the former Member for North Shropshire played in the Government’s decision.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
We all know about the failures of the Government’s dodgy crony contracts, which have wasted taxpayers’ money by the billion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only should the Government come clean but they should get the cash back to spend on projects like a new hospital for Stockton to help deal with our huge health inequalities?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes a crucial point, and it is why the public are so frustrated. We know there has been waste in some of these contracts, and that money is needed in many parts of our country and in many areas of our constituencies. We know that money could have been better spent, and we know the cost of not doing it properly.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it speaks volumes that Conservative Members cannot be bothered to turn up to defend the Government’s position? Does she agree that the reason they have not turned up is because they know what they are doing is wrong? The country deserves so much better than what the Tories are delivering for them.
Angela Rayner
I do not think I have ever seen the Government Benches so empty when I have been at the Dispatch Box. It is quite novel. It is not just about respect for this House; it is about respect for the public who are watching and who want to know the answers. They want to know what elected Members on both sides of the House think.
The Government have refused to provide answers to the freedom of information requests on these points, and this is far from the only time that they have swerved scrutiny on their decisions. Take the mystery of Lord Bethell’s mobile, for example. The House may recall that the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson categorically denied that Ministers ever use private accounts for Government business, only for that denial to fall apart. The Government have now admitted in court that Lord Bethell corresponded about public contracts via WhatsApp or text message, and searches of his three private email accounts using covid contract keywords unearthed tens of thousands of messages and documents.
In December 2020, Lord Bethell was told his mobile phone would be searched for documents. Just weeks later, he said he had replaced his phone. First, he claimed his phone had been lost, then he said it was broken and then he said he had given it away to a family member. Finally, nearly a year on, he remembered that he had his phone all along, but that unfortunately he was in the habit of deleting his entire WhatsApp history and, sadly, the relevant messages may have been lost. He said the problem—I am not making this up—was exacerbated by having two phones, a personal phone and an official phone. I can at least agree with him on that; I am not kidding.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Good Law Project, which started to close the net on Lord Bethell by unearthing all his burner, drug dealer-type actions?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the Good Law Project. Over the past couple of weeks we have been talking about the sleaze and corruption we have seen. The Prime Minister spoke at Prime Minister’s questions about how sleaze and corruption affect the UK. I say to him and to Conservative Members that it is not the UK that is sleazy and corrupt, as we have seen in how the UK has responded to the sleaze and corruption; it is this Government who are sleazy and corrupt.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The problem is that the Government are rotting from the head down. The Prime Minister has to get a grip on his own actions, bearing in mind he has appeared before the sleaze watchdog three times and he had a corrupt track record as London Mayor. We cannot stand on a global stage and say we are not a corrupt country until he is cleaner than clean.
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This goes to the nub of the problem. The Prime Minister—even when asked to apologise by the Leader of the Opposition; even when his Ministers have already apologised; and even when Conservative Members will not attend this debate because they are embarrassed by their Government’s actions—refuses to accept his responsibility. That is why we are calling for transparency today.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I would like the Minister to think for a moment about the companies that were not awarded contracts. Arco, in my constituency, is known for being the UK’s leader in safety equipment. It had a warehouse full of personal protective equipment that it would have been willing to give to the NHS but, for some reason, it could not find its way through the maze of bureaucracy involved in awarding Government contracts. We hear about companies being awarded contracts that had no record of expertise or knowledge, yet companies such as Arco were denied. How can that be right?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have heard about this distinction from other companies and organisations that have experience in the field; they feel as though they were blocked and there was not a transparent process for them to go through. We have seen concerns about how procurement decisions were being made for companies such as Randox, with the lack of any paper trail showing that they were made properly. How is that fair? The question is very simple: what are Ministers hiding?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Is that not the nub of the point: the fact that Ministers are using WhatsApp messages to make contracts is a way of circumventing the procurement process, which is there to protect the probity of Government spending? That is why we should be challenging these things as firmly as we can.
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes a good point on probity. If Ministers have nothing to hide and no rules were broken, surely they would be happy to publish the details of these meetings and the correspondence. But they have refused time and time again to do so. So today we have tabled this motion and we will put it to a vote, because the only logical conclusion is that there is something to hide—that the dodgy lobbying at the heart of this scandal has played a part in how vast sums of taxpayers’ cash have been spent.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a strong case indeed for reforming this rotten process. Does she agree that when this House granted the Government the powers under emergency legislation to handle the procurement of important medical supplies, it did not expect for one second this orgy of procurement outrages, this feeding frenzy of money for their friends and donors, and the ransacking of public money to help their own that we have seen?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. I say it again: in all my time in Parliament, I have never seen the Benches opposite so empty. I will be gracious to a number of Conservative Members who have expressed, both in public and in private, their concerns about this issue. I urge Members from across the House to look at this issue not in a party political sense, but by examining the damage it has done. The Prime Minister talks in PMQs about the UK and sleaze and corruption, but he has brought that to the UK and has undermined—[Interruption.] Even former Conservative Prime Ministers have raised concerns about the Prime Minister’s conduct. So I do not want to make it too party political, because I can see from the sparseness on the Benches opposite that many Conservative Members absolutely agree with us.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am listening with great interest to the very good speech my right hon. Friend is making. I have been in the House a bit longer than her. I came here in 1979 and I have never seen anything like this. It is an honourable thing for every Member to champion firms in their constituency. I tried to help businesses in my constituency to get orders at this time but I could not get through; it was not a level playing field. May I also remind the deputy leader of my party that I have been here all this time and I have never seen this determined boycotting of an important debate on an Opposition day in all my years in the House?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I remind him that I was born in 1980, so I am definitely going to—[Laughter.] I also remind him that I am a grandma and my granddaughter is four next week. He has considerably more experience than this granny, so I will bow to his better judgment on that. It is a shame that so many are not here for this very important debate. It is important because it goes to the heart of what we are here for. People want to see that we are really taking these issues seriously. The public have an interest in making sure that the rules and the transparency that they expect from our Government are upheld.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of our constituents are extremely angry about this, not just because there is cronyism and corruption, but, worse still, because there has been a massive waste of taxpayers’ money? Many of the contracts that the Government let for PPE did not even result in the PPE being provided? What was provided was substandard and therefore it has been a massive waste of our money, which could have been better spent on services in our constituencies.
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that, which leads me to my second simple question for the House today. Two weeks ago, the Government led Conservative Members through the Lobby for a stitch-up and a cover-up. Many of those Members have publicly and privately expressed their regret at voting in favour of that motion, and I have no doubt that their regret is sincere. They surely must now look with fresh eyes at those who led them through the Lobby. The Prime Minister brought shame on our democracy and on this House. That vote undermined trust in our democracy and the integrity of public office. So today I say to right hon. and hon. Members opposite: learn the lesson; do not vote for another cover-up.
The first step in restoring trust is publishing these documents today. Taxpayers’ money must be treated with respect, not handed out in backhand deals to companies that pay Conservative MPs to lobby on their behalf. Randox is just the tip of the iceberg in this scandal. Just yesterday, we finally found out the list of the favoured suppliers referred to—the so-called VIP lane for PPE procurement. This is the information that Ministers have failed to release of their own accord, despite a ruling from the Information Commissioner; we found out only because of a leak. No wonder they did not want to publish it. We already knew that those companies that got to the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract than anyone else. As Ministers have belatedly admitted, many of these did not go through the so-called “eight-stage process” of diligence. We now know how these companies got into the VIP lane in the first place. Not a single one of them had been referred by a politician of any political party other than the Conservative party. Of the 47 successful companies revealed yesterday, the original source of referral was a Conservative politician or adviser in 19 cases. The then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet member who oversaw the entire emergency procurement programme, fast-tracked a bid from one of his own personal friends and donors, who went on to win hundreds of millions of pounds of public money.
Dawn Butler
My right hon. Friend might also reference an article by Sam Bright from Byline Times, who talks about the fact that £1 billion of contracts have been awarded to Conservative donors.
Angela Rayner
And £3.5 billion of contracts have been handed out by this Government to their political donors and Ministers’ mates. Almost £3 billion more has been wasted on unusable PPE, which is costing British taxpayers £1 million a day just to store. So, yes, we need an investigation into that, too. We need an investigation into every pound and penny that has been handed out, and to learn the lessons so that public money is not wasted again. But the question before the House today is very simple: do we choose to clean up or to cover up?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. There is one point about the contracts as they stand and another about the situation going forward. Just last week, I had to get a flight back into the UK. I filled in the England passenger locator form and there was a drop-down menu for the day 2 lateral flow test with 15 companies listed. Of those 15, three were Randox. I chose another; it turned out to be Randox. Is this part of a wider scam?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The general public are also asking these questions. That is why the question is: do we clean up or cover up? Are we going to have the transparency that the public deserve and that Members from all parties deserve?
I know that Members throughout this House care about our democracy. Although we disagree on many things, I hope we can agree on the importance of trust in our politics and the values of honesty and integrity in public office. A vote for our motion today is simply a vote for the truth, to tackle the dodgy lobbying that has brought shame on this House. The Prime Minister has created a corruption scandal that has engulfed his Government and his party. I have to say that voting for another cover-up today would send a very clear message to the electorate: that the Prime Minister cares more about covering up dodgy lobbying than putting things right—that he cares more about his self-interest than the public interest. After the last two weeks, that cannot be the message that Government Members want to send. I hope they are listening; let us end the cover-up and begin the clean-up.
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
I am grateful to the Opposition for using today’s debate to raise such an important matter. I welcome the opportunity to debate it and to introduce a few facts.
We have risen to meet the greatest public health challenge in a generation, by working together. Whether it is the NHS, Government, academia, industry, the Army or, indeed, the British people, we have all had our part to play. That has meant that, today, we have given over 110 million life-saving vaccine doses and are now rolling out the booster programme. We have launched game-changing treatments such as dexamethasone and Ronapreve and, of course, built the largest testing infra- structure in Europe, with the new-found ability to test millions of people in a single day.
Dawn Butler
Why did we not use the infrastructure that existed when we were building the system?
Gillian Keegan
That is a very good question and one that I myself have asked. It is important to look at what we actually did. The equipment we had was in universities, and some of it was in NHS labs, but they did not have the scale that we needed, so we all worked together in what they call the triple-helix partnership: universities, the NHS and industry worked together to build and scale up to the level we needed. If you remember, there was discussion at the time about moonshot testing; you all laughed, as you always do because you do not have to deliver, but we delivered it. We delivered the moonshot.
Chris Elmore
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance. The Minister keeps referring to the House as “you” which, I am pretty sure you will be aware, is used to addressed you, Mr Speaker. It is not you who has been dealing with contracts; it is the Government, and not Opposition MPs.
Mr Speaker
Thanks for that. What I will say is that I take no responsibility for the letting of these contracts, and nor do I wish to. I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I was letting things flow because, in fairness to the Minister, she is defending an impossible position. In fairness, when someone gets a bad hand, at times it is best to let them go on.
Dawn Butler
May I clarify that, first, the Government did not actually deliver the moonshot, and secondly, that in the end the £100 billion for private companies was diverted to local councils and authorities, which were the ones that delivered the vaccination roll-out, with the help of the NHS, which is a socialist endeavour? I caution the Minister not to twist the truth.
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Lady asked me about testing, which is what I answered on. Her question was about testing.
Let me move on—
Mr Sheerman
Before the Minister moves on too much, may I make a quick intervention? I know she has a tough job today.
Gillian Keegan
I do not mind; I am happy to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Sheerman
Does the Minister accept that none of us on the Opposition Benches would fault anything done by the wonderful team and the effort that went into finding and developing the vaccine? We believe all that was wonderful; the problem is what came out about the equipment contracts and the testing contracts. It can be done above board and brilliantly, and it was in the production of a vaccine, but it was not in the other endeavours. That is what we are trying to say. I know the Minister is going to keep going on about the vaccine—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair. As he reminded us all earlier, he came to this place in 1979, so he knows the rules, and no rule is more apparent than that interventions have to be brief and not speeches. If he wants to speak, I am happy to put him on my list. He should not use up all his words just yet.
Gillian Keegan
I will use a few words to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are in the position we are in today because of the countless powerful partnerships we have built. If we cast our minds back to less than two years ago, we faced a far more uncertain picture. SARS-CoV-2, which later became known as covid-19, had no known treatment and no vaccine, and we had little to no ability to test for it. It was spreading through the world at unprecedented speed, causing unprecedented death and widespread despair. I am sure that Members, when given a moment to pause and reflect, can recall just how they felt as they saw those harrowing pictures, first in Wuhan and later in the hospitals of Italy and Spain. With grim foreboding, we saw this very unfamiliar virus heading to our shores.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gillian Keegan
I will give way to hon. Members, but if they want to hear some of the facts, of which I have lots, I am happy to get on with my speech. I will give way to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on this occasion.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She has been given a terribly tough gig, but she does not seem to be answering the point made a little earlier. Arco in Hull had existed for 135 years and had supplied the NHS with top-quality products since its very inception. It was blocked from the VIP lane—why?
Gillian Keegan
As I said, I would like to get on to answering some of these questions, so if Members will bear with me and let me get my speech out, I will have time to answer further interventions.
The context in which we were operating was the fear that we would run out of vital testing equipment, that we would not have the capacity to test people for covid and that, as a result, this deadly virus would continue to pass from person to person, overwhelm our national health service and cause untold devastation. It is the duty of any responsible Government to do all they can to prevent such a grim outcome, to save lives, to protect our key workers and to partner with as many people as are available with the experience and expertise to get things done. So we engaged with many thousands of businesses, large and small, from all over the country and all around the world, to set out what we needed and find out what they could do.
Randox has been globally recognised in the in vitro diagnostics industry for nearly 40 years. It is a British business with roots in Northern Ireland and a history of developing diagnostics solutions for hospitals, clinical settings and research labs. Even as early as March 2020, Randox had lab-based polymerase chain reaction testing capacity for covid-19. Against the fears that we would not have enough testing capacity, we worked with companies with existing diagnostic capability—that is just plain common sense.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gillian Keegan
As I have said, I would like to press on. I know that Members are very keen to get my words —[Interruption.] My words are correct.
As I was saying, this was against the fears that we would not have enough testing capacity. Members must remember those days. We all knew it. We saw it on the news every single night. So we worked with the companies that had existing diagnostic capabilities, and that is just plain common sense.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gillian Keegan
I will not give way until I get some facts out, so can hon. Members please bear with me?
Moreover, working with Randox made sense with respect to our cross-UK efforts against covid-19, giving us the ability to use the existing facilities in Northern Ireland for the benefit of the whole United Kingdom. Initial contracts with Randox were procured under regulations that allow us to marshal goods and services with extreme urgency in exceptional circumstances, and these were extremely exceptional circumstances, Mr Speaker. There is no question but that Randox played its part. The initial challenge that it faced was the challenge facing Governments the world over: a shortage of machinery and transport. None the less, it quickly overcame them to play a critical role in our pandemic response.
An independent assessment in June 2020, which the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) might like to read, found that Randox was ahead of all other labs in terms of its process, its plans and its reporting, so a six-month extension was agreed in September 2020. By March this year, Randox was actually exceeding its contract target—
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
Gillian Keegan
I will get the target out and then I shall let the right hon. Gentleman intervene.
The target that Randox exceeded, which was its contract target, was processing more than 120,000 tests in a single day.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to the Minister for running through the dates. She may recall that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care came to this House in, I believe, July of last year to announce that 750,000 Randox tests that were being used in care homes had to be withdrawn because they were faulty. Subsequent to that announcement, the Government awarded a £350 million contract to Randox. Why?
Gillian Keegan
Why? It was because the Government were trying to get out as many tests as possible. As I said, Randox processed—[Interruption.] Just to put it into context, Randox has, to date, carried out more than 15 million tests for covid-19, and identified more than 700,000 positive cases. That is 700,000 people who might otherwise have gone on to spread the disease. As a result of this testing capacity, they received the right advice to isolate, thereby protecting their friends, their family and society at large.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am prepared to take at face value everything that she says about Randox, but it does then raise in my mind the question of what exact benefit the company had from engaging the services of Owen Paterson. That being the case, will the Minister commit now at the Dispatch Box to publish the minutes of the telephone conference call of which he was part?
Gillian Keegan
Obviously, I cannot answer that question. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the only people who can answer that question are those at Randox and the gentleman that he referred to—Owen Paterson.
Mr Carmichael
Just to be quite clear about this, is the Minister saying that her Department does not hold minutes of that conference call? That, from my experience of having been in government, would be a quite remarkable departure from accepted procedure.
Gillian Keegan
With respect, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has ever been in government during a global pandemic. What I was answering was his question about the value to a company of employing someone on a contract. I cannot answer that. On the minutes, I think that we have said that we will publish things here in the Library. [Interruption.] I will get on to that.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that this is a very interesting question? I know that the Minister has been put on the spot in being asked to provide an answer, but meetings should be logged and minutes of official meetings should be held. If the Minister cannot provide an answer to this very serious question today, I hope that it will be looked into, because it will bring a lot of other things into question if what has been said is indeed the case. I do not want to make a political point, but I am very concerned about this matter for all of us in this House. I am sorry to interrupt you, Minister.
Dawn Butler
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you make it absolutely clear—and I have been in government— that regardless of whether we are in a pandemic, there is an agenda for ministerial meetings and a civil servant present? A pandemic is not an excuse for not recording minutes of meetings.
Mr Speaker
In fact, to answer that point of order, I would have thought that it was even more important to hold meetings on the basis that we were in a pandemic, with minutes that we could refer back to. I am very, very concerned. I do not want to put anybody on the spot, but at some point this matter does need to be clarified.
Gillian Keegan
I will pull out that part of my speech now, so that people can hear it. We will give Members what information is held and in scope. We will come back to Parliament and deposit it in the Libraries of the House. We will commit to do that. I would like to press on now.
Tony Lloyd
I am genuinely very grateful to the Minister. I have a lot of respect for her and she should know that. She may not be able to answer this question, but I hope that she will actually say that she cannot answer it. She appeared to say to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) that he had not been a Minister during this time of national emergency. That is true, but can she be absolutely clear whether she knows if the conversation between Lord Bethell and a representative of Randox was minuted by civil servants, or does she know that it was not minuted, or will she simply not say? It would be helpful for the record today if we had that information. Does she know?
Gillian Keegan
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman knows that, personally, I was not there at the time. The meeting to which he refers was a courtesy call from the Minister to Randox to discuss RNA extraction kits. That was declared on the ministerial register of calls and meetings, but I have been unable to locate a formal note of that meeting. By the way, that meeting was after any contracts were let with Randox, which I will get onto.
Dame Angela Eagle
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just heard the Minister say that there are no minutes of this so-called courtesy call. Can you tell us what we, as Members of the House, can do on learning this through this House, given the astonishing nature of the revelation that the Minister has just made that there have been meetings with no minutes? These are official meetings that involve Government Ministers, and she is unable to locate a copy of what happened at a meeting that clearly took place.
Mr Speaker
In all fairness, the Minister should be given time. There are Parliamentary Private Secretaries here, and I am sure that they will have heard and will try to get an answer to the question if we do not have that information. I would expect Government meetings with other people present always to be minuted. If they are not, it opens up another question. I do not want that question to be opened up, as I would prefer it to be answered. Therefore, I am sure that, at some point, we will get that answer. It is a fair point to be made, but in fairness to the Minister, I do not want to end up with a frenzy. Hopefully, some information will be fed back to her—I am looking to the Parliamentary Private Secretaries behind her to see whether it can be fed in at the moment.
Gillian Keegan
Can I please just get some of these points out?
Of course, there are a phenomenal set of safeguards in place. The National Audit Office has reviewed the testing contract, and it has confirmed that all the proper contracting procedures were followed.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has just said that there would be a review of what information is available that is “within scope”. Will she just make it clear to the House what she understands to be within scope?
Gillian Keegan
I do not have a definition of what is within scope, but we will provide that information.
The NAO report said that
“the ministers had properly declared their interests, and we found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.”
The NAO has confirmed that all the proper contracting procedures were followed. As with all Government contracts, contracts with Randox are published online and can be found through Contracts Finder. I think that hon. Members will find that the date of the contract precedes any minutes or meetings that we have been talking about. In case any Opposition Members have forgotten, Ministers have no role in the evaluation of Government contracts, in the procurement process, in the value of contracts, in the scope of contracts or in the length of contracts. From start to finish, the procurement process is rightly carried out by commercial professionals, who are governed by a strict regulatory framework. I know this, because I was a procurement manager for much of my career before coming here.
Dawn Butler
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has been given a really hard gig today and I am actually beginning to feel sorry for her, because she has been given a script that is filled with inaccuracies, and the NAO report is filled with inaccuracies. It is really worrying that the Minister is continuing with an inaccurate script.
Mr Speaker
First of all, that is a point of debate, and the hon. Lady would not expect me to be brought into the debate. Ministers must answer points in their way, and it is for the Opposition to open up the statements that have been made. That is why we have Opposition days, in which I expect people to pose questions. I am sure that when the Minister sums up, she will fill in some of the voids. I am not responsible for what the Minister says; I certainly do not want to be and it would be wrong even to consider that I should be.
Gillian Keegan
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, we all know that everything I say will go on the record and hon. Members can challenge it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gillian Keegan
May I just make a little bit of progress, as I have been generous with my time? I am happy to be here and I am trying to answer hon. Members’ question as best I can.
I was a procurement professional for many years, and in preparing for today I have spoken to all the procurement professionals involved. We have to remember that they are highly trained, highly commercial, highly professional and highly regulated, and that they have an independent process that Ministers do not get involved with. I have only been a Minister for just under two years, but I can confirm that that is the procurement process.
Gillian Keegan
I do not need any help on the procurement process.
I can confirm that no exception was made for Randox. Of course, Ministers have a role in understanding what is happening with contracts. We have calls and meetings with our commercial partners to find out what challenges they are facing, to drive them to go as fast as they can and to hold them to the commitments that they have made. Such meetings are only natural, but they are nothing to do with the actual contracts; they are to do with delivery and holding our partners to account on their commitments, as is only natural. We have behaved exactly as hon. Members would expect from a responsible Government operating in a national crisis.
The Government do not intend to vote against this Humble Address. We will review what information we hold in scope and—in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) —we will define the scope. We will come back to Parliament and deposit the information in the Libraries, in line with the Government’s established stance on responses to Humble Addresses.
Angela Rayner
I welcome the Minister’s comments and hope that that transparency comes forward, but may I just remind her that part of the reason we tabled this motion was that the process was not followed, and there are questions about the process and how Ministers were able to fast-track through a VIP lane.
Gillian Keegan
The VIP lane process was part of ensuring that we were aware of companies’ capabilities. At that point, they then went through a procurement process with highly trained, professional procurement people, whom I have spoken to and who would be quite insulted by the right hon. Lady’s thinking that they had not followed all the procedures.
This does not mean that we do not believe that there are lessons to learn; of course there are. No one can face such an unprecedented challenge and conclude that everything worked perfectly, and that is not what we are saying. We remain committed to procurement reform and are looking at coming forward with some. Last December, we published our transforming public procurement Green Paper, which provided commercial terms across Government. We have clarified the roles and responsibilities of everyone involved in decision making, and are determined to do all that we can to ensure that we have a simple and less bureaucratic system that is underpinned by the enduring principles of fair and open competition.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this is a situation that happened across the United Kingdom? I am under the impression that the SNP Government in Scotland gave £500 million-worth of contracts without competition, so what happened in England and the UK was no different to what happened in other parts of the country; this is how everyone operates in a global pandemic.
Gillian Keegan
The most important thing in a global pandemic is to secure supply of something that is not widely available across the world—to get security of supply—and that is what we did. We all know that there was a time when we were worried about running out of PPE, about not having enough testing capacity and about not having the large scale of supplies needed to meet the demand. Of course, any responsible Government would do that.
As I was saying, we are looking at procurement systems and are determined to do all that we can to ensure that we have a system that is simple and less bureaucratic, but which is still underpinned by the enduring principles of fair and open competition. We are also implementing the recommendations of the first and second Boardman reviews into improving procurement.
Gillian Keegan
Let me just finish this point and then I will give way, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is listening carefully and wants to hear these words.
Hon. Members will be aware that we have established an independent public inquiry that will begin work in the spring, with full powers under the Inquiries Act 2005, including the ability to compel the production of all relevant materials. We expect that the inquiry will be a valuable opportunity for us all.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
May I just correct a couple of things that the Minister has said? First, Exercise Cygnus and Exercise Alice both identified shortages of PPE should there be a global pandemic, although it was never a question of if; it was always a question of when. Secondly, on the procurement disaster, the Minister should not forget that the Government were found to have acted unlawfully in the publication of their contracts in the action that I took with the Good Law Project and other hon. Members.
Gillian Keegan
I said that I would also give way to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western).
Matt Western
That is very kind. I have a lot of time for the Minister, as do other Opposition Members. Like her, I was a procurement professional. I would not have been allowing this sort of behaviour—the actions of Lord Bethell, in particular—in the organisation for which I used to work, and I am sure that she would not have done so. This is a systemic problem in Government. A Department that I was dealing with, totally unrelated to the pandemic—I will not say who the Minister was—insisted on a meeting without any other representation and then insisted on texting me the information. The Minister should be aware that there is a problem at the heart of Government.
Gillian Keegan
Yes, we are both fellow procurement professionals—from the same industry, indeed. Procurement professionals like us feel very strongly that they would not have behaved to anything but the highest standards. They are highly commercial, highly regulated and highly professional, and they are the people responsible for the contracts.
In closing, I thank colleagues for their contributions—
Gillian Keegan
For their last contributions, I should say—I thank the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Elmore
The Minister is being very generous with her time. She has listed with great vigour all the things the Government have done to try to be transparent and all the things they will do to try to be transparent, so will she confirm to the House which way the Government will be voting on our motion?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Gentleman may have missed it when I said that we were abstaining.
This is an important debate and I do take this issue very seriously. I am a professional of 30 years’ standing before coming here. My professional reputation is important to me, and I make sure that we uphold the highest standards of professionalism. Make no mistake: it is important to me to get this right. There are facts here, and I have set out the facts correctly. We do not want to play at political games and gimmicks: this is not the right time to do that. It may well play well with audiences on Members’ social media channels, but it is not the right approach.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister has made it clear that the Government are not going to oppose this motion, so we might reasonably expect it to pass. She said on a number of occasions that she will revert to the House with regard to the question of scope. The motion is very detailed on the question of scope, and we anticipate that it will become an instruction to the Government. Can she give an indication of what material her Department, or any Government Department, might hold that would not be disclosed under the terms of this motion?
Gillian Keegan
As I said very clearly, we will set out the scope and set out the documents.
In a spirit of openness and understanding, we need to see how we as a country can rise to meet the challenges of the future. We need to work with people who help to make the difference. This was a very important process. We have vaccinated and tested millions. We should be proud of that. We have built, from virtually nothing, the largest testing centre in Europe. We should be proud of that. Tens of thousands of people are alive today who otherwise may not have been. This Government have moved heaven and earth to get things done. While we continue to approach this serious subject with a willingness to learn, we must also do so with pride as to what has been delivered—pride that when we were needed, we stepped up for our nation when it needed it most.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
This debate may not be a particular pleasure for the Minister, but it is a pleasure to follow her and her valiant attempt at defending the indefensible. Her efforts might have been more credible if her colleagues had done more than abandon her to her fate. Even when the emergency Bat-Signal had gone out from the Whips Office, it seems that this paltry crew is all that could be assembled to support her. It very much looks to us as though that is an admission of guilt by Conservative Members. I was looking forward to hearing their stout defence of their Government, and I can only assume therefore that that stout defence does not actually exist.
I thank and congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on the way that she introduced this motion. I put on record our full support for it, because there has to be full transparency about exactly what went on between Owen Paterson when he was a member of this House, representatives of Randox, Lord Bethell, Government Ministers or former Government Ministers, and their special advisers and officials. That full transparency has to include all electronic communications, as well as notes and minutes of meetings between all or some of those parties in relation to the awarding of hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of contracts to Randox Laboratories.
Clive Efford
I tried to intervene on the Minister but she did not give way, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The issue about Lord Bethell is not just about his mobile phone. During the period between 1 April and 6 April 2020, he held several meetings with companies that went on to win millions of pounds-worth of covid contracts from the Government, and they were not even in his diary, let alone minuted.
Brendan O’Hara
I absolutely take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure the Government have heard it as well. There are many, many questions to be answered, including by Lord Bethell himself.
It is essential that this is done, because a stench of corruption is engulfing this Government, who now stand accused of making certain well-placed individuals fabulously wealthy during this pandemic, not because of their particular skill or acumen in business but primarily because of their political connections to the Conservative party. We should give thanks to Owen Paterson, because it was his behaviour and the bizarre attempt by the Prime Minister, the Tory Chief Whip and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—albeit at the expense of the reputation of this House and all of us who sit in it—that has finally blown the lid off this scandal once and for all.
It was almost exactly a year ago that the National Audit Office revealed that companies with the right political connections who wanted to supply the UK with personal protective equipment had been directed to a “high priority” channel, purely on the recommendation of a Government Minister, an MP, a Member of the House of Lords or a senior Government official.
Alexander Stafford
Out of 78 contracts awarded to Scottish firms for PPE, 29 were new contracts for £100 million-worth of PPE going to companies that did not have any experience before. Those 29 companies in Scotland with no background in PPE got contracts worth £100 million in Scotland, so what is the difference between that and what happened in the UK? At least Randox had the experience in these things. I am a bit confused—sorry.
Brendan O’Hara
The difference, quite simply, is that we never fast-tracked our pals, we never operated a get- rich-quick scheme for our pals, and we did not stuff unelected second Chambers full of people who bankrolled our party.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I represent the constituency where Randox’s headquarters is, and they are a major employer. There are not that many firms or pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom that would have had the capacity to deliver the amounts of tests that needed to be done at that time.
Brendan O’Hara
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but what has to be remembered is that nobody is above scrutiny, and if there is nothing to hide they should have nothing to fear. This is all about scrutiny and shining a light where I fear a lot of Conservative Members do not want a light to be shone.
Brendan O’Hara
No, I will move on.
Once in that “high priority” channel, these companies were 10 times more likely to be successful than companies that did not have links to politicians and senior Government officials, and who were therefore, by definition, “low priority”. In and of itself, the existence of this “high priority” channel is quite remarkable, but the fact that, according to the National Audit Office, the companies referred through this route were considered by the cross-Government PPE team to be somehow more credible and therefore to be treated with more urgency makes this particularly sinister. It turns out that there were no written rules as to how the “high priority” channel should operate, meaning that those companies who had given political support and had access to hundreds of millions of pounds of public funds were not subject to the usual rules of procurement. They could bypass the essential paperwork that would usually be a prerequisite for safeguarding against misuse of public funds and did not even have to go through the anti-corruption checks. It seems, as I said, that it was little more than a get-rich-quick scheme for the Conservatives and their pals.
Matt Western
Beyond being a get-rich-quick scheme, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there are longer-term implications about where the data from the testing being done by Randox goes? When I completed a Randox test the other day, I noticed that the system does not seem to fit with the NHS and there is seemingly no data sharing between the Randox tests and the NHS. Does he know more about that?
Brendan O’Hara
Unfortunately not; I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting it. I think it is something in the air in which we live, and it is a very important point.
What we are seeing now is crony capitalism at its worst. It stinks, and the closer we get to it, the more it reeks.
I have in the past called for a full and independent investigation into this scandal, and I repeat that call again this afternoon. I believe that the actions of the disgraced former Member for North Shropshire strengthen that case further. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, very serious questions need to be answered. If they are not answered, the reputation of this Government, who seem to be stumbling from one crisis and scandal to another, will be further damaged, but so too will the reputation of this place, the people in it and politics generally. I understand that the Government are desperate for this to go away, but it will not go away until these incredibly serious issues are addressed. I suspect that the Government know that, and they understand that despite this place being full of large carpets, there probably is not one large enough for them to sweep this under. It will not go away and it must be addressed.
We know that between November 2016 and July 2018, Owen Paterson lobbied officials on behalf of Randox, which paid him £100,000 a year to act as its adviser. We also know that in March 2020, Randox Laboratories was awarded a no-bid Government contract worth £133 million. Despite being fast-tracked and essentially handed this multi-million-pound contract, it appears that Randox was not equipped to perform the task it had been given a shedload of public money to do. As The Times reported last week, just days after being given the contract, the company informed officials that they would struggle to carry out enough covid-19 tests without Government help, resulting in the Government sending the Army in to help. In an internal memo seen by The Times, a Government official wrote that the company was
“nervous about having sufficient systems”,
and that the Army was
“on way to Glasgow to pick up”
two machines urgently needed for testing.
Brendan O'Hara
That is a very good idea. Perhaps the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) would like to make a speech. The memo seen by The Times also states that the company feared that it did not “have enough extraction systems” and “was hoping yourselves” —the Government—
“could help us access extraction systems from universities, hospitals anywhere…Any we can get our hands on.”
Crucially, The Times further reported that this memo was written by an official in the Department of Health and Social Care after a phone call on 9 April between Lord Bethell, the Conservative Minister responsible for awarding testing contracts at the time, and Owen Paterson, the Conservative MP who was being handsomely paid by Randox to lobby on its behalf. It appears that the company employing a Conservative MP, which was fast- tracked and awarded a no-bid contract worth £133 million, was actually ill-equipped to provide the vital service it had promised to deliver. This absolutely stinks, and unless and until every record of what was communicated between Mr Paterson, Lord Bethell, Randox, Government officials and special advisers is made public, the stench of corruption will only increase.
Gillian Keegan
I want to be very clear that the contract is published. The contract date is 30 March. The meeting that the hon. Member referred to was on 9 April. The contract was let and published before that meeting.
Brendan O'Hara
Therefore the Minister should have no fears whatever about full disclosure, because that is what the motion asks the Government to do. It is not about selective disclosure; it has to be full disclosure and everything that was said and done among the parties that we have mentioned has to be put in front of this House and open for scrutiny.
The sending in of the Army to help Randox was not the only error or controversy that year. In August 2020, the UK’s medicines regulator had to ask Randox to recall three quarters of a million unused coronavirus testing kits after concerns were raised about safety. By any standards, Randox had not exactly covered itself in glory in the first few months of the contract, so it raises the question as to how six months later it managed to secure another Government contract, this time worth £347 million. That took its total contracts to half a billion pounds in six months. It really has been a bit of a Klondike gold rush for the Northern Ireland-based company that employed a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to lobby the Government on its behalf. As I said in response to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), who is no longer in his place, everything could be above board and everyone could be beyond reproach, but we deserve to know.
Ironically, Mr Paterson was appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 2010 by the then Prime Minister David Cameron, who just months before becoming Prime Minister said:
“I believe that secret corporate lobbying…goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics. It arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works, with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest. It’s an issue that…has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.”
In the same speech, he said:
“If we win the election, we will take a lead on this issue by making sure that ex-ministers are not allowed to use their contacts and knowledge—gained while being paid by the public to serve the public—for their own private gain.”
He said:
“We can’t go on like this…it’s time we shone the light…on lobbying in our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence.”
As we would say in Glasgow, aye, right, so ye will. Today, David Cameron, that self-styled great reformer, thanks to the Greensill scandal is up to his neck in the same cronyism, corruption and sleaze that he promised to call out and eradicate when in opposition. If it was not so sad, it would be funny.
While many of us very much welcome that Mr Paterson is no longer a Member of this House, the mess he has left behind needs clearing up. Until it is cleared up, the widespread belief that politics in this country is corrupt and this Government are corrupt will not go away. That perception is not helped by the Prime Minister himself deciding to go to Glasgow and stand in front of a hall full of world leaders and feel the need to declare that the United Kingdom is not a corrupt country. Here is the Prime Minister’s chance to do something about it. He can make a start by allowing full transparency over exactly what went on between Owen Paterson when he was a Member of this House, Randox Laboratories, Lord Bethell, Government Ministers past and present and their special advisers. Should he refuse to do that, his performance in Glasgow last week will be seen as one of a Prime Minister who protests too much.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I was not planning to speak in this debate, but I have a few remarks I would like to make. As one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I take these kinds of accusations very seriously, and as someone who has served on the Public Accounts Committee, I have done my fair share of time looking at how Government procurement works. There are some very serious questions that need very serious and comprehensive answers, but we have to be pretty generous in spirit to the situation that the Government found themselves in back in March 2020. We had a pandemic of a new virus. We did not have anything like the testing capacity or the PPE in stock that we needed, and we had to try to find solutions to those things quickly. I just do not think it would have been feasible in that situation for every normal process to have been carried out for the Government to have delivered what people had every right to expect them to be trying to deliver. We should look at it generously and not expect to see every i dotted and every t crossed, as we would normally expect.
That is not to say we should expect there to be no process at all, and the Government should have been cognisant that if they were going through a rapid emergency process, there were very great risks that things could go wrong and money could be wasted, with the possibility of overpayments, buying from people who could not deliver, and not ending up with the right amount of stuff. That heightened the risk and should have created more sensitivity around process to ensure that such accusations could not be made retrospectively.
We should have seen the Government try to be as transparent as possible about what happened, what was bought, what was paid and about who introduced who and how. That is where the Government have gone wrong at the end of this process. I can accept that mistakes were bound to be made at the start. I can probably accept that we probably wasted money, paid too much, paid the wrong people and things went wrong. In the middle of this panic, if I knew someone who I could trust and who I thought could deliver, I may well have pushed them forward more than I would ever normally do. I can accept all that may have happened, but now—we are 18 months on from that point—let us publish everything we feasibly can, and let us be as clear as we possibly can about what happened and why.
I suspect that there is not actually much to see here. I suspect we will find things that are embarrassing and things that went wrong, but I do not think we will find much evidence of corruption. However, if there is any, let us get it out there, see it, deal with the people who did it, get the price of it and then let us move on from this. I do not see why we are trying to hide things now and resisting publication, so I will support this motion if there is a vote later. May I urge the Government, on all the other things and all the other requests, just to publish it and get it out there? I am sure there is nothing to see, and I am not sure how it helps to resist all this now. Let us just do it. When we see a scandal involving a former Member of this House and the same company, it is just not prudent to think that we can not publish everything involved in that. I hope—I sincerely hope—that there is nothing there to see, but let us just be clear about it.
I think my final advice to the Government would be that the only way we will move on from these issues and clear the stench, which I am sure is unfounded, is transparency. Just publish everything, even if it is embarrassing, even if we would not normally do it and even if there were commercial restrictions we would not normally have. I think those are all trumped in this situation because we could not have the normal procedures, but we have to have a different process now. Let us be open, let us publish it and let us move on from all of this.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), because I think he has tried to play this whole situation with a degree of integrity. The problem for us all is that it simply is not obvious whether that level of integrity has been followed all the way through.
Corruption does matter. The Prime Minister was very interesting at Question Time today when he used the defence of telling the House—and, through the House, the country—that we should not be talking about corruption because that lets our nation down vis-à-vis the rest of the world. The Prime Minister is absolutely wrong: when there is a whiff of corruption, it is vital that we talk about it and vital that we are seen to be working to uncover it. That is the problem we face.
I have no confidence, this House has no confidence, and nor even do Government Members. Government Back Benchers are not here in any numbers. [Interruption.] Many Conservative Back Benchers were not in for the opening speeches—the Opposition Benches were full—because many of them are concerned about this whiff of corruption. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) may want to ask me to give way, rather than chuntering away from a sedentary position. I am sure what he was saying was very interesting, but it was inaudible and therefore irrelevant.
Alexander Stafford
I am just surprised that the Opposition Benches are empty for an Opposition day debate when so many people claim that they want to discuss the issue. It is your debate. Perhaps you could explain where your Back Benchers are? I am intrigued because your side called it. Do they really care?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Now that the hon. Gentleman has properly intervened and addressed the House not from a sedentary position, I can officially hear him, and I will just make it clear that he should not say “you”. The substance of what he says is not a matter for me, but he should not say “you”.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We have had quite a lot of that today, including during Prime Minister’s questions. Just do not do it. Let us try to keep to the rules.
Tony Lloyd
Quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, had you not said that, I would have defended you, in that it is certainly not your debate, except in so far as it belongs to the House and, importantly, to the country, because that is what matters in this issue. It matters that the public have an opportunity to know what went on during this whole saga.
I want to talk briefly about the VIP fast-track situation. In November 2020, I approached Health Ministers about a constituent’s company, Jones & Brooks, which is a printing company that has printed extensively for the national health service. This was at the same time as the VIP fast-track structure was coming in. So good was the VIP fast-track structure for me as an Opposition Member of Parliament that it took me until, I think, July this year to get a proper response, and that was only when I insisted on meeting the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). To give him credit, once this was brought firmly to his attention—I had done it many times—I got an answer. It was the answer I did not want: my constituent’s company did not get any joy from that exchange. However, what a world of difference there is between companies that can talk to Ministers, be put on a VIP fast track and have the opportunity to be awarded contracts—with or without proper surveillance by those in charge—and those, as in the case of my company, that are given no such consideration.
The Minister for Care and Mental Health has to take that on board because procurement does matter. The opportunity for people to engage in the procurement process matters, because one of the many ways of tilting the weighing scales of life is simply not to allow people even to be in the bidding process. That does matter, and it is the difference between those on the VIP structure and those such as Jones & Brooks and my constituent Ronnie Blair, who were not even allowed to get to the starting blocks. It does matter, because that is actually low-level corruption.
Ronnie Blair, the managing director of Jones & Brooks, offered me no money, and I would not have taken any money anyway. Maybe that is where it goes wrong: if there is no money changing hands, maybe it does not oil the wheels of procurement. That is an outrageous thing for me to say, and it would be much worse were it true. However, it is true, because we know that Owen Paterson was paid, we know that Owen Paterson broke the lobbying rules and we know that Owen Paterson got access to Ministers, but we do not know what difference getting that access to Ministers made. That is the missing link in this whole sad jigsaw. There are so many things we do not know.
Yes, I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has now moved a long way on this issue. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister, who two weeks ago was trying to cover up this scandal and this saga of corruption, is now in favour of openness. That is good. The Minister told us earlier that the Government would not vote against the Opposition motion today, and again that is genuine process. However, you—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Government—are in the slow learner’s lane on this. The public want to see real alacrity, real commitment and belief that things are going to be sorted out, because we have to get to the bottom of this.
The issue of the noble Lord Bethell is now central. We know that Randox was awarded huge sums of public money—half a billion pounds of public money, which is an enormous amount of money. That may or may not be legitimate vis-à-vis the crisis we faced, but we do know that it failed, with 750,000 tests, to deliver a product that actually worked. That is enormously important, and it is enormously important to know why, after that experience, we saw another contract being awarded to the same company, which could not do the work.
That matters, and the public need reassurance that that was not as a result of the weighing scales of life being altered unfairly in Randox’s favour. In the end, we are not talking about something trivial; we are talking about public safety and, in the case of covid, public life and death. The wrong tests could give results that led to people dying, so again this is not a trivial matter that we can simply sweep under the carpet, as other hon. Members have said.
The position of noble Lord Bethell is fundamental on this. The Minister told me that she did not know whether his phone calls were minuted by departmental officials. If they were not, that is outrageous. Being in a crisis is no excuse. There was no crisis in the Minister’s office and there was no crisis meaning that a civil servant could not be on the phone call, and that is simply the way things ought to have been done. We need to know whether those calls were minuted. If any call was not minuted, there is a real problem, because we do not know what other calls the noble Lord Bethell engaged in. That matters because there may be some things we shall never know from a noble Lord who is so, shall we say, casual in his acquaintanceship with his telephone. [Laughter.] It really does matter, because while I am grateful to my hon. Friends for laughing, it would be funny if it were not so serious.
The questions that the noble Lord Bethell has to answer are those that the Government have to answer. It is good that the Minister is committed to ensuring that the scope is properly identified, and I welcome what she said. The motion before the House defines that scope, but the commitment that the Government will honour it is fundamental, and if it is not discharged, that would be outrageous. If it is not honoured that will probably not be the Minister’s decision, but I hope she will take back the message that her reputation is sullied if others refuse to allow this investigation process to be completed.
We have to know what took place. The only way we can give the public confidence in our public life, in politicians, and in public procurement, is if they have a guarantee that when things go right they really have gone right, and that when they go wrong, we will dig and dig until we see what went wrong. We must ensure that those responsible are no longer in that position, and that as far as we can prevent them, such things will never happen again. This situation matters. It is about public money—enormous amounts of public money—but in the end, it is about public wellbeing, life and death.
I suffered from covid. I was in hospital from covid. I saw doctors, nurses and hospital staff of all kinds coming forward when I had covid, and taking the risk that, without proper PPE at the time, I would give it to them. That was early in the whole process, and we may come to the conclusion that such risk was unavoidable. I am very grateful to those who treated me and saved my life, but I am concerned that nobody else should have lost their life because of a dodgy procurement contract. That is why this matters. We have to know.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
To echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), this matters. Blackburn was hit harder than most areas, so I took a keen interest in what the Government were doing to help ease the situation. In June 2020, I raised with the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care my concerns over Randox tests. Care homes were trying to apply the test, but the swabs were snapping and there was a danger that they could go down an old person’s throat. We found that residents were developing blisters in their mouths.
Similarly to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), at that time the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said to me, “Nothing to see here. It’s fine. There’s no problem with these tests, and we are satisfied with the health and safety standards.” Two weeks later we tried to get tests to replace the banned tests, but we were told that care homes could not have them because none would be available until September. That was disgraceful, and it had a huge impact on elderly and vulnerable people, as well as a huge financial and emotional impact on providers of care within our communities. In July, the Secretary of State admitted that those 750,000 tests had to be withdrawn.
We are talking about contracts and their allocation, and unlike other Members who have spoken, I am not an expert in procurement. However, this statement claims that there were serious shortcomings with the contracts. Documents show that ahead of the 9 April call—I understand that contracts were awarded on 18 May, not in March as the Minister suggested—civil servants in the Department of Health and Social Care were trying to compensate for shortfalls in Randox’s equipment. A clause in the contract said that the Government would
“help them source equipment if they are short or struggling to get it”.
Civil servants confirmed that Randox needed additional equipment for
“loans of the various things we need.”
That was escalated to No. 10, which was told it had to send letters to universities to assist with shortfalls in the equipment. The UK Government had to pay airlines to fly used test kits from England to Northern Ireland, so that Randox could analyse them in the laboratory.
Did that not set alarm bells ringing that there was something wrong with the tests? Why did we award the contract for £133 million? Why did the then Secretary of State for Health say, “Nothing to see here, move on”, only to admit that there was a fault two weeks later? That is bad. I recognise the urgency of getting test kits, and we could excuse some mistakes in the first three months, but to then award another contract six months later when there were still problems, is outright disgraceful. It was putting lives and businesses in Blackburn at risk.
The Minister spoke about the National Audit Office. According to its investigation of Government procurement during the covid-19 pandemic, there were failings to document how risks were considered and were to be managed. There was no competition and a failure to justify why particular suppliers were chosen, or how potential conflicts of interest were identified and managed. What does that say about the objectivity of those Ministers? What does it say about Ministers taking decisions fairly, on merit and openly? These decisions should be taken in an open and transparent manner, with accountability, and Ministers should submit themselves to the scrutiny of the House, not just to ensure that they are held accountable, but so that the people we in this House serve get the service they deserve.
Over the past 20 months, we have learned that these things cost lives. The Government need to move forward from this shameful episode and strengthen not just the standards that we have in this House and must abide by, but the standards of public service. Our constituents deserve better. Blackburn has been devastated by the pandemic, and failings over test and trace have cost financially, emotionally and lives. The Government must be held to account. They must accept their mistakes and publish the detail to learn from those mistakes. They must act to ensure that such mistakes are never allowed to happen again.
I feel exceptionally sorry for the Minister, who has been asked to come here and defend the indefensible. I have been battling with the Department for Health and Social Care since the start of the pandemic and I have never had adequate responses to letters. It has always been, “This is an emergency. We’ll get back to you.” I asked the Secretary of State about the £133 million and how much would be recouped from that failed contract, but I am yet to receive a response. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this, but Blackburn has a serious shortage of GPs and some of that £133 million —[Interruption.] If she would just pay attention, it would be good. If the Minister would commit to investigating completely—she can use Blackburn as an example of the failings—and to ensuring that she does everything possible to level up some of the unequalness that she has created across east Lancashire, I would be more than happy, but it is important that lessons are learned and actions taken.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in what I think has been one of the most remarkable debates I have seen since I became a Member of Parliament in 2001. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who has just removed himself from the Chamber, said that he suspects there is not much to see here. I suspect he is probably right about that. But when we hear the concession from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that no record was taken of the telephone conference call involving Lord Bethell and Owen Paterson, and when we hear the somewhat improbable history outlined by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) about the relationship between Lord Bethell and his various mobile phones, suspicious minds such as mine—and probably even worse—will ask why it would be that there is nothing much here to see.
Gillian Keegan
I just want to make clear what I said. We have been unable to locate a formal note of the meeting—that is what I have been told so far. That does not mean there isn’t one. We have been unable to locate one, but of course everything we have will be put in the Library.
Mr Carmichael
That is, indeed, an important distinction. I wonder whether the search for these minutes has extended as far as the shredding room. I say to the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who will wind up the debate, that it would be helpful if the House could be told how many other documents might be within the purview of the specification outlined in the motion. That is, how many are similarly difficult to locate?
I caution those on the Treasury Bench that saying that documents and text messages and WhatsApp messages on Ministers’ phones cannot be found only lasts so long as a defence. A full inquiry is coming and the longer that somewhat less than substantial defences are thrown up, and the more dust is kicked up, the worse it will be for Government Ministers at the end of the day. If the information is there, with the knowledge and control of any Government Department, it should be disclosed under the terms of the motion, which the House is going to agree to.
The Minister said a number of times, including when I challenged her, that the Government would define the scope. With respect to her, the Government will not define the scope; it is the House that will define the scope, which has been very clearly laid out in the motion. I do not see what justification or excuse there could be, given the fairly careful construction of the motion, for not disclosing information. More important than that, even if there is a tiny loophole it is a question of doing the right thing and being seen to honour not just the letter but the spirit of the motion, which the House will pass later. That is why, to quote David Cameron again, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We need to have the fullest possible disclosure.
Tony Lloyd
This is a convenient time for me to intervene because that is the point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, ministerial meetings are always minuted, but if documents are missing, what will the public believe if they find out that meetings have not been minuted? Even if it turns out in reality—in God’s time—that nothing bad happened, the public will, rightly, still believe that somebody is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Put simply, that is part of the distrust in politicians and in Government. We have to clear it up and ensure that we re-establish our reputation.
Mr Carmichael
One can only imagine what the public might believe in these circumstances. I fear that it may not be generous. Actually, you know what? It does not just reflect badly on the Government; it reflects badly on all of us in public life. That is why the way in which the Government have approached this whole matter since that dreadful vote two weeks ago has done so much damage to the standing of public life.
I know a bit about this issue because I spent the early years of my legal practice as a member of the civil service. I did my traineeship as a procurator fiscal depute at the Crown Office back in the dark days of the 1990s. We kept everything—we minuted everything—and when we had finished a meeting, we filed the minutes. Those pieces of paper sat in filing cabinets and archives for 30 years or however long it took, at which point they were taken out and put into the public domain. What that process of preparing files for publication taught me was that not everybody in the public service was always very careful in the way in which they filed pieces of paper. Anybody who has ever been in legal practice will know that occasionally papers for one client get mixed with papers for another.
As I say, that was back in the dark ages. I suspect that the notes prepared these days are not handwritten in fountain pens on little pieces of paper. There will be electronic records of them, and those electronic records are virtually impossible to destroy. That is why the question of documents being difficult to find stretches my credulity.
We all have respect for the Minister. When she started her speech, the only Government Members present were two Ministers, two Parliamentary Private Secretaries, a Whip and the hon. Member for Amber Valley. As I have said, I have never seen the House so poorly populated for a debate like this. Indeed, I have to say that I have never seen the civil service Box as thinly populated as it is today. That in itself is quite telling, because it comes back to the way in which the Government approach the issue. The most powerful people in any Parliament are Government Back Benchers, because they have the opportunity to defeat the Government. Anybody who has ever served in a Whips Office knows that. It is welcome that the Government will not contest the motion, but I am still worried about the lack of enthusiasm among Government Members for extracting maximum possible disclosure.
In her speech, the Minister outlined, quite properly and legitimately, the various significant achievements, including the vaccine roll-out. She reminded us of the situation in which we found ourselves in March 2020, when we did not really know what the future held. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, we would not have expected every i to be dotted and ever t to be crossed. However, at that point we all gave a significant amount of power to the Government. This House passed the Coronavirus Act 2020, which gives massive amounts of latitude to the Government, because we all felt it necessary to give them the powers to do what was needed in a situation where nobody knew what the future held. What I fear has not been properly understood is that, with those powers, we gave the Government a responsibility, but they and many of those around Government seem to have seen it not so much as a responsibility as an opportunity for enrichment. I say to the Minister and to all her colleagues that that attitude is at the heart of the problem and is, essentially, an abuse of the powers that we gave them when we passed that emergency legislation in March 2020. That is why the motion is so important.
Like every other Member in this House, I frequently sit down with businesses in my constituency and will help them, if possible, to get rid of penalties. That includes people charged for a late VAT return and farmers penalised in a draconian manner for making a minor and unintentional error in their claim for an agricultural support payment. Sometimes we are able to help them; sometimes we have to just shrug our shoulders after we have tried and say, “I’m really sorry, I tried but these are the rules.” Those constituents will only ever listen to me deliver that message again if they can be satisfied that the rules that so adversely affect them also apply to everybody else. The real damage that the Government seek to do in the way they have handled these matters is that they will never again be able to tell other people that they should not be held to the same standard.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I do not intend to detain the House for long. Many of the main issues of focus have been discussed. Looking at the state that this Government have got themselves into, we could be forgiven for thinking that we are somewhere towards a descent into a kakistocracy, because this is a Government of the least able—the very worst that a society has to offer. If those in power abusing that power for private and personal gain does not represent the worst of society, I do not know what does.
Let us remind ourselves of the content of the misconduct, because we have seen parts of it before: lobbying for the awarding of contracts through an exclusive VIP channel without competition or transparency, a channel where one in 10 offers were successful compared with just 0.7% through the normal channels. It is the same process that locked tens of thousands of experienced suppliers out of the procurement process for lifesaving equipment, in favour of the likes of jewellery companies, vermin control companies and the then Health Secretary’s pub landlord.
I have lost count of how many times we have been here before. What we are discussing today is one part of a bigger trend, a culture that does not see any value in transparency and openness. In a debate where many had hoped for greater transparency, I think we have actually seen a bit more muddying of the waters from those on the Government Benches. It is worth saying—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the plug, even though the time for it has passed—but if the Government had actually supported my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill last year, we could have been in a much more open place today. Instead, the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to reveal what companies have benefited from this kind of corruption—that is what it is, at the bottom—from the £20.3 million going to Tim Horlick of Ayanda Capital to the £45.7 million going to Banks Bourne of Tanner Pharma. Fat cats benefit from corruption and it is transparency that stamps it out.
Alexander Stafford
If the hon. Gentleman is using that definition of corruption, does it apply to the £500 million-worth of contracts given out by the SNP Government in Scotland to companies without any competition? I am confused. On the one hand, the SNP Government in Scotland are giving out half a billion pounds-worth of contracts without any competition, but on the other hand the UK Government are doing something similar and that is corrupt. Either they are both corrupt or neither are corrupt—I am a bit confused.
Owen Thompson
I am eternally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He tried to make exactly the same point before and I think that this was pointed out to him. The key difference—the Minister herself said this—is that in a global pandemic steps need to be taken and everybody recognised that steps needed to be taken that are not necessarily in line with the normal process, but the UK Government employed a VIP lane open to Government Ministers and members of the Government party that was not open to anybody else. Contracts were handed out through personal contacts, WhatsApp exchanges and paid lobbyists for companies. That is the key fundamental difference here and I am so grateful that the hon. Gentleman gave me a chance to again highlight that point. [Interruption.] If he wants to try again, I am more than happy. [Interruption.] Okay.
It is very easy to get wrapped up in the day-to-day melodrama of this saga, but it is important to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. The real scandal is not that a couple of bad eggs broke the rules; it is that the system either consistently enables rule-breaking or completely lacks rules against this kind of behaviour. For instance, take the fact that the Government were completely within their constitutional rights to retro- spectively change the rules to let Owen Paterson off the hook. In what other system would that be acceptable? The system of government here works to enable corruption, not to constrain it, precisely because it gives the Government a blank check to make up the rules as they go along. The absence of a written constitution to constrain Governments means that this can keep happening over and over again, as it did in the ‘90s and ‘00s. If they do not like the rules that are currently there, they can just rip them up and put in new ones.
So the problem here is not bad eggs, it is the system. It is the fact that no UK Government can ever be accountable to anything but themselves. Parliamentary supremacy means that any Government can override past decisions. They can rewrite the rules to their own liking. It is no wonder that Brexiteers obsessed over it in 2016, because it is what has given them the green light to conduct themselves in the ways we are discussing today. The only thing that can ever constrain a Government is political pressure, which thankfully in this situation has worked, but that is an awfie shoogly peg to base your system of government on.
For that reason, this is not the first time that corruption has reared its ugly head in this place. Sadly, I doubt it will be the last time either. The very way that this Parliament is set up lends itself to allowing this to happen. If we do not change it, nothing will change it. I am under no illusion that this scandal will lead to some dramatic new system of government rising from the ashes like a phoenix—I cannot see it—but that is on the table in Scotland. Independence means we could have a written constitution that can guarantee in law that Governments are held accountable and transparency is guaranteed.
Openness and transparency benefits all of us in this place. It is in all of our interests to make sure that that is at the top of the agenda. Our constituents demand that and it should be our duty to make sure that they get that. Public servants should be here to represent their communities, not to line their pockets. Sadly, the lining of pockets has far too often recently been what has been on the table.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I think we all agree that the Minister today has been given a hard gig, coming to the Chamber today. I hope she will not allow the Government’s approach to ruin her good reputation.
I want to pick up on some of the points the Minister mentioned in her contribution to the House today. She spoke about the National Audit Office. Let me be clear about what it actually said. It said that not all the paperwork it needed was present to enable it to follow the trail of contracts that had been issued. That means that the NAO did not have the information it needed to give a full and correct report.
Let me give the House an example of some of the companies given contracts. They say “awarded”, but really, if there is no other competition, they are just given it. Topham Guerin is one such company. The company worked for the Tory party during the 2019 general election. An independent body found that 88% of its adverts between 1 December and 4 December contained misleading information. One might think that that would preclude it from being given a contract, right? If a company had been found to have produced information that was 88% misleading, we might think it would not be seen anywhere near Government. But no. Instead, it was “awarded” a £3 million contract and attended meetings at No. 10. When I asked the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), about it in the Science and Technology Committee, he could not tell me what on earth it did. It got that money and was then awarded another contract on top of that.
The NAO also said in its report that a company was put into the VIP lane by mistake. A company was put into this magical VIP lane by mistake. One would have thought that that mistake would have been found, but no. That company—a company that was put into the VIP lane by mistake—went on to get a £350 million contract. That is why we need transparency. At the end of the day, people outside this place are asking questions about what is going on inside it. They do not understand it, I do not understand it, and there are people in the Government who are trying to hide what is happening.
There are civil servants who have been at their wits’ end. They have whistleblown. The NAO report cites civil servants who raised concerns all the way through the procurement process, asking why we were paying over the odds for PPE. Even at the higher rate, we were paying over the odds for it.
Questions were raised about Samir Jassal, who is a friend of the Home Secretary. He was acting as a middleman, writing emails to the then Health Secretary saying, “Hey Matt, you’ve been most helpful previously”—very, very familiar. He went on to get some money for a company, which went from being valued at £200 to £10 million.
There are serious questions to be answered. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said earlier, we either have to clean up or cover up. I hope that this is the beginning of a process to clean up.
I agree with those people who say that we have to learn the lessons. In the beginning of the pandemic—in January last year—a lot was being thrown at us, but by September 2020, we knew better. On 17 September 2020, in the Science and Technology Committee, I asked why we gave a £133 million testing contract, unopposed, to Randox when it disposed of more than 12,000 used swabs in a single day and voided more than 35,000 used test kits in a few months. Not only did the company do that, but it had the cheek to charge us for it. It threw away some of the tests—it did not do those tests—and then it charged us for that, so we were still paying for all its mistakes. How is that good business—this is basic—and how is that good procurement? How is that a good contract? It just is not. It is wrong and, frankly, it is corrupt. Baroness Harding said that she could not “confirm or deny” what happened. Again, that speaks volumes.
Randox employed the former MP, Owen Paterson, on over £500 an hour. When I asked Baroness Harding what he did, she said:
“I am afraid you would have to ask Owen Paterson rather than me.”
He was not going to tell me, and she was not going to tell me, but I sure know that the Government should be able to tell me, because at the end of the day, as we said earlier—he was a former Minister in Government—every single meeting should have been logged. There should be minutes of those meetings and they should be made public.
We are way down the road now. This Government were obsessed with centralisation, as opposed to decentralisation. We knew very early on that a local approach was better and was producing results in the 24 hours that we needed them in to help us to stem the pandemic, yet the Government were still obsessed with a centralised approach because they could hide behind the cloak of the pandemic. They could make sure that their mates got money and that the companies were given contracts that they were not suitable for. A company in my constituency, Medical Diagnosis Ltd, was not even given a look-in to provide any of the services. Local GPs and local pharmacies all wanted to be involved but they could not be because the Government were obsessed with a centralised system where they could hide behind the cloak of the pandemic. The time for hiding has come to an end.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a vital moment for everyone who cares about democracy, transparency, stemming the waste and abuse of public money and improving the way that our country responds to future crises. I find it extraordinary that, on a matter of such national significance, there was not a single Conservative Member on the list to speak during this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) damningly stated, this was the worst such situation that he had seen since he came into Parliament in 1979, when I was at the very tender age of just one year old.
Let us recall the reasons why we are here today. Randox paid Owen Paterson over £8,000 a month to lobby on its behalf. Mr Paterson then sat in on a call between Randox and Lord Bethell, the Health Minister responsible for handing out Government contracts, and Randox landed Government contracts worth more than half a billion pounds without any kind of proper tender process. There was no competition, just deals done behind closed doors, with discussions between a Government Minister, a Conservative MP and the company paying him handsomely to hawk its wares around the corridors of power. That tells us everything we need to know about how this Conservative Government go about their business.
But the situation with Randox is even more disturbing because of what happened next, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) set out very ably. After pocketing £133 million of public money to carry out covid testing, Randox failed to deliver, so in the middle of an unprecedented national crisis, we witnessed an unedifying spectacle: the Health Secretary sending the begging bowl around our universities asking to borrow equipment, just so Randox could deliver what it promised.
I echo what so many Opposition Members have said: the Minister has a very positive reputation on this side of the House, but my word, she has been given a hospital pass today. I regret that the hole in which she was placed has become larger, rather than smaller, during this debate.
Dawn Butler
There was a point about Randox that I neglected to mention. Is it not true that it failed to meet every single target that it was set, and yet, it was still awarded another contract six months later? That is unbelievable.
Anneliese Dodds
Many thanks to my hon. Friend; she is absolutely right that we have seen failure upon failure upon failure to meet the targets that were set, as she knows very well from her experience in this place and her focus on health matters. I find it extraordinary that the process of the Health Secretary having to call on others so that Randox could deliver what it had promised was described as an example of the “triple helix”. I remember those days very well. I remember academics begging the Government to come to them because they said that they could deliver the testing that our country needed. Were they listened to? We all know what happened: they were not listened to—they were ignored when our country needed that testing. This was an example not of collaboration, but of outsourcing that failed spectacularly on the Conservatives’ watch.
Tony Lloyd
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One of the real questions relates to the fact that the Minister told us that those involved in procurement were not constrained whatever by Government and Ministers’ actions. I know not whether that is absolutely accurate or not—we have to find out—but, in any case, did not the procurement process fail at precisely the point at which there was no examination of Randox’s capacity to deliver what it said it would? That is not clever procurement.
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the concrete impact of these failures and that procurement system. I will come to those matters, which he detailed very ably in the important speech he made a few minutes ago.
Again, the Minister maintained that all details of contracts are published. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) set out, the Conservative Government were taken to court and found to have acted unlawfully because of their determination not to provide transparency over contracts. There is, again, a rewriting of history. What else did we see at that time? We saw the Conservative Government paying airlines to fly kits out to Randox’s laboratory in Northern Ireland for them to be analysed. We saw the Health Secretary warning people not to use Randox testing kits because they were “not up to standard”. In the end, Randox had to recall 750,000 tests because they were not good enough, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) rightly explained. It threw away more than 12,000 swabs in a single day because they had to be voided.
The Minister said that we should “pause and reflect” on what happened. Many of us have been pausing and reflecting, and we have been remembering what happened. Let us cast our minds back to the beginning of the pandemic. We remember when our country faced that nationwide testing shortage as the devastation of covid ripped through our communities. We remember when people were scared, when they were sick, when they were dying. We remember when, in Plymouth, people were told that their nearest testing centre was in Inverness. We remember when, in Bolton, at the epicentre of the pandemic, people could not access any testing at all. We remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) set out devastatingly, when care homes could not access the testing that they needed for elderly and vulnerable people. We remember the impact that that had.
The stakes could not have been higher. Lives depended on the Government securing the best possible testing contract. Almost 40,000 people died in care homes in the year after Owen Paterson’s phone call with Lord Bethell and Randox—care homes that took in people from hospital who had not been tested at all, and care homes whose own staff and residents could not access the tests that they needed until nearly two months after the national lockdown began, by which point it was too late. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) said, we have to know whether this contracting played a role in those awful, awful outcomes.
How did the Government respond to their abject failures to deliver? Did they learn the lessons when new contracts came up, such as a contract for testing twice as lucrative as the previous one? Of course not. They doubled down—and Randox doubled up with a brand-new deal. Again, there was no competition; again, it was behind closed doors. Another £350 million of public money was dropped in the lap of a firm that just so happened to have a Conservative MP and former Secretary of State on its payroll.
The Minister has attempted to dispute that course of events. I say to her: prove it. Publish every dot and comma related to those deals: every email, every message, every letter between Ministers, special advisers and MPs. Explain why Lord Bethell’s WhatsApp messages have been lost as part of the sorry saga that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne detailed, which is the 21st-century equivalent of “the dog ate my homework.” Come on! It is ridiculous.
Will the Minister please explain what on earth is going on with the minutes of the phone call with Lord Bethell and Paterson? We seem to have had mixed messages during the debate. At one point, it seemed that it was being suggested that there were no minutes—they never existed. That, in and of itself, raises extremely important questions. Were there no minutes of a meeting relating to two contracts worth £500 million of taxpayers’ money? It was then suggested, “Oh, it’s not that we necessarily know that there were no minutes, or that they were destroyed. No, we are unable to locate those minutes.” Well, when will they be located? They need to be located.
If the Department of Health and Social Care has been unable to locate the minutes, why has it been stating that it is not able to respond in a timely manner to freedom of information requests about the matter, without stating that that was because it believes that the minutes might not exist, that it has been unable to locate them, or whatever? Instead, it has just said that it is trying to respond to those FOIs. My goodness, what a mess.
Will the Minister explain how many other meetings might not have been minuted? How many other meetings might have minutes, but nobody knows where? When will we see them? Will she explain why the Government are so resistant to letting sunlight be the disinfectant that it needs to be in this process? As the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said: just publish them.
We are talking today about one specific contract, but we all know that the problem does not begin and end with Randox. This is a Government who rolled out the red carpet for many more companies with close links to senior Conservatives. Just yesterday we learned that, of the 47 firms that won contracts via the so-called VIP lane that so many Opposition Members have referred to, four were helped by a former Conservative chair, four by the former Health Secretary and one by Dominic Cummings. I regret the fact that the Minister has stated that
“Ministers have no role…in the procurement process”.
That was not the case with the VIP lane, was it? We know that now, in black and white. The Minister has the opportunity to intervene if Ministers played no role in that VIP lane. She cannot intervene, because she knows that Ministers, including her Health Secretary, were recommending those companies.
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Lady for the opportunity to intervene. I think the difference is that the VIP lane is about the identification of potential sources of supply. The procurement process starts after that; that is when procurement professionals, who are highly regulated, take over.
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister is obviously doing her very best, but yet again, I am afraid that this is not an edifying spectacle. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the recommendation led to companies receiving enormously expensive contracts. It is risible to suggest anything less. It is also risible to suggest that in those cases the Government followed their own emergency procurement guidance:
“Contracting authorities should maintain documentation on how they have considered and managed potential conflicts of interest in the procurement process…Particular attention should be taken to ensure…decisions are being made on the basis of relevant considerations and”—
wait for it—
“not personal recommendations.”
There was nothing inevitable about this. I know how things ran in Labour-run Wales, and they did not run like this.
We have seen that companies with links to the Conservative party were 10 times more likely to secure a contract than others. Public money was doled out based not on a company’s abilities but on its contacts book. When it comes to spending taxpayers’ money on testing and PPE equipment that can save lives, one would hope that the Government would take things more seriously, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) said, the switch into an emergency process provides no justification for the ransacking of public money we have seen. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, an emergency situation was not a reason for having no process at all. In practice, there should have been more sensitivity around the process, not less.
Because of the Government’s approach, British businesses that did not have Tory MPs on speed dial missed out.
Karl Turner
I know that the Minister has not managed to answer the question that I posed earlier, but Arco, in the city of Hull, had existed for 135 years, had provided top-quality products to the NHS since its very inception, and could not get on the VIP lane. Why was it blocked?
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Earlier in the debate, he detailed that sorry tale in devastating manner, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). Arco had existed for 135 years, providing essential material. It was completely ignored, yet Ayanda Capital, for example—an investment firm with no PPE experience —ended up being used by the Government to purchase 50 million masks that were not even usable.
There were other companies that missed out. Multibrands International, based in Bradford, had been providing PPE to the Chinese Government since the end of 2019. It spent months trying to offer those services to the UK Government, but got absolutely nowhere. What did the Government do instead? They bought 400,000 protective gowns from Turkey that were unusable.
That is the way it always seems to be with the Conservative party: one rule for the Conservatives and their friends, another rule for everyone else—and it is the British people who pay the price. This Conservative Government are doing their best to suggest that every politician was engaged in graft. They are trying to drag everyone else down to their level and feed a growing disillusionment with our politics that damages us all. But Labour Members know that that is not true; I suspect that a fair few Conservative Members know it, too.
The people of Britain know when they are being taken for fools. When a party found guilty of breaking the rules tries to remake them to protect one of its own, there is a word for that: corruption. That is what this Prime Minister has brought into the heart of our politics, and the British people will not tolerate it. That is why the Prime Minister panicked last week and U-turned: because he knew that he had been rumbled.
We all have to play by the same rules, whatever the Prime Minister thinks. Labour has been clear that if we were in power, things would change. We would ban dodgy second jobs like those of the former Member for North Shropshire—and I mean a proper ban, not the watered-down cop-out that the Prime Minister is trying to lay down this afternoon. We would close the revolving door and ban Ministers from lobbying for at least five years after they leave office. We would stop Conservative plans to allow foreign money to flow into our politics, and ban the use of shell companies to hide the source of donations. We would create a new office for value for money and reform procurement rules to put an end to the industrial-scale wasting of public money, and we would create a new, genuinely independent integrity and ethics commission to restore the standards in public life that have been trashed by this Government.
This scandal has presented a clear choice about the kind of politics we want for our country. Do we want Boris Johnson’s politics of the gutter, or Keir Starmer’s politics of decency and integrity? Conservative Members have a choice today as well. They can abstain, under orders from the Prime Minister, their Chief Whip and the Leader of the House; or they can decide to make a stand. They can decide that they want to have a vote on this because they want to take a better path. Let us be very clear about the message that abstention is going to send. We have heard weasel words during this debate, and it seems clear that the scope of what the Government are proposing today, in terms of what they are willing to release, is far less than what Labour’s motion requires.
I see the Minister shaking her head. I sincerely hope that she has got that correct, because, having listened to what she said and compared it with what is written in the Labour motion, I think that there is far less that this Government are prepared to reveal.
Gillian Keegan
I said that we would advise on the scope, and, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) pointed out, it could be discussed. I have not yet commented on the scope because I do not yet have the details.
Anneliese Dodds
I hoped that the Minister might say at this stage, “Yes, absolutely—we will follow what Labour has called for. We will make sure that those documents are published; we will make sure that the minutes of meetings are set out.” Instead, she seems to have muddied the waters. I do not mean to be unfair to her, but that is what her response has done for me.
Gillian Keegan
I do not want to appear to muddy the waters by not saying what the scope is. What we have said is that we will publish the documents and place them in the House Library. I am sure that the scope will be as broad as would be expected, to satisfy the hon. Lady.
Anneliese Dodds
Of course, the way to guarantee that the scope will have the breadth that is required would be to have the binding vote in the House of Commons for which Labour is calling right now.
As the Minister knows, we have been here before, with promises being made about what the Government will be transparent about and what, in practice, they are willing to deliver, which far too often is far, far less. We have the chance now to move beyond that cover-up, and instead have the clean-up to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred. We have the chance to make amends. The Government have the chance. They can also immediately accept all outstanding freedom of information requests in relation to all PPE and testing contracts, and they can publish all documents and correspondence relating to the £3.5 billion-worth of contracts that have gone to Tory donors and Tory-linked companies.
Let us make that choice now: let us clear this up once and for all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I am pleased to be able to close this debate on behalf of the Government. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Care and Mental Health said earlier, the Government are not intending to vote against the Humble Address. We will review what information we hold in scope, come back to Parliament and deposit it in the Library of the House, which is in line with the Government’s established stance on responding to Humble Addresses.
I am, however, grateful for the opportunity that we have had to address the important issues raised today: questions of how, as a country, we can rise and meet the challenges that we face, how we can ensure we have a system that is not only fast but fair, and how we can learn lessons from this most challenging period in our history. One of the most important lessons I take from it is that when we work together, we can do incredible things. We can build a testing capacity almost from scratch, we can reach millions of people in a single day, and we can save lives on a massive scale. Imagine what would have happened had we not worked with so many incredible partners to deliver these efforts—because no one can do it on their own, especially in such unprecedented circumstances, so it is the duty of a responsible Government to work with anyone who can deliver. The NHS has been phenomenal, our hospitals have been phenomenal and local government has have been phenomenal, but so have those in the private sector. We could not have come this far without them.
When we look at the situation today, it is easy to forget just how far we have come.
Back in March 2020, we could process just a few thousands of tests in a day; now we can process millions. That we have achieved this is no accident. In respect of developments from testing kits to processing, logistics to lateral flow devices, those partnerships between the NHS, industry, academia, local government and so many others have made the difference—and contracts with companies such as Randox have been some of the essential building blocks without which we would never have built what is now one of the largest testing networks in the world.
Randox laboratories have carried out over 15 million tests for covid-19. More than 730,000 positive cases have been identified under Randox contracts, which meant that those people could self-isolate, protect others, and help to bring the pandemic under control. An independent assessment gave a positive assessment of Randox’s performance. It exceeded their contract targets, hitting 120,000 tests in a single day in March 2021.
Karl Turner
Would the Minister like to comment on the fact that 750,000 testing kits that were put into care homes were no good at all? What has she to say about that?
Maggie Throup
In a statement on 18 July 2020, the Secretary of State informed the House that a batch of swab test kits were not up to the usual high standard. As a precautionary measure, they were withdrawn, and replacement kits were supplied as soon as possible.
Tony Lloyd
The Minister is making a case for the partnership among our universities, our health service and the private sector. She has spent some time praising Randox, whose coffers were stuffed with money. Does she think it would be a good idea to stuff our university research facilities and our NHS testing labs with the same amount of money?
Maggie Throup
I visited Nottingham University recently to see the amazing work being done there. Obviously, continued support for our universities is imperative. I know that they do amazing work, as do our hospital laboratories.
We should celebrate these achievements, not criticise them. I want to reassure the House that there have always been strong safeguards behind these contracts, and that they are awarded in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. We monitor all contracts and suppliers closely, as would be expected. We judge them against key performance indicators, and we publish contract award notices for all the contracts awarded to provide test and trace services, consistent with the regulatory requirements.
Dawn Butler
It seems as though the Minister may have missed the whole debate and just come in at the end, because she has failed to take up some of the conversations that we have had during the debate. Can she confirm that the public did not pay for the test kits that Randox threw away?
Maggie Throup
Obviously those details were in the contracts, but I am sure that they conformed with the key performance indicators.
All the contract award notices can be seen on Contracts Finder. We have nothing to hide, Madam Deputy Speaker —nothing at all. The House, and the public, can see what taxpayers’ money has been spent on. We have applied exactly the same criteria, standards and processes in the case of Randox as we have in all other cases. Randox has never been an exception, and we utterly reject the idea that it has received any kind of special treatment. Our partnership with Randox is simply a reflection of the situation in which we found ourselves in March 2020, facing a global pandemic of unknown and unprecedented proportions and acting as a responsible Government should. We worked against genuine fears that we would run out of vital testing equipment, that we would not have the capacity to test people and that the deadly virus might continue to spread from person to person, silent and undetected.
We engaged with Randox and many others. Not only was Randox a UK-based business, but its early laboratory-based PCR testing capacity for covid-19 was capacity that we have been able to use for the whole of the UK. We have fought this pandemic as one United Kingdom. Working with Randox was the right thing to do, it was the responsible thing to do and, quite simply, it was a decision that has saved many thousands of lives.
I will address one issue brought up by a couple of Opposition Members, and reassure them that Arco was awarded contracts for PPE. I thank Arco for its contribution in providing life-saving PPE that we needed at that time.
Karl Turner
The reality is that Arco went directly to various NHS branches to offer its services to supply. It was blocked from any formal route. It was not on the VIP list. That is the reality.
Maggie Throup
I reiterate that Arco was awarded contracts for PPE.
Of course, that does not mean there are no lessons to be learned, and I can reassure the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) that the public inquiry will be an important learning moment for us all. We are already making changes: we published our procurement Green Paper last December, we updated our commercial guidance on the management of actual and perceived conflicts of interest in May, and we are implementing the recommendations from the first and second Boardman reviews into improving procurement.
The real lessons, however, are just what we can achieve when we all get behind a shared mission, to protect the British people and to protect the NHS. That is a mission-driven way of working that has seen us work beyond the traditional boundaries and achieve remarkable results. We have tested millions of people for covid-19 and kept millions more safe. I am very proud of that, and so too, I believe, are the British people.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House the minutes from or any notes of the meeting of 9 April 2020 between Lord Bethell, Owen Paterson and Randox representatives, and all correspondence, including submissions and electronic communications, addressed or copied to, or written by or on behalf of, any or all of the following:
(a) a Minister or former Minister of the Crown,
(b) a Special Adviser of such a Minister or former Minister, or
(c) a Member or former Member of this House
relating to the Government contracts for services provided by medical laboratories, awarded to Randox Laboratories Ltd. by the Department for Health and Social Care, reference tender_237869/856165 and CF-0053400D0O000000rwimUAA1, valued at £133,000,000 and £334,300,000-£346,500,000 respectively.
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 Acts:
Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021.
Strengthening Standards in Public Life
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House:
(1) endorses the 2018 recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that Members should be banned from any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant;
(2) instructs the Committee on Standards to draw up proposals to implement this and to report by 31 January 2022; and
(3) orders that on the expiry of fifteen sitting days from the date on which the Committee makes its report to the House, if no debate has been held on a substantive motion relating to recommendations in that report, the Speaker shall give precedence to a substantive motion on the recommendations in that report tabled thereafter by any Member.
At the risk of repeating myself—unfortunately, it seems I must—standards in public life are fundamental to our democracy. I have reminded the Leader of the House several times over the past few weeks what those standards are, and I will do so again, just to make sure that he and his colleagues have taken them in. They are, of course, the Nolan principles of public life, and there are seven of them: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. We should all aspire to them and cherish them, as I said yesterday.
I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider those principles when they make their decision on which Division Lobby to walk through later this afternoon, because those values must underpin all that we do in this House and on behalf of our constituents outside this House. It is our constituents and the country that we serve, not private interests. We are not paid MPs for hire.
Over the past two weeks, I am afraid to say—it gives me no pleasure—that we have seen some of the very worst of some on the Government Benches. That has included refusing to deal with one of their own MPs found guilty of sexual harassment and then trying to change the rules on standards to protect one of their mates who had broken the rules. That leaves the reputation of Parliament and our precious democracy in danger of disrepute. The Prime Minister had to publicly decree last week that the UK is not a “corrupt country”.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
On that point about the UK’s being a corrupt country and standards in public life, in 2006 we knew that peerages for £1 million were finding Labour party people going to the House of Lords. The coincidence is that now Tories with £3 million get into the House of Lords. Lord Oakeshott of the Liberals said in 2014 that he bemoaned the fact that he had not ended the practice when he left. Does the hon. Lady think that all party leaders of those parties that are putting people into the House of Lords should cap the donation level at £50,000, as suggested in the amendment I tabled, so that there can be no more sniff or smell of corruption in the UK with cash for peerages continuing?
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I must say the difference between this party and the Government party is that we are trying to do something about this. We have the proposals to do something about it. When we were in Government, as I will come on to in my remarks, we did a great deal to try to reform the House of Lords, and we made a lot of progress. On corruption and sleaze, we in the Opposition are the ones trying to change the system for the better.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
While we are talking about corruption and sleaze, and Ministers and standards, does my hon. Friend, like me, find it rather strange that the Prime Minister is in charge of the ministerial code and gets to decide whether somebody has broken it?
Thangam Debbonaire
Yes; I am glad that my hon. Friend brought that up, because the Opposition have a problem with that. We have a problem with the fact that it is up to the Prime Minister to decide whether or not the ministerial code is investigated. That is a problem. As I said yesterday, the Government rejected the report put forward by the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards—a report that followed a very thorough investigation, undertaken entirely properly, with due consideration for the circumstances of the former Member for North Shropshire. That was wrong.
The Government then tried to overthrow the entire standards system, ripping up a 30-year consensus on how we enforce standards in this place, just to prevent sanctions on an “egregious case”—not my words, but those of the entire Committee on Standards—of paid lobbying. That was wrong. Cabinet Ministers then suggested that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should resign. That was wrong. They tried to set up a sham committee with a named chair, notably on the Government side, and a majority of members from the Government side, to rig the standards procedure. That was wrong.
Okay, the Government are now belatedly trying to right those wrongs. The commissioner finally got an apology from the Business Secretary on Monday for his shameful comments.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this latest inconsistency, along with the eastern leg of HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail, no rise in national insurance, no border down the Irish sea, oven-ready deals and the 0.7% commitment to overseas aid, shows that the Government must be wearing out their clutch and gearstick with the amount of U-turns they make—making us all dizzy?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Let us make it straight from the beginning. This is quite a wide motion, but it is on a particular subject. This is not a free-for-all for general criticism on any matter. An awful lot of Members want to speak today, and I will insist that everybody speaks to the motion, that we do not have long interventions and that interventions must be to the point.
Thangam Debbonaire
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for her intervention, because one thing we have learned over the past few weeks is the danger of making Members march up to the top of the hill and then leaving them there. When the Government make a screeching U-turn the next day, they leave their own troops feeling a little undefended.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The hon. Lady speaks of changing position. She stood on a manifesto to ban second jobs altogether. Does she still stand by that? If so, how does she account for the Leader of the Opposition earning £100,000 from a second job in recent years?
Thangam Debbonaire
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman seems to have read the 2019 Labour manifesto. If he read it carefully, he would know that is not exactly what it said. It had a clear set of principles, and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition announced yesterday is that there should be an underlying principle of second jobs not being allowed but that there could be some exceptions. I do not think anyone in this place thinks it is wrong that doctors should serve to keep up their licence and help the NHS. Does anyone think it is wrong that Army reservists should continue to be Army reservists? No, of course they do not.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition proposed strong changes so that MPs do not have a second job without very good reason. At the moment, I do not see the Government coming up with anything strong. All they have done is try to gut our motion, which would put in train the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, made three years ago—the Government could have enacted it any time—that no MP should take money for being a political strategist, an assistant or some sort of corporate adviser. That should not happen. If Conservative Members want to make sure those jobs go, they should vote with us to get rid of them. It is our motion that does that.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Is the hon. Lady aware of the origins of the word “Tory”? It comes from the old Irish word “tóraí”, meaning outlaw or robber. Does she agree that the parcel of rogues now occupying high office in this place are really living up to their name?
Thangam Debbonaire
We learn something new every day. I was not aware of that, but I am on record as having been steadfast in my consistent criticism of what the Government have done over the past two weeks and in previous weeks and months. It is unfortunate that the Government, who should be lawmakers or at least law observers, are led by someone who has already been found by the courts of this land to have broken the law when he illegally prorogued Parliament. That is a bad example for a lawmaker to set, and it is problematic. It rather illustrates what my hon. Friend mentioned.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I did not vote for the motion two weeks ago, and I quite agree that lawmakers should not be law breakers. Seven Labour Members of Parliament have had jail sentences in the past 10 years, and one of them is appealing her sentence. Labour Members are not the best people to speak on this.
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to draw a contrast. When Labour Members do bad things, we make sure they go. None of them is here. That happens even when, as in the case of a recent by-election, we lose the seat as a result. The contrast is that when Labour Members are found guilty of doing bad things, we make sure they are got rid of. The Conservative party not so much.
The mess of an amended motion that was so disgracefully backed by the Government two weeks ago was finally removed yesterday after a great deal of Chamber farce, goodness me. It feels to me as though the Government’s actions are too little, too late.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has said that the reason the Government tried to tear up the rulebook was that their and his judgment was clouded by the situation of a friend. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason we have standards in public life is so that our judgment is not clouded by sympathy and that, more importantly, our judgment should always be influenced by the situation of our constituents, not the situation of our mates?
Thangam Debbonaire
The point about those standards is that they were set not by me or by the Leader of the House but by Lord Nolan three or four decades ago in response to a previous Tory sleaze scandal. The reason we have those standards is to make sure that we can be held to them. The reason we have a standards process is to make sure we are properly held to account. And the reason we were asked to vote on the standards motion two weeks ago was to sanction a Member who had been properly investigated and found to have committed egregious acts of paid lobbying. If Conservative Members had just voted for the standards motion, rather than trying to mangle it, we probably would not be here today.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady will be aware that, earlier this month, a conference held by the Communication Workers Union passed a resolution stating that funding from the union would
“go to specific Labour candidates and campaigns that support CWU industrial and political aims and to support the selection and election of such candidates.”
They may not be direct payments, but it would be naive —[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Shouting at the hon. Gentleman is simply impolite. And laughing at me for saying so is worse. We will have better behaviour, on both sides of the House, please. I call Thangam Debbonaire.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Oh, I am sorry, I thought the hon. Gentleman had finished. He ought to finish very quickly, because I said we need short interventions.
Shailesh Vara
There may not be direct payment here, but this is obvious, and it would be naive to assume that these would not be wholesale purchases of candidates speaking up for the trade union. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a form of—[Interruption.] That should not be allowed.
Thangam Debbonaire
For goodness’ sake. The hon. Gentleman said it himself: there is no direct payment to Members there. I am absolutely sure that the Conservative party accepts donations to its campaign costs. The trade union movement is the founding father of the Labour party and it does not buy influence. What it does is support our campaigning, and this is properly investigated and reported.
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Gentleman is going to make another speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will give way.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is not going to make another speech. He is going to make a very short intervention.
Shailesh Vara
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was making is very simple: these people owe their seats in Parliament to the funding of the trade unions and therefore they would be lobbying for the union in every way. This is irrespective of whether they are paid directly or indirectly, with an indirect payment to their associations.
Thangam Debbonaire
I do hope that there are no Conservative Members who have taken donations from anybody at any time, because these are donations to political parties—to political campaigns. They do not go to individuals, as the hon. Gentleman very well knows. He did rather promise that he was not going to make a speech, but it was good of him to explain to me, in case my little lady brain had not got it the first time.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On donations to political parties, does she agree that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party’s utilising Scottish limited partnerships fundamentally exposes those on the Government Benches for what they are utilising to undermine democracy itself.
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely helpful point and I hope he will be expanding on it further later.
With the reputation of Parliament at risk of being ripped apart thanks to the actions of this Government, particularly in the past two weeks, they must start to restore trust in our democracy. There is a way they can do that: they can back this Opposition motion.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I have a simple question: why will the Labour party not categorically state that it will not be sending high-value donors to the House of Lords, for a five-year period or whatever?
Thangam Debbonaire
What we are doing today is starting the process of making Parliament accountable and making sure that there are good rules. We are making sure that when Members of Parliament are for sale they are not allowed to be for sale. I invite all Members, in all parts of the House, be they Scottish National party Members or Tories, to vote for this motion. I invite them all to vote for a very clear motion, which does what the Prime Minister said yesterday that he wanted to do. If Conservative Members want to vote for what the Prime Minister said he wanted to do, they need to vote for our motion today, as does every other Member.
My right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the Labour party also said yesterday that we need to strengthen our system radically. He proposed various things, which are not in scope of today’s debate, so I will not go into them, but I think that what the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Sorry, I should have said “Leader of the Opposition”; it is an easy mistake to make, because I would like him to be Prime Minister. What the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday was indicate clearly and strongly to everyone, from all parties, that we need stronger standards, not weaker ones. Today we have the first step and the first step only. I expect that the Prime Minister will be joining us in the Lobby today—the Aye Lobby—on our motion, because it seems to be coterminous with what he said. But the Prime Minister’s letter to Mr Speaker, which he tweeted out yesterday, was a bit of a surprise, given that the Committee on Standards in Public Life report came out three years ago. That is where these recommendations came from. In three years, we have had no response from the Government, until yesterday, when it looked as though the Prime Minister was in a bit of difficulty and needed something to get out of it with. Two weeks ago, all we had was the Government seeming to urge the standards commissioner to resign and ripping up the entire system.
I said yesterday that I do not expect that the Leader of the House listens to my every word, but perhaps I was wrong and those on the Government Benches have been paying close attention to what I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and future Prime Minister have been saying. Perhaps they have been convinced by my argument—our argument—that our standards system is crucial and needs to be protected, enhanced, strengthened and never weakened. Just yesterday, five former Cabinet Secretaries—all the living former Cabinet Secretaries—wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to strengthen standards. He could show that he has listened to them by backing our motion; if I look at the amendment he has tabled, that does not seem to me to be the case. His amendment certainly would not strengthen the system and already seems to be a rowing back on what he said just about 24 hours ago. One minute it seems that the Prime Minister has been backed into a corner and is ready to accept our motion; the next minute he comes forward with a toothless amendment.
If Government Members vote down our motion in favour of the Prime Minister’s wrecking amendment, let us be clear what they will be voting for. I want them all to pay attention, because I think some of them wish they had paid more attention two weeks ago. Our motion, and only our motion, will guarantee that this House and these Members will get to vote on the Standards Committee’s recommendations to strengthen our code of conduct. It is our motion, and only our motion, that will fulfil the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Prime Minister’s amendment does nothing but water down our motion. It is yet another example of the Government trying to sweep sleaze under the rug without dealing with it.
We all know that to be elected to this House as a Member of Parliament is a privilege, and one that the vast majority of Members treat with the seriousness and respect it deserves. The passing of our motion will dispel an unfortunate perception that MPs can be hired out, which is of course not the case with almost every MP in this House, apart from the ones the Government are trying to protect—their private business interests come before the interests of their constituents. That is not what we want the public to think because it should never, ever be true. Our motion will ensure that the public know that no MP’s power, influence or position is for sale—
Thangam Debbonaire
There are all these interventions from a sedentary position about the trade union movement; I have yet to see the Electoral Commission tell us that we should not be taking, and declaring quite properly, donations from the trade union movement that do not come anywhere near our individual accounts. Such donations are to fund political campaigns and are properly declared.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Trade unions use their political funds, which are regulated under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, voted on by millions of working people up and down this country and properly registered when they are donated to a political party. If the Conservative party is anti-worker, let it say that clearly.
Thangam Debbonaire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it much better than I could have. Trade unions are not-for-profit organisations to help to support workers’ rights. There is a world of difference there and they are quite properly declared. As far as I can see, there is no suggestion in the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that that should be changed. We are talking about the difference between private companies trying to buy access to the Government and trade unions that stand up for and campaign on workers’ rights making properly declared donations quite rightly within the electoral rules.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition has earned more than £110,000 since he became an MP; does the hon. Lady condone that—yes or no?
Thangam Debbonaire
Oh goodness me! My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in contrast with the Prime Minister, is actually trying to strengthen the rules, not weaken them. In strengthening them, he is showing no fear, no favour and no concern for whether that has an impact on MPs on the Opposition Benches or on the Government Benches. He is trying to propose something that strengthens the rules across the board. I think that is important and really matters. The Leader of the Opposition has also quite properly declared everything. We should note that in all parties there are lawyers, doctors and members of the armed forces who serve as reservists, whose professional qualifications we may wish them to keep up. Since he became the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend has not taken on any private practice, and I believe he has relinquished his licence. That shows admirable dedication, in contrast with the Prime Minister: all he has done is try to rip up the rulebook.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the flow of my hon. Friend’s excellent speech. Does she share my dismay over where we have got to today? We are still debating this issue and, rather than raising and elevating this House, the interventions from Government Members appear to wish to drag us all into the gutter.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is a very sad day, because, rather than taking this on the chin, admitting they made a mistake, which they seemed to be doing last week, and moving on constructively, the Government just want to give the very false impression that all MPs are for sale. That is simply not true and they know it.
Paid advocacy has been against the rules since 1695, so it is not a new rule, but, throughout the centuries, especially in the past three decades, the standards system has been strengthened—until the last fortnight. That consensus has been systematically shredded by this Government—whether it is the Prime Minister not enforcing the ministerial code on his Cabinet or the Leader of the House seeking to undermine the standards procedure—and this has to stop. It is not good enough. The public—our constituents—rightly expect and deserve better than this.
The previous Labour Government legislated to clean up politics after the Tory sleaze of the 1990s. I give as examples: the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; the ministerial code; freedom of information; public registers of donations and national election spending; and the Electoral Commission, which this Government also seem to want to undermine. Those all came about because of the Labour Government, whereas in 2018, when the independent and external Committee on Standards in Public Life, set up to deal with the previous Tory scandal, recommended that the MPs’ code of conduct should be updated, the Tory Government ignored it. The report said:
“MPs should not accept any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant, for example, advising on parliamentary affairs or on how to influence Parliament and its members. MPs should never accept any payment or offers of employment to act as political or parliamentary consultants or advisers.”
It could not be clearer, and that is what our motion today sets out to achieve. I hope that the Government will be supporting this, because, as I have said and I will say it again, no MP should be for hire. This is not about outside interests per se, because the vast majority of Members work tirelessly to represent their constituents and are not seeking to privately profit from that work. Outside interests are often a way for MPs to connect with the world outside of this place—a point that has been made by many MPs and others.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point. It should not take a report of the Committee on Standards to state the blindingly obvious to Members of this House. If they are a full-time Member of Parliament, they do not have the time outside of their constituency affairs, outside of their parliamentary duties in this House, to do other paid work. Is not that just clearly obvious to all except a few Members who are on the take?
Thangam Debbonaire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that up, because, of course, that is one thing that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, stated clearly in his speech yesterday. He said that the default setting should be that there are no second jobs. He did say that, in certain professional circumstances, there may need to be exceptions, but that should be up to the independent body to determine, not us. The way that the Government have behaved over the events of the past few weeks, including the case of Owen Paterson, former MP for North Shropshire, have shown us that the rules are obviously not strong enough. It seems to be too easy for the Government to try to rip them up when they fancy. They have sought to weaken and undermine the rules around standards, whereas our intention with our motion is simple: we want to strengthen standards and we want to restore the public’s trust in Parliament and this is the necessary next step.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The hon. Lady made interesting points about MPs, but does she agree that those same standards should be applied to all parliamentarians, including those in the House of Lords? Three shadow Ministers in the Lords actually work for lobbying companies.
Thangam Debbonaire
For goodness’ sake—I am surprised that the hon. Member does not know more about the House of Lords. Unlike in this House, Lords receive not a salary, but a daily allowance, which is not the same. They work on an entirely different basis and they do not have constituents. I do not see any proposals from the Government on reforming the House of Lords in this way, so it seems hollow for the hon. Member to say that he wants such changes.
The Government created this mess. If they do not support our motion today, it will be yet more warm words but no action; they are very good at that. They created this mess by trying to undermine the standards process in the first place. We would not be here if they had not done so two weeks ago. They must back our motion today and not the Prime Minister’s amendment, because that is nothing but warm platitudes with no concrete action to strengthen our standards system. It has been open to the Government to strengthen the system for the past three years, since the publication of the report on MPs’ outside interests. It was down to the Government to respond to that report, but they have not—until they have been absolutely pushed, kicking and screaming, to back one or two little bits because it suits them to get out of a hole.
The choice has never been clearer and the solution is here: our motion. If the Government do not back our motion this afternoon and choose to support the Prime Minister’s watered-down amendment, they are sending the message that they are content with the perception that their Cabinet Ministers and MPs put self-interest and private business interests above the interests of their constituents. They are sending that message not because I have said so, but because the Committee on Standards in Public Life said so, three years ago.
The message that the Government will be sending if they do not vote for our motion is that nothing needs to change, that they are happy with the headlines of the last few weeks of sleaze and corruption, and that this sort of behaviour is acceptable. They really will be sending the message that it is one rule for them and another for everyone else, and that if Government Members get caught out, the rules need not apply—they will just be changed to protect them—and the consequences do not matter. None of us should be prepared to accept that.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I know that she will agree that one of the messages that the Government are sending is to the victims of sexual misconduct found to have been undertaken by any Member of Parliament. The Leader of the House claimed at the time that he agreed with that rule being changed, but that it could not be changed retrospectively. It is therefore a failure of him and of the Government that they will change the rules when a Member has been accused of corruption, but not retrospectively when a Member has been found guilty of sexual misconduct.
Thangam Debbonaire
It pains me to have to remind the Leader of the House that Government Members seem to think that it is all right to try to change the rules to get someone off the hook, but not to change the rules to ensure that someone is properly sanctioned; I still call on the Government to deal with that situation.
We do not need to accept this situation. We can take the first step to changing it, and our motion today would do so. The public deserve more than where we are at the moment. They deserve a Government who will act in their best interests and in the national interest. I believe that that is a Labour Government. The public have shown that they want reform and reform is what the Labour party will do. We must never be complacent. We must protect and strengthen standards. We must have a democracy that the British public are proud of, and that people trust and believe in.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
If a Labour Government would be so keen on reforming the system, why did the last Labour Government do nothing to reform lobbying during their 13 years in power, and why did Labour vote against the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014?
Thangam Debbonaire
I can go back to the list of things that Labour did: the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; the ministerial code; freedom of information; public registers of donations and national election spending; the Electoral Commission. The clear difference here is that a Labour Government did not rip up the rulebook when one of their own was found wanting. This Government did. They did it two weeks ago and they tried to keep going. Only now that they are finding that the public do not like it are they being dragged here, kicking and screaming. But, unfortunately, from the reaction of Government Members, it looks to me like they have no intention of voting for our motion tonight. If they have no intention of doing so, let them come clean in their speeches as to why.
Thangam Debbonaire
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I am coming to the end of my speech.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are lacking humility, given the fact that their Government tried to rip up the rulebook to save their mates when it was convenient for them?
Thangam Debbonaire
I do agree. It would also be an awful lot more seemly if the Government were prepared to follow through on their actions.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that he wanted to ban these paid consultancy roles. So vote for our motion: it is there on the Order Paper; it does exactly what the Prime Minister said. Do Conservative Members actually want to do what their Prime Minister says he wants? Perhaps they do not; perhaps that is what is going on. Perhaps they do not back their Prime Minister—but if they do, they could follow through on what he said only yesterday, 24 hours ago, and vote for the Labour motion.
Alexander Stafford
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech and this is an important point that needs to be addressed. Could she explain, though, why she does not agree with the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister and how her proposals are better? What is the difference?
Thangam Debbonaire
I wonder whether the hon. Member has actually read the proposal by the Prime Minister. The proposal in the amendment—the only thing that is on offer to vote for today from the Prime Minister—weakens, waters down, takes away the deadline and takes away the vote, and the Leader of the House knows this.
Conservative Members need to accept that the time has now come. Today is the day. They need to stand up and be counted. If they want to follow through on what their Prime Minister said yesterday, they need to vote for the Labour motion today. Will they? We will see.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Leader of the House to move the amendment, colleagues will be aware that there are a number of people who wish to contribute to the debate, so it is likely that we will start with a time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add: “acknowledges recent concern over the outside interests of Members of Parliament; believes the rules which apply to MPs must be up to date, effective and appropriately rigorous; recalls the 2018 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life into this matter; believes that recommendations 1 and 10 in that report form the basis of a viable approach which could command the confidence of parliamentarians and the public; believes that these recommendations should be taken forward; and supports cross-party work, including that being done by the House’s Committee on Standards, to bring forward recommendations to update the Code of Conduct for MPs by 31 January 2022.”
It is an honour to speak in this Opposition day debate today, and an honour indeed to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who has been giving us an object lesson as to why people in glasshouses are best advised not to throw stones. It is always a privilege for any hon. or right hon. Member to speak in this House, at any time, on any day. We come here fully aware of the fundamental principle that lies at the heart of our parliamentary democracy: first and foremost, we work on behalf of our constituents. As Edmund Burke said in his address to the electors of Bristol in 1774, familiar territory to the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] No, I was not actually there, unfortunately: it would have a great pleasure to listen to Edmund Burke, such a distinguished figure in our history. He said that
“parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.”
Our primary duty is to the electorate. It is their interests we are here to represent, and to them, also, that we must answer at the ballot box. But if being a champion of our constituents is critical to an MP’s role, it is also our innate duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Rees-Mogg
In Parliament we scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account, both in debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and through our work on a range of Committees. Speaking of Committees, I give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), a distinguished Committee Chairman.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am sorry myself that I missed that quote in Bristol in 1770-whatever it was. This is a good and well-intentioned debate on strengthening standards in public life, but Labour studiously avoids dealing with cash for honours. We should remember that the Prime Minister was interviewed under police caution on this matter back in 2006. I have tried with Labour and I will now try with the Conservatives: will the Tories rule out the practice of cash for honours—a very corrupt practice where high-value cash donors find themselves up in the House of Lords, buying their place in a Parliament in what is meant to be a western democracy, for goodness’ sake?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this, because he knows a great deal about Maundy Gregory and the scandal that came about with Lloyd George, and indeed corresponded with my late father on this subject when cash for honours came up. Cash for honours is illegal and has been for the best part of 100 years. It is rightly illegal and is wholly improper. The hon. Gentleman has been right in his campaigns to ensure that that never tarnishes our way of life.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Let me carry on at this stage.
The Government hold their position solely by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons, and it is primarily from the elected Chamber that Ministers are appointed. Given the spectrum of responsibilities, the Government believe it an historic strength of our system that MPs should have a wider focus than the Westminster bubble and that we should maintain connections to the world beyond, so that we may draw on the insights and expertise that this experience offers so that, rather than a Chamber replete with professional politicians with no previous career or future career other than to remain on the public payroll, we have a Parliament that benefits from MPs with a broader range of talents and professional backgrounds.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I agree with the Leader of the House about Members having a wide range of backgrounds. I also agree with Burke that our first duty should be to serve our constituents, but hon. Members are picking up from their second job tens, scores or hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, and one cannot serve two paymasters. Has the time not come to, at the very least, agree to this modest motion today and ban at least certain categories of jobs to avoid the allegation that people are serving two paymasters?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think it important that there should be some humble crofters in this House who can bring their experience and their wisdom, and not only humble crofters, but people who have experience of the City of London—sometimes, they happen to be one and the same person. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that brings distinction to the House, particularly on Wednesday afternoons.
This sort of experience, gained both prior to a Member’s election and once they have taken up their parliamentary seat, is beneficial. The profusion of perspectives, be they corporate, trade union or charitable, brings a welcome variety to this place, and enhances the quality of challenge we hear in debate and throughout the business of the House.
Dr Huq
The Leader of the House talks about the good and the humble. Would he agree with the sentiment that bad people will always find a way around rules? The point of rules is to draw them as tightly as possible so that that does not happen. Five living Cabinet Secretaries said so in The Times yesterday. If he does agree, what were the Government thinking of the other week? Does he realise how it looks?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not hold the Labour party responsible for the fact that six people, and one currently appealing, have been sentenced to jail terms or suspended jail terms as socialist Members. I do not hold that against the socialists because I understand that even well-intentioned parties with a high moral standard and an enormous amount of self-righteousness will occasionally have rotten apples within them.
We have seen in recent weeks growing and sincerely held concerns across the House about the outside interests of Members of Parliament, particularly where potential conflicts of interests may arise. Here, the Government are clear that the reputation of Parliament must come first—more than that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says, it is imperative that on a cross-party consensus we put beyond doubt the reputation of the House of Commons by having rules for MPs that are up-to-date, effective and appropriately rigorous so as to continue to command the confidence of the public, whom we are here to serve. That is why the Prime Minister has written to Mr Speaker to set out the Government’s advocacy of reforms to update the code of conduct that sets out the standards of behaviour for MPs as we carry out our work.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Leader of the House is absolutely right, this debate and this motion are about the integrity of not just this House and this place, but our political system as a whole. So should the Prime Minister have corrected the record in January when he incorrectly said that PPE contracts had been published when the High Court ruled that they had not?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government’s behaviour with PPE was the subject of the previous debate and was essential to ensure that, in very short order, a very large quantity was provided. What was done to provide the vaccine and sufficient quantities of PPE was absolutely right.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Leader of the House mentioned cross-party working. On the theme of the previous intervention, the leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price, introduced a Bill when he was in this place 14 years ago that would have made the wilful misleading of this House by a politician an offence. Should we bring that Bill forward again?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Lady raises an interesting constitutional question, because misleading this House would arguably be a breach of the privileges of this House, and to take that to a court would be a breach of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Although I think that misleading this House is a serious offence, it is an offence punishable within and by this House through our privileges processes, and it would be wrong to take the proceedings of this House to a court, which would take away one of our most fundamental constitutional protections of freedom of speech in this House. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will forgive me that constitutional dilation in response to the right hon. Lady’s important point.
In a moment or two I will come to the details of the Prime Minister’s letter and how they relate to the motion before us, but I want first to address the substance of the issues that I know, from my recent conversations with hon. and right hon. Members, have been of particular concern. I have already emphasised the supremacy of an MP’s parliamentary and constituency work, but we also recognise that there are certain external roles that seem particularly at odds with the job of an MP—namely, those that would capitalise on an insider’s knowledge of Parliament and Government. I can confirm to the House that we believe the experience and expertise we accrue as part of our work as MPs should not be for sale. We are elected to Parliament on a promise to work for the greater good not of ourselves, but of our constituents and our country.
Turning to the specifics of the motion, we can see from the Prime Minister’s letter to the Speaker that the Government are proposing to go beyond the terms set out for today’s debate. The Prime Minister made clear the Government’s view that the MPs’ code of conduct should be updated as a matter of urgency to reflect two key recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its 2018 report on MPs’ outside interests. We wish to endorse, first, the key recommendation of the Committee in relation to MPs’ outside interests. It is self-evident that being an MP is the greatest responsibility and, indeed, honour. Therefore, any undertaking of paid employment must remain within reasonable limits, and it should not prevent MPs from fully performing their range of duties whether in their constituency or in this place.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Of course, everybody agrees with that, but how does one determine realistically what is taking too much of one’s time on an outside interest? It should be common sense and it should be left to the judgment of the electorate. What worries me is that, if it is left to the commissioner for standards, however distinguished, that will give that official a degree of power never enjoyed by any official ever before over Members of Parliament. We are accountable not to officials, but to our electorate.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are responsible and accountable to our voters. This is why the Chairman of the Standards Committee will be leading his distinguished Committee in looking into this and I hope will make recommendations to the House.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way, and this is very naughty of me because I have only just walked in from the Liaison Committee; I am breaking all the standards of the House. The only point I want to make is that I think it would be very difficult for the commissioner to start investigating whether an MP was devoting enough of their time to their constituents. Of course, all our constituents want us to throw ourselves heart and soul into our work, and I think we all do. Many of us work many more hours than a normal working week—60, 70, 80 hours. But I am just very hesitant about going down this route of timesheets or something. She already gets thousands of requests every year saying that an MP has not replied to an email, he or she has voted the wrong way, or whatever. I just urge him, and I will urge my Committee very strongly, to think very carefully about this.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I thank the hon. Gentleman, the parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar for their good temper and sense in this debate and for trying to bring a genuinely cross-party approach?
As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out, these issues are complex. They are not open to easy solutions; they need deliberation. How people lead their lives depends very much on them as individuals, and trying to work out how an MP fulfils his or her duties is not something that can easily be put down in a time and motion study. That is why we are hoping that his Committee will be able to consider it and then bring forward recommendations that, with support on a cross-party basis, may prove acceptable to the House as a whole.
If I may continue, we endorse the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation that MPs should be banned from accepting any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. It is, of course, the case that amending the code of conduct for MPs is a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Government—indeed, strictly speaking it is a matter for this House, the Commons, because of our exclusive cognisance of our own affairs. However, Her Majesty’s Government believe that those two recommendations form the basis of a viable approach that could command the confidence of both parliamentarians and the public, and would therefore like to see them adopted.
Coming to the final part of my remarks—this is the point at which normally, somebody says, “Hear, hear”—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] Thank you. I know that some hon. Members like nothing more in debate than to start delving down the procedural rabbit holes of the merits or otherwise of Standing Orders and the like. I am not immune to that temptation myself, but I do not think it would be useful in this instance. It is an established convention—this is one problem with the Opposition motion—that the Government are able to transact their business in the House of Commons, and the House itself has long recognised that principle in Standing Order No. 14, which provides that Government business takes precedence.
To give this motion from the Standards Committee immediate precedence would be both impractical and unnecessary. Her Majesty’s Government support the amendment to
“bring forward recommendations to update the code of conduct for MPs by 31 January 2022”,
which sets a clear timeframe for progress on the issues discussed today. The Government therefore support a more practical amendment that acknowledges the concerns we have all been hearing in recent days, and positively proposes that the proportionate measures devised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life should be taken forward on a cross-party basis. That would include the work being done by this House’s Committee on Standards, in accordance with the timeframe suggested by Opposition Members. We have listened, and we have very much taken into account what they have proposed. It is important to note that on this matter, as on the other issues before us today relating to the code of conduct, the Government recognise that any changes are a matter for the House, and are looking ahead to the next steps being taken in a way that seeks consensus and respects the views of all sides of the House.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is great to follow the Leader of the House. I do not often get the opportunity to follow him in a debate in the House, so it is good to see him in his place and in such fine fettle and a reasonably good mood, after the difficult and torrid time he had at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It is good to see him back here today, taking up his responsibilities as Leader of the House, and coming here and fronting the important debate we are holding today.
Today is an auspicious day. Today we mark the two-week anniversary of this new age of Tory sleaze, and the not-so-glorious era of Tory chaos on standards and behaviour—a period in our political history that will now never be forgotten. Like all great historical epochs, it has its heroes and villains in the people who have defined it. Most notably among them is, of course, the Leader of the House himself. Then we have the Government Chief Whip, and it was all masterminded, organised and administered by the chief of staff of this organisation, the Prime Minister himself. This is the troika of standards misery; the holy trinity of standing up for your pal when the going gets tough.
Then there are the winners. We know who the winners are, as there are quite a lot of them. They have made an absolute fortune out of those second jobs. Good on them—they are the winners. Then there are the losers and the victims, and I am trying to think generally about who those people might be. The victims, I think, are those who believe in propriety, and those who want our politics to be beyond reproach. Surprisingly, among the victims in all this I look to the Tory Back Benchers, who have been dragged up that hill by the dysfunctional Grand Old Duke of York, only to be marched all the way down again. Then, when they thought they had got to the bottom, they were dragged further into the ground by their Prime Minister. They have every right to be upset with their hard Brexiteer colleagues who are running this Government, and I am sure they never signed up to be part of a House that is so singularly loathed by the people they represent. Day after day, the headlines keep coming. Yesterday’s were quite amusing. They all involved the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who seems to have been levelling up on his obligations to his good friend and leadership donor, David Meller, who he put in the VIP lane for £160 million of PPE contracts.
Today our attention and focus has turned to the concept of second jobs, and in their traditional, good-natured way the Government seem to want to make an absolute and utter hash of it. I think we have a good idea of what the public want when it comes to MPs’ second jobs. They want to be absolutely satisfied that no Member of Parliament is profiteering from their position as an MP. They want to know that their MP is dedicated exclusively to them, working full time in their interests and that they are their only concern. They most definitely do not want to see Members of Parliament earning the eye-watering, obscene figures that some have earned doing second jobs. They actually believe that we are handsomely paid. Most members of the public probably think that we are paid far too much for what we do. I am sure that if we were to ask them, they would be all in favour of reducing our salaries. They certainly do not believe that we need a second job to supplement the more than generous salaries that we receive for doing our important work.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a powerful point about second salaries. It was announced today that we have record inflation, at a time when we already have a cost of living crisis and rising energy bills, so does he agree that the fact that we are arguing over the fine print of whether or not MPs can earn more money does us no credit whatsoever, and that cross-party consensus would be best served by backing the Opposition motion?
Pete Wishart
The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear me say that I wholeheartedly agree with her. We have a cost of living crisis and it was announced today that inflation is going through the roof, yet we are here debating our income and going over whether we think it is right and appropriate for MPs to earn even more than the very generous salaries that we already get for looking after constituents.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
People will know that, as a breast cancer surgeon, I have practised in the past while trying to maintain my licence. I remember being pilloried on the front of the Daily Mail for helping out over Christmas when my colleague had a heart attack. I have no issue with second jobs being regulated, whether by time, money or whatever way the House chooses, but is this not being used as a smokescreen? The issue that was raised at the beginning of this month was not about a second job. It was about corruption, selling influence, selling contracts and selling peerages—and second jobs is being used as a cover for that.
Pete Wishart
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who gets right to the heart of the matter. This is nothing but a smokescreen from the Government, who have thrown this out here to try to excuse their appalling behaviour over the past couple of weeks. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. She is right. She is a distinguished breast cancer surgeon and the way in which she was traduced, with the assistance of the Conservative party, for doing her job, helping out and doing that work for nothing was absolutely and utterly appalling. They should be ashamed of themselves for what they did.
Stephen Flynn
On the topic of corruption, the Leader of the House mentioned Edmund Burke earlier. We might want to reflect on another quote by Edmund Burke:
“The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.”
Pete Wishart
I will leave that with my hon. Friend: it is a fantastic quote and I am glad that he has presented it to the House.
Today we are debating a Labour motion and a Government amendment. We have no problem with supporting the Labour motion. We will vote in favour of it, if we get the opportunity to do so. We are happy to leave it to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We applaud it for the work that it has already put in, and the House looks forward to receiving the decision as soon as possible and to backing it in its important work.
Then we come to the Government amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) is absolutely right: this is nothing but a fig leaf, a cover up, to try to divert attention and get away from the real issues, including the Prime Minister’s private flat, his villa in wherever it is in Spain and the propriety of so many Members of Parliament. I did not even understand most of what the Leader of the House was trying to explain. If he left it just as: they would do as the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggests, that would be absolutely fine, but it seems like they want to direct the Committee on Standards in Public Life. They want to lead it into certain directions and they want to suggest to it what it should do as part of its work. I think the Chair of the Committee on Standards was absolutely right. It should be left to the Committee to determine and decide. They do not need the Government’s prompting to get these issues resolved. Let us leave it with them. It is a cross-party Committee. It is a Committee that is well chaired by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is very studious and diligent about his work.
Today—this, I think, gets to the heart of it—the hapless International Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), was sent out. Somebody gets the short straw every morning and today it was the International Trade Secretary. She could not even make up her mind how many hours we should all get to work on our second jobs. I think it was initially 10 to 15 hours. Then she suggested, I think it was in the Radio 4 interview, that it was up to 20 hours. They cannot even decide among themselves for how many hours they should get to do their second jobs.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Pete Wishart
Oh, yes. I usually eat Tory Back Benchers for breakfast, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Andy Carter
I am very grateful. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a member of the Standards Committee and I just want to clarify something he mentioned earlier. He was talking about the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is a different committee to the Committee on Standards in this House. I think he was confusing the two. I just think it is important. The Committee on Standards in Public Life is an independent committee not associated with this House.
Pete Wishart
I am fully aware of what the two different and distinct committees are. What we want to do is ensure that we get the opportunity to back the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. That is what we are looking forward to doing.
Just briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, to remind ourselves of the scale of this problem and issue when it comes to second jobs, The Sunday Times showed us that 138 MPs have had second jobs in the past year and that 12 earn at least an extra £100,000 a year from outside interests. Almost one in four Tory MPs spends at least 100 hours a year on second jobs and 25 MPs spend more than 416 hours a year.
We in the Scottish National party believe that our job as a Member of Parliament must be an exclusive commitment to our constituents. We also want to see all of Parliament included. That includes that rotten corrupt circus down that corridor there. The House of Lords has to be included in this. I welcome the valiant efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) to try to get the issue looked at again—his amendment was not selected—and all my other colleagues who have been trying to press this issue. It cannot and can never be right that someone can be rewarded with a place in the House of Lords for giving £3 million to the coffers of the Tory party. It is a measure that would make a tin-pot dictator in a banana republic blush, with the size and amount of sleaze and scandal.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Does my hon. Friend agree that with the Government backpedalling on the previous notion of a new committee, we need to ensure that cross-party support for the present Committee also goes to the upper Chamber, where we stop appointing Members from the Opposition to an unelected, unaccountable House of Lords?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. We have a duty, an obligation and a responsibility to make sure we have the best possible standards in the unelected Chamber. It is the Prime Minister who appoints Members to the House of Lords. It is lists drawn up by party leaders that give those appointments an opportunity to be placed there. That has to stop. I know this House likes the place up there for some reason, watching people dressed up like Santa Claus prance around the place, but they are put there because they are donors, cronies or placemen. It is an appalling abuse, a corrupt House, and we should be looking at abolishing it, not putting more people in because they happen to give the Tory party £3 million.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on a stunning speech, as ever, on this issue. Does he agree that it is long past time since we banned the practice of Members who have been rejected at the ballot box paying their way into an upper Chamber? Does he agree that in an independent Scotland there will be no unelected upper Chamber and that all members of our legislature will be democratically elected?
Pete Wishart
I agree absolutely and utterly. There is no place in any democratic system for people who are put there by a Prime Minister just because they happened to give his party £3 million. We would never accept that in an independent Scotland.
That brings me to my next point—I am grateful to my hon. Friend—because the people of Scotland are observing this and they do not like what they are seeing. It is just making them more determined that we get away from this sleazy, corrupt, rotten cesspit of a place and start to be self-governing in our nation of Scotland. They are embarrassed by this place and, unfortunately, Scotland has not been left unscathed by the behaviour of Members of Parliament.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
If the hon. Gentleman really believes that this place is a cesspit, he should just leave. Leave with your Members—[Interruption.] No, seriously, leave—give up your jobs and go. To call this place that does so much good—Members on both sides of the House, including on the SNP Benches—a cesspit is an appalling thing to do.
Pete Wishart
I am really pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because he could assist us in doing that. I know that we are an irritant to him and that he cannot stand us—we in the Scottish National party who speak up for our nation—but there is an easy, elegant, neat solution: you govern yourselves and we will govern ourselves.
Pete Wishart
I am sorry—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you govern yourself very effectively, but they can govern themselves in all their corrupt, sleazy beauty while we could get on with running a proper, democratic, accountable Scottish Parliament in an independent Scotland. That is the answer to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Pete Wishart
I will not—I have given way to the hon. Lady and I have to get on.
We have a real issue with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), because he has the very definition of a second job, being both a Member of this House and a Member of the Scottish Parliament. He also has the added complication that he is a part-time assistant referee. His difficulties have only been compounded, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, because he did not properly declare the considerable sum—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman has given notice that he intends to talk about another Member in his speech.
Pete Wishart
I most definitely did, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that I would never mention an hon. Member without giving them notice in advance that I intended to raise the issue.
The hon. Member for Moray has the very definition of a second job. It is simply impossible for him to give his full attention to his constituents as their MP—as the Prime Minister now demands from Conservative MPs—when he needs to be in the Scottish Parliament as the leader of the Scottish Conservatives.
Let me give an example: the good people of Moray were not represented in the Finance Bill vote last night. The hon. Gentleman simply was not here. He had to be some place else, quite legitimately, in another job. He has to decide—on the strictures of the Prime Minister, who said this—whether he can be a full-time Member of Parliament and represent his constituents full time in this House or be the leader of the Scottish Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament. He cannot do both. He is not here now—I know he is probably in the Scottish Parliament; he might not be, but he has First Minister’s questions tomorrow when he will have to be there—but I say him to him very candidly that he should decide which Parliament he wants to be part of, because it is quite clear that he cannot do both, and I think his Prime Minister recognises that.
Stewart Hosie
This is in the public domain, Madam Deputy Speaker: if we look at the Leader of the House’s entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, we see that, in 2016, he has an entry for January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August and September. How much he earned does not matter, but he claims that he worked 35 hours in each of those months. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) believe that it is possible to be a full-time MP and find an extra week’s worth of work time every month for a second job?
Pete Wishart
The short answer is that I do not believe that that is possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has been a colleague of mine for 15 years in this House, and I know the hours that he puts in to make sure that the good people of Dundee are represented in this place. He would never be able to find those hours, so I do not know how the Leader of the House was able to.
We also have to turn, ever so briefly, to something else that is going on in Scottish politics and deeply concerns me: dark money and the use of unincorporated associations to give money directly into the coffers of the Scottish Conservatives. We do not know much about those unincorporated associations; sometimes we are given an email address, a telephone number or even the name of a building, but we have absolutely no idea where their income comes from or how they are able to funnel it into the coffers of the Scottish Conservatives. It is a disgrace that they can continue doing so. We must get on with fixing that.
In my 20 years in this place, I think I have spoken in every debate on second jobs and standards in this House. As you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, we looked at the matter most recently in February 2015 when there was a scandal about a sting operation involving Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind. We all got together like this, we all spoke ever so highly and in detail about what we should do to address the problem, and we declared that we would do something about it. Is it not sad that we are back here seven years later saying the same things, determined to try to clean this place up?
We should not have to be here again. We should have had this dealt with. We are going through a terrible, terrible period in our politics just now. It is down to Conservative Members: the resolution lies with them. Back the Labour motion and throw out this stupid amendment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We will start with a time limit of six minutes, which may well have to come down. Of course, there is no obligation to take the whole six minutes.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I wish I could say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, but I do not think that it will be a pleasure for any colleague. It has been a very bruising two weeks, but I am reflecting on the few things that I have learned in my 17 years in this place. With the House’s indulgence, I will put them on the record in a non-partisan way.
In my capacity as a Select Committee Chair for 10 years, I have had the pleasure of working with hon. Members from all Benches. Before we get carried away with calling ourselves all sorts of names, it is important that we remember where this can end up. The first lesson that I have learned in this place is that we are never happier than when burning each other to a crisp. We love to skewer each other, place ourselves on the barbecue, roast ourselves pink and then serve ourselves up with a large side order of hubris. We are all guilty of it, on both sides of the House, and we need to remember that. No one in this place is perfect.
I am also amazed to have heard people say over the past couple of weeks that we are entitled to a fair hearing. The one thing that I have learned is that we are not entitled to a fair hearing in this place. We are guilty until proven guilty: it is one of Newton’s laws. If you are a Member of Parliament, you do not get a fair hearing—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; you are a Member of Parliament and I am sure that you would get a fair hearing, but collectively we are not entitled to one and it is naive of us to expect that we are. That plays directly into standards in public life, because we are all in public life.
Before we start talking about outside interests, let me say that I serve on the Members’ Fund, which looks after former MPs in financial trouble. I say to all colleagues: please try not to lose your seat, because it is a very cold world out there. There is not a raging bull market for ex-Members of Parliament who have come to this place, served for two, three, five or 10 years and lost their seat. Many Members who lose their seat struggle to find another job; I have dealt with some heartbreaking stories from both sides of the House.
As we talk about standards, let me say that poor judgment and flawed decision making are just that: poor judgment and flawed decision making. They are rarely the mark of corruption and sleaze. Of course poor judgment and poor decision making should be punished and we should be accountable, but to say that this place is a cesspit and full of sleaze is just not right. Those who write about this and report these cases know full well that this Parliament is not full of corruption and sleaze.
Since we are talking about pay, I must also say that whatever we were paid, many people would think it too much. Whether we were paid £10,000, £82,000, £90,000 or £50,000, there would always be a constituency of people who thought we were paid too much and would want to tell us we were paid too much. We can never, ever appease them.
Again, these are the sort of people who populate our constituencies. The world is full of some unpleasant people. We all know that, on both sides of the House—we deal with it daily. In the old days, they were armed with pens; now they are armed with keyboards, which makes it much easier for them to bring such unpleasantness and misery into our lives. The people who do this are best ignored. They do it to all Members in this place, and it is very sad.
Christine Jardine
I am slightly confused by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he insinuating that Members of Parliament should not be open to scrutiny, that we should not be answerable to the public, and that the press do not have a right to question our motives when there may be a potential conflict of interests?
Sir Charles Walker
As I have said, I have been a Select Committee Chair for 10 years. This speech is a cry of pain. I know full well that there are many good people who can question what we do, but many others use debates of this kind—when we refer to this place as a cesspit, full of crooks and rogues—to legitimise some of their unpleasantness. We have all suffered from that, and will continue to do so. I do not get too many unpleasant emails, but I get enough to know what an unpleasant email looks like.
Let me finally say this. Today will be worse than yesterday, but it will not be as bad as tomorrow. Politics in this country is a really, really nasty business, and it is just going to get nastier. A few weeks ago, once again, people said, “We have to change: we will do things differently.” Within a matter of days, we were back where we started from. So whatever happens today, I have news for all colleagues in all parts of the House: it will not make a jot of difference. It will not improve our standing. In fact, if anything our standing will even worse—although not as bad as it will be tomorrow or in a week’s time, because that is just the way it is, I am afraid, and occasionally I think we quite like it that way.
I am not voting for any motion. A plague is deserved on all our houses.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be called in what I think is an extremely important debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker).
Let me begin by thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I think Members on both sides of the House would say, if they were being honest, that without his leadership on this issue nothing would be happening, and I think members of the public can see that as well. I also want to thank the Leader of the Opposition personally, because I have inundated him in the last few weeks and days. I have barracked him constantly with my opinion of the issue and what I think needs to happen for us to see change. I have contacted him so much that at one point I feared he might seek injunctive relief to try and stop me, but thank goodness, he did not. He welcomed members of the parliamentary Labour party engaging with him in these discussions, because he takes this very seriously.
I am happy to say that I am a fan of banning second jobs across the board. I signed early-day motion 627, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). I accept that there are complexities. I do not think that my constituents in east Hull—or anyone in the country, in fact—would begrudge a Member of Parliament’s being a doctor, a surgeon, a nurse or a paramedic; those are people undertaking incredibly important public service, doing jobs for the public good. However, I think there must be limits on times, or perhaps on earnings.
Bob Seely
The hon. Gentleman is making a very sensible speech, and he is exactly right. I am a reservist; I do a few days every so often for the reserve. Does he recognise, however, that a director of a family company is also doing a deserving job, because he or she is employing people and creating the wealth that the public services need?
Karl Turner
I accept that point. I think that there are complexities involving Members who run family businesses. Perhaps they ought to think about winding them down. I know that some Conservative Members have done just that: they have been elected and come here, and then run their businesses down or passed them to other family members. There are also complexities around those hon. Members who want to write books, for example. It is incredibly important for people to be able to express themselves. When we get into the arguments about freedom of expression and so forth, we get into real legal complexities and difficulties.
I am bound to say that it is complex for lawyers who come into the House. When I was elected in 2010, I was a junior in the law—I was towards the latter end of a second six pupillage—but it was right that I had clients where I was instructed in their cases and there was potentially pay for those cases that happened a little after being elected. Lawyers who are elected but who have instructions have professional responsibilities to their client. If they were elected to Parliament, but they were acting for a client, either a lay client or the professional client who instructed them, they would be expected to wind that down and eventually pass it on. There are complexities around that.
The nub of the issue for me is that, speaking for my constituents, they think it incredible that Members of Parliament are earning, I think, £81,932 a year, three times the average wage and nearly four times the average wage of the constituency I represent. They think it unbelievable—contemptible even—that a Member of Parliament needs to earn from a second job. Some of those second jobs, the consultancies and directorships, pay eye-watering amounts of money. The idea that a Member of this House can spend time being an MP while earning almost a million quid a year on the side is utterly contemptible, in my humble opinion.
To those who use the defence that we need experience from outside this House and a rich tapestry of people to represent the interests of the country, I say that it strikes me that we do not see Members going off and doing a 10-hour shift at Maccy D’s in their constituencies. We do not see them going off and doing the other jobs that are done by real people in the real world. Cranswick Country Foods plc, for example, is desperate for workers right now, but I am not going to queue up, frankly speaking, to pluck chickens or turkeys ready for Christmas. That is the point that the electorate worry about: these MPs’ jobs are paying staggering amounts of money, but they are not the jobs that people recognise as second jobs for them—second jobs working to try to earn an extra few quid because they are desperate to feed their families.
I admit that I am a fan of banning second jobs, but I accept that there are complexities. We have to work together to find the solution to this issue, but for the Government to try to hide behind the pretence they have been running recently that it is necessary to bring experience to this place is just a defence people simply cannot believe or trust.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I think I agree with most of what he said.
I rise to speak in this debate because I recognise that we need to change. I have thought for a long while that we need to change, and in some ways it is welcome that the events of the past fortnight have brought the need upon us. I broadly support the recommendations in the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life from three years ago. It is probably a cause for regret that we are dealing with them now, rather than at that time.
However, I urge the House to be careful that we get this right. The public expect us to change these rules with due consideration, to ensure that rules are put in place that are fair, consistent and enforceable and do not just leave crazy loopholes. I am slightly nervous about the wording in the Labour motion about banning
“any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.
Does that mean that somebody could change their job to being a political strategist, adviser or consultant, or a local government strategist, adviser or consultant, and somehow get around that? I think we all know what we are trying to ban, which is Members earning money by selling access to this place or selling the access that this place provides, but we should be careful to make sure we get the wording right.
Chris Bryant
The House of Lords already has a similar provision in its code of conduct. One thing the Committee on Standards might suggest—I do not want to prejudge, as I see the other members of the Committee staring at me in a grim-faced way—is that Members must have a contract specifying certain things that they can and cannot do, which would be fairly simple. Owen Paterson never had a contract.
Nigel Mills
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If Members are taking jobs, they should have clearly defined roles and responsibilities that can be cleared or scrutinised.
We should be careful when we draw up the new rules that they are clear, consistent and enforceable so that we do not end up with Members sneaking around them because we were in a rush and a panic to try to calm a political storm or to keep it going. We should not rush into new rules that we come to regret when they do not work.
Where I agree with the Opposition motion is that we need to keep up the momentum. Although I absolutely trust the Leader of the House and the Government that we will not have further delays and backsliding, I am not convinced after the past two weeks that I can convince my constituents that I cannot vote for the motion because it forces a timetable. I will vote for the Opposition motion tonight.
I agree that we need to restrict second jobs, but I would be nervous about trying to work out a good list and a bad list of second jobs, as that becomes very hard. For example, my wife works as a pharmacist. That sounds like a health professional, but she works for a large supermarket chain. Do we allow pharmacists to work in the NHS but not in large supermarket chains because one is public sector and the other is private sector?
It becomes difficult to know what is a professional job which we would all accept a new MP coming here for a short career should keep up in practice and qualifications so that they have a chance of a job afterwards. We would not want to put off people with such qualifications from coming here at all for fear they would be locked out of their old career.
We could end up with a rather long list of good jobs that Members are allowed to do. It would be hard for such a list to be consistent, and it would be hard to apply. Such a list would inevitably have gaps that some Members fall through, so we would have to change the list all the time.
I would not go down the line of an absolute ban, and the Government’s amendment is right that we should have some sort of restriction or indication about what constitutes a Member not prioritising their role as an MP. I would be cautious about having no guidance or rules and leaving it to a commissioner to decide retrospectively whether what a Member did is within the rules.
We need a process in which we agree on the guidance, such as on whether there should be a maximum amount that Members can earn. I have some sympathy with the comment that a man cannot have two paymasters. If a Member has a lifestyle that depends on an outside income far greater than their MP’s income, there will always be a perception, or a risk, that they have to please that paymaster and that at some point there will be a vote, a debate or an issue where they are conflicted between doing what they think is right and keeping the income they desperately need. I would think carefully about an income cap at some proportion of an MP’s salary.
That does not solve my constituents’ anger that Members are spending too much time on non-parliamentary work. It is the loss of time in Parliament and in the constituency that is the problem, not just how much a Member earns. Perhaps there should be a cap on hours.
As the Committee on Standards in Public Life report said, those two things are quite hard to define. They are controversial and we might end up creating different problems, but if the House truly wants to make it clear that MPs are MPs first and foremost, and that what we do outside may have some benefits, may be fair to our future careers and may bring out some information, but it should clearly be secondary to our parliamentary role, we should ask the Committee on Standards, or whatever body we think best, to come up with a definition of how much Members can earn and how long they can spend earning it. That would be the right way forward.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). I agreed with a lot of the points he was making in his very good speech. Let me begin by highlighting my despair that in the UK in the 21st century, when were are living in a post-Brexit and post-covid Britain, with thousands upon thousands of families reliant on food banks, increasing numbers of children living in poverty and a completely insecure social welfare system, instead of debating to find the solutions to those pressing matters, this sleaze scandal of the past fortnight engulfing this Government has forced us to waste more parliamentary time, once again, to highlight the undemocratic shams of this institution.
This Tory Government are far more interested in rule-rigging in here for their own financial gain than they are in supporting any struggling families out there. We saw that when the Prime Minister flew into Glasgow on the opening weekend of COP26; his priorities clearly lay elsewhere, as he flew back out shortly after. He then returned in an attempt to avoid the tidal wave of sleaze engulfing his Government and the Tory party—the tsunami of corruption was far too much. It was so embarrassing—and that is probably a parliamentary understatement. It was completely cringeworthy watching our so-called Prime Minister on the world stage at COP26 having to stand up and say that the UK is not a corrupt country and neither does he believe that its institutions are corrupt. I do not know about the Tory shires of Englandshire, but in Lanarkshire when somebody stands up to make the announcement, “We are not corrupt”, certain perceptions spring to mind. I know what the people of Coatbridge think and what the people of Chryston and Bellshill think. They take one look and think, “Aye, ye are”—yes, you are.
We are here in the middle this scandal due to the Prime Minister’s attempt to save one of his own from a 30-day suspension from this House. What their inexcusable and despicable actions have actually done is shine a light on this broken, sleazy system of cronyism and corruption right here at Westminster—right here in this place and in that other place over there. And it goes right to the very top. It undoubtedly starts at the top of this Government—Mr Paterson is a former Minister of the Government, no less.
Let us look at those with two jobs, or three, as in the case of the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross)— I have given him prior notice, Madam Deputy Speaker. He is also the Scottish Parliament Member for Moray and a part-time assistant referee. When we think about higher standards, we must ask ourselves: how does someone actually forget to declare £28,000-worth of earnings for games of football they have recently officiated in? Did he forget he was there? Did he not catch himself on “Sportscene” highlights on a Saturday night and think, “I had better stick that in my register come Monday morning”? Perhaps he was just too busy or perhaps he does not see the value of £28,000. When the average annual wage in Scotland is £25,000, I think that says quite a lot. It is beyond tragic that someone in his position—his two elected positions, and being Leader of the Opposition in Scotland—has got himself into such a scenario, but it serves to inform us all about just how blasé the Tory party is when it comes to rules, regulations and the potential for financial gain. I am not saying that the MSP, or MP, for Moray is corrupt, because that would be unparliamentary, but when we consider the circles he moves in, we perhaps have pause for thought. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure how au fait you are with the goings on in Scottish football over the years, but if there was ever a second job that was apt and tailor-made for a politician with fewer scruples, it would indeed be as a match official with the Scottish Football Association. I say that with my tongue firmly in my cheek, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let us compare and contrast that with my constituents’ experiences—those living in the real world. Lucy was working two jobs during the pandemic, one in a vulnerable children’s home and one delivering care to the elderly in their own home. She was working two part-time jobs just to make ends meet. One of her employers—and well done to them —paid all staff a bonus for their hard work and commitment during the pandemic of £300. As she was a single parent in receipt of universal credit, this Tory Government, and their poorly devised policies, stole Lucy’s bonus right out of her back pocket and left her £75 worse off that month overall. But we are all in this together, remember! With politics it is often about optics and how things look, but with the Tories it now seems it disnae matter how bad it looks, it is about what they can get away with.
This job as an elected representative is an immense honour for me, as I am sure it is for many of us. When I was elected to North Lanarkshire Council in 2015, I resigned from my job in the private sector. I was only coming from a shopfloor into an elected chamber, but none the less I resigned, because morally that was the correct thing to do. After I was elected to this place in December 2019, I resigned my seat on North Lanarkshire Council early the following February, to ensure my full dedication to the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. It is all about the optics but it is also about the morality of the situation.
It is about time that we as MPs—all of us—and, indeed, all elected officials throughout the UK take a long, hard look at ourselves and question whether we are truly committed to our constituents or there are ulterior motives at play. If it is the former—and I do think that in the vast majority of cases it is—it is now time for us to show it by voting for the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar)—although I reached a very different conclusion—about the Prime Minister’s having been forced to respond to a question about whether this is a corrupt country by saying that of course it is not. He was quite right to say that but it is very concerning that he was forced to.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), who said that his speech was “a cry of pain” and that it is likely to be worse tomorrow than it was yesterday. I think everybody felt rather downbeat when he sat down after his speech, but I want to reassure him that there are more things that we can do and that I hope we will do. I have a list of possible further steps that I hope the Government will take, in addition to the proposals they have made today, to make sure that in future my hon. Friend does not have to give another speech that is a cry of pain.
The crucial thing is that strengthening standards in public life is, yes, about second jobs—of course, they are core to this issue—but it is also about a great deal more than just whether or not parliamentarians have second jobs and what kinds of jobs they may or may not have. We have to fix that, but that will not be nearly enough on its own, so I come with a modest shopping list of proposals that I hope people throughout the House would be willing to pick up and look at on a cross-party basis. I do, though, of course speak in favour of the Government’s amendment to the motion.
The first additional measure is directly in line with parliamentary standards and backs up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who serves on the Standards Committee. Last week, he made a powerful speech arguing that the process of delivering parliamentary standards needs to be cleaned up, further tightened and improved. He drew particular parallels with the process in place to deal with the problem of and cases of bullying in this place, which I am sure everybody present would agree is unacceptable in the extreme. He argues that we should take some of what is already established in that process and bring it across to apply more broadly in respect of other aspects of parliamentary standards. My hon. Friend has made that point repeatedly to the Chairman of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—who is no longer in his place—to the extent that I think the Chairman winces when he sees my hon. Friend coming because he knows what he is going to say. I see other Committee members present and hope that in future the Committee will take that up on a cross-party basis as a potentially important tightening of the rules.
That is not the only thing that we can and perhaps should do. There are rules about disclosure in respect of ministerial meetings and lobbying. The problem with the existing rules is not that they are not beneficial, sensible or absolutely necessary, but that they do not disclose nearly enough, nearly fast enough. We should make sure that ministerial meetings with anybody, but particularly with somebody who might be lobbying for a commercial interest or for an entirely non-commercial interest—there are plenty of non-commercial interests out there that may be beneficial or may indeed be harmful and seek to slant the playing field—are disclosed. It is vital not only that we know who was met—who came to talk to a Minister—but that we understand in some detail what the topic was and whose interest was ultimately being represented. It should not just apply to Ministers, either; it should apply to senior members of the civil service, not just permanent secretaries, and special political advisers in government. All are people who have a say and important roles in the process, so they should be harnessed in our disclosure rules. Otherwise, we are missing an important piece of the jigsaw.
Further, we need to strengthen the role of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—or ACOBA as it is called. There are some good proposals in both the Boardman report and in the recent Standards Matter 2 report from Lord Evans’s Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which say that we should make sure that Ministers’ commitments are made enforceable in law through a legal deed. I would certainly support such a measure. I would also go further and argue that ACOBA should have a further look at whether some of the individual departmental rules of compliance with parts of the civil service code are being applied strongly and rigorously enough, because it is clear that, in some Departments, it is applied much more strongly than in others.
Finally, two pieces of legislation go right to the core of standards in our public life. The first one is about Government contracts. There is a procurement Bill currently on the stocks, which I devoutly hope will be introduced very, very soon. It replaces the old and clunky Official Journal of the European Union on how to do procurement with, in principle, a much faster, more digital, and much more open and transparent process. That is necessary and I hope that it will come forward very promptly, because it will mean that, if we have another national emergency like the one that we have just faced in the covid pandemic, our systems will be better able to cope with the pressure than the old and clunky system that we inherited from the EU.
The final piece of legislation that I devoutly hope will come forward very soon with a date attached is an economic crime Bill. I am looking directly at the Leader of the House as I say this, because he will be in charge of the timetabling. The Bill would make sure that we know not only who is behind each and every company—whether they are Scottish limited partnerships or any others—but who is getting the benefit, which means that those involved will not be able to hide. It is absolutely essential that that transparency is introduced as fast as it possibly can be.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
One thing on which we can all agree today is what a sorry state of affairs it is that we are having to debate how to strengthen standards in public life. We need to be clear on how we got here, because this was coming a lot earlier than the vote on Owen Paterson and the Government’s decision to reject the Standards Committee’s report and findings into his activities.
In our system of parliamentary government, it has, quite rightly, been the convention that Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the actions of their Departments, but the current Conservative Government seem to take a somewhat different view. They have been content to close ranks to protect political allies from accountability and see no problem in hanging departmental officials out to dry for policy failures, deflecting blame and avoiding ministerial responsibility.
It was telling that when the Business Secretary was asked to name a single thing that the Prime Minister had done to deliver integrity and probity in public life, he was unable to do so. The best he could come up with was to say that the Conservative manifesto pledge to leave the EU had been delivered. What a low bar this Government have set when they find delivery of one of their election pledges somehow remarkable—good grief. The truth is that, while the Prime Minister says he believes in high standards in public life, his actions too often demonstrate the opposite.
When the Home Secretary was accused of bullying civil servants, the Prime Minister rejected the findings of his independent adviser, effectively forcing his resignation. When the Government ignored repeated warnings over last year’s GCSE and A-level results, it was senior officials at Ofqual and the Department for Education, not the Education Secretary, who took the rap for that inevitable fiasco. By saying that he considered the matter closed as soon as the former Health and Social Care Secretary was found to have breached covid rules, the Prime Minister seriously undermined the ministerial code.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
On the issue of Ministers breaking the code, last weekend The Sunday Times wrote about a Transport Minister who allegedly misused taxpayers’ money?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Has the hon. Lady notified the Member concerned that she will be referring to them?
Madam Deputy Speaker
But has she notified the Member that she will be referring to them?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Okay. The hon. Lady needs to be quite careful about how she approaches it then.
Taiwo Owatemi
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Sunday, The Sunday Times reported that the Transport Secretary misused taxpayers’ money by blocking the redevelopment of airfields. This would affect my local airfield in Coventry, which is meant to be redeveloped as a gigafactory that would bring thousands of jobs to my city of Coventry. Does my hon. Friend agree that senior Conservative Ministers should spend less time abusing their position and more—
Catherine McKinnell
I think that we could all raise example upon example of this Government’s saying, “Do as I say but not as I do”, and not following through on their promises.
It is difficult to imagine 10 or 20 years ago a Government unlawfully proroguing Parliament without even the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House resigning, or at least having the decency to admit that they were wrong. It is unclear what the Prime Minister thinks that he, his Ministers and sometimes his MPs should be held accountable for, if anything at all. For our system of accountability to work, we need the Government to be open and willing to learn from their mistakes. The deterioration in standards that is happening under this Government is not only morally wrong; it is the opposite of good governance. Covering for incompetence or corruption—and sometimes both simultaneously—can only lead to poor leadership and bad policy, which harms the people we are elected to represent. The scapegoating of unelected officials when things go wrong must stop.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Standards Committee, put it well last week when he reminded the House that parliamentary democracy in its present form has not been around for long at all. It is fragile and precious, and must be protected from Governments who seek to undermine it for their own short-term gain. The Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Lord Evans, clearly anticipated this danger when he said:
“The risk is that we think it couldn’t possibly happen in this country. The fact is it could, and that is why we need to make sure we don’t take decisions which would lead us in the wrong direction”.
I will finish by quoting President Lyndon Johnson, who famously said, “It takes a carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can knock it down”. I know that I am not alone in my deep concerns about the long-term impact on our democracy of a Government who all too frequently act with no sense of decency, dignity or shame.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
My remarks will probably follow in the vein of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I have no outside interests or earnings, so in one sense, no matter how strict the rules are, this is not going to affect me directly.
I have never been persuaded by the argument that some Members used to earn a lot more elsewhere and therefore need to be able to earn more here; I think we all know what the salary is when we become MPs. There is a better argument about outside interests bringing skills and expertise to the House, particularly—although not just—from a field in which the Member operated before, as doing so probably helps to improve our legislation. However, we can tighten the rules. It should go without saying that our constituencies should come first and foremost, and I do think that that is what the vast majority of us spend the vast majority of our time on.
I have said many times, away from this place, that when I went from being a charity chief exec to being an MP in 2019, I went from saint to sinner in the minds of the public. Someone who works for a charity is seen as one of the good guys: honest; principled; in it for the right reasons. Politicians are seen as the opposite: dishonest; unprincipled; in it for themselves. Both caricatures are wrong.
I accept that some Members of this House have questions to answer about their outside interests. I personally think that a lot of what they are being accused of is breaking the existing rules. I am perfectly happy to accept that we need to change some of the rules. We will never banish bad behaviour. Every workplace has rules, because it knows that people will behave inappropriately from time to time. That is true of absolutely anywhere.
However, I have a number of concerns about the way this debate—not in this House, apart from a bit at the start of this debate, but the debate more generally in the past couple of weeks—has been going. First, there is the divide between private sector and public sector. We have had the commentary from some Opposition Members that somehow if it is a public sector job, that is good; if it is a private sector job, that is bad. About one in six people in the country work in the public sector. They are not all on wards and in classrooms—they are often in offices, like the vast majority of people who are also providing a good service to the country, just not publicly funded. I cannot see why someone could be a paid director of an NHS trust—because they always are paid positions—but could not be a paid director of a company that was providing medicines or equipment to that NHS trust. I cannot see why someone could be involved in a law firm if it was defending public clients but not if it was defending anybody else. We are sending a bad message to the vast majority of people who do not work in the public sector about the sorts of jobs and the sorts of organisations they work in.
Secondly, right now there are Opposition activists saying that this is all about the Conservatives and Conservatives saying, “You’ve got a problem too.” But what are the public saying? They are saying, “You’re all at it—you’re all the same.” I accept that politics means that Labour thinks it has a winning issue here, but I do not think any of us are truly winning in what has been going on in recent weeks.
Thirdly, the charities I ran were all about improving social mobility, so I spent a lot of time thinking about who gets into politics—the proportion who are from private school, who are graduates, who are wealthy, who have done nothing but politics, or who had to do unpaid internships, which were rife in this place, in order to get their foot on the ladder. I am concerned that we should have more people from ordinary backgrounds and more people with disabilities. We should make this place more family-friendly. That is a challenge right now for people with children; it is putting off those who have them who are thinking about going into politics. If we are going to make changes to this place, there is a whole range of changes that are probably more pressing, and I would like to bind them up together, because there is a lot that we could reform.
Finally, we have a responsibility to think about the politicians who come after us. We are not all the same. We are not all at it. The vast majority of us obey all the rules. It is very tough to persuade talented people to consider politics because of the hours, the abuse, and the increasing personal risk that we seem to be at. The association with the expenses scandal persists, although the majority of us were not even in the House at that time and the system has completely changed. When we push the line that MPs are all trying to get as much money as they can and the only way that we can stop them and get them to focus on their constituents is to have new rules that make them do so, we do ourselves and our politics a disservice. I am perfectly open-minded about the rule changes that we need to make. My most important test is, “Are we obeying all the rules that are there?” I really care about how politics and politicians are viewed, and what we are doing at the moment in saying, “My party’s a bit better than your party”, is making the public’s view of all of us worse.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As the Leader of the House mentioned in his opening remarks: country, constituency, party, in that order, no more, no less—those are whom a Member of Parliament has a duty towards. It is a formulation so simple that anyone ought to be able to understand it. It was certainly the basis on which I stood for election to this place, and nothing I have seen in the intervening six years has led me to believe that I was wrong to think that. Indeed, I am proud to represent my country, my constituency and my party. But my pride turns to shame when I see headline after headline about hon. and right hon. Members not treating the position they hold or the people they represent with the respect they deserve because they turn themselves into political cabs for hire. When Members put themselves up for sale, they may enrich themselves but they cheapen us all.
Being a Member of Parliament is a great privilege, but it is also a great responsibility. We need to be conscious of the fact that having the letters “MP” after our names gives us a certain authority, and that is because we are the democratically elected representatives—we make the laws; what we say matters. I would have liked to have said that those letters command respect and gravitas, but the sad reality is that when an MP speaks, people often ask, “Just who are you speaking for?” It is the greatest privilege of my life to be able to stand up in here and speak freely without fear or favour on matters that are important to my constituents. That we can no longer assume that is the case for everyone demeans us all.
Some people will argue that taking away the ability of Members to earn a bit of extra cash as a consultant or lobbyist will reduce the pool of talent of those seeking to enter Parliament, but they should take a look in the mirror. Those who take the shilling from those that are willing to pay for a voice in this place should not kid themselves that it is their wisdom or charisma that attracts the cash in the first place; it is their access that matters. This place should not be available to the highest bidder; this place should be a force for good and for change for the benefit of all. If it is a choice between someone who might be a slightly better orator but whose main motivation is money, and someone who is here because they want to make a difference, I know who I would want to be my MP and I know who will be a more effective parliamentarian in the long run. If people are put off because of the limitations this role might put on their earning potential, perhaps they might want to consider whether this job is really for them.
This is not all about individual avarice; it is about the tone set from the top and leadership. When we have a Government who, as they did last week, try to overturn established and agreed procedures to let one of their own off the hook, we are faced with a Government who have become intoxicated on their own power, become arrogant because of the size of their majority and grown contemptuous of the need for probity. None of those things is good for the Government, but they are damaging to us all, as many Members have said. These things erode what little trust the public have in our parliamentary democracy.
There is no shortage of people out there who are only too willing to call us all out for being motivated solely by personal gain. We do not need to give them dozens of examples of Members appearing to do just that. We need to govern in the public interest and show that standards in public life matter and that when it comes to our duties to our constituents, we must lead, not follow.
The Government’s defence for the shameful shambles we have seen over the past week is that they were concerned about the supposed lack of an appeals process and that they made a mistake in trying to conflate those issues with the concerns in the case of Owen Paterson. But what he did was so obviously wrong that I have to question just how the Government are operating. The Register of Members’ Financial Interests is there. It is plain to see what he was getting paid and by whom, but did it not occur to anyone in Government that when he was doing all this lobbying he was actually breaking the rules? Did nobody think to challenge him, feed it back to the Whips or just say, “Sorry this conversation is not going to happen”? Or is it the case, as I suspect it is, that this kind of thing is just par for the course and nobody questioned him about it because it is seen as how MPs and Government operate? If there is a grain of truth in that, we need to do an awful lot more about this than just what we are discussing today.
All I would say in respect of the claim that there was no appeal is that there was an appeal process, but he was so obviously guilty of the charges that a dozen appeals would not have changed the outcome. If Government Members are now so concerned about the operation of natural justice and appeals, they might want to start looking at how some Departments operate. Many of my constituents would question where their opportunity is to appeal in areas such as benefits over- payments, child maintenance and the loan charge. They would say it is one rule for Tory MPs and one rule for everyone else, and they would be right.
In conclusion, we are the rule makers; how we conduct ourselves matters. Parliament should be an exemplar of good practice and positive behaviours, of probity and of standards for others to look up to and emulate. If we cannot get our own house in order, how can we effectively challenge other countries, companies or individuals? I hope that Members will vote for our motion today. I am afraid that there is so much wriggle room within the Government amendment that it resembles a pit of snakes, which I am afraid is what some people see us all as. We know that the majority of Members are not like that, but kicking the can down the road, as the Government would have us do, simply leaves too much room for doubt that we are not serious about stamping out the egregious use of this office that we hold so dear and that the principle of transparency does not matter at all.
The rules should be followed by everyone. If we in this place avoid the rules when they become inconvenient, how can we expect the public to follow them, too? Sadly, there have been too many examples over the past year of Members thinking that the rules do not apply to them. How difficult is it to put a face covering on? The very fact that the merits of that simple act are beyond some Members gives us an indication that some people just do not think the rules apply to them.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am speaking today not because I take any pleasure in taking part in this debate, but because I truly believe that strengthening standards in public life is one of the most important issues facing us. I actually welcome the fact that the Labour party has secured this important debate.
I should start with a declaration of interest in that I used to be a Lobby journalist. I was chief political correspondent of The Times, and one of the “feral beasts”, as Tony Blair used to call us. I used to write stories about standards in this place when rows erupted. Standards rows are very good for political journalists—they give us good work and get us on the front pages—but they are very bad for trust in democracy. I think it is very important that we do everything we can to raise standards to make sure that Lobby correspondents and political journalists have nothing to write about in this place.
There is something else I learned when I was Europe editor of The Times and was responsible for covering European politics, and this comes back to the points my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) was making. A former Labour Cabinet Minister—let us call Peter Mandelson, because that was his name—who had resigned not just once, but twice, from the Cabinet over financial-related scandals, got appointed by Tony Blair as a European Commissioner. He came to give evidence to the European Parliament, and all the journalists from other countries came up to me really excited to know why this man had had to resign from Cabinet not just once, but twice. I told them why—we do not need to rehearse that here—and those from lots of different countries said to me, “What, you mean he got no personal gain from public funds? Then it is not corruption, so why did he have to resign?” Even the German journalists, and we think of German politics as having very high standards, said that there was no way somebody doing what he had done would have to resign in Germany. So we do have very high standards in public life here already. We are very good at talking ourselves down as a country, and I think there is a risk that we unfairly undermine trust in politics.
It is important that we have high standards, and it is important that we have even higher standards. One of the things I welcome about this debate is that there is actually cross-party consensus that we need to raise standards in public life. The motion brought forward by the Labour party and the amendment brought forward by the Prime Minister are, in substance, very similar, although there are differences that I will come to.
I truly support recommendation 10 in the 2018 Committee on Standards in Public Life report, “MPs’ Outside Interests”, on banning payment and jobs for political and parliamentary consultancy. That is because we cannot be a gamekeeper and a poacher at the same time. When we are in this House—deciding what to say in debates, deciding what meetings to have, going to meetings with Ministers and so on—we are serving only one paymaster, and that is our constituents. There should be no conflict in our role.
We cannot have a situation in which MPs have discussions with a Minister—I have had a couple of meetings with Ministers already today—where they talk to us about different policy areas and things they are doing, and MPs then go and sell that information to some outside interest. When we are here acting as MPs, we should serve only our constituents. Actually, I am sympathetic to having outside roles, for the arguments that others have rehearsed, but I absolutely agree that we should stop political and parliamentary consultancy.
I also support recommendation 1, which the Prime Minister has called for, which is that MPs should not have outside work that is not within reasonable limits. That is common sense. The question mark with both recommendation 10 and recommendation 1 is actually how we define it, and various hon. Members have talked about that. I think it is absolutely right that this goes to the parliamentary Committee on Standards—its Chair, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), spoke earlier—to define the real details and get cross-party consensus on how we do that in a way that is completely enforceable and reasonable.
I have mentioned that I have some reservations about the Labour motion. One is that it does not mention recommendation 1, while the Government amendment includes recommendation 1 and recommendation 10. In fact, the Labour party motion covers only recommendation 10, and actually talks only about parliamentary consultancy, not political consultancy. Although people may think they are the same; they are actually different, and we do not want to clamp down just on parliamentary consultancy and not political consultancy. That is why I fully support the Prime Minister’s amendment, which I think is a lot more robust and more wide-ranging. It has two different recommendations, not just one, and also covers political consultancy, and that is why I will support it.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). What gets me about this entire debate is that there are probably Members in here who would, as they say in some parts, go “total tonto” about me not wearing a tie, but who would not blink an eye at an unregistered £6 million in personal loans, or £28,000 of extracurricular activity in other Parliaments. It is not just about the Government Benches, I have to say. There are those on the Opposition Benches, for example, who are exposed for taking payment for non-parliamentary work while they were actually in their parliamentary offices. So it is about the entire House, not just the dodgy dealings of the Government.
There has been much mention about the former Member for North Shropshire, but perhaps we should have seen this coming, given that when they were sacked from the Government in 2014 they were, in a quote from Martin Williams of openDemocracy, “ringing round” for a second job. Luckily, the companies that they were ringing round saw it for what it was and said, “No thanks very much. We don’t have anything on the books at the moment.”
Then there are the other Members. I have informed them that I will name them, but an MP with a major financial interest in a company that sells insurance to pay for care services seeks via an amendment to the health and social care levy—to quote the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) themselves in public—to
“create incentives for investment into some kind of modern insurance scheme.”
No wonder the former Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life clearly stated that
“The rules of procedure would clearly require him—
the Member for Yeovil—
“to explain what his interest is in this matter.”
So yes, I think that would be a breach of the code, particularly where he is seeking with an amendment to influence Government policy. He is clearly duty bound, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, to declare any interest he has in the matter. Perhaps he has. Again, as I have said, I have informed the Member. Again, I am grateful to Caroline Molloy of openDemocracy for that exposé of the nefarious workings of this place.
If we look north to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, we find another Conservative Member, a regional MSP, who states in the paper this week that being an MSP, or an MP actually should be a part-time job. Extraordinary! That MSP even goes on to say that they think the Lords is not in need of reform—I will come to that in a minute. I tend to agree with an acquaintance of mine who stated that that was like saying—and we must understand the electoral methods of a PR Parliament—“I never made the tiniest effort to win a seat without saying ‘I never made the tiniest effort in trying to win a seat’.” That is basically what that Member was saying. I am sure that even new Scottish Ministers in the upper Chamber do not fail to recognise that their not being elected by the electorate at the last Scottish Parliament and then being thrown into the House of Lords is an absolute affront to the democratic will of the people of Scotland. It is really political patronage.
I am disappointed that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who is in the Chamber, has not been selected because it gets to the nub of the privilege of being an unelected and unaccountable Member of the House of warmers—that is a parliamentary term, as I am sure Hansard will point out. I am also disappointed with the shadow Leader of the House for not agreeing that that would be a way forward to end cash for honours.
I notice we have had some consensus on this side about opposing the Government’s change or creation of a new Committee in the House. I wish we could come to some consensus and stop appointing members to an unelected, unaccountable Chamber. That way we might get quicker reform of it, especially the utilisation of Scottish limited partnerships to fund political parties, which actually fill it with their own grandees and appointees.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to get rid of the stench of corruption, or perceived corruption even, of cash for honours: the three party leaders who appoint to the House of Lords could simply say that they will not put in the Lords those who have donated over a certain sum of money over a certain period of time—perhaps £50,000 over five years?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I agree with my hon. Friend. I would go further. I would get rid of it. Just abolish it. What is the point of an unelected, unaccountable Chamber? We could have an elected one, or an enhanced Chamber of the House of Commons, where we can tell Ministers that they have to come to a Committee meeting because the House demands they come to it and will drag them to it. That is more or less what the Scottish Parliament does. We have a unicameral Chamber that has profound powers and can drag people to a parliamentary Committee, under oath, I would think. That is surely what this House should be asking for if you are a democrat and believe in democracy. Get rid of that lot.
As a Scot representing a Scottish constituency I also find it an affront that members of the English episcopy have more to say over the affairs of my constituents than I do on many occasions. It is a real pity. Although I am going to support the Opposition motion, it is disappointing that we cannot come to some consensus about the nefarious ability of big donors to utilise the unelected Chamber to change policy and change issues that impact my constituents across Clydebank, Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven—people who need to work two, three or four jobs just to keep their heads above water.
What about members of staff working in this very House who travel miles from across the south of England to work in low-paid jobs to work with Members and to make sure they have a a decent day’s work, while they all have two jobs paying them millions of pounds? What does that say to people in this place who work two or three jobs just to keep their heads above water? It is a parcel of rogues in a nation and in a Parliament. Quite frankly, the time for this obfuscation and saying that we will just tooter aboot while the place crumbles about is done. Get done with it. Stop it. No more second jobs. Get rid of the House of Lords. And that way we can actually look our constituents in the eye.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I once again declare my interest as a member of the Standards Committee, which seems to be gaining more responsibilities and notoriety every day.
Lord Bew’s introductory letter to the 2018 report that we have been discussing asks:
“most importantly, how can MPs and Parliament build and promote greater public trust?”
In essence, that is the most relevant question for today’s debate.
Most Members of this House are aware that a significant percentage—perhaps even a majority—of the public distrust and dislike MPs. Irrespective of party, voting record or character, we are all tarred with the same broad strokes of being corrupt, liars, on the take, useless and lazy. The headlines of the past few weeks are not particularly shocking to the public; they simply reinforce what many people already feel. However much we know that most Members of this House are good people and hard-working MPs, that is not reflected in the outside world. We should keep that very much in mind.
I understand that, as it stands, the Opposition feel emboldened. They feel that they are on the moral high ground and playing smart politics with today’s debate and motion. I caution them, however, that they are not showing leadership or principle today; they are demonstrating opportunism. The tone of the opening remarks and some of the other speeches made today do this House no credit at all. If they seriously wanted to help improve trust in our politics, they would be working across this House and with the Standards Committee, rather than instructing it, to seek substantial improvements. They would dial down the rhetoric and stop the mud- slinging, because some of the things that I have heard both in this House and elsewhere in recent days are unsubstantiated and have not been investigated.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Have the last 18 people who have given £3 million to the Conservative party found their way into the House of Lords or not? Is that unsubstantiated?
Mark Fletcher
I think that point about the Lords was answered by the Leader of the House earlier, and I think he made the position very clear.
I am personally very sympathetic to paragraph (1) of the Opposition motion, which is also covered in the Government’s amendment. I am afraid that my support does not extend to paragraphs (2) and (3). If the Committee on Standards is to be tasked with drawing up proposals for this House on such a serious matter, we should be free to take evidence, discuss the implications involved and ensure that there are no unintended consequences, as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who is no longer in his place, set out earlier.
The broadest point in today’s debate is: should MPs be allowed to have second jobs? I am sure that, instinctively, most people would say absolutely not. But if we ask, “Should a nurse or doctor be allowed to practise?” the answer is yes. Should a Member be allowed to be a Minister, a Parliamentary Private Secretary, a trade envoy or a Whip? The answer, again, is yes. What about writing a book or a newspaper column, as many Members do and for which they receive payment? The initial binary choice is not so simple. It is a matter of judgment and a judgment call. The history of this House encouraged Members to have other professions. The House and its workings have obviously evolved over time, but it has often been considered a virtue to have people from different walks of life in this House, including from different professions. It is perfectly legitimate, under the current rules of this House, for people in professions to continue to practise as long as it is properly declared. Ultimately, it is a judgment call for us as MPs and our bosses, the electorate, as to whether we are doing the right or wrong thing.
Again, I am very sympathetic to the point about banning political consultancy and advisory roles, but we must be clear about the wider context in which this debate is happening and explain clearly the choices that need to be made. As the 2018 Committee on Standards in Public Life report, “MPs’ Outside Interests” states:
“Any strengthening of the regulation of MPs’ outside interests needs to consider the potential for unintended consequences on the diversity of careers and backgrounds of MPs.”
We need to be very careful about what we are doing. The same report goes on to recommend that
“Any outside activity undertaken by a MP, whether remunerated or unremunerated, should be within reasonable limits and should not prevent them from fully carrying out their range of duties”.
That is recommendation 1, which is mentioned in the Government’s amendment. I have to say that I find it slightly troublesome because I think that that part of the report is a bit of a cop-out. It is far from clear what “reasonable” means or what a reasonable principle means. As the Chair of the Standards Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said earlier, that would leave the Committee and the commissioner in the very unenviable position of defining reasonableness. I will be supporting the Government tonight, but I encourage them to tread carefully when it comes to reasonableness and the principles they are asking us to uphold.
It is important to put one other matter on record. It is the duty of the Standards Committee in every Session of Parliament to review the code of conduct. That has been somewhat overdue in the last few Sessions because we have had elections so quickly. Some of these issues may not have come up if we had not had so many elections in recent years.
I return to trust. There is much we can do to help to improve trust in this House and our democracy, but rushing to hasty judgments, airing unsubstantiated rumours and treating them as facts, and opportunistically trying to bring in rules without wider consultation and proper process will not help. I very much welcome the enthusiasm of both Front Benches to improve standards in this House, but encourage all of them to work together with the Standards Committee, rather than trying to play one-upmanship on who is setting the agenda. If we continue down that route, we will end up with rules that do not work, a standards system that simply cannot cope, and even more distrust from the public than we face already.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before we move on, I am trying to ensure that everybody gets six minutes. I need to point out that while I have no objection to people taking interventions, if they still stick to the six minutes it means that others will be able to get equal time. I also urge those who have already spoken to bear in mind that, if they make further interventions, they are reducing others’ time. Obviously, some Members have made a number of interventions. Just bear in mind that we are trying to make it fair for everybody.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. My gratitude also goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, for bringing forward this motion, and to the Labour Front-Bench team for taking steps to clean up and improve standards in this House, when the Prime Minister is so clearly failing in this matter.
I fear that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who I am following, may not like my speech, but I think that certain things need to be said and it is also a fact that the truth hurts. In 2018, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that Members should be banned from any paid work to provide services as a
“Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.
That, frankly, is long overdue.
Sadly, we really should not be surprised. The sordid events of recent weeks have exposed just how endemic cronyism, corruption and nepotism is in the Conservative party. That has continued because there have been no consequences for certain MPs’ immoral actions and they know that even if formal, independent action is levelled against them, the Prime Minister will simply come to their rescue.
Calling the past few weeks a shambles would be a gross understatement. A Conservative Member who repeatedly failed to uphold standards and was a paid advocate for a private company had his punishment overturned by his own Conservative MPs on the Prime Minister’s say-so. There was then a U-turn less than 24 hours after the vote, followed by our Prime Minister having to proclaim on an international stage that we are not corrupt. This seems to set a grim precedent for our country and our Parliament. We simply cannot sit back and accept that elected representatives can be purchased—bought by the highest bidder—to do private companies’ and lobbyists’ bidding, influencing the highest echelons of Government. We deserve so much better. The British public deserve so much better.
Like many elected to this House, representing my constituency has been and continues to be the biggest honour of my life, but unfortunately, that simply does not seem to be the case for all MPs. How else would we explain the staggering £8 million earned by Conservative MPs in addition to their salary? Yes, £8 million—I know that that will come as a huge surprise not only to the wider British public, but to many of us sitting in this House. How could constituents possibly fit into the busy schedules of those MPs who are working as lawyers for weeks on end, sitting in the Caribbean, or as consultants, chairs of boards and lobbyists?
To set the record straight for the benefit of the good people of Slough, who elected me to represent them, my only paid job is as the MP for Slough. I do not have any second, third or fourth jobs, and I reassure the British public that not all of us are here to line our pockets. We are here to serve our country and our society, to do the right thing and to make a positive difference. Being an elected Member of this Parliament should be an opportunity to represent the diverse and varied constituencies of our nations and not to use our privileged position to line our pockets.
One of my gravest concerns is that the sleazy behaviour in recent weeks has eroded the public trust and belief in Parliament irreparably. We must do our utmost to rapidly restore trust. The events of recent weeks have also lifted the veil on the open secret that many who come to this Chamber are here doing their least lucrative job, hiding the hundreds of thousands that they earn in plain sight because it has always been that way.
Even as the Prime Minister’s last-minute plans emerge, it seems that they are characteristically weak and full of loopholes, allowing that practice largely to continue. It is said that a week is a long time in politics but it is incredible that, within 24 hours, after having forced his Tory MPs to vote to protect his paid lobbyist friend—using them as voting fodder—he did a screeching U-turn and marched them straight down the hill after the huge public outcry against the shameless covering up of Tory corruption. How betrayed and let down those Conservative MPs must feel by their Prime Minister—a mini Trump who has not only a severe revulsion for the truth and integrity, but a loathing for the rules, standards and values that make our democracy so special.
To restore public trust, we need transparency, and we must stop the relentless Tory sleaze and corruptive practices eroding our democracy. Let us focus on why we are really here: to serve our constituents, ensure that their voices are heard and make a real change to people’s lives.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am sure that I will not take up all six minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher). Last week, my hon. Friend gave one of the best speeches that I have heard in this House in recent years; he said that
“two years here is more than enough to know the difference between right and wrong.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 67.]
I completely agree. I think that this House has a new beast of Bolsover, and he is a rather improved version of what came before.
I will make just three brief points, if I may. First, the Government have apologised. I am delighted that the Leader of the House is here and there has been a certain amount of eating humble pie. I did not support the Government motion two weeks ago; I do support banning MPs from being political consultants, because there is so much of a grey area. Even with the best will in the world, it is too easy to blur the line into paid advocacy and the ethical problems that come from it. The only political consultant I want to be is for the folks on the Isle of the Wight, and frankly the only lobbying I want to be doing is on their behalf. That is what I will do in this House, rather than taking on paid consultancies, which are ethically just so concerning.
I understand the political dimension, but when we have a main Opposition party spending £2 million a year on lawyers because of a disastrous and illegal anti-semitism scandal, and when, sadly, some Opposition Members have ended up with jail sentences, we cannot approach the issue from a partisan point of view. We get a sewer over all of us, and actually, at the end of the day, it does not really work. It is a much better reflection on Opposition Members if they try to come up with suggestions that do not imply that everyone here is corrupt and on the take, because really that does not quite work.
The critical point is about foreign lobbying. I am delighted that the Leader of the House is here, because I want to talk to the House about that important subject. We need a FOLO—a foreign lobbying Act—in this country. With our foreign lobbying laws, the reason there are not more scandals is that it is actually quite difficult to break the law. A consultant lobbyist has to register, but what about a company, an upmarket law firm, a reputation launderer or an upmarket PR firm?
There is an astonishing, vast amount of frankly very sleazy lobbying, not only of parliamentarians, but of civil servants, former civil servants, former special advisers, former policy advisers to both sides of the House—it was happening under new Labour, and it happens here as well—and universities. We have seen how much damage Cambridge University has experienced as a result not only of a vacuous approach to critical theory and critical gender and race theory, but of a morally vacuous approach to taking money from China.
None of this is being registered anywhere, because we simply do not have a foreign lobbying Act. The Americans have had a foreign lobbying Act since 1938; in those days, it was to guard against covert Nazi influence, and clearly it has evolved from there. The only reason—I am going to criticise my own side now—that we found out about the good Lord Barker’s work for the Putin oligarch Oleg Deripaska was that he had to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the United States. Australia has gone down a similar route with its Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act, because of the threat of covert Chinese money.
We should be setting an example here. As Members of Parliament, ultimately the buck stops with us. As well as the political drama that we have seen from Opposition Members, we need to think about corruption in an advanced society, in which officials and special advisers have a great deal of power and think-tanks can influence things and have a great deal of power. That all matters. I wrote a report on it with the Henry Jackson Society—I declare, just out of interest, that I did not take any payment from the society, in case folks are asking. The Government must not only look at the issues that they are confronting now and the points raised eloquently on both sides of the House, but look wider.
I was going to touch on other issues, but I do not have time. Privilege, the use of artificial reality and the problems that that may cause in a democracy in the coming years, politically motivated bankruptcy—there are lots of interesting issues in the field. Either as part of an espionage Bill or separately, we must get to grips with foreign lobbying and its power in this country. We must understand that it does not involve just Members of Parliament.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The hon. Member speaks about moral vacuity and lobbying loopholes. Many thousands of pounds have gone to the Conservative and Unionist party from unincorporated associations such as the Scottish Unionist Association Trust, but loopholes in electoral law disguise the identity of the original donors. Would the hon. Member support that loophole being closed off in the Elections Bill?
Bob Seely
That is a great question. I support any closing of any loophole that increases transparency and puts pressure on questionable ethical behaviour—including that of Alex Salmond in working for Russia Today, of which I think we should all be very ashamed, given that RT is a mouthpiece—I thank Members for nodding—for Russian authoritarianism. Sadly, a former leader of the hon. Lady’s party is working for it. I typed “SNP scandal” while I was listening to the debate, and there is a very long list, but we will not go there.
I promised not to take up too much time, so I will just say this. I congratulate the Government on moving. Clearly it has not been a great fortnight for any of us, but I would very much like us to look at the important issue of foreign lobbying in this country and in this Parliament.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the previous occupant of the Chair for guiding me in the conventions of the House. I did email the Member to whom I shall refer, but I can see that he—the Leader of the House—is in his place. I am not sure whether he read my email, but I am going to refer to him because last Sunday, on social media, I saw an article in the Mail. I am not an avid reader of the Mail—which may surprise Conservative Members!—but I opened and read the piece, and I was myself somewhat surprised by its contents. It is good that the Leader of the House is present, as he may wish to intervene and respond to some of my points.
According to the Mail, the Leader of the House
“borrowed up to £2.94 million a year in ‘director’s loans’ from his UK-based Saliston Ltd between 2018 and 2020.
Parliamentary rules require MPs to be ‘open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest’.
Although it does not explicitly cover director’s loans, the code of conduct requires directors to declare ‘taxable expenses, allowances and benefits’.
In the MPs’ Register of Interests, Mr Rees-Mogg disclosed himself as an ‘unremunerated director’ and shareholder of the firm, but did not say he had taken out the loans.
By using ‘director’s loans’—classed by the Government as a taxable benefit—he was able to borrow the large sum at very low interest.”
I will come to the details of that later.
The Leader of the House “insisted”—I assume directly to the Mail—that
“as the loans were not earnings, he was not required to declare them to Parliament and he had not broken any rules.”
He told the Mail that
“the 2018 loan was ‘primarily’ used to buy and refurbish his £5.6 million home in Westminster. He would not say what the rest of the money was for.
But a source in the Commons sleaze watchdog”—
that is the Mail’s language, not mine; I assume that it refers to the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—
“said the loans should ‘absolutely’ have been declared in the Register of Interests, adding: ‘The whole point of registration is the public should be able to know what is governing your decision-making and the actions that you take.’”
The Leader of the House, says the Mail,
“bought his house, formerly Tory HQ”.
On Twitter, Baron Leigh of Hurley, a former Conservative party treasurer, challenged me, saying that it was absolute rubbish that the house was formerly the Tory headquarters. If the Leader of the House wants to tell us that it was not, I shall be happy to apologise, but that is what is says in the Mail. It says that the Leader of the House bought the house
“in February 2018 using a mortgage with Coutts bank, Land Registry documents show.
The £6 million he took in loans includes £2.94 million in 2018, £2.3 million the following year and £701,513 in 2019-2020, Companies House documents reveal.
In the first year he paid no interest, in the second he paid £46,915 and in the final year £2,030—£48,945 in interest over three years, equivalent to a rate of 0.8 per cent.”
My constituents, when buying a house, would struggle to get an interest rate of 5%. It sounds like a benefit to me, although I might be wrong.
The Leader of the House, says the Mail,
“was a director of Saliston Ltd until he joined the Cabinet in July 2019, but retains a 100 per cent shareholding and is a ‘Person of Significant Control’…Saliston Ltd has previously been described as a ‘holding company’ by Mr Rees-Mogg.
“It has £8 million property assets”—
including a Mayfair house—
“and nearly £1 million in other investments.
“In 2018”—
I am particularly interested in this—
“it took out a £2.87 million bank loan…the same year it lent Mr Rees-Mogg £2.9 million.”
I do not know the interest rate at which it took out the bank loan, but we know the interest rate at which the Leader of the House repaid it. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention from the Leader of the House at any point. Saliston Ltd has a controlling stake in Somerset Capital Management LLP, the parent firm of Somerset Capital Management (Cayman) Ltd in the Cayman islands—an offshore entity.
I do not have much time, so I will come to the point; I would be fascinated to hear from the Leader of the House on this. He is quoted as saying:
“The loans from 2018 were primarily taken out for the purchase and refurbishment of [my home] as temporary cash flow measures.
All loans have either been repaid with interest in accordance with HMRC rules or paid as dividends and taxed accordingly.”
I worked out that, on a ministerial salary, it would take approximately 100 years to repay the loan.
However, this might be an explanation for how it happened:
“Somerset Capital Management LLP’s accounts show its limited-liability members were remunerated with £3.8 million in 2021.”
I do not know whether those two things were connected at all. I might be wrong; I am not an expert in complex financial instruments—[Interruption.] Yes, I am not, so if the Leader of the House wants to intervene and correct me, I am happy to let him, because unfortunately I have never managed millions of pounds.
What I would like to know is whether the Leader of the House declared the loan and the details of it to the permanent secretary. Should he not fully disclose those dealings so that it can be judged whether he breached the rules of this House and the ministerial code? It is a matter of trust, not just in this Government, but in the handling of business in this House and where the responsibility, accountability and sanctions lie for the breach of the ministerial code.
The public are getting the impression that this Government are just marking their own homework, and obviously the Prime Minister makes adjudications on the ministerial code. Coming back to the recommendations from the 2018 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, while the Leader of the House blames the House for not having implemented them more quickly, it is his own failure, because he controls our time. When is he going to bring forward the recommendations from that report?
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I have enjoyed many of the speeches this afternoon—not the last one by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), which I am not quite sure falls within the definition of Members spending a reasonable amount of time on their constituents’ priorities, but there we are. I start by paying tribute to a speech made in last week’s debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). He spoke about the value and advantage of friendship in this place, but also about the downside of friendships and relationships that are just too cosy.
I was not able to join the earlier debate about covid contracts, but I will quickly mention that we were in a deep national crisis at the time, caused by a model of global supply and distribution that is deeply insecure. To suggest that we could have afforded a leisurely open procurement process is absurd. The whole country, including Opposition Members, was clamouring for action, and businesses stepped forward. It is quite wrong to imply that the whole country or the Government and all the hundreds of civil servants involved in the awarding of those contracts are corrupt. It is quite wrong to suggest that.
All that said, we do need to clean up the relationship between business and politics. I will say another word about that in a moment, but I turn first to the motion and the question of standards in the wake of the Owen Paterson business. With reference to friendship, I should declare this interest: Owen is my friend. I also knew his wife Rose, and they hosted me at their house some years ago. Amid the deluge of obloquy that Mr Paterson has stood under in recent weeks, I will say that I think he did the state good service when he was in this place, both in Government and on the Back Benches.
But this is where I need to act as a friend should, and also as an MP should who puts the national interest ahead of friendship. Mr Paterson will not accept that he did anything wrong, because he knows himself to have acted with the national interest in mind, and to him that motivation and sense of personal honour is sufficient. The fact is that our motivation is not so clear cut as that. We are all human. We all have motivations that do us credit and motivations that do not, and the fact is that we cannot ourselves disentangle our honourable and dishonourable motivations, especially when money is involved. Money is utterly corrupting.
This issue is as old as Parliament itself. There was an entertaining Edmund Burke quote-off earlier; it was of course Edmund Burke who, after losing his seat because he had not done what his constituents wanted him to do, and while sitting for a pocket borough, introduced reforms to clean up politics and get the influence of the Crown out of this place, and William Pitt who implemented them—so it is Conservatives who have a good record on cleaning up politics. In our time, however, we need to look again at the role money plays in politics, and that is not just about MPs.
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). I am uncomfortable that my party takes money from certain businesses, particularly property developers, not because there is direct corruption but because it makes it harder for us to treat those companies as we should—as independent stakeholders which, in many cases, do not have the interest of our communities at heart. I find it uncomfortable that the Labour party takes so much money from trade unions, because it means Labour is not independent of organisations that want substantial changes to policy. That is why we need clear rules for Members.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s proposal, which seems similar to Labour’s proposal—both are based on the Committee on Standards in Public Life report from 2018—first to ensure that MPs devote their time to their constituents and, secondly, to stop political lobbying. The Prime Minister is also right to argue for a fairer system of investigating claims of wrongdoing by Members. It is not right that Mr Paterson had no opportunity to call witnesses for examination and no right of appeal against the decision of the Committee on Standards.
We need some reform to the rules, but we should approach it very carefully, particularly how we define reasonable time spent on other interests. We must take steps to restore trust in this place—the Labour party is right about that—but not through the highly political and partisan effort to twist the knife with this motion. We must be deliberate and careful in how we go about it.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The title of this debate is “Strengthening Standards in Public Life,” and therefore it is plain that standards exist. The problem is that they are not being respected, which is not a new thing. This has not suddenly fallen upon us. Westminster politics and sleaze have co-existed for my entire life. In the 1960s it was centred on Members arranging call girls for their pals and spying, and now it centres on arranging phone calls for their pals and being economical with the truth.
On Tuesday 1 December 2020, during a session of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, I asked the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
“Can principles and codes of conduct remain effective if those in office are determined to interpret them as liberally as possible?”
The response is worth noting:
“if people are determined to bend the rules or to try to play right up to the edge of the rules, it is very difficult to do anything about that. You have to draft the rules very carefully to try to ensure they are in the right places, but the Nolan principles are a matter of personal responsibility for anybody in public life. From that point of view, if you purely rely on a compliance system, I think that is second best to people recognising why these arrangements and principles are actually of value in themselves. The purpose of them is not to set up some set of arbitrary rules. They are there in order to ensure that the citizens of this country get the best from their public service, which they are paying for and which they are engaged with and which they rely on. What we want is the best possible delivery of good public services, fairly and honestly in a way in which people can have confidence.”
That is a comprehensive answer, because principles, standards and conventions mean nothing—I see Government and Opposition Front Benchers playing on their phones—if they are ignored by those who deem themselves to be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else.
My assertion is supported by Lord Evans’s remarks that a culture of impunity was seeping into British governance. Time and again, as we have heard, the facts show that this UK Government have trampled all over the seven principles of public life. The outcome is that there is potential for all elected Members, senior civil servants and others serving in public life to be tarred with the same brush. The public’s default to any accusation can be that we are all guilty. We have to avoid that stereotype of politicians, because we can be painted as the same, as having our noses in the trough and working for our own aims, rather than following the first Nolan principle to act solely in the public interest.
When elected Members line their own pockets, seek favour for actions taken or put themselves before their constituents, they undermine all the good work that the majority of MPs are doing. I have to disagree with the Member who forecast a plague on us all, as that is not inevitable. This is a problem that this Government should have the courage to resolve. The problem is the mindset that allows corruption and undermines selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. The mindset must change, and while this Government twist and turn to protect their own, public confidence will continue to diminish.
Finally, let me say that, thankfully, the people of Scotland have an alternative. Given the catalogue of corruption that weighs heavy on this place—
Ronnie Cowan
The hon. Gentleman should be very careful of what he is alleging there, even if he thinks he can get immunity from being in this place. If people look at the model of government and the model of election that we run in Holyrood, in Edinburgh, for the people of Scotland, they would be ashamed of some of the actions that go on in this place. But we can resolve this—[Interruption.] Oh, the Leader of the House is off his phone now—thanks very much for listening, finally.
Deidre Brock
Unfortunately, in Scotland we cannot stop the influence of organisations such as unincorporated associations, with the shadowy donors that lie behind them, such as the Scottish Unionist Association Trust. That occurs, of course, throughout the UK. Indeed, it occurs in places such as the Isle of Wight, where we have the Isle of Wight Conservative Patrons Club. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about these shadowy bodies and the fact that donors can hide their identity?
Ronnie Cowan
This is, of course, a system we are moving away from; when the people of Scotland take their opportunity to remove all of Scotland’s MPs—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Ronnie Cowan
For the record, nobody has actually said that the IWPC is.
This situation is leading to the acceleration of the removal of all of Scotland’s MPs from this place. The people of Scotland’s representatives will work in a Parliament that is modern, accessible, open, honest and accountable.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
As we all sit here today, it is worth reminding ourselves who it is that we serve. For me, it is absolutely, 100%, the constituents of Warwick and Leamington, Whitnash and villages. It is to them I owe my position as a Member of this House. I am their advocate, paid as such, and I am proud to be so, but I will never take money from anyone to be their advocate or to represent them. We are all the servants of our constituents. By putting our names forward for election, we have all committed ourselves to the principle of public life. I appreciate that the concept of public life is often so abstract that its meaning can occasionally be lost in the heated discourse of politics. For that reason, the Nolan principles, established in 1995, serve as a fundamental, concrete basis for everything that we do. Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership were and should be our guiding principles. Put simply,
“we need all in positions of trust to set an example.”
Those are not my words, but the words of every living Cabinet Secretary, in a joint letter published in The Times on Monday.
It is therefore with a heavy heart that I consider the actions of some Members of this House in the past 14 days that run counter to the very foundations of public service, with the most egregious case being Owen Paterson and his blatant prioritisation of private, corporate interests over and above those of his constituents, for his own gain. Owen Paterson’s actions grate against every single one of the Nolan principles. His pay cheque from Randox and Lynn’s, at almost three times his MP’s salary, reeks of selfishness, dishonesty and private interest. It is not just the constituents of North Shropshire who are short-changed, but every Member of this House. While the vast majority of us work tirelessly to represent the interests of our constituents, a small but notable minority continue to damage the reputation of this place.
What makes the incident particularly sorrowful is that by seeking to pause the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ recommendation of suspension and undermining her independence, the Government complicitly advanced private interests over and above public interests. If the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister are in any way confused about the scale of outrage levelled against their Government in the past 14 days, I suggest to them that it is for that reason. If there is one thing the electorate wants, it is good, honest, reputable government—the antithesis of what we have seen in the past 14 days—and if the Government do not, they should move over.
If anyone was ever in doubt about the need for rigorous standards in public life, this affair has demonstrated why we need them more than ever. I have deep concerns that this incident is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the past two weeks, a flurry of reports has emerged about numerous Members of this House engaging in a variety of forms of paid consultancy. One Conservative Member is reported to have called for weakened environmental laws while earning £30,000 a year as chairman of a packaging lobby group. Another has called for more military spending without declaring his £425-an-hour job with an aerospace company. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) is reportedly paid £200 an hour by the betting industry while seeking to warn Ministers not to introduce tough new laws on gambling.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Has the hon. Member written to the Members he is now mentioning?
Matt Western
They say that a fish rots from the head down; is it any wonder, then, that so many Conservative MPs are happy to rake in thousands from private companies, given that as soon as the Prime Minister resigned as Foreign Secretary in 2018, he immediately retook his position at The Daily Telegraph at the staggering rate of £275,000 a year for one weekly column? That is as much per word as someone would receive on a minimum wage. The right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) earned £320,000 in one year working for J. P. Morgan and C3 AI. Let us reflect on that for a moment now that he is the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: in that period he earned the equivalent of 13 years’ income for an average nurse.
I could not afford to take another job—I already work 70 to 80 hours a week, like many others, I am sure—and nor would I. Time and again this Government have tried to sweep their corruption under the carpet, but this time they have failed. The public are waking up to the fact that this Government’s interests lie with corporate companies and corrupt donors. That is why I speak in full support of the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which would ban paid consultancy work
“to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.
It is a step in the right direction—towards cleaning up the mess that has dogged this House’s reputation in the past two weeks.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The public’s confidence in Parliament and their elected representatives has been dealt a grievous blow in recent weeks, following a torrent of revelations about the scale of corruption among those on the Government Benches—from the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money handed out to Minister’s friends for personal protective equipment that did nothing to protect frontline workers, through the scandal of cash for peerages, to the grotesque spectacle of Government Members voting to rip up the rules that govern standards in public life in a pathetic attempt to save their friend, the former Member for North Shropshire.
In his most recent U-turn, the Prime Minister now claims to have had a change of heart, but the amendment he has tabled today is a desperate attempt to water down the robust measures that are needed to restore confidence in this House. It is clear for all to see that the Prime Minister regards this as yet another in a long line of scandals for him to sweep under the rug. In the face of a Government who are unwilling to clean up our politics, it has fallen to the Labour party to bring forward this motion, which will guarantee that elected Members serve the interests of their constituents and not those of giant corporations and lobbyist groups.
I will forever be humbled by the immense trust that the people of Birkenhead placed in me nearly two years ago. I owe it to them to dedicate all my energy to standing up for their rights and interests in this House. Being a Member of Parliament is an extraordinary privilege, not a hobby or an afterthought to be indulged in from the luxury of the British Virgin Islands. I have heard some Members say that they just could not get by without their second or third jobs; that the generous salary afforded to us as MPs is not enough. To those MPs I say this: come and explain to my constituents why it is acceptable for you to plunge them into deepest poverty with the cuts to universal credit and Tory tax hikes, and why you should be allowed to cynically exploit your position to make yourself even richer still.
Today, Conservative Members have a simple choice: they can begin the long journey towards restoring faith and competence in our elected institutions or they can continue to slip further down into the cesspit of corruption that is fast enveloping this Government.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I thank all my constituents who have written to me asking me to voice their concerns today.
Being an MP since 2019 has given me an insight into how those two letters after our names can open up doors. Last year, as the MP for Liverpool, West Derby—representing many of my constituents who are part of the 32% in Liverpool suffering from food insecurity, as outlined in the report, “Feeding Liverpool”—I, along with Baroness Shami Chakrabarti submitted a proposal for the right to food to be put into law in a meeting with Henry Dimbleby, the Government adviser leading on the national food strategy. I would not have been afforded that opportunity when I was a taxi driver in Liverpool. Having the letters “MP” after my name has enabled me to make a difference. I have sat in many meetings with many people with the aim of tackling the injustices that I see in my constituency and beyond. It would have been far more difficult to organise if I were still a taxi driver—of that I am 100% certain.
We can say with absolute certainty, therefore, that being an MP gives us opportunities and it opens doors for us, but for me it is about what doors we want opening and how we utilise that opportunity. Do we open them with the aim of aiding our constituents and for the common good, or do we open them with the aim of aiding personal gain and wealth? That is what we are debating here, and, shamefully, for many in this Chamber, it has been the latter.
The public’s opinion on MPs is normally low, but with the events of the past week. it is now at rock bottom. Let us imagine being on universal credit, seeing the pain of what the £20 cut has done to our family, and hearing the same Tory MPs who inflicted this inhumane policy line up to complain about their ability to exist on £82,000 a year—a salary that puts them in the top 5% of earners in this country. For God’s sake we have 15 million people in poverty, 4.5 million kids going hungry, and, horrifically, a national pandemic that, in the past seven days, took the lives of 1,035 people. That—nothing else—should be the priority of every MP in this House.
The second job scandal has uncovered rot at the heart of this place that must be resolved by this House. It is immoral, and it must end with the banning of second jobs. Being an MP should be a vocation, not an opportunity to gorge ourselves on the corporate shilling. We need to show the public that being a public servant is indeed a pledge to serve the very constituents who voted us in and to try to advance their lives—not our own, courtesy of a corporate paymaster. It is time to ban these second jobs, and I will be voting in support of that tonight.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. It is pleasure to follow the previous speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne).
I am grateful to those on the shadow Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition for calling this debate because it is so important to show that, although sleaze has happened, we are not all involved. What many on the Government Benches described as a “Westminster village issue” has resonated with many people in Newport West who have been in touch with me in recent days to express their strong feelings on the matter.
Hon. Members who fail to separate the interests of the people who elected us to this House from their private interests for money or other benefits damage the integrity of Parliament. They damage the relationship between all parliamentarians and our constituents and they further damage public trust in politics. That is why I cannot understand why the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip instructed their MPs to troop into the Lobby to tear up an independent and functioning process that investigated the behaviour and standards of Members of this House.
I worked in the national health service for more than 30 years, and I saw hard-working people who gave their all every day and adhered to the highest standards. We had to sign a declaration if we had a second job or even if we received a gift that cost more than 20 quid. Those were the rules and we followed them. Local councillors also have to make declarations that are accessible to their constituents about their occupations and interests, so why would Members of this House be above such rules and why should the former Member for North Shropshire think that the rules do not apply to him? I know that I speak for many colleagues—certainly on the Opposition Benches—who believe that it is vital for MPs to be held to the highest standards of behaviour. A strong, independent Standards Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is an integral part of this important process.
The strength of feeling in Newport West is palpable. Local people are beyond angry at the high-minded, dismissive approach taken by Ministers in recent days. They believe that standards exist to hold us in this House to account. Over the last two weeks, this Government have brought the House into disrepute by giving the impression that these standards do not apply to parliamentarians. We must not allow there to be a lack of standards, or risk the perception of a lack of standards, here in the nation’s Parliament.
I wonder whether the Minister would address some specific points in the wind-ups. When will the Prime Minister come to the House and finally apologise for the damage that he has done to Parliament’s reputation? Why did the Government think that it was acceptable to interfere in a live standards case that had been endorsed by the Standards Committee? Colleagues across the House—but, most importantly, our constituents—want those questions answered.
We all have a responsibility to do better, and to work together to improve standards in public life and in this House, but the Government and Ministers have a responsibility to lead. They have been found wanting and this House, our constituents and the country deserve better. I reiterate: being a Member of this House is a real honour and privilege. Becoming a Member later in life made me appreciate that people out there in the real world look at us in this Westminster bubble and expect the highest standards possible from us; they deserve nothing less, and they are watching.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
In one of my first speeches as an MP, I talked about something that I found surprising when I was elected. It was the gifts that we are sent by big business: a food hamper from Heathrow, with a letter asking me to back a third runway; a box from Google—not much, although the company’s letter told me about its supposed good work, but not the billions of pounds it has dodged in taxes. And that was not it. I was surprised to walk down a corridor in Parliament where big businesses host private dinners for MPs. Over a glass of fine wine and an expensive meal, they extend their influence. I learnt about the free trips abroad that are paid for by global corporations. As Dennis Skinner once joked, it is always
“Bahamas in the winter...they never go on a fact-finding mission to Greenland in the winter!”.
But in truth, it is no laughing matter.
From gifts, dinners and trips abroad to donations from the super-rich and second jobs from big businesses, this web of influence has one aim: to get this House to work for the wealthy few and not the people who we are elected to serve. Why else do a third of UK billionaires donate to the Conservative party? Why else do wealthy corporations hire MPs with ludicrous salaries for lucrative second jobs? It is no coincidence that big business and the super-rich have been handed tax cuts and dodgy deals worth billions by consecutive Conservative Governments.
MPs are already in the top 5% of earners, but for some Members this is still not enough. We have seen how Members cash in on connections, rather than dedicating themselves to their constituents. Since the start of the pandemic, while our constituents have been pushed into poverty due to the Government’s decisions, MPs have made more than £6 million from lucrative second jobs. In the past 14 years, the Prime Minister himself was paid more than £4 million for second jobs—jobs which, I note, would not be banned by his proposals.
But this racket has been exposed. The Prime Minister’s mate got caught. He was lobbying for companies that were paying him hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Committee found this to be an “egregious” breach of the rules, with no other case having such a clear pattern of behaviour. So what did the Prime Minister do? Well, he tried to rewrite the rules and get his mate off the hook, weakening even further the rules against MPs selling themselves to big business—and it was not integrity or a conscience that made him backtrack, but public outcry.
This scandal has exposed not only that all lucrative second jobs should be banned, but that this is a corrupt Government, led by a dodgy Prime Minister.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
There is phrase that summarises the past couple of weeks quite well that was mentioned to me earlier by a colleague when we were having a conversation—these past two weeks have been a cure for optimism, because what we have seen is scandal after scandal and sleaze story after sleaze story. Frankly, I am livid. I am livid that all of us have been collectively dragged through the mud because of the corruption of individuals within this place. It is not just that, but the fact that the Leader of the House, a man who extols the virtues of Parliament, tried to cover it up—him, the Prime Minister, the Chief Whip, all complicit in trying to drag the reputation of each and every one of us through the mud. Shame on them.
I cannot explain how furious I am about this. We should all be furious about this. The notion that we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) that it is a plague on all our houses is not something that we should accept. We should highlight those individuals who have acted with impropriety and feathered their own nests, and ensure that they never sit in a democratically elected Chamber ever again, because they have no interest in trying to represent the people. They do not see this place, or any democratic institution, as important—what they see as important is their bank balance and the opportunity to influence.
This does not start or finish with the stories over the past couple of weeks: it goes much further than that. We heard earlier about the House of Lords, and rightly so—that if you donate £3 million to the Conservative party, you will get yourself a seat in our legislature. How is that possible? It amazes me. When I was growing up I did not have any trust in the Labour party. That is one of the main reasons I focused on becoming a member of the Scottish National party. I believed that Scotland could do things differently because of the trust that was broken by Tony Blair when he went into an illegal war in Iraq. We now have a situation where Labour Members, despite the scandals that are engulfing politics at the moment, will not stand up and say that they will not put Members into the House of Lords. So shame on the Government but shame on the official Opposition too.
This does not need to be in Scotland’s name. We can do things differently. We will do things differently. We will act in the interests of the people of Scotland. I see the Leader of the House is laughing. I challenge him to rise just now and defend his actions. I challenge him to resign for trying to slur the name of every single politician up and down the land. I challenge him on one more thing: to encourage his Prime Minister to show the bottle to go to the polls to let the people of Scotland decide their own future, because he knows what the outcome will be, just as I know what the outcome will be: the people of Scotland will choose to get rid of this corrupt institution.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate where so many Members have spoken with passion and conviction, although some on the Conservative Benches, I am afraid, have spoken with great delusion.
Being a Member of Parliament is a privilege. I could not be prouder to represent my community here in Parliament. My family have lived and worked in east Leeds for 100 years since coming as immigrants from Ireland looking for work, so it could not be a greater privilege for me. Why would I want a second job?
Quite rightly, my constituents would be appalled if I sought or secured a second job. When I first stood for Parliament in 2015, I promised that I would not take a second job. Some people in this place need to wake up and realise what the reality is. Being a Member of Parliament is a well-paid job—it is £82,000 a year. Some 95% of people in our country get paid less than MPs. It is a full-time job, too. I do not buy these pleas of poverty from Government Members who are trying to tell people whose universal credit has been cut that they are a poor Member of Parliament who just cannot get by on just £82,000 a year. What a load of rubbish. When MPs are chasing corporate cash, they are short-changing the public, but they are also short-changing and jeopardising our democracy.
We have heard all the fake Tory arguments about how these second and third jobs give real-world experience. I wrote to the Health Secretary and said that I would mention the fact that before becoming Health Secretary he was getting paid £1,500 an hour by a US investment bank. That is not real-world experience. Is it not funny how these MPs who justify this racket on the basis of real-world experience never choose to get a job in the real world? They are not asking to work in supermarkets, as taxi drivers, in factories, in care homes or, in many cases, in hospitals. The truth is that these extra jobs do not make Members of Parliament more in touch with the real world, but less. It is the wrong kind of experience.
I want to mention these fake financial struggles—these teary-eyed tales of poverty—from MPs who are very well off. One Conservative MP told the Financial Times:
“There is no way I could be an MP without my outside interests. My wife works full time, I’ve got kids and need the money for childcare.”
How on earth do these people think that 95% of our population cope on less than £82,000 a year? The truth is that Conservative Members of Parliament may think that they need more than £82,000 a year, but they do not. They might want more than £82,000 a year, but that is very different.
When we hear the Prime Minister describe in an interview on television that £250,000 for journalism is “chicken feed”, people are completely appalled. It is disrespectful to the people who use food banks in our country; it is disrespectful to the people on zero-hours contracts in our country; and it is disrespectful to the people in our country who are struggling to keep their heads above water.
A Conservative MP talked about universal credit. They said:
“I think there are people that quite like getting the extra £20 but maybe they don’t need it.”
The same Conservative Member of Parliament, when asked about this second jobs racket, said:
“We have to realise that we are dealing with human beings who have families and responsibilities”,
making a compelling moral case for MPs to carry on getting extra money through extra jobs, but not offering a modicum of compassion for those in our communities who are suffering.
We hear of some MPs briefing newspapers that they will stand down if they cannot have second jobs, because £82,000 a year is not enough. I say to those MPs: good riddance, go, our democracy does not need you. Some 95% of the public is a big pool from which we can draw in our democracy. We do not need half-measures. The Prime Minister has not gone far enough. We need a ban on second jobs, which is why I am bringing forward a private Member’s Bill on that very subject. Parliament has to show that we understand that the rot in our political system is deep and needs cutting out. It is time to ban second jobs for MPs and it is time for MPs to start living in the real world and representing the public.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a proud member of Unite the union, and I wish the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara) was here to hear me declare that interest.
When MPs take up
“outside interests beyond what might be considered reasonable, it risks undermining trust in Parliament and Parliamentarians.”
That is what the Committee on Standards in Public Life report said in 2018. In the three years since that report was published under this Conservative Government, including two years during the Prime Minister’s tenure, no action has been taken on MPs’ paid outside interests, particularly for services and for exerting influence. The Government even went one step further away from strengthening standards in this place by moving to rip up the rulebook to save one of their own.
I want to reflect on what the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Lord Geidt, told the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this year. He said that
“good behaviour is a very difficult thing to legislate for. I join those who suggest that it really needs leaders—of course, the Prime Minister, Parliament and civil servants—to set the necessary example.”
Sadly, it is the behaviour and actions of the Prime Minister and other members of the Government that have risked undermining public trust. Whether it be the circumstances surrounding the refurbishment of the flat at Downing Street, the Government’s covid contract VIP lane or the Tory ex-MP for North Shropshire being a paid lobbyist for a private commercial interest, the Prime Minister and the Government have shown no leadership in upholding and strengthening standards in public life.
While we are here, let us reflect again on the fact that the seven principles of public life
“apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally”.
The principles include selflessness:
“Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.”
They also include leadership:
“Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour… They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”
These standards exist to hold us all to account irrespective of party, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life recognises that the issue is undue influence over an MP’s decision making. Conflicts of interest arise when MPs do not separate the interests of the public from their private interests for money or other benefits, and that damages the integrity of Parliament. It is a privilege to be in this House as the Member for Luton South, but for all of us our responsibility is to represent our constituents, not undue outside private commercial interests. That is what the public expect.
The Opposition motion that we are debating is binding, and it would lead to immediate action to ban MPs from any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. This will enable us to tackle the unscrupulous act of an MP advising a client on parliamentary matters while at the same time being free to speak, lobby and vote on those same matters to feather their own nests.
I look back at the original reasoning of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1995. Its first report identified this conflict of interest, stating:
“If a Member is engaged to advise a client on Parliamentary matters affecting the client, and is at the same time free to speak, lobby and vote on those same matters in the House, it is not merely possible but highly likely that the Member will use Parliamentary opportunities in a way consistent with that advice.”
Public office should not be used for personal gain. We have a duty to uphold the principles of public life, and I hope that Members across the House will support the Labour motion.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
As many Members have said, it gives me no pleasure to be taking part in this debate. I would much rather be talking about jobs for the young people of Roehampton. On Friday, I will be holding a jobs fair in Roehampton, which I have previously invited Members of the House to attend— but not to get their own second jobs, I hasten to add. Instead, we have to be here stating the obvious: there should be high standards in public life.
So what is this all about? Is it that a U-turn a day keeps the electorate away for the Prime Minister? It is not even a U-turn. This amendment is a watered-down version of our own Labour amendment. It does not go far enough, it does not take the steps necessary and it will not content the people of Britain, who are watching this now. I urge Members to vote for the Labour motion in a show of cross-party support for upholding our standards.
We know that the public are watching, and asking, “Why didn’t the Government do this a long time ago?” Why have Conservative MPs got away with being able to take lucrative contracts from companies that, of course, have expectations of getting something back? Labour’s motion is clear. It
“endorses the 2018 recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public life that Members should be banned from any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant; instructs the Committee on Standards to draw up proposals to implement this and to report by 31 January 2022—”
—a clear date. It orders action on that by two weeks later, or for an explanation to be given as to why not.
On the other hand, the Government amendment is unclear. It deliberately fudges the issues and could lead to no changes whatsoever on second jobs, if that is chosen to be the end of the process. If any Members present want to tell their constituents that we are tackling the issue of second jobs, they should vote for the motion and not for this weak, wavering and watered down amendment.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote to the Speaker to try to pretend that he wanted to accept our binding motion on dodgy second jobs for MPs, and that is what the press have been told. That was then watered down and kicked into the long grass. This is a Prime Minister who says one thing, only to do another. We do not trust a word he says because he has proved that he says one thing and does another. Let’s get real; it has taken too long to get here to duck out now. It is clear what people want. Now is the time for Conservative Members to support the motion, rather than having to make tortuous negotiations with their Whips, only to be told there will be another U-turn tomorrow. If Conservative MPs really want to clean up our politics, they should vote for the Labour amendment.
Let me go through a little of what the Government amendment says, and how poor it is. Perhaps I will give it a little more time than it had in its actual writing. The amendment
“believes the rules which apply to MPs must be up to date, effective and appropriately rigorous;”.
We would all agree with that, but it does not say anything extra. It
“recalls the 2018 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life into this matter;”.
Well, we can all recall it, but again no action. It
“believes that recommendations 1 and 10 in that report form the basis of a viable approach which could command the confidence of parliamentarians and the public;”.
Yes, we all believe in those recommendations. We believe in them—fantastic—but again, no action. It
“believes that these recommendations should be taken forward; and supports cross-party work, including that being done by the House’s Committee on Standards, to bring forward recommendations to update the Code of Conduct for MPs by 31 January 2022.”
Of course a date had to be put in there, otherwise it would be entirely criticised, but I suggest that supporting “cross-party work” could start right now, by supporting the Labour party motion.
It has taken too long just to duck out now. The Leader of the House opened this debate by sort of arguing that MPs should have interests outside the Westminster bubble—no disagreement—and implying that second jobs are needed to provide that. I am suspicious that at the end of the process outlined in the amendment, we will get to somewhere, with a lot of lobbying by other MPs who have second jobs, that actually will not stop second jobs.
On the day after I was elected nearly two years ago, I went to the community centre where I had been employed and I resigned immediately. However, I brought all that experience with me to the House. I do not need to go back to the community centre and carry on working there to have that experience. I have brought it with me. I do not know of many jobs where we say to our new boss, “Sorry, I have to keep working at my old job to have the experience to do my new job.” That is not how it works.
We have been here for a while. Labour secured an Opposition-day motion in 2015 that called for an end to MPs holding paid directorships or consultancies, and 250 Conservatives—many of whom are still Members—voted against it, along with 38 Members of the Liberal Democrat party. Why did they not vote for this recommendation back then? It would have saved the Committee on Standards in Public Life from having to do all the reports, and it would have saved a lot of dodgy dealings along the way. The recommendations were made in 2018. Why did the Government not support them then? Instead, it has taken a Conservative MP being found to have broken the rules many times. It has taken a botched attempt to rig the system of standards, and the threat of this Opposition day debate to make the Prime Minister do what the British public wanted him to do a long time ago, and even then, it is not a very good amendment.
The Prime Minister knows that he cannot ask his MPs to vote against what the motion suggests. He knows about the unprecedented letter from all five living former Cabinet Secretaries. He knows that there are calls for an investigation into links between the second jobs of several MPs and Government contracts. He has been backed into this.
But why has it taken so long? Is it because Conservative MPs feel that it is only right—it is only fair enough—to earn a bit on the side? Do they feel that their worth is not in doing public service but in comparing how much they earn against their wealthy pals? Is there a Conservative culture of entitlement and disconnect with most working people in this country, which means that Conservative MPs feel that their salary is not enough, that they need more?
Many Conservative MPs have tried to blur this debate by talking about second jobs as doctors, nurses or reservists, or even about the private-public divide, but that misses the point. The distinction is clearly about being a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. It is about using influence for private gain.
There have been excellent contributions to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) took us to the heart of the debate, saying that constituents feel that it is contemptuous for Members who are paid more than four times the average salary to be paid more. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) stood up for decency, giving us a sorry list of times that the Government have failed to uphold standards, saying that this needs to stop.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said that MPs should not be available to the highest bidder and that people who want to earn more should not seek office. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) reminded us—though his Opposition colleagues do not need reminding—that MPs are here to serve constituents, as he does, and revealed that Conservatives have earned an extra £8 million on top of their salaries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said that this is a matter of standards and trust, and that it is not only about second jobs but about second sources of income. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said that while the majority of MPs work very hard, a small minority damage our reputation by earning large amounts of money.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) all shared the anger felt by their constituents that at such a difficult time for our country, MPs are voting for cuts to universal credit at the same time as topping up already high salaries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) showed that this debate is exposing cash for connections—it is drawing aside the curtain and revealing what is happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East quoted a Conservative MP saying that they could not cope on £80,000, which makes me worry about where we would end up with this amendment. Will the Government really cut second jobs? My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) said that the Government need to show leadership in standards. That should not need to be said, but it will be cheered on by people across the country.
Why is it wrong to be paid to be a strategist, lobbyist or consultant? First, our responsibility is to our constituents, not to whoever pays us. I feel, every minute of every day, that I have 100,300 bosses—that is how many people live in Putney. They are my bosses, not whoever might be paying me. That would mean that I had a conflict of interest—of course it would—and receiving no payment would immediately cut that conflict of interest. The bottom line is: how could any Member of this House say that their constituents are their first priority and then devote valuable hours to advising private companies?
That brings me to my second point—time, which has been mentioned by many Members. Since I was elected less than two years ago, I have received more than 1,500 emails a month, I have sent nearly 40,000 emails back to my constituents, and I have spoken in Parliament more than 300 times and tabled more than 500 questions, alongside very regular meetings with constituents in Putney that inform everything I say in this place. How would I have time to work an extra hour a year—let alone 70 hours or more—on top of that for a private company? No matter how good the money is, I could not fit it in and properly serve my constituents.
The third reason is the clear links to Government contracts. We talked lengthily about Randox in an earlier debate today, but why do businesses and lobbying companies pay MPs? It is not for the fun. It is not just for the advice. It is clearly for the influence.
I listened carefully to the Leader of the House argue that a ban on second jobs will see a lot of expertise and skills lost from this House, but I again say that I do not think we need to be paid for a second job to bring in all our skills and expertise to be able to talk to a wide range of interests and people in the constituency. There does not have to be a link between payments and private interests, and the public interest we serve. What are our motivations as public servants? That is at the heart of this debate.
To close, whether Conservative Members like it or not, the party is over. It is a matter of when, not if. The public have made their feelings loud and clear to the House and in the House during this debate. The party stops now. We have an opportunity in a few moments to end it tonight once and for all, or to dither and delay and pass the watered-down Government amendment which will potentially not end it at all. Who knows what will come up at the end of January with the Government amendment? Instead, we should go back to our constituents with our heads held high and say, “No more dither, no more delay. We have heard you loud and clear. No more MPs for hire. Less cash, more case work.” Vote for the Opposition’s motion today.
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for their thoughtful contributions over the past three-and-a-half hours. In closing, I will respond to a few of the issues raised by hon. Members, but first I want to say this. The impassioned nature of the proceedings this afternoon, and the range of opinions, experiences and insights put forward by Members on both sides of the House, proves how important it is that we now move forward as one from a position of consensus. I look forward to the constructive support, therefore, of the Opposition Front Bench as we make progress.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in opening the debate, the Government have reflected carefully on the concerns that have been raised in recent weeks about the outside interests of Members of Parliament and fully recognise the need for the rules that bind all our behaviour in the code of conduct to be up to date, effective and rigorous. Indeed, we on the Conservative Benches are pleased that the Labour party brought forward a motion on this important matter. The Government not only support the intent of the motion, but take a tougher stance than the Opposition in advocating, as we do, recommendation 1 of the 2018 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
The Government have put on record that they would support a change to the code of conduct to endorse recommendation 10 from the same report. Those recommendations, if they were to be adopted, would serve to allay the concerns that have been aired eloquently in this place and outside it, establish that the role of the MP continues to command the confidence of the general public, and ensure that the rules on outside activity reflect the fundamental principle enunciated eloquently by Edmund Burke in 1774 and many times since that, first and foremost, Members of Parliament have a duty to their constituents.
That duty is paramount. It is why we, as Members of Parliament, are here today: because we were elected on a vow to serve those whom we represent. If duty to our constituents is as important to the leader of the Labour party and the sponsor of today’s Opposition motion as it is to the Government, he might ponder whether the people of Holborn and St Pancras have been sufficiently served by the right hon. and learned Member, or whether the British people wish their MPs to be mouthpieces of trades union interests. An updated code of conduct would mean—
Michael Ellis
No, I don’t think so. An updated code of conduct would mean that Members of Parliament who neglected their constituents and put their outside interests first would be investigated and subject to the proper sanctions, if found to be in breach of those rules. That, in turn, should help to ensure that the work of this House continues to command the confidence of the public.
The Government recognise that the Standards Committee has a vital role to play and would welcome advice from the Committee on how these proposals can best be implemented. The Government also await the Standards Committee’s report on the code of conduct with interest. Any changes to the system will need to be taken forward on the basis of cross-party consensus of the whole House, for obvious reasons. Naturally, the Government will advocate for the development of such a process. We look forward to the constructive support of the Opposition Front Benchers in the coming weeks and months.
To turn to the comments from hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) made eloquent and powerful points and made it clear how difficult this situation is, in an impassioned contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) made points about how important it is to get the balance right in this complicated argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) made a constructive contribution, suggesting some additional measures. He is well placed to make those suggestions and they will be listened to carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) spoke about the difference that was being advocated in some quarters between the public and private sectors, and he made extremely powerful points about getting more people into politics in future when that is hard enough at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) said that we have very high standards in this country and that we are one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. That is without question. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) also made the point that the trade unions have a part to play in this discussion.
So often, these issues are presented as intractable lines in the sand between two incompatible and firmly entrenched positions, but they are not entrenched positions. They are about finding a way ahead that reflects our duties to the people and the nation and a process that we can all get behind, given the strength of feeling. I am grateful again for the contributions that we have heard in the House today and for the work that will be brought forward as a result.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must advise Members that if they shout a certain way, they should vote a certain way.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the course of the previous debate, the Government sneaked out guidance on the cap on social care costs that means that people on low and modest incomes, especially in the midlands and the north, will have to pay more for their care. Should elderly people and their families not have a clear explanation of what they will have to pay for their care, with proper scrutiny and accountability from hon. Members? Can you advise us as to whether Ministers will be coming to this House to set out the details of their proposals that will see the poorest pensioners in this country paying more?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. I have been given no notification that any statements will be made today. Clearly, if a statement will be made tomorrow, the House will be informed in the usual way.
Business Without Debate
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Walter Smith OBE: Contribution to Scottish Football
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving the House the opportunity to put on the record its appreciation of the contribution made by the late Walter Smith to Scottish football. I will be as generous as I possibly can in allowing interventions because I know that an awful lot of people want to contribute. I thank the Minister for his understanding of the situation.
It is, of course, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I hope you will forgive me if I express my regret that the Chairman of Ways and Means could not be with us this evening. I know from our frequent sparring over matters pertaining to life in Glasgow and Scottish football that there is no bigger Rangers supporter and no greater Walter Smith fan in this House than the Chairman of Ways and Means—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Laughter.]
Brendan O’Hara
I will in a moment; I will make some progress first.
I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means, perhaps more than most, would understand me when I say that, unlike her good self and perhaps one or two others present, Walter Smith’s career has not been a source of great personal joy and happiness for me—far from it. Indeed, save for his brief period as manager of Scotland, Walter’s career was the cause of great personal angst and unhappiness for me, as his team all too regularly wiped the floor with mine, so I will leave it to others—I can see that on the Benches behind me others are indeed primed—to tell of the joy that Mr Smith’s remarkable career brought to them.
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand and said that this was a wonderful occasion to recognise the contribution made by Walter Smith OBE. As an avid Rangers fan—I am probably as good a Rangers fan as anybody in this House—I have long admired the role played by Walter Smith in our glory days, and I believe those days are on their way back round. I also admired the role that he played in the Better Together campaign against Scottish independence; he had a clear and wonderful view that I respected and that I know the hon. Gentleman respected too. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Walter Smith’s legacy of passion on the pitch and respect off the pitch was seen at his funeral, where there were not only many Rangers supporters but many Celtic, Hearts and Hibernian supporters? That tells me that Walter Smith OBE is respected throughout the whole UK—not just by Rangers fans but by everyone—for his contribution.
Brendan O’Hara
I do agree and thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is absolutely right and I will address that shortly.
Regardless of our football allegiance, we can all agree, whether through tears of joy or tears of sorrow, that Walter Smith enjoyed a remarkable managerial career that is up there with the very best Scotland has ever produced. In a trophy-laden career he led Rangers to an astonishing 21 major titles, over two terms at Ibrox. He won the Scottish premier league 10 times, plus three more times as assistant manager to Graeme Souness in the ’80s. He picked up five Scottish cups and six Scottish league cups, and his team reached the final of the UEFA cup in 2008.
He managed in the English premiership, taking charge at Everton for three or four seasons and performing wonders at Goodison Park in what was a hugely difficult period for the club; I think the consensus opinion would be that he performed a minor miracle by keeping them in the top flight of English football for the time he was there. Of course, he then joined his great friend Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United and enjoyed FA cup success in 2004.
He also briefly managed the Scottish national team and did a pretty good job, improving our world ranking by 70 places during his tenure, which included that famous victory over France at Hampden. Unfortunately, his stay at Scotland was all too brief and when Rangers came calling, there was no way he would turn down a chance to return to the club that he loved.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Walter Smith’s life and career is also celebrated in early-day motion 584, which I have signed along with my hon. Friend and 40 other colleagues. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging other Members to sign that early-day motion? Would not the best tribute to Walter Smith’s life be to see Scotland back where they belong, in the World cup in Qatar in 2022? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Brendan O’Hara
I am delighted to say that we are—touch wood—heading in that direction.
Walter Smith had a remarkable managerial career, which will live long in the memory, but, perhaps more importantly, he will be remembered as being a thoroughly decent and honourable man—a man who, despite proudly wearing his Rangers colours, managed to cut across the maelstrom of football rivalry in Glasgow and was a hugely respected figure in the green half of the city, too. That was in no small way down to the close personal friendship that developed between Walter and Celtic hero Tommy Burns. The image of a grief-stricken Walter Smith carrying Tommy’s coffin out of St. Mary’s church in 2008 was deeply moving and is an extremely powerful symbol of there being matters much, much more important than football rivalry. It seems appropriate at this juncture to ask the House to pay its respects to Bertie Auld, one of Celtic’s Lisbon Lions who died on Sunday at the age of 83.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate. Does he agree that, perhaps, the thing that Walter Smith and Bertie Auld had in common was that they did manage to bring together both sides of the city, which can be very divided, in a way that showed us a positive way ahead and that they have actually done a great deal to change attitudes?
Brendan O’Hara
I do think that. There is a phrase that we use in this place an awful lot, which is that there is an awful lot more that unites us than divides us. I think people always look for the divisions rather than the things that unite us.
Walter Smith was born into a football-daft household on 24 February 1948. He grew up in Carmyle in the east end of Glasgow and, from a young age, every other week, his dad took him to see Rangers—Cambuslang Rangers who played just over the other side of the water from where he grew up. Walter never shared his dad’s passion for junior football, and soon it was he and his grandfather who were regular attenders at Ibrox to see his heroes Don Kitchenbrand and Johnny Hubbard turn out for the city’s other Rangers.
The young Smith was not a bad player himself and, after a short spell in junior football with Ashfield, he was signed by Dundee United in the summer of 1966, making 108 appearances in nine years on Tayside.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I thank my colleague for giving way. My constituents will be wondering why I have jumped up at the mention of Dundee United, and the truth is now out. I am sure that he will go on to mention this, but Walter Smith wrote himself into Dundee United folklore on 14 May 1983 when the ball sailed over Kelly’s head and Dundee United won the League. Walter was, of course, Jim McLean’s assistant at that moment in time, and I am sure that my colleague would like to pay tribute to that wonderful victory.
Brendan O’Hara
Yes, I will and then I will come on to how Walter began his managerial career with a remarkable conversation with Jim McLean.
Walter had what one would call a respectable career as a footballer, but I think it would be fair to say that his time at Dundee United provided little clue as to what lay ahead. The arrival of Jim McLean as manager of Dundee United in 1971 was to have a profound effect on his career—initially for the worse—as the new manager decided that he was surplus to requirements and sold him to Dumbarton. Possibly with an eye to the future, Jim McLean brought Walter back to Tannadice two years later, but a bad injury severely limited his United appearances. Walter spent more time working and playing with the reserve team than with the first team. It was his work with the reserve team that caught the attention of Jim McLean and indeed the SFA, which, in 1978, asked Walter to assist in the running of the Scotland under-18 team, which went on to win the European Youth Championship in 1982.
Walter also caught the eye of another young Scottish manager, Alex Ferguson, who on being appointed boss at Aberdeen, phoned Jim McLean to see whether he could approach Walter to be his assistant at Pittodrie. His request was somewhat robustly refused—anyone who knows Jim McLean will understand that. Perhaps it was that realisation that Walter was gaining a reputation that finally persuaded Jim McLean to have that life-changing conversation in 1980—a conversation that Walter often recalled. He described Wee Jim pulling him aside, saying, as only Wee Jim could, “Walter, at some stage in your career, you’ve got to face up to the fact of how good you are, and let’s face it, Walter, you are shite, but I think you’ve got a real talent as a coach, so would you be my coach?” As Walter said himself,
“It was hardly a marriage proposal”,
but it was one that he accepted anyway. It was an offer that took a journeyman footballer on an expedition that would lead to the very top of the managerial profession.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend has probably already said it for me, but generations of Dundee United fans like myself see the double act of Jim McLean and Walter Smith, and what they were able to achieve working together, and applaud those two great men, who we have lost in such short succession.
Brendan O’Hara
My hon. Friend is right. It is no coincidence that Walter Smith’s elevation to assistant manager at Tannadice coincided with the most successful period in the history of Dundee United,
Brendan O’Hara
Young players who Walter Smith coached through the ranks, including Richard Gough, Maurice Malpas, Ralph Milne, Paul Sturrock and so many more, helped to secure Dundee United back-to-back Scottish league cups, and in 1983 the Scottish premier league title for the first and only time—thus far—in the club’s history. Of course, the following season Dundee United made it all the way to the semi-final of the European cup. Had it not been for a £50,000 bribe given to a French referee by Italian giants Roma, they may well have progressed further.
Douglas Ross
In this week of all weeks, I should refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Following the hon. Gentleman’s point, it does sound as if some referees are worse than others in terms of monetary affairs.
Let me return to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. I think that both sides of the House would echo what he said about both Bertie Auld and Walter Smith. Sometimes we use the word “legend” too much, but both were legends of the game. However, what probably made them different from just any other player was their decency, both on and off the pitch. That is something that we can remember, as their families mourn them at this time.
Brendan O’Hara
Absolutely. I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I hope that it brings comfort to both the Auld family and the Smith family that this House is recognising them in this way.
By the mid-1980s, Walter was in great demand. When Alex Ferguson took charge of the Scottish national team, he asked Walter to be his assistant. This time, Jim had no objection. But it was not just the national team who had designs on the Dundee United assistant manager. In the early 1980s, Rangers was going through a particularly barren spell and the new owners were determined to change that. In April 1986, Scottish football was rocked when Graeme Souness was appointed player-manager at Ibrox. Joining him as his assistant, somewhat under the radar, and with none of the fanfare and hullabaloo, was Walter.
History will judge—indeed, history has probably already judged—that the more important and significant signing of that duo was Walter Smith, because although it was Souness who provided the glitz and the glamour, it was Smith who provided the coaching experience, the managerial know-how and the cool head, which was never more exemplified than on the opening day of the 1986-87 season, when the new player-manager was sent off after a melee at Easter Road. But it was a partnership that worked, and the Souness-Smith era, ably assisted by an influx of top English internationals, got off to the perfect start when Rangers won the league cup in 1986.
Apart from a league and cup double in their centenary season, Celtic was left trailing in the wake of this new force, and Rangers, under the guidance of Souness and Smith, appeared set to dominate for the foreseeable future. But just as his arrival at Ibrox caused a sensation, so too did Graeme Souness’s departure, when, with just four games left of the 1990-91 season, he quit Rangers to become manager of Liverpool. Graeme Souness tried to persuade Walter to join him, but the offer to become Rangers manager was just too attractive for the lifelong Rangers fan to turn down. I remember him saying that his only regret was that his beloved grandfather did not live long enough to see it happen.
With the title race going down to the wire in the final game of the season, Aberdeen went to Ibrox needing just a draw to win. Walter was under enormous pressure to win that game. Rangers did win it, and that victory launched them into a period of prolonged dominance in Scottish football.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
As the token Rangers fan of the SNP group—albeit I have not been at a Rangers game since Basile Boli played for them—I can say that Walter Smith is somebody who, as other Members have said, is loved across teams and loved across Glasgow—and, indeed, Scotland. My hon. Friend is making an exceptional speech and I want to thank him for it, because for me Walter Smith was a childhood hero and it has been great to hear the history of his career. I know that many of my constituents, whether they are at the Parkhead stand with my hon. Friend or not, will send sympathies to Walter’s family.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank my hon. Friend for that.
After that first victory against Aberdeen, six more successive Scottish league titles followed, along with three Scottish cups and three Scottish league cups, and Walter took Rangers to the brink of the final of the Champions league in the 1992-93 season. By any standards, it was a remarkable run of success, but everything must come to an end, and after a disappointing start to the 1997-98 season, Rangers announced that he would be leaving the club. They lost the league title to Celtic on the final day and then lost to Hearts the following week. It was not the end to his Rangers career that anyone wanted or expected, but as we have heard, they had not seen the last of Mr Smith, as remarkably, nine years later, in 2007, Rangers again turned to Walter Smith to help them out of another barren spell.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As a Motherwell supporter, I certainly remember that first season of Walter being in charge of Rangers, because in 1991 Motherwell won the Scottish cup. A key component of that victory was Davie Cooper. When Davie Cooper tragically died of a brain haemorrhage in 1995 at the age of 39, Walter Smith said at his funeral that God gave Davie Cooper a talent and that he would not be disappointed with how it was used. Does the hon. Member agree that Walter Smith’s talent as a manager was pretty much unsurpassed in Scottish football? I am very glad that we are paying tribute to him in this place today.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank the hon. Lady for that. The mention of Davie Cooper brings back incredibly sad memories because I was there when Davie died. I was working with Davie that day. I attended the funeral as well. He was an unbelievable talent and an incredibly nice man—a joy to work with.
Walter returned to the club in 2007, and again he worked his magic. In his four years at the club, he won another eight trophies, including three consecutive Scottish league titles, and he took Rangers to their first European final in 36 years, when they played Zenit St Petersburg in the 2008 final. He finally brought down the curtain on a glittering career on the last day of the 2010-11 season with another success.
As well as Walter being a constituent of mine, and for many years a near neighbour in Helensburgh, I also had the privilege of working with him in 2011 when I wrote, produced and directed a two-hour long documentary for STV, along with my friend and lifelong Rangers fan Andy Halley, on Walter’s remarkable football career. Throughout the making of that documentary, Walter was unfailing courteous, helpful and immensely co-operative. He was also remarkably trusting, as he afforded us unprecedented access to his life as Rangers manager. I would like to think he appreciated the finished product; if he did not, then he was far too polite to say. What was remarkable about the making of that documentary was that when I contacted people to ask them to contribute, no one—not one person—said no or made an excuse not to participate in it. Alex Ferguson, Graeme Souness, Jim McLean, Billy McNeill, John Greig, Ally McCoist, Richard Gough, Brian Laudrup and many, many others went out of their way to pay tribute to Walter Smith on the occasion of his retirement. That speaks volumes for the esteem in which he was held by fellow professionals.
His achievements will never be forgotten by ordinary Rangers supporters, because Walter Smith is an all-too-rare example of a manager who led a club he supported; a manager who celebrated every victory like a fan and felt the pain of every defeat like a fan. It was that affinity he felt for the club, every bit as much as the success that he brought to Rangers, that means Walter Smith will be revered for generations to come.
Walter Smith died on 26 October 2021 at the age of 73. Typically, only a very select few knew that he was unwell, and so, like the vast majority, I too was shocked and deeply saddened to hear the news. Walter is survived by his wife Ethel, his sons Neil and Steven, and his grandchildren, who I know he absolutely adored. I am sure that the entire House will join me in extending our deepest sympathies and condolences to the family and join me in thanking Walter Smith OBE for his outstanding contribution to Scottish football.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) for securing this debate today about a true Scottish footballing great, and for the moving contributions that he and many others have made today. I know that many others would have liked to contribute, but are not able to be in the Chamber today. I also send my condolences to Walter Smith’s wife, Ethel, and the rest of his family and close friends and pay tribute to an absolutely incredible ambassador for football in this country. The fact that a diehard Celtic fan has tabled this debate to celebrate a Rangers legend is testament to Walter Smith’s legacy, his reach across football and so much more.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
That legacy is not just about Rangers and Celtic, but Everton. What a fantastic manager Walter was at Everton. On this side of the House, we wish to say to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) that Walter cut across all divides. He was just a very good man and a very good manager. I think that is a lesson to us all in this place and beyond. We should celebrate his life and perhaps in future we should just understand, given how he cut across all divides, that we are all one in that respect. He was a great football manager. From my friends at Everton football club, I know he was an absolutely delightful man in many respects.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments; I could not agree more. While Walter is best known for his managerial career, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned, he did play more than 100 times for Dundee United. Aside from a brief spell in Dallas, he played his entire career in the Scottish league. His greatest impact though, as we have heard, is when he made that all-important transition to management. Over more than two decades, he took charge of teams at the very top of the elite game in this country. As we have heard, there was his incredible performance at Glasgow Rangers, where he won 10 titles, multiple Scottish cups and Scottish league cups, including the domestic treble in 1993. He also completed a record-equalling ninth league title in a row near the end of his first spell at the club—a record that still stands to this day. To have established such dominance at the top of the Scottish game, given the ever-changing nature of our domestic leagues, is a true testament to his managerial prowess.
Smith is also remembered for his activities further south; as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) just mentioned, he was at Everton for four notable years. Some may recall he then briefly spent time in the dugout with another Scottish great, Sir Alex Ferguson, at Manchester United. Everton may have regretted that move across the M62 though, after an example of Smith’s eye for talent, which I have heard a lot about, benefited his new side. Smith had spotted a certain Wayne Rooney when he was just 14 years old and scoring regularly for the under-19s. Some 559 appearances and 253 goals a few years later, it is clear that Smith was on to something. That is just one example of his scouting and coaching prowess. Former Everton and Rangers captain David Weir once claimed that Smith had a “sixth sense” when it came to the needs of his players.
During Smith’s spell at Man U, he was credited with playing a key role in the development of no less than one Cristiano Ronaldo, helping him emerge arguably into one of the best players who has ever played the game. Smith’s success in club football was rewarded ultimately with the men’s Scottish national team job in 2004.
Smith did not just produce one-off performances. Scotland rose a remarkable 70 places in the FIFA world rankings during his time at Hampden—a truly incredible feat. It is not just what he achieved with Scotland, which of course was remarkable, but how he did it. That has been a very clear theme in what we have been hearing this evening. In appointing Tommy Burns, a rival from his time as Celtic manager, as his assistant, he helped to unite a nation of football fans.
Smith would, I am sure, have been delighted with the progress of the national team on Friday, after they confirmed a place in the World cup qualifying play-offs with the 2-0 victory in Moldova. I am sure that hon. Members, particularly on a certain side of the House, will join me in wishing Steve Clarke and his exciting young squad the very best of luck for the play-off campaign.
Off the pitch, it was fair to say Smith did not suffer fools gladly. It has been interesting to do some background reading on Walter, and it is probably true to say that he would occasionally have used some unparliamentary language that I am not allowed to repeat this evening, tempted though I am.
As we have heard again and again, Smith was not just a great football manager, but a great man. That was illustrated by the awarding of an OBE for services to association football in 1997. He clearly made a huge impact on all those he worked with, and will be remembered fondly by his colleagues and supporters at club and national level. He is yet another example of the positive influence that our sportspeople and sport can have on the many lives that sport can touch.
I would like to sign off this debate with another thanks to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for enabling the House to celebrate an incredible life. It is one that made such an important contribution to the national game in this country, and to many millions of Rangers fans and beyond. Rangers chairman, Douglas Park, summed him up perfectly when he said that
“he was much more than just a football manager. Walter was a friend to many, a leader, an ambassador and most of all a legend.”
I could not agree more.
Perhaps most importantly, a message to Ethel and Walter’s family is what a remarkable legacy it is that Walter has left because, even this evening, he has managed to unite the House of Commons. Thank you, Walter.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Brendan, in my experience, no one has been paid more touching tributes in an Adjournment debate that I have heard. Please could you send our deepest condolences to Walter Smith’s family from all of us at the House of Commons.
Question put and agreed to.
Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, let me make a few preliminary remarks. Members are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking and to maintain social distancing as far as possible. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I remind Members that they are asked by the House authorities to have a lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre or at home.
Please switch your telephones to silent. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available online and in the room. No amendments were tabled; we will have a single debate covering both clauses of the Bill.
Clause 1
Protection of cultural objects on loan
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Hosie. May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? It takes me right back to all those Finance Bills that we got through together, which were immensely entertaining and rewarding.
Mel Stride
No, they were—beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as it were.
I thank all Members for supporting and attending the Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport. As the Minister at the time that the Bill was introduced, she was particularly helpful to me and encouraged me to bring these measures to the House.
The Bill is a short, two-clause Bill with a simple objective: to allow the relevant approving authorities to extend immunity from seizure beyond the current 12-month period allowed for in legislation in cases where museums are unable to return loaned objects from abroad because of unforeseen circumstances. The relevant approving authorities are the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in England, Ministers in Scotland and Wales, and the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland. The Bill will allow the relevant authority to extend the period of protection for up to three months. This power may be exercised on more than one occasion in relation to a particular object.
The Bill enjoyed strong cross-party support on Second Reading, and no amendments have been tabled. For the following reasons, I hope that the Committee will feel able to support the Bill’s passage to Report and Third Reading.
It may be helpful if I explain why the Bill is important for our museums and galleries, and for the institutions abroad that so generously lend their art treasures for the benefit of the UK public. The Bill seeks to amend part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad in temporary exhibitions in museums and galleries in the UK. Under section 134 of that Act, cultural objects on loan from abroad to exhibitions held in UK museums and galleries approved under the Act are protected from court-ordered seizure for a period of 12 months from the date the object enters the United Kingdom. That legislation was adopted in response to growing international concern that works of art were in danger of being seized while abroad by those who claimed that they were owed money by a foreign state or because of territorial disputes between countries.
Section 134 of the 2007 Act provides that an object will be protected against seizure throughout the UK if it meets the conditions under section 134(2) and it is brought here for temporary public display by a museum or gallery that is approved under section 136 of the Act by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport or the appropriate authority in the devolved Administrations. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for approving institutions in England, and the devolved Administrations have similar powers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To gain approval under the Act, institutions must demonstrate that their procedures for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects are of a high standard.
In 2007, it was considered that 12 months was an adequate period to allow objects to arrive in the UK and to be returned following their inclusion in a temporary exhibition. Section 134(4) of the 2007 Act therefore provides that the protection continues
“for not more than 12 months beginning with the day when the object enters the United Kingdom.”
The only exception to that, in which case the period can be extended, is where an object suffers damage and repair work is required.
There are now 38 institutions across the UK that have been approved for immunity from seizure, and where objects on loan from abroad have received protection. Exhibitions such as “Tutankhamun” at the Saatchi Gallery in 2019, which was visited by more than 580,000 people, would not have been possible without immunity from seizure being in place.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for taking this Bill on. I know that there are huge pressures when a Member is selected to introduce a private Member’s Bill. This small change is remarkably important, and I thank him for taking it up. Does he agree that just this little change will make a huge difference in offering the reassurance and comfort that overseas lenders might need when we welcome some of their treasures to our shores? That is really important if we are serious about levelling up. We want to ensure that the British public can enjoy, appreciate and learn from treasures from around the world, and the Bill will provide that bit of extra comfort to those who are prepared to lend them.
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention. She is entirely right that what lies at the heart of the Bill is providing that comfort—that reassurance—to lenders to make sure that these wonderful artefacts, such as those in the “Tutankhamun” exhibition, come to our shores. If I may say so, I think it is particularly important that we bring this measure forward now, given that covid and lockdown have affected a lot of important museums and galleries. Anything we can do to encourage and improve things for them is particularly important at this time.
Applications for approval are still being considered as museums look to increase their capacity to host international exhibitions. For example, the Wallace Collection was approved for immunity from seizure in May this year, in advance of its Frans Hals exhibition, which features the artist’s widely recognised painting, the Laughing Cavalier. Since it entered the Wallace Collection in 1865, that iconic image has never been seen together with other works by the artist. Immunity from seizure has enabled many works by Frans Hals to come together for that exhibition and to be enjoyed alongside that wonderful work, with their owners knowing that their artworks will be protected from seizure.
As I set out on Second Reading, despite the careful planning of exhibition schedules, unforeseen delays do occur, including to transport. I gave the example of the Icelandic volcano that erupted in 2010. More recently, of course, the covid-19 pandemic closed museums and cancelled flights. That meant that even where exhibitions had concluded, it was not always possible to return loaned items within the 12-month limit.
The Bill will allow the period of protection to be extended beyond 12 months at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for institutions in England, or the relevant authority in the devolved nations. The circumstances under which an extension may be considered will be set out in guidance to be developed in discussion with the devolved nations. The guidance will assist museums in applying for an extension, which would be for a further three months initially, with a possibility of a further extension if considered necessary. The measure is strongly supported by the museums sector and by Arts Council England, the Government’s development agency for museums.
This is a short and simple Bill. Clause 1, which deals with the protection of cultural objects on loan, amends section 134 in part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. New subsection (4A) provides that the relevant authority has the power to extend the existing maximum period of protection for a further period of three months. New subsection (4B) clarifies that the Secretary of State will have the power to extend the period of protection where the object is in the UK for the purpose of public display in England. Whichever relevant authority uses its power, the protection of the Bill will continue to apply UK-wide. New subsection (4C) clarifies that the power can be exercised more than once in relation to the same object. New subsection (4D) clarifies that an extension granted is in addition to the maximum protection period. Clause 2 sets out the territorial extent and commencement arrangements and provides the short title of the Bill.
I hope the Committee agrees that the Bill will provide our museums and galleries with a greater degree of certainty in planning international exhibitions, which are crucial and a major part of their income, and give the UK public the opportunity to enjoy cultural treasures from other countries. The Bill will also build the confidence of international lenders, who will understand that where difficulties arise, immunity from seizure can continue to be in place until the loans can be safely returned to them. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is, as others have said, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I commend the right hon. Member for Central Devon for bringing the Bill forward. It is limited in scope and effect. It extends existing powers, and we had a good discussion on Second Reading about the principles that sit behind it. As such, at this point, we have nothing further to add.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon for bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, which has strong Government support. I also thank the outstanding former Minister for Digital and Culture, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, for eloquently setting out that Government support on Second Reading and for being a much-valued Committee member.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon mentioned that the Bill passed Second Reading with supportive remarks from hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is testament to the positive impact that the Bill will have on museums right across the UK. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed Government funding of £850 million for cultural and heritage infrastructure, which will help to safeguard national treasures and boost culture in local communities and on high streets. An additional £150 million investment was also announced for national museums and other Department for Culture, Media and Sport public bodies to help them recover from covid-19.
That funding recognises the important role that culture and heritage sectors play in our society. Our museums and galleries must be able to operate as effectively as possible in order to continue to carry out the enriching and educational work that they do for the public. The Bill seeks to make a practical, sensible change to existing legislation that will make the exhibition planning of our museums and galleries easier, and reinforce good relationships with international lenders and overseas partners. It is therefore a timely proposal that reflects the Government’s continued support for cultural sectors.
It has been emphasised that the risk of seizure of cultural objects while they are on loan in the UK is small, but the contribution immunity from seizure makes to the core activity of museums is evidently great. This weekend, the V&A will open its latest exhibition, “Fabergé in London: Romance to Revolution”, showcasing a host of fascinating artefacts, many of which are on loan from Russian institutions. Without immunity from seizure, those loans would not have gone ahead, nor would National Museums Scotland have been able to borrow some of the objects featured in last year’s exhibition, “Tyrannosaurs”, and China’s terracotta warriors would not have made it to National Museums Liverpool the year before that.
Museums are critical to the UK’s £75-billion tourism industry and the 4 million jobs that the sector supports, and the ability to put on international blockbuster exhibitions is a huge selling point of many of them. Borrowing objects allows museums to stage exhibitions and displays that would not otherwise be possible, and enables them to further contextualise their own collections. These loans create opportunities for museums to attract new audiences, but also to re-engage their existing visitor base.
We must not forget that underpinning many of these successful exhibitions is an understanding with international partners that, subject to conditions being met, the objects will be fully protected from seizure during their stay in the UK. Opportunities for immunity from seizure protection to be extended, where justified, will alleviate potential unforeseen obstacles. The proposed opportunity for a three-month extension is more than a useful contingency for when things do not go to plan; it is a recognition that the partnerships our museums build with international institutions are very much worth maintaining. The extension of that protection will come as a welcome measure to the many foreign lenders who insist on immunity from seizure protections when they loan their precious objects. By reinforcing their confidence, the Bill will help to ensure that the UK continues to host some of the finest cultural objects from across the globe. I urge the Committee to support the Bill.
Mel Stride
I rise, finally, to express my gratitude to you, Mr Hosie, for your excellent chairmanship of the Committee; to my hon. Friend the Minister for his support and remarks; and to Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Wirral South.
Chris Bryant
Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes, I wonder whether he might like to correct the record? The Laughing Cavalier is not actually laughing at all; he is simply smiling. That name is a 19th century invention. It would be better to go back to the original title.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Gentleman for a typical intervention. I can picture the Laughing Cavalier at the top of the stairs, I think, at the Wallace Collection—what a marvellous painting. The hon. Gentleman is right: the Laughing Cavalier is smiling, but perhaps he is none the less having the last laugh when it comes to his title.
I was in the middle of thanking the hon. Member for Wirral South very much indeed for her support. I also thank the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, for the encouragement she gave me at an early stage. I thank our Clerk, Adam Mellows-Facer, for his superb clerking of the Bill and the help he has provided, as well as all the officials at DCMS who have been engaged on the Bill—their support was invaluable.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Nokes (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 current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. 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 estate, which can be done either at the testing centre or at home. Please also give each other room when you leave the Chamber.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead the debate—and on World COPD Day itself, no less. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease impacts many of our constituents, but it is simply not given the clinical priority in our health systems that it should have. I hope today, with the other parliamentarians present, to push the Government a step further and improve our fight against COPD on a few fronts: to push public health action to avoid our constituents contracting it; to improve diagnosis rates, so that it is caught at an earlier stage; to transform treatment to help patients manage their condition; and to invest in more research, so that we can develop groundbreaking diagnostics and treatments.
I am thankful for the hard work of the British Lung Foundation, which has campaigned tirelessly for better recognition and treatment of lung disease and which, ahead of World COPD Day, has highlighted the experiences of those living with COPD in their report “Failing on the fundamentals”, which I know some hon. Members in the room will have seen. I am also grateful to the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health and those involved with the COPD national action plan for their work. I know that some Members present are involved in that APPG; I thank them sincerely. Many thanks also go to my constituent Sarah Jones, who has worked with the taskforce for lung health and pushed me to raise the fight against lung disease in Parliament after the sad loss of her father, John Jones, from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung conditions that cause breathing difficulties, including emphysema, which is a breakdown of lung tissue, and chronic bronchitis, the chronic inflammation of central airways. It is a disease chiefly caused by smoking, which causes nine out of 10 cases of COPD. Air pollution, childhood poverty and exposure to dust in workplaces are also contributing factors. I know that other Members in the Chamber will be very familiar with COPD and its constituent conditions. Many champion the cause of their constituents while others have direct experience.
In a case study provided by the British Lung Foundation, Chris highlights his desperation to breathe—something that many of us take for granted—the panic, the fear, the wheezing and in some cases the crushing sensation that he feels in depleted lungs. Those are just some of the facets of the debilitating disease known as COPD. Early signs are shortness of breath, a wheezing chest, tightness, chronic cough, lack of energy and weight loss. I encourage people with these signs to get an appointment with their GP.
According to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 3 million people in the UK suffer from COPD. Shockingly, 2 million of are undiagnosed. As Sarah Woolnough, the chief executive of the British Lung Foundation stated:
“It is hard to imagine, for example, this proportion of cancer cases going undiagnosed”.
But that is the reality and it has to change. It is nothing short of a silent scandal.
To the Government’s credit, in response to campaigners and clinicians campaigning for respiratory disease, COPD is given priority in the NHS long-term plan. Yet, like all plans, the devil is in the detail and delivery on the ground is essential. It is vital to ensure that people with the disease are diagnosed early. Too often, diagnosis occurs only when the disease has considerably progressed, leading to greater risk of damaging flare-ups of COPD symptoms and greater risk of being one of the 30,000 people killed by the disease every year, making it Britain’s fifth biggest killer.
Of course, we encourage people to see GPs, but 9.8% of people in the north-west, for example, are struggling to get appointments. I am sure the Minister will refer to that in her reply. An important survey conducted by the British Lung Foundation—its largest ever of those suffering with COPD—found that 75% of those surveyed were missing out on the basic care recommended for the disease.
The theme of this year’s World COPD Day is “Healthy Lungs—Never More Important”. It aims to highlight the risk COPD poses against the backdrop of the pandemic, which has represented a higher risk for those suffering from lung disease and resulted in the additional demand on services created by the impact of covid-19. Even before the pandemic, it is clear that those with COPD experienced unacceptable delays in receiving a diagnosis—delays that can prove fatal.
Diagnosis rates, already far too low, plummeted further during the pandemic by 51%, meaning that nearly 50,000 of our constituents in England alone missed out on a diagnosis. Although the impact of covid-19 was widespread across our health service, this drop was more substantial than for comparable non-respiratory diseases, such as diabetes. Some GPs were advised during the pandemic to stop diagnosis breathing tests and they have yet to restart.
Does the Minister think that we should put in place a delivery plan with funding to get lung health strategies back on track and tackle the respiratory backlog so that another 50,000 people do not miss out on the diagnosis in the coming year? COPD already costs the health economy £1.9 billion. This could be an effective saving, not only of lives, but of essential financial resources.
Can the Minister confirm whether the new diagnostic hubs announced as part of the Budget will cover the tests needed to diagnose COPD and other pulmonary diseases? It would be useful to hear more detail on the part these hubs will play in the diagnosis of lung disease, and on an effective staffing and recruitment strategy.
The British Lung Foundation’s recent report on the experience of people with COPD also highlights shortcomings after diagnosis. It found that three quarters of people across the UK did not receive the five fundamentals of COPD care, as set out in the NICE guidelines. The problem is particularly severe in the north of England and in the devolved nations. Tackling this and ensuring that everyone is offered the five fundamentals of COPD care needs to be at the centre of the strategy. Those five fundamentals are a written management plan, access to pulmonary rehabilitation, help to stop smoking, management of co-existing medical conditions, and access to flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
As with many diseases, prevalence of COPD is linked with deprivation. Between 2019 and 2020 the life expectancy gap between the least and most deprived areas in England grew from 9.3 years to 10.3 years for men and 7.7 years to 8.3 years for women. Respiratory conditions are major contributors to widening health inequalities in the UK, with those living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas in England seven times more likely to die from respiratory disease compared with the least deprived areas.
In my constituency of Weaver Vale, 2.6% of residents are estimated to suffer from COPD, compared with 1.9% of people in England as a whole. Looking at the map of the prevalence in my constituency, we can clearly see that the most deprived areas have twice the proportion of COPD cases than the least deprived areas, and I know other hon. Members here will have the same experience. Eighteen of the 20 clinical commissioning groups in the worst areas for respiratory diseases and emergency responses are in the in the north of England.
If the Government are serious about tackling health inequalities and levelling up life chances, more work needs to be done to ensure that COPD is not overlooked as one of the major respiratory conditions driving health inequality in the UK. If this Government are really serious about levelling up, that should be a focus. Those living with COPD, as well as those living with other diseases, should have equal access to fast diagnosis, care and treatment, no matter who they are and where they live. I hope to hear from the Minister about how her Department plans to ensure that disparities in COPD prevalence, diagnosis and care are a major part of the national health inequalities strategy.
In most cases COPD is caused by smoking, so I would like the Minister to give an update on the new tobacco control plan, how it will focus on tackling health disparities and how she intends to plan and fund an effective, high-quality stop smoking service throughout the country. Over the past 11 years, many of those services have been cut, so I would be fascinated by her response.
Finally, I would like to raise the problem of awareness of COPD, lung disease more widely and the importance of lung health. Today’s debate has primarily focused on the lack of funding, the lack of real clinical and Government priority and the lack of awareness that extends beyond that. I would like the Minister to outline how, as part of getting lung disease the delivery prioritisation it desperately needs, her Department can promote greater public awareness of lung disease. Our shared interest must be to transform COPD care in the UK, while driving down the numbers who develop this condition in the first place. I look forward to this debate, and I certainly look forward to the Minister’s response.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, and to speak in this important debate today. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for securing this debate and raising such an important issue. Ms Nokes, you may know that as well as being Member of Parliament for Newport West, I am shadow minister for air quality, so these issues are very important to me.
The link between air pollution and lung disease is obvious to all of us. Before I came to this House, I spent 30 years working as a physiotherapist in the NHS, so I know a little bit about lungs. Thanks to the excellent campaigners at the British Lung Foundation and Asthma UK, we have the data today—the important statistics that we all need. Two in five, or 41%, of babies are born every year into heavily polluted areas of the UK, where levels of particulate matter 2.5 are higher than the 2005 World Health Organisation recommendations. That equates to over a quarter of a million babies every year, or one born every two minutes. Over a third of all maternity units in England exceed the World Health Organisation’s air quality guidance; if we use the new guidelines, which came out a couple of months ago, that figure reaches almost 95%.
We also know that some 85% of people who live in areas with illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide make up the poorest 20% of the UK population. Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester rank among the top 10 areas with the highest proportion of deprived neighbourhoods in England, and all those cities have main roads that breach legal nitrogen oxide limits. I know from my work with my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Weaver Vale, as well as the metro Mayors Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham, how much work is needed to address these issues. Similarly, people in the poorest communities are two and a half times more likely to develop COPD than those in more affluent communities, and we know that disadvantages in early life are linked to the development of COPD. I make no apologies for sharing this data, and I will go on: some 29% of hospitals, 37% of GPs’ surgeries, 31% of schools and 26% of care homes in England are located in communities with levels of PM2.5 above the levels recommended by the WHO. Of course, those guidelines have been strengthened in recent months, so the pressure on Ministers is even greater now.
The link between toxic air and lung disease is so devastating, and I note that 43% of respondents to the Asthma UK-BLF survey reported that their COPD was adversely affected by air pollution. More broadly, 88% of people with a lung condition have said that air pollution affects their health and wellbeing, so it is not just physical symptoms we are dealing with, but mental health symptoms. Of those who responded to the survey, 63% of people with a lung condition can feel out of breath and 53% have increased coughing due to high levels of air pollution. Some 60% of people with a lung condition affected by air pollution say that they have been discouraged from leaving their home due to air pollution at some point, with 28% feeling this way at least once a month.
This House needs to listen to those affected daily by the impact of toxic air on those living with existing lung disease. In Parliament and out in the community over the past year, I have repeatedly raised the fact that the time to act has well and truly come. Almost 60% of people in England now live in areas where the levels of toxic air pollution exceeded legal limits in 2019 and 2020. We cannot go on as we are: we require real leadership, and we require it now. The Government’s so-called landmark Environment Act 2021 was a missed opportunity to contribute to cross-Government solutions to this problem. I know that much of environment policy is devolved to the nations of the UK, and that health policy is also devolved, but that does not mean there cannot be a co-ordinated approach with the devolved Administrations to addressing this very serious issue. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the discussions that have taken place, and will take place in the weeks ahead, with the devolved nations.
The covid pandemic saw a big change in people’s behaviour and lifestyle habits, and we saw how that led to cleaner air and a healthier environment, although it was a temporary change. We all know that air pollution is a public health crisis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale has outlined. Last summer, the British Lung Foundation and Asthma UK surveyed about 14,000 people with a lung condition and found that a great many people noticed an improvement in their symptoms, likely due to better air quality during lockdown.
In my more than 30 years working in the NHS as a physio, I saw every day the damage that toxic air can cause to the lungs, health and mobility of people of all ages and from all communities, including those whose lungs are damaged while still in the womb, and those suffering from asthma, COPD and other serious lung conditions. The task of making our air cleaner starts with each of us. It is important that we are all aware of the air pollution levels in the communities we live in, so that we know the local challenges facing us all.
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale for calling this debate and providing the opportunity to highlight the very grave link between toxic air and COPD. I hope he will feel better soon. We must act and we must act now.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as chair, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) on securing this debate on an important subject.
In my constituency of Blaydon, in the north-east of England, the figures for those diagnosed with COPD are sadly above the UK average. We know that 1.3 million across the UK have a diagnosis of COPD, but it is estimated that a similar number have undiagnosed COPD. In Blaydon, 2.9% of people have a COPD diagnosis, well above the England-wide figure of 1.9%. It is sadly in the top 10% of constituencies with the highest prevalence. The north-east is the region with the highest prevalence of COPD, at 3%. Remember, that figure is for diagnosed COPD. As I have said, it is estimated that double that number have COPD but do not have a diagnosis.
The British Lung Foundation has today—World COPD day—launched its report “Failing on the fundamentals”, based on the largest survey of those with COPD. It finds unacceptable levels of diagnosis and care for those with the condition. In the north-east, 78.1% of survey respondents reported that they had not received the five fundamentals of COPD care, as set out in NICE guidelines, and as referred to by my hon. Friend. That is 4 percentage points higher than the England-wide average of 74.1%.
Some 29.1% reported facing stigma and discrimination, which is similar to the England-wide average. A higher proportion in the north-east cited as barriers to diagnosis not wanting to know if they had COPD and not knowing the signs of potential COPD. In addition, 53% of respondents in the north-east who smoke said that they had been offered support to quit smoking in the past year, slightly lower than the 55.9% across England. As we know, stopping smoking is a key part of the treatment of COPD.
That matters because behind each of those statistics lies a real struggling person. In my constituency office, we see too many people hugely affected by COPD. As the condition develops, they face increasing disability and exacerbations or flare-ups of their condition, affecting their mobility and day-to-day life, evidenced by their need to claim disability benefits. It affects every part of their life, including their mental health. We need to get better at diagnosing and treating COPD, to stop its progression and reduce that impact on daily life. I want to speak in particular about diagnosis and what needs to be done, first, in the recovery from covid and then more generally.
As we have heard, the diagnosis of COPD is appallingly low, and the British Lung Foundation cite several reasons. More than 1.3 million people have a diagnosis of COPD and a similar number have the condition, as yet undiagnosed. The British Lung Foundation’s first annual COPD survey, which was just published, as I said earlier, shows that even before the pandemic, almost three quarters—70%—of people who have been diagnosed with COPD said that they faced barriers in getting a diagnosis. Recent Government figures demonstrate that diagnosis rates, which were already far too low, plummeted further during covid-19. In 2020, there was a 51% reduction in COPD diagnosis compared with 2019, which means that about 46,000 people in England alone missed out on a diagnosis. As we heard, that is a much higher drop than for comparable conditions.
The BLF says that diagnostic tests have still not properly resumed, so it is likely that as many as 92,000 people in England have gone undiagnosed in the past two years. While rates of cancer diagnosis are already up to, and in some areas better than, pre-pandemic levels—thank goodness for that, I hasten to add—there is no dedicated plan to address the huge backlog in respiratory care.
Spirometry is the main diagnostic test for COPD, but it was paused at the height of the pandemic because it was believed to be an aerosol-generating procedure. It has been now confirmed that that is not the case. Guidance has been published on how to conduct spirometry in a covid-safe manner, but it appears to have made little difference. By and large, spirometry testing has still not resumed in primary care, which is where most people with COPD are diagnosed.
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Spirometry is key, because COPD cannot be diagnosed by video link or telephone. Does she agree that it is crucial for people to be seen face to face to ensure that we fully diagnose them in future?
Liz Twist
I certainly agree. The British Lung Foundation says that there is a clear need for NHS England to intervene and work with local health services to prioritise the urgent restart of spirometry testing in primary care for the diagnosis of COPD and other respiratory conditions. The same would also be true in the other nations of the UK.
Two of the major barriers to restarting spirometry testing in primary care are a lack of capacity and, ironically, the creation of community diagnostic centres. If rolled out to the recommended scale, community diagnostic centres should help to improve diagnosis of COPD and other conditions, but people with COPD cannot afford to wait until CDCs are established for a formal diagnosis while their symptoms and wellbeing deteriorate. Unless spirometry and other diagnostic tests are restarted in general practice, the diagnostic backlog risks overwhelming CDCs as soon as they are established.
The Government and NHS England need to provide sufficient funding for enough capacity to conduct spirometry testing in primary care. Delays in diagnosis mean that too many people with COPD are seeing their condition worsen, which has the real impact on their day-to-day lives that I talked about, so the problem must be tackled urgently for the sake of my constituents with COPD, particularly those not yet diagnosed.
The Government need to properly fund our public health services. We have to make sure that stop smoking services can be easily accessed by those already diagnosed with COPD and those who may develop it, as the link between smoking and COPD is clear. The proposed updated tobacco control plan, which we are expecting, will play a key part in preventing COPD. It needs to look at the polluter pays principle, which calls on tobacco producers to pay for the damage that they cause, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health.
Will the Minister agree today to implement the steps proposed by the British Lung Foundation and others to improve diagnosis of COPD as a matter of urgency? Will she commit to improve funding for public health services, in particular smoking cessation services? Will she ensure that the tobacco control plan addresses the issues raised by the APPG on smoking and health?
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, and I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), on securing this important debate.
I welcome the British Lung Foundation report, “Insights from those living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) around the UK”. I completely support its call for Governments and health services across the nations of the UK to rapidly commit to funding for national health services to get lung health strategies back on track, and to tackle the respiratory backlog. I note the finding that while respiratory conditions are supposedly a clinical priority, that does not seem to be the case in practice, and we need to see ambitious targets for improving COPD prevention, diagnosis and care.
It is truly frightening and disturbing to watch someone suffering with COPD, or chronic chest disease, fighting for their breath; especially when they are stuck on a trolly in a long queue outside A&E or left all day waiting for a hospital bed to become available. Watching them struggle for every breath with very low oxygen levels is distressing for both the individual and the families. My constituency has historically high rates of lung disease, including lung cancer, for a mix of reasons such as its industrial legacy and, of course, high rates of smoking and deprivation. As we have heard, COPD is the fifth most common cause of death in the UK, resulting in 30,000 deaths per year.
There are 3,878 patients on Halton GP registers for COPD—a prevalence of 2.9% of GP registered patients. That is higher than the England average of 1.9%, and slightly higher than the Cheshire and Merseyside average of 2.6%. There is variation between different GPs in Halton, with prevalence’s ranging from 1.3% to 4.1%. The Halton prevalence has not changed since the last publication in 2018-19. Over the past five years it has increased very slightly from 2.6% in 2015-16. The latest published data from 2017 to 2019 shows that Halton’s mortality rate for COPD was higher than England and the north-west’s. Halton’s rate was 70.5 per 100,000 of the population, whereas England’s was 50.4, and the north-west’s was 63.3.
Death rates from COPD are higher for males than females in Halton; this is also the case both nationally and regionally. As I referred to earlier, it has been estimated that there are many more patients nationally with COPD who have not been diagnosed; the most recent 2015 estimate suggested a COPD prevalence of 3.3% in Halton. This would mean that there are potentially around 550 people in Halton who are not diagnosed at this point in time.
I must refer to hospital admissions, because we know the pressures that our hospitals are under. Most people with COPD are managed in primary care, but for some the condition will deteriorate or be undiagnosed, which can result in emergency unplanned admissions to hospital. The latest published data for 2019-20 shows that Halton had a higher rate of emergency hospital admissions for COPD than England. Halton’s rate was 502 per 100,000 of the population, whereas England’s was 415 per 100,000 people. The female rate of emergency hospital admissions is also contributing to the overall high rate.
Several worrying findings came out of the British Lung Foundation report, and given the limited time I can only highlight just a few of those—some of them have previously been referred to by hon. Friends. As we have heard, thousands of people are missing out on diagnosis. The British Lung Foundation conducted a survey of over 8,000 people with COPD between December 2020 and May 2021. Even before the pandemic, it is clear from the responses that many people with COPD had experienced unacceptable delays before a diagnosis was made.
Recent Government figures found that diagnosis rates, which were already far too low, plummeted even further. In 2020 there was a 51% reduction in COPD diagnosis when compared with 2019, meaning that around 46,000 people in England alone missed out on a diagnosis. Again, the latest figures available in Halton suggest that 550 people have missed out on a diagnosis.
I know from the figures I obtained from the local health commission support unit that GP referrals to respiratory medicine in Halton are still not at pre-pandemic levels. As of November 2021, diagnostic tests for spirometry have not yet properly resumed. It is particularly worrying that the British Lung Foundation found that, across the UK, over three quarters of those with COPD did not receive what NICE clinical guidance defines as the five fundamentals of COPD care, but I will not go into them because my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale referred to them earlier.
The British Lung Foundation believes that the national health service should amend guidance for GPs across the UK to ensure proactive case finding among high-risk groups to identify COPD and other lung conditions such as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer in a timely way. Questions on respiratory health should be made a mandatory part of the NHS health check to help identify many undiagnosed cases of COPD. Smoking cessation schemes, which we have heard about today, must continue to be a priority, with more effort and drive put into them and, importantly, with better data on success rates.
I would like to make a specific plea for more resources to be put into community rapid response teams who, when they work well and get to patients and treat them at an early stage before they deteriorate, can and do in many cases prevent hospitalisation, easing the pressures on hospitals. They are a really important part of the health service and we need to concentrate more on them. Once people get to hospital, some of them people are very ill, so the more we can do to prevent it in the first place, the better.
The covid pandemic is, without doubt, a major contributing factor to the challenges facing primary and secondary care. The Government’s failure to properly address staffing shortages and better diagnostic facilities over the past 11 years, and prior to the start of the pandemic, is a significant reason why the current pressures on the NHS are so acute. A shortage of GPs is not helping quick diagnosis and rapid treatment. As I referred to during the Budget debates, the number of patients per GP practice is 22% higher than in 2015, but the GP workforce has not expanded with this rise in patient need. Nor has it helped that there are over 90,000 staff vacancies in the NHS.
The fact is that the Government have allowed this situation to occur since they first came into power in 2010. The Government need to get their act together and ensure that they have a workable, funded plan in place to transform the quality of life of people living with COPD, to prevent more people from developing it in future and to stop unnecessary suffering.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak on these issues, Ms Nokes. I commend the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for bringing the debate to the House.
I am my party’s health spokesperson, but it is not just a duty for me to be here—I also have a particular interest in this issue. As has been said, we all know people who have COPD, and I can think of a number in my constituency. One gentleman, Kenny Legge, has been a friend of mine for umpteen years. He has COPD and is on a 24/7 oxygen tank, which he takes everywhere with him. That means that if he goes to the shops or to the doctors he takes it with him. It is possible to carry it because it is a small tank, but he lives with it 24/7—his whole life.
My other introduction to COPD—I suspect the same is true of others in the Chamber—was filling in benefit forms. When filling in forms, we always ask the constituent what the issues are, and they explain them to us. Although we might need to know more about the COPD, the issue becomes clear when we are talking face to face with our constituent and he or she is gasping for breath. We are able to be agile and athletic. People tell me they go for runs, and others tell me they go for walks, but I am one of those who goes for a dander, which is the third category. But people suffering from COPD cannot even do that. That is the issue.
Throughout the pandemic we often forget about other health conditions that must be awarded awareness. Covid has taken over our lives; everywhere we look there is something related to covid. That is not a criticism; it is a fact—an observation. There must be sustainable support for those who, sadly, suffer from other respiratory diseases, such as bronchitis and emphysema.
The British Lung Foundation is the leading charity in the UK highlighting the impacts of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Statistics show that an estimated 1.2 million people in the UK—wow, that’s a big figure—live with diagnosed COPD, with thousands more not yet diagnosed. I wonder sometimes whether we are just scraping at the figure, which may or may not be there. That figure equates to 4.5% of all adults over 40.
Intense research by the British Lung Foundation shows that prevalence is growing. I hope the Minister will give us the answers we seek, and I know she will endeavour to produce them. One thing I always ask about is prevention, and it is important that we address it, because it prevents costs further down the line. Perhaps she can tell us what has been done on that. The research also shows that COPD diagnosis has increased by 27% in the last decade, so additional resources and funding are needed to improve research into it.
I always make the comment—although that does not make this any less of an issue—that research and development is so important in, hopefully, addressing some of the issues for those with COPD. Last Friday I had a lady in my office with severe COPD who has an issue with housing She is in a flat, and when she moved there I suppose the issue was not apparent, but she is now a prisoner in her flat and cannot get out unless someone takes her. She is overwhelmed by exhaustion whenever she goes anywhere, and I am trying my best to help get her relocated to a property at ground level that is nearer the centre of the town, where perhaps her quality of life can improve.
The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority for Northern Ireland has stated that 37,000 people have been diagnosed as having COPD. Half as many as the number already on the COPD registers are thought to be living with COPD without the disease being diagnosed —a point I made earlier—bringing the total to approximately 55,500. Those figures are just for Northern Ireland, where 37,000 people have it, but 55,500 might have it—one third more. If that is replicated in the rest of the United Kingdom, the figures will be almost 2 million. I am not the greatest mathematician in the world, but I think those figures are fairly approximate.
The Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke charity, which does incredible work, has nicknamed COPD the “creeping killer”, as it is the fifth biggest killer in the UK, but very often people are completely unaware of its severity. When we see constituents in the advanced stages of COPD or living on 24/7 oxygen, we very quickly understand the severity of it.
The all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health, which I chair, has recently gained mass support from respondents for a lung cancer action plan to draw together all the different strands of respiratory policy and make them into one strategy. The British Lung Foundation has strongly supported that plan. The Primary Care Respiratory Society also supported the need for a national NHS action plan, claiming it would help to improve rates of earlier diagnosis and reduce the rates of death from lung cancer. If we adopt, pursue and fund those twin goals, we can try to address the issue, reduce the numbers and give people a better quality of life. It was also felt that any action plan should consider a pathway for people who are found to have non-cancer respiratory symptoms that need investigating.
We often find that constituents do not have just one issue; they have a complex number of issues, and central to that for those with COPD is the COPD. People with COPD who have been active for most of their days suddenly have issues with mobility, anxiety and depression and cannot be active any more. Some of the most prominent ways to help slow the progression of the condition are often the simplest.
The summarised treatment options from the NHS include encouraging people to stop smoking. We had a debate in this Chamber yesterday morning on the tobacco control plan and it was clear—certainly to me as a Northern Ireland MP—that the figures for those stopping smoking have not reached the targets we hoped they would. The consensus among parties on both sides of the Chamber yesterday was clear.
Treatment options also include taking up the use of inhalers and tablets, lung rehabilitation and transplants. The NHS long-term plan addresses the need for early diagnosis and more suitable treatment. Given the figures stated earlier, the long-term plan must be implemented as soon as possible. I ask the Minister—I usually try to ask a couple of questions in my contribution—when will the long-term plan be implemented? We need to see a timescale for that so that we know whether the right strategy has been adopted. I am not criticising anybody—I want to make that quite clear—but if we are committed to the long-term plan, can we have the timescale, please?
Much of our time and funding has been dedicated to covid, and there is no doubt that it falls under the umbrella term of respiratory disease. Our lungs are one of our most vital organs—needed to keep us alive—and there must be better awareness of the symptoms of COPD. The main ones include increasing breathlessness and a persistent phlegmy cough—we get that with colds or flu, but those with COPD have it every day of their lives, and every hour of every day. Those are not normal symptoms to have for a prolonged period.
I want to conclude by thanking the charities that do significant work in providing support for those who suffer from COPD, such as the British Lung Foundation, the National Association for the Relief of Apnoea—the breathing charity—and the COPD Foundation. I call on the Minister and the Government to study the figures and strongly consider allocating additional funding. We must help those constituents and patients with COPD. That, if we can do that, is the most essential way of preventing serious illness or even death. Our lung health is something that we should all make a priority.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Like so many speakers before me, I will begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for bringing forward this important debate on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and on World COPD Day. World COPD Day is intended to raise awareness of the fact that this condition is chronic, because it is long term and does not go away; it is obstructive, because the airways are narrowed, making breathing difficult; and it is pulmonary—it affects the lungs.
The theme of World COPD Day is
“Healthy Lungs—Never More Important”.
This year’s aim is to highlight that the challenge of COPD remains, despite the ongoing global covid pandemic. Even as we continue to battle covid, COPD remains a leading cause of death worldwide. It is a terrible condition affecting millions, and the pandemic and long covid have highlighted this condition, which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
The condition cannot be cured or reversed but, with treatment, it can be managed so that it does not severely limit daily activities. However, we also know that despite treatment, COPD can deteriorate, eventually having a significant and debilitating effect on quality of life and leading to life-threatening challenges.
As we have heard today from almost every speaker, while the main cause of COPD is smoking, some cases are caused by long-term exposure to harmful dust or fumes. Worryingly, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence found in 2016 that an estimated 3 million people have COPD in the UK, of whom 2 million are undiagnosed. There are an estimated 140,000 cases in Scotland, with another estimated 200,000 people undiagnosed.
The Scottish Government are taking action through the development of their respiratory care action plan, which sets out priorities to support the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of respiratory conditions. It is vital that those with these conditions can access safe, effective and person-centred care, treatment and support. To that end, the Scottish Government’s respiratory care action plan for Scotland, published in March, outlines the strategy for improving prevention, diagnosis, care and treatment for those living with respiratory conditions such as COPD.
The Scottish Government are working with partners across health and social care and the third sector, as well as with people with lived experience, to develop an implementation programme, which will make clear the funding commitments that will be brought forward to promote the plan. Important work is also going on to learn more about COPD, such as work with the EU—which provided €7.7 million of funding for the project last year—to discover why, strangely, Stranraer in Scotland has higher than average rates of the condition, despite average smoking rates.
The Scottish Government will move forward with the implementation of the respiratory care action plan for Scotland over the course of this Parliament and continue to tackle smoking in Scotland. I pay tribute to the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on lung health, established and so ably chaired by Emma Harper MSP. Lobbying by the cross-party group was instrumental in the publication of the respiratory care action plan.
We all understand the correlation between COPD and smoking, but despite the UK having one of the lowest smoking rates in Europe, smoking leads to a significant number of deaths across the UK every year, including through COPD. However, we have come far in the fight against smoking. For example, around 15% of UK adults are smokers, which is one of the lowest rates in Europe. The figure is slightly higher in Scotland, at 19%, so we have a wee bit more work to do.
We must bear in mind that there is a higher concentration of smokers in socially disadvantaged communities. Of course, we know that there is a clear link between poverty and health outcomes. That helps us to understand why 35% of adults in the most deprived areas are smokers, compared with 10% in the least deprived areas. Smoking accounted for 16% of all deaths in Scotland in 2018—around 10,000 deaths a year—and the figures in England are much the same. Scotland’s target is to be smoke-free by 2034, with smoke-free defined as 5% or less of the adult population being smokers. To that end, a new tobacco strategy will be published in the next parliamentary Session in Scotland.
We continue to make progress with smoking rates, which have fallen 9% since 2003, but of course we are all want the pace of that decline to continue to increase. Scotland was the first part of the United Kingdom to prohibit smoking in enclosed public spaces, in 2006. That measure was introduced in the Scottish Parliament by a certain MSP called Kenneth Gibson. The rest of the UK followed in 2007. Although the measure was controversial at the time, the banning of smoking in enclosed public spaces is now accepted and is the undisputed norm. Such measures can help us as we strive to help people live healthier lives and give up smoking.
I wish to end by paying tribute to the British Heart Foundation, which does so much valuable work to promote the importance of clean air and healthy lungs. It is appropriate to do that on World COPD Day. All year round, the British Heart Foundation works to raise awareness of this condition, to ensure that everyone with COPD has access to the care and information that they need to manage their condition well and to ensure that those of us who do not have the misfortune to suffer from it are more aware of it in our communities.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Ms Nokes. I would like to add my congratulations to those already offered to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for securing this debate on COPD on World COPD Day, when awareness should of course be raised of the condition. Debates and days such as this are important in ensuring that people with COPD have access to the care and information they need to manage their condition well.
My hon. Friend gave an excellent introduction and raised many issues, which many other hon. Members raised in various guises, and which I will return to during my contribution. He wanted to focus on public health issues, to avoid our constituents contracting COPD in the first place; improving diagnosis rates, to ensure that it is caught at an earlier stage; transforming treatment, to help patients manage their condition; and investing more in research, so that we can develop groundbreaking diagnostics and treatments. I think we all agree that those are worthy aims that we ought to cover in the debate.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). She rightly raised the link between lung conditions and air pollution, and she provided some shocking statistics about the number of maternity units that exceed WHO air quality guidelines, particularly after recently updated guidelines were issued. She also raised a whole series of other statistics that set out the scale of the challenge that we face in improving air quality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) spoke about her region and how the staggering levels of health inequality in this country mean that the north-east has much higher rates of COPD than many other areas. She rightly highlighted the importance of helping people to stop smoking as part of this battle. As Members referred to, a decade of cuts to public health grants has led directly to a reduction in smoking cessation services. She also raised the importance of spirometry testing and how this needs to be conducted in primary care; otherwise, issues related to a failure to diagnose conditions early, which we have talked about, will continue.
It was a pleasure, as always, to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who talked about the prevalence of COPD in his constituency and the various factors that have led to that. He rightly mentioned how the condition leads to many more unplanned emergency admissions; as we know, pressure on A&E at the moment is immense, and that is before we even get into the depths of winter. He also spoke about the excellent work of the community rapid response teams, which can help reduce that pressure on A&E, which will ultimately deliver better patient outcomes. He was right to highlight the additional demands on GPs and the additional numbers of patients they now see, which of course contributes to the difficulty of getting those early diagnoses that all Members referred to.
COPD is the name for a group of lung conditions, including emphysema and chronic bronchitis, that cause breathing difficulties and a permanent narrowing of the airways. Symptoms include shortness of breath when doing simple, everyday things such as going for a walk or housework; a cough that lasts longer than a week; wheezing, particularly in cold weather; and producing more sputum, or phlegm, than usual. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale highlighted the case study of Chris, which highlights how we sometimes take good respiratory health for granted; only when we lose it do we realise how critical it is.
As we heard, a significant number of people in the UK—more than 1.3 million—have a COPD diagnosis. As many Members said, at least a similar number are estimated to have the condition but are currently undiagnosed. In 2016, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimated that 3 million people in the UK had COPD, of whom around 2 million remain undiagnosed. As we heard, numbers are higher in the north of England and in areas of deprivation. It is estimated that prevalence in the most deprived 10% of areas is almost double that in the least deprived 10%.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon referred to the British Lung Foundation’s survey of 8,000 people with COPD between December last year and May this year. It found that, before the pandemic, around 70% of people diagnosed with COPD said they faced barriers in getting their diagnosis, 14% experienced an initial misdiagnosis, and others had symptoms mistaken for a chest infection or cough or were sent away by their GP after raising COPD symptoms. Worryingly, the Government’s own figures show that diagnosis rates, which I think we accept were too low to start with, have plummeted—understandably—during covid, and so far show little sign of recovery. This month, the British Lung Foundation reports that diagnostic tests such as spirometry have not yet resumed, which many Members touched on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halton mentioned that there was a 51% reduction in COPD diagnosis in 2020 compared with the previous year, meaning that around 46,000 people in England alone missed out on a diagnosis. Over two years, that is around 92,000 people missing out on a diagnosis. As we know, receiving a diagnosis late means the disease has progressed, which means there is a greater risk of early mortality, never mind the impact on quality of life. Later diagnosis is also linked to higher levels of COPD exacerbations, which can result in lung damage and longer hospital stays. In fact, COPD is currently the second largest cause of emergency hospital emissions, which have risen three times faster than general admissions, putting enormous strain on our NHS, at an estimated cost of £1.9 billion every year.
As we have heard from other Members today, not only late diagnosis impacts hospital admissions; the BLF survey found that those patients who reported receiving the basic standard care—the five fundamentals of COPD care—had fewer flare-ups and better understood what to do when their symptoms worsened.
It is not acceptable that current levels of care mean that, even when a patient has a confirmed COPD diagnosis, they are likely to struggle to access the care they need, resulting in people needlessly ending up in hospital. When national guidelines are in place, it should not be the case that over three-quarters of those who responded to the BLF survey said they were missing out on some aspect of this care. Those with a recent diagnosis were the most likely to receive the lowest levels of care and there was a clear relationship between the length of time since diagnosis and receiving the five fundamentals of COPD care, so we can see that the situation is deteriorating. The BLF report suggests that this may be because people with COPD have to learn how to navigate the NHS to get the care they need. The report also finds that those who received the basic standards of COPD care had fewer exacerbations, were able to manage their condition, and better understood what to do when their symptoms worsened than those who did not, so it simply is not good enough that that group only received the right care eventually, leaving them vulnerable to a deterioration in their health as a result.
We already know that an estimated 420,000 people in the UK may have had their working lives cut short by COPD, and more than half who responded to the BLF survey said their mental health had worsened since suffering a COPD diagnosis. Clearly, we need to do better than this. As Members have said, it is absolutely vital that the right support and treatment are put in place at the right time.
The NHS long-term plan includes commitments related to respiratory disease, including to detect and diagnose respiratory problems earlier and increase access to pulmonary rehabilitation. Will the Minister update us on what progress has been made towards meeting those commitments? It is important to note that the plan was written before covid-19 struck. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale said, this plan is very good for sitting on the shelf, but what happens on the ground and how it is delivered are what really matter.
The Minister will know that services were already severely strained before covid-19. We went into the pandemic with the NHS already on its knees, with 17,000 fewer beds, 100,000 full-time NHS staff vacancies, hospitals crumbling, public health services cut and GP numbers down. Members have picked up on all these things today, so we know that the crisis we are in is not simply the result of covid.
We know that NHS waiting lists are now at a record high, with 5.8 million people waiting for treatment. Hospital leaders have warned in recent days that our services are at breaking point, and we know that the coming winter weeks are going to be some of the most challenging in the history of the NHS.
We need to see a plan to get the NHS through the winter without compromising patient care. We need a realistic plan to tackle the backlog in non-covid care and a dedicated plan to tackle the huge backlog in respiratory care. In a written answer in January this year, the Government said they were working with partners to develop and implement policy on the provision of pulmonary rehabilitation services in England. Almost a year on, I hope the Minister will be able to update us on what progress has been made on that plan.
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, for the first time. I add my thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) on securing this debate, particularly on World COPD Day. We very much appreciate his support for the taskforce for improving lung health. It was also a pleasure to hear hon. Members’ contributions to the debate, and I will try my best to answer their questions.
The Government are dedicated to supporting those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, which is a lot easier to say. In the last 10 years, we have rolled out guidance and initiatives to support and improve this area.
In 2011, a Department of Health outcomes strategy for COPD and asthma set out a proactive approach to early identification, diagnosis, intervention, proactive care and management at all stages of the disease. A wrong diagnosis will result in patients not getting the care they need, as a number of Members mentioned. That is why in 2013 a guide to performing quality-assured diagnostic spirometry was produced by the NHS, with several charities and other stakeholders. The guide was published to support accurate diagnosis of respiratory conditions and tackle the effects of misdiagnosis.
The national asthma and COPD audit programme was launched in March 2018. Led by the Royal College of Physicians, it aims to improve quality of care, services and clinical outcomes for patients with asthma and COPD by collecting and providing data on a range of indicators. As part of the national COPD audit programme, NHS England and NHS Improvement have developed a best practice tariff for COPD. The tariff is applicable to hospital trusts, in order to promote best practice and ensure improvements in care. Best practice will be considered to have been achieved when 60% of patients admitted for an exacerbation of COPD receive specialist input to their care within 24 hours of admission, and where COPD patients receive a discharge bundle before actually being discharged.
The NHS long-term plan sets out the NHS ambition to improve access to treatments for COPD patients. A date was requested by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As part of the long-term plan, access to pulmonary rehabilitation will be expanded by 2028. Pulmonary rehabilitation, an exercise and education programme, is one of the most effective treatments for COPD, with 90% of patients who complete the programme experiencing improved exercise capacity or increased quality of life. By expanding pulmonary rehabilitation services over 10 years, 500,000 exacerbations can be prevented and 80,000 admissions avoided.
Ruth Jones
I take the Minister’s point about pulmonary rehabilitation being so important—an integral part of the management of these long-term chronic conditions—but 10 years is a long time. People need help now, so what is she thinking in terms of immediately putting into place the extra staff and resources required for pulmonary rehab?
Gillian Keegan
I will come to that, and I will also come to the questions about recovery and catch-up, which a number of people mentioned.
To increase access to pulmonary rehabilitation, a population management approach will be used in primary care to find eligible patients from existing COPD registers who have not previously been referred to rehabilitation. New models of providing rehabilitation to those with mild COPD, including digital tools, will be offered to give support to a wider group of patients with rehabilitation and self-management support.
The use of COPD discharge bundles, where appropriate, will also help to increase referrals to pulmonary rehabilitation, and the NHS long-term plan will build on a range of existing national initiatives focused on respiratory disease. The quality and outcomes framework, or QOF, ensures that all GP practices establish and maintain a register of patients with a COPD diagnosis, and the QOF for 2021-22 includes the improved respiratory indicator, including the recording of the number of exacerbations and assessments of breathlessness, and an offer of referral to PR.
NICE quality standards have been published, with the aim of raising the standard of care that those with COPD receive. The NHS RightCare Pathway for COPD is being rolled out nationally. This pathway defines the core components of an optimal service for people with COPD, and it includes timely access to PR as part of the optimal treatment pathway. It provides resources to support local health economies, and the pathway also concentrates improvement efforts on addressing variation and population health.
At the beginning of the pandemic, NICE published rapid guidance on COPD, which outlines how to communicate with, treat and care for patients suffering from COPD. It also outlines how healthcare workers should modify their usual care and service delivery during the pandemic.
Derek Twigg
I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, but one of the problems that I referred to briefly in my speech is that of being able to see a GP—not necessarily just for diagnosis, but when someone becomes ill. I wonder how she can square that circle in terms of what has been put in place, if people cannot get to see a GP in person in the first place.
Gillian Keegan
Of course, access to GPs’ services is a concern that all Members will have heard a number of their constituents raise. That is why we put in place £250 million to increase access to face-to-face GP appointments as part of the recovery plans, which are quite extensive for the NHS.
The guidelines I was talking about aim to highlight ways to support people with COPD, such as signposting charities and support groups for better health and wellbeing. They recommend using technology to reduce some in-person appointments, while making sure not to provide a service that would increase health inequalities through a lack of digital access—it is additional, not instead of—as well as offering advice on how to modify care during the pandemic.
A number of questions were raised about the recovery plan, and how to restore services for patients and restore the diagnostics to pre-pandemic levels, or above them. The 2021-22 priorities and operational planning guidance set the priorities for NHS England and NHS Improvement, and includes tackling the backlog for non-urgent treatment such as services for lung disease patients. That plan aims to stabilise total waiting lists, and eliminate waiting times of two years or more and the increase in waiting times of more than one year. We have made £1.5 billion available to assist local teams to increase their capacity and invest in other measures to achieve those priorities, and the 2021 spending review announced £2.3 billion to increase the volume of diagnostic activity and open community diagnostic centres to provide more clinical tests, including for patients with lung disease.
Targeted lung health checks are running in the parts of the country with the highest rates of mortality from lung cancer. However, those projects will not just identify more cancers, but pick up a range of other health conditions, including COPD. People aged between 55 and 74 who have ever smoked are now offered a free lung health check closer to where they live. They may then have a lung cancer screen scan if that check shows that they need one. A review undertaken by Professor Sir Mike Richards highlighted that patients with respiratory symptoms would benefit from community diagnostic centres, due to the number of diagnostic tests that will be made available. As well as supporting patients with COPD, the Government are committed to strategies that will help to prevent that condition, as a number of Members have mentioned.
Jim Shannon
Just for clarification, following on from the question that the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) has asked, does the Department of Health proactively—perhaps even aggressively—contact smokers to follow through, rather than those smokers contacting the health service? I am not sure whether that would always happen. What is the Government’s policy on that?
Gillian Keegan
Obviously, there would be a relationship between the GP and the smoker, but that can go either way. Anybody who is in those age groups needs to be made aware that they are entitled to this free lung health check, and it is the responsibility of us all to make sure those checks are available. I am sure we will all ensure that that is understood.
In 2019, 85% of deaths due to COPD were attributable to smoking, and in 2019-20, 84% of hospital admissions with COPD were attributable to smoking. The proportion and the number have remained quite similar over the past five years, and as has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, smoking is a key factor in many cases of COPD. This Government are committed to reducing the harms caused by tobacco, and have made good long-term progress in reducing smoking rates, which are currently 13.9%, the lowest on record. However, with 6.1 million smokers in England, tobacco is still the single largest cause of preventable mortality, and a radical new approach is needed to address the stark health disparities associated with tobacco use. As such, we have set out the bold ambition for England to be smoke free by 2030. To support that ambition, we have announced the publication of a new tobacco control plan, which will include an even sharper focus on tackling health disparities and will support the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
The NHS long-term plan commits to delivering NHS-funded tobacco treatment services to all inpatients, pregnant women and people accessing long-term mental health and learning disability services by 2024. COPD is responsible for around 33% of annual deaths from respiratory diseases and is the single largest cause of occupational lung disease. There are an estimated 17,000 annual new cases of self-reported, work-related breathing or lung problems, which is why our colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are also helping to tackle the causes of COPD in the workplace.
Liz Twist
I thank the Minister for recognising that a proportion of COPD cases are caused by work-related issues, which will of course affect the north and the north-east most of all because of their industrial heritage. I assume she will tell us what steps the Department will be taking to pursue that.
Gillian Keegan
Yes, indeed. In fact, one of my own family members—my uncle—has COPD and has never smoked. As we are from the north-west, it is likely to be due to his workplace conditions.
Tackling occupational respiratory disease remains one of the Health and Safety Executive’s health priorities, and the aim is to reduce the number of new cases of occupational-related lung disease. To help achieve that, HSE focuses its inspection and enforcement activity where it can have the most effect. It continues to work with a broad range of partners to extend its reach and raise awareness of the need to prevent exposure. HSE’s WorkRight campaign, which includes occupational lung disease, uses communication and social media channels to promote the benefits of good health and safety, and a range of initiatives are being undertaken to support reducing mortality rates among patients with lung disease—for example, HSE undertook interventions in 2019-20 to address the carcinogenic risks from welding fume exposure.
I hope that what I have set out answers the many questions that right hon. and hon. Members had, but clearly it is work in progress. We are working hard to ensure that COPD care improves for all, as outlined in the NHS long-term plan, and that people have access to the very best care available.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for her detailed response and for taking a number of interventions—she was generous with her time. I also thank right hon. and hon. Members of different parties for championing the cause and for highlighting cases in their constituencies across the UK.
Some of the key asks on World COPD Day were for a dedicated, detailed and resourced plan. Everybody spoke about the need for early diagnosis and access to GPs. We all have examples in our constituencies, and it was interesting that the Minister talked about resources going forward in her response, but we know that COPD is a real issue here and now in our constituencies. The British Lung Foundation said that over 70% of those diagnosed with COPD were struggling to access services, particularly the NICE-recommended COPD five-point plan.
Regional disparities are a big issue. The Government talk about levelling up, and here is a real opportunity to level up the life chances and health chances of people right across the UK. COPD is particularly prevalent in the north, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We mentioned other factors such as workplace, and the Minister spoke about some personal family experience in the industrialised north-west. We also spoke about the link with poverty.
The Government have to address these issues effectively, and we will continue to hold their feet to the fire. They have been in power for 11 years. It is right to say that this is a journey, and we are not where we need to be for the millions of constituents who face this awful, debilitating disease.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Supporting Single Parents into Work
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking, which is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Members are also expected by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the estate, which can be done at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please do give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
I will call Dr Rupa Huq to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. We have had an indication, however, that Stella Creasy would like to speak and I am happy to call her for a short speech.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of supporting single parents into work.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. The full effects of covid are not yet all known, and the pandemic is not over, but this debate will examine some of the key concepts around employment, such as furlough, universal credit, 30 hours and flexibility, in relation to single-parent families. The pandemic and lockdowns in the last two years have been hard for everyone, but for the UK’s 1.8 million single parents, who work and care solo, some of the pre-existing financial, practical and emotional pressures have been exacerbated.
The Government like to trumpet their jobs miracle. It is true that at the start of the pandemic, 69% of single-parent families were in work, but many of those jobs were in sectors such as hospitality, high street retail and travel, which were hard hit by the pandemic. Single parents were more likely to work part time to combine caring and working on their own.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome yesterday’s figures, which show that unemployment has fallen for the last nine months. I recently visited the Elim Hope Church in my constituency, which runs a job club to increase the skills of Staffordshire residents and to help them with job applications. Does the hon. Lady agree that such community outreach programmes are vital for helping people, particularly single parents and carers, who need specific support to re-enter employment?
Dr Huq
It is great that the hon. Lady has been to her local job club in a church; I have been to mine and I would advise all hon. Members to do the same. The figures are encouraging, but there is often a “but” hanging around. I will come on to part time and full time; she has slightly anticipated what I will say.
As I said, single parents are more likely to work part time: some 50% of them work part time compared with 25% of coupled parents. I thank Gingerbread, which arose from the film “Cathy Come Home” and is the main pressure group on these issues. Throughout the pandemic, it has undertaken four research projects: in December, February and May—and there is an ongoing one. The previous projects looked at debt and poverty, and the current one is a longitudinal study of qualitative interviews funded by Standard Life. It is due in September 2022, but I have some of the findings and I will draw on them.
Gingerbread found that the unemployment rate of 12% for single parents is double that for main carers in couples—the non-single-parent variety. The labour force survey does not completely capture the effects of the end of furlough, because it is published three months behind, so that will be interesting to see.
I will turn to the number of single parents on universal credit since the pandemic. As we know, universal credit is an in-work benefit paid a month in arrears. It causes a whole load of problems and its rate was recently cruelly slashed.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is perhaps about to tell us that a child of a single parent family is much more likely to grow up in poverty. She also pointed out that single parents are much more likely to work part time. In view of that, does she agree that it is important for young single parents to have the same standard allowance for universal credit as parents over 25 years old?
Dr Huq
Yes, the hon. Lady makes a very good point. There are a lot of anomalies with universal credit; I think our last manifesto said to do away with it because it is not fit for purpose. The differential rates are not fair on the children. We called our group the all-party parliamentary group on single parent families because it is about the families and is not just a parent support club.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The hon. Lady makes an important point about differentials. Does she agree that the differentials according to age on national minimum wage rates could also have a profoundly difficult impact on younger single parents and their ability to afford to work?
Dr Huq
Yes, the hon. Lady makes a good point. Again, it is the children who will suffer if these rates are cruelly different for people of different ages. The national minimum wage does not apply to the very youngest workers. We keep being told about the minimum wage, which the Government call a living wage, although it is not quite the same as the real London living wage that our party espouses. If it does not apply universally, that needs urgent fixing, because it is the children who will go without.
We have 1.3 million single parents on universal credit, and this change means that more single parents will be expected to work. When talking of differentials, there is the age of the child before a parent works a given number of hours. For example, if the child is three, that is 16 hours. When that child reaches five, the parent is expected to work 25 hours, and when the child is over 13, it becomes full time. That is a blunt and clumsy instrument for people who are doing all the caring and earning in one household. Research by the consultancy Timewise shows a dire shortage of part-time vacancies.
Single parents are more likely to have been furloughed than coupled parents, and for longer. That reflects the sectors they often work in. They are more likely to have needed to go on furlough for childcare reasons, because they are parenting on their own. They are less likely to be able to work from home. We had the luxury of being able to work on laptops last year but, in caring or shopwork, where there is a preponderance of single parents, that is not going to happen.
The Timewise research into flexible working also showed that there is little evidence of a long-term shift in the prevalence of job flexibility. We hear about such jobs, but they are very difficult to come by.
Kirsten Oswald
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. She makes a really important point about work flexibility and how vital that is for single parents. Does she, like me, welcome the trial of a four-day working week, without loss of pay, in Scotland? Does she agree that that kind of initiative will enable a different way of looking at work? Not only will single parents be able to work but their employers can benefit from their skills.
Dr Huq
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. In the previous Parliament I signed an early-day motion for more research on the four-day working week. There is evidence that it creates better mental wellbeing. I would be interested to see more research. I do not think I would steamroll right into it, but it will be interesting to compare what happens in Scotland and see whether it could be expanded. Was Scotland not a guinea pig for the poll tax?
Dr Huq
Let’s not go there. If what the hon. Lady has mentioned is tested first in Scotland and we bring it here, I am not averse to that.
The way the welfare rules operate and the “first work” agenda mean that there is pressure to move into any job as quickly as possible. That means that many single parents are moving into flexible jobs below their skill levels, so they are over-qualified: there is a mismatch between their qualifications and what they end up doing. I do not want this to be a load of moaning, so I will propose some solutions.
The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), gave a bubbly, well-received presentation to our APPG on single parent families. She outlined a range of different measures to support claimants into work. There is job entry targeted support for people who have been unemployed for three months. There is Restart for those who have been unemployed for a year. Again, there are anomalous situations where, for instance, someone who has been furloughed for 18 months would not qualify for Restart despite technically not having worked. Those sort of loopholes need to be fixed.
There are schemes to get disabled people back into work. Why not have more programmes for helping single parent families? There could be more tailored support, and more single-parent awareness among job coaches. There is also an issue with the variability of job coaches; perhaps there should be more standardisation there.
We all know that good quality, affordable childcare is vital in getting parents back into work. Childcare costs are paid in arrears under universal credit.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I, too, am a member of the all-party parliamentary group that the hon. Lady mentioned. Childcare and getting back into work is a massive issue. I look back to my own situation over a quarter of a century ago when my mum was trying to get back into the workplace after she and my dad separated. Once, when I was 12 or 13, she secured a new job and I was off school sick—whether I was actually sick or not, I cannot remember. She went to work, and one of our neighbours phoned the police because I was in the house alone. The police turned up, phoned her work, and she had to come home absolutely mortified, and gave up her job. There is a real issue with childcare.
I want to praise Home-Start Renfrewshire and Inverclyde in my constituency, which I have met with a few times and does a great job. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right—agencies like that need a lot more support from the Government than they have currently.
Dr Huq
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He is an officer of our APPG on single-parent families, and it is interesting to hear his own experience. I hope that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children did not cart him away. The readaptation programme into work can be a big deal when someone has taken time out, and more tailored support needs to be provided.
There is a legal challenge under way to prevent childcare costs from being paid in arrears, which was initially won but was then lost on appeal. We are still hopeful that the Government will see sense on that. I have often heard the flexible support fund touted as a way to get people back into work, but looking at the sums involved, it is for something like getting a pair of shoes or a bus fare to an interview. I do not know whether the Minister has had to pay childcare costs recently, but they are blooming expensive. We need a distinctive fund for childcare costs or, better still, for them to be paid upfront. We could take a leaf out of Northern Ireland’s book, where just last week a £1,500 non-refundable lump sum was announced to help people who have found a job get back into work.
All of those options would be much better than the current skills underselling we appear to have. The Government’s flagship 30-hours policy seems to be very elusive in terms of finding a provider which can offer it, as there are such complex eligibility criteria for that entitlement. Only 20% of families at the bottom third of the earnings curve are eligible for that at all. That policy needs to become reality.
Universal credit being paid in arrears means many parents are caught in a trap, as shown by many of the rich, qualitative studies in the Gingerbread findings. One woman found her dream job, correct for her skill level, but she could not do it because the childcare costs would have left her unable to pay her rent. I hope that the Minster will look at redressing those things.
Some parts of the Budget, I must confess, are welcome. However, tinkering around with the taper rates, although an improvement, is not as good as the money that was taken away—£1,000 a year for the poorest, or £20 a week. I urge the Government to look again at reinstating that. There is nothing to address the high upfront costs of childcare that make moving into a job difficult for parents. We need more support to help single parents back into work that reflects their skills, with specialist single-parent advisers, as there used to be in job centres. That would be a good starting point.
Patricia Gibson
Does the hon. Lady agree that as well as the measures she is talking about, organisations such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the child maintenance service need to get better and more robust at supporting single parents who are fleeing domestic abuse?
Dr Huq
The hon. Lady makes a good point. One sad by-product of the pandemic is the rise in domestic abuse, with people locked up at home more. Yes, those organisations need proper domestic awareness training and to be sympathetic; they tend to have very much a “computer says no” mentality. In the civil service—the Minister’s officials might know about this—job sharing is incentivised, and there is even a register of jobs. Perhaps we could universalise that across all workplaces.
I have not had time to go into the mental health issues that we have seen post pandemic, or rocketing food bank use. Pre-pandemic, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty, Philip Alston, found that 14.2 million of our fellow citizens are in extreme poverty. Who knows where that is now? With safety nets such as furlough and the £20 uplift now gone, single parents and their children are more vulnerable than ever to being pushed into poverty. Gingerbread estimates that 1.1 million single parents will be hit by the loss of the uplift, losing £1 billion over the next 12 months. Remember: the Government used to champion the just about managing. They need to do so again.
The APPG’s point is that all families matter. That is why we champion single-parent families. We heard from Adrian Chiles, Robert Peston and Shappi Khorsandi, and we would love one day to welcome that well-known opposition politician and son of a single parent, Marcus Rashford, to our APPG. We live in hope. We want to show that it is not always only the man from the Ministry who should make policy; some things get flagged as anomalies, but the single mum at the school gates often knows best. As we steer out of this pandemic, although the Government go on about the plan for jobs, they need to address the 1.8 million single parents—a quarter of all households. That really would be levelling up.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, ma’am. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmadamship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this crucial debate, which highlights an example of the disjuncture between what happens here in Westminster and what happens in real life. In real life, over the past two years, families across all our constituencies have really struggled, and those people having to lead a family on their own have struggled most.
The single parents in our communities are utter heroes for being able to manage a family, trying to keep in work and trying to stay sane, given the pressures we put on them. A number have been outlined, including the craziness of saying that, somehow, for a single parent under the age of 25 on universal credit, it must be cheaper, so they do not need the same level of entitlement. I have never known a child to be cheap only because of the age of the parent; perhaps, at 44, I should have learned my lesson. We also pay childcare costs retrospectively, so someone who does not have savings—as single parents disproportionately do not—cannot get childcare so that they get back into work, as they want to.
In my short contribution, I flag to the Minister that there might be one parent, but it is the same bill, particularly when it comes to childcare. In this country, the cost of childcare and nursery fees for the under-fives has risen three times faster than pay in the past decade. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that, when splitting the cost, that might be marginally more manageable than just one wage trying to cover the bill. Childcare is not just a nice add-on, it is not just good for children, it does not just help women—mainly—get back into work. It is, economically, one of the best investments we can make, because universal childcare pays for itself, as Women’s Budget Group research shows. We get a higher tax take, and crucially for this debate, it lowers welfare bills.
I say to the Minister: not only do we desperately need urgent reform to universal credit, particularly for single parents—penalising a parent for being under 25 penalises their child; I hope he thinks of the children when he does that—but we need to reform childcare costs so that we can actually get people into work so they can earn the money to not need universal credit in the first place. We also need to see universal childcare as one of the best investments we can make, and one of the best things that his Department can lobby the Treasury for, to make sure that not only single parents but all parents can manage their children. However, single parents in particular face these costs, and it is absolutely right that we recognise that childcare is the cost of living crisis for most families.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes—or should I call you ma’am? I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for securing this debate. I am grateful for the work that she does in chairing the all-party parliamentary group on single-parent families, and for the contributions from Members of the APPG that we have heard today. Like them, I recognise the heroic work that so many single parents do across the country, supporting businesses and organisations in the work they do—and supporting their children as well. We recognise that important contribution.
We want everyone to be able to find a job, progress in work and to thrive in the labour market—whoever they are and wherever they live. It is good to see the proportion of single parents in employment increasing. It has grown by 11.4% since 2010, and is now at 68.5%. However, we want to go further. Through the support that we are providing as the economy bounces back from the debilitating effects of the pandemic we will see employment rates continuing to improve. We are committed to continuing to see an increase in the number of single parents in the workforce, which is why we have a comprehensive package of support that helps lone parents to enter and, importantly, progress in employment.
First, I reiterate that universal credit provides incentives to work as part of its fundamental design. In the Budget, as has been recognised by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, we have gone further; we have taken decisive action to ensure that work pays by cutting the universal credit taper rate from 63% to 55% and increasing universal credit work allowances by £500 a year. This is essentially a tax cut for the lowest- paid in society, worth around £2.2 billion in 2022-23; it means that 1.9 million households will keep, on average, around £1,000 on an annual basis. This will be complemented by a generous increase to the national living wage. The Government are extending the national living wage, from April 2022, to £9.50 per hour to all those aged 23 and over. We want people to be able to work, and we are making work pay.
The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), cannot be here today as she is attending a Select Committee hearing. Crucially, she is pushing hard for our comprehensive £30-billion plan for jobs, which will enable more single parents to take advantage of the nearly 1.2 million vacancies we currently have in the labour market. As part of our plan for jobs, the rapid estates expansion programme has led to the opening of around 180 new job centre sites all around the country; I am sure Members will be experiencing that in their own constituencies.
Those job centres will help us to meet the growing demand for our employment services, and help to ensure that all claimants looking for work receive the right support. The new estates are helping us to house the 13,500 new work coaches whom the Department for Work and Pensions recruited in the last financial year. I recognise the important contribution that they make; I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton does as well. They are real heroes in our local communities, and in my view they are too often unsung. Our plan for jobs programme will support more single parents to find the role that is right for them, no matter what their age or their experience.
Stella Creasy
We agree with the Minister about the importance of helping people get into work. Can he explain why he thinks that, during that process¸ the universal credit support we give to families, and particularly to single parents, should be assigned by age? What is it about a child of someone who is under the age of 25 that makes the Government think that they are cheaper, and do not need the same rate of universal credit—can he justify that anomaly? This is something that makes it harder for parents under the age of 25 to get into work because they do not have the money to pay those up- front child care costs. Why is it that the child of an under 25-year-old is cheaper?
David Rutley
The hon. Member makes an important point, and asks her question with characteristic commitment to the cause—I understand where she is coming from. We want to make sure that this safety net is available to everyone, and that we help people get into work—that is the most important thing. The lower rates for younger claimants who are under 25 reflects the fact that they are more likely to live in someone else’s household and have lower earning expectations. I will repeat: what we want to do is help more people get into work and then progress in that work so they have more money of their own in their pocket.
The other way that we can help young people, in particular, is through the kickstart scheme. I hope that hon. Members can see the effect that that is having in their constituencies, by helping 16 to 24-year-olds to secure fully-funded six-month job roles. The good news is that we have now seen over 100,000 young people supported into kickstart jobs. To complement this, our new DWP youth offer is providing extra wrap-around support to young people.
For older single parents who are looking to return to employment, the restart scheme offers a fresh start, helping more than 1 million people who have been unemployed for over 12 months. That is in addition to our job entry targeted support scheme—JETS—which supports people who have been unemployed for at least 13 weeks.
It is important to understand the success of the plan for jobs at a macro level, but it is also important to share the excellent work that our jobcentres are doing at a more local level for single parents in particular. Some of the case studies are very interesting. In Merseyside, for example, we have dedicated sector-based work academy programmes—SWAPs—that support lone parents to apply for and move into employment opportunities, with working hours that work for them and their childcare needs. In Birmingham, we support the YMCA to deliver a programme called parent journeys, which aims to provide tailored work and lifestyle-focused support for 42 lone parents over a 12-month period. There are many more examples of these tailored, local approaches, but time does not permit me to elaborate; I would be more than willing to share them with the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton. I would also like to recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), who talked about the importance of community outreach. We see examples of that in our own constituencies, and those should be praised.
I turn now to in-work progression, which is also a very important priority for members of APPG. We are enhancing our programme of support for workers on universal credit. Starting in April 2022—just a few months’ time—more people who are in work and on universal credit, including single parents, will be able to access work coach support, focused on progression advice and removing barriers. That could include signposting to careers advice and job-related skills provision, and helping claimants overcome practical barriers to progression, for example childcare costs, which we have discussed. Jobcentre Plus specialists will also work with local employers and other organisations, including skills providers, to identify opportunities for people to progress in work.
Dr Huq
I am grateful to the Minister for describing those programmes. However, rather than a one-off programme in Merseyside that acknowledges single parents, surely we should have a strategy that acknowledges them at every stage. A one-size-fits-all approach means, for example, I think, that two people each earning £39,999 receive their full child benefit as a couple, but a single parent on £40,000 starts to have it wrenched away. Those anomalies need to be ironed out. Will the Minister commit to a strategy that acknowledges single parents all the way through?
David Rutley
The point of raising the case studies was to show that there are tailored, local approaches that are working and are based on local circumstances. The situation in Merseyside is different from that in rural Lincolnshire, so we need to find ways that work in those different communities. However, I am sure that this is a subject to which we can return.
In the few minutes that remain, I would like to highlight the fact that the Government are considering carefully the recommendations of Baroness McGregor-Smith’s in-work progression commission. We will respond formally to the commission’s report in the coming months. We are doing a lot more to help with skills and, particularly through the national skills fund, to make sure that we can provide opportunities for all generations of adults who have previously been left behind.
Many hon. Members discussed childcare. I will not spill the beans on the childhood experiences of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), but he makes an important point. We must find ways to help lone-parent families. The childcare situation has improved dramatically since his day—and thank goodness for that. Childcare is available through universal credit, and free childcare is available through the Department for Education. The flexible support fund can also be used to provide for childcare up front—as we know, most childcare is paid for in arrears. There is support available.
We are also doing a lot of work to support the consultation by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on flexible working, which is another issue that hon. Members have raised. That consultation is important. The Scottish Government have their approach to flexible working, which we recognise, but we need to do more to look at part-time work, job sharing and other flexible working arrangements, which have become a norm for those who have been able to work from home during the pandemic—not everybody. We need to look at the responses to that consultation, and see what we can do to create more options for single parents, which is a really important priority.
I welcome today’s debate and thank the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton for her contributions. I hope that she can see that we are making significant strides in helping more people.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is suspended until 2.30 pm.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Stop and Search: West Midlands
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. That is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week, if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre on the estate or at home. Please also give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of Stop and Search in the West Midlands.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, and to have secured the debate. I begin by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a board member of West Bromwich town’s business improvement district.
The bottom line for this debate that I want to highlight is: stop and search saves lives. It is one of the most effective methods police officers have to take dangerous weapons and drugs off our streets quickly, as I have witnessed in my constituency. At its core, stop and search is about pre-empting dangerous situations before they happen. It also acts as a deterrent to violent individuals, if they know that the police are willing to use the powers effectively. Not only does stop and search protect members of the public, it also saves some perpetrators, who might be vulnerable adults and children, from becoming further involved in crime and illicit activities, perhaps giving them the chance to change their path, once they face up to the consequences of their actions.
I felt compelled to apply for this debate after reading the comments of the West Midlands police and crime commissioner about stop and search in the Express & Star on 2 November. That came out of the recently published new crime plan for 2021 to 2025, in which he stated that
“if searches are only leading to an action in about a quarter of cases, then it is legitimate to ask if the ‘reasonable grounds’ threshold for a lawful search has been met in connection with many of the searches that take place.”
That concerns me, because not only can little be taken away from those metrics, but officers going about their job to protect our communities are undermined and the zero-tolerance messaging that we should be seeing is compromised. Let me explain why I feel that the police and crime commissioner’s comments on the ratio of positive searches are not proportionate.
Were the police to pull over a car of four people because of suspicious activity, and found either drugs or a weapon on just one occupant of the car, that is treated as a 25% positive outcome of the overall search under the official police definition, as four people were searched in total. If a weapon were found or recovered after the event took place, that would not be recorded as a positive outcome at all, even if police suspicions were right.
That shows that none of the data can be taken at face value, but must always be viewed with nuance and context. If the police and crime commissioner bases his measure of success solely on positive search rates, he will in effect be limiting the use of stop and search artificially to create more positive searches from a pool of fewer overall searches. The statistics do not back up that approach, and I am concerned that the policy will lead to more knives and drugs on our streets, unchecked.
I believe that there is a positive story to tell about stop and search in Sandwell in particular, where police officers use the powers well: 751 searches were conducted in July to September this year, with a 29.8% rate of positive outcomes over the past six months. In Sandwell, officers use body cameras to capture footage of searches; they have taken time to invest in training to fill in any knowledge gaps; and they use the acronym GOWISELY when conducting all searches to ensure that they act appropriately and proportionately.
I will explain what GOWISELY stands for. This is what is to be said as the stop and search takes place: grounds, a clear example of the reasons for the search; object, what the officer is looking for; warrant, production of a warrant card if officers are plain-clothed; identity, the name and collar number of the officer; station, the police station where they are based; entitlement, the person must be informed they are entitled to a copy of the record; legal, stating the legislation that permits the search to take place; and you, the officers must explain to someone that they are being detained for the purpose of the search.
Like all other communities, we have a local stop-and-search scrutiny panel that aims to ensure that stop and search is being used fairly and effectively, and GOWISELY is also in place. In these scrutiny panels, randomly selected body footage is shown to the committee, which includes members of the public among others, and the chair of the panel is always a member of the public. The community hold the police to account, which is how it should be. Sandwell has one of the most rigorous scrutiny committee panels in the region, which even offers advice on best practice to neighbouring panels. Any learnings or concerns are fed back to officers directly.
However, I know that some panels struggle with retention of members and some were not particularly well established before the pandemic, which has caused difficulties. We therefore need to invest in and expand such schemes truly to get the most out of such vital resources. That is an idea I hope the police and crime commissioner will take up, using Sandwell as an example for other areas.
To add a further layer of best-practice sharing and scrutiny to this process, each committee chair attends a meeting twice a year at the Stop-and-search Commission, where they share best practice and consider wider issues across the force. Scrutiny panels also provide career opportunities for members of the public to get involved in some really positive community work. If a young person has chaired or been otherwise involved in one of these panels, what a fantastic thing for them to have on their CV. Indeed, local police inform me that one former chair of a local scrutiny committee has gone on to become a special police officer himself, because he was so inspired by the work the committee did. That is the kind of story we want to hear. In fact, I have accepted an invitation to sit on one of the local panels in Sandwell next year, to observe what such panels do.
One thing remains true in all of this—proportionality is clearly based on consensus, with both the public and the police being confident about the methods and means being used. Indeed, complaints against police officers in Sandwell over stop and search are few and far between, which is really good to see. It shows that the proportionality is there, that police feel confident about using these powers, and that the body camera footage boosts faith in the police and gives our communities protection, as it will evidence the fairness and the proportionality of any search.
However, in the police and crime commissioner’s crime plan, the PCC cites complaints about stop and search as something to be improved. Of course complaints need to be heard and responded to, and lessons learned, but I am not confident that the life-saving nature of stop and search is fully appreciated in the west midlands, and that could lead to worse outcomes for local people.
It is such outcomes that worry my constituents deeply. Despite the fact that crime has been falling across most of the country over the last year, in the west midlands we have seen a huge increase in overall crime, and crime is an issue that floods the inboxes of most west midlands MPs on most days. Our constituents are worried, and rightly so.
I cannot stress enough the importance of backing our police officers and giving them the confidence to act with conviction. They need to have the confidence to know that their decisions, when they are reasonable and proportionate, are backed by their political leaders, which is the only way in which we can make our zero- tolerance approach truly felt by all.
It would be a travesty if an officer were to be worried about searching a suspicious individual because of the seeds of doubt that the police and crime commissioner has placed in their mind with their stance on the use of stop and search. The West Midlands police and crime commissioner’s own website says:
“West Midlands Police was one of the first forces to adopt the Home Office’s ‘best use of stop and search’ scheme. As part of the scheme, it introduced a raft of measures to improve its use of the power…There are also ongoing projects that are improving scrutiny, teaching young people their rights when stopped and searched, researching disproportionality, and increasing the range of data we publish.”
That is all available to view on the website.
As I have just set out, there has been a lot of work in recent years around stop and search, especially in Sandwell. I regularly speak to local police officers in Sandwell and they are confident about their grounds for stopping people and about the proportionality of searches, and when they have not been confident they have undertaken training to bolster their knowledge.
It is no secret that we have seen some horrendous incidents of violent crime in West Bromwich town centre in the last few months alone. Only a few months ago, there was a horrendous incident in New Square, West Bromwich, when a group of three men turned on police with machetes after the police approached them. The brave police officers at the scene handled themselves brilliantly, and thankfully the wounds that they suffered were not fatal. However, we should consider what would have happened if those individuals had not been spotted. Those knives would have been taken right into the heart of our communities.
That group of men was stopped by behavioural detection officers. BDOs do what it says on the tin—they are trained to spot “out of place” behaviour in the community and to challenge anyone suspected of suspicious activity. They are specialists in behavioural studies. It was a group of BDOs on patrol who stopped this group of young men who were carrying machetes in the town centre. The group of young men were noticed because of their suspicious behaviour, including wearing thick, heavy clothing on what was a warm day. After the officers managed to force the group into a safer area of the shopping centre in order to stop them, the men produced large knives from their bags and proceeded to attack the officers. The officers’ training, knowledge and bravery, and the actions of some brave members of the public, meant innocent bystanders were not hurt that day.
It is important to mention that without the deployment of Project Guardian to West Bromwich, those individuals might not have been spotted, apprehended and taken off our streets. For Members who may not know about Project Guardian, it is the West Midlands police team that works across the region to tackle youth violence and get dangerous weapons off our streets. If hon. Members need a reason to back stop and search, they should take the opportunity briefly to scroll through their Twitter account to find out more.
The team are out every day using stop and search, among other powers, to seize drugs and knives. They are on the front line, assisting our local police teams to tackle this scourge on our streets. Their work should be shouted about loudly so they have the confidence to keep doing what they are doing to keep us all safe. If officers are not confident in using stop and search, the outcomes will not be successful. Training should be expanded to help them learn from the best or, better still, to promote the training of behavioural detection.
I would like to place on record my thanks to Lisa Hill from the business improvement district, Chief Super- intendent Ian Green and PC Rich Philips, who have led on stop and search in our area, along with all our local police officers in Sandwell, who are doing some amazing work in our community. The business improvement district, local schools, colleges and MPs are backing our police officers all the way. I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for their personal support and engagement with me on these issues.
The use of stop and search is a major tool in fighting back against county lines. Young people especially are exploited across the west midlands and forced to live in towns and cities outside their area to sell drugs. They go missing from school or college, sometimes for weeks on end. Stop and search can help save them when others in their lives have been unable to. That is why it is important to view stop and search not just as a tool to apprehend criminals but as a way to rehabilitate vulnerable people who sometimes, through no fault of their own, have become trapped in a life they do not wish to lead.
The use of stop and search in a proportionate and respectful way saves lives. It takes dangerous weapons and drugs off our streets and makes us all safer. Those who hold public office must send a message loud and clear that bringing violent weapons and drugs into our communities will not be tolerated. I do not think the police and crime commissioner’s statement sent anything like the right message. We should invest in training to get more BDOs on the street, expand and promote internal training opportunities for officers, and engage with the public even more through the positive use of the stop-and-search scrutiny committees. That is at the same time as putting 20,000 more police officers on our streets by the end of this Parliament, which we are well on track to deliver. We cannot just look at the figures when assessing stop and search. Context is crucial. To quote again from the West Midlands police and crime plan:
“How we measure, analyse and improve public confidence in policing and public satisfaction with police services will get better.”
I can tell police and crime commissioner that nothing promotes public confidence more than using stop and search. I could go on all day about my community’s experience with violent crime, but it is important that we hear from others. I am looking to hearing about other Members’ experiences.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
On 31 May this year, a fine young man, Dea-John, was hunted down and knifed to death on the streets of Kingstanding. The following day, I met his distraught mother, and the weekend following, I was with thousands of others both to celebrate his life and to bring the community together in opposition to the rising threat of knife crime.
Only today, the police are carrying out a major operation—a knife search, as they call it—in the Finchley Park area. I regularly talk and work with our local police service on how they use stop and search on the one hand, and on initiatives such as knife arches in a number of local secondary schools, on the other. There is no question but that stop and search remains essential to effective policing, acting as a valuable tool in combating pervasive, violent crime and keeping our communities safe as a consequence. The key is that the use of stop and search has to be appropriate. The need for the police to carry communities with them remains paramount. Historically, that has not always been the case, which has damaged police-community relations. Stop and search remains, however, an important tool in our armoury, with the caveat that its successful application requires ongoing dialogue with communities. I am pleased that the West Midlands police and crime commissioner has made clear commitments to that end.
Although I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) has secured the debate, I disagree with her interpretation of what the police and crime commissioner said. There has also been no mention thus far of the single biggest problem facing the police service, to which I will return. The police and crime commissioner has given no direction to the chief constable to reduce or scale back stop and search. It has been suggested in some quarters that he has, but that is simply not true.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
How does the hon. Gentleman interpret the parts of the police and crime commissioner’s plan where he quotes reports that say that stop and search does little or nothing to tackle crime, and where he says that the measure of whether “reasonable grounds” have been met should be whether at least 50% of stop and searches result in further action?
Jack Dromey
Point made. The police and crime commissioner has said clearly in his plan:
“Stop and search can be an appropriate and necessary tool to detect and investigate crime and remove weapons from our streets.”
I was with him on the streets of Erdington for most of the day on Saturday last week. He was sending an unmistakeable message that we should use whatever tools we have in our armoury to protect the public, but that crucially, we must get the use right and ensure that there are not counterproductive consequences as a result of getting it wrong. His plan is about making stop and search more efficient and effective with the intention of removing more dangerous weapons from our streets.
The single biggest problem confronting the police service is the loss of more than 20,000 police officers. Only last week, the police and crime commissioner wrote to all hon. Members in the west midlands—Labour and Conservative—to ask us to act together. He detailed the unfairness of funding for the West Midlands police, which is attributable to a decade of devastating austerity for the police service. For example, over and above the cuts that have been made to the police service, because of the damping formula, it has lost out by an additional £40 million. The west midlands is treated unfairly compared with some of the leafy southern shires.
The facts are undeniable. Since 2010, the West Midlands police service has lost £175 million and 2,221 police officers—25% of the workforce—as a consequence. Many examples stick in my mind, including the several hundred A19 officers whom I will never forget. Seven years ago, just when crime was rising, people such as Tim Kennedy, an outstanding detective constable, and Mark Stokes, an outstanding inspector and expert in designing out crime, were forced out of the police service in their prime at 52 or 53. It was a catastrophic mistake by the Government of the hon. Member for West Bromwich East that should never have been made.
The truth is that there has been a devastating impact on the west midlands and my constituency in particular. The hon. Lady pointed to the impact on her constituency too. Those cuts by a Conservative Government have had a severe impact on neighbourhood policing. Time and again—all hon. Members will have experienced this —members of the public, who are overwhelmingly supportive of the police service, say, “We rang and they took forever to come out.” Or, “We rang and they told us they could not come out.” Or, “Where are they? We never see them on the streets any longer.”
That is the impact of years of Tory cuts to neighbourhood policing. In parallel, there have been huge cuts to services that really matter to crime prevention, for example, youth services, youth clubs, mental health facilities and the probation service. The human consequences are sad and all too obvious: knife crime up, 17%; possession of weapons, up 28%.
The contrast with what a Labour Government did could not be more stark. That Government, under Blair and Brown, saw 17,000 extra police officers, 16,000 police community support officers, the development of neighbourhood policing, and crime falling in this country by 43%. As a consequence of the cuts made, that era of progress has been thrust into reverse.
Nicola Richards
While we are all enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s reminiscences of the good times, what is the police and crime commissioner’s plan to get the positive outcomes up to 50% on stop-and-search cases? We have not heard that; it is not in his plan. It has not been mentioned today. How do we get there?
Jack Dromey
There are two things. First, on stop and search, it would happen in exactly the way I have said—I have quoted the police and crime commissioner’s own words and I have heard him say it personally. It is about the vigorous but appropriate use of stop and search—getting it right; avoiding counterproductive outcomes. Secondly, he cannot put right all the wrongs of the past era since 1997, but he is committed to recruiting an additional 450 police officers, which I welcome.
Mike Wood
Why does the hon. Member think that Labour police and crime commissioners in the west midlands have seen rapid increases in the recorded crime rate over the past 12 months, where Labour police and crime commissioners and Mayors in other urban areas, such as Merseyside and Greater Manchester, have seen falls during the pandemic? Why is the west midlands different?
Jack Dromey
The size of the cuts that have been made to the police service is one answer to that. Can I throw a question back? If it is right, as is undoubtedly the case, that the police service has been starved of the necessary resources—and what the Government are proposing will still leave us 1,000 short in the west midlands—why do Government Members not join us to speak with one voice and say to the Government, “Back our police service; invest in our police service. We want to see a return to 2010, and an end to an era where the public have been put at risk as a consequence of those cuts.”? I throw that question back.
It is right for the hon. Member for West Bromwich East to bring this debate. Are we simply going to focus on a crucial issue, and then have no regard to the cost and consequences to the police service of being starved of the necessary resources, and all that has flowed from that? That cannot be the case. Hon. Members must make up their minds, because we will probably have the police grant settlement before Christmas. We need to stand together to influence the Government. Would any hon. Member like to respond to that? Why not unite with Labour colleagues to put the safety and security of the people of the west midlands first?
Mike Wood
I certainly welcome the hon. Gentleman’s appeal to put partisan political point scoring to one side. He may remember that back in the distant days of January 2016, we had a similar debate in this very Chamber—I was sitting here, and he was sitting nearby as shadow Policing Minister—at a time when the previous Labour police and crime commissioner for the west midlands had asked us all to come together on a cross-party basis to support a £5 increase in the police precept for the west midlands. I did so, and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) also did so. Can the hon. Gentleman remember how he briefed the local media after Conservative Members had supported the Labour police and crime commissioner’s increase in the precept?
Jack Dromey
Correct me if I am wrong, but was there universal support from Tory colleagues at that point in time? No, there was not. Were there some truly honourable hon. Members who took a stand in support of proper funding of the police? Yes, there were, and I welcome that.
I say this one final time: all Government Members are going to have to make their mind up. The case for additional resources and a reversal of the cuts of the past 10 or 15 years is overwhelming, and the consequences being felt by our communities are likewise overwhelming. Therefore, we need to stand together and say to the Government that we badly need additional investment of resources in our police service, not least because the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. The Government often talk tough on crime, but the reality is sadly the opposite. Our priority must be to return the police service in the west midlands to 2010 levels.
Nicola Richards
The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government are not tough on crime, but what I am saying is that the police and crime commissioner wants to get a positive outcome for 50% of stop and searches, with no plan to achieve that. It is fine to speak warm words about working with the community and better communication, but what I am asking for is a plan, and until a plan is produced on issues such as stop and search and others that we are concerned about, we are not going to lobby for more money to go into the Labour police and crime commissioner’s bottomless pit. Will the hon. Gentleman join us in asking his colleague to explain what the plan is?
Jack Dromey
I can say without hesitation that I want to see a vigorous and proportionate use of stop and search—there is no doubt about that. That is what the police and crime commissioner was arguing for in Erdington only last Saturday. Crucially, the hon. Lady has just said that she will not give a commitment to stand up to the Government and argue for the necessary additional resources. In a matter of weeks, a decision of immense consequence will be made for the safety and security of our citizens in the west midlands. We need to influence that decision, so I urge all Members, irrespective of party, to come together and make the case to Government to back our police service through proper investment in it. There is no question that we have to increase activity in crime prevention, and a commitment to rebuild neighbourhood policing will also be crucial.
The Dea-John killing is one of many that will always stick in my mind. As Members of Parliament, we have all seen the heartbreaking consequences for our communities of what has been happening in recent years, in particular the growth of violent crime as the number of police officers has decreased. Of course, there are different views, but the communities that we represent want to be able to live in safety and security. That means—I stress this one final time—putting the public interest first and backing the call for fair funding for the west midlands. I hope that all Members of Parliament from the west midlands will join together to do precisely that.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for securing today’s debate.
I will start by talking about stop and search as a tool that the police are able to use to tackle crime. Just this week in the Northfield constituency, we have seen our local police force working with the National Crime Agency. They have conducted a successful operation on the Cock Hill estate, taking four criminals and weapons in the form of a gun and knives off the streets. That is an example of how these powers are used every day to bring down crime in this country and to make our streets much safer.
We have also seen the powers being used in areas such as the Three Estates in Kings Norton, in my constituency. This time last year, my inbox was full of messages from people who were worried and concerned about the safety of their children and their families on the streets of Kings Norton. However, in the course of the last year, we have seen crime coming down, thanks to our local police, including the impact team and the neighbourhood team, who have been working together hand in hand to bring down crime, using the powers that they have to make our streets safer.
I want to say thank you to Inspector Michelle Cassidy and Chief Superintendent Steve Graham, who have been an enormous support to our local teams in the area; people such as Councillor Adrian Delaney in Rubery and Rednal who have worked with the police and local communities to bring down crime in Cock Hill and ensure that we make it a safer place; and local residents such as Natalie Chambers on the Three Estates, who helped to organise an online Facebook group, sharing information with different residents, empowering them and organising them in order to ensure that the police have the correct information at the right time, so that they can decide how to execute their powers and how to bring down crime locally.
As many speakers have said so far, stop and search is a vital tool. We have seen nationally how it saves lives. Last year, more than half a million stop and searches were conducted—that equates to 11 in 1,000 people—and 11,000 weapons were taken off the streets of this country. There were 74,000 instances of people being arrested also.
We see locally how this power is being used proportionately and responsibly by our local police in the form of the GOWISELY initiative, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East mentioned. It is these sorts of initiatives that, as local politicians and community groups, we can help to scrutinise through the panels. I am glad that my hon. Friend brought up the panels, because they are certainly going to be picking up some of the issues that she raised. I am going to have a look at my own Birmingham panel and see how I can help and engage with it, to see what we can all do to ensure that the powers are being used wisely. It also means that local community groups feel that they are having input into the process.
I am very glad that the police are being protected in these incidents through police body cameras. I was glad that the Government listened to the calls from the Police Federation to have the images stored on a camera published, so that there are checks and balances. Unfortunately, we did see many incidents in which police were being filmed and the videos were being put online, but the police were not able to publish their own video footage to protect themselves from people making allegations against them in relation to stop and searches and other incidents. I am glad that the Government listened to the Police Federation in that respect and moved forward.
Knife crime is a real concern in Birmingham. It is something that has been around for as long as I can remember. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) knows that I was born and raised in his constituency, and lived there for 30 years. Five people I went to school with—we were in the same year group—are currently inside for murder. All those crimes were committed with a knife. People I went to school with have been slain in Finchley Park over arguments. The hon. Gentleman always gives very impassioned speeches about resources, but these incidents were pre-2010, in the times of plenty, when these sorts of things were never addressed properly. They affected people and children, and included the killing of children in local parks. We need to address these issues, and these powers are at the heart of the efforts to combat them.
It has been said that the police and crime commissioner is fully supportive of the initiative of stop and search. If that is the case, why has he thrown a cloud of doubt over stop and search recently? Why has he thrown this cloud of doubt over the entire process locally? He did not have to do so. He could have carried on with the way it is at the moment without revising his action plan. What has happened is that locally, in the media, it has thrown a cloud of doubt over the process. I can imagine that it really demoralises our local police, who go out day in, day out, and face these challenges. They need political leadership as back-up for what they are doing day in, day out, and it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that they have that political leadership behind them.
Unfortunately, with the current police and crime commissioner, as with the last, we have seen a lack of political leadership. There has always been a void between the decisions that they make and the distancing away from those decisions and trying to blame the Government all the time. There is not a single police station left in my constituency. Decisions are made in Lloyd House in Birmingham, which, coincidentally, had £30 million spent on it to do it up at a time when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington said there were cuts. There was £30 million spent on an office in the middle of the city centre. Local police stations were taken away. My entire constituency does not even have a base that the police can call home.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I do not want to score a point, but I have listened to debates, as have lots of us, about police stations. How many police officers and staff does he think are required to resource a basic local police station? Our areas—his and mine—are served at the moment by Bournville police station. If we had another half dozen satellites, how many staff does he think would be required to staff those? How long should they be open and what would that cost?
Gary Sambrook
The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I do not have the figures to hand, but that £30 million would have gone a long way to providing local police stations. Even if it is not an entire police station that is open in the constituency—somewhere on the high street, in the community, in an impact area—that money could have been spent in local communities across the west midlands, particularly in my section of Birmingham, rather than being spent on a city centre office.
I have listened to the impassioned speeches of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington since I was a young man—or boy, even. However impassioned he is, that does not make his point any more right than anybody else’s. He has portrayed doom and gloom since 2010, and there is a reason why people, including me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, rejected his doom and gloom argument. People do not believe the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has deployed over the last 11 years, because there is always a void between the rhetoric and the actual doing. We have had a Labour police and crime commissioner in the west midlands from day one. When the hon. Gentleman goes around knocking on doors, giving TV interviews and blaming the Government all the time, they can see the gap between the rhetoric and the actions locally. That is why they did not believe him during the elections, and that is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East are in this Chamber at the moment.
It is incumbent on all of us to make sure that our police force has the political leadership.
Jack Dromey
First, the hon. Member talks about what the police have to say. If one listens to the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, they all speak with the same voice about the importance of additional resources over and above what the Government have thus far committed to. Secondly, does he agree with me that, rather than engaging in political games, the thing that matters is the safety and security of our citizens? Is it or is it not true that as the numbers of police have radically diminished in the west midlands, crime has significantly risen?
Gary Sambrook
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) pointed out, that is not replicated in other areas. Local decisions are made that have local consequences. That is the void between rhetoric and reality that I am talking about, which we see across all our constituencies in the west midlands.
Finally, stop and search is an invaluable tool. It is needed to make sure that our streets are safer, and the political leadership needs to make sure that the police know that, when it is required, we have got their backs.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for securing this important debate. As we have all said, stop and search is a constructive and useful power. The police service, with their cameras on, should be trained properly to respect the level of search they will be conducting and how that will be reflected in their numbers. It is important, it is needed and we should be working together to do that.
I had a meeting with the PCC last Friday and that was one of the issues we discussed. Another was resourcing my local areas with more police officers and more police community support officers. The reason I say that is that, on its own, stop and search is a weak tool. In the past, we had local PCSOs walking up and down the streets, speaking to people in their local areas and understanding what the issues were, where there was instigation of crime and what people were engaged in. What prevented the stop-and-search process was the intelligence that we had on the ground.
In my constituency, we had Rob Capella, who used to be a party member—in my first election, he delivered a lot of leaflets and I was sad to see him become a PCSO, but he is fantastic in the job that he does. He has built a huge relationship and a huge amount of trust in his local community and people come and speak to him. Unfortunately, about 85% of his team is no longer there. It is essentially just Rob doing most of the job that he had wanted to do. He does not have the police officers to report back to and carry out some of those necessary actions.
My constituency contains Lozells, Handsworth and Aston, which have had particularly high levels of crime. When I took over the constituency, very early on, we had the killings of Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare—a hugely tragic event, which was difficult for me as a new Member of Parliament to handle. I got the community together, I got the black churches together, we got the local enterprise people together and worked to deliver that process. We delivered that because we all got over it together. We did the same recently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said earlier, with the murder of Dea-John, where we got the churches, the community and the police together and we responded very quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) also joined us in that process. It was the right thing to do.
We are prepared to bring together whatever is needed to ensure that anything that happens is dealt with in a proportionate manner and the communities understand what has gone on. We are quite prepared to do that. However, the PCC explained to me how difficult it is for the officers to do that policing work without the support of additional resources and additional police officers on the streets. While we confine ourselves to stop and search, that is a small tool in the police’s armoury.
My colleague from the Westside business improvement district works very hard. He has a huge amount of entertainment venues in his BID district, mainly around Broad Street in Birmingham, which most people will know is quite well frequented from Thursday until at least Saturday night and sometimes Sunday as well. There is a huge challenge in trying to resolve some of the issues with people. He employs wardens to work alongside the officers in the area, but there are not sufficient resources. When the officers come in and try to apply stop and search, it causes issues for a number of people in the area and makes the situation tense, so other people come in, with the risk of causing another incident. We have to look at where and when we can apply stop and search.
In my constituency, in January of this year, we lost Keon Lincoln, a young boy of 15 who was shot and stabbed. It was another hugely tragic event, not just for his family but for the community as a whole, so we need to look at giving support. To that effect, at my meeting on Friday, I also had the violence reduction unit present to look at forging a multi-agency approach to dealing with this issue. I want youth services, social services, educationalists and the police to work together to provide a resolution. I know it works, because when we had real issues in the early ’00s, we got those teams together and it worked. By 2008-09, we had some of the lowest crime rates in my constituency because we worked together.
No one mechanism is good enough to effect change. I think we would all say that stop and search has a place but has to be done by properly trained officers. Again, more resources are needed to do that. We also need to have enough officers to do that properly, so that we can provide positive outcomes. In much of the city, it is probably not safe enough for officers to do that. They are professional servants of the community, but at times they put themselves at risk because they do not have enough support. It is very difficult. I praise them for the great work that they do in protecting us all, but they need sufficient resources.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) mentioned the issue of lower crime rates. The way that crimes of domestic abuse have been reclassified has had the effect of lowering some of the crime figures in Birmingham and around the west midlands. That is something that we need to look it, rather than saying we are reducing crime.
We have a huge amount of work to do. I commend the police service, which does a fantastic amount of work in our area. The PCC is engaging with us all, and I hope the Minister will engage with him constructively to ensure that we all work together to provide the best possible policing for all our communities.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I would like to call the Opposition spokesperson at 3.38 pm at the latest, and we have two Back Benchers left to speak. Please bear that in mind. I call Mike Wood.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Rees. I shall be very brief.
My father was a constable with West Midlands police for 29 years and was stationed for much of that time in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), working in Aston, Handsworth and some challenging parts of the city at a particularly challenging time in the late ’70s and early ’80s. An awful lot has changed about policing since he retired, but it is still the case that stop and search remains a vital tool for combating the scourge of serious violence and keeping people safe. We do not need to hear politicians saying that. The public know that that is common sense. The police know it to be true. Deputy Chief Constable Adrian Hanstock, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for stop and search, said:
“The authority to stop and search people in appropriate circumstances is a necessary power that allows police officers to tackle violence in our communities and prevent people from becoming victims of crime. Every day officers across the country seize horrifying weapons and are preventing further injuries and deaths by using their search powers.”
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) referred to parts of the police and crime commissioner’s crime plan for 2021 to 2025. The commissioner is right in one regard: stop and search is clearly an intrusive process. However, on the scale of interventions open to the police, it is very much at the lesser end of intrusion. Given its impact on both individuals who are stopped and searched and on perceptions of policing and fairness in the wider community, we must ensure that the powers are used appropriately, as the deputy chief constable said.
Certain individuals or groups of individuals should not be repeatedly targeted and stopped such that it almost becomes harassment. However, I fear that the language used by the police and crime commissioner in his plan sends out a signal to the many hard-working constables and officers in our communities across the west midlands, and to our neighbourhood policing teams in particular, that they should be extremely nervous of stop and search and use it only if they have almost seen a person carry a knife around a town centre—they need such a high level of certainty.
The commissioner writes in the plan:
“If searches are based on a reasonable suspicion of finding something or some other action following, then at least half would need to generate a positive outcome. This is not the case.”
That 50% positive searches test is not generally shared by practising barristers or criminal solicitors, and it is certainly not shared by the majority of police officers, yet by putting that in his formal plan for the police force area, he introduces such a note of caution that, in circumstances where an officer has good grounds to believe that an individual may be carrying an offensive weapon in one of our streets, town centres, communities or pubs, they are more likely to avoid stopping and searching than to carry out a stop and search. Even if there were positive results in only 20% of cases, that could be a significant amount of harm avoided and, indeed, lives not lost.
Proportionality is central to how appropriate the measures are. Inevitably, as the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police force, Sir Stephen House, said, if such powers are being used properly and in the areas with high crime rates, certain groups are far more likely to be stopped and searched than if people were being stopped and searched in St James’s park—the outer edges of the police force area—and the same applies in the west midlands. We know that parts of the region have far higher levels of crime and that, if we took a random sample in those areas, we would find that on a demographic, ethnicity or socioeconomic level, certain groups would be likely to be stopped more often than if a similar exercise were done on the streets of Pedmore in Dudley, or perhaps in parts of Meriden. We must ensure that these powers are not being used discriminatorily. We have to ensure that our police are comfortable and confident in exercising these powers when they are needed—when they feel that they have good and solid reasons to think that an individual may be carrying a weapon. We have also to ensure that police will have people’s backing, and that they will have the backing of decision makers and politicians. Sadly, some sections of the police and crime commissioner’s plan damage that confidence. They threaten to make our region less safe. I hope that he will reconsider and edit his plan.
Jack Dromey
On that last point about making the region less safe, the simple fact is that, as the police service’s resources have substantially diminished, crime has risen. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore be joining fellow Tory colleagues and Labour colleagues to make strong representations to Government to reverse the cuts that have been made to our police service since 2010?
Mike Wood
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have a long history of pushing Ministers, of arguing in private and indeed in this Chamber, for greater funding and for changes in the funding formula to benefit West Midlands police. I shall continue to do so; I know that a number of my colleagues will continue to do so. However, I would remind him—I think that it probably slipped his mind—that five years ago, he, I think as a shadow Minister, attacked me and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) for calling for council tax hikes because we were backing the police and crime commissioner’s call for a £5 increase in the policing precept.
We need a good level of funding. We have had increased funding in the west midlands. The number of officers in the west midlands is increasing. The previous West Midlands police and crime commissioner failed to translate that into safer streets and communities. I genuinely wish the new commissioner well; we need him to succeed, and we need him to improve policing and safety in our region. However, I fear that he is making the same mistakes as his predecessor. Our constituents deserve better.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for securing the debate. It is nice to have a focus on the west midlands. Listening to her, there was very little difference between her positive view of stop and search as a police tool and my own view. To be perfectly honest, there is not that much difference across this Chamber in that respect.
If I have a criticism of Conservative Members, it is that that they suffer a little from selective and collective amnesia. I wonder whether I can tell you a short story, Ms Rees. I have been struck by the account given by some hon. Members—that the police and crime commissioner may be putting at risk the valuable tool of stop and search and may be undermining the confidence of the police. You will remember, Ms Rees, that in April 2014, after record falls in knife crime, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the then Home Secretary, announced her dissatisfaction with stop and search. She demanded a much more complex recording system, with the deliberate aim of reducing the number of stop and searches. The police were instructed that they could use stop and search only when they believed that a crime would take place, rather than when they believed that a crime may take place.
I agree with Members that stop and search is essentially a preventive tool, so it follows that there will be some occasions when it is used and the people stopped will not be found to be in possession of illegal items. However, it also serves as a deterrent. That is especially important if we are talking about youth crime and particular types of street crime. It is worth while as well, and I would defend that.
I remind hon. Members that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead said that the power should be used only when the police were absolutely confident that a crime would take place. That had a dramatic effect. There were 600,000 fewer recorded stop-and-search exercises as a direct result of that intervention. It resulted in a spiralling epidemic of knife crime that we are still suffering from today. I say in all seriousness to Conservative Members that if they are worried about the risk of misplaced judgments on stop and search that could lead to a curtailment, they are seven years too late. The former Home Secretary and Prime Minister did that and created damage and a lack of confidence in police forces across the country.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, who said that the Opposition are taking up too many scares, that the public do not believe us and that that is the explanation for his and his colleagues’ election results in 2019. If people do not believe what we say about crime, I would like to hear his explanation of the election of the third Labour police and crime commissioner in the west midlands 18 months later. The assumption is that people may have some doubts about what has been said in other areas, but when it comes to police and crime, they do not trust the Tories, but they trust the Labour candidate. Is that not a logical conclusion to draw?
Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s selective amnesia. Let us not forget who has been in power for 11 years and takes overall collective responsibility. Let us not forget who scrapped ID cards, abandoned neighbourhood policing, and cut our police force in the West Midlands by over 2,000. Let us not forget that, even if we get the money that has now been promised, we will still be 1,000 officers short of the target. That is the overall reason why we have a crime problem in our communities these days—there simply are not enough police.
The hon. Gentleman made a reasonable claim—I hear it often—about opening more local police stations. I asked him what that would cost and to be fair, he said, “I haven’t a clue”. However, he also said, “Well, it could be paid for with that £30 million.” I want to make two points about that. First, staffing is a recurring cost, so £30 million cannot keep being spent. Once you’ve spent it, you’ve spent it. I did a quick, back-of-a-fag-packet calculation and I assume that in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, my neighbouring constituency, if we could open another four satellite stations—eight in all—at a very minimum for safety, we would need about four staff in each. That is another 32 officers, or officers and civilian staff. In addition, of course, there would be the on-costs of rent, heat and lighting.
Secondly, it is worth pointing out that the Minister for Crime and Policing’s predecessor was tackled on the question of the £30 million. He pointed out at the time that it would save money because the police headquarters could retreat into a central body and the police could refurbish some of their equipment, so that they could use high-tech policing, and create an environment where they could do their job more efficiently. I did not say that; it was the Minister’s predecessor, Mr Nick Hurd.
Gary Sambrook
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of costs for rent etc. Would it not be far more logical to combine some of the services in the community, and team up with the fire brigade, ambulance services and community hubs for the local authority? Maybe, if we were really revolutionary, we could even merge some of the roles of the police and crime commissioner into that of the mayor, which would be much more sensible.
Steve McCabe
At a time when we are waiting six to eight hours to get an ambulance for a 90-year-old woman, I am not sure that talking about merging services is the best strategy. I am quite happy to see certain resources shared, but in my view, that does not mean concentrating them all in the hands of a single person. I would point out that the reason we have separate police and crime commissioners is that this Government forced it upon people at a time when they did not want it. They were asked whether it should be put to a public consultation, and they said, “No, we’re having it anyway”. That is why we have police and crime commissioners. It is part of the collective selective amnesia.
I am proud of the three elected Labour police and crime commissioners in the west midlands. The late Bob Jones had a reputation for decency and integrity; David Jamieson worked hard to bring communities together and showed real concern on issues such as knife crime or illegal Traveller settlements; and I hope that Simon Foster is not being attacked because he is making fair funding and equipping the police with the right resources the centrepiece of his first term.
I simply contrast that with the North Yorkshire Tory PCC who had to resign after victim blaming; the Wiltshire PCC candidate who had to resign on the eve of the count for failure to disclose a conviction; and, of course, the Tory incumbent in Cleveland who is a person of interest to the very force he is supposed to be holding to account.
I hope that demonstrates how easy it is to politicise these issues in a cheap and nasty way. It will not help any of us. We should find the common ground that is staring us in the face. We should work together on stop and search. There is an argument for asking how we get to that aspiration of a higher conviction rate. I am actually in favour of that, and the hon. Member for West Bromwich East alluded to some of the ways in which we could do that. I would not have too much trouble working with her on that.
However, there must also be a recognition of the resource deficiency in the west midlands. We are not doing our constituents any favours if we decide to play party politics and do not make the effort to work together. I will be dead straight—that goes for us as well. We have to work on behalf of our constituents because they are the people who are losing out at the moment.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure as always to serve under you as Chair this afternoon, Ms Rees. It is also a pleasure to follow what I thought was a brilliant speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for securing this debate. She made some really important points about the value of stop and search and, like her, I am taking part in a Zoom scrutiny panel about stop and search at 5 pm. Those meetings bring local officers together with members of our communities, and play a very important role. I share the hon. Lady’s sentiment that long may that continue.
The hon. Lady and others are also right to send our thanks to the frontline officers who have to take the decisions around stop and search in real time, out on our streets. We should never lose sight of that. In facing someone who may be carrying an offensive weapon, officers very much put themselves at risk, and we pay tribute to them for their service. Like the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), my father is a retired police sergeant. I also have an uncle who is still serving on the frontline, so I am thinking of them and the support they need from us as they go about the work in our communities.
To be absolutely clear, Labour supports evidence-based and intelligence-based stop and search. I very much recognise that it can save lives. When stop and search is guided by those principles, it is a vital tool in halting acts of violent crime and in building trusted, consensus- led policing that is supported and trusted by all local communities.
The commissioner’s new police and crime plan, which we have heard so much about today, notes that only 25% to 30% of searches in the west midlands area resulted in any policing outcomes, which include cautions, arrests, drugs found and weapons seized. In only 3% of all searches did officers find an offensive weapon. Moreover, a freedom of information request released by West Midlands police this year showed that, of those stopped and searched per 1,000 of population, about 11 were black, eight of Asian heritage and three white.
The duty of any police and crime commissioner is to consider those statistics and to ask what the figures tell us about how stop and search is being used. Is it proportionate? Is it effective? Is it correct and is it prudent to assess whether the reasonable grounds threshold is being met in connection with the searches that take place?
In the commissioner’s new police and crime plan, he laid out three targets to make stop and search more effective. West Midlands police will aim, as we have discussed, to increase: the positive outcome rates for reasonable grounds stops and searches to no less than 50%; the proportion of reasonable grounds stops and searches where an offensive weapon is the object of the search; and the number of weapons found.
Despite what has been suggested, the commissioner has no plans to scale back stop and search, nor does he wish to abandon it entirely. Instead, he is thinking to create a more efficient policy. An effective policy will focus on taking more weapons off our streets, while we build in the community policing that became so difficult thanks to 10 years of austerity under this Government.
The commissioner is taking those steps because, in his constabulary and across the UK, the Government have made stop and search a less effective and trusted tool. The beating crime plan released by the Government in July 2021 permanently relaxed conditions for the use of section 60 stop-and-search powers, under which officers may search someone without reasonable grounds in some circumstances. That dismantled the best use of stop-and-search scheme, introduced by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), in 2014, which introduced evidence and intelligence-based stop and search.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich East noted the increase in crime in her constituency and across the region. In the West Midlands police force area, crime is up. Specifically, instances of violence against the person and crimes recorded involving the possession of weapons rose from 111,934 in the year ending December 2020 to 137,549 in the year ending June 2021, according to the Office for National Statistics. Those are indeed somewhat shocking figures, and I appreciate the hon. Member’s efforts to raise the issue with the Minister today. The fact is, however, we are seeing increases in violent crime across the country.
In Cleveland, we saw an increase from 24,359 instances of violence against the person and crimes recorded involving the possession of weapons, to 25,360 in the year ending June 2021. The area covered by Cleveland police was the second worst place in the UK for knife crime in the year ending March 2021. According to the Office for National Statistics, proportionate to the population, the force area experienced more crimes involving bladed weapons than Greater Manchester police or London’s Metropolitan police. Between April 2020 and March 2021, 122 incidents of knife crime were recorded per 100,000 of the population. Indeed, only the West Midlands police recorded more, at 156.
More generally, the Office for National Statistics reported that between April 2009 and March 2010, 13 per 1,000 people were victims of violence against the person; and between July 2020 and June 2021, 32 people per 1,000 were victims of violence against the person. I am sure that all hon. Members will recognise that those increases are serious and I know that the hon. Member for West Bromwich East’s police and crime commissioner is keen to engage with her and all hon. Members about how we drive forward the effectiveness of the stop-and-search approach in order to address the systemic factors that have caused such a marked increase in crime, in not only the west midlands, but so many areas of the country.
Since 2010, West Midlands police has lost 2,221 of its officers as a consequence of the Government’s cuts, and we have lost 21,000 police officers nationally, as so many Members have said. The force is due to receive 1,200 back over the coming years, leaving West Midlands police with more than 1,000 missing officers. Since first coming to power in 2010, the Government have reduced the nationwide police budget by £1.6 billion in real terms. Since 2010, West Midlands police has lost spending power of £175 million.
I am afraid to say that the Conservatives’ negligent underfunding of our police forces means that the country is experiencing record levels of knife crime and that nearly nine in 10 cases are going unsolved, which has contributed to the stark increase in crime in the west midlands. There has been no levelling up when it comes to the West Midlands police and instead we have left our communities less safe.
Can the Minister update the House on when the long-overdue revised police funding formula might be ready? I understand that Simon Foster, the police and crime commissioner, recently wrote to all the region’s MPs on a cross-party basis to ask for a fair deal for West Midlands police. I hope that all hon. Members, as other hon. Members have said, will join his plea in that letter to the Government.
Mike Wood
As the hon. Lady said, there has been an increase in crime in the west midlands. For violence with injury, the number of offences in the west midlands was up 10% on the previous year. In her own police force area, it was down 5% on the previous year. What does she think that her police force is doing better than West Midlands police?
Holly Lynch
It is an interesting question. One size does not fit all when it comes to tackling knife crime, as the dynamics of it are different in different areas. It might be the approach to the use of weapons, unfortunately, in domestic violence or to gang crime, or it might be related to drugs. To suggest that one size fits all when it comes to tackling knife crime is misguided.
We need to look to violence reduction units, community partnerships, police officers, police forces and police and crime commissioners around the country to find out what the most effective tools are to address knife crime and violence and to truly drive it down. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has pointed to the great work done by West Yorkshire police. I share his sense that it is doing a fantastic job and I will pass that on to my local officers.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) made a typically passionate contribution about how we have to take local communities with us on stop and search if we are to be truly effective, and about the devastating consequences of cuts to policing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) told us the story of his local police community support officers and the valuable work that they do to establish trust in communities. We should never lose sight of their contribution, which is valued by communities and policing alike. I come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak that the west midlands will still be 1,000 officers short by the time the Government have finished restoring the police officer numbers that they have cut since 2010.
I very much hope that we can have a productive discussion about how to improve stop and search. I am reassured that there is a great deal of consensus in the Chamber and a commitment to work with the police and crime commissioner to do that in the west midlands. It can be a vital tool in keeping our communities safe, but it must be driven by evidence and intelligence, and have public support, for it to be effective.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to think that stop and search is the silver bullet for crime prevention. Although it can be incredibly effective as a last defence against violent crime, the Government must begin to tackle the systemic factors that have driven the increase in crime under their watch. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) made a point about police station closures. I have lost a police station in my constituency—
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Order. Could you bring your comments to a close, please?
Holly Lynch
I certainly will, Ms Rees. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield thinks that those decisions are not based on the cuts imposed on police and crime commissioners and regional forces by the Conservative Government, he is mistaken. I hope that we can all make the case for well-funded police forces doing that work in our communities in future.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Thank you, Ms Rees, for presiding over a tight and passionate debate about crime in the west midlands. Given that I devote pretty much every waking hour to crime generally, it has been great to hear. I start by paying tribute to the police officers who are tackling the incidents in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), as she outlined. She and I have conversed often about crime in her part of the world, and I will do my best to try to help her now, as in the past.
I am pleased to hear that Project Guardian is now in play in my hon. Friend’s constituency and I hope that it will have an effect. Notwithstanding its impact, she is right to bring her constituents’ concerns to this place, along with other hon. Members. Fighting crime is a priority for most of my constituents, as it is for all hon. Members present. As a result, it is one of the chief priorities that the Prime Minister has placed before the Government for us to make progress on and drive numbers down.
I am very pleased that hon. Members are feeling the effect of Operation Sceptre, our national programme of weeks of intensification in the fight against knife crime, which has been mentioned. However, it is obviously always tragic to hear about these terrible incidents, particularly the killing of young people.
I make no apology for being a stout defender of stop and search, and I am very pleased to hear that consensus across the Chamber today. It has not always been thus, and I hope that Opposition Members who have spoken passionately about the use of stop and search will speak to their colleagues who have, for example, opposed our recent proposed expansion of section 60 stop and search—the deregulation, as it were, of section 60 to a certain extent to make it more dynamic and usable. As a number of Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, stop and search is about saving lives, particularly against the background of knife crime.
I have seen that effect for myself: back in 2008, when I became Deputy Mayor for policing in London, we were facing a rising tide of knife crime and teenage killings in London. That was at a time of enormous expenditure by the then Labour Government, with the numbers in London at an all-time high, yet the number of young people being killed was rising on a weekly basis. Against the background of the previous Mayor’s rather relaxed attitude, we came in and sorted that out, driving numbers down. In 2008, 29 teenagers were killed, and by 2012 we had got that figure down to eight. That was eight too many, but that decrease was due to the assertive use of that particular tactic in a critical emergency situation. That is why stop and search, particularly section 60 stop and search, is so important. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned, it is preventive. We know that the knives are out there tonight in people’s hands. We need to find them and remove them, because otherwise some of them may be used, often to deadly effect.
Stop and search is also preventive because taking knives away from people means they are less likely to be victims. A person is much more likely to be stabbed and injured, or even killed, if they are carrying a knife themselves. Stop and search is unequivocally about saving lives, but it is also preventive because of the psychological effect of raising the likelihood of being caught—the perception of detection. We know that the perception of the likelihood of being caught is the greatest deterrent to any type of crime, so by making sure that stop and search is high-profile—that it is seen, that there are knife arches at transport nodes and at schools, and that stop and search is being done in the community—we will stop people carrying knives in the first place, because they will think they are more likely to be caught. I urge all parts of the country where there is a violence problem to use stop and search judiciously and proportionately, but nevertheless recognise it for the vital tool that we all agree it is.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East has said, we need to be careful about the use of data on stop and search, because although data can inform when properly interpreted, it can also deceive. There is a famous case of a pair of drug dealers who went from London to the Purbeck coast, down in the south-west. They were intercepted, stopped and searched, and drugs were obtained. However, because they were from a different background from the local population, being stopped and searched in that part of the world became 44% more likely for a person of black, Asian or minority ethnic background, just because of those two cases.
Understanding what the data is telling us is key to maintaining the legitimacy of stop and search, and while we often talk about the disproportionality in those who are stopped, searched and found with knives, or stopped and searched anyway, we never seem to talk about the other side of the argument, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) outlined. That is the disproportionality of victimisation: those people who, sadly, are killed also display a disproportionality that the police cannot ignore. Understanding what is actually happening in the data is a critical part of the mission.
Stop and search can be done well—there is no doubt about it. There are parts of the country where it is done extremely well. Liverpool, for example, prides itself on the way it conducts, handles and promotes in the community its stop and search. Of course, transparency with local people is absolutely critical. Buying in their consent is critical, particularly in those communities and neighbourhoods that are disproportionately affected by knife crime. As a number of Members have said, that takes political leadership. If the police are going to get out there and do this work, they need the political top cover. We politicians are the living consent, by the people of the areas we represent, to do this kind of work and we should be the interlocutors, as should police and crime commissioners.
All those years ago, when we were doing this work in London, the then Mayor, who is now Prime Minister, and I toured London, speaking to audiences large and small, in village halls and the Brixton Academy, to buy in this idea that what we were about was saving the lives of their young people. That is the mission that we all need to be joined on, shoulder to shoulder, including police and crime commissioners. I know that the actions of the police and crime commissioner in the west midlands is the subject of this debate, but I know that he will stand for that purpose and that he will do his best to try to sell this tactic, as Government Members have said, as a critical one for the police to use.
I say that because we are all concerned about crime in the west midlands. We need to reinforce constantly the often difficult and confrontational things that the police do, underline the legitimacy of what they do, and illustrate to our electors and the wider community that the police have a difficult and challenging job, which sometimes involves doing unpalatable things, but that fundamentally their purpose is to save life and build neighbourhood safety. If we could all join on that mission together, I think we can point towards success.
Kit Malthouse
I do not have time, I am afraid; I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
I am hesitant to engage in what I have to say is this rather hackneyed debate about cuts, which I have heard the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak engage in many times, and I have certainly heard his party’s Front Benchers engage in it many times. It is now getting on for over a decade that that debate has been had, through numerous elections, most of which we have won, not least the last one. Indeed, we also won the last round of police and crime commissioner elections, when—I must point this out to the hon. Gentleman—we won 70% of the seats available. By the way, the votes for the Conservative candidate in the west midlands increased to 239,000, from 44,000 back in 2008, so we might catch his party at the next election—let us see where we get to.
Notwithstanding that, we have given commitments at the Dispatch Box about the funding formula. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East and other Government Members from the west midlands have certainly engaged with me about the need for that change in the funding balance, and we will be running that programme over the next couple of years. I have given a commitment that we will have the formula in place before the next election, assuming that the next election is at the end of this Parliament—who knows when that will come?
However, I urge Members to recognise that police and crime commissioners make a difference, and that someone cannot walk away from the decisions that were made in the intervening 10 years and say, “Nothing to do with us, Guv.” Decisions made over that decade by police and crime commissioners mean that as we get into a time of investment in policing—I am very happy about that, and we are now over halfway through our growth in the number of police officers—where we start from is a product of those decisions. There are some forces in the country that fought hard to preserve police officer numbers, not least in London, where I did the same, because we faced the same cuts during our time, or the same reduction in resources, because of the crash and the needs of the country’s finances. We fought to preserve numbers and, as a result, London is in a better position now to advance on police officer recruitment. I am afraid that the west midlands made a different set of decisions during those 10 years, driven by the thinking and the priorities, or whatever it might be, of the police and crime commissioner there.
I understand that the imperative on the Opposition side is to blame us for everything that goes wrong, and we want to blame the Opposition, but I am not walking away from some of the decisions we made during those 10 years—absolutely not. They were driven by bigger issues than us: geopolitics and economics; and a desire to get the country’s balance sheet back into good shape. At the same time, Opposition Members have to accept that the police and crime commissioners of those years—there have been three of them—made a set of decisions that put the west midlands in the position it is in now. If that is not the case, I am not sure what they were saying to people in elections about what difference they were going to make.
I hope that in future, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak quite rightly said, all of us can focus on making sure that the west midlands is as safe as it can possibly be, and I will join with everyone here on that mission.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I am sorry, Nicola Richards, but there is no time left for you to wind up. I apologise.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the use of Stop and Search in the West Midlands.
Funeral Director Services Regulation
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (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 current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a 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 give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the regulation of the provision of funeral director services.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, I think for the first time. Over recent years, I have had more to do with funeral directors and the service they provide than I would have liked. I start by placing on record my thanks for the work that they do, particularly during the covid pandemic, when they have dealt very sensitively with families in very difficult situations. Funeral directors are in charge of assisting families at some of the most difficult times in our lives, and the vast majority of them do so with an exceptional level of service and sensitivity.
I want to talk about an unfortunate case—an example of how it does not always go right—that happened to a family from Darwen, in my constituency. The family came to me with a complaint against K.C. Funeral Services, following an incident that happened at the burial of their uncle in Darwen cemetery on 22 January 2021. The incident was caused by the snapping of the straps used to lower the coffin into the grave. After the straps snapped at the mouth of the grave, the coffin fell more than eight feet into the open grave, resulting in the exposure of the remains of the deceased. Understandably, many family members and other mourners immediately left the funeral. The family had been led to believe by K.C. Funeral Services that enough members of staff would be in attendance to assist at the graveside, but the family did not believe that was the case. They felt, understandably, very distressed about the situation.
The family also noted that, in any event, even if they had not snapped, the straps used to lower the coffin into the grave were not long enough. In fact, if they had had to lower the coffin into the grave themselves, because of the lack of assistance from the funeral directors, they would have ended up lying on their stomachs at the graveside, lowering the coffin to the floor. It was a three-person grave, so it was very deep, and my deceased constituent was the first person to be interred.
This was an appalling incident, and I pay tribute to Father Brian, who is a well-respected and widely liked parish priest based at St Joseph’s and St Edward’s in Darwen. He assisted the family, arranged for the majority of them to go home, sent away the mourners who had come to pay their last respects, and organised the removal of the deceased’s body from the grave, which had to be undertaken by cemetery workers and the remaining family members. The body was then returned to the funeral directors and another coffin was sought. The body was cleaned, having been at the bottom of the grave, and a team of pallbearers completed the burial the following day, which was Saturday 23 January.
It is absolutely apparent to my constituents that K.C. Funeral Services had been lacking in many areas. Given the distressing story I have just recounted, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members can see why they would come to that conclusion. It is their view that the minimum standards required by law, or by decency in many cases, had not been met. The incident was exceptionally traumatic for the family, who were already grieving the loss of a well-loved family member. Following the incident, they went back to see Emma Childerley at K.C. Funeral Services on 28 January, in order to ask her some questions about the normal operating practices of her business. They were made aware at the meeting that K.C. Funeral Services was not a member of the National Association of Funeral Directors or the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors. She confirmed to the family—it was the first time they had heard it, and I must admit that it was the first time I had heard it—that both registration schemes are voluntary. Some funeral directors, including the one I have mentioned, do not join such schemes, largely because of the cost burden of doing so.
In what I hope will be a relatively brief contribution, I want to address the gap in the regulations that enables some providers to operate with limited or no regulation. The regulations do not enable families who have suffered in this way, or who have any other grievance, to pursue the funeral directors through a professional body. That is what I hope the Minister will address as we move through the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I spoke to him beforehand, and the case that he has outlined is absolutely horrific. It beggars belief what happened. There is a need for regulation, and not just for those who are not members of funeral directors organisations. Does he agree that although it is welcome that funeral services are bringing in greater regulation of funeral provision, the date of July 2020 will potentially leave thousands of people with no redress, and this should also be retrospectively applied? Although there are independent funeral directors who are not members of an organisation, there are others who are members of an organisation and who pay into that, and they are not getting redress either.
Jake Berry
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention highlights how complicated this space is. There are competing interests trying to become the regulator of choice. I am not proposing, and do not intend to propose, the introduction of state regulation, but a strong indication from the Government on the direction of travel in relation to regulation would assist the funeral sector.
Let us be absolutely clear, as per my opening remarks, that the vast majority of funeral directors provide an exceptional level of service. The reason the story of what happened to the family in my constituency is so shocking is that it is so rare. Many of us who have had interactions with a funeral director, maybe when burying a family member or friend, can understand that having to deal with an appalling incident of this kind at the moment of maximum grief is a terrible thing.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend might not know that I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for funerals and bereavement. There are two things that I wish to draw to his attention. The first is to endorse and amplify what he has said about the funeral and bereavement sector during the pandemic, because it rose to meet what was an extraordinary challenge, as he described.
The second thing, which is highly pertinent to my hon. right Friend’s remarks, is that one of the problems—this is highlighted in our all-party parliamentary group’s annual report, which was published recently—is that responsibility for funerals and similar matters crosses several Government Departments. The Minister is in his place, but of course this issue is affected by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the Department for Work and Pensions—several Departments have responsibilities in this field. It is important that there is a cross-Government approach to funerals and bereavement. That is something the all-party parliamentary group has called for, and it is something the Minister might want to reflect on during the course of the debate.
Jake Berry
I thank my right hon. Friend for an excellent intervention. Picking up on both interventions, this is a very complicated space—the Department of Health and Social Care, of course, will have some input as well. In this sort of complicated space, things often get missed, so I hope that the Minister, who I know is not a believer in Government silos, will look to work across Government to ensure that we can bring some regulation to this area.
When I spoke to my constituents about this, both those affected and others, they were shocked and surprised to find out that this sector, which people access at such a vulnerable moment, is largely unregulated. We should seek to close the gap that allows people to opt out of all regulation for financial reasons—and they may have very valid business reasons for doing so—leaving people with limited redress. In all fairness, the two best known regulating bodies, the National Association of Funeral Directors and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, are seeking to address the issue. They have been proactive, which is good. It is not just those two bodies that are calling for regulation, of course. The Competition and Markets Authority recently looked at funeral services, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) will know from his work with the all-party parliamentary group for funerals and bereavement. We should seek more regulation in this space.
I am aware of the work being undertaken by David Heath, the former Member for Somerton and Frome, who is the chair of the Independent Funeral Standards Organisation. I understand from David, who is doing excellent work with that organisation, that it will be up and running from January, trying to regulate and work with the sector to seek further regulation. Of course, there is no compulsion on any funeral director to take part in that organisation, and there is no compulsion on funeral directors and other bereavement services to join the existing trade bodies.
I hope that the Minister will take up the excellent suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings: to seek to work across Government to ensure that we find a solution to the doubt in this area in relation to regulation. What would be exceptionally helpful for the industry—and if he cannot do it today, it may be something for another day or something on which he could write to me—is to set out a direction of travel on regulation for all of those competing organisations. They should be given a period of time to get their own house in order, but they should understand that that is a limited period of time. Different regulators have competing interests, and they need some Government direction to work together, come together and be forced to talk to one another. If they fail to find an industry-led solution, which would be my preferred route, there should at least be an understanding that the Government will keep this under review and may, at some point in the future, intervene.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate best practice among funeral directors and the work that they do to serve their communities in very difficult times for families?
Jake Berry
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Everyone who has spoken today understands the brilliant work that the funeral and bereavement sector does on behalf of families, and it has been through a very difficult time. On the point about best practice, a form of industry-led regulation that people are compelled to join would naturally lead to the sharing of best practice. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider what has been said today. I know he will join me in passing on condolences to a family that I have not named because of the graphic and distressing nature of the case in Darwen. They are having a very difficult time because a dearly loved and valued member of our community died, and that was compounded by an appalling graveside incident.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I will start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) for securing a debate on a most important issue for his constituents. He is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to such a serious issue this afternoon. He has highlighted an experience with which we will almost all inevitably have to deal at some time in our lives—the burial or cremation of a loved one. Very sadly, that has become a reality for many families over the past 20 months. I offer my sincere condolences to all who have been bereaved, and pay tribute to the fortitude with which they have faced a most distressing experience during the difficult circumstances of recent months.
The loss of a loved one is a painful burden that, naturally, we prefer not to consider until we are forced to do so. When it does happen to us, we are often at our lowest ebb, so it is never easy. The pain that comes with losing someone we love or care for is something that all Members of this House will be familiar with. However, in the vast majority of cases, we are supported by the commitment and professionalism of the funeral director in whom we put our trust at this most difficult of times. They have an enormously important and significant position of responsibility at what is a very distressing time for all those involved.
As right hon. and hon. Members have done this afternoon, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the crucial contribution of the funeral sector throughout the difficult circumstances of the pandemic response, and also more generally. We can all think of examples of funerals for our loved ones or friends and associates where services have been conducted sensitively and sympathetically and with real professionalism. The sector has been central to the Government’s objective of ensuring that the deceased are treated with dignity and respect, and the bereaved with compassion. Again, I want to record my sincere gratitude and that of the entire Government for that work.
Unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen illustrated in his speech, things can sometimes go wrong. First, may I offer my sincere condolences on the death of his constituent’s relative and say how shocked and sorry I am for what the family have been through? The events that he described are truly shocking, and no family suffering real grief following the death of a loved one should ever have to go through that. I can only imagine how difficult and traumatic the experience has been for them, without that being compounded by the events that he described. It will have been distressing not only for them, but for all the individuals in attendance. I note the professionalism of the individual in charge of the ceremony in helping all those affected to deal with it, and the professionalism that they showed in the impossible circumstances that they were presented with. I trust it was a rare and isolated incident, but that does not diminish or excuse the impact on those involved.
Quality standards in the provision of funeral director services are not prescribed by law. However, there is a broader regulatory framework with which funeral directors must comply, including health and safety legislation covering the safe handling and storage of bodies by funeral directors and their staff, and consumer protection measures, about which I will say more in a moment.
Inconsistency in quality standards was one of the issues identified in the report by the Competition and Markets Authority on its market investigation into the funeral sector, published last December. The report recommended that independent regulation of funeral director provision was needed to raise and maintain standards, and to standardise some practices, for example in the transport and storage of bodies
The Government’s response to the Competition and Markets Authority’s report was published on 7 April this year. While we accepted that there could be improvement in the sector, we did not propose moving to a full independent regulator at this stage. Given the impacts of the extreme pressure on the sector during the pandemic, the Government considered that this was not the time to implement significant changes. However, the pressures of the pandemic have undoubtedly strengthened the relationship between the funeral sector and Government, which is, of course, a good thing. We have built on this to support the sector in improving the effectiveness of its self-regulation of quality standards. In our response to the Competition and Markets Authority, we said that we would introduce a set of quality standards and principles to which funeral directors should subscribe. We planned to do so by the end of this year, and to review its effectiveness within 18 months of implementation.
Jake Berry
The Minister is talking about a set of standards and principles to which funeral directors should subscribe. Does he mean “should” subscribe or “must” subscribe?
Tom Pursglove
At the moment we are looking at a self-regulation approach to this issue. There are challenges in going down the route of formal regulation, which, of course, takes time because it needs statutory underpinning, often involving primary legislation. We expect the sector to look intensively and at speed to improve the situation. There is an onus on all those providing these services to live up to the standards that we would all expect funeral directors taking care of our loved ones or friends to live up to, for the reasons so eloquently outlined by my right hon. Friend.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) has done a great service to his constituents. He has been their champion and drawn this tragic case to the attention of the House. Out of the tragedy, the family will be hoping that something positive will come, and today can be the beginning of that. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the work of David Heath, who recently met the all-party parliamentary group. Will the Minister agree to meet the all-party parliamentary group to take these matters further, in exactly the spirit of my right hon. Friend’s speech?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I want to really engage with this issue in the spirit in which all Members have come to the debate. With that in mind, I would be delighted to meet the APPG and to hear the concerns of its members. In fact, my right hon. Friend has pre-empted what I was going to offer later in my remarks. As a parliamentarian, he is very good at teasing out these sorts of commitments.
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend has indeed. He has managed to extract that commitment from me and I will certainly look forward to that discussion. As he has described, none of us in this House wants to see any other family go through the wholly unacceptable distress that the family in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen have been through, at a most difficult time for them. We cannot allow that to happen in future. There is an enormous onus on the sector to drive forward this improvement and these quality standards. At this point, we think it is right that they take responsibility for achieving that, but we reserve the right to have a greater involvement in these matters if we do not see the sort of improvement that I think we would all expect.
In light of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations, both the sector’s representative organisations—the National Federation of Funeral Directors and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors—are taking positive steps to introduce and embed improved self-regulation and complaint-handling arrangements. Encouraged by the sector’s proactive approach to the Competition and Markets Authority’s findings, we are continuing to work closely with it throughout the implementation of its new self-regulation regimes, with a view to assessing their effectiveness once they have bedded in. I hope that that gives some reassurance as to the improvement that my right hon. and hon. Friends are seeking.
Where funeral directors are not members of these representative bodies, I would expect them to look to the standards that the bodies are developing and to adopt and advance those standards within their own set-ups. I think that that is an important point to make. Cost, which Members have raised, is of course a matter for the representative bodies, but I know that the NAFD in particular is looking to make improved regulatory structures accessible across the profession, which again is very welcome.
In addition to its findings on quality standards, the Competition and Markets Authority made recommendations to address the lack of accessible and comparable information on the products and services that funeral directors provide. In the light of pandemic pressures on the sector, the Competition and Markets Authority has not pursued remedies to address that issue fully. Instead, it has introduced a range of “sunlight” provisions to support customers in making choices about funerals, and to ensure that the pricing, business and commercial activities of funeral directors, as well as the quality of the service that they provide, are exposed to greater public and regulatory scrutiny. The remedies include an obligation for all funeral directors to set their prices out clearly and prominently so that families needing to arrange a funeral can, if they wish, compare that information before deciding which provider to use. The Competition and Markets Authority has also recommended that, once conditions are more stable, it should consider whether a further market investigation is needed to identify whether additional customer protections are needed.
To return to the regrettable experience of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, there are numerous pieces of legislation with which all traders, including funeral director businesses, must comply. In particular, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 sets out the standards that consumers can expect when they contract with a trader or business for the provision of services, and the remedies if those rights are breached. Where a trader or business fails to meet the standards for the supply of a service required by the 2015 Act, or the service does not conform to the contract, that could potentially be a breach of contract, and if so, the consumer is entitled to seek a remedy. If that cannot be agreed in correspondence, the consumer could then pursue a claim against the funeral director in the courts.
I want to pick up on the point made about the cross-Government nature of this issue, which again is important. I have made the point that, as a result of the pandemic, what we have seen is a stronger working relationship between Government and the sector. It is essential that that is reflected across Government, given the fact that elements of policy in this area intersect with various Departments. My right hon. Friend referred to there being silos and the fact that we do not want operations within silos. I hope that he will be slightly reassured by the fact that, as a joint Minister, across both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, I am quite well versed in ensuring that elements of Government do not act in silos. In that spirit, I would want to engage with colleagues across Government to ensure that we get this right, and that is precisely what I intend to do. He has my reassurance on that.
I conclude by again thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen for introducing this debate this afternoon. It would be impossible for anybody—any Minister or any Member of this House—not to be affected by hearing about the experience that he has described with real understanding, care and sympathy for his constituents who have been caught up in this terrible situation. I am very grateful to him for bringing this to the House’s attention. I want him to know that I am very mindful of the situation that he has described, that this is something that I want to go away and look at further, that I do want to engage with the APPG that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) chairs, and we will ensure that that happens, and that, as I have described, there is a piece of work going on at the moment around self-regulation, but we need to monitor that closely, to see whether it achieves the objectives that I think all of us wish to see, and if that is not the case, we reserve the right to look at this issue again and to take matters from there.
I hope that that will provide my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen with some reassurance. I would also ask whether he could please express my condolences to his constituents family. They have been through a terrible time, and it really is very important that no other family go through the experience that they have.
Question put and agreed to.
Palestine: Road Map to Peace
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (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 onto 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.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of a roadmap to peace in Palestine.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine remains one of the greatest foreign policy challenges faced by the UK and the international community. The conflict has been costly in terms of human life, as well as for the stability and security of the region. It is therefore clear that a road map for peace is desperately needed. The necessary steps have never been clearer, but there remain significant obstacles to the peace process that I will spend some time outlining.
The most recent round of violence between Israel and Palestine cost countless lives. The attack on Al-Aqsa mosque by Israeli authorities sparked a wave of violence that culminated with renewed bombing in Gaza. This violence has emerged as a result of the ongoing injustices faced by Palestinian people, injustices which continue to make peace in the region impossible. For months, Palestinian families have been illegally evicted from their homes and businesses in several historically Palestinian neighbourhoods in east Jerusalem. Those evictions are being driven by illegal state-backed settler organisations whose sole aim is to displace all Palestinians from their rightful home in east Jerusalem.
This process goes hand in hand with the growth and consolidation of illegal Israeli settlements on the west bank and Golan Heights and the land that was stolen from Palestinian families. If we are serious about achieving a lasting and just peace between Palestine and Israel, it is abundantly clear that the injustices, such as the evictions in east Jerusalem, must be stopped and all land stolen from the Palestinian people must be returned to them.
The UK Government can certainly play a positive and leading role in working out a road map to peace in Palestine. First, our trade relationships with Israel mean that we can make use of sanctions to exert leverage over the Israeli Government to ensure that the human and civil rights of Palestinians are respected and that all illegally seized land is returned.
It is unfortunate to have to resort to sanctions, but it is clear from the ongoing violence and evictions that imposing sanctions is the start of the process to bring about change in the region. That is why I am pleased to see the Israeli Arms Trade (Prohibition) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), which would end all arms trade between the UK and Israel until a meaningful solution to the conflict has been found.
Furthermore, I believe it is time for the UK to follow many other countries around the world in finally recognising the state of Palestine. Many like to speak about the two-state solution to the conflict, but how can we commit to that if we do not even recognise Palestine as a rightful state? Moreover, how can peace be achieved if Israel refuses to recognise the state of Palestine? It is a prerequisite to peace that the statehood of Palestine be recognised and respected. The two-state solution has never been so imperilled as it is today. Recognition of the state of Palestine is not only the right thing to do, but perhaps a means of salvaging what is left of the two-state solution.
When speaking of a road map to peace in Palestine, we must consider what we can do to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and ensure that diplomacy and dialogue can defeat the drive towards more violence. A meaningful peace process between Israel and Palestine can occur only when the two meet as equal partners, which in turn can occur only when the rights of Palestinians are upheld and respected, when illegally occupied lands are returned and when the sovereignty of Palestinian people is recognised. I believe that once these conditions are met and the rights of the Palestinian people are firmly respected, we will see strides towards peace in the region. I still believe we can see peace between Palestine and Israel within my lifetime, but in order to see this hope fulfilled we must be willing to take strong and decisive action now.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I remember that in 2003 when the first road map to peace was introduced, there were some 50,000 settlers occupying the west bank. Eighteen years on, there are now close to half a million. What was a possible route to peace seems to have been lost greatly by the vast numbers taking land in the west bank. Does my hon. Friend not feel that the situation is far worse now than it was when the road map was first talked about, and is it not the case that we have seen Israeli Prime Ministers since who are not interested in the two-state solution, but instead in a one-state solution, and that is Israel?
Tahir Ali
I agree with the comments my hon. Friend makes on the two-state solution. As I have said, it is possible that a two-state solution can be a means of progress if Palestine is recognised as a state. Without that recognition, the peace process is going nowhere.
When we speak of a road map to peace in Palestine, we can no longer repeat the failed mantras. I believe that progress can be made, but only if the peace process is recentred around the human rights of Palestinian people rather than simply on territorial or security considerations. A human rights-based approach to brokering peace between Palestine and Israel would focus on securing civil and political rights for the Palestinian people, and would place justice at the very heart of the peace process. That, of course, would mean recognition from both sides of the conflict of the centrality of the principles enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights.
The peace process must centre around equality, non-discrimination, participation, and accountability and the rule of law. That would be a clear set of criteria by which the peace process could be monitored by both Israel and Palestine, and would establish a universally held basis for a solution to the crisis. Instead of focusing on security and stability, the international community should be seeking strategies that instead focus on human lives and the rights and wellbeing of individuals and families. That means drawing into the peace process groups from civil society that are often excluded from negotiations. That means including charities, non-governmental organisations, women’s organisations and other groups in the peace process, from both sides. With that approach, the traditional actors—Governments and political parties, with the hostilities between them—can be meaningfully held in check by the interests and concerns of Israeli and Palestinian civil society.
That humanitarian approach, however, is clearly not being adopted by Israel, Palestine or the international community as a whole. It is a step that needs to be taken, and it is one that the UK could be the first to take towards bringing about a peaceful resolution for Palestine and Israel. Only if Israel recognises the humanitarian injustices being committed against Palestinians can new steps be taken towards peace.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I will call the SNP spokesperson to speak at 5.08 pm, so I have to put a time limit of about two and a half minutes on those who want to speak. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Ms Rees. I did not expect to be called first, but I appreciate the opportunity. Indeed, I am astounded.
This matter is close to my heart. I seek to be a tool for the building of bridges between two nations, not tearing them down. My opinions may be clearly different from those of others, but I respect everyone’s opinion and hope that they will respect mine. I will not claim any superiority of knowledge or compassion over any other Member of this House, but I represent a part of our United Kingdom that has known the harsh reality of conflict. With some experience, I can say that we cannot deliver peace or a road map to peace by ignoring the history of appeasing aggressors or by repeating meaningless phrases.
History records the facts. In May 1948, Israel was attacked by multiple Arab armies. In ’67, it was forced to defend itself when Arab armies again gathered on its borders to attack. In 1973, it was attacked on Yom Kippur. In between those events and since 1973, Israel has been at the centre of more acts of terror than any other nation in the world. As a young boy, I remember watching the news about the six-day war, wondering how that tiny nation was defending itself against all the odds. The images of women and children on the streets, defending themselves and their neighbours, is imprinted on my mind.
I do not support early-day motion 300, calling on the UK not to sell arms to the most threatened state on the planet. The incongruity of it is that Israel sells more military technology to us than we sell to them. Similarly, in America the Democratic party wants to stop military aid to Israel that funds the Iron Dome, a defence system that saves lives. Can you believe that, Ms Rees? Some of my fellow parliamentarians—in advance of what they will say, but based on what they have said in the past—want to strip the world’s only Jewish state of the means to defend itself. For the life of me, I cannot understand that.
I have always been taught to focus on the ties that bind, rather than the things that divide. I believe that everyone in the House can subscribe to these. First, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Palestinian Authority must accept and respect Israel’s right to exist; there is no other starting point. Secondly, all armed terror groups must lay down their weapons. Thirdly, peace talks without preconditions on either side must be opened to reach a full and final peace settlement between the state of Israel and the Palestinians.
In the 25 seconds I have left, I conclude with this comment: when Israel led the vaccine roll-out, it was notable that that roll-out rightly included people from every faith and political persuasion. The greater good was put above all else. That has to be reciprocated and the greater good of peace and change must be put above personal belief and political aspiration. That is what I am calling for from Members present today—in advance of what they say. That is what I believe, and I hope that someone else who is present to speak believes the same.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
In my constituency, the Palestinian flag is flown proudly by people for whom a viable internationally recognised state of Palestine is a life-long dream. I want that dream to be turned into reality, but I am under no illusion about how distant it feels and how difficult the path to achieving it is.
The illegal occupation continues, and the dignity and human rights of the Palestinian people are trampled on each and every day. If we have learnt anything from the long and delicate road to peace in Northern Ireland, it is that progress is impossible without first establishing a sufficient degree of trust for genuine dialogue to take place. Long-standing and apparently irreconcilable differences can be unpicked, but only if the will to do so is there from all parties.
There are clearly people of good will and good sense in both Israel and Palestine who recognise that, and their voices must be heard as we work towards a two-state solution of an independent internationally recognised Palestine alongside a safe and secure Israel. When it comes to political leadership, however, sadly that good sense does not always prevail. As long as leaders see political advantage in their own communities from exacerbating differences rather than seeking areas of agreement and common ground, the road to peace will remain blocked.
It breaks my heart that the rights of ordinary Palestinian men, women and children are being denied, and their hopes of a better future are being crushed. With no voice of their own, they rely on human rights defenders to speak up for them, which is why the Israeli Government’s attack on six leading civil society organisations must be unequivocally condemned.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Cases of covid-19 are rising in Gaza and the health system is almost broken. The people of Gaza deserve much better. Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel must stop the blockade now so that the health authorities can get in there and people can get vaccinations and proper healthcare?
Kim Leadbeater
I agree entirely that we have to end the blockade of Gaza. It is every individual’s right to healthcare, particularly during the pandemic.
We have a decision to make. Will we condemn another generation of Palestinians to a future full of fear, insecurity and hopelessness? Or will we stand shoulder to shoulder with those demanding the democratic space to criticise the status quo and defend the human rights of a people who deserve better than continued oppression and suffering because political leaders lack the courage to recognise that a better future is possible?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I will do my best to set out the case in two and a half minutes. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) for initiating the debate.
The principal point must be that Britain should give unconditional full recognition to the state of Palestine. It was in the Labour party manifesto and it is something that I believe strongly in. Most countries around the world have no problem with that and have recognised the state of Palestine, as does the United Nations—it is generally accepted. We should do exactly the same, so that we are seen as honest brokers and proper participants in the whole process.
The occupation of the west bank by Israel has gone on since 1967. Let us try to imagine what it is like to live under occupation. Everywhere someone goes there is a checkpoint, an occupying force or a soldier who will stop them. A law that they have not voted for, and that does not have their consent, can be used against them. Many people are in prison for many years and are abominably treated there.
Similarly, the siege of Gaza goes on. I have had the good fortune to visit Israel, the west bank and Gaza on many occasions. I am always struck by the number of people in Gaza who suffer from profound mental health conditions because of the siege that they are under and the inability to travel or work. It is the most educated population in the world with the highest number of graduates of any country bar none, yet unemployment is between 60% and 70%. In fact, there is no real functioning economy in Gaza. That is another major factor, which has to end.
Some 600,000 people live in settlements. They are industrial and trading complexes and they have taken land and water away from Palestinian farmers. There are settler-only roads, which Archbishop Desmond Tutu recognised was like apartheid where people could not travel on certain roads. They are a breach of international law.
Many people in Palestine, in Israel and around the world are desperate in their search for peace. What I have noticed on the many Zoom calls I have had in the past two years is the unity of people all over the world demanding justice for the people of Palestine. That must be the basis for peace for the future.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali)—in fact, my own MP—for bringing forward this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) said, the idea of a free state of Palestine—the desire of my constituents and hers, and I am sure all of ours—seems so far away, so I wanted to focus on the things that we can do and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, and others have mentioned, how we in Britain should facilitate the development and support of civil society in the region.
My constituents, like many others, have been writing regarding Israel’s decision to criminalise six Palestinian human rights and civil society organisations and label them terrorists. When I was last in Palestine, I met Omar Shakir from Human Rights Watch, who was constantly facing deportation, the suggestion being that he had something other than peace and the people of Palestine at his heart, which was completely unfair, as it is unfair today. The accusation is that these are terrorist organisations, despite a 74-page dossier prepared by the Israeli security services providing little concrete evidence of links between Palestinian human rights groups and designated terrorist groups. These organisations include the most well-established Palestinian human rights groups that work in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They provide healthcare to the most vulnerable communities, they organise legal support for those detained and they collect evidence of human rights violations—which I suspect is where the problem is.
The work that these organisations undertake is integral to supporting the most vulnerable and to understanding the reality on the ground for Palestinian people. As others have mentioned, what we have seen in other conflicts, such as in Northern Ireland, is that without strong, stable, supported civil society, a pathway and a plan to peace can never be realised on the ground, let alone around the world in fancy buildings such as this one. I ask the Government to seek to support capacity building of Palestinian civil society.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
These debates on the middle east peace process used to be rather groundhog day-like events, where we recorded no progress or the Government having done nothing but repeat the same phrases over and over again. I look back on those times with nostalgia, because now we simply seem to be going backwards. After the appalling chaos of the Trump Administration, we should be getting back on track and supporting a two-state solution, the rule of law and human rights in the Palestinian territories. In the very short time I have, I want to ask the Minister to respond on the subject of the most egregious barriers to the peace process.
The first is recognition, which this House overwhelmingly voted for seven years ago. That should be a precondition —an attempt to negotiate on equal terms. The second is the establishment of new settlements. There are 13,000 about to be approved, and it is not just what is being approved; it is where. These are strategically placed to cut off East Jerusalem from Ramallah, or they are being built 20 km inside the west bank to ensure that a two-state solution becomes impossible.
What are the Government saying on settler violence, which is now endemic? There were 450 recorded attacks since early 2020—that is from B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation. Those attacks are specifically designed to terrorise Palestinian farmers or force them off their land. Why are we trading with illegal settlements? We are not talking about boycotts here; we are talking about settlements that are illegal under international law, but which the Government will do nothing to prevent British companies profiting from.
What has the Government’s response been to the six non-governmental organisations—respected civil rights and human rights organisations—being banned by the Israeli Government? What are they doing about the all-time highs in evictions and demolitions? They could start with the finding last week against JCB, in which it was found that that major British company had not shown human rights due diligence in ensuring that its equipment was not being used to demolish Palestinian homes.
These are the questions that the Government have to answer, and not just as a precursor to re-establishing a peace process; if they do not, they are abdicating responsibility, there is no hope for peace going forward, and they are effectively colluding with what the Israeli Government are doing.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) for calling this really important debate.
Next month will mark two years since I was elected to this place. In those two short years, I have been contacted by so many Vauxhall constituents who are concerned about the reality that many Israelis and Palestinians face. The fact is that none of us can fail to be appalled by the situation in Palestine: the continued blockade in Gaza, the deconstruction of homes, the eviction of Palestinian families, the construction of illegal settlements and the cruel treatment of children in detention. That should shame us. Those incidents are not just inhumane, but huge barriers to peace.
Peace in Palestine will never be found with the discrimination against and suppression of many people in the area. The actions will simply lead to resentment and the continuation of the toxic atmosphere that has allowed the current situation to exist for far too long. We all want to see peace in Palestine.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I appreciate that we are very short of time, so I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that unless we recognise Palestine as a state, we cannot make that route map towards peace?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my colleague for that really important point. Both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to exist, and they can do so in a safe space. However, to do that, our Government and Governments across the world need to work tirelessly to facilitate the de-escalation of the conflict.
I have one simple question for the Minister. Will the Government commit to working with both Israeli and Palestinian groups to amplify the voice of the good faith actors who are working so hard on the ground to bring about this peace? We need to advance the two-state solution and bring peace for everyone in the region, not continue having debates in this Chamber.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali)—my neighbour—on securing the debate. I am the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, so I will be a lone voice here. Let me be straightforward. The debate sounds less like seeking conditions that might help create peace, and more like setting conditions as a prerequisite for peace. That is what is wrong with it.
We are told we must recognise Palestine, but what Palestine? Is it the bit controlled by the Palestinian Authority, or the bit under military occupation by Hamas? What kind of state would we be recognising, given its current condition? Why is it impossible, in a debate like this, to recognise that there is a new coalition Government in Israel? Why is it impossible to look at the arguments about the “economy for security” plan that was announced recently? Why are the Abraham accords automatically dismissed?
I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, and others said about co-existence, and I agree. I hope that means that they are also supporting the Alliance for Middle East Peace plan for an international peace fund to bring those opposing people together, as we did successfully in Northern Ireland. I hope we will be united in saying to the Government that Britain should seek to take up one of the places on the international body supervising that fund.
I hear people talk about recognition and sanctions; what I want to know is, when people are chanting, “From the river to the sea”, what do they think that actually means? We all know that it actually means the dismemberment of Israel—Israel not having a right to exist. No one can back that and a two-state solution simultaneously.
I genuinely want a two-state solution. I genuinely want peace. However, I also want recognition that the state of play is that Hamas is supported and financed by the Iranian revolutionary guard, and that its objective is the destruction of the state of Israel. We have to bear that in mind.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) on securing the debate, but I must say, very sadly, that the prospect of peace in Palestine looks more distant than ever. With each illegal home the Israelis construct, the dream of a viable Palestinian state is dealt another blow. The Palestinian people are subjected to yet more intolerable brutality and oppression, with Israeli forces giving settlers licence to attack Palestinian civilians.
The human rights group B’Tselem has documented a staggering 451 incidents of settler violence against Palestinians since early 2020, and Israeli forces failed to intervene to stop the attacks in two thirds of cases. The organisation has also recorded how settlers have been used as a tool of the state to expropriate 11 square miles of Palestinian farm and pasture land in the west bank over the past five years alone.
There is no other way to look at this than as a state-sanctioned project of colonisation and ethnic cleansing. A Human Rights Watch report published in April this year concluded that
“the Israeli government has demonstrated an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the OPT”—
that is, the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The report goes on:
“In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid.”
The crime of apartheid cannot be allowed to stand, but thanks to the international community offering little more than hollow words of condemnation, the Israeli authorities wilfully continue to break the law, safe in the knowledge that they will not face the repercussion of proper sanctions.
If the Government will not provide moral and substantial leadership on this issue, it will be up to civil society to do so, through the boycott of, and divestment from, companies engaged in violations of Palestinian human rights. The Government need to lead the international community in providing more than mere denunciations. We need actions and sanctions, and we need them now.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), on bringing forward the debate. For almost 30 years, we have been discussing, and there has been international consensus on, the prospect of a two-state solution. Most people in this Parliament, and most nations across the world, would endorse that approach. It is the approach that my party fully supports. However, we recognise that we have to consider that policy objective against the reality of what is happening on the ground. We cannot turn our eyes away and pretend that one of those states has not been engaged, ever since the Oslo accords, in systematically destroying the building blocks on which the other state will emerge and develop.
First, and most obviously, the Israeli state is occupying the lands designated to become the Palestinian state. Not only is it militarily occupying them, but it has no policy objective to ever end that occupation. Secondly, as has been referred to, the programme of settler colonisation has seen more than 600,000 people move into the militarily occupied areas, which has led to the displacement of the Palestinian populations that were there. The infrastructure that comes with that results in the de facto annexation of the territory, even if it is not legally claimed. Thirdly, there is the question of Jerusalem, as has been indicated. There is what can only be called the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian communities to remove them from the east of In East Jerusalem. That has been given a veneer of legitimacy and respectability by Israel’s law, although that law would not pass any international test of fairness.
Finally, the Israeli Government are, as a matter of policy, systematically trying to reduce and deny the capacity of Palestinian society to represent itself politically. That is why the recent criminalisation of six non-violent civil organisations is of so much concern. The extension of that criminalisation, by military law, to the occupied territories may well result in arrests and offices closing. All of that denies Palestinian people the ability to organise and be represented. I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), that all of that creates conditions in which young Palestinians have so much despair and so little hope that they are attracted to the ideas put forward by Hamas and others.
We need to try to do something about this. I expect that the Minister will say that the Government also believe in the two-state solution. If somebody says that they believe in a two-state solution in the middle east, and yet they do nothing—make no comment, take no action—about the things that are happening to actively undermine that objective, they are being insincere and not serious.
Our Government have to be seen to be taking action to make sure that the conditions are brought about in which a two-state solution could become a reality once again. First, they need to fully implement UN resolution 2334, and make a distinction between Israel proper and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, given the settlement economy that is going on there. The Government should take serious economic action to end economic trade with settlements in the occupied areas that sustain the occupation.
Secondly, as has been said, we should recognise the state of Palestine. Why not? If we believe that it should exist, we should recognise it, and try to help it and develop it, so that it becomes a proper state. Our not doing that puts the Palestinians always at a disadvantage.
Finally, it is time to understand that Israel, as a matter of Government policy, has been conducting its activities with impunity for many years in breach of international law. Its military action is in breach of the Geneva convention, and it has been undertaken with no sanction and no impediment. That must stop. We might wish to be good friends with the state of Israel, but we need to say to its Government, “You cannot continue with these policies. If you do, there will be consequences. This country will not stand by and idly watch this happen.”
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), on securing this important debate.
I begin by reminding people that this debate has been about a road map to peace in Palestine. Over the past two decades, there have been a number of attempted road maps to peace between Palestine and Israel, but sadly, as we know only too well, none of them has brought about peace. We have in recent years seen initiatives by President Obama, supported by President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan; by President Abbas of Palestine; and by John Kerry. We even saw an initiative by President Trump, though it hardly merits that description, because it was rightly thrown in the dustbin by most responsible parties. I mention those points because they serve to underline that peace between Israel and Palestine cannot be a quick fix. It has to be thought out, well planned and based on certain principles, and the agreement must be acceptable to all parties concerned. That is the essence of achieving a peace settlement.
I am absolutely clear that there must be a negotiated peace. There are some who seek to destroy the state of Israel, and some who wish to deny any kind of statehood to the Palestinian people. Those who hold such views are profoundly wrong. Our aim should be the creation of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel that can live in peace. I very much agree that there must be an emphasis on human rights. Now, in future negotiations and when the two-state solution becomes a reality, human rights should be at the top of the agenda.
I condemn the labelling of the six non-governmental organisations in Palestine as terrorist organisations by the Defence Minister of Israel, and I ask the Government to respond to that point, rather than take the holding position of, “We’ll see what the evidence is.” Others who have been told by the Israeli Government that there is evidence are yet to see it, and there is no evidence at all, I suspect, to justify that designation, so I ask for a firm Government response on that. It has been a number of weeks since the designation was made.
A two-state solution must therefore be the goal on which we continuously focus.
Sir Mark Hendrick
My hon. Friend says that our goal must be a two-state solution, and he mentioned the contributions of previous US Presidents in trying to broker a solution. He will be aware that the Biden Administration have voiced opposition to Israel’s settlement expansion plans, saying that they will damage the prospects for a two-state solution. Our Government can play a role. However, does he not think that the Biden Administration—the US Administration is the Government to which the Israelis probably listen the most—should play a major role in pursuing that and putting pressure on the Israelis to make it impossible for them to rule out the two-state solution through de facto developments on the ground?
Wayne David
I very much agree with all the points that my hon. Friend made, and I will touch upon each one in just a few moments.
Britain and the international community have to focus on a number of principles and key positions, so that we lay the groundwork for an eventual peace. Those must include, first, an adherence to the rule of international law—not ifs, no buts. There must be an adherence to international law by all parties, including the Palestinians, and including the state of Israel. Moreover, the forced evictions of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah and other communities in east Jerusalem and the west bank must stop. The ever-growing number of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are clearly illegal under international law, and the displacement of Palestinians from land that they have held for generations is clearly wrong. That is one principle—what follows from international law.
The second principle is that the city of Jerusalem must be shared by Israelis and Palestinians. The annexation of east Jerusalem by Israel cannot be accepted. Those two principles are the cornerstones on which any future negotiation has to be based. However, before we get to any meaningful negotiations, we have to press for a number of things.
Jim Shannon
That is a fairly balanced point of view. However, Israel is surrounded by enemies; there are rocket attacks and terrorist attacks on a regular basis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the protection of Israel’s own people needs to be ensured before anything can happen?
Wayne David
Absolutely. I am a strong supporter of the state of Israel, as I am of a future state of Palestine. The state of Israel has a right to protect itself against Hamas, or anybody else for that matter, as any other state has according to international law. That is why international law is so important; it must apply to everyone in all circumstances.
The time is right for the state of Palestine to be recognised. Parliament itself has voted in principle in favour of recognising the state of Palestine, but it has not indicated a timescale, and the Government have paid, dare I say it, lip service to this principle. We now need to firm things up, and ensure that there is a recognition of the state of Palestine, which will give an impetus to the move towards meaningful negotiations.
We also need to press firmly for elections to be held in Palestine, so that those who are elected have a clear mandate to negotiate on behalf of their people. There is nothing like democracy, and nothing gives a mandate for negotiation as effectively as democracy. That is why the Palestinians need to have elections. The broadly based Israeli Government should do everything that they can to de-escalate tensions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the new Government must place an embargo on all future settlements on the west bank.
It has to be said that the United States needs to be encouraged to be more proactive in the region, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick). The United States needs to work with allies in the region and build on the new relationships that are being established through the Abraham accords. I know that some Members have reservations about the Abraham accords, but they nevertheless exist, and we must use them as an opportunity to encourage the United Arab Emirates and others to raise the issue of Palestine directly with the Israelis. This is a new opportunity, and we must take every advantage of it. It might be an important avenue to explore with the UAE, because the country will be on the United Nations Security Council for two years, starting from this January.
Of course, our Government can do a heck of a lot more than they are currently doing. I was interested to read that the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa spoke at a conference this morning and issued a tweet in which he said it is important that we support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. He said:
“Important we support UNRWA to deliver on its mandate until there is an agreed solution.”
That is all well and good, but I respectfully remind the Government that they have, quite disgracefully, just reduced their funding to UNRWA. I have the figures to prove it. The British Government gave $64.1 million to UNRWA in 2020—a reduction from $76.2 million in 2019—and the projection for 2021 is $39.1 million. The Government can say what they like about supporting UNRWA and the peace process, and about ensuring that the infrastructure is in place and that the groundwork is done for successful negotiations, but they are actually undermining it through their ham-fisted policies. I respectfully ask the Government to reconsider whether those cuts are morally justified and make any kind of sense whatsoever.
It is important for our Government to recognise that the peace process is a process. It will not happen overnight, and nor will it happen over weeks or months. It will happen over years, and it is absolutely essential that the groundwork is done to ensure that there is rapprochement between people on the ground. We have to learn lessons from the situation in Northern Ireland. Great progress was made in Northern Ireland, and not just because politicians came together, talked to one another and made compromises, which are essential in any negotiations. There was also investment in the means to bring people together, so that the old enmities of the past were put to one side, or at least minimised.
We have to do a something similar with regards to Israel and Palestine. That is why I think it is extremely important that the Government give their full-hearted support to the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. I know the Government say they support it, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, the Government have the opportunity to give their full-hearted support and to take up one of the seats on the board. They can support the initiative that has come from America to ensure that the essential groundwork is done, so that the Israeli people and the Palestinian people learn to come closer together. It is only when that happens that we can have a basis for a genuinely sustainable and fair peace, which is what we all want.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) for securing this important debate. This is an issue of great interest to the House, and I am grateful for the opportunity to lay out more comprehensively the UK’s current approach.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa would have liked to take part in this debate, but he is currently—right now—representing the UK at the ad hoc liaison committee in Oslo, where he is meeting the Palestinian Prime Minister and the Israeli Minister for Regional Cooperation, as well the Egyptian and Jordanian Foreign Ministers. It is good that dialogue is taking place. My right hon. Friend’s meetings will focus on tangible ways to develop the Palestinian economy, improving prospects for Palestinians and stability in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is therefore my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government.
The UK’s position on the middle east peace process is long standing and well known. We support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as a shared capital. We firmly believe that a just and lasting resolution that ends the occupation and delivers peace for both Israelis and Palestinians is long overdue. We also believe that the best way to make progress towards such a resolution is through bilateral negotiations that take account of the legitimate concerns of both sides.
We remain in close consultation with international partners to encourage a regional approach to peace. We are working through multilateral institutions, including the UN, to support resolutions and policies that encourage both sides to take steps that rebuild trust, which will be crucial if dialogue is to succeed. To that end, we welcome recent engagements between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian leadership. We urge further direct engagement and call on both parties to work together to tackle immediate and long-term threats to peace and stability. We consistently call for an immediate end to all actions that undermine the viability of a two-state solution, including acts of terrorism, antisemitic incitement, settlement expansion, and the demolition of Palestinian property on the west bank, including East Jerusalem.
A number of Members asked about civil society organisations. We are in contact with the Government of Israel to understand the basis of the designations of six civil society organisations. We have made it clear that human rights and civil society organisations have a vital role to play in the development of thriving and open societies.
Vicky Ford
We have only a short time, and this is the first time that the UK Government have been able to lay out our position on this specific issue in detail since the last change in Government in Israel. I believe there have been debates on specific issues, but this is the first more general debate, and I would like to put on the record the UK Government position.
The UK remains resolute in its commitment to Israel’s security. We condemn Hamas’s indiscriminate rocket attacks, and Israel does have a legitimate right to self-defence, but in exercising that right, it is vital that all actions are proportionate and in line with international humanitarian law. The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa is due to visit Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the coming months and is eager to discuss these important issues with his Israeli and Palestinian counterparts.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) asked about the UK’s views on trading with the settlements. The UK does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including Israeli settlements, as part of Israel, so, for example, goods imported from the settlements are not permitted to benefit from trade preferences under the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement.
A number of Members mentioned the humanitarian situation. The underlying causes of humanitarian crisis and economic decline in the Occupied Palestinian Territories must be addressed to improve the lives of Palestinians throughout the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and preserve the prospect of a negotiated two-state solution.
The UK remains a key development actor in the region. Our economic development programme aims to lift the overall standard of living for Palestinians, to increase trade and job creation, to enable greater movement and access for people and goods, and to enhance the supply of electricity and clean water. However, we remain concerned about the ongoing humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which was further exacerbated by the recent conflict and damage to civilian infrastructure. The UK will continue to work to address immediate humanitarian needs in Gaza, and to work towards a longer-term solution for recovery and reconstruction.
The Opposition spokesman asked about our commitment to UNRWA. Our contribution to UNRWA is helping to provide basic education, access to health services for Palestinian refugees and social safety net assistance—
Vicky Ford
I also point out to the Opposition spokesman that the UK contributed £3.5 million to the emergency appeal in May to meet the immediate needs of Palestinians in Gaza who were affected by the conflict at that time. And I also want to point out to him that, as the Chancellor set out in the Budget just last month, we are committed to returning to spending 0.7% on overseas aid as soon as the fiscal situation allows.
Vicky Ford
The Chancellor set that out, in detail, in the Budget last month, and took everyone through the protections. [Interruption.] It is on the record from the Chancellor in his Budget speech.
We also urge access into and out of Gaza, in accordance with international humanitarian law, for humanitarian actors, reconstruction materials and those, including Palestinians, travelling for medical purposes. We remain in close contact with UN agencies and key partners on the ground in order to assess the situation, and we will monitor that situation closely.
Vicky Ford
As we have three minutes left, I will give way, rather than being heckled unnecessarily.
Wayne David
The Minister is so generous. Can I return her to the point that she originally made about the designation by the Israelis of six non-governmental organisations? It has to be said that they are highly respected organisations. She said that she was waiting for more information. How long will she wait before she makes a decision about whether or not the designation is correct?
Vicky Ford
With due respect, I think that really the most important thing is that right now—today—Israel and Palestine are talking, and talking about their future and moving towards peace. We believe, and we make it very clear to Israel, that human rights and civil society organisations have a vital role to play in developing thriving and open societies, and we support them. However, it is important that we continue to make it clear that a strong and vibrant civil society is in Israel’s own interest. We are concerned, and we have made that concern clear, about any developments that would undermine that commitment to being an open society. Israel is a fellow democracy, it has had a long-standing commitment to democracy and we make it clear that civil society has a vital role to play in open democracy.
Vicky Ford
To conclude, this occupation will not end and peace will not be achieved by symbolic measures. Peace will only be achieved by real movement towards renewed dialogue between the parties that leads to a viable Palestinian state living in peace and security, side by side with Israel—
Sir Mark Hendrick
On a point of order, Ms Rees. I find it quite remarkable that, given how much time was left, the Minister was first reluctant to give way to our Front-Bench spokesman, which is very discourteous, and in fact wanted to talk the debate out before I could make an intervention. She had already finished her speech earlier.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman has got his comments are on the record. Minister.
Vicky Ford
With respect, I had not finished my speech, and it is important that the Government make their point. I have accepted interventions and I would have liked to give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, who secured this debate, a minute in which to respond.
The most important message that I want to give is that we urge all parties to continue this dialogue, because that is the pathway to peace and the two countries—the two parties—being able to live side by side.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of a roadmap to peace in Palestine.
Written Statements
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Film and TV Production Restart Scheme Contingent Liabilities
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)
It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 or for which there is no statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament, giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances.
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of all Members of this House to bring to their attention the departmental minute issued today that provides the House with notice of a contingent liability created by my Department. This is in relation to the Film and TV Production Restart Scheme, for which Parliament approved substantial budget cover at supplementary estimates in 2020-21.
The Film and TV Production Restart Scheme was announced by the Government on 28 July 2020 and supports film and TV productions across the country that are at risk of being halted or delayed due to an inability to obtain covid-19 insurance. HMG has established a discretionary compensation scheme which will provide cover for losses associated with certain covid-19 related delays including civil authority restrictions and cast losses. Cover is available to purchase for an additional premium. The duration of the cover is from July 2020 to 30 June 2022.
The scheme provides cover for up to £500 million in claims with a current maximum contingent liability of £732 million. This figure is based on the abandonment of all productions using the scheme, an extremely unlikely scenario. The amount will increase and decrease as productions come on and off the scheme. While the contingent liability is theoretically unlimited, to retain control of the fiscal risk, the terms of the scheme allow DCMS to close the scheme to new registrations and/or review the value of the scheme limit, if it determines that the aggregate value of estimated claims payable is nearing the scheme limit of £500 million. Our internal central estimate of costs is significantly below this figure.
It is normal that any contingent liabilities should not be incurred until 14 sitting days after Parliament has been notified of the Government’s intention to incur a contingent liability. There is an exception in cases of special urgency. This is one such occasion.
This policy was developed and implemented at great speed in a time of emergency, while the Department was also delivering other innovative support packages. In order to make timely progress, it was necessary that production companies were certain of DCMS’s funding commitment in order to restart immediately, as DCMS worked on implementing the scheme. While Parliament was informed via the significant budget cover secured at supplementary estimates—which would more than cover the likely costs—a procedural oversight which has only recently come to light has meant Parliament was not informed of the theoretically unlimited contingent liability.
I note that DCMS’s work on the Film and TV Production Restart Scheme has contributed to the remarkable bounce back of the film and TV sector, with first half-year spend estimates topping £3 billion, and that the scheme has now supported more than £2.4 billion of production spend and secured over 80,000 jobs on set. Given this success, I hope the House is in agreement with my assessment that to delay signing the aforementioned agreement would have been inappropriate and to the detriment of the beneficiaries of the scheme.
A copy of the departmental minute is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS397]
Education Staff Wellbeing
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
We recognise the incredible efforts of schools and colleges to maintain the safety and wellbeing of staff, students and pupils and we are grateful to them for what they are doing.
Supporting the wellbeing and mental health of staff is a crucial element of our commitment to help create a supportive culture in schools and colleges. We have worked in partnership with the education sector and mental health experts to inform and deliver the commitments announced in May 2020 to protect and promote staff mental health and wellbeing.
I am today announcing a new £760,000 mental health support scheme for school leaders to be delivered by the charity Education Support from this autumn until March 2023. The programme will provide one-to-one counselling and peer support to around 2,000 school leaders, helping those at deputy head level and above with their mental wellbeing.
It builds on the pilot involving over 350 school leaders which was launched in response to the challenges brought about by the pandemic. Eligible school leaders will be able to access the programme from today through the Education Support website.
Along with this announcement, this week, we are launching the education staff wellbeing charter for schools to sign up to. The charter sets out commitments from the Government, Ofsted, schools and colleges to promote and protect the mental health of the education workforce.
Through the charter, the Department pledges to work with the sector to drive down unnecessary workload, improve access to wellbeing resources, and champion flexible working, among a range of actions to support staff wellbeing. We are now encouraging all state funded schools and colleges to sign up to the charter to create a united approach to supporting staff wellbeing.
[HCWS398]
Personal Protective Equipment Procurement
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
Today, the Government are publishing further information about their exceptional procurement exercise to secure critical personal protective equipment (PPE) during the early months of the covid-19 pandemic.
We have already published details of all Government PPE contracts in line with our transparency obligations. Today’s publication goes above and beyond those obligations as a measure of our commitment to openness about procurement processes during the pandemic.
Market overview in March 2020
The outbreak of covid-19 in 2020 saw the total disruption of global PPE markets. Demand for PPE skyrocketed, leading to huge price inflation and limited supplies. Normal market dynamics ceased to exist, and with them our NHS procurement procedures. It was essential that Government adapted its approach to sourcing PPE for health and social care frontline workers, moving extremely quickly where necessary and taking carefully considered risks with new suppliers where appropriate, in order to secure vital supplies in the teeth of stiff competition all around the world.
To save lives, we focused our efforts, resources and attention on sourcing PPE. We continue to stand by the efforts we made at the height of the early pandemic to prioritise and protect our staff in the frontline.
Adapting to market volatility
Within the first few months of 2020, covid-19’s dramatic impact on public bodies, and their ability to secure necessary levels of PPE, was becoming clear. Global demand was outstripping supply, while at the same time brand-new manufacturers and suppliers were rushing to fill the gaps in the volatile PPE market.
The Government took decisive action. In order to secure the PPE needed by the NHS, in the quantities and to the timescales required, we adopted an entirely new “open-source” approach to procurement.
Agile and decisive decision making
This was an entirely new approach to Government procurement—we were inviting industry to come to us: opening up fresh sources of supply that we could rapidly vet as being technically, legally and commercially compliant in order to secure product in the rapidly moving global market for PPE. Absolutely central to this new approach was our willingness to work with brand-new suppliers, because this was a brand-new marketplace for PPE.
The response from industry was phenomenal. Over 15,000 businesses came forward with over 24,000 offers within a 14-week period and we are hugely grateful for this support.
Managing and processing offers
To secure product quickly and effectively, we focused efforts on prioritising and processing offers. At the peak, over 400 staff were assigned to work on processing the offers of PPE, which were divided into a number of discrete workstreams.
A “UK Make” workstream, for example, handling offers from UK-related sources, sought to establish a resilient domestic manufacturing base for PPE that would provide security of supply for the future. Other offers were specifically processed through a “China Buy” workstream whose caseworkers could harness the expertise of our embassy in Beijing to identify and secure priority opportunities within China, the market leader in supplying PPE.
A small proportion of offers—approximately 430 of the 24,000—were processed through a “high priority referral” route.
These were all ways of managing the incredible volume of offers, and the breadth of sources, to ensure we could find the product when we needed it most. As of June 2020, when the peak had passed, all these procurement routes were closed down.
The high priority lane
There has been significant interest in the high priority lane. We take our responsibilities around due diligence extremely seriously and, as the National Audit Office has found, Ministers were not involved in procurement decisions.
The high priority mailbox was set up at a time when, with the country and citizens in need of urgent help, many suppliers and individuals were rightly passing on offers of support direct to their local MPs, healthcare professionals and civil servants, because they were keen that the Government procurement effort knew what was available. The mailbox allowed MPs, ministers and senior officials to direct those offers to a dedicated location.
All offers that came to the mailbox were triaged by an official from the high priority appraisals team to be processed and responded to.
The criteria used to assess offers were the same as those used to assess any other offer from across the PPE procurement programme. The suppliers had to undergo the same checks and clearances as all others awarded a contract. End-to-end, the process of assessing an offer and awarding a contract was led by officials on the basis of published specifications and commercial expertise. Being referred to the high priority lane was emphatically not a guarantee of a contract; indeed, nearly 90% of offers referred through this route were unsuccessful. Those to whom contracts were awarded helped enormously, securing more than 5 billion items of life-saving PPE for the frontline.
The suppliers, and indeed those who referred them, were not notified that their offer was processed through the mailbox. This was not a separate channel for suppliers to provide offers to Government; rather, it was an internal process set up for handling such offers.
As the information set out shows, the range of suppliers successfully processed through the high priority route was wide. They came from within Government and outside, via politicians and civil servants, from healthcare professionals and commercial experts. The list also reflects the number of different types of “referral”, ranging from offers that were simply forwarded by staff working in ministerial private offices and personal referrals from MPs, to suppliers passed on by healthcare professionals and offers referred by the NHS’s existing supply chain, Supply Chain Coordination Ltd. Due to incomplete record keeping, in a small number of cases, we have not been able to identify the individual or team who directed the offer to this route.
We publish this account today as an insight into how the Government mobilised the resources of our parliamentarians, our businesses, the civil service and the whole country to meet the challenges of a national emergency. We are proud of the efforts to secure PPE supplies for our frontline workers at a time of incredible need. Above all, we are hugely grateful to all those who responded to the calls to help us protect those who care for the most vulnerable in our society. Our PPE stocks are now resilient. We have a strong UK manufacturing base, and a contingency stockpile should there be further spikes in demand.
A list indicating the range of routes used to identify suppliers can be found at:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-11-17/hcws400
[HCWS400]
Social Care Update
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
On 7 September 2021, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the Government’s new plan for adult social care reform in England. This included a lifetime cap on the amount anyone in England will need to spend on their personal care, alongside a more generous means test for local authority financial support.
Today we are publishing a technical note to complement the announcement, which:
provides further detail of the new charging reform framework and confirms key policy details, including the standard level at which ‘daily living costs’, will initially be set.
marks the start of a period of co-production of the statutory guidance with the sector, with the intention to publish a public consultation in the new year, and lay regulations and publish updated statutory guidance in spring 2022.
The key policy details that the technical note confirm are that:
from October 2023 both new entrants and existing social care users will be able to progress towards the cap.
the increase in the Upper Capital Limit of £100,000 will apply universally, irrespective of an individual’s care setting or circumstances.
between the Upper and Lower Capital limits, if individuals are not able to pay for their care from their income, they will be expected to contribute up to one in every £250 from their chargeable assets towards the cost of their care.
the notional level of ‘daily living costs’, a key concept of the reforms, will be set at £200 per week.
for individuals who receive financial support for their care costs from their local authority, it is the amount that the individual contributes towards these costs that will count towards the cap on care costs.
This last point requires an amendment to section 15 of the Care Act 2014. For this reason, the Government will bring forward an amendment for the purposes of introducing a clause into the current Health and Care Bill. This clause will seek to amend section 15 of the Care Act 2014 such that individual contributions—based on local authority rates—will count toward the cap.
This change will reduce complexity; it will ensure individuals receive the support they need through the means test but are not unfairly reaching the cap at an artificially faster rate than what they contribute.
I have ensured a copy of the technical note will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS399]
UK Export Strategy
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
On our inaugural International Trade Week, we have today launched our export strategy—“Made in the UK, Sold to the World”. This is the first export strategy since the UK became a sovereign trading nation.
Some businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, can face a range of barriers to exporting, with costs, lack of knowledge, constraints in capacity and networks among the most often cited. This Government are committed to working hand in hand with business to help them to succeed in the global marketplace through a first-class export support framework.
As part of the “Race to £1 trillion” we are setting an ambition and a challenge to boost exports—unleashing the potential of businesses across the UK and building our reputation as a global exporting powerhouse.
Research estimates that exports supported 6.5 million jobs across the UK in 2016, 74% of which were outside of London. Separate survey analysis has found that fewer than one in 10 businesses in the UK exported, and these businesses are not evenly distributed across the country. Trade through exports means jobs, and investment into local communities and our public services, including police, the NHS and schools. Evidence also shows exporters are more productive and pay higher wages. Our strategy will set out tangible ways in which we can support businesses to take advantage of existing and new markets, while levelling up the country.
The strategy highlights a range of measures to support businesses including:
Launching the “Made in the UK, Sold to the World” campaign, championing the UK’s priority sectors through an innovative, localised marketing campaign that will promote the best of British goods and services in our towns and cities.
The Export Support Service provides a single point of contact for exporters to Europe. Since launching in October the new export hotline and online service has helped hundreds of businesses to get exporting.
UK Export Academy expansion to offer SMEs in all parts of the UK, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the chance to learn how to navigate the technicalities of exporting and how to find new opportunities in overseas markets.
A new UK Tradeshow Programme will be bigger and better targeted to give UK companies, especially SMEs, a leg-up to exhibit their first-class products at the world’s biggest tradeshows.
UK Export Finance—our world-leading export credit agency—will expand its offer with new products and a wider delivery network that will make it easier for UK exporters to secure business from overseas buyers.
Export Champions, ensuring businesses can build and learn from exporting successes through business-to-business networking and peer-to-peer learning.
Internationalisation Fund, open to SMEs in England, will aim to grow international sales, and has facilitated £4 million of support to SMEs attending trade fairs.
As part of International Trade Week, through our trade hubs and army of expert advisers dotted around the UK, over 2,500 business have signed up to over 100 events and workshops—which will support and encourage businesses to sell globally—from webinars on key global markets (e.g. doing business in Singapore) through to free trade agreement (FTA) workshops, with events being run by both Government and businesses, there is something for every business.
[HCWS396]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
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, we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes.
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
Wednesday 17th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 View all Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 24-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (15 Nov 2021)
Lord Ravensdale
“ARIA’s purpose
ARIA’s purpose is to fund projects with high transformational potential in pursuit of a sustainable and resilient society, planet and economy.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to provide a broad sustainability purpose for ARIA which will ensure that it funds projects which align with core strategic challenges such as decarbonisation and which are sustainable.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 26 in my name. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Browne, for their support for these amendments. I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet and as an engineer and project director for Atkins.
There was much discussion at Second Reading of DARPA, the agency that has inspired ARIA. DARPA succeeded in changing the world because it took enormous gambles, failing often but with a few projects that succeeded, more than justifying the payouts and creating trillions of dollars in value. This freedom to take risks and to fail is its most important characteristic. That is exemplified by the second project that DARPA funded, Project Orion: a proposal for a manned spacecraft propelled by nuclear explosions. The head of DARPA at the time astutely stated that one of the main challenges was doing that in such a way that the occupants were not killed. While that particular high-risk project did not succeed, for obvious reasons, many others did: the internet, stealth technology and Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine, to name but a few.
ARIA certainly takes that lesson from DARPA to heart, as described in the Bill: getting bureaucracy out of the way and giving a high-calibre team based on programme managers the freedom to deliver high-risk, high-reward research. But there is another vital lesson to take from DARPA which I referred to on Second Reading: a clear purpose for the organisation. Everything that DARPA does is defined by its aim of ensuring the technological supremacy of the United States armed forces. In 1958, the USA fortuitously hit upon a combination of factors for a research organisation—a clear purpose, freedom to fail, programme-manager-led—that literally changed the world. The US has taken this purpose-oriented approach in all its DARPA derivatives since, including ARPA-E and HSARPA.
To have the longevity and political staying power that DARPA has demonstrated, ARIA needs to have a purpose, and that purpose needs to be closely coupled to the strategic goals of the nation. Foremost among those strategic goals are the UK’s net-zero and environmental goals. Giving ARIA a broad sustainable purpose will allow a flexible approach to research, while at the same time being aligned with the innovation strategy that highlights the need to direct innovation towards
“our top priority societal missions … like the climate and biodiversity crises”.
It will also ensure that projects and proposals that would be contrary to those strategic goals do not progress.
Attempting to reverse engineer DARPA is not a guaranteed route to success, but we need to take the benefit of real-world experience in learning the lessons of why DARPA succeeded and giving ARIA the best chance of success, which is what we all want.
We know how vital R&D is to achieving our net-zero and environmental targets. For example, the International Energy Agency has stated that almost half the emissions reductions required by 2050 are expected to rely on technologies that have not yet reached the market. In this area, what must be done—the key enabler to make net zero politically possible across the world—is to create green energy at a price point that is cheaper than fossil fuels. So, we need nothing less than revolution in net zero and environmental R&D to make our goals possible.
That brings me to the specifics of my Amendments 1 and 26. Amendment 1 is very simple. It states:
“ARIA’s purpose is to fund projects with high transformational potential in pursuit of a sustainable and resilient society, planet and economy.”
This amendment would give ARIA a broad sustainability purpose in line with the points I have made, and in that sense, I believe, would fulfil the need to orient ARIA towards alignment with the most important strategic goal of the nation, and indeed the world.
In crafting the amendment, I have listened carefully to feedback from the Minister during the progress of the Bill in the other place, in that the Government do not wish to unduly constrain ARIA. That is why the amendment is written around a broad sustainability purpose, not a specific net-zero objective or mission. My amendment is not about saying that other streams of research not specifically related to net zero or the environment cannot progress; just that any such streams must not be contrary to, and preferably support, the core strategic challenges. Having a broad purpose and key priorities in setting the direction of the organisation is what the amendment seeks to achieve, while still retaining the flexibility the Government want for ARIA.
My Amendment 26 would ensure that consideration for our climate and environmental goals is embedded within ARIA’s functions. It is modelled on similar government provisions in other legislation, including most recently in the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, the Committee on Climate Change, given the advice that there is a need for a coherent approach to achieving net zero, has made it a priority recommendation for 2021 to ensure that all government policy decisions are compatible with the Government’s climate commitments.
In this sense, the amendment would align this Bill with other amendments the Government have put forward across a range of recent legislation, such as the skills Bill, the Financial Services Act and the Pension Schemes Act. To meet our goals, we need carefully to consider the systems aspects of net zero and ensure that consideration of these goals is embedded into all government policy and legislation where it is practical to do so.
Given how critical R&D is to achieving our goals, I hope the Government will agree that such considerations really need to be present in this Bill in order to align it with their broader strategy. It is not about stopping projects that are not directly related net zero; rather, it is about ensuring that the impacts in the context of compatibility with our climate commitments have been properly considered and factored into decision-making. It is a question of consistency with other legislation.
In summary, consideration of sustainability goals and functions in the Bill has wide support across the academic community, including from Professor Richard Jones, the science policy expert who has been involved in much of the thinking around the formation of ARIA. The amendment provides an excellent opportunity for the Government to maximise the benefit from the £800 million of funding, to demonstrate to international partners at this critical point post COP a new model for climate and net-zero aligned R&D, and to develop the new technologies that we will need to help the UK and the rest of the world achieve our targets. Finally, it would ensure longevity and long-term political support for the organisation, irrespective of the Government of the day, something the whole of Parliament can get behind. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Two of the amendments in this first group are in my name, Amendments 25 and 27, and I want to speak to Amendment 27 first. It is grouped with Amendment 1 because we start by debating, quite properly, the purposes of ARIA as an agency. What is it here to achieve?
As the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said, we are not seeking to replicate DARPA but to learn from it. DARPA said that its sense of mission was part of the reason for its success. However, that mission in this context was originally
“to prevent and create technological surprise”.
That is an interesting concept—to prevent technological surprise happening to the American Government and, at the same time, to create technological surprise on its own part. One might say that you could substitute “create technological advantage” in the latter case. Interestingly, in more recent years, when DARPA staff were asked what they regarded as their mission, they said it was to be part of “shaping the future”. Indeed, I think that is where our starting point should be. We want ARIA as an agency to be part of shaping the future.
My problem with Amendment 1—actually, I do not have a problem with Amendment 1, because you could stretch the language of sustainability anywhere; that is its advantage but also its problem. I am not sure I understand what the board of ARIA, or its leading members, would interpret as being outside the scope of the sustainability criterion. Does it actually help them? I am not sure that it does. If anything, they might feel that it constrains them towards certain missions. The DARPA example we ought to learn from is that, in practice, it set out to define for itself a range of missions within the organisation.
I note that sitting next to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is the noble Lord, Lord Broers. I take from his Second Reading speech the thought that the programme managers are at the heart of this system, and the programme managers are chosen in relation to the programmes that DARPA is pursuing. I suspect the same will have to be true for ARIA—that it has to decide, “What are our programmes?” The programmes, in my view, might be mission-led—for example, related to adaptation to climate change—but at the same time they might be technology-led. For example, they might be to pursue AI and the data economy or to look at cell or gene therapy. There is a range of those possibilities. We need to give ARIA, as an organisation, the flexibility to decide the missions that it thinks fulfils its purposes. The missions will develop over time, but the legislation cannot change repeatedly over time, so the legislation should be sufficient to enable ARIA to select the missions it wants for the future.
My Amendment 27 is in this group. A report of July 2016 produced for DARPA about innovation in DARPA isolated four “sources of success”, as it put it, the first of which was the “limited tenure” of the leading executive members
“and the urgency it promotes”—
nobody was appointed for a period exceeding five years. The second was a “sense of mission”, which I was just talking about. The third was “Trust and autonomy”—both giving DARPA autonomy but also within the organisation trusting and giving autonomy to the programme managers in particular. The fourth was:
“Risk-taking and tolerance of failure”,
which of course we are setting out to incorporate into this legislation for ARIA. I add that DARPA interpreted this as meaning “Move fast and take risks”—do not spend a great deal of time trying to assess all the risks, because you could lose the opportunities in the process.
Amendment 27 seeks to replace the language of Clause 3, not because I have any objection to the purposes set out in Clause 3; my objection is to the drafting. It says:
“ARIA may give particular weight”—
I am afraid I do not understand what is meant by “particular weight” or how people who read it subsequently will know what that means in this context—
“to the potential for significant benefits”.
We are all agreed about “significant benefits” and we know what they are because they are in Clause 2(6) above. It then refers to
“research … that carries a high risk of failure.”
It is awfully close to being a piece of legislation that says that ARIA should look for projects that are quite likely to fail because those are likely to give the most significant benefits.
This is not the approach that legislation should take. Legislation should be more deliberate. I thought: what are Ministers actually looking to do in this clause? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, in his Amendment 1. Ministers—and we—are looking for ARIA to seek to have transformational effects. I think we are agreed about that. That is why Amendment 27 refers to “transformational effects”. I have also included a reference to the possibility of technological advance through
“the development and exploitation of … research”.
I do not think that is mentioned elsewhere but I think it is helpful because, actually, many of the advances that have occurred, including in DARPA’s programmes, were not themselves the object of the mission but were the result of the process of discovery and curiosity and the exploitation of research.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 1 and the amendments in this group that are about giving a purpose to ARIA associated with climate change and the environment. I declare my interests as a non-executive director of Frontier IP and the chair of BGF’s Clean Growth Advisory Board.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has indicated, ARIA’s success or failure will depend, crucially, on recruiting outstanding programme managers. These people will need to be interpreters and matchmakers well networked in industry and academia, with an excellent understanding of science and technology, strong lateral thinking skills—many of the things the noble Lord has already mentioned. They will also need to be tough risk-takers, but not gamblers. They will be hard to find, yet finding the right people is going to be critical to this success. Finding them will be the first constraint. Inevitably, they will have specific areas of expertise.
With a limited initial budget, focusing ARIA, at least initially, on the critical challenge of climate change and the environment will be a great way both to help address our greatest challenge and to support the UK economy. But it will also provide a valuable focus for the recruitment of these key individuals—the people who initially occupy these absolutely fundamental posts.
Lord Willetts (Con)
I would like briefly to intervene on this important group of amendments and should declare an interest as a member of the board of UKRI, which is very relevant to the issues we are currently considering. I am not acting as a spokesman on behalf of UKRI, but drawing on the experience that we have had there.
I welcome any attempt to bring greater diversity and innovation to our funding landscape. We do not want a monolith; we want lots of different ways of getting funding and lots of different requirements. Anything that adds to the diversity of the funding landscape I welcome as a good thing. However, I have two or three questions on which I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance.
First, the task of ARIA is often described as high-risk, high-reward research. In a way, Clause 3, to which my noble friend Lord Lansley, has referred, is an attempt at setting out in legal prose “high risk, high return”. It is great that ARIA will have that as its objective, but my one concern when I hear this language is the implication that all other public funding for R&D could not be high risk and high return and that it is in some sort of boring bureaucratic pot where everything is safety first and low return. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that it is also perfectly possible for the agencies of UKRI and indeed other sources of public funding for R&D also to engage in high-risk, high-return research. It would place too much weight on ARIA’s shoulders and eliminate diversity if we said that it is the only agency that can act in that way. Having that authoritative assurance from the Government would be of great value in ensuring that our whole research ecosystem carries on performing in an innovative way.
Secondly, I want to reflect on the lessons that can be learned from the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, to which my noble friend has also referred, and seek another assurance from the Minister. When Theresa May’s Government put substantial funding—over £2 billion—into the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Innovate UK, the main agency for delivering that programme, travelled to America to look at what ARPA did. It said, “These programme directors at ARPA are fantastic—we should have the ARPA model of programme directors in order to deliver the Government’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund”.
I can remember the debate that took place. The Treasury said “Hang on, how much are these programme directors going to be paid? They can’t possibly be paid more than is set by our pay rules”—the pay limit was, I think, £100,000. The Treasury then also said, “We need a committee to scrutinise that the money is being well spent and, to ensure it is making progress, a monthly report would be about right”. Then BEIS, which I do not think completely trusted the Treasury and saw this as a BEIS operation, said, “BEIS also needs to have a committee that meets to scrutinise the success of this programme director; we have slightly different criteria from the Treasury, so our committee should meet once a month”. It averaged out—at the start; it may have got better—that every fortnight there was some supervisory committee or other checking that this programme director was delivering the objectives.
That is the slow, painful process of bureaucratic accretion. It is marvellous that ARIA is, we are assured, going to be free of all that. It would be quite good, however, if other parts of research funding could also be free of those constraints. Indeed, the Government have several reviews on at the moment that are relevant to this, including the Tickell review of bureaucracy and a new grant review of UKRI.
I also hope that the Minister can assure us that, wherever possible, especially if these proposals emerge from two reviews set up by the Government, freedoms being extended to ARIA will also be enjoyed by agencies working under UKRI or other departmental bodies. The problem of bureaucracy must be solved across the whole swathe of R&D funding, not just by creating one institution outside the constraints that everyone else has to work under. I would like an assurance that lessons are being learned, both for the functioning of ARIA and from these two reviews now under way.
Thirdly and finally, we can already sense—not least from the opening presentation from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on the purpose of ARIA—a fascinating debate about missions versus technologies. I have frequently had that debate with my friend Professor Mariana Mazzucato, who has brought the language of missions into public policy, which is excellent. However, I always say to her that the Kennedy moonshot did not arise because a bunch of PPE-ists—speaking as one myself—sat around saying, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we sent someone to the moon? That would really get the media’s attention; let’s do that, Mr President”, but because of prior investment in general-purpose technologies, including rockets. It was a deep understanding of what the technologies might be capable of that led to the formulation of the mission.
One can resolve this by wordplay, by making “backing technologies” one of the missions, but the point made earlier about preventing and creating technological surprise tells us that, really, DARPA was always envisaged as driving American leadership in technology. We have the opportunity to choose missions only because of prior investment in underlying science and technology, which turns those missions from empty fantasies into deliverable objectives.
I very much hope we will have an assurance from the Minister during the course of our scrutiny today that ARIA will strike a happy balance. It should be able to fund general-purpose technologies without knowing exactly how they will prove useful, while suspecting that something of that power and significance will have use. It may also wish to fund specific missions or challenges, but it would be a strategic mistake to put all its eggs in one basket. It is the interaction of technological investment capabilities with missions and challenges that really drives innovation. I very much hope that ARIA will pursue both approaches.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise for not taking part at Second Reading; I was at the COP 26 climate talks, which are of obvious relevance to this group in particular.
I begin by reflecting on the model for ARIA—DARPA, which was of course military. We have talked a lot about risk-taking, which is usually interpreted as the risk of failure to achieve your objectives. When we think about the origins of this—the child very often showing some characteristics of its parent—we can also think about the risks attached to achieving your outcomes but causing unintended effects. With DARPA, there was Agent Orange in the Vietnam War and the drone warfare of the Gulf War, and it is now working on killer drones and robot warriors.
Looking at the model of DARPA, researcher Annie Jacobsen, author of The Pentagon’s Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA, talked about how it very much became embedded in what has been described, including by US Presidents, as the military-industrial complex. Giving a mission is very important, in order to avoid institutional capture. That is one of the reasons why I speak in favour of Amendments 1, 21 and 26. We have not yet had the chance to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, but I think her Amendment 21 is in a sense similar to Amendments 1 and 26, except that it provides a more regular review mechanism.
If we think about what ARIA is for and look at some of the proposals put forward, we see that the CBI described it as
“an international lynchpin for business investment”
that is to “ultimately deliver new products”. McKernan said that it was
“a public sector, new technology seed fund”
whereas, by contrast, the Russell Group described it as
“multidisciplinary research teams with the capacity to take a holistic approach”.
That brings us to the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, was just addressing, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—and why I would express opposition to his Amendment 25. There is a danger in focusing on technology rather than on mission. We want to focus on mission and on the problems that we need to solve—and Amendment 1 very much focuses on the great problem that we need to solve. Discussion thus far has focused very much on the climate emergency, but it also talks about a “sustainable … society”.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1, 21 and 26. While the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made a compelling case for his Amendment 27, I would probably part from him on the wider issue of mission. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who set out quite a few of the issues, and particularly for his underlining once again that the Treasury is at the heart of undermining almost every single good idea that ever occurs to government.
I regret that I was not present for the Second Reading of this Bill as I was on a train en route to the COP conference, but I had a chance to read the record of the debate. Much of it has been reflected in today’s debate, particularly the point, made by a number of noble Lords, that ARIA lacks the clear purpose which they feel will be necessary if it is be successful. Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, pointed out again today that that purpose was at the heart of the success of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Davies of Brixton, and my noble friend Lord Fox, all gave some guide as to what such a purpose might be in playing a key role in addressing issues of sustainability and climate change.
Amendment 1, as we have heard, would establish a broad sustainability purpose for ARIA. Amendment 21 would set the core mission in a slightly different way, very much focused on net-zero emissions, and Amendment 26 is again different, focusing on ARIA having to give due consideration to the net-zero target and other environmental goals. As this debate has indicated, there are essentially two questions to be determined. The first is whether there should be a specific purpose or mission for this body, and whether such a purpose or mission would help or hinder it in delivering the sort of transformative success that we all hope it will deliver. The second question is, of course, that if we conclude that a sense of mission would assist, what that mission should be.
On the first question, although the Secretary of State and others in the other place were happy to cite DARPA and its successes as the model when extolling the virtues of this proposal, the reluctance to give it the clear focus that DARPA had seems a mistake. DARPA had a clear mission, a purpose: not to be surprised by technology and, hopefully, to surprise others with it. It had a clear focus, which was the threat posed by the Soviet Union and the need to maintain the competitive scientific and research advantage over it that Sputnik and other programmes had caused the US to worry it was losing. That sense of purpose was critical in driving that early success. I fear that without a clear focus for our advanced research agency, it will lack the direction and urgency that DARPA had, and which is required to achieve transformational change.
It is clear to me that a purpose, a mission, will be very important to ARIA’s success. If so, surely there is no more compelling case than to focus the work and energy on the climate and ecological emergency that we face. That is a long-term issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, pointed out. Tackling those challenges will require massive innovation and ingenuity, and the development of practical applications from that.
If the purpose of DARPA was to protect the national security of the United States by retaining its scientific edge against the threat of the Soviet Union, today, the threat from climate change, although very different, is some orders of magnitude greater. It is an existential threat to all humanity, and to bring a halt to climate change or stop it running completely out of control will test us to our utmost—it will test our ingenuity, our practical application and our ability to deploy all our resources. If we do not harness our advanced research agency to that task, future generations will surely look back on such a decision with a real sense of astonishment.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that DARPA was really about shaping the future. This agency should be about shaping the future, but we must ensure that there is a future to shape. Unless we tackle the climate and ecological emergency, there will not be.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I shall make just a few comments. I declare my interests, as I did on Second Reading. I spent most of my active life, 40 or 50 years, doing things that ARPA was doing—that we were doing in IBM in the United States—and I have spent more recent years working with the Queen Elizabeth prize and now with the Draper Prize of the National Academy of Engineering of the United States. I declare my membership of that academy, the Chinese academy and the Australian academy, as well as the royal academy here.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, raised a lot of cogent points, but the mission of ARIA—I wish “Invention” was replaced by “Innovation”, but that is a small point —must be, to distinguish it from UKRI, to take projects all the way through until they are fully implemented, fully available for people to use, commercially sensible and affordable, and to solve an important problem. A lot of what UKRI does is the essential discovery and understanding of how the world works, and these things should be different.
One thing is very much in common: you need creative people. In ARIA you probably need creative engineers—there will be scientists as well; most of these things are mixed—and creative engineers are no different to creative musicians or creative artists. They do not like being told what to paint, what to compose, how to compose or how to paint. That would turn them all away.
I test my credibility by quoting Donald Rumsfeld. ARIA is all about “unknown unknowns”. I have been sitting down for the last two hours reading all these amendments; we are trying to tie down ARIA so that we understand what it will do, when it will do it, how often it will report on doing it and everything else. That is not what we are trying to create. We will destroy the thing before we ever give birth to it.
I support these amendments, because the challenge that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has come up with, and others have supported, is the climate problem. That is huge and wide. I do not think it is a constraint that will really trouble creative people at the moment. In fact, I have met a lot of people who are very successful in one field of research and have abandoned that and moved into the field of climate and what they can do about it, because they feel that is the best place to apply their creativity and intellect. I urge the Minister and everybody who will take this through: let us not strangle the poor thing before it begins.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. He is completely right when he says that climate is a broad enough canvas on which people can paint. Broadly speaking, I do not mind painters and artists painting whatever they like, whenever they like, on whatever they like—if I am not paying for it. But we are paying for this, and it is not unreasonable for us to say that we would like ARIA to turn its attention primarily to the climate emergency, the very thing that is threatening our existence on this planet. That is a sufficiently exciting challenge to set ARIA.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was very persuasive and I understand the attraction of allowing maximum freedom, but the risk is that it becomes directionless. For a quite small organisation, as ARIA is, that is a risk, so my view is that ARIA needs a core mission.
The Government want ARIA to have maximum flexibility and be able to back projects as it sees fit, free of any political interference or unnecessary bureaucracy. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, explained very well how deadening that could be. We certainly have no wish to enter into the kind of situation he described, but a research focus or a mission could be achieved without that risk. He said that no one could have set out to achieve the moon landings without being able to look back and build on existing technology. That is completely right, but we do not have the luxury of that at this moment. We have a very real, immediate risk that we need to address, which is why we favour making the mission one of climate.
We all want ARIA to succeed. This is quite a good Bill from a cross-party working point of view because we all want it to work, but asking the board to come up with its own mission—or, even worse, not having a mission at all—would not assist ARIA and could set it up with a weakness, or even to fail. We all need direction, purpose and a sense that what we are doing is contributing to a greater good, so telling ARIA to back any scientific research and to do what it sees fit would be a mistake. The board will anyway spend its first few months deciding how it is going to make decisions. We are not attempting to tell it how to do that, but it would have no framework or sense of the UK’s priorities, and I just do not think that is necessary. It would be a mistake and, if we corrected it, that would not diminish ARIA in any way; in fact, it would be strengthened.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 1 and 26—to which I have added my name—and Amendment 21. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, I have to tender my apologies for not contributing to the Second Reading debate. I was not at COP 26 or on my way there, I was actually in this Room in the Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and speaking to amendments in my name and which I had supported. I regret that I was unable to be there.
I agree with the arguments put forward by a number of noble Lords and I do not intend to rehearse them. Because I was not at Second Reading, I read the debate very carefully and a number of Peers raised the issue of lack of purpose of ARIA and suggested a climate change purpose, which I support. The Minister pushed back on this. He said that solving particular national challenges falls
“very much within the UKRI remit”
and a programme to develop these challenges would be decided by the national science and technology council in due course. He may be in a position to tell us how long that “due course” will be today. It would be interesting if he was.
Finally, he commented that:
“It would clearly be inappropriate to create another new body to do essentially the same thing.”
He said that ARIA’s leadership would be responsible for setting its strategy and—here I quote the issue I am really interested in—upholding
“the autonomy which is at the heart of this new agency”.—[Official Report, 2/11/21; col. 1200.]
That is what I want to explore. I hope I have not misrepresented the noble Lord’s response but if I have, he will have the opportunity to correct me.
It is clear that ARIA enjoys some autonomy but it is not unlimited. In fact, in exercising its functions as set out in Clause 2(6), it “must have regard to” a number of things and they are very broad. I will read them in short:
“contributing to economic growth, or an economic benefit, in the United Kingdom … promoting scientific innovation and invention in the United Kingdom”—
there is the word “innovation”—and
“improving the quality of life in the United Kingdom”.
That is pretty broad. So, it is constrained to do that.
Clause 5 states:
“The Secretary of State may give ARIA directions … in the interests of national security.”
These directions must be complied with and I fully appreciate why that is there. I understand it and I think it is necessary, and I do not expect the Minister to expand on that.
However, I do expect him to expand on the potential significant restriction that is in Clause 4. Clause 4 grants the power by which the Secretary of State may make grants to ARIA. Clause 4(2) states:
“Grants under subsection (1) may be subject to conditions.”
Clause 4(3) refers to one particular condition, for some reason, in the absence of any others: that the grant may need
“to be repaid (with or without payment of interest).”
I was intrigued by that and thought there was bound to be an explanation of what the Government have in mind. What limitations on the autonomy of ARIA are going be put in these conditions? Why do the Government think they need this restriction?
As always, I reached for the Explanatory Notes. I will quote them because they make very clear the purpose of this:
“This Clause provides the Secretary of State with a grant funding power in relation to ARIA.”
I had worked that out. They then state:
“The Secretary of State can make grants subject to conditions. In particular, the conditions may require the repayment of financial support with or without payment of interest.”
They simply restate the clause.
I am still at a loss to understand. I hope that if the Minister chooses to reject any of these amendments on the basis of the restriction of autonomy, he will give the Grand Committee the opportunity to understand what restrictions the Government intend to put on the autonomy of ARIA. That will help us, at the appropriate time, to decide whether these restrictions—I do not believe they are restrictions; I will come to that in a moment—are actually restricting any autonomy which it is likely to have. If that is the issue on which these amendments stumble, it needs to be described in a wee bit more detail.
However, my argument is that these provisions do not seek to create a new body to do essentially the same thing as the national science and technology council, but of course we will not know what that is until we see what the national science and technology council does under the leadership of the Prime Minister. In the context of a world in which we have clear national priorities, we are told that we cannot allow an autonomy for this institution that we would not allow for any other institution; that is, to act against the national interest. I remind the Minister that the pursuit of a sustainable and resilient society is one of the four overarching objectives set by the strategic framework set out in the integrated review. That framework, in the Government’s own words,
“establishes the Government’s overarching national security and international policy objectives … to 2025.”
The provision to constrain ARIA from acting against that is clearly in the stated agreed national interest.
In relation to the Climate Change Act, that is a national obligation. Surely, we cannot anticipate that ARIA would act against that national obligation of net zero by 2050, or the imperative of adaptation to climate change, or the environmental goals which have been, and are being, developed in this Parliament. In a sense, red lines are being put around ARIA but they are about national imperatives, which are shared by everyone, including the Government. They are desirable for all the reasons that noble Lords have set out but, I have one question for the Minister, which I would like him to answer either now or at some point before Report: what do the Government expect the CEO and the board of ARIA to want to do which would be inconsistent with these provisions? I guarantee noble Lords that should it wish to do any such things, the Government would seek to restrict its autonomy because it would be acting in an undesirable way.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I was delighted to hear the defence of basic research made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the point he made about bureaucracy in the rest—it should be said, the larger part—of research funding was well made and echoed many of the Second Reading comments.
However, there is a danger that we are taking the DARPA bait a little too seriously. The Government have played this into all their communications. Let us look at what we are comparing. DARPA has a huge budget, many times bigger than even the best budget we could expect for ARIA. It has been there for decades. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, mentioned Mariana Mazzucato. What she is very good at is pointing out how the technologies developed in DARPA have then been picked up by technology businesses within the United States, some of them part of the “military-industrial complex”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, put it, but of course Apple is one of her best examples and even the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, might have one of those to hand. The mobilisation of this technology is absolutely key, which is why what the noble Lord, Lord Broers, had to say was so important and why the project management part is such a central point.
I refer back to the points that started to be made through Amendment 25, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. At Second Reading, the Minister deployed the words of Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser, the chief executive of UKRI. He quoted her telling the Public Bill Committee in the other place that
“the priorities that the Government and Ministers set to solve particular challenges for the nation … fall very much within the UKRI remit”.—[Official Report, Commons, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill Committee, 14/4/21; col. 8]
The implication—and almost the stated point—was that because UKRI is covering this, there is no need for ARIA to cover it.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords—ah. I caught the expression on the Minister’s face, and I apologise for delaying his remarks. This is my first Bill Committee and I would like to say a few brief words in support of Amendments 1 and 21 and a word about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
We are, after all, discussing something new. I spoke at Second Reading—those who missed it were spared that experience—and said:
“We are discussing an experiment”.—[Official Report, 2/11/21; col. 1169.]
In some ways, it is an interesting occasion. I presume that we will find out from the Minister that even the Government themselves do not know what it will be like, because it is in the nature of the thing that we do not.
The Committee and the Bill team have been spared the amendments I tabled, because as a new Member I submitted them too late. Nevertheless, some of the amendments I drafted relate to some of those on the Marshalled List, in particular relating to climate change as an objective that should in some way be associated with ARIA’s work. It is quite a timely moment to be discussing this in Committee. COP has just finished, there will be a debate in the House tomorrow on its aftermath, and, as it is the most existential crisis facing planet earth, as one noble Lord said, I do not see any reason why ARIA cannot play a part in trying to deal with the issues we face.
When I was very young, we had a model of Sputnik in our living room; I do not know how it arrived. I look back now and realise that that was what triggered ARPA and DARPA, which to some extent we are basing our discussion on now. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, it was to prevent surprises. The United States Government did not like that surprise, for sure.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also says in his Amendment 25, we are not here to create a body that duplicates UKRI. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who has an enormous amount of experience in this field. When you talk about the bureaucracy involved, that strikes a chord with everybody, maybe on this Bench as well, including—if I may use this phrase—my noble friend Lord Broers, who referred to his wish to change the Bill’s Title.
My first amendment was to change the Bill’s Title. I know you normally do not spend time thinking about it, but perhaps when the Minister replies he could at least explain why the Government themselves, who introduced the concept of ARPA, subsequently changed its name. It would be helpful to know some of the thinking that led to the change of name to ARIA, whatever the “I” stands for.
As we know that this is based to some extent on the experience of DARPA, I can report that I spoke recently to two Americans who are very interested in what we are doing here. The American Chemical Society and someone in the State Department expressed great interest in what we are discussing. They are looking to see how we develop this idea and put it into practice.
My last point to make at the outset is that the relationships between ARIA and the other bodies in the scientific landscape will be very important. Someone already quoted Dame Ottoline Leyser of UKRI, and I know that she said, I think before the Select Committee, that it will be vital to maintain relationships with key players right across the system. There is a range of other bodies. My noble friend referred to the new council for science and technology, chaired by the Prime Minister, and we also have a new set of relationships with the Chief Scientific Adviser, both in his existing capacity and in his new capacity as Chief Technology Adviser. I hope that we can explore some of those in Committee. Forgive me for saying this, but it would have helped if we had had some idea of what the framework document is due to say because, as I understand it, it will describe some of the relationships that the Government have in mind that ARIA should have with other major bodies in the rest of the scientific world.
I shall leave it there and try to cheer the Minister up by saying that I will sit down and, as far as I know, no one else is following me, so the floor is his.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for his intervention. When he was unable to complete his remarks at Second Reading, he said that he would come back in Committee and add to what he had said—which makes a change from what normally happens, with people coming back to repeat their Second Reading speeches. It is good to hear from the noble Viscount.
I am also delighted to hear the unequivocal support from the Opposition Benches for that great neo-conservative, Donald Rumsfeld—quoted by both Cross-Benchers and the Liberal Democrats. A great man indeed.
Amendments 1, 21, 25 and 26 create requirements that seek to narrow, or to have the Government direct, ARIA’s funding. Amendment 1 would require ARIA to pursue projects that contribute to a sustainable and resilient society, planet and economy. Amendment 25 seeks to specify a relationship with UKRI. Amendments 21 and 26 would set ARIA’s core mission as to support achieving the target established in Section 1 of the Climate Change Act. Once achieved, ARIA’s mission would then be set every five years by government by an affirmative SI. Of course, I thank noble Lords for tabling these timely and topical amendments, particularly given the partial success at COP 26 last week.
Starting with Amendment 1 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, let me point him to Clause 2(6), where, in exercising its functions, ARIA must have regard to contributing to economic growth, promoting scientific innovation and invention, or improving the quality of life. These considerations ensure that ARIA’s activities are geared towards beneficial outcomes, which will of course include sustainability and resilience. Of course, this broad characterisation of the benefits of ARIA’s activities does not represent the limits of ambition for individual ARIA programmes, or substitute for ARIA’s unique tolerance to failure as set out in Clause 3.
That brings me on to Amendment 27 from my noble friend Lord Lansley. I have heard consistently from the scientific community that ARIA must have high risk tolerance to succeed, and indeed that gets to the heart of what ARIA is all about. It is therefore important, in my view, that we express that idea precisely. My noble friend’s alternative articulation of risk tolerance, for which I thank him, does not specify the particular weight that ARIA may give to this type of activity, and I think that is crucial, particularly for the NAO’s assessment of whether ARIA’s activities are in line with its stated functions.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this excellent and illuminating debate. I think it has demonstrated a clear feeling that there is a problem to be addressed in terms of what ARIA is to do—
“a brand in search of a product”,
as was said in the report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. The real advantages for the Government in considering the purpose of the organisation are that it is all about maximising the chances of ARIA’s success as we take it forward.
I will draw out a few key points. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, got to the heart of the matter in asking whether the organisation should be technology-led or mission or purpose-led. He made some very strong arguments, but I come back to what the deputy director of DARPA said in his evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:
“having national security as the mission frames everything”
that DARPA does, having that high-level purpose within which the technology is developed.
I also emphasise some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Broers, about the value of setting that goal and creating some inspiration behind the organisation—using it to inspire and bring in the right people—and the importance to its success of the programme directors.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, emphasised the importance of that sense of purpose, and the competition with the Soviet Union, for DARPA when it was set up in 1958 in response to the launch of Sputnik. It is easy to forget the panic at that time; it was Lyndon Johnson who envisioned a day when the Soviets would be
“dropping bombs on us from space like kids dropping rocks onto cars from freeway overpasses.”
For very different threats, we need to take the same approach that the US did in 1958, rethinking our innovation systems to meet our climate goals. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, emphasised the importance of bringing the whole of Parliament along with this organisation, and building support across Parliament for it in the long term. Taking that long-term view is another key point.
We will come back to this, and I look forward to further discussions with the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Noakes
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 2 I will speak also to Amendments 6, 8 and 10 in my name. These are all probing amendments that concern the governance of ARIA and its board, so I am dealing with much more mundane matters than we covered in the first group. There are a lot of different aspects in this group so I apologise in advance for taking a little time in my opening remarks.
Amendment 2 is about the size of the ARIA board. It deletes paragraph 2(2)(c), which allows between two and five executive members to be appointed to the board in addition to the chief executive and the chief financial officer. As with the governance arrangements relating to commercial boards, paragraph 2(4) requires there to be a majority of non-executive members. Therefore, the minimum size of the ARIA board will be twice the number of the executive members, plus one. If there are two additional executive members, the total number of executives would be four, the minimum number of non-executive members would be five, with a minimum board size of nine. If, however, the full complement of five additional executive members was appointed, the board would comprise seven executive members, with a minimum of eight non-executive members, making 15 in total. There is, however, no limit to the number of non-executive members and hence no upper limit on the size of the board.
I believe that this design is flawed and could result in an unwieldy and ineffective board. Some years ago, in the wake of the financial crisis, Sir David Walker produced a review of corporate governance in banks and other financial services entities. His report included an annexe, which dealt with optimum board and committee size, based on evidence from a number of sources. Sir David said that the optimum board size was between eight and 12, and that beyond 12 a board was prone to
“passive free riding, dislocation and ‘groupthink’”;
in particular, the likelihood of groupthink increased “exponentially” above 12.
I will quote some of the rationale for this:
“This importance of size is due to the cognitive limit to the number of individuals with whom any one person can maintain stable relationships, this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and this in turn limits group size.”
My own direct experience of a number of boards in different sectors over the years is pretty much in line with the Walker report.
At Second Reading I emphasised the need to avoid groupthink in ARIA, and I hope the Government will look again at their design for ARIA’s board. Many listed companies have only the chief executive and the CFO as board members, which helps limit overall size and keep the board effective. Is it really necessary to have a minimum of any extra executive members? Why not just set an upper limit on the size of the board—at, say, 12—and let the rule on the majority of non-executives drive the remaining appointments?
Amendment 6 is designed to ensure that the culture of ARIA is kept away from the Civil Service and government, about which I also spoke at Second Reading. It states that non-executives cannot be either Ministers of the Crown or employed by a government department and paid out of public expenditure. There is a precedent for a prohibition on Ministers and civil servants in the Bank of England legislation which governs appointments to the Court of the Bank of England. It is now in the Bank of England Act 1998, and I have largely copied that drafting, although I have added a prohibition regarding positions held within the five years preceding the appointment. It is clearly important that the central bank is formally independent of government. In the case of ARIA, formal independence is not the issue; rather, it is very important to be independent of the prevailing mindset in Whitehall. I hope that the Minister will agree with me on that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes, who has typically managed to make some penetrating remarks about the prospective corporate governance of ARIA. All the amendments in this group, including mine, are probing amendments; that is the nature of debate at this stage. I hope the Government will take on board some of the things my noble friend has said, think about them carefully and perhaps bring forward their own amendments. What she had to say about the size of the board and the desirability of setting a limit on the number of executive members in order to keep the size of the board as whole under control makes perfect sense, as does the point about committees of the board.
My three amendments in this group also to try to establish how the Government are going to address the membership of ARIA. The first, as my noble friend said, is Amendment 3, which would remove the Chief Scientific Adviser from the board. By the way, this is no reflection on the Chief Scientific Adviser now, in the past or in the future. The point is that if we want ARIA to be independent and autonomy is an essential part of its role, does it make sense for the Chief Scientific Adviser, whoever she or he may be, to be sitting on that board trying to make decisions that are, almost by definition, different from the decisions being made by the rest of the research and innovation landscape? Indeed, the Chief Scientific Adviser is now the head of the new office for science and technology strategy.
If the CSA is leading the strategy for science and technology across the landscape, you might say that surely, they should be there, so that ARIA fits into that strategy. That is precisely the problem: ARIA should not be led in the same strategy as the other parts of the research and innovation landscape. Does it not create an inherent conflict of interest for the Chief Scientific Adviser to be setting the strategy on the one hand and departing from it on another, which is potentially what ARIA will be doing?
Amendments 5 and 7 in my name ask whether the appointment of a chair by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy should be subject to some scrutiny. I have not gone to the step on this because I do not think the criteria are met for this to be an appointment that is subject to an agreement of or a recommendation from a committee of the House of Commons. However, given the existence of the Science and Technology Select Committee and the work it does in the Commons, it would be extremely helpful for it at least to have a hearing and to make some of its own remarks. That would help in the process of giving some democratic accountability to the initiation of the board itself. ARIA is going to autonomous, relatively independent and determined in large measure by its board. The appointments of the chair and the chief executive in the first instance are very significant in this regard.
Amendment 7 is precisely about the appointment of the first chief executive officer. I think the Government are currently searching for both chair and chief executive. The first chief executive officer appointment is not going to be made by the chair, so it is particularly important that there be a degree of objective scrutiny of that appointment. Subsequent appointments will be a matter for the chair and the non-executive members of the board.
I hope that the Government will at least recognise the potential merit of the Science and Technology Committee having a hearing in each case and offering its views.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said regarding his Amendments 5 and 7. One of the amendments lost to the Committee was drafted very much along the same lines, although mine made it. This is a very important issue. The work of the Select Committee in the House of Commons is superb. The former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, knows all about it.
This is a very important principle, especially as we are discussing something so new and there is so much about it that we do not yet know. It is essential for the Select Committee to explore these matters with the chair and chief executive designate. I would go further than the noble Lord and make the appointments subject to the agreement of the Select Committee. Indeed, I regard this as an important principle to apply in general across many appointments made by government, many of which could be made subject to the agreement of the appropriate Select Committee.
As to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I found myself wondering, especially in regard to Amendment 2, whether her remarks about the ideal size of a board apply to the membership of a Committee stage of a Bill. Are we too large a group of people around this table effectively to conduct our business? I have an open mind on that, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in reply.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, I will speak only briefly, primarily about the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. They all reflect best practice in corporate behaviour and should be taken very seriously. The one that goes even deeper than that is Amendment 6, which looks at the prohibition of civil servants and former Ministers from being on the board for five years. That is really important and thoughtful—that we do not import Civil Service groupthink, which is well protected in other venues and continues for long periods of time. Not to have that on the board is a major protection for the qualities that you want ARIA to have.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am now going to indulge in some groupthink by agreeing with the last speaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The Government fail to take her advice on corporate governance at their peril. All her amendments are sensible and ones that I hope the Minister, who clearly will not endorse them today, will be able to take away, think about and maybe amend a little to put the Government’s thumbprint on them. I suggest that it would be helpful to look at them seriously.
Amendments 5 and 7, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to inculcate the House of Commons Select Committee into the appointments process, at least at some point within it. Noble Lords will see, later on in the Bill, that Amendment 32 also seeks to carve out an ongoing role for that Select Committee. Clearly, if I were to stand by Amendment 32, Amendments 5 and 7 would also make a lot of sense, in that they will be there at the beginning.
It may be out of kilter or otherwise, but this set of amendments really looks at the membership and members of the board. I have a quick query, which may just be me getting things confused. The Minister kindly sent around the draft of the SI on conflicts of interests. Of course, this may come in when we come to talk about the fourth group of amendments. It refers to “members” throughout, and I am not clear what a member of this organisation is, which made me think that I am not actually clear what the legal structure of this organisation is. I think there is some work to do to help me—if no one else—through. Is this an incorporated association? Is it a company limited by guarantee? What is it? Until we know that, some of the other things that we need to discuss will become very difficult.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I will quickly put on record our position on this. I am also fascinated to find out why this issue of the Chief Scientific Adviser is there. I can imagine why, and I am speculating as to why, but I would like to know what the Minister had in his head in proposing that.
I put on record our support for Amendments 5 and 7 in particular. One of the themes from us on this Bill is about trying to enhance democratic engagement with ARIA—not control or oversight, but we think that there is space for some engagement there.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
At Second Reading I raised the appointment of the chair and the chief executive by the Government. Can the Minister make clear that these appointments will be subject to the normal code of practice, or whatever exactly it is called, for public appointments? Will it be subject to the same process as the majority of public appointments?
Lord Callanan (Con)
This group of amendments relates to the balance that we need to strike between ARIA’s independence from and accountability to government, which is a difficult balance to draw. I shall begin with the amendments relating to the composition of ARIA’s board.
Amendment 2 from my noble friend Lady Noakes would limit the executives on ARIA’s board to just the CEO and the CFO. I appreciate the spirit of her amendments, trying to ensure that ARIA is an agile body with a streamlined board, but we have decided that the number of executives should be at least four. We have said that in the interests of representing the different executive functions within the organisations. Similarly, we have imposed a maximum number to try to keep it as efficient as possible.
As the majority of the board members need to be non-executives, in our view, that means that the minimum total number of board members will be nine, to ensure a majority of non-executives, and our expected maximum is 15. We believe that this is very much in line with standard practice. It is not usual for legislation to specify quoracy arrangements, and the Bill’s current provisions mirror some of the procedural arrangements that are in the Higher Education and Research Act. I am also happy to confirm that it is not our intention to offer non-executive members pensions or gratuities—I do not want to get into a definition of gratuities—but it is commonplace to ensure that the provision is available.
The drafting that we have used is also found in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 for UKRI non-executives under paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 9, and indeed in the Energy Act 2013 for the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s non-executives under paragraph 11(3) of Schedule 7. I therefore do not see that Amendment 8 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes is necessary.
I turn to Amendment 3. In our view, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser will bring a somewhat unique perspective to the ARIA board in their independent advisory capacity, with awareness of science and technology across government. It is important to emphasise that he or she will be on the board in their capacity as an independent adviser, not in their science and technology strategy capacity. Indeed, it is perfectly possible for there to be two different people in those roles. It is also important to emphasise that they will not do so on a privileged basis. Other non-executives will have been appointed for their expertise, their wide experience and their special knowledge of different facets of the research and development system, and they will equally provide ARIA with independent advice in the best interests of the organisation and its objectives, as the Chief Scientific Adviser will.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before my noble friend moves off this particular point, he will know, and the Committee will have observed, that in paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 the Government are proposing to take a power to substitute somebody else or some other office for the Chief Scientific Adviser. What my noble friend was just saying gave me the impression that this is something that might be contemplated in circumstances where the two roles that he refers to are held separately.
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is the exact point. At the moment they are occupied by the same person, but at some point in the future there might be other arrangements. It is just to ensure that the Secretary of State has the maximum flexibility.
I turn to the recruitment and appointment of ARIA’s board members. I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that we will of course follow the normal and usual procedures for the appointment of directors and non-executive directors of public bodies. Amendment 6 seeks to disqualify a non-executive member if the individual has been a Minister of the Crown or a person employed by a government department. While I understand that the likely intention of this amendment—which will perhaps make my noble friend Lady Noakes and some of the contributors on this grouping unpopular—is to ensure that we have the highest calibre of individuals represented on ARIA’s board, I believe it could have the opposite effect. It would undermine the Secretary of State’s ability to run an open and fair recruitment process, as it would narrow the search field on a somewhat arbitrary basis. It could also prevent the appointment of an individual with demonstrable scientific or technical experience—some of whom may well be in this Room today—just because that individual had served in public office or as a civil servant. That seems very unfair to me, and I see no obvious logical reason for depriving ARIA of such expertise.
Amendments 5 and 7 would require the Secretary of State to inform the Commons Science and Technology Committee before appointing ARIA’s first CEO and chair, and to make arrangements should the committee wish to call them for evidence. As noble Lords are aware, we are currently recruiting for the CEO role. We will launch the chairman recruitment following the conclusion of that process, so that we are able to recruit the right person to work alongside the CEO as a complementary leadership team. I can confirm that we will of course write to the committee on the announcement of both positions; it may then choose to invite the appointee to give evidence to it on their vision and functions in ARIA. I strongly submit that it is not for the Government or Parliament to specify in legislation what a Select Committee should or should not do. It is perfectly capable of deciding for itself whether it wishes to summon individuals to give evidence—or not, as the case may be. Given the robust appointment process and the committee’s standing powers to invite witnesses to give evidence, I really believe that a special provision in legislation for a pre-appointment hearing is not necessary.
I acknowledge that the balance between giving ARIA the autonomy that I think everybody here is agreed it should have and ensuring a certain amount of accountability to government, the National Audit Office, et cetera, is an issue on which noble Lords will hold different views. It is a difficult balance to strike, but I hope that I have been able to convey to the Committee why we believe we have the correct balance as it stands. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Fox (LD)
I asked some specific questions about the future legal structure of ARIA and the nature of who its members are. I do not think the Minister had time to answer.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will write to the noble Lord with the legal details he requires.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I can probably help the noble Lord, Lord Fox. In the case of public corporations created by statute, it is quite common that they are the members. It is not usually drafted as if the board is a separate legal entity.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
No, the members. The members are executive and non-executive, as defined. They comprise the body. That is quite normal in public sector formulations. While I referred to the board when I introduced my amendments, that is not set out in legislation because they are the members. In common parlance, I was talking about the creation of the board of the agency.
I thank noble Lords for their support and their contributions to this short debate, and I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Morse, to our deliberations. I heard what the Minister had to say. He has decided that there will be four executives and therefore a minimum board size of nine, but I do not think he really engaged with the substance of my arguments on why the potential for 15—or, indeed, more because the Bill does not limit the size of the board to 15—which was a little disappointing.
When the Minister dealt with whether or not there could be payments for pensions or gratuities to non-executives, he said that the Government do not intend to do that but are going to put it in anyway. Actually, this is really old drafting, which I can point to in many old statutes, which have not been used for many years, for very good reason, and there really is no need to carry on drafting in this way.
I could go on but I am not going to answer the individual points made by the Minister in response to my speech. I hope he will go away and read more carefully the content of the debate because I think there are some issues that he did not deal with in his reply, and I will certainly read his remarks more carefully when I see them in Hansard. I anticipate returning to some of these issues on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Randerson
“(ba) a representative of the Welsh Government,(bb) a representative of the Scottish Government,(bc) a representative of the Northern Ireland Executive, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require representation from the devolved administrations on ARIA.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University. Given the current climate, I think I need to make it clear that it is an unremunerated role.
The amendments in this group deal, in one way or another, with the representation within ARIA of the interests of the nations and regions of the UK. My Amendment 4 seeks to gain some clarification from the Government—it is, of course, a probing amendment —as to the purposes and modus operandi of ARIA, and to make the point that because it will operate within areas of devolved competence, it must listen to the voices of the devolved nations.
As it stands, it is difficult to get a handle on exactly how ARIA will operate. The list of things it is able to do is comprehensive. It can take an equity stake, carry out its own lab work, contract with an academic or industry team, create prototypes, market products, convene conferences, operate outside the UK—and a whole lot more. It is to be granted great freedom and there is, as noble Lords have said, an emphasis on lack of bureaucracy. It is to be ambitious and tolerant of failure.
In the debate in the other place, Greg Clark MP, chair of the Science and Technology Committee, complained that it was not clear whether the emphasis would be on “blue-sky research” or whether it would turn existing ideas into “practical applications”. Clause 2(6) says:
“ARIA must have regard to the desirability of … contributing to economic growth, or an economic benefit, in the United Kingdom”
and
“improving the quality of life in the United Kingdom (or in the United Kingdom and elsewhere)”.
These are worthy thoughts but there is no obligation to take account of the nations and regions of the UK.
The funding of ARIA directly by the UK Government impacts on devolved powers in relation to higher education and economic development. The Bill creates a new reservation in respect of research and innovation. I accept that this is not altogether new, because there is already a reservation for UKRI, and there is indeed great strength in not having research silos. Partnership is vital, both within and across the UK and internationally: partnership between universities—where most blue-sky research originates—and between universities and commercial companies, which exploit that research. To amend the Bill to spell out that there must also be partnership between the UK Government and the devolved Governments will simply strengthen ARIA.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I have a lot of sympathy for what she says and would be very happy to support her proposal. I will speak briefly to Amendments 9, 23, 29, 33 and 34 in my name. Trying to make sure that efforts to address regional inequality run through everything the Government do is a bit of an obsession for us. We know that investment in science brings prestige to local areas and supports quality jobs when projects succeed. It is a source of immense local pride.
Amendment 4, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, requires representation from the devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I completely understand where she is coming from. We are very keen to nail down in some way through the Bill a commitment to ensure that there is representation and fairness across regions. ARIA should be mindful of regional inequality when making its decisions, including, importantly—the Minister might comment on this—where it chooses to base itself. When she sums up at the end, can the noble Baroness indicate whether she has had any discussions with the Welsh Government or in Scotland about how they feel about taking part in the way she proposes? Are they seeking to do that? Has she thought about including some of the English regional mayors, who might also have a role to play?
I can sense the Minister thinking, “Oh my goodness, what are you trying to do to my new agency?”, in involving all these people, but the point we are trying to make is that this cannot have an ivory tower attitude. It needs to take its responsibility to the prosperity of the entire UK, as all government agencies should, very seriously. One way or another, we need to do everything we can to make sure that what the Government would call levelling up runs through everything they do, including ARIA. This is not just about special projects which can be promised and then quite easily taken away; this needs to be a golden thread that runs through this agency and others.
This is not just about the north-east, although it is certainly very important for the north-east. Every region ought to expect that it will benefit from the creation of ARIA. Where I come from, in the Tees Valley, we have a particular talent for oil, gas and energy, and we are starting to specialise in renewables. The benefits of ARIA’s activity could support not just existing ventures but the development of skills in those fields.
My Amendment 9 would allow ARIA to establish committees in specific regions of the UK. I have tabled it to reflect the importance of considering the benefits to regions of ARIA’s activities. Amendment 23 adds to the list of ARIA’s functions so that, as well as
“contributing to economic growth, or an economic benefit, in the United Kingdom,”
as it says in Clause 2(6)(a), it should
“have regard to the desirability of … increasing prosperity across each region of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.
I do not really understand why the Minister would not want to include that.
Amendment 29 would allow the Secretary of State to stipulate that certain grants must be used to support activity in particular regions. I am aware that that would definitely fall into the category of interference from politicians but sometimes, unless we tease this out and put on the record how important these issues are to us, they can become less important and be missed.
Amendment 33 would establish an advisory board to ensure that ARIA supports the reduction of inequalities between each region and nation of the UK. The point I really to make through Amendment 34 is that ARIA should measure and report on what it is spending by region, which is not an unusual request. I accept that this does not have to be in the Bill, but I would like to know what the Minister thinks about it and whether he would be prepared to agree that ARIA should share information in this format. When the annual report is published, readers could obviously do their own analysis and work out what has been spent in which region. However, I think we have learned from reporting on gender and other issues that if something is measured and required to be reported on, it is seen as important and as a priority, and that then flows through into decision-making. I just want to test what the Minister thinks about these proposals in general, if not any of the specific amendments. This is an issue that we will want to return to on this Bill and others as well.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in her Amendment 4 and to speak to the sentiments behind my noble friend’s Amendment 23. I have discovered that, in this Committee this afternoon, there are really two ways of dealing with amendments. One is by tabling them in time and having them printed, and the other is by speaking to them having written but not tabled them. So it is my pleasure to say to the noble Baroness that I drafted several amendments about the very point that is made in Amendment 4. I drafted a range, one of which went further than that of the noble Baroness by saying that the appointments should be made by the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly, not on their behalf.
When the Minister comes to reply, I gently suggest that the Government must not allow ARIA to be seen as some golden triangle element. It would be fatal to its prospects of success if it is seen in that way, especially if its headquarters happen to be anywhere within a line surrounding Oxford, Cambridge and London; that would be a tactical mistake. I genuinely put it to the Government that, whatever the language of the Bill, they must have some regard to the United Kingdom as a whole and allow the four nations to feel that they are fully represented and involved in its work.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I support our using our full capabilities across the regions; however, while they should all be represented, we have to be careful in trying to spread everything all over the place. I cite a specific example that has been important to British industry. In the 1960s, several people, including myself and Sir Eric Ash, who was then head of electrical engineering at UCL and went on to be rector of Imperial College, tried to co-ordinate the semiconductor industries in this country. At that time, America also had a problem as it looked like Japan was going to take the semiconductor business, run away with it and leave everybody else behind. In America, Ronald Reagan got together with industry and formed Sematech, in Texas, which sort of saved them. The industries all got together and worked.
When we tried to do it, it was too difficult, because there were efforts in Edinburgh, Southampton, London, Cambridge, Newport and Manchester. Nobody realised that we had to co-ordinate those efforts in a rather tight way that also perhaps meant putting things in one location.
At that time the Belgian Government saw the possibility and a few leaders there, Roger van Overstraeten chief among them, decided that they would have a shot at doing this in Belgium. That institute now has 4,000 people and an annual budget roughly equal to ARIA’s: €600 million. We could have done it. We had more talent at the beginning but we could not get around to facing the fact that in certain instances, proximity is very important if you want to pull off really high-technology advances. Again, this is a world issue. America has had to wake up its industry again and realise that it is not necessarily good for the world for Taiwan and South Korea to dominate; it would be a rather dangerous thing. So I think American industry is going to be reawakened.
I say a word of caution: while we want to draw from all of the regions, we may not be able to do some of the big projects spread out over the regions.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will comment on Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. We must not lose sight of the fact that the board is there to contribute to the total purpose or mission of the organisation, and we need to be very clear, when looking at getting those with some relationship to the devolved Administrations, precisely why they are there. I question whether there is a devolved dimension to, for example, the focus of ARIA or determinations about particular projects. These should transcend any issues that arise at the national level.
In addition, the amendment says that there should be
“a representative of the Welsh Government”.
I believe very strongly that boards should not have representatives of anybody on them. Board members should be selected because of their contribution to the totality. Indeed, if we look at examples of boards that do have individuals nominated either by or with the consent of the devolved Administrations, those people are never ever drafted as representatives. They are usually drafted as members who are appointed in a particular way. It is really important that we do not lose sight of the fact that we are trying to create a unitary board dedicated to the mission of the organisation. I query whether there needs to be input from the devolved nations to that process because of the nature of ARIA, but even if there were, I am absolutely clear that they should not be “representatives”.
Furthermore, if we look at the size of the board, which I addressed in the previous group of amendments, if there are four executives there are likely to be five non-executives, and that includes the chairman. So there would be a chairman, four executives and three people appointed who are in some ways related to the devolved Administrations—although none, under this formulation, representing England—but none, or perhaps one, appointed for the general skills and abilities they bring to the party. I hope that noble Lords will think carefully about whether it is appropriate in this instance to act in accordance with the way the noble Baroness’s amendment is drafted.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, as co-chair of the Midlands Engine APPG, I am very supportive of the levelling-up agenda and have a lot of sympathy with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. My only concern is the additional bureaucracy inherent in looking at the regional distribution of investment.
Building on the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, another lesson learned from DARPA was that the headquarters of DARPA was located away from many of the main research centres of the United States, which avoided the inevitable capture of research funding by institutions in a particular area and really encouraged the take-up of ideas from all parts of the country. I thank the Minister for writing to me on this but I hope that the Government will look further at how the location of the ARIA headquarters fits into the levelling-up agenda.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer Green support for the intention of all these amendments, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that “representative” is not quite the right approach. Ideally, we would see the devolved Administrations and Westminster getting together to ensure that there was representation from the nations that fitted together in terms of making a cohesive board with the right set and range of skills, and it would be a co-operative process that ensured that we had those nations involved.
I was very taken with the comment by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the “magic inner circle”. That is something that we absolutely have to break up when it comes to innovation and new thinking in the UK. Just because it seems to fit here, we need to make sure that we are drawing on not just a handful of the most well-funded and well-resourced higher education institutions but on all our higher education institutions. We also need to think about what further education institutions, of which there are many around the country, may be able to offer.
On that issue, I want to reinforce the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, about where this will be based. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to do this now or possibly at some point in future, but I think the Committee would be greatly reassured if she could tell us that it will not be in the Oxford-Cambridge-London triangle but somewhere else.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to express the hope that the Minister is going to tell the Committee that consultations have taken place with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and whoever the appropriate people are presently to represent the people of Northern Ireland about the issues raised by Amendment 4, and that she can satisfy the Committee that this has all been agreed. If not, I can tell her that it has the potential to be quite a serious issue in Scotland.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I fully associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lady Randerson. To put it plainly, we have heard around the Committee a strong feeling that the nations of the United Kingdom have to be fully engaged in this agency in some way, although, to echo the last speaker, the way in which that can be worked through is something we can all be flexible about. I think we all look forward to the debate on Amendments 37 and 40 to hear what the Government's thinking is about those.
On Amendment 9, having some eyes and ears around the regions as well as the nations is essential. Regarding most of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, she is right to stress that inequality is a central issue and it should be a focus of what we do. However, I would point out that while a lot of people have mentioned London in the context of being rich and well funded, it is not just a matter of region because within a region there can be huge variation. I shall use the example of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, which I declare I have a home in. There we have some of the richest people and some of the most deprived living a few yards apart.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, raised the issue of HQ locations. Some noble Lords may know that the European Medicines Agency was due to go into Tower Hamlets but now, for reasons they will all know, it is not. So I will mention that I am supporting the campaign by my colleague in Tower Hamlets, councillor Rabina Khan, to locate ARIA in Tower Hamlets and take the place of the European Medicines Agency. It would be a good development around there and something that I think would be very constructive.
Although I do not fully agree with the wording of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, I think there is a sense in there that we need to get a hold of. How does this agency engage? How does it not become isolated in the golden triangle or somewhere else? That is the question to which we seek some response from the Minister. That is the issue we will take to Report, whether in amendments such as this or in a new version that seeks to make sure we have engagement across the whole country, national or regional.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her remarks on these amendments. Many points were raised that I agree with, including a number from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I will address the different elements of this group in turn.
First, I should be clear that it is absolutely the Government’s intention that ARIA increases prosperity across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is reflected in ARIA’s existing functions, which require it to have regard to contributing to economic growth or economic benefit in the UK or, for example, improving the quality of life. There is no need for specific additional powers to allow ARIA to operate regionally; the Bill as it stands already allows ARIA to do so. Addressing regional inequality is at the heart of our levelling-up agenda and innovation strategy, driving greater benefits from our R&D system to more places across the UK.
I will now address head-on the proposed location of ARIA, because there is none. No decision on the location of these offices has been taken. As a funder, the contribution the new agency makes will result from its project portfolio and funding decisions; it is not an infrastructure project. ARIA will have only a small physical presence at its headquarters, the location of which will probably not be agreed until the appointment of the chief executive officer. That may have some bearing on where it is to be located. I cannot make the commitment that it will not be based in the London-Cambridge-Oxford arc, but that is not our intention at this stage. We have a completely open mind as to its location.
Amendment 23 would impose a new duty and reporting obligations on ARIA in this regard. It is my view that these system-wide ambitions should not be the statutory responsibility of a small new agency that represents about 1% of UK R&D spending. As we have stated previously, UKRI is the public R&D funder with system-wide responsibilities. Tackling systemic issues, such as the overall regional distribution of R&D funding, falls firmly within the UKRI remit.
ARIA’s purpose is to pursue the most ambitious research and innovation projects, where the benefits are long-term and uncertain, wherever in the country they are located. ARIA should not be subject to the political priorities of the Government of the day, no matter how long-standing or important those priorities might be. I believe that seeking to quantify its economic impact in every region of the UK and submitting that for outside assessment, under the shadow of this statutory obligation, would incentivise exactly the same risk-intolerant approach that we are seeking to liberate ARIA from.
We are in danger of expecting ARIA to spread itself too thinly, against the recommendation of the Royal Society and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee that it focus on a very limited number of programmes. ARIA cannot be expected to be active in all regions of the UK at once, so I suggest that Amendment 34 is not an appropriate obligation to place on the organisation.
We have spoken at length about the importance of providing ARIA with independence and equipping it to take risks and tolerate failure. A board appointed by the Secretary of State advising ARIA where to direct its funding represents an extraordinary level of political control over ARIA’s activities. It is completely inconsistent with the decisions on project-level spending being taken by technical experts based on a deep understanding of the relevant field and the scientific merits of the proposals.
In a similar vein, Amendment 4 looks to add a representative from each of the devolved Administrations to ARIA’s board. Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are unanimous in their support for the important principle of ARIA’s independence. We have had close discussions with Ministers and officials at all levels in all three devolved Governments throughout the passage of the Bill.
We have agreed a mechanism for input with the devolved Governments which will be set out in an agreement between the four Administrations of the UK. The agreed text of this MoU will be shared before Report, but it is contingent on the government amendments we will come to discuss later. The final version signed by all parties will be published before Royal Assent. All four Administrations of the UK are committed to upholding the important principles of ARIA’s strategic autonomy, operational autonomy and minimal bureaucracy. Similarly, all are committed to facilitating ARIA’s seamless operation throughout the UK.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I very much thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that the Welsh Government indicated their concern at the current proposed structures—before the Government tabled their amendments—at the creation of a new reservation without mandated representation on ARIA’s governance. The Scottish Government also indicated that they are unlikely to grant a legislative consent Motion unless they have representation. Clearly, the Government have done a lot of work since these amendments were tabled. There are amendments to which I assume we will come next week, unless we work very fast this evening, and the current view of the Scottish and Welsh Governments will become clearer then.
I thank the Minister for the details she supplied. We will obviously know more about the MoU before Report. The amendments in this group have, however, enabled us to discuss an important set of issues. It is important that we do not confuse having a concern across the regions and nations with the idea that one would expect there to be growth everywhere. However, that highlights the need for this body, especially if it is a small body, not to be placed in the usual place with the usual suspects. It has a relatively modest amount of money to spend in the big scheme of things—it sounds like an awful lot of money, but in the big scheme of things, it will not transform things unless it is very well spent.
If the body is well placed and carefully placed, its location alone will bring kudos to that area. However, it is not precisely about where it is placed. It is about how it spends its money—which universities it invests its money in and which companies it establishes or invests in and where they are placed. That is very important indeed if the Government are going to fulfil their promises.
I will, of course, withdraw the amendment. I very much hope that the discussion we have had means that I will not have to bring back a version of it on Report. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that “representative” is not the best term but it means that it represents an input for the devolved Administrations. That is what I was trying to indicate rather than that anyone on that body would behave as a delegated representative. With that, I will withdraw the amendment.
“(aa) produce a value for money study, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the National Audit Office produces a value for money study of ARIA.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think this set of amendments really gets to the meat of our concerns. These amendments are all about transparency and the ability to scrutinise what ARIA does. I am pretty confident that we will return to this as the Bill progresses.
I will quickly run through the six amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 11 requires the NAO to produce
“a value for money study of ARIA.”
Since tabling this, I have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, who unfortunately has had to leave us. He says that this can be incorporated into the usual audit. Can the Minister confirm this? In that case, I would be very happy to agree that this amendment would not be necessary.
Amendment 12 would ensure that the annual report includes
“a list of all projects supported in the financial year.”
This is the least we should be asking for. I thank the Minister for providing a draft SI that would require members of ARIA to disclose any relevant interests. That is helpful and welcome, but I am not quite sure what his sending it means. I note that he said in the email accompanying it that it is for illustrative purposes, so I do not quite understand what he is saying. Will members of ARIA be required to register their interests or not? Either way, without a published list of supported projects it is not possible to tell whether any published interest—if that is what the Minister is proposing; I am not sure that is what he is saying—conflicts with a decision of ARIA. We need to be able to make sure that it does not.
Amendment 13
“would ensure that the annual report includes whether any funds have been given by ARIA to companies which list members of Parliament in their company registers.”
Given recent events, it is probably obvious to noble Lords why this amendment has been tabled. We are keen to ensure that parliamentarians do not lobby for companies in which they have an interest and which then become beneficiaries of grants from ARIA. It is very obvious why we want to do that at this point. I accept that the register could be cross-checked with the list of grants awarded but it is far more transparent and straightforward if the existence of any recorded interest could be highlighted in the report that ARIA makes itself. I assume it would be helpful to the board of ARIA too to be aware of any such interests so that it can take them into account and assure itself that the proper processes are being followed.
Amendment 14 would ensure that the annual report includes whether any funds have been given by ARIA to companies listed in the Electoral Commission’s register of donations and loans to political parties. Similarly to the last amendment, this one would help ARIA to assure itself that no lobbying or purchasing of influence could possibly have taken place.
Amendment 15 would ensure that a Minister of the Crown must make a Statement to both Houses of Parliament on its annual report. This is important because, as we said on the first group of amendments, MPs and Peers would be interested in a project supported by the public purse. Ministers should see this as an opportunity to promote the work of ARIA and to celebrate the inventions and research projects made possible by the agency. Of course, there are bound to be awkward questions—when are there not?—arising from projects that have not worked. But Ministers should not worry about that, as they can argue that the risk is built in, that Parliament has agreed and understood, that many ideas will fail, at least initially, and that we have supported that approach. We want adventurous research, but many of us want to know what is being done. That is because we are curious, supportive and interested in this area of activity, and we want a chance to discuss it.
I shall leave the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, to speak on his Amendment 16, but I indicate our support for that as well. Developing an environmental and social governance strategy is a really good idea and may address many of the concerns that I have had previously about regional inequality. ARIA is in any case going to have to devise a decision-making process and criteria to help it make its decisions, so an environmental and social governance strategy could be very helpful, I imagine, in teasing out a means by which ARIA can ensure maximum benefits in relation to our desire to combat climate change and reduce regional inequality. We would be very happy to support that.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 16 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for his support with this amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for the support she indicated.
This amendment is closely related to the sustainability amendments that I discussed in the first group. The arguments made there on alignment of ARIA with these objectives apply, so I shall not repeat them here. It simply calls for ARIA to develop its own environmental, social and governance strategy to consider the impacts of the exercise of its functions and the projects that it funds. It is another means of embedding climate and sustainability considerations in the organisation, alongside my Amendments 1 and 26 and Amendment 21. It would allow the board of ARIA to consider its own strategy for alignment with environmental and climate goals, so it is consistent with the other amendments.
Embedding sustainability goals in the governance structures of organisations is increasingly important to ensure that organisations consider the impact of their operations and set clear and measurable goals. That ties into a point that I made earlier about considering environment and net zero as a system: there is a need to embed climate considerations across all companies and all public bodies to ensure that our overall goals are met.
ESG strategies are increasingly common across public and private companies, as noble Lords will be aware. I note that other government-created bodies are developing ESG strategies. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority has recently published an ESG strategy, and the national infrastructure bank has a requirement to develop an ESG strategy in its framework documents. Bringing ARIA in line with other government organisations would again ensure consistency and its playing its part in the principal strategic goal of the nation.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall talk to Amendment 16, which I am hopeful that the Minister will tell us is unnecessary. I also strongly support my noble friend Lady Chapman in the amendments she has tabled, and I shall speak to that shortly.
I support Amendment 16 simply because, in today’s global arena, setting an environmental, social and governance strategy is seen as an important benchmark for how responsible organisations operate. This will be a responsible organisation and should comply with the norm that is increasingly being imposed on all organisations that operate in the economic environment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
The noble Lord was chastising the Explanatory Notes earlier for not explaining. On this occasion, I think the Explanatory Notes explain that the purpose of paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 is to exclude ARIA from the application of the Public Contracts Regulations. It does not include them.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I apologise for wasting the Grand Committee’s time. I go back to the simple argument I made in relation to Amendment 16; in today’s global arena, setting an environmental, social and governance strategy is seen as an important benchmark of how a responsible organisation operates. This will be a responsible organisation, so it should therefore have that obligation. I do not understand why it should be excluded from passing that obligation on to people to whom it gives public money.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Chapman’s Amendment 11 in particular, as well as others such as Amendment 15.
On value for money, I would like the Grand Committee to imagine the circumstances in 2026 when there is a massive row about something that ARIA has done, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee holds an evidence session and the National Audit Office is brought in, as it would be, to look at what went wrong. I am drawn to refer to this potential future situation because of advice that the NAO itself gave to the Select Committee in the House of Commons when it was first considering what, by the way, the Government then called ARPA.
I shall refer briefly to some of the areas that the National Audit Office says it would consider when it comes to considering the value for money in an organisation like ARIA. Its briefing says:
“Based on our experience, we would normally look for … a clear statement of the ultimate policy objectives – readily understandable to those charged with running the organisation and to those holding the organisation to account … a statement of what success will look like into the future – short, medium and longer term – which is particularly important for programmes where ultimate success may take years to realise … a roadmap which sets out the steps to deliver success along with a realistic assessment of the resources required and their timing – our work frequently points to a risk of optimism bias at the start of new programmes … a clear agreed sense of how risk should be managed, including the organisation’s and sponsoring department’s appetite to tolerate failure in pursuit of the objectives; and … an agreed approach to considering progress towards meeting the objectives.”
My point in raising this is to ask the Minister whether he will make some comment in his reply on the role of the National Audit Office in the running of ARIA and whether indeed it is expected to produce a value-for-money report.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I can probably help the noble Viscount. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Morse, has not stayed with us. I think what I am about to say was referred to in the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman.
Because the Comptroller and Auditor-General is specified as the person to examine, certify and report on the statement of accounts, the National Audit Act 1983 gives the Comptroller and Auditor-General the power to do value-for-money audits in the way that the National Audit Office does for all government and public departments. The power therefore already exists and there is no need for Amendment 11, as I think the noble Baroness herself conceded; it is simply not an issue. A power for the Comptroller and Auditor-General to carry out a value-for-money audit will exist and the audit will be carried out in the normal way that the National Audit Office undertakes its value-for-money audits.
Lord Fox (LD)
Again, this is an interesting group of amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, should be congratulated on tabling them. Bearing in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has just said, I was already planning to focus on Amendments 12, 13 and 14 and not to talk to Amendment 11, and that is probably a good idea.
However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that I do not think his work was wasted because one way or another he has managed to uncover the fact that the Government have decided deliberately to exclude this requirement that they expect every other central government purchase to meet. The Minister has a serious question to answer as to why that is being left out.
Amendments 12, 13 and 14 cover an important issue. I do not think we need to underline, after the week or 10 days that we have just had, why it is in the interests of ARIA itself for it to be seen that there is no conflict and there are no issues around where the money is being spent. In a sense, these amendments or versions of them, will help ARIA in its own housekeeping. Of course, the Electoral Commission will register donors. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman says, we then need a list of all the companies and then to go to Companies House to find out who is registered as being in control of those companies. Making it easier also makes it clearer to the ARIA administration what it is dealing with.
I go back to the statutory instrument that we are not debating today, which talks about conflict of interest—so it is clearly relevant. It says that a member of ARIA must disclose any “relevant interests” promptly on appointment. The trouble with that is that I do not think that many people can consider their donations to be a relevant interest, but they are relevant with respect to an organisation of this nature. So something clearer needs to be spelled out, either in the statutory instrument or in the primary legislation. I would prefer it to be in the primary legislation.
When that is done, in listing the companies that are being supported, I suspect that the Minister is going to stand up, in the same way as he is going to stand up when we debate the freedom of information stuff, and say, “This work needs to be kept under wraps and kept secret”. There is a balance to run on this, and if there is an issue we need to find a third-party agency to scrutinise it on behalf of Parliament. But to hide specifically through national security or proprietorial security is wrong, because in that darkness—even if abuses are not happening—the perception of abuse will happen, which will harm ARIA before it even starts.
Lord Broers (CB)
I have just a word of disagreement on some of this. Short-termism has been our problem; we must keep the timescales long enough. If you keep pulling the plant up and looking at the roots, it will not grow. On the other hand, one thing that we should practise from the beginning is what is in Amendment 16 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. The one thing that technologists have made a mistake on in the last decade or two is not to bring social scientists in early, to really look at the implications of what their technology will do. I strongly support that amendment, but I have severe reservations about the others.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed. These amendments relate to ARIA’s annual report and to other information to be provided to Parliament. As set out in Schedule 1, ARIA’s accounts must be prepared annually, alongside an annual report, which it will send to the Secretary of State, who must lay the report in Parliament.
Addressing Amendment 11 first, I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that ARIA will be audited by the National Audit Office—and I reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on that as well. The point was also well made by my noble friend Lady Noakes that the National Audit Office will be able to conduct value-for-money examinations of ARIA; the National Audit Office never shows any reticence to do precisely that. Indeed, it is able to do that as per the National Audit Act 1983 in the usual way, and the same controls apply to many other public organisations. As some of my spending schemes, within my responsibility, have been subject to National Audit Office examinations, I can assure noble Lords that it is extremely rigorous, as indeed it should be.
Other amendments relate to the specific contents of ARIA’s annual report. I agree on the importance of robust transparency and reporting arrangements in this regard. That is why ARIA’s annual report will align with the Government Financial Reporting Manual, which, for example, could require ARIA to publish information on its aims and achievements, performance, organisational structure, corporate governance and accountability.
On the list of projects that was asked for in Amendment 12 by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, publishing a list of delivery partners is not one, in my view, for primary legislation. The details of the annual report will be part of the framework document and, of course, the annual accounts will provide details of exactly where ARIA spends its money.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the Minister for what he said, but if he thinks that this is some short-lived political campaign on my part, he is mistaken. The issues of the potential for conflict of interest and the need to protect ARIA from accusations of cronyism were raised in the other place before the Summer Recess and they are certainly not a reaction to the current crisis in which the Government find themselves, but we cannot pretend that that is not happening. I fear that the Government have not shown themselves in the best light this in recent days or weeks, and we feel that these protections are needed for the benefit of ARIA. This is not about making a political point or having a go at the Minister or the Government at all; it is about protecting something that we all sincerely hope works and changes lives in this country. That is what we are about here. If I thought that the assurances that the Minister just gave were sufficient, I would certainly be happy not to return to this. Of course, I withdraw the amendment for today, but we will be coming back to this.
Baroness Noakes
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 17 and shall speak also to Amendment 20 in this group. These are probing amendments designed to explore the extent of the powers given to ARIA by virtue of paragraph 17 of Schedule 1. Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 17 says that ARIA can pretty well do what it likes, and this is expanded by some particular powers in sub-paragraph (2). The two I have focused on in my amendment are sub-paragraph (2)(a), which says that ARIA may borrow money, and sub-paragraph (2)(d), which allows ARIA to form and participate in partnerships and joint ventures.
My concern is that these powers will be used to create liabilities for the state and hence, ultimately, for taxpayers, beyond the resources that we were led to believe would be devoted to ARIA. As I remarked on Second Reading, there is a world of difference between placing a bet of £500 million or £800 million and underwriting someone else’s credit card. In the former case, there is the hope of winning very much more than the initial £500 million or £800 million, although, obviously, the possibility of losing the lot. In the latter case, there is the possibility of an unlimited amount of additional money being needed if the funds raised by the borrower failed to produce any return.
ARIA will be a public sector body in every sense of the term. It gets its money from the Treasury, it is subject to public sector audit and accountability arrangements and its key personnel are appointed by and paid in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State. It is always accepted that the state stands behind public sector bodies. That has been the case for as long as I can remember. If they fail, their liabilities are underwritten by the state. That is why there is usually a raft of controls placed on those bodies, including restrictions on the power to borrow money. The Treasury has an obvious interest in ensuring that public sector bodies do not create uncontrolled demands on public finances and, as a public sector body, ARIA’s borrowing will, I believe, automatically score as public sector borrowing. Will the Treasury really allow that to happen without controls?
I have focused on the borrowing power in sub-paragraph (2)(a), but my comments apply also to the ability to participate in partnerships and joint ventures, which are often structured in a way that means liabilities can be left with one of the parties to the venture. Private-sector counterparties would be queueing up to enter into arrangements which could possibly leave the state with the requirement to pick up the bill for failure. Similar dangers also apply in relation to companies which are allowed to be formed under sub-paragraph (2)(e), but I failed to table its deletion for today’s debate. I am not against partnerships, companies or joint ventures; they all have a part to play in working with private sector organisations. What I am against is the ability of ARIA to enter into arrangements that impose potential financial burdens on government finances without any controls or consents being required.
As it stands, Schedule 1 might allow some ex post interventions once the Secretary of State became aware of things that cause financial concerns beyond the initial amounts of money committed to ARIA—£500 million by the end of this Parliament—but the main tool he has is an extremely blunt instrument because it is related to replacing the members of the board. Even here he is restricted, as under paragraph 6(3) he can sack non-executive members of the board on any grounds he “considers appropriate” but, to get rid of an executive member, his power under paragraph 5(2) is restricted to grounds of “national security”. The real villains are more likely to be the executives than the non-executives, but the Secretary of State’s powers to deal with those individuals are, perversely, concentrated on the non-executives.
The notes given to noble Lords on this side of the Committee for today’s groupings said that my amendments would limit ARIA’s novel funding mechanisms. That gives an insight into what these powers are about. They are positively designed to allow ARIA to go beyond the resource envelope that has been announced for it. Calling funding “novel” might sound progressive, innovative and all those good things that ARIA is said to be focused on, but to those of us who have been around financing for rather a long time, it just sounds like another way of doing things to get around rules and restrictions. That would be okay if there were not ultimately recourse to public funds, but the Bill does not require borrowing to be on a non-recourse basis. It leaves public finances at risk to an unspecified degree.
I look forward to hearing from my noble friend how she thinks this very real risk will be managed in practice and how the Government have concluded that ARIA’s powers are compatible with sound public finances. I beg to move.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I had not had the pleasure of hearing from her at such length as we have today, and I am very impressed by her contributions. The issue of borrowing money is a concern. There is clearly the potential for financial risk but also significant reputational risk when a level of borrowing might emerge that may seem unduly risky. I am concerned about that and interested in what the Minister will say to prevent that concern doing any damage to ARIA.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, rarely have I got to the end of a speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and been crying out for more. On her second amendment, I wanted to know what she had against partnerships and joint ventures. I do not think there was a clear under -standing as to why that is a particular concern, given that many research processes go ahead collaboratively as joint ventures, partnerships or co-projects. I am interested to know, because I am sure there is a good reason; I just do not know what it is. While we are talking about that amendment, I would be pleased if the Minister could confirm that, whatever relationship ARIA is putting together, the National Security and Investment Act applies. I assume that to be the case.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, these amendments relate to ARIA’s supplementary funding powers—its ability to borrow and form and participate in partnerships and joint ventures. I will begin by clarifying some of the controls and rules that would govern ARIA exercising these powers and I hope I can find enough reassurance for my noble friend Lady Noakes here. She always starts a debate with a great deal of knowledge, so we always pay attention.
ARIA could only ever make use of a financial mechanism, such as borrowing, for the purpose of exercising its functions—to conduct scientific research and exploit and advance scientific knowledge. Any such activity would also be subject to conditions attached to grant funding provided by the Secretary of State under Clause 4. Any borrowing would also meet the stringent requirements and controls of HMT’s Managing Public Money, which sets conditions to ensure value for money. It would be agreed with Her Majesty’s Treasury in advance. This is part of a suite of non-legislative controls that exist on borrowing.
I also highlight that UKRI has the power to borrow. Mirroring that approach, it is reasonable for ARIA to have this full financial toolkit, as it may be appropriate for it to use in certain future circumstances. For example, one possible scenario in which borrowing may be useful would be if ARIA were to own a controlling stake in a subsidiary, which while partially government owned, aims to act with autonomy. Such an entity may want to borrow if purchasing a large capital asset, in order to resolve cash flow issues if an upfront payment were required.
On ARIA’s power to participate in partnerships and joint ventures, using this power ARIA could take an equity stake in a company forming around a new technology. This could provide a clear benefit in cases where the company is creating assets of strategic importance to the UK. On this point, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the National Security and Investment Act does indeed apply to all ARIA’s activities.
In another scenario, ARIA’s taking an equity stake in a company may help to crowd-in private sector interest, bringing in greater funding totals, lowering financial exposure and creating a clear pathway for the commercialisation of a technology. It is fundamental to the design of ARIA that it is able to innovate with different methods of funding high-risk research.
As I have made clear, appropriate checks are in place to ensure the Government can agree the details of any future borrowing activity, and the ability to engage in joint ventures will be an integral feature of ARIA’s full financial toolkit. I therefore see no reason the mechanisms available to ARIA should be limited through the Bill and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, not only for her kind words but for pointing out the reputational risk in addition to the financial risk. As an accountant, I tend to think of financial risk before anything else.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I did not say that I was against joint ventures and partnerships; I said that they were fine and that it was just a question of the degree to which, through those mechanisms, additional liabilities could be taken on that would then end up on the public sector balance sheet. Often joint ventures and partnerships are structured in such a way that, through those vehicles, access to additional borrowing of various kinds, or quasi-borrowing, can then end up coming back. Those are the reasons why I was probing in relation to joint ventures and partnerships. I accept that in many types of arrangement they are a natural way to do business in this area.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for what she said. I think she said that conditions could be attached to grant funding—indeed, there is a sentence on that in the Explanatory Notes for whatever clause relates to grant funding, which I cannot remember at the moment—but no other details were provided on how that works. Is that prospective? Is it done every time that money is paid over? I do not understand how it will work. Once ARIA has got hold of the money and does not need any more grant funding at that point in time, what powers do the Government have over its further borrowing after that?
My noble friend also talked about managing public money. I do not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of that, but from memory I could not see how that related to the issue I was really raising—whether you can borrow money without Treasury consent, which is what is implied by the statute, with it ending up on the public balance sheet.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Perhaps I could come back on that point. Any borrowing will be agreed with HMT in advance and will comply with the terms of managing public money, which requires that public sector organisations may borrow from the private sector only if the transaction delivers better value for money for the Exchequer as a whole.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I think I understand what my noble friend is saying. It is then about seeing how managing public money bites on ARIA, which has an unconstrained power to borrow. I would like to think about that further, and perhaps my noble friend could explain alongside that how conditions attaching to grant funding work in practice. Who says what to whom, and when? Perhaps then I can understand the mechanics of that. I am sure that, if the Government have thought this through, she will be able to give me a comprehensive answer on how we are not letting ARIA go out into the world and bust the public sector borrowing requirement—even more than it is already bust. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
This group consists entirely of amendments in my name. Very helpfully, they have been grouped together so you do not have to hear from me too often. Helpfully, it also groups together amendments which, from my point of view, are about the way in which ARIA acquires, creates, disposes of, retains and shares intellectual property. That is what we are really on about in this group.
Amendment 18 is the simplest and least interesting of them. It bears on this same area of the Bill and the question of the supplementary powers. In Paragraph 17(2)(b), where the power is given to
“acquire and dispose of land”,
the amendment would add the words “and other property”. I may be told that it is unnecessary, but I am not quite sure that I understand why, and why land is referred to while other property is not. Very often in legislation, “land and other property” is referred to.
Amendment 19 is in the same part of the Bill. It adds a further provision, concerning the powers that ARIA would have in connection with the exercise of its functions, for it to be able to
“acquire and license intellectual property”.
Maybe it has the power to do that, but I am not quite sure why other things are referred to as being supplementary powers and why the acquisition and licensing of intellectual property should not be referenced here. The purpose of my amendments generally is to try to give ARIA as much flexibility as possible in the way in which it acquires and uses its intellectual property. This amendment would say that it has the power to acquire and license, so licensing would be a specific power that it was able to exercise.
Amendment 22 gets us back out of the schedule and on to page 2. This is the point at which, under Clause 2, ARIA may attach conditions to the financial support that it gives—so imagine the relationship between ARIA and researchers, institutes, bodies, companies or whoever. Some conditions are referenced in Clause 2(4) about financial support being repaid, property being restored or information being provided. In Amendment 22 I propose that we want to make it clear that intellectual property forms part of those conditions and that it may be held by ARIA itself under those conditions or shared with the beneficiaries of support, obviously in ways that it chooses. From my point of view, ARIA wants to be able to hold on to intellectual property in some circumstances; it definitely wants to be able to share it with the beneficiaries of support in others.
In this context, the beneficiaries of support could include researchers who themselves become part of ARIA for a time. As I mentioned at Second Reading, one of the most notable characteristics of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, which used to be in my constituency, was that its researchers were able to generate, from very basic research, some applications that had substantial intellectual property value. For example, Greg Winter was at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology and made discoveries that led to monoclonal antibodies. If I remember correctly, he left LMB to form companies and exploit that, and then subsequently came back to LMB to do more research.
This is the kind of interchange that I suspect we want ARIA to be able to undertake. We want it to be able to bring people in and say, “We are going to share intellectual property with you. You will be able to exploit it and we will be able to exploit it. We can set up whatever arrangements are necessary in order to do this.” Amendment 22 would explicitly allow ARIA to enter into those sorts of arrangements with those who are the beneficiaries of its financial support and indeed those who are working directly for it as short-term researchers. The nature of the programme managers and researchers will generally be fixed term and quite short term.
Amendment 28 is in a slightly different part of the Bill—the part that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was talking about earlier, concerning grants made by the Secretary of State to ARIA itself and the conditions that may be applied. I am suggesting that there should be conditions, but conditions that in this case allow the Secretary of State, having made grants to ARIA, to allow the agency, having acquired intellectual property and value out of that research, to retain and reinvest it. That is a potentially not insignificant provision. On some occasions, for example, the LMB was generating more by way of revenue back to the Medical Research Council than the Medical Research Council was giving it in grants. DARPA in America, if I understand correctly, was investing in messenger RNA for vaccine production from 2013 and that has led to Moderna, which has valuations in the tens of billions of dollars.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on a lot of penetrating understanding of how ARIA will work. It will all be a matter of working with others and IP from others. Far more will come into ARIA than it will generate itself. It is all a matter of doing these deals. When DARPA was working on GPS, it needed technologies from everywhere; its genius was in pulling them all in, doing the deals and getting the whole thing co-ordinated and working. It was exactly the same with the internet and the vaccine. It is all to do with interacting with intellectual property. In the generation of intellectual property, leaving the benefits of it with the creators is what drives and motivates them to do it. I agree on the need to really think through the intellectual property relationships that ARIA will have with others.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question, to be absolutely clear about his Amendment 22? Let us say that ARIA comes up with a fantastic invention. Would his amendment enable ARIA to vest the intellectual property of that invention, which might be worth millions, both in itself and in the researcher or researchers who were personally involved in discovering it?
Lord Lansley (Con)
The purpose of Amendment 22 —this is in the part of the Bill about what conditions ARIA might attach to its financial support—is to give ARIA the flexibility to attach whatever conditions it wishes. In some cases, it might give financial support and not seek to retain intellectual property, or it may enter into an arrangement which says that it retains all the intellectual property, or somewhere in between. However, that is for the circumstances of the individual project rather than something mandated in legislation.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the more I look at this and listen to the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and, previously, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the more curious paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 1 becomes, because of both what is in it and what is not. I am prepared to accept the thesis of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that “and other property” would add some copper plating to it.
I hark back to the end of the response of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, at Second Reading, where I popped up and asked a question about property. The Minister was clear that this would include ARIA purchasing pieces of research equipment. Research equipment can run to many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds—at least as much as property—yet, somehow, that does not appear to be on this list either. There is perhaps work to be done to understand the objective of this list. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is to afford ARIA the amount of freedom that it needs, but it seems to be quite a selective list, and I wonder what it was based on in the first place.
I turn to the other amendments before us and suggest that perhaps the most important is Amendment 28. It is a great shame that, because of a prior appointment, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was not able to be here for this section at least because, when it comes to intellectual property, most of us know that he has a strong expertise. I know that he will read very closely the Hansard report of this and, far from marking the homework of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I am sure that it will be the Minister’s homework that he will be marking. I hope that we can return to it.
Looking at Amendment 28, it seems eminently sensible to legislate for success, because we want this to succeed. If this succeeds, there should be a flow of revenue coming back into ARIA. We need to understand that this will not then become a cash cow for other parts of BEIS or indeed the Treasury. What this amendment therefore seeks to do—and, I think, would achieve—is to put that ring-fence in place; for that, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, should be congratulated.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, for the second time today I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—the first was for saving me before the Minister had to expose my misunderstanding of a part of the Bill. He revealed, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, an even more fruitful argument for later in the consideration of this Bill, which I will look at more carefully.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to the specific provisions of paragraph 17 of Schedule 1. When I read it, I honestly do not understand the purpose of paragraph 17(2) at all, unless these powers are not included in what is I think the most expansive and limitless description of powers that I have ever seen anywhere. In paragraph 17(1), ARIA is given powers to do
“anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions.”
There does not seem to be any point in trying to list anything. I tried to see if there was anything in common with these particular powers that required them to be expressly described, and I may find out that that is right when the Minister responds.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord for opening up this issue of intellectual property, because it was my concerns about where the intellectual property may end up that caused me to table Amendment 30. It is against the recent experience of practice that has developed in this country of businesses with intellectual property that has been developed by public funds disappearing off, principally into the United States; this is sometimes because a business is stripped apart and the prize piece is taken out because it is of greater value in another marketplace than it is in ours.
This is an issue on which I hope to have an opportunity to expand when we get to Amendment 30, which is causing great concern to the Bank of England about its effect on the economy of the United Kingdom. I am sure we will get an opportunity to debate that next time we meet in Committee. I have nothing further to add, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, including for encouraging the noble Lord, Lord Broers, to explain why the freedom of intellectual property management is crucial to getting the best of ARIA.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I turn to a series of amendments that relate to ARIA’s intellectual property arrangements. I am particularly grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Broers. With all his wealth of experience, he has added much to the debate.
Turning first to Amendments 18 and 19 from my noble friend, I point out that in exercising its functions, there is already provision for ARIA to acquire and own physical property and intangible property, such as intellectual property. In compliance with its functions, ARIA can own property as it is a statutory corporation with its own legal personality. Paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 1 is not exhaustive, and therefore covers property and intellectual property as a subcategory of property. I hope that my noble friend will understand that I cannot accept this amendment, as it duplicates what is already provided in Clause 2.
Moving on to Amendment 22, I recognise the sentiment of this amendment, and I reassure my noble friend that ARIA will have the freedom to choose whether to retain or share its intellectual property rights. We recognise that ARIA’s intellectual property arrangements will need to be flexible, as they will vary depending on the research area, the amount of involvement of partnering institutions, such as business and academia, and the stage of technological development. ARIA will also have to agree bespoke intellectual property clauses tailored to the specifics of individual programmes and projects, given that commercial value is also likely to vary across ARIA’s portfolio. An amendment here is not necessary, as Clause 2(2)(c) already makes provision for ARIA to make available rights to, or license, its property, including intellectual property. I hope that I have managed to assuage my noble friend’s interest in the flexibility of ARIA’s intellectual property arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the acquisition of pieces of research equipment. ARIA will have the ability to do its own research if needed, it will have scientists and experts working for it and it might sometimes be simpler for ARIA to conduct research directly if needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, also expressed reservations about what ARIA could do. I should point out that ARIA is a statutory corporation. It will only ever act in compliance with its functions and powers and, as a consequence, the powers must, in general, be available.
Turning finally to Amendment 28, which relates to ARIA’s ability to retain income generated through the exploitation of intellectual property, I can assure my noble friend that I firmly agree on the intention behind this amendment. The ability for ARIA to retain income from its activities is subject to ongoing discussions with HM Treasury, and will be agreed to in compliance with the Government’s consolidated budgeting guidance. The detail of arrangements will be finalised as part of the funding delegation letter between BEIS and ARIA. It is therefore not appropriate for this to be placed in legislation. I hope that I have managed to assuage his concerns on those two important amendments, and ask him not to press them.
Lord Fox (LD)
On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that “It”—ie ARIA—
“can fund the purchase of a piece of research equipment, which ARIA then owns, and it can loan it out on the condition that it is then returned within a specific timeframe.”—[Official Report, 2/11/21; col.1204.]
So essentially, it becomes an equipment lending library. That is not exactly what the Minister has just said. Are the two things both true, is only one of them true, or what?
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, particularly because, as far as I can tell, we are all agreed that ARIA should have the flexibility to do these things. Where we not quite all in the same place yet is that it seems to me that the legislation can make that clear and it would be helpful if it did. Maybe we will come back to it and my noble friend will enlighten me. She seemed to say that in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 the reference to property encompasses intangible and intellectual property but the word “property” is not there. That is my point. The word “property” needs to be there in order for intangible and intellectual property to be encompassed within it.
There are circumstances—for example, where the Secretary of State makes grants to ARIA and where ARIA provides financial support—where my noble friend seems to be saying that it will have the flexibility to enter into all these agreements, to share its intellectual property, to secure the benefits and retain them and reinvest them but that does not need to be in the Bill. Yet, we have these places where there are little lists of what the conditions might be like or what the provision might include. They may be non-exhaustive lists but the only things that seem to be listed are things that constrain ARIA, rather than making it clear that intellectual property, which is at the heart of its activity, is something where it should absolutely have this kind of flexibility.
I know the Treasury would hate to have it in the Bill that ARIA can retain intellectual property revenues and reinvest them for its purposes but that is exactly why we should put it in the Bill. I think we will return to this issue. I gladly give way to my noble friend.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that paragraph 17 is not an exhaustive list. ARIA can develop and exploit scientific knowledge and this covers it getting a patent, under Clause 2(1)(b). The supplementary powers in paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 1 allow acquisition and disposal of property including intellectual property—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We will take this point away and clarify it.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I may have misinterpreted something earlier, but I do not think I have misinterpreted this. Paragraph 17(1) allows ARIA to do anything as long as it meets the test. It is judge and jury of its own testing. It allows it to do anything. What I do not understand is why there is a list below it because the list is just confusing. It misleads people into thinking that unless it is on the list ARIA cannot do it. It can do anything, almost, as long as it meets the test.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think, given the concerns raised, we will take it back and discuss this in the department.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Can I ask my noble friend the Minister to ensure that when she comes back she explains the relationship between paragraph 17 in Schedule 1 and Clause 2, which sets up ARIA’s functions but seems to go beyond functions into things it can do? Paragraph 17 then comes and says again the things it can do. I find that confusing and that confusion may be shared by other noble Lords.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. We are going to return to some of these issues and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]
Wednesday 17th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months 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)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, before we progress with Third Reading of this Bill, I would like to make a short statement about our engagement with the devolved Administrations. My officials and I have worked closely and collaboratively with the devolved Administrations throughout the passage of this Bill. We are continuing to discuss the requirements for legislative consent with the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government. I am grateful for their continued engagement on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking your Lordships for the constructive approach that has been in evidence throughout this Bill. We have had robust discussions and debates and the Bill is all the better for that. In particular, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Fox, for the time—sometimes a deservedly hard time—that they have given me.
The Bill will achieve four key outcomes for the UK. First, it will end unequal EU-based arrangements for the recognition of professional qualifications. Secondly, it will help to strengthen the UK’s ability to negotiate and deliver ambitious deals on the recognition of professional qualifications with international partners. Thirdly, it will help professionals to enter new markets. Finally, it will provide smooth working arrangements for recognition of professional qualifications across all four nations of the UK.
I recognise that the Bill did not enter your Lordships’ House in the good state in which it leaves. The experience, diligence and practical knowledge of noble Lords have moulded this Bill into what it is today. Enshrining on the face of the Bill the concept of regulator autonomy in regard to preventing unfit individuals from practising is a landmark event.
I was gratified that the government amendments, the stakeholder engagements and the supporting documents prepared over the summer between Committee and Report were well received. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lady Noakes for the expertise that they demonstrated throughout our discussions. I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, for the constructive nature of the conversations that we have had on this legislation. I also thank my ministerial counterparts in the devolved Administrations and their predecessors, whom I have met on five occasions and written to nine times this year concerning the Bill. I remain optimistic and hope that they will give legislative consent to the Bill.
I thank all the regulators to which this Bill applies. We have engaged with them through a variety of avenues, including seven round tables that I hosted. They, other professional bodies and the government departments with which we have engaged have helped to shape and improve this legislation as it has moved through your Lordships’ House and we are extremely grateful for their constructive involvement.
My thanks also go to the officials who have worked so hard to get us to this position. I give particular thanks to the policy team, led by Tim Courtney, who not only overcame the challenge of compiling the list of regulators but, with his partner Cathy, welcomed the birth of their daughter, Penelope, just 12 days ago. On behalf of your Lordships’ House, I wish all three of them the very best. Tim was ably assisted by Hannah Riches, Nick French, and Sarah Mackintosh, while the Bill team was led superbly in shipshape fashion by Jamie Wasley and Jennifer Pattison. I would further like to thank my private secretary, Zack Campbell, for his sterling service on the Bill, and of course the office of the Leader of the House and the Whips, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the clerks in this place. Last, but certainly not least, I thank my Whip, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for going the extra mile to put the Bill in the state in which it is. His statement today on his continuing engagement on legislative consent with the devolved Administrations is particularly welcome. In paying tribute to him, his Bill team and my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, I urge him to ensure that we see some fruit from the common frameworks and recognise their importance in implementing what is in not just this piece of legislation but other forthcoming legislation as well. I am personally grateful to him.
I thank the Law Society of Scotland, in particular Michael Clancy, at what has been a very difficult time for him through his illness. I also thank the Faculty of Advocates, of which I am a non-practising member, for its engagement in the round table hosted by my noble friend. I warmly thank my noble friend for all that he has done and I hope that the Bill will have a safe passage through the other place.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, this has been the first Bill I have taken part in since I joined your Lordships’ House. While I originally thought that it was going to be an important, if not straightforward, Bill, the legislation has been much more of an eye-opener than I was expecting. For example, I did not expect that simply asking who the Bill related to would result in such confusion from the Government and months of delay. Securing a list of regulators and professions in scope of the legislation has been important work. I recognise the effort that the Government have put in to compile the list, although I again suggest that perhaps it could have happened before the Bill was published.
It has been fascinating and enjoyable and I am glad that my first Bill has been so important both for British citizens who want to work abroad and for workers who want to bring their expertise to the UK. Our public services would not function without them and our communities are richer when they decide to make the UK their home.
Ultimately, I have seen first-hand how this House can really scrutinise and improve legislation. I am sure that the Minister will agree, as he has stated, that this is a better Bill now than when it was first introduced to Parliament. From the start, we on these Benches said that it should not undermine the independence and autonomy of regulators due to their important function of setting standards and protecting consumers. There was widespread concern from inside and outside the House that Clause 3 in particular could force regulators to lower standards due to what Ministers had agreed in the free trade agreements.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for working cross-party on this important issue. That is why the Government’s amendment to protect regulatory autonomy is such a welcome addition to the Bill. This is a big change and, while not perfect, it should protect domestic standards across 205 regulated professions. I pay tribute to all the regulators which have engaged so constructively with us.
As this was a skeleton Bill, we also pushed the Government repeatedly to consult regulators and devolved authorities on regulations. The Government’s amendment making statutory provision for consultation with regulators, including departments in devolved Administrations, is a good step forward.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, while it is undeniably true that this is a better Bill leaving the House than when it arrived, in particular because of the addition of Clauses 14 and 15, it was never clear to me what problem the Bill was seeking to address and whether indeed it was necessary. My noble friend claimed that four benefits would flow from the Bill. If ever there was a case for post-legislative scrutiny to see whether those benefits in fact accrue, this is one of them, because I am less than clear that the considerable effort that my noble friend has had to put in to turning the ragbag of a Bill that arrived here into something that resembles a meaningful contribution to the area of professions was a good use of his time and that of his officials. As I say, I am quite clear that it is a better Bill, but whether the Bill was ever necessary is an open question.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of the British Association of Snowsport Instructors and all the winter sports organisations, which have taken a very active role and interest in the passage of this Bill, I thank the Minister for his consistent, collaborative and close support for the British winter sports federations, particularly with the newly-formed contacts in UK embassies, addressing issues such as work permits, local regulations and overt protectionism. We have taken one step forward as a result of the Bill being before this House, but that one step has been very much as a result of the efforts of my noble friend, for which many thanks.
Lord Fox (LD)
On the assumption that there are no more professions that would wish to thank the Minister, I shall do so. I am pleased that he is continuing to work on legislative consent, which is important. Too many Bills are starting to come through your Lordships’ House where legislative consent is not given. Given the nature of this Bill, it is important that the devolved authorities are working with it 100%, so I thank the Minister for his statement and associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the role of frameworks.
It is something of a cliché to say, “The Bill leaves this place a better Bill”, but in this case the cliché is true. The Minister set out his view on that and other noble Lords have been more specific about its shortcomings. I will not go into them, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who has had an ear to this issue from the beginning and took the very worthy decision to put the Bill on holiday over the Recess and come back with something that we were all better able to support, with some reservations from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, whose whiply eye stared across at us when she thought we had talked for too long.
The Bill team has had a particularly rough ride on this, and I thank it for its work, as I thank the wider community that has fed into the Bill. I thank the ever-changing Opposition Front Bench for its engagement and work. Finally, I thank my colleagues, my noble friends Lady Randerson, Lady Garden, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Lord Purvis, as well, of course, and without whom we could not have survived, Sarah Pughe, our legislation administrator who drove us through all of this.
The Bill has a lot to achieve in that it needs to set out a structure for how the Government engage with the professions in future. It was quite clear that that engagement had not existed in the past, and perhaps this can be a stepping stone to a wider engagement between the Government and these regulatory authorities.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a profession, albeit one which is not mentioned specifically in the Bill. I still have some residual concern that, although we welcome the list, the way the Bill is drafted could incorporate professions not listed, because of some obscure entry in other pieces of legislation which have not been picked up. However, my main question is that a lot of work arising from the Bill remains to be done and the UK-EU Partnership Council has an important role to play. I am a keen follower of the Partnership Council, I look at its minutes and its meetings, and this issue, even though it has been identified as a priority, does not appear to have been discussed. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me that the matter will be dealt with with utmost haste.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments and thanks, particularly to my officials and the Bill team. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, that no one would have known that this is the first Bill that she had worked on, and I am sure that it is the first of many in which she will successfully participate. I have noted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and, if I may, I will write to him about where this stands in relation to the Partnership Council. I beg to move.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Wednesday 17th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-IX Ninth marshalled list for Committee - (15 Nov 2021)
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“(8) After section 102, insert—“102A Centralised monitoring of court decisions to impose youth custodial remand (1) Within six months from the day on which the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2021 is passed, the Secretary of State must nominate a body to collect, analyse and publish data on the decision-making process of courts when sentencing a child to custodial remand.(2) “Decision making process” refers to the consideration and application of the required Conditions for the custodial remand of children by the court, as set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.(3) A report on the findings must be laid before Parliament and published on an annual basis.(4) The first report must be published and laid before Parliament no later than 18 months from the day on which the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2021 is passed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce centralised monitoring of the youth remand decision-making process.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Before we come to this important group of amendments, I have one housekeeping matter. As noble Lords are aware, the amendments have been marshalled according to the instruction of 13 October 2021, and that puts Clauses 55 to 61 towards the end of our Committee stage. If noble Lords who have the ninth Marshalled List of amendments go to Amendment 319A, they will see a number of pages of government amendments which, in effect, introduce a range of new offences and new powers for the state. In effect, they introduce the offences of locking on and of being equipped for locking on, and they change the law on wilful obstruction of the highway and on obstruction of major transport works.
This is not for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, but it would be convenient if the Government, at some stage during Committee, indicated how they intend to deal with the pages and pages of amendments. A whole new structure of offences is being introduced in Committee in the Lords without the stages in the Commons having been gone through and without a Second Reading on those issues. This is not for now, because I have given no warning of it, but it will take as long as it takes to get an answer as to whether special provisions will be made, whether the Government intend to stop the Committee and have a Second Reading, or whatever. Whatever the plans are in relation to this, we on this side of the House—indeed, I think the whole House—would like to know, so we can think about how we deal with it, because it is an important issue.
The group we are about to deal with concerns youth justice. We are into a new part of the Bill and part of this group will raise issues about the age of criminal responsibility. The only reason I am starting is because my Amendment 219B requires the centralised monitoring of court decisions to impose youth custodial remands. As noble Lords will know, a whole new regime of remanding people aged 10 to 17 in custody was introduced by the LASPO Act in 2012. It gives rise to very practical difficulties throughout the country in relation to finding appropriate places to remand people of that age in what is, in effect, detention of some sort. There is no centralised monitoring.
In responding to this amendment, will the Minister indicate what the current arrangements are for monitoring this nationally, and what is the Government’s proposal, if any, for making sure that national statistics are regularly available? Without such statistics, it is difficult to have an informed debate about what additional provision is required, save to say that the experience on the ground is that there needs to be more proper provision over a range of options. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 220. I feel very strongly about the issue of the age of responsibility of children. I first raised it in this House in 2006, when a Labour Government dismissed it out of hand. I was for 35 years a family judge dealing with children; I happen also to have brought up three children, and I care about children. In 2006, what is now known about young children and the maturation of their brains was not particularly well known, but a great deal of evidence has now come forward. It was looked at by the Select Committee on Justice in the other place in November of last year.
Psychiatrists gave evidence, in particular about the fact that young children aged 10—and, for goodness’ sake, a child of 10 is young—do not really mature until considerably later. We have only to look at what is happening across Europe as an example. Scotland has raised the age to 12. The age of responsibility across Europe is either 12 or, in more places, 14. We remain at 10. I think it is probably because successive Governments, on both sides of this House, are afraid of what the public will say.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I present the apologies of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who is unwell and in some considerable pain. He is therefore not able to attend your Lordships’ House. On his behalf, I have his speech, from which I should like to read some extracts. I am sure that Members of the House of Lords will recognise, of course, that my noble friend had a Private Member’s Bill precisely on this issue, and that it passed all stages in this House. It fell because of Prorogation and therefore had no time in the House of Commons. This House has certainly made its view well known and presented it to the House of Commons. This amendment gives us an opportunity to make sure that what was decided by this House is carried forward.
My noble friend Lord Dholakia has said that, at present, in England and Wales, children are deemed to be criminally responsible from the age of 10, and this provision was last amended more than 50 years ago, in 1963, when the age of criminal responsibility was raised from eight to 10 by the Children and Young Persons Act of that year. This means that children who are too young to attend secondary school can be prosecuted and receive a criminal record. A 10 year-old who commits a “grave crime”—which includes serious, violent and sexual crimes but can also include burglary—will be tried in the adult Crown Court. A child of 10 or 11 who is accused with an adult will also be tried in the Crown Court.
The age of criminal responsibility in the United Kingdom is the lowest in Europe. In Ireland, in 2006, the age was raised to 12, with exceptions for homicide, rape or aggravated sexual assault. In Scotland, where the age of criminal responsibility was particularly low, at eight, legislation in 2010 amended it to age 12. Outside the British Isles, the age of criminal responsibility is invariably higher. In Holland, it is 12; in France, it is 13; in Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia and Romania, it is 14. In most other European countries, it ranges between 14 and 18. Across Europe the average age is 14.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly stated that our minimum age of criminal responsibility is not compatible with our obligations under international standards of juvenile justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In a statement in 1997, the committee said:
“States parties are encouraged to increase their lower minimum age of criminal responsibility to the age of 12 years as the absolute minimum age and to continue to increase it to a higher age level.”
In subsequent reports in 2005 and 2007, the committee reiterated that a minimum age below 12 is not internationally acceptable.
Taking 10 or 11 year-olds out of the criminal justice system would not mean doing nothing with children who offend; it would mean doing what other countries do with 10 and 11 year-old offenders. It would mean doing what we do with delinquent nine year-olds. In other words, it would mean dealing with the causes of these children’s offending through intervention by children’s services teams. In the minority of cases where court proceedings are necessary, it would mean bringing children before family proceedings courts, which can impose compulsory measures of supervision and care. In the most serious cases, this can mean detention for significant periods in secure accommodation, but this would be arranged as part of care proceedings rather than as a custodial punishment imposed in criminal proceedings.
In 2012, the Centre for Social Justice, which was set up by the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, produced a report on the youth justice system entitled Rules of Engagement: Changing the Heart of Youth Justice. It said:
“There is now a significant body of research evidence indicating that early adolescence (under 13-14 years of age) is a period of marked neurodevelopmental immaturity, during which children’s capacity is not equivalent to that of an older adolescent or adult. Such findings cast doubt on the culpability and competency of early adolescents to participate in the criminal process”.
The evidence internationally is overwhelming, and from the United Kingdom and from this House. There is extensive evidence from neuroscientists, psychologists and psychiatrists demonstrating the developmental immaturity of young children. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has expressed the view, based on evidence, that our age of criminal responsibility is too low.
While a 10 year-old might know that stealing something is wrong, their ability to apply that knowledge to their actions will be very different from that of an 18 year- old. This does not mean that children aged 10 or 11 have no responsibility for their actions, but on any reasonable interpretation of the evidence, they must be regarded as less responsible than an older adolescent or an adult.
The age of criminal responsibility is an anomalous exception. In relation to the age of consent for sexual activity, for example, we regard any purported consent as irrelevant in order to protect children from abuse or immature sexual experimentation. It is completely illogical that we regard immaturity in this context as worthy of protection by law but take a diametrically opposite approach when it comes to criminal responsibility. The illogicality of our current law is increasingly recognised. The Law Commission concluded last year that the age of criminal responsibility is not founded on any logical or principled basis.
The fact that the numbers involved are relatively small is a strong argument for this amendment. It means that it will not be a huge burden on resources to make alternative provisions through welfare interventions; nor would dealing with these children through non-criminal processes put the public at risk.
Children who are officially labelled as offenders often react by trying to live up to the label and acting in increasingly delinquent ways to achieve status in front of their friends. While the numbers are low, the resources needed to execute a shift towards treating these vulnerable children through a welfare lens, rather than a criminal justice one, would be small, and the positive benefits for them and for wider society considerable.
Even though some changes have been made to court processes involving children, it remains true that exposing young children to a criminal trial is no way to achieve justice. This is a short amendment but its recommendation, if implemented, will change the shape of our criminal justice system for our children.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, as I have supported the PMBs on this from the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, over recent years. The reasons for raising the age by the—goodness knows— modest enough margin of two years, from 10 to 12, are cumulative and compelling. If there is any objection to this amendment, it is that it does not go far enough, but I do not make that objection.
I have three reasons for supporting this. First, a 10 year-old’s mental capacities are not comparable to those of an older adolescent or adult. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has made these points about maturation, and I will not repeat them.
Secondly, criminalising these youngsters while they are still developing their identities and character and growing socially and emotionally is deeply damaging to their self-esteem and future prospects. Brand a child of 10 or 11 a criminal and that is how he will come to see and identify himself, and so he will behave in future. The subsequent criminal records of those who have been thus branded bear this out. Their records attest to it.
Thirdly, whatever their wrongdoing and however grave—to call it criminal is of course to beg the question—they will be dealt with in the same basic way whether they are convicted under the criminal justice system or dealt with through corrective welfare processes. If they need to be detained securely, they will be. The necessary measures can be imposed whichever route is taken, whether they are prosecuted as criminals or treated as however gravely miscreant children requiring correction. The public will not suffer if in future they are recognised as children who have done something dreadfully wrong rather than wicked criminals. On the contrary, the public will benefit. These children are more likely to lead law-abiding lives in future if we change our system at last.
It is high time to banish the long shadow of the tragic Bulger case—it has already been mentioned today—that, alas, is still cast and obscures the realities and common sense on this issue.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I also rise to support Amendment 220. When I was chairman of the Commission on Justice in Wales, we looked at this issue and had extensive evidence, including from the Children’s Commissioner for Wales. Without hesitation, we recommended that, were it free to do so, Wales should raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12, consistent with United Nations obligations it has untaken.
I agree completely with what has been said about the profound changes in the understanding of mental capacity that have taken place over the last 10 years in particular. I urge the Government not to delay any further a change to make our country no longer a laggard on this issue but one that is at least catching up. There are problems, such as knife crime, but the age of criminal responsibility is not the way to deal with them.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is very good to see the Committee refreshed and to have the opportunity to meet earlier in the day, so I thank the powers-that-be for making this possible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett, who has tabled Amendment 221. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, it is perhaps a softer option that your Lordships might find acceptable.
I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The only qualm I have about Amendment 220 is that it sets the age at 12 and not 14. Quite honestly, we treat our children in the criminal justice system absolutely abysmally, with demonstrably disastrous results and a recidivism rate of 40% within a year. This demonstrates that the courts are not working to address the issue of these children. As we have already heard, the Children’s Commissioner has described the youth justice system as “chaotic and dysfunctional”, and the children caught up in it are disproportionately from ethnic minority communities.
We are world leading in the awful way in which we treat children. At 10, we have the lowest age in Europe—far below the suggestion from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child of a minimum appropriate age of 14. That is the average across European countries, but even China and Russia—where the UK rightly often has cause to point out human rights abuses—have higher ages of criminal responsibility than we do. And we do not have far to look—we can go to Scotland to see exactly what happens there. There the age is 12, and I would prefer it to be 14.
This is not a moral question but a scientific one. Children’s brains do not develop as quickly as people might think. Children below the age of 14 are still developing the capacity for abstract reasoning. Their frontal cortex is still developing; therefore, they are unlikely to understand the impact of their actions. I think there is some political will in Westminster to take this evidence on board and, to use a phrase so loved by the Government, “level up” our youth justice legislation. In 2020, the Justice Committee recommended that the Ministry of Justice review the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Unfortunately, the Government seem to have chosen once again to renew their ideological commitment to being tough on law and on youth crime, even when it is committed by children. This is not an acceptable status quo either on human rights or on scientific grounds. Children are being failed by antiquated government standards. This is an outrage, and reform is needed.
If the Government cannot accept Amendment 220—which they absolutely should—Amendment 221, in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett, might be a soft option. Both she and I hate putting softer options to the Government, but, in this case, it might work. It would ensure a legally binding commitment on the UK Government to at least consider whether our abnormally low age of criminal responsibility is tenable, given international norms and expert opinion. My noble friend Lady Bennett would, of course, be happy to discuss a revised text for Report. Personally, I would tough it out and potentially vote for Amendment 220 and for our Amendment 221.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness who has just spoken. It is a pleasure, on this occasion at least, to follow her. I do not necessarily agree with some of the language she used. I do not feel a sense of outrage about this issue. I feel shame and sadness and I agree strongly with the speech of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, and other noble Lords who have spoken on this issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, used the term “outlier”. That is what I had scribbled down on the piece of paper in front of me. We are the outliers on this. As the noble Baroness said, in Russia the age of criminal responsibility is much higher. Indeed, the general age of criminal responsibility there is 16, with 14 for exceptionally serious offences. I have visited a number of countries in central and eastern Europe and looked at the way in which young children who have committed serious offences are dealt with, and I do not notice a higher level of disorder in a single one of these countries. I do not know any country with a higher age of criminal responsibility in which children roam the streets committing crime to a greater extent than—very occasionally, fortunately—happens here, and I can see absolutely no empirical reason for turning down this amendment.
I have also observed how children behave when they are sent to Crown Courts. I am happy to note that far fewer children are being dealt with in Crown Courts than used to be the case and that the Crown Prosecution Service is being much more sensitive than it used to be at one time as regards the joinder of children with adults in Crown Court trials. The CPS has recognised that, wherever it is possible, children should be dealt with in the youth court. That has led to a reduction in the number of Crown Court trials.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I support Amendment 220. I endorse it completely and have nothing further to say on it. Noble Lords have spoken with great eloquence and force. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has explained, my Amendment 221ZA, is a probing amendment designed to correct the terms of a subsection in Amendment 221 in case that amendment goes forward and the Government are interested. Let me explain.
I should say at once that Amendment 221 is, in principle, good. If accepted, it would require the Government to carry out a review of the age of criminal responsibility. I have no argument with that whatever. The issue that I raise is with the list of factors to be considered by any such review and, in particular, the use of the word “gender”. The right word there should be “sex”. The requirement in Amendment 221 is that the review should take into account certain factors. It can take other factors into account, but the following are mandatory:
“age, gender and ethnic background”.
My focus is on gender. Those noble Lords who sat through the important debate on Monday night will have heard lengthy discussion of those terms and their use in legislation. I will come back to that.
When I drafted my amendment rather hurriedly on the Thursday, I focused on the terms in the Equality Act. Why I did so will become obvious in a moment. I used too many words; I just lifted other factors in order to include them. I am now satisfied that the only proper course is to remove the term “gender” and substitute that with “sex and gender reassignment”. The cohort, if the review were to take place, will be those under 18 and, for the large part, those materially younger. One could call them children. Importantly, “sex” is established in statute and describes physiology. It is not a social construct. It is easily identified, and is listed and defined, as I shall explain, in the Equality Act. It should be noted that “gender” is not so defined. I say that for noble Lords who were not here on Monday or have not studied the Act in detail.
Section 11 of that Act states:
“In relation to the protected characteristic of sex … a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman; … a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.”
There is further elaboration in Section 212, which defines “man” and “woman”—in other words, the terminology that has just been explained. It states that,
“ ‘man’ means a male of any age … ‘woman’ means a female of any age.”
There we have it all clearly defined. Sex is a physiological condition and, importantly for the purposes of a review, it is an objective fact, not someone’s opinion. It is not what someone identifies as. We are talking here about people under 18, usually those much younger. Also, we all know that sex is registered at birth. It is on the birth certificate.
In the case of a small number of people who are under 18 and may fall within the ambit of the review, there may be those to whom the term “gender assignment” will apply. They will be few, but if that does apply within the meaning of the legislation, that, too, will be a fact, not an opinion. That is because gender reassignment is also a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Section 7(1) of that Act defines gender reassignment as follows:
“A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”
So gender reassignment likewise refers to a physiological process and does not include mere self-identification or opinion. Lastly, in case anyone were to ask, “What about gender recognition certificates?”, they simply do not apply. One cannot have one of those if one is under 18. I say that so that everyone knows where we are.
Put simply, if there is to be such a review, the mandatory—if that is the right word—considerations should be age, sex, gender reassignment and ethnic background, but not gender. I commend this approach and await with interest the Minister’s response.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I should say briefly in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—perhaps it is not my place to do so because it was her amendment that I signed—that I should thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. We have been using various terms in Committee, but on this occasion he must be right. If one were considering children under 18 in the context of a review of the age of criminal responsibility, it would be a glaring omission to include “gender” instead of “sex” in the legislation.
Sometimes it may be appropriate to use both terms, and I supported that position on Monday in the particular context of a different amendment about hostility towards people. What I tried to suggest, and which Twitter does not reflect, is that hostility can be towards people in broader categories than those protected under the Equality Act. I would not want someone to be subjected to violent hostility, even on grounds that are not currently in the Equality Act, because they were non-binary or whatever. That is not really the point in this context. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, put it very well.
What is more, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will forgive me for making that concession, given that this is a probing amendment and her list of factors to be considered in any review was inclusive and not closed. I hope it is helpful to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in this way.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I broadly support a rise in the age of criminal responsibility. I think the review is a good idea, and of course it should be science-based. The danger of going for 12 years, which is an improvement, is that it could be higher if only we thought about it well. I would be open-minded on whether it needs to be a matter of law or a government commitment to carry out a review.
There is just one area which I hope such a review might consider. The Bulger case is often referred to, for obvious reasons. Hard cases can make very bad law; we are aware of that. But I do think that that type of case imposes a duty on government to consider people’s concerns. There are two concerns that people might have if they lived in the area. One is where the child would live on return to society. That could be covered through care proceedings—you can control where someone lives and who they live with. The second is their occupation. If, at the age of 18, the murderers were released—as they were in the Bulger case—and wanted to go into childcare, or any of the care professions, would people be content with that? There would at least be a question about whether that would be wise. If they only have a care proceeding against them, they would be perfectly entitled not to declare what they were involved in at the age of 10. My point is not that they should be criminalised and therefore always carry that with them, but about how you manage their occupation, subsequent to their reaching an adult stage. It can be managed without criminalisation, but such a review might want to consider how that could be done most efficiently.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am constantly amazed by the persistence of this generally civilised country in being willing to treat children of 10 and 11 as criminally responsible.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lord German, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and all other noble and noble and learned Lords who have spoken have made the argument persuasively and on the basis of the scientific, social and international evidence. I say no more about the strength of the evidence.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, also pointed out the degree to which government inaction on this issue has been based on public prejudice and the Government’s pandering to it. Bluntly, that is moral cowardice, not leadership. Many of us find it unbelievable that, uniquely in western Europe, our children of 10 and 11 can be treated as criminals, when it is entirely clear that they lack the psychological maturity that is appropriate for any legitimate view of criminal responsibility. Why did change come successfully to Scotland and yet the Government seem unprepared to make it here?
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue for many years. I know he will have been most disappointed to have been unable to attend to speak today. But the House has fully recognised in this debate his commitment and his major contribution on this issue, and we will wish to send him our good wishes for a full and swift recovery.
Amendment 221A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord German has a different purpose. It is to pursue the worthwhile goal of diverting young offenders away from the criminal justice system and towards alternative methods of encouraging them to avoid offending. Youth offender teams have been established since 1998 and have as their function helping young offenders under 18 under supervision of the Youth Justice Board. Central to their function has been to establish services within their local communities to help prevent offending and reoffending. They have a wide remit that permits them to organise a range of activities in an effort to keep young people away from crime. Sometimes this involves involving young people in a form of restorative justice by bringing them into contact with their victims and helping them to organise reparation where it is thought that might help the offender and be accepted by the victims. Among their functions is to help supervise community sentences for young people. Our amendment is designed to help youth offender teams fulfil their function by diverting young people within their area away from the criminal justice system.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 221B in my name, which is a probing amendment on the need for a review of youth sentencing. I would also like to refer to my interests as set out in the register.
I appreciate that this is a very extensive Bill, and as a former member of the Youth Justice Board and a youth magistrate I note that there has been little reference to the youth courts. It would be a real opportunity lost not to commit to undertake a review of youth sentencing, especially with the ever-evolving criminal justice landscape.
As I mentioned on Second Reading, I have several concerns relating to youth sentencing, and one in particular that I would like to refer to today, which is the unfairness in the treatment of the jurisdiction of young offenders under 18 years of age with regard to the dates of the offence and their first court appearance. Simply put, young people who commit an offence as a child but are then not brought to court before their 18th birthday through no fault of their own are treated as adults in the adult courts. However, defendants who do not get to court before their 18th birthday will go to the youth court where they will benefit from all the specialisation and expertise of the youth court, the youth court practitioners and the youth court’s specific focus on the defendant’s needs and welfare.
It should not be a postcode lottery of where you live due to multiple issues, including court scheduling, that can affect which court you end up in and therefore how you are dealt with. Reforming this now is important, so that defendants are instead dealt with according to their age at the time of the alleged offence, which would mean that youth justice principles would be followed and all defendants would be given the same opportunity and fairness in having access to the youth court services and the support that is so needed to reduce reoffending. We know that the adult court cannot offer the same specialist support as the youth court.
In February, the MP for Aylesbury, Rob Butler, introduced a 10-minute rule Bill on this issue in the other place, where he outlined how his proposals garnered a wide range of support, not only cross-party support but support from key stakeholders and organisations including the YJB, the National Association for Youth Justice and the Magistrates’ Association. There seems to be no common sense or fairness that these young people are treated so differently.
The Covid-19 pandemic has thrown up challenges and, in turn, some positive innovation in youth justice. At the same time, there remain outstanding anomalies in youth sentencing that pre-date the pandemic; I have spoken about some of those issues before in this place, and again today. All taken together, surely now is the right time to commit to a wide-ranging review and for the Government to bring forward a report. In doing so, not only can we address and meet future challenges, and keep under review the innovation we have seen, such as the use of video linking, to ensure that it results in the intended outcomes; importantly, we can also help to address the historical anomalies in the system that existed well before Covid-19.
I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister and hope that he will consider this review, which I hope will help to deliver and improve outcomes in youth justice.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for speaking before her; I did not realise that she wanted to speak. I also apologise for erroneously referring to her as the noble Lord, Lord Sater.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 221A, which would make youth diversion schemes statutory. I will say a few words about that, as well as about Amendment 219B in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
Formal criminal justice system processing—for example, through prosecutions or out-of-court disposals—makes children more, not less, likely to offend. The further a child is processed inside the formal criminal justice system, the greater the likelihood of reoffending, especially for lower-risk children. There is strong evidence both nationally and internationally that youth diversion can reduce crime, cut costs and create better outcomes for children. However, it is currently a non-statutory function for youth offending teams.
We know that practice varies considerably between areas and that some areas have no diversion scheme at all. The 2019 mapping exercise carried out by the Centre for Justice Innovation found that, of the 115 youth offending teams responding, 19 said that they did not have a point of arrest diversion scheme. There is a wealth of great work going on across the country, but there is a dearth of best-practice exchange. I believe that it is quite correct that there should be the principle of local decision-making because that can bring together the wide range of partnerships needed to make any programme work. Keeping it local means that the team can do its work best.
However, the picture is of a set of procedures that are variably practised—some with both breadth and depth, and some without one or other of those attributes. Locally, practitioners are dedicated and have built up some very impressive practices, but in many areas the eligibility criteria are unduly strict, the referral processes slow and the interventions too lengthy. Youth offending teams are not to blame for the variation we see. Because it is non-statutory, we lack robust data and data analysis. Many youth offending teams struggle to keep their services within budget, and staff and funding may not always keep pace with the increased workload, especially when it is non-statutory.
We need a better understanding of what is happening on the ground, where the gaps in provision are, how good schemes can be supported and how good practice can be passed on. The way to achieve this is to make the service statutory and to support the work with funding as necessary. Amendment 219B, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has much the same knowledge request. Basically, you cannot know what you do not know, and if you do not know what the figures and statistics are, you will be unable to take action accordingly. Understanding this better matters both locally and nationally. I believe that making this statutory would ensure that the good practice which abounds in our country is given the opportunity to grow even more, so that we can divert as many young people as possible from the criminal justice procedure. But to do that, we need certainty, and this amendment provides it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I join noble Lords in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, well and a fast recovery. He has played an important part over many years in the debate on child responsibility and the criminal responsibility age. We miss him today in this debate.
I also express my unconditional support for Amendment 221A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord German, which would put pre-charge diversion schemes on a statutory basis. As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, these good schemes are present in many places; it would be a good thing if they were put on a statutory basis.
I agree with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, on Amendment 221B. I will be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, says about it. I do not know whether a review of the whole sentencing position in relation to the youth court is the right answer—let us see what the Minister has to say—but the noble Baroness’s points were powerful and important, and the Government need to deal with them.
The main issue in the debate on this group is the age of criminal responsibility. The case for increasing it has been made overwhelmingly and I agree with it, particularly the point about evidence on the maturation of children and whether they should be viewed in the same category. I strongly support the view that that would increase reoffending because it would make a child see himself or herself as a criminal, which is bad for society. I was also influenced by the point that we are an outlier and that what we do with children, whether in the care system or in the criminal justice system, should not be different.
I have one big concern, however. I do not accept the characterisations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Both referred to the incredibly tragic Bulger case, saying that you should not give way to pressure because it does not show leadership when dealing with a case like that; the noble and learned Baroness referred to the tabloids. What happened in the Bulger case was awful and had an utterly legitimate effect on the Merseyside community. To try to dismiss that as something “got up by the tabloids” is, in my respectful view, to misunderstand utterly the significance of the event. Also, if you speak to people who were involved in the Bulger trial, you realise that it was an incredibly important trial. It lasted a month and brought to the fore a whole range of things that were troubling the community, and it also identified what had happened.
For justice to work in our country, it must to some extent reflect reasonable views about what should happen. I do not say that as a result of the Bulger trial, the age of criminal responsibility should be 10. But in considering how to deal with the age of criminal responsibility, which may well go up to 12—the evidence on that is overwhelming—you have to have a justice system that functions properly to deal with that sort of case. Otherwise, the community reacts not because they are inflamed by the tabloids, but honestly and in a normal way to what has happened.
Jamie Bulger’s parents, quite legitimately, made public what had happened and the community knew what had happened. The justice system must be able to deal with that, perhaps through some sort of intermediate proceedings; however, we do need to address this. To those noble Lords, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, who say that it casts a long shadow, I say this: it does and it is still there, and it must be dealt with.
Subject to that, I am in favour of increasing the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to something higher. I am not as dismissive as other noble Lords of having some sort of review to deal with this. It would need to look at the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which are important. Also, if you are taking 10 to 12 year-olds out of the criminal justice system, it would need to consider how to deal with the issues raised by the Bulger trial, perhaps not through criminalising but through some other process.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord misunderstood, if I may say so, what I was saying. Of course one had to treat the Bulger case with great care. I had a part in giving what were by then two young men lifetime anonymity, so I had to learn a great deal about what went on. Of course they had to be dealt with severely but what should happen in the future, in another case, should be, under the Children Act, secure accommodation, where they could have been kept as long as if they had been criminalised. I was merely using that appalling Bulger case as an example of how 84,000 people thought that they should stay in prison for ever, until they died. My point was not to treat the Bulger case as less serious; it was unbelievably serious. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, it has cast a long shadow, which continues today. The Bulger case was wrong in that the children should not have been tried in an adult criminal court. It was purely and simply to show the punitive element in this country, which had a marked effect on the noble and learned Lord’s Government. When I raised this issue in 2006, I was dismissed summarily, it being seen as quite unsuitable to raise the age from 10 to 12. That Government were without the evidence that there is today, but, for goodness’ sake, they also took the view that Lucy Frazer took to Sir Robert Neill’s committee.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, that was my fault. I was not for one moment suggesting that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was saying that the Bulger case did not require enormously sensitive handling, nor that she was in any way underestimating the seriousness of it. I was seeking to say that the fact that there were tabloid campaigns about it and that people were very concerned about it was absolutely legitimate. What they were asking for was not necessarily legitimate, but there was very real concern. Obviously, there must be anonymity, but if the matter is dealt with entirely in the care system, without any public element of how the law is dealing with it, then the community never gets satisfaction in relation to what is happening. By satisfaction, I mean that there must be some recognition within the justice system of the appalling nature of what has happened.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Surely the noble and learned Lord is not saying that the public aspect of this, which he describes rightly, must be dealt with by a criminal trial. Numerous other mechanisms can be used. An inquiry, for example, can ventilate all the public factors that need to be discussed without the artifices of a criminal trial for 10 year-olds.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I agree that it does not need to be dealt with in a criminal trial, but there needs to be some process. Before one increases the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12, which we should do, this must be looked at. This is why I rather favour the second amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which is a review of this, because broadly the case is made in relation to it. It probably should not be something ad hoc, as is the nature of an inquiry, but it should have some recognition that cases such as the Bulger case, which have a significant effect on not only the local but the national community, must be dealt with in a special way.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with everything that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, have said. I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has accepted my point, which to a certain extent is the same as that made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that we do not wish to reduce or minimise the importance of the Bulger case. My point is that, where publicity is as extensive as it was following that case and where the publicity seems to be directed as in the example that the noble and learned Baroness gave, producing a result where children under the age of 12 would be sent to prison for life and be treated by ordinary criminal process, which is entirely unsuitable for children of that age, the Government must show moral leadership and change the position based on the evidence, rather than taking a political view that it might be easier to duck the question when the evidence is so clear. That is the point that I invite the noble and learned Lord to take. I understand that he supports the increase in the age of criminal responsibility, but I do not hear him saying that the Government must show the leadership to do that in spite of publicity to the contrary.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I accept that the age of criminal responsibility should go up. I strongly endorse what everybody is saying about the Government and, in particular, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is saying about the Government showing leadership in this respect. I also endorse what he says about the Government needing to show leadership in standing out against campaigns that seek to criminalise people under 10 or, in the campaign that he was referring to, between 10 and 12. My point, which I keep coming back to, is that this Committee should not underestimate, or treat as simply got-up, campaigns concerning the justice system, which in some ways expands beyond the criminal justice system, in cases such as the Bulger case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, these amendments concern youth justice matters. I will address each of them in turn.
Amendment 219B, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, would require the centralised monitoring of youth remand decisions made by the court and the laying of a report of findings before Parliament on an annual basis. I understand that the amendment’s purpose is to improve the scrutiny and monitoring of youth remand trends. However, that is precisely what our measures seek to achieve, as I will explain, while leaving the detail of operational processes to the various operational bodies. We think that this is the better way to do it.
The new measures will require the court to be explicit that they have considered not only the two sets of conditions but the interests and welfare of the child. Furthermore, while at the moment the court only has to explain the reason for remand in open court and specify it in the warrant and in the register, our new subsection (5)(za) requires that the court also gives the reasons in writing to the child, their legal representative and the youth offending team, which will enhance the ability of those justice partners to monitor the reasons for custodial remand.
Turning to the specific question put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on what arrangements are in place for monitoring courts’ decisions and whether statistics are readily available, as I have said, courts already state in open court their reasons for remanding the child to youth detention accommodation. That information is included on the warrant of commitment and the court register. Pronouncement cards from the Sentencing Council provide guidance to the judiciary on how to do that.
As for statistics, my department already publishes annual statistics on court outcomes on youth remand. The population on remand in the youth custody estate is published monthly. We have new IT systems being developed and, in light of those new systems, we will reconsider the best way to collect, analyse and, so far as is appropriate, publish the information that courts will now be required to provide in writing. However, it is best to leave that granular level of operational process to the entities doing the work on the ground, rather than to prescribe it in statute. Our intentions are certainly aligned. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate the need for pragmatism in how best to achieve that.
Amendments 220, 221 and 221ZA seek to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 and to require the Secretary of State to complete a review of the age of criminal responsibility including, as my noble friend Lord Sandhurst explained, an assessment of the protected characteristics of children in detention, under the Equality Act. I listened very carefully to my noble friend and, I think it is fair to say, I set out the position on that in some detail on Monday. With respect, I am not going over that again. I hope I made the Government’s position clear on Monday.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss for raising Amendment 220. I am aware, as she said, that she has brought this to the attention of the House on a number of previous occasions. As far as open ears are concerned, I assure the noble and learned Baroness that my ears are always open. I listened carefully to her speech and the speeches of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I join other noble Lords in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who is absent, a speedy and full recovery.
I will set out the Government’s position on this issue. We believe that setting the age of criminal responsibility at 10 provides flexibility in dealing with children, allowing early intervention with the aim of preventing subsequent offending. Our primary objective when it comes to children, as I have made clear on previous groups, is to prevent children offending in the first place. Where there is offending, we need to provide the police and courts with effective tools to tackle it. Critically, having the age of criminal responsibility at 10 does not preclude other types of intervention—for example, diversion from the criminal justice system—where it would be a more suitable and proportionate response. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord German, that diversion from the criminal justice system should be at the heart of how we approach children in the vast majority of cases.
When considering the most appropriate and proportionate response to offending by a young person, the maturity and needs of a child, as well as their age—to make the obvious point, a 12 year-old is not a 17 year-old—are always considered. We also consider protected characteristics in our work, as per the public sector equalities duty. This is borne out in practice. Most children aged 10 to 14 are diverted from the formal criminal justice system or receive an out of court disposal. The number of children aged between 10 and 12 years in the youth justice system has fallen dramatically since 2009, and we are keen for that downward trend to continue. Since 2010, which is more than a decade ago, no 10 or 11 year-olds have received a custodial sentence.
It is, however, important—to this extent, I adopt the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton—to ensure that, when appropriate, serious offences can be prosecuted and the public protected. The horrific Bulger case has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords and I remember it clearly. I grew up in Liverpool and it shocked my native city to the core. Whether we are talking about the Bulger case or any case involving children, even the most serious, there is a distinct and separate sentencing framework for children aged 10 to 17, which recognises that they have their own specific needs that require a different and more tailored approach. That looks at age, so someone aged 13 is treated differently from someone aged 17 and a half. As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, that pervades the approach of the criminal justice system to children. It is not a matter just of clothing, words or wigs; there is a fundamentally different approach tailored to dealing with children.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Will the Minister deal with two points that he has not yet addressed? First, even Scotland has gone to the age of 12, and right across Europe it is at least 12 or 14. He has not dealt with why we are now, alone in Europe and in the United Kingdom, at 10. Secondly, it is contrary to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Government seem to be ignoring that.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I appreciate that there is a range of ages across Europe. We are at 10; some are at 12; some are at 14; some are at other ages. I have sought to set out why we believe that 10 is the correct age, given the way that our criminal justice system deals with children. I appreciate that what I have said will not have persuaded the noble and learned Baroness, but it is not simply a question of looking at the age but at how the criminal justice system as a whole responds to very young offenders.
As far as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is concerned, Her Majesty’s Government believe that we are in compliance with our international obligations. Indeed, as the noble and learned Baroness will know, that convention was the subject of a recent Supreme Court decision on the different ways in which England—or to be more precise, the UK—and Scotland, which wants to incorporate it into domestic legislation, have applied that convention.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. On the jurisdiction of under-18 year-olds, it does not address the fact that they will not get all the wraparound services and support from the youth court and youth practitioners. Furthermore, if they go to the adult court, they will still not get a referral.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the question, and for taking the time to discuss it with me in the past. Because the offender is 18 at the time of the case and of the sentence, the system has to respond to the fact that they are now adult. It may well be, in some cases, inappropriate to lump that adult in with children. Some sentences and responses that the youth court can give to children would be inappropriate for someone who is now an adult of 18. I suggest that the fact that the court starts with the sentence that would have been appropriate at the time of the offence, and then takes into account all other relevant factors, means that we deal with these cases suitably, bearing in mind the time gap before sentencing during which the offender has reached legal maturity.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My amendment was the monitoring amendment and was not the heat and burden of this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I cannot call Amendment 221ZA, as it is an amendment to Amendment 221.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes “pupils” to “students” to refer to those attending a secure 16 to 19 Academy. No difference of meaning is intended; the change is to avoid confusion arising from the fact that “pupil” is defined in the Education Acts to refer to those attending a school (and a secure 16 to 19 Academy is not a school).
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 222 and 223, which I move today on behalf of the Government, are technical amendments to Clause 139, which clarifies that 16 to 19 academies can provide secure accommodation and allows for the establishment and running of secure 16 to 19 academies to be treated as a charitable purpose. The amendments, as can be seen from the Marshalled List, are a technical tweak, and will have no practical impact on the children or young people placed in these secure academies, or on how the academies are run. They are simply there to ensure consistency with other education legislation. “Pupil” is defined in the education Acts to refer to those attending a school; 16 to 19 academies are not, in the legal sense, schools, and “student” is the standard term used in the context of such academies.
I am conscious that this group also contains amendments from the noble Lord, Lord German, on the organisations which can establish a secure school, and from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, on local authorities’ secure accommodation provisions. I propose, if the Committee finds it helpful, to pause my remarks now, having introduced my amendments, and allow other noble Lords to speak to those amendments, and then I will respond. I see some nodding heads. If that meets with the Committee’s approval, I will sit down, having formally moved my amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am going to talk about Amendment 223B onwards; Amendment 223A comes first, but I am happy to start with those.
Amendments 223B to 223F have been suggested by the Mayor of London’s office to place a new duty on relevant local authorities in England to convene a new secure accommodation local partnership board that would assess the need for secure accommodation and develop a strategy for tackling any shortfall in secure accommodation. There is, as everybody knows, a significant lack of secure beds in London for young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. This results in them being dispersed across the country, far away from their families and the professionals committed to their care and well-being.
While this is a particular concern in London, it is also the case in other parts of the country. There are only 15 secure children’s homes in England and Wales, and none in the London area. The recent decision of the Ministry of Justice to remove all children from a key institution detaining young offenders in the United Kingdom—namely, the Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre—meant that more London children were sent away from where they lived. They are being provided with neither the care nor the welfare that they need as vulnerable young people. The recent critical inspection report on the Oakhill Secure Training Centre, alongside the decision to close Rainsbrook, also raises worrying concerns about the future of this type of facility.
It is crucial that such provision is available for those who might be placed there on welfare grounds and for those within the criminal justice system. Amendments 223B, 223C, 223D, 223E and 223F, in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, give effect to this proposal.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for being slightly out of turn; I will speak to Amendment 223A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Marks, on secure accommodation and local authority provision. In December 2016, the Government committed to phase out juvenile young offender institutions and secure training centres and to replace them with a network of secure schools. These have since been renamed secure 16 to 19 academies. Legally, they will be approved by the Secretary of State for Education as secure accommodation and are defined in the Bill as “secure children’s homes”.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord German. I know that he has an immense amount of experience in matters around education, from both his personal experience of teaching in earlier decades and his work in the Welsh Assembly Government. I probably support his amendment, but I am much less interested in the amendments here than in achieving a shared purpose, which is that children who are in custody have the chance of a quality education which will enable them to go on to higher education, where appropriate, good apprenticeships and other forms of training which will give them a decent chance in life—most of them not having had a chance in life. I am afraid it is a truism, at least in my experience of visiting many institutions holding children, that for many of them, that institution is the most comfortable and secure place, emotionally, that they have ever lived. That is a sad commentary on their situation.
I carried out some voluntary work for the Howard League some years ago, and it involved visiting Oakhill, Rainsbrook and, indeed, Feltham—a place which has been through good and bad patches over the years but, from what I hear from people who work there, is at the moment pretty challenging and not providing children with a particularly good education.
The ambition that we surely all share is that there should be a consistent level of good education throughout those institutions. I will give an illustration of why. When I was doing the voluntary work for the Howard League, of which the current president is another Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven—I am very happy to see him in that role—I went to one of the institutions that I have named. I was taken around and a boy of about 16 asked me to go into his room, as he called it. I went into his room and all over the wall there were maths certificates, including a grade A GCSE maths certificate. I said something really silly like, “You must be very good at maths.” He said, “I love it, sir. I want to be a maths teacher when I leave this place.” I do not know what happened to him, but he certainly had the ability to be a maths teacher. The reason he got that maths GCSE was because there was one really inspired teacher in that institution who spotted his talent at maths and had taken it to that level. I said to this boy, “Did you like maths when you were at school before you came here?” He replied, and I will never forget these words: “I never went to school, sir.” The capacity of education in these institutions and the opportunity it provides are enormous, but it has to be consistent.
Charlie Taylor, who has been referred to in this debate, did some very valuable work. I was very fortunate in that I was a consultee for him from time to time. He absolutely shares the views I expressed in the last few minutes. I ask the Government to accept that the ambitions I have expressed are shared by the Government too and that, whatever we call these institutions, whoever runs them—I do not really care, to be frank, as long as they reach the requisite standard—will try to reach standards that have been reached in the past. Noble Lords will remember Peper Harow, which was a very fine institution run in the voluntary sector by a number of trustees who would have been familiar in some way or another to Members of your Lordships’ House. It came to a slightly abrupt end because there was an accident there, but people who left Peper Harow, having had their education, commonly went straight to university and achieved university degrees, or did other training that gave them a good life after custody.
I say to the Minister: please can we have an assurance that we are not getting bogged down in process and the name we give to these educational institutions, and that we are actually trying to achieve a gold standard of quality with young people who are bored of being in an institution and for whom education is a really welcome change if it is good enough?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry, I was looking around the Chamber to see who was poised and trying to be too polite. It is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who many members of the Committee will associate with his legal expertise, but it is to be remembered that he has a considerable track record, to say the least, in matters of penal reform.
It is also a pleasure to have my name associated with this amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. It seems totally anomalous that local authorities should be excluded from giving this provision, for all the compelling reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord German, about the expertise that they have accumulated in relation to education, children, care and so on. It can be only an ideological justification—I must not be too smug about ideology because I have a little of my own. Although there are always political debates about the role of the state in relation to all sorts of goods and services, most people, across politics and across the Committee, have some sort of notion of the irreducible core of the state. Personally, I think that, as with policing and the Army, incarceration ought in general to be a primary responsibility of the state itself, for obvious reasons to do with the vulnerability of those incarcerated and the responsibility, including democratic responsibility, of politicians, whether at local or national level, in relation to powers of coercion and the incredible vulnerability of people who, of course, cannot even vote.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, our first aim with Amendment 223A, to which I have added my name, is to ensure that secure academies may be run by local authorities. The present position is that, under the Academies Act, the local authority may not maintain a school that becomes an academy. The result is, as my noble friend Lord German said, to prevent local authorities running secure academies, apparently in the interests of consistency between secure academies and other academies.
Our amendment would enable a local authority to play its part. However, it is entirely non-prescriptive and does not require secure academies to be run by local authorities. It simply permits them to be so. We believe that local authorities have a very important part to play in the running of secure academies, with the very best prospect of success in educating, training and rehabilitating young offenders.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, mentioned Charlie Taylor. He has always taken and expressed the view that education for young offenders is at the heart of youth justice, and at the heart of reform and rehabilitation. We have considered in Committee the role of local authorities in youth justice at a number of levels and in a number of spheres. Education is, of course, at the forefront, but we should also not underestimate the importance of the local authority role in housing and social services. Both departments have a great deal to do with the criminality of young people. There can, we suggest, be no justification at all for ruling out local authority involvement in these secure academies.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, that generally we should be keen to avoid dogma and that what we are doing should be about outcomes. Nevertheless, the second purpose of our amendment is to ensure that secure academies are run on an entirely altruistic basis by not-for-profit organisations. The purpose of this part of the amendment is to ensure that secure academies must be run not for profit but for the good of those who attend them as students.
We have all seen the difficulties that befell the probation service under the Grayling changes, which have since been abandoned. Then the larger part of the probation service was shunted off to community rehabilitation companies, and that led to a decline in voluntary sector involvement, which is particularly important in this area. A failure of collaboration with local authorities and an excessive and single-minded pursuit of profit was to the detriment of the clients that the CRCs were established to help and look after.
I do not believe for a moment that that is in the Government’s mind, but it is a danger that may be inherent in the present proposals, and we suggest that the care of damaged young people who have been sent to secure academies by the courts should never be in the hands of organisations run for profit.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it takes a very particular kind of person to be a teacher, but it takes a much more particular kind of person to work in an institution with young people who are clearly already damaged when they arrive. The idea that the Government appear to be taking—a rather dogmatic view about how 16 to 19 provision should be run, in terms of there being only academies and only reflecting the way academies are seen in law in the schools sector—seems to be completely wrong.
It is obvious that the profit motive simply cannot function in this type of provision. Teachers, whether in secure accommodation or other places, are not as well paid as they should be, but the fact is that they are not motivated in general by the level of their salary. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why we should think that anyone affording that provision should be motivated by profit.
My own experience of young people of this type is that I did, very many years ago, work in a non-custodial, non-residential setting for young people who were at risk of care or custody. I have to say that they were all at risk of custody. But the fact that I worked in a local authority provision, where we were able to work very closely with the youth offending team, our local social services and our probation service, and all of our play therapists and other types of therapists, meant that, in general, it was a very successful provision.
I have, like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, had the opportunity through my union experience to visit teachers working in a whole range of institutions—some of which, I am sorry to say, no longer function. This type of provision, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, should be at the irreducible core of what the state does and affords for some of our most vulnerable young people. For that reason, I am very happy to support the amendments.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have spoken in this short debate. Clearly this amendment is at the centre of this group of amendments. In summing up what everyone has said, I would say that the direction everyone has travelled in is not that these schools or academies should be provided by local authorities, but that they should be given the right to tender to provide those schools or academies.
The judgment that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made, was that it does not matter who runs them, providing they get the very best education for these very vulnerable children. The standard of education is what is important, not who runs them. At present, local authorities are excluded simply because there is a view that anything called an “academy” in England cannot be run by a local authority, which seems to create an absolute block to the opportunity for everyone in these institutions to have the best opportunities for life and education.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, these are the most vulnerable of children and young people; their lives and futures are at stake. The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, talked of the qualities of the teachers. These teachers have to be the very best, because they are facing the most difficult of circumstances and it becomes a real challenge. It requires a very special person indeed to devote their life to this sort of education. Where you find the best teachers is in the quality of the tender exercise for these establishments.
Excluding local authorities because they breach the Government’s standard that any academy must not be run by a local authority seems to miss the point. My noble friend Lord Marks talked about the experiment with the rehabilitation companies. A lot of effort went into those. The one thing that was totally absent at the end was the engagement of the charitable and voluntary sector. In other words, because they were driven by having to meet a contract, they were not driven by providing the best service for rehabilitation. Quite rightly, that system has now been overturned.
It drives one to think that, if you have as your goals what is best for the child and what are the best services you can provide, excluding those with the most expertise in this area seems simply crazy. I hope that the Minister will be able to address these matters and take on board the whole point of these amendments, which is not to prescribe local government but to offer it the opportunity where it can compete, providing it can offer the best. What matters is the best for our children, not who should run the service.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I first turn to Amendment 223A from the noble Lord, Lord German, which would allow local authorities to “establish and maintain” secure academies and prevent any for-profit corporation doing this.
Dealing with those points in turn, first, we are not aware of any specific legislative barrier to the provision of secure 16 to 19 academies by local authorities. However, it is government policy that academy trusts are not local authority influenced bodies. As a result, no academy in England is operated by a local authority and our position here is to mirror academies’ policies and procedures in secure schools to the greatest extent possible. That said—
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Has he had regard to Section 6 of the Academies Act, which provides that a local authority must cease to maintain a secure school if it becomes an academy? That seems to have the effect of ruling out local authority involvement, even if it operates in a slightly circuitous way.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
It might well be that it operates in a slightly circuitous way. I have not looked at that section myself. Let me look at it after I sit down. If I need to upgrade, so to speak, what I have said, I will write to the noble Lord, because I do not want to understate the position if I have inadvertently done so. I will look at the section later—I hope, today.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said that it is not so much about the name of the institution as about what goes on within it. On that, I strongly agree, as I do on the importance of education in this context, especially in the example given by the noble Lord, of somebody who it appears had not had the benefit of any education before. That is therefore especially appropriate.
At the same time as what I said earlier about local authorities, it is right to say that local authorities have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their local area. We would therefore expect secure school providers to work closely with local authorities in relation to the well-being of children in their care. It is important to note also that secure children’s homes, which can be run by local authorities, remain an important part of the current and future youth custodial estate.
Let me deal particularly with the profit motive, which seemed to lie at the heart of a number of contributions to this debate. As academies, secure 16 to 19 academies will be state funded with the core charitable purpose of providing education for the public benefit. All academies, including 16 to 19 academies, are part of an academy trust, which is a not-for-profit charitable entity and, as such, cannot make a profit—or, to be more precise, any profits which are made have to be ploughed back into the purpose of the trust. Secure schools will always be run by non-profit organisations. I therefore hope, in light of what I have said, that it will be appreciated that the second part of this amendment, proposed new subsection (9), preventing profit corporations establishing or maintaining these academies, is unnecessary.
On Amendments 223B to 223F, presented to the Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I have assumed that these amendments are intended to apply to children looked after by local authorities, but it is worth noting that secure accommodation is used more widely, including for children who are detained by the police and for children who are sentenced or remanded as part of criminal court proceedings.
Local authorities have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to ensure sufficient appropriate accommodation for all the children they look after. I recognise that some local authorities have found it difficult accessing in practice the most appropriate accommodation, particularly for children with the most complex needs. The lack of available and suitable placements for those most vulnerable children is extremely concerning and is something which I and the Government take seriously. We are taking significant steps to support local authorities to fulfil their statutory duties. A programme of work is starting this year to support local authorities to maintain existing capacity and expand provision in secure children’s homes. That means that children can live closer to their previous home and in provision which best meets their needs.
Let me deal specifically with Rainsbrook, to which the noble and learned Lord referred. The situation there is completely unacceptable. We acted decisively to empty the site. All children have now been removed from Rainsbrook. We transferred them to alternative appropriate accommodation within the youth secure estate. We are working through the contractual options with MTC on the future of that contract. When we have completed that work, we will make a further announcement.
In response to the recent concerns about performance at Oakhill, the former Lord Chancellor commissioned Ofsted to undertake a monitoring visit. That took place on 13 September. The report was published within a month, on 11 October, and noted concerns that inspectors had had. Having subsequently attended the centre for a full annual inspection at the beginning of October, Ofsted, together with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Care Quality Commission, invoked the urgent notification process at Oakhill on 14 October; that is, within the last month. On the 11th of this month, a response was published to Ofsted and the accompanying action plan, and we are now considering plans to ensure sufficient accommodation for those children at the site.
The spending review announced another £259 million to continue the programme to maintain capacity, expand provision and support local authorities in this regard. There is also the independently-led care review to support improvements to children’s social care and ensure that good practice is applied to every child. That review is expected to be published in the spring. I do not want to pre-empt it now, but we are alive to the particular needs of the children in this cohort.
I have received a note—I will keep my word to look at this matter again later—which indicates that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, may have erred. It is such an astonishing proposition that I will check it for myself later. I am told that he may have nodded in the sense that Section 6 relates to schools being converted to academies. It has no impact on local authorities entering into funding agreements with the Secretary of State. Whether the noble Lord has misunderstood, or whether the note I have been provided with is somewhat cryptic, I will keep my promise to look at it myself later in the day.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The Minister mentioned £259 million in relation to the secure training programme. I may have not quite heard what he said. Is that new money or is it just maintaining the existing amount of money per annum?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My understanding is that the £259 million was announced in the spending review to continue the programme to maintain and expand capacity in both secure and open residential children’s homes. I am not able to say any more than that; it might be a question for my Treasury colleagues to clarify. However, I am also able to clarify it to the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps I can drop him a line on that specific point.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Before the Minister sits down and before I admit to nodding, the point he made is why I referred to the operation of Section 6 as being possibly circuitous. It seems that in certain circumstances it may well apply, and it may well apply more generally.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The reason why I did not say it in terms that I was certain that the noble Lord had got it wrong was precisely that point. It seems that we might be approaching this point from different ends, but I will look at it myself and, if necessary, I will drop noble Lords a note. It may not be necessary given what has now been said.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 128, line 15.
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would raise the threshold for the standard of proof required to impose an SVRO, from a civil standard (the balance of probabilities) to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I am going to make a slightly unusual request. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, cannot unfortunately be in her place. She was unable to be in the House at very short notice. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, needs to chair a Select Committee at 3 pm, so I wonder if I could formally move Amendment 224 and then allow the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, to make her speech. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment 224.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I am chairing a Select Committee. I will come back for the rest of the debate, but I have to come back from Millbank, and I am not as fast as I used to be.
I want to be brief, but I return to an issue that I have consistently raised with the Minister over several Bills: the position of girls and women who are being sexually exploited, abused and subjected to violence. I want to help the Government to get out of the hole they are digging themselves into, where they are losing what they learned during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill about coercive control and about what happens to women who have been traumatised by this sort of behaviour. I want them to think about that in relation to my amendment on these very difficult serious violence reduction orders. I am not going to intervene in the rest, because I will support them if there is a vote at Third Reading, but this is a very specific amendment.
I realise the pressure on the Minister. I hope she has had a chance to look at the very short video that I sent her of a young woman from Newcastle—so the Minister should recognise the accent—telling of her inability to tell anyone of the activity of the perpetrator who was grooming and abusing her until she had been sentenced for something ridiculously small that was technically nothing to do with her abuse. Once she got to see a probation officer, she really felt that she had to say something about why she had been involved in criminal activity, and she was then referred to the charity Changing Lives; I ought to say that I still mentor the person who deals with women in that charity. The young woman from Newcastle was then able to talk about the abuse that she had suffered, the effects of what the perpetrator had done to her, and why this had led her to behave in the way she did.
It does not take much imagination to recognise that women who have been trafficked, groomed and subjected to physical, psychological and sexual abuse are not going to say what they know about the criminal activity of their abusers without themselves being supported and protected by those who understand trauma and what has happened to them. This amendment seeks to remove the “ought to have known” provision that will mean that women and girls who are judged that they “ought to have known” that someone in their company was in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon could face two years’ imprisonment for a breach of the order’s terms. This simply criminalises women who are already being subjected to appalling criminal abuse. I do not believe that that is what the Government want to do. We know how we can change women’s life chances in these circumstances. We can do it. I work with people who do it, but this is not the way. This will not help them into a more stable and secure life. This will drive them into more criminal behaviour and into entrenching their problems.
I gather that this is seen as an extension of the joint-enterprise laws. The problem the Government have is that these laws have brought women into the criminal justice system when they had no involvement in the alleged offence. Research has found that in 90% of joint-enterprise cases against women, they had engaged in no violence at all, and in half of the cases they were not even present at the scene. We also know from research that more women and girls from BAME backgrounds are likely to be picked up under this sort of provision, and the Government really need to think about that, too.
This provision was not included in the consultation on these orders. I really do think that the Government did not have the opportunity to think the provision through in relation to the women and girls I am talking about. They have the opportunity to quietly drop it now before Report, and I hope and trust that they will.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick will speak from the Front Bench for my party on this group, but he has quite a lot to say and, in view of the time, he has asked me to speak now, so with your Lordships’ permission or agreement, I shall address a number of points where serious violence reduction orders—SVROs for short—offend against cardinal principles of justice that our criminal law generally holds to be of the greatest importance.
I say at the outset that we should be in no doubt that an SVRO is to be a criminal sanction. That is, first, because of the requirements and prohibitions it imposes on an offender who is made subject or is to be made subject to such an order. It is, secondly, by reason of the draconian powers exercisable by the police in respect of an offender who is to be made subject to such an order, which are the equivalent of a criminal sanction on that subject. It is, thirdly, because the exposure of an offender subject to an SVRO to further criminal sanctions for the breach of any conditions attached to it amounts to a criminal sanction in its imposition.
Against that background, my first objection of principle is that it is wrong that a criminal sanction should be imposed independently of any criminal offence. Amendment 225, in the names of my noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is addressed to the novel and unwarranted approach to carrying a bladed article in the proposed new subsections 342A(3)(b) and (4)(b). As their explanatory statement makes clear, carrying a knife is not of itself a criminal offence, yet these provisions would render an offender liable to be made subject to an SVRO if either the offender or a joint offender with that offender had a knife with them, for whatever reason, whether the carrying of that knife was an offence or not. These orders as proposed would impose criminal sanctions for conduct which did not amount to an offence known to the law. That is contrary to principle in a profound and unacceptable way.
My second objection is that our criminal law generally insists on proof of guilt to the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt, before any criminal sanction can be imposed. Certainly, the civil standard of proof has its place in the criminal law, but that is generally when the law imposes a burden of proof upon the defendant to establish the facts of a defence which, if proved, would justify conduct that would otherwise be criminal. However, what is proposed here is that a criminal sanction can be imposed on the basis of proof, to the civil standard only, of the primary facts giving rise to that sanction. Again, that is contrary to principle and is calculated to water down, even to undermine, one of the most fundamental principles of our criminal law—one that I venture to suggest is probably the best known of any of those principles among the general public.
My third point concerns the unwarranted extension of the law relating to joint enterprise embodied in the proposed new subsection 342A(4). That is why I have added my name to Amendments 226A and 226B just spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. I do not understand how it can be contended that an offender should be subject to criminal sanction if that offender did not know that a bladed article or offensive weapon would be used by a joint offender in the commission of an offence on the basis that he merely “ought to have known” that fact. That is proposed new subsection 342A(4)(a).
Proposed new subsection 342A(4)(b) is even worse: an offender is to be subject to the criminal sanction of an SVRO because a joint offender had a bladed article or offensive weapon with him at the time of the offence, even if the offender did not know that, simply on the basis that he “ought to have known”. And all this to be proved to the civil standard only, notwithstanding that possession of a knife is, of itself, not a criminal offence.
That is not all. I shall be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in opposing Clause 140 standing part of the Bill because, in addition to all that I have said so far, SVROs are to be imposed without any right to trial by jury; they are to be imposed by a judge alone, following conviction. As for the evidence to be adduced to support their imposition, in the words of proposed new subsection 342A(8), it is not to matter
“whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings in which the offender was convicted.”
That anomaly is the subject of Amendment 231, in the name of my noble friend Lord Paddick. I simply ask, in connection with these SVROs, where are we heading. It is in the wrong direction for our criminal justice system.
Royal Assent
Wednesday 17th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 66-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (16 Nov 2021)
Offenders: Pregnant Women
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hussein-Ece
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman’s Independent investigation into the death of Baby A at HMP Bronzefield on 27 September 2019, published on 22 September, what assessment they have made of (1) their policies, and (2) the sentencing guidelines, for pregnant women offenders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, this was an appalling event. In consultation with health partners and contracted providers, we have taken a range of immediate and long-term actions locally and nationally to prevent it happening again, including a new policy on pregnancy in women’s prisons. Remand and sentencing decisions are matters for the independent judiciary. We are taking steps to ensure that courts have relevant information, including on pregnancy where known, and we are investing in alternatives to custody.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I thank the Minister for the positive response the Government have given to the ombudsman’s report on this shocking case, in which a troubled teenager who was on a local authority at-risk register and on remand was left to give birth on her own in a prison cell, where the baby tragically died. Sadly, we learn that this was not an isolated incident, but we do not know the extent. So why does the Prison Service not release comprehensive data on miscarriages, stillbirths and baby deaths?
The ombudsman’s report said:
“We consider that all pregnancies in prison should be treated as high risk by virtue of the fact that the woman is locked behind a door for a significant amount of time.”
In light of this, can the Minister tell me whether the Government will use persuasion and statutory force to ensure that the welfare of unborn babies and children must be a primary consideration for the courts when making bail and sentencing decisions?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I will pick up on that last point first. We are seeking to ensure that courts have all relevant information when making bail and sentencing decisions. The default is that, if there is no reason to keep somebody on remand, they must be given bail unless there is a good reason why they should not have bail. When it comes to sentencing, custody is always the last alternative, and pregnancy is a mitigating factor.
As far as prisons are concerned, we have accepted all the recommendations in the ombudsman’s report. We have put a new policy in place; prisons have six months to implement it.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, Committee on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was grateful to hear the Minister say on 1 November that
“there has been a revolution, a real sea change, in the judiciary. They really ‘get it’ when it comes to female offenders and primary carers.”—[Official Report, 1/11/21; col. 1042.]
Following on from what we have already heard, can the Government provide evidence on the extent to which sentencing guidelines on the mitigating factors associated with pregnancy and primary caring are being followed by sentencers? Also, can the Minister provide information on how many sentencers have completed training on safeguarding children when sentencing primary carers?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The obligation to have regard to whether somebody is a primary carer is part of the sentencing guidelines, which are mandatory and must be followed by all sentencers in all parts of the courts system. On whether this is being carried through, I point out to the right reverend Prelate that the number of women in custody has been falling consistently; we think this indicates that courts are following the guidelines properly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, one of the most important recommendations of HM Inspectorate in looking at this tragic case was directed at the National Health Service, because the NHS has clear responsibilities in relation to not just maternity services but other services. Is the Minister satisfied that the NHS is rising to that challenge? What levers does he have if he finds problems with that?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to identify that this is an area where we need my department and the NHS to work together. The important thing is that women in prison must have access to the same standard of service that they would have in the community. We have put together a board, which goes across the MoJ and the Department of Health and Social Care, to do exactly what the noble Lord identifies: namely, make sure that our health partners are as focused on this as we are.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester—my bishop—for her valuable work with prisoners. Should we not have for offenders more modern facilities that work to educate and rehabilitate? Will the Minister look again at the study Rehabilitation by Design, which shows best practice in other countries and which I have mentioned in this House before?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that the design of prisons is important in this context. We are providing more, newer and better-designed places in the women’s estate. That has been informed by design to include things such as windows without bars, smaller units and bigger association spaces. We are also trying to remove dark, narrow corridors and blind corners, which can trigger responses. We must remember that most women in the prison estate have had very difficult pasts. We are thinking about the way we design prisons to minimise additional trauma for women when they are in prison.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, inhuman treatment and neglect are not part of any sentence handed down by British courts to anyone, let alone to pregnant women offenders. In view of the Baby A case, the circumstances of which are truly shameful, will the Government establish an independent monitoring service for pregnant prisoners to provide confidence that the standards of care are appropriate? Until that monitoring service is established, can the Minister tell us whether the Government will undertake to implement the ombudsman’s recommendations in full, and that the provision of care for such vulnerable women in our care will be pondered sufficiently?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, there is rather a lot in that. As far as the ombudsman is concerned, we and the Prison and Probation Service have accepted and completed the implementation of the recommendations. We have set up the board, which I mentioned in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. We have put a lot of money into this area. I am not convinced that setting up another inspection body is needed; we already have a very robust inspection regime for prisons, with a specific focus on prisoners with additional vulnerabilities, including pregnancy.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
This is, as everybody who has read the report knows, a horrific case. I want to raise two issues. First, the Minister rightly said that the statutory position at the moment is that the same standard of care should be available in prison as is available in the community. The ombudsman’s report said that the midwife-led community approach is wholly inappropriate for a prison, where everybody should be treated as high-risk. Does the Minister not agree that the time is now right for a statutory duty to be placed on the prison authorities to ensure that the care provided is
“appropriate to a custodial setting”?
Secondly, and separately, eight prison officers came near to Ms A during the course of that horrific night and none of them spotted what was going on. Can the Minister tell us how many prison officers on duty that night had more than two years’ experience, and how many had more than five years’ experience? Our concern is that there is a lack of experience in the Prison Service. I gave the Minister some notice of this question, but not enough, probably.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am not convinced that a new statutory duty is the way to resolve this. I think the statutory framework is sufficient. What we need to ensure is that the duties are actually implemented on the ground in prisons.
So far as the staff on duty are concerned, the noble and learned Lord did give me a little bit of notice for this, as he said, but not very much. I do not have the information to hand, but the ombudsman looked at this incident in great detail and did not raise as an issue either the sufficiency of the staffing levels or the experience of the staff on duty.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, following on from the previous question, I have a further one on the training of staff in prisons. If there are six months to implement the ombudsman’s recommendations, will this include some training for all staff in women’s prisons on what to do if they suspect that early labour has started?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, all new prison officers working within the women’s estate will complete a new module on pregnancy, which is starting in January. We are also developing a two-day course for all staff working directly with pregnant women and mothers separated from young children, and that is part of our implementation strategy for our new policy for pregnant women in prison.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was going to ask about training, but I was glad to hear that answer. On a different topic—and forgive my ignorance here—within the sentencing guidelines, how much weight is given to the cost to society when a woman who is kept on remand for a short sentence then loses her home and her children, and the children have to go into care? She would have no home when she comes out, so she could not take them back. That is a cost to society. How much weight is given within the sentencing guidelines to that sort of issue?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
It is very important that the implementation of sentencing guidelines is a matter for independent judges and not government Ministers. What I can say is that judges and sentencers of all sorts have to consider the effect of the sentence not only on the person being sentenced but on people for whom they care. That will particularly apply to young children, and in the case of pregnant women it will also apply to the unborn child.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move to the next Question.
National Food Strategy Report
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the conclusions of the report by Henry Dimbleby National Food Strategy: Part One, published on 29 July; when they will publish their response; and what steps they intend to take to implement the recommendations of the report.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I refer to my interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have already acted on the recommendations in Henry Dimbleby’s part 1 report with the announcement of the Covid winter support package and the recommendations on trade last year, which included putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on to a statutory footing. We thank Henry Dimbleby for his independent review, including his part 2 report, published this year, which we will consider in the forthcoming government food strategy to be published in early 2022.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
It was an excellent report, and the national food strategy advocates upholding our own high standards in food production and that imports should meet these same standards. Given the fall in our self-sufficiency in food and the fact that tenant farmers will be in breach of their agricultural tenancies if they apply for any environmental schemes, will the Government ensure that these high standards of animal welfare and food safety that our farmers meet are met also in imported food products agreed under any free trade deals, to prevent substandard imports from putting our hill farmers in particular out of business?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think I can give my noble friend some assurance here. Tenant farmers will be able to take out agreements under the sustainable farming incentive scheme, which begins being progressively rolled out next year. The Tenant Farmers Association has not raised any issues about tenancies preventing tenant farmers from entering into new environmental land management schemes. My colleague Victoria Prentis, the Agriculture Minister, met with the chief executive of the Tenant Farmers Association this week, and my noble friend’s concerns were not raised.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the food strategy emphasised the importance of free school meals for all disadvantaged children. Will the Government therefore commit now to making permanent, and widening, the welcome temporary concession which extended free school meals to children in some families with no recourse to public funds, as called for by the Children’s Commissioner for England, the Food Foundation and many others?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, the Government encourage all schools to promote healthy eating and provide healthy, tasty and nutritious food and drink. Compliance with the Requirements for School Food Regulations 2014 is mandatory for all maintained schools, and efforts are always made to make sure that children from low-income families have access to good, nutritious school meals.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, more than half the calories the average person in the UK eats come from ultra-processed foods. Recent research has linked these foods to early death, poor health, weight gain and obesity. The national food strategy makes a clear connection between bad diet and poor health. One of its four strategic objectives is to escape the junk-food cycle in order to protect the NHS. While the move towards eating less meat is welcome for the health of both the individual and the planet, could my noble friend confirm that a vegan or vegetarian diet made up of mainly ultra-processed foods is just as bad for the individual’s health as for everyone else?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is very knowledgeable on these matters, and she is absolutely right. Soya grown where rainforests used to exist and which may have also been the subject of many processes to make it palatable will be, by contrast, worse for the environment and the individual than locally produced meat from grass-fed animals that may be not only part of a healthy, balanced diet but good for the environment.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register. Given the Climate Change Committee’s advice that we will need to reduce meat consumption as part of efforts to tackle climate change, will Defra’s response to the national food strategy include a commitment to sustainable alternative proteins, including cultivated meat, and will it commit to streamlining the novel foods regulatory approval process to reflect the urgency of our need to find alternatives?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Government can encourage people to eat sensibly and promote good, balanced and healthy diets. The Government are not going to tell people what they should eat but will give them the information they need to have a healthy, balanced diet and provide the means by which vulnerable groups can have this. This will be in the food strategy, which will be published next year.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I am very excited by the imminent publication of the food strategy. How many meetings has my noble friend had with his counterparts in the Department for Education? I am sure he agrees with me that the food strategy is an education issue. When he answered the earlier question and talked about mandatory standards, I am sure he also agrees that we need enforcement of those standards, as only 40% of schools currently meet them.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. I personally have not had any such meetings, but my colleague Victoria Prentis, who is the Minister responsible for this area, has had meetings across government and will continue to do so. He is absolutely right that the mandatory standards are in those regulations, and the Government are constantly trying to find ways to make sure that they are fully complied with.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, today there is another depressing result from the national child measurement programme, which pointed out that there was a 4.5% increase during the pandemic in the proportion of children aged four to five who are obese. Obviously, the existing government obesity strategy is really not working, which is why we need the food plan to be implemented. Assuming that we publish a White Paper in response to the strategy, will that lead to a food Bill? That is what we urgently need.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The food strategy will be in the form of a White Paper, which is usually the precursor to legislation, and this House will be kept fully informed about this. The obesity strategy has been developed through a huge amount of work, not least by outside bodies such as the Centre for Social Justice. It is there to help people already living with obesity, including funding weight management services, but also to create a food environment and culture that makes it easy for everyone, regardless of their circumstances, to live a healthier life.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We strongly support the recommendations that the report makes to ensure better access to healthy food for those on the lowest incomes. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will adopt without delay the calls to increase eligibility to free school meals and the value of healthy start vouchers as well as the extension of the holiday activities and food programme?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely understand the points the noble Baroness makes. These are matters for other departments in government. We are working with them as part of our response to this important piece of work by Henry Dimbleby in the development of the food strategy. It will not just be something produced by my department; it will draw in all those issues from across government.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, a key recommendation of the Dimbleby report was that meaningful standards should be applied to imported food, consistent with our own domestic standards. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will support that recommendation? If so, how will it be applied retrospectively to the free trade deals with Australia and New Zealand?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government have made a clear commitment that, in all our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. All agricultural products imported into the UK, including under free trade agreements, must continue to comply with our existing import requirements.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the recent pandemic has demonstrated the severe urgency of cracking down on obesity in this country. There are thousands of people in ICUs with infectious diseases such as Covid, simply because they are too overweight. We must do something to address this national characteristic. What will the Minister do to assure us that he will take the steps necessary to crack down on things such as highly processed food? That would be an important first step on this road.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend has done much work in this field. The publication Tackling Obesity: Empowering Adults and Children to Live Healthier Lives takes forward a wide range of measures that all contribute towards reducing excess calorie consumption. These include, for example, measures to restrict the advertising of high fat, sugar and salt products. It is estimated that these measures could remove up to 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets in the United Kingdom over the coming years.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister indicate a specific date when the Government will produce their White Paper in response to the Dimbleby report, and the timescale for the subsequent legislation? Will this legislation be accompanied by resources in a cross-departmental way to implement the recommendations in the report, including access to free school meals for many children who are totally disadvantaged, particularly during the pandemic?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The second part of Henry Dimbleby’s report was published in July and the Government made a commitment to respond within six months. The noble Baroness knows that our department is running quite hot on food issues at the moment, but I have heard nothing to suggest that this timetable will not be met.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Welsh Government about the independent commission set up by that Government to look at options for the future constitution of Wales.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government have not yet had any discussions with the Welsh Government regarding the independent constitutional commission; nor were we informed of its proposed structural content. But we were aware that this was a manifesto commitment. In subsequent written communication with the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, the First Minister of Wales stated that he would encourage the commission to contact the UK Government, and we hope to be able to give evidence.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while the constitution is a matter reserved to this Parliament, it is helpful that the Welsh Government have set up this independent commission to make recommendations? However, if the governance of Wales, the governance of Scotland and the governance of Northern Ireland are considered in isolation, there is an increased risk of the break-up of the United Kingdom. So will the UK Government now consider some form of review of the governance of the whole of the United Kingdom, including England, in a systematic and coherent way, so that we can ensure the continued prosperity and unity of this United Kingdom?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
As always, the noble Lord makes a very compelling case. The UK Government are committed to protecting and promoting the combined strengths of our union, building on hundreds of years of partnership and shared history. This Parliament remains in charge of the balance between reserved and devolved competences, and we will continue to make sure that our constitutional arrangements remain fit for purpose and enable our institutions to work effectively together to deliver for citizens in every part of the UK. We have no plans for a UK-wide constitutional convention.
Lord Harlech (Con)
Will my noble friend the Minister tell the House how the UK Government assess the current state of relations with the Welsh Government?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
As a result of Covid, we have engagement at all levels of government, both at ministerial and official levels. Certainly, inter-ministerial relations between Michael Gove and the First Minister continue on a weekly basis. We will be happy to take part in this commission and we will continue to make the case for the union. The UK Government remain focused on supporting Wales’s recovery from the pandemic and we will continue to work on this.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
What engagement has there been with the Welsh Government on the distribution of what are known as levelling-up funds, in the light of assurances and statements made by the Minister during the ping-pong debate on 14 December, when we discussed an amendment designed to ensure agreement between the two Governments on the use of the funds to avoid the risk, which the House identified, of pork-barrel politics?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We have indeed engaged with the Welsh Government on the new local growth funds. A lot of the engagement has been between MPs and their local authorities—not always of the same political hue. We have sought advice on projects at the shortlisting stage, including on deliverability and alignment with existing provisions, and we welcome the engagement to date. We look forward to further engagement in future rounds. A number of local authorities and projects have been pulled back to access the next round of applications, which will start in the spring.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
The independent chair of the commission told the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the committee’s recent visit to Wales that the notion of parliamentary sovereignty has not kept pace with the reality of devolution. Does the Minister recognise her Government’s policy of repeatedly encroaching on devolved areas, failing to respect the Sewel convention and short-changing the people of Wales when it comes to post-Brexit funds? I welcome the Government’s commitment to engage constructively with the independent commission. Will the Minister welcome the experienced and diverse range of commissioners announced yesterday by the Welsh Government?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I do welcome the composition of the new commission. We respect and are fully committed to the Sewel convention and we work very hard to secure the support of the devolved Administrations for all legislative consent Motions. One of the difficulties when devolution was planned was that the Governments of Wales, Scotland and England were all of the same political party. We are working together to acknowledge our past difficulties and to get over the challenges that all the Brexit legislation has brought to us. I can assure the noble Baroness that engagement at all levels is still actively continuing.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Welsh Government’s establishment of the commission and the further announcement yesterday of the names of those appointed as commissioners. I was delighted to learn that they included the former Welsh Lib Dem leader Kirsty Williams.
Our democracy in Wales continues to evolve and the need for this commission has never been clearer. But on its own this commission will not solve the UK’s constitutional problems, and it will not save the union. How does the Minister envisage that the remainder of the UK could contribute to this process?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Of course, it is for the commission itself to decide how to engage and conduct its inquiry, and whom to invite to participate in the process. As I have said, the UK Government will welcome the opportunity to provide evidence and to continue to make the case for the union. We shall continue to make sure that constitutional arrangements remain fit for purpose and enable our institutions to work effectively together to deliver for all citizens in all parts of the UK.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Professor McAllister, who along with Rowan Williams is leading this commission, has made it clear that it will be receptive to any evidence in support of independence for Wales. If, in the light of that, the Welsh Government were to propose a referendum on independence, would the UK Government accept the result of that referendum?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Of course, I could make the point that Professor Laura McAllister has stood twice as a Plaid Cymru candidate, so I am not surprised that her comments in the Senedd were very different from those of the First Minister, who said that this would not be a consideration of the commission. While we are, of course, interested in its work, it would not be right for us to pre-empt any possible recommendations. I remind the noble Lord that, in a St David’s Day poll this year, 80% of respondents expressed their support for the union.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, surely we should acknowledge that the bold experiment of establishing a devolved system in a unitary state is not final. Therefore, what is the vision of the Government as they set about giving evidence to the commission? Will they go beyond the status quo?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
That is a question for later on in the process. I am delighted to take the question back to the department for a steer on what its response will be, but I reiterate that we are keen on pointing out all the advantages that Wales has had through the union, particularly during the Covid pandemic, with help for the Nightingale courts and the help of the Army for the ambulancemen. Wales has had a lot of tangible benefits, not least a huge increase in the amount of money given to it in the spending review—£18 billion, as opposed to £16.9 billion.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, as was already mentioned, the constitution is a reserved matter and, as such, the findings of this commission will be of little value in a UK context. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, in addition to the multi-millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted on an airport purchase, to the axed M4 Newport relief road motorway project, which has cost Welsh taxpayers £140 million to date, and to the worst A&E record in the UK—I could go on—this commission is yet another futile spend, whose only purpose is to pander to the nationalist party for support? That is obvious from the choice of co-chair of the committee, who, as already has been mentioned, stood twice for parliamentary election for Plaid Cymru.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My noble friend makes some good points. We do not know how much money has been spent on this commission, but it is a large commission and one can only assume that it has been a priority for the Welsh Government—I am not sure that the people of Wales have the same priority. I note that, in a recent poll in WalesOnline, in October—just before the spending review—of the top 10 concerns of the Welsh people, nine were in devolved areas. The last one was that the UK Government were not giving enough money to Wales—and I think we convincingly negated that argument in the spending review. However, one of the concerns was on infrastructure, and roads in particular. It is still disappointing that the Welsh Government will not allow the M4 relief road around Newport, which would unblock a lot of the problems in south Wales.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I would like to press the Minister on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I am sure that she would agree that the relationship between the four nations of the United Kingdom and the London Government is not fixed and final—in recent years, there has been an indication of unease about that. Does she agree that this is a real opportunity for the Government to contribute to this commission, not just on a quick, politically orientated, ad hoc basis that has been cobbled together but with some serious, long-term thinking?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
There is a wonderful expression about Wales: it is a land of commissions, conventions and panels. Obviously, we will contribute seriously to this review, if asked to do so, but I recall from the Dunlop review that no intergovernmental review machinery is capable of resolving fundamentally different political objectives. But it is realistic to expect serviceable and resilient relationships, and that is what we should all be striving to achieve.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Stop and Search Powers
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Home Office will publish data on the use of stop and search powers for the year up to April 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, as announced on GOV.UK on 25 October this year, data on the use of stop and search powers for the year to April 2021 will be published tomorrow.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for that. She, like others, will have read newspaper reports just last week conveying suspicions that the data had been suppressed because the police Bill is going through Parliament. Similarly, there are concerns about the Government’s consultation on the Nationality and Borders Bill, the results of which have not yet been published. Will the Minister publish that data as well, certainly before that Bill comes before your Lordships’ House?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to correct some of the inaccurate claims. The first was that the delay was due to a record level of data, but that was a misrepresentation by journalists; actually, the Home Office needed additional time to quality assure more granular record-level data. Secondly, the decision for delaying the statistics for the PCSC Bill was made by the head of profession, in line with the code of practice for statistics, and was announced at the earliest possible point on GOV.UK.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness has said, but is she aware how this delay looks? On last year’s figures, black people were 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people when the police have the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill already contains new provisions to allow even more stop and search without suspicion and, on Monday, the Government laid 18 pages of new amendments to the Bill for debate next week, further extending the ability of the police to stop and search people without any reason to think the person they are searching has anything on them. What equalities impact assessment has been made of these new powers and what was the result?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
An equalities impact assessment has been done on the Bill, as is done on every Bill, as the noble Lord knows. On how this looks, I have explained the process for producing the statistics and I hope that is satisfactory for the noble Lord. I was disappointed that this Question was not being asked tomorrow, so that we could debate it more fully, with the statistics before us.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
I wonder if I can press the Minister to comment on the figure just given by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which is in the public domain—that black people are 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. Can she comment on this in the light of the case reported in the Guardian of a 14 year-old black schoolboy, who claims to have been stopped and searched 30 times in the last two years, including on one occasion when he left his home to put out rubbish? Does the Minister agree that stop and search is often a crude tactic, that there is a well-founded perception that it is based on racial stereotyping and that once a young person—a child, in fact—has become a target, they tend to remain one?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has often quoted that statistic and he is absolutely not wrong.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am sorry, my Lords; he is right. It has been a very long week and it is still Wednesday.
The noble Lord is absolutely right on that, but of course a young black man is 24 times more likely to be a victim of homicide than a young white person, so the two statistics need to be looked at together. It is true that no one should be stopped and searched based on their ethnicity. The police engage with communities daily and the Government have to abide by codes of practice, and now use body-worn video, to ensure that what they are doing is reasonable and proportionate, in the pursuit of tackling crime.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
In tabling at this stage a new set of amendments on the issue of stop and search without suspicion, the Government have stampeded through all our protocols and processes. I have never heard of that happening and I think the noble Baroness probably has not either. Can she explain why this is okay, when we have already passed Second Reading and have nearly passed Committee? Why do the Government think this is all right? Could the Minister please answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which was specifically about an impact assessment on the new stop and search amendments?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I say, the impact assessment is done on the Bill and it will include the amendments that we propose. Amendments to legislation are often put forward relatively late in the day. In Committee and then on Report, there will be plenty of time to scrutinise them. They are in response to violent crime increasing and the Government’s real desire to tackle it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The really important point is how we maintain public confidence in the use of stop and search, which is one of the most controversial of police powers. The Government intend to extend that power to a wider range of situations, including when without reasonable suspicion. The publication of the statistics tomorrow will allow us analysis. How are the Minister and the Government going to use those statistics to inform the public and thereby keep public confidence?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord goes to the nub of the problem. Certainly, in light of the case of Sarah Everard, trust in the police has to be regained and rebuilt, because we must have trust in those people, the vast majority of whom are there to keep us safe. The police must be held to the highest standards, of course, which is also crucial to public trust in them.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, the question around stop and search has been going on for decades now, and I do not think we have improved how the police conduct themselves around the black community. The scrutiny that has been taking place seems not to be working. We have listened to noble Lords bring the same subject up time and again, as have I. The Minister talks about the report that is going to be out tomorrow. Why has it taken so long for the report to come out since April? We have not been given much time for scrutiny. We have had so many reports of police misbehaviour within public office—she just mentioned Sarah Everard. When are we going to get to the point when we stop talking about stop and search and the effect it has on the black community?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and all the work she has done. Despite the fact that we might have different views on how to go about it, I think we both seek the same ends: trust from communities in the police; and making sure that more black lives are saved through reducing the amount of knife crime and making our streets safer for everyone, including young black men. That is at the heart of the Bill, and the collection of some of the data will help us towards this end—to see whether our policies are working and whether the pilots, when they are rolled out, are more effective than we have been at reducing the number of knife crimes.
Armed Forces Bill
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 9, Schedule 2, Clause 10, Schedule 3, Clause 11, Schedule 4, Clause 12, Schedule 5, Clauses 13 to 16, Schedule 6, Clauses 17 to 27, Title.
Terrorist Incident at Liverpool Women’s Hospital
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I express our gratitude to the emergency services, which had to deal and are still dealing with this awful incident and its aftermath, whether that incident be terrorism-related or not. I also pay tribute to the bravery and actions of David Perry, the driver of the taxi, and express the hope that his recovery proves to be full and complete. We have to be ever vigilant and proactive in combating and thwarting abhorrent acts of this kind.
I have just two questions. First, the Government have had a report on dealing with so-called lone actors. What are the Government doing with that report? We have called for a judge-led review. Secondly, in the Commons yesterday, Conor McGinn MP referred to a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee
“that included recommendations on the use of and construction of such devices—namely, regulation around the ingredients or chemicals used to make them.”
He asked:
“Why have none of those recommendations been implemented after four years?”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/21; col. 459.]
There was no answer from the Government yesterday. Twenty-four hours later, can the Government now give an answer to that question?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his questions, and I join him in paying tribute to our emergency services, who acted so quickly to try to preserve life at the scene of the attack, and to the taxi driver, who really was a hero in what must have been an extremely frightening situation. We wish him and his family well. With regard to the first question about lone actors, clearly we get information from all sorts of sources. The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that the nature of terrorism is changing, and we have seen a number of lone-actor attacks in the past few years. I cannot comment on this attack further because clearly it is a live and very new investigation. The facts of the case will come out as the investigation continues, but I know that the police made a statement today. I will get back to him on the report he referred to if I can. I am not sure what more I can say about it today.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I understand the caution that the noble Baroness has expressed about the incident itself; it did not seem to stop the Home Secretary reportedly saying that
“The case in Liverpool was a complete reflection of how dysfunctional, how broken, the system has been in the past”.
Despite that, I also express my thanks to the police, the security services and the taxi driver. Does the Minister agree that so-called lone-wolf or lone-actor attacks are some of the most difficult to prevent, whatever motivates them; and that, while the police and the security services do an outstanding job, they cannot be successful without the help and support of people from every community? What are the Government doing to build trust and confidence with communities where this is lacking?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Lord that these things are hard to predict and hard to deal with when they happen. I have seen a couple of comments, particularly from BAME communities in Liverpool, saying that they have faced hate incidences in the last couple of days, and we have seen before that, when an attack happens, quite often it is women who bear the brunt of the hatred and the name-calling. When I was Minister for Counterextremism, I remember going to many different communities, such as Muslim communities and Polish communities after Brexit, trying to provide reassurance. The police have been fantastic on the back of some of the attacks in reassuring local communities.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I too commend the work of the first responders and others who did so much at the scene. It now transpires that the perpetrator was finally refused asylum in 2017, and that was the last time his case appeared before a court. Why did the Home Office not remove him from the United Kingdom between 2017 and 2021? Is it not outrageous that the Home Secretary is trying to blame anyone but the Home Office for him being still in this country?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not disagree with the noble Lord that the chap should not be in the country, but in many instances people will frustrate removal processes by putting forward new claims. When we consider the borders Bill, one thing that we have to ensure is that, when people are refused asylum, they are sent back to the country from which they came.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, does the Minister think that perhaps the public deserve to know how many other failed asylum seekers are still in this country and waiting to be removed? This is very worrying for the public and for all of us here, I hope.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a concern. That is the reason why the Home Secretary is trying to construct a new legislative framework to make sure that asylum claims are granted or, if they are not, that people are sent back as quickly as possible.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we all support the enormous bravery of the taxi driver and salute him. There is apparently some crowd funding going on of dubious authenticity. I do not ask my noble friend to comment on that, but should it not be automatic that anybody who foils a terrorist outrage of this sort is rewarded by the Government and that any material loss suffered, such as the loss of the man’s taxicab, is dealt with on an official basis?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not know. I agree with the principle of what my noble friend says—it is pure humanity—but I do not know the details of what is going on in order to help the taxi driver to rebuild his life. I have seen things in the press this morning, but I could not comment on them because I do not know if they are correct. But that man is a hero.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Rosser asked about this report about the constituent parts of a homemade bomb. From my experience in the construction industry long ago, some of those bits and pieces are easily obtainable in the construction and agricultural industries. Could the Minister make sure that a copy of this report is put in the Library and sent to noble Lords who have spoken? It seems very important that there should be some control over these materials.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord is right. Certain parts of what could be used to make a bomb are now controlled under Home Office licence, as he will know. If I can, I will of course put a copy of the report in the Library.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend has said that asylum seekers look for additional reasons as to why they should not be removed from this country. Do those reasons include conversion to Christianity?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am afraid to say to my noble friend that they do. Noble Lords will remember the Reading attack, which was one such case. In fact, the Reverend Mohammad Eghtedarian raised concerns about asylum seekers cynically posing as Christians way back in 2016, as did the Right Reverend Peter Wilcox, admitting that people had mixed motives for conversion to Christianity. People wanting to frustrate the system will use a range of different reasons to do so. What is sad about this is that it stops some of the more genuine asylum claimants coming to this country.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, a number of noble Lords have mentioned trust and confidence and reassuring the community. On reassuring the whole community of the United Kingdom, can there be a little less concern about specific communities and more open debate and discussion about the threat of Islamist extremism? People are nervous that they will be accused of being unfair to Muslim communities when actually many Muslims are worried about Islamist extremism. We need more open debate, because there is a feeling that we are not able to have that discussion. After the terrible murder of David Amess and all the things that we have faced, we need that to be openly discussed in this country, among all of us.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness is right. I have said so many times at this Dispatch Box that the vast majority of people who are Muslim and who live in this country are law-abiding, share our values and contribute to society. We have just celebrated their role in helping us in the First World War. We talked about free speech yesterday or the day before; I totally agree that, in these discussions, there should be respect for free speech.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for the Urgent Question has now elapsed. We will take a moment to let people who do not want to be here for the next piece of business escape from the Chamber—[Interruption.]—accompanied by music. If only all the times I stood up I was accompanied by a jaunty tune, but unfortunately that cannot be so.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I offer my profound apologies for that unwarranted intervention in the work of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
That is very kind of you to say so.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Wednesday 17th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-IX Ninth marshalled list for Committee - (15 Nov 2021)
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments to which I put my name in this group, which are in the names also of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but before I do so I will make a few remarks about two amendments that I have not put my name to but now see clearly that I should have done, namely Amendments 226A and 226B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. These amendments address a part of the Bill that makes one potentially subject to a serious violence reduction order for what one “ought to have known”. The noble Baroness dealt with it from the point of view of its equalities implication when she spoke to her amendments. I will deal with it from the point of view of its absurdity.
What ought one to know? Your Lordships’ House is full of astonishingly complicated rules about which carpet you can and cannot stand on, what date you have to put amendments down by and things like that. As a relatively recent Peer, I have spent most of the last year wandering around the place wondering what I ought to know. Is that a basis for culpability of some sort? How is it to be established? I am not a lawyer at all and I have no experience of the criminal justice system, but it is surely hard enough to establish in court as a matter of evidential fact what a particular person knew or did not know, let alone what they ought to have known. This is all to be worked out by a judge, without the benefit of the wisdom of a jury, with no particular guidance and no idea what “ought to have known” means. The whole thing is completely absurd. The idea that one should have one’s liberties restricted simply because of what one “ought to have known” should be taken out of the Bill. These amendments would effect that and I lend my support to them.
On the amendments to which I have put my name, noble Lords have already made the case extremely well. We need to start with a clear understanding that a serious violence reduction order is a criminal sanction. It is nothing less. We cannot make it the same as civil penalties. This all started back in the 1990s when parking offences were decriminalised. In my service as a local councillor, I benefited hugely from that. It was a tremendous idea and worked extremely well, but we cannot then carry on applying the same principle. An SVRO is not a parking ticket; it is a potentially serious restriction on your liberties that travels with you and, if you are a young person, stigmatises you, if are trying to make your way in university or wherever you might move to around the country, by making you go and register and so on. This is not a parking ticket; it is very much more serious.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has said, before the break we moved to the highly controversial area of serious violence reduction orders, and I moved Amendment 224 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I then gave way to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, who has to chair a Select Committee at this time. Then I sat down. That is why I am now standing.
We have tried to make this group more manageable by restricting it to the considerations for granting SVROs by the courts, and related matters, and moving what happens once an order has been granted to another group. It is still, however, an enormous and complex set of amendments. So, to misquote Captain Lawrence Oates, I may be some time.
This section of the Bill gives the police power to stop and search people without any reasonable suspicion that they may be in possession of anything unlawful. Its origins are in the Conservative party manifesto, which says:
“Police will be empowered to target known knife carriers with a new court order, making it easier for officers to stop and search those known in the past to have carried weapons.”
That statement seems to regard all knives as weapons. On the face of it, chefs and Sikhs, to take but two examples of innocent knife carriers, could be targeted with the new court order. Surely what the public, reading this part of the manifesto, would have been hoping for, is that the police would target criminals who have carried knives intending to use them illegally as weapons, or who have used knives in the commission of an offence, not just anyone “known to be a knife carrier”.
Furthermore, would the public have expected that, if you were with someone when you were caught committing an offence, and the other person—your accomplice—had a knife concealed on them, you too would be regarded as a “known knife carrier”, even though you were not carrying a knife? There may be a convention that we should not stand in the way of provisions set out in a governing party’s manifesto, but when they are as poorly drafted as the few lines the Government are relying on to include serious violence reduction orders in the Bill, perhaps we should make an exception.
These measures are controversial for many reasons, but two fundamental principles are breached here. The first is the use of previous convictions, as my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames said before the break. When an accused person is before a court that is to decide their guilt or innocence, in almost every case the accused’s previous criminal record is not considered relevant to whether, on the occasion the court is considering, they committed the offence. Convicted criminals have to be given the chance to turn their lives around and to move on.
The provisions in this part of the Bill allow the police to stop and search people because, at some time in the past, on the balance of probabilities, even based on hearsay, they, or someone they were with, may have had a knife on them. Unlike convictions that become spent after a period of time—the Government are making some welcome changes in this regard in another part of the Bill and unwelcome changes when it comes to cautions—these serious violence reduction orders can be renewed indefinitely. The individual could have a stop and search target on their back for the rest of their life.
The second fundamental principle, that could only be breached in very limited circumstances in a limited geographic area for a limited period of time and authorised by a senior police officer—although we think Section 60 should be abolished—is that the police can stop and search someone only if they reasonably believe that the person has something on them at the time of the stop and search that they should not have, whether it is drugs—usually it is, as 63% of stop and searches are for drugs—or something else that it is unlawful for them to have in their possession.
The trouble is that the overwhelming majority of stop and searches result in no further action being taken, but you are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black than if you are white, even when it is supposedly based on reasonable suspicion. As noble Lords heard in answer to an Oral Question earlier, it gets even worse. Only one in 100 Section 60 “no suspicion required” stop and searches results in a weapon being found, while disproportionality increases to 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black compared with if you are white. It might also be useful for the Committee to note that, on stop and search based on suspicion where you are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black, you are no more likely to have anything illegal on you than a white person.
The evidence is irrefutable; stop and search, where no reasonable suspicion that the person you are searching has anything illegal on them is required, is ineffective and damaging to police-community relations. Yet here we are, with the Government are proposing more suspicionless stop and search. It is not just about damaging police-community relations. For those repeatedly stopped and searched by the police, there is a personal impact. It tends to increase offending, is associated with anxiety, the loss of sleep and the ability to study, which further inhibits an individual’s ability to turn their life around and be a productive member of society.
Turning to Amendments 224, 227 and 237, as my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just said, for any order that has serious consequences—in terms of a breach of the order resulting in a criminal conviction and potentially a prison sentence—the court should be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the conditions necessary for the order to be imposed are satisfied, not, as the Bill proposes, on the balance of probabilities. We have consistently argued this for other such orders, and I do not intend to rehearse those arguments today.
It is obvious to any reasonable person that, before such a serious order can be imposed, the court must be absolutely convinced that the conditions for making the order are satisfied, whether, in the case of Amendment 224, the offender had a knife, or, as in Amendment 227, it is necessary to make the order to protect the public or particular members of the public or to prevent an offence being committed involving a knife, or, in the case of Amendment 237, that the court considers beyond reasonable doubt that it is necessary to renew or lengthen the duration of an SVRO. Amendment 228, in my name, ensures that an SVRO can be imposed only if the court is satisfied that it is a proportionate way to ensure that people are protected or offences involving knives are prevented.
As we can see, these are draconian orders; they are likely to be ineffective based on evidence of other suspicionless stop and searches and to disproportionately impact on ethnic minorities. This amendment is designed to ensure that courts take these unintended negative consequences into account before imposing them.
Carrying a knife is not a criminal offence. The criminal offence is committed only when the knife is carried without reasonable excuse or lawful authority. Amendment 225 would disallow a serious violence reduction order from being applied if a person simply had a knife with them when the offence was committed.
I will illustrate with a fictitious example. Two louts are walking down a road. One of them smashes the window of a car that has been parked and left unattended. They are both arrested and charged with criminal damage. The active participant is found to have had a knife with him because he is an electrician who was on his way home from work, and he uses the knife in the course of his work. He could still have an SVRO made against him, under the Bill as drafted, even though he was lawfully in possession of the knife. Amendment 225 is designed to restrict SVROs to cases where the knife was used as a weapon in the course of the offence.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames have said, the legal concept of “joint enterprise” is already controversial—for example, where members of a gang who are present when one of the gang stabs another can all be guilty of murder. This is taken to another level by these provisions. The court should not be able to give the accomplice an SVRO—to go back to the manifesto, someone who is not a known knife carrier. That is the intention of Amendment 226, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, to which I have added my name.
Not only can an SVRO be given to the electrician’s mate even if the electrician did not use the knife to smash the car window, it can be given if his mate
“knew or ought to have known”
that he had a knife. Well, he knew he was an electrician, so I suppose he should have known he might have had a knife. No. We support Amendments 226A and 226B tabled by the noble Baroness, Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top, seeking to remove the condition that the offender
“ought to have known”
that his accomplice had a knife. The noble Baroness clearly explained the unintended consequences for women and girls who are often coerced into offending.
SVROs can be made not only on the balance of probabilities but on the flimsiest of evidence. For example, even if the evidence that the person had a knife with them when the offence was committed would not have been admissible in the trial for the offence, it could be used in deciding whether to impose an SVRO.
Let us go back to the example of the electrician and his mate who have smashed a car window. Imagine that, for whatever reason—perhaps it was his day off—the electrician did not actually have a knife with him when he smashed the car window, but then his mate says to the police, “He’s an electrician, and he usually has a knife”. This is hearsay evidence and it is not relevant evidence, in that it does not prove or disprove the offence of the smashing of the car window. Therefore, it would be inadmissible during the trial. But, as drafted, it is evidence that could be considered by the court in deciding whether to impose an SVRO. It may not even be true. Amendments 229, 230 and 231 attempt to strengthen the evidentiary requirements prior to an SVRO being made by excluding evidence that would have been inadmissible in the trial for the offence leading to the consideration of imposing an SVRO.
Amendment 240 proposes a far more rigorous examination of the piloting of SVROs—for example, whether they reduce knife carrying and serious violence; the impact on disproportionality; what types of offences led to the making of the order; and requiring the Secretary of State to obtain, record and publish relevant data before SVROs are rolled out.
The nonsense of this monstrous Bill, where the Government have tried to force so much controversial legislation into one Bill, and then tried to force as many provisions of the Bill as possible into each group of amendments, has resulted in my longest ever speech on the Floor of this House in my eight years here. Do not blame me—I am looking at the Minister.
If I am to end my speech here, all I can ask is for noble Lords to read my remarks on this group of amendments in their entirety in the official record and to take them collectively as the reasons why this clause, and serious violence reduction orders in their totality, should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I was listening with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It was a very good contribution and he raised a huge number of real concerns shared by many noble Lords across the Chamber. The question for the Government is whether they will actually listen to some of the points being made and change the legislation. In the light of some of the comments made by the noble Lord and by many others across the Chamber, I hope that they will. Irrespective of one’s view of this, there is a need for the orders to change; even if one disagrees with them as a whole, they need to be improved, and that is the point of Committee.
To be fair to the Government, I understand what they are trying to do. Noble Lords will know that I am not a lawyer, but I go to the facts to find things out, and I usually find it helpful to quote the Government’s own facts because then they do not accuse me of making them up. So I will quote from the Serious Violence Reduction Orders: Draft Statutory Guidance, of October 2021. Here we see the scale of the problem. According to the Government, these orders are needed because
“Recorded knife crime has risen over a period of several years.”
These are the Government’s own figures:
“For example, offences involving knives or sharp instruments increased by 84 percent between the year to June 2014 and the year to June 2020.”
Whatever the reasons or the rights and wrongs, that is a huge increase.
The public, and all of us, would expect the Government to do something about that, but the questions being posed here are these. First, are serious violence reduction orders the way to do it? Secondly, even if they are, are the Government going about it in a sensible way? I would say that the answer to both is probably no.
There are a huge number of concerns about these serious violence reduction orders, not least of which is, if you have a serious problem with knife crime, what has been shown to be successful over the decades—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will know this from his policing days, and others have had experience of this, including the Minister in her local authority—is targeting police activity alongside the community, with all the various agencies diverting people, and young people in particular, away from it. That has been proven time and again. If the Minister goes back to the Home Office, she will find research after research to say that that is the way to deal with it: increase policing, work with local authorities and other local partners, and work with the community to take action.
I tell you what I think has happened: the Government have said, “My goodness, we have a real problem here, what are we going to do?”, and reached for an order which gives the impression of doing something. Of course, everyone wants the Government to do something—all of us want knife crime reduced—but is this the most effective and best way of doing it? Is this proportionate? Will it work? I have very serious concerns about the process but also about whether these orders will actually do what the Government, and all of us, want them to do, which is to reduce knife crime and stop people of whatever age offending. The Minister needs to explain why these will work. Why will they do what the Government intend? Will we read in a year or two that that 84% figure has been reduced?
Nobody in this House believes that stop and search is not a necessary action for the police to take at certain times, but it is the most controversial aspect of policing. I am sure that many people will have experienced or witnessed—it may not have been themselves personally—stop and search. It is a real infringement of people’s liberty, but communities accept it for the common good. That does not mean that they want it to happen carte blanche. The use of Section 60 is sometimes allowed, and communities will agree with it, but Section 60s do not last for two years. They last for a very short period, where the community has agreed that such is the crisis facing their particular area that, when it comes to whatever age of people, they will allow the police to have what they regard as a draconian power in order to further the public good.
The Government have driven a coach and horses through that with this serious violence reduction order. It is not just me who thinks this: the former Home Secretary and Prime Minister, Theresa May, talked in her contribution to this debate about the unintended consequences of this legislation and what she would have wanted. That is why my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has indicated that he will oppose Clause 140 standing part of the Bill. A general debate needs to take place and the Government need to justify to this House and to the public why this clause will work and why it is necessary.
We have heard lots of contributions on the various amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, but nobody could have failed to have been moved by what my noble friend Lady Armstrong said. She was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in another good contribution, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. As they pointed out, everybody knows that what my noble friend Lady Armstrong said is true: if this Bill goes through unamended, there will be young people—and people of any age—who will, by implication, be in trouble because they “ought to have known”. What sort of standard is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked? They ought to have known? I was a schoolteacher: you could not even give someone detention sometimes on the basis of “ought to have known”. This is serious: it is about taking away someone’s liberty. It is about stopping them in the street; it is about doing all of that. I do not know about your Lordships, but I have been in the company of lots of people in different sorts of situations and I did not always know what they were going to do, especially not criminal activity. I am sure that we all have said: “They did what?” That could even happen with friends, yet the Government are basing serious violence reduction orders on the basis of “ought to have known”. My noble friend Lady Armstrong was quite right.
Women are coerced into criminal activity. We all accept that—it is beyond debate—yet the Government are going to criminalise them. It beggars belief. I do not believe that either of the Ministers facing me believe in this. I think that they accept that women are coerced into activity that they do not want to get involved in, but they are going to pass legislation that will allow them to be criminalised. It just does not add up; it does not make sense. The Government have the power to change this—that is what is so frustrating. This is not yet the law. That is why we are debating it and why people are raising these issues. They are saying that it will not work, that it is unfair, that it is unjustified or that it is not in accordance with the principles of the legal system of our country, of which we are all so proud. There are doubts about its effectiveness. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me on this stand part debate, as Clause 140 goes to the nub of it. There are all sorts of amendments that we could put, but on this particular order—it will be for noble Lords to decide—that clause goes to the nub of what we are talking about.
My noble friend Lady Lawrence, who is not in her place, is a remarkable woman. Continually, year after year, despite the horror of her own circumstances, she points out in a calm, respectful, dignified way that the Government have to understand the consequences of some of the things that they are imposing on black and ethnic minority communities. She is not saying it just because she is a Labour Peer and wants to have a go at a Conservative Government; she is saying, “From my experience, from my knowledge, from my understanding, this will be the consequence of what the Government are going to do.”
We know that black and ethnic minority people are disproportionately affected by these changes. Go to these communities and talk to them, as I did when I was a Home Office Minister, and as I am sure Ministers will do, and if you get their agreement, they will support you. They do not want their young people stabbed; they do not want crime all over; they want their young people and their adults to be safe—of course they do—but they want it done with them, not to them. I have statistic after statistic around the disproportionality that exists, as well as what the College of Policing says about it. The House of Commons Library states:
“Available statistical analysis does not show a consistent link between the increased use of stop and search and levels of violence.”
If that is wrong, where is the evidence to show that it is wrong? I would say that, while stop and search may work in a blanket way, we need to look specifically at where it is targeted. I think that stop and search does make a difference, but it is where it is targeted: it should not be a blanket “Here you go; do it when you want”, which is what perverts the figures. As I say, we have real concerns, epitomised, and I make no apology for repeating this, by what the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, said.
I have a couple of things to say about the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Amendment 226 would remove the provisions that allow an SVRO to be applied to a person who has not actually handled a knife, as we were saying, or any kind of weapon, but who was in the company of someone else who had used a knife and, as the Bill says, either
“knew or ought to have known”
that their companion was armed. I just think that that will have to change. These orders allow a person to be stopped and searched without grounds; they can be stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion for up to two years. I think that there is an amendment, although I cannot remember if it is in this group, that questions whether that can be continually renewed and whether two years is the limit. From my reading of the Bill, it seems that it can go on and on, so it is quite a draconian proposal.
On Amendment 239—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has signed both the previous amendment and this one—the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says that too many of these powers are going to be applied by the negative procedure. It says to the Government, even if it is right to take away some of the liberty of the citizen in our country, on the street, by giving the police additional powers, surely that should be debated in Parliament. It should not just be for Ministers to make it up and lay it and that is it. Are we really saying that freedom of the individual in this country is dependent on a Minister in an office determining what the regulation should be on something as serious as this? Do we not agree with the committee, particularly regarding stop and search as well as other matters in the Bill, including these violent crime reduction orders, that at least the affirmative procedure should be used? We cannot amend the instruments, but we can at least debate them and I think that people would reasonably expect that.
Finally, if the Government are going to go ahead with this, as I expect they will, Amendment 240, in the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness Meacher, is essential: the pilots that the Government are running must be of a real standard, a real quality, and must be strengthened. If the evidence from those pilots is not what the Government want it to be—if it shows that they do not work—can we be assured that they will listen to what the pilots are telling them?
I could go on, and I am sorry that I have gone on a little while, but I think that stop and search, particularly without reasonable suspicion, is one of the most important powers that the police have to tackle serious and violent crime, but it is also one of the most controversial and, as such, should be handled with real care. I suggest that these amendments say to the Government that even if they are right to introduce these orders, they have not really, through the Bill, shown us that care and demonstrated it to the public. The Government need to think again.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Coaker, for speaking to these amendments, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, who is back in her seat—the timing was pretty good, because we had an hour’s break; in fact, it was an hour and a half by the time we had finished Questions.
Before I turn to the specifics of the amendments, it might be helpful to the Committee if I first outline why we are introducing these new orders and why we think they will make a positive contribution to tackling knife crime, which has risen over the last seven years, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out. I agree with him on the multi-agency approach. He brought up our local government days. Absolutely the most effective initiatives, which have grown over the last few years, are those which take that public health approach, with all agencies working together. On testing, the pilots will be a very good way of assessing whether what we have proposed is effective when put into practice. There are four pilot areas, which I shall go through shortly. I say to the noble Lord that it will be independently evaluated.
The Committee would not disagree that every time someone carries a knife, they risk ruining their life and the lives of others. Knife crime is blighting our communities and the Government are determined to tackle the scourge. I again totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—again, this probably goes back to our local government days—that engagement with communities is vital, because they not only support their young people not being knifed to death but they will support the police in what they are trying to do. We have just talked in the Urgent Question repeat about trust from communities in what the police are doing.
We have committed to putting an extra 20,000 police officers on our streets. We have also committed £176.5 million over the last two years through a serious violence fund to address the drivers of serious violence at the local level and significantly bolster the police response. This includes £70 million to support violence reduction units in 18 areas across the country most affected by serious violence. We have also committed a further £130.5 million to tackle serious violence and homicide in the current financial year.
Stop and search has taken 11,000 knives off the streets and resulted in 74,000 arrests in 2019-20. However, we all know that we have more to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said—I apologise that I keep quoting him—we all want to know what works and what will drive out the scourge of knife crime. Too many criminals who carry knives or other offensive weapons go on to offend again—that is indisputable. We need to send a clear message that if people persist in carrying knives, they can expect to be caught and face a prison sentence.
As I have said, stop and search is a vital tool to crack down on violent crime. As I indicated in an earlier debate, we have already made it easier for forces to use existing powers. Our message is simple: if offenders are vulnerable and want to move away from crime, we will support them, but if they continue to carry knives and weapons over and over again, serious violence reduction orders, or SVROs, help to end that reoffending cycle. They will give the police powers to take a more proactive approach and make it easier to target those already convicted of offences involving knives or offensive weapons, giving them the automatic right to search those offenders and help tackle prolific, high-risk offenders.
SVROs are intended to be used as part of a wider approach to support offenders. We expect that they will provide a credible reason to resist pressure to carry weapons, thus acting as a deterrent and helping to protect vulnerable first-time offenders from being drawn into further crime and exploitation by criminal gangs.
We understand the concerns around disproportionality and the impact of stop and search on our BME communities but, as I said in an earlier response, let us not forget that young black people are 24 times more likely to be victims of homicide than young white people. Young black people are dying, their families are suffering and their communities are being disproportionately impacted. We must do better. We must give the police tools that will enable them to take a more targeted approach, focusing their efforts and resources on those they know carry knives.
As I have said, these orders will be piloted before being rolled out across England and Wales. Clause 141 sets out the detail of this. The pilot will help us build an understanding of the impact and effectiveness of the new orders and, as required by Clause 141, we will lay a report before Parliament on the operation and outcome of the pilot. I hope that this gives the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, some comfort.
I now turn to the specifics of the amendments. Amendments 224, 227 and 237 would raise the threshold for the standard of proof required to impose, vary or renew an SVRO from the civil standard, which is the balance of probabilities, to the criminal standard, which is beyond reasonable doubt. Before I go any further, I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan; I forgot to acknowledge that he made a very good speech earlier.
New Section 342A(3) of the Sentencing Code provides that an SVRO can be made if the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a bladed article or offensive weapon was used by the offender in the commission of the offence, or that the offender had a bladed article or offensive weapon with them when the offence was committed. An order can also be given if the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a bladed article or offensive weapon was used by another person in the commission of the offence—the commission of the offence is the crucial point here—or that another person had a bladed article or offensive weapon with them when the offence was committed and the offender knew, or ought to have known, that that would be the case.
This means that, when considering any applications for an SVRO, the court should apply the civil standard of proof when determining whether the individual in respect of whom the application is made has committed an offence involving a bladed article or offensive weapon. This civil standard is not new; it was accepted in your Lordships’ House in the context of domestic abuse protection orders earlier this year, or at the end of last year.
I am aware that there are concerns about this approach. However, the Bill provides that the court may hear evidence from both the offender and the prosecution when considering whether to make an SVRO. It is anticipated that, in most cases, it will be clear beyond reasonable doubt whether the offender used or had with them a knife or offensive weapon in the offence, and the offender may have been convicted of a knife or offensive weapons offence.
However, there may be cases where the fact that an offender used or had with them a knife or offensive weapon cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In these cases, we believe that the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities, is appropriate to enable the court to consider whether an SVRO is necessary in respect of an individual, given the aims of the order to protect communities and deter offenders from future offending. The criminal standard of proof will apply in any criminal prosecution for breaching an SVRO. As I said, this approach is in line with other civil orders, such as domestic abuse prevention orders, which we debated at the beginning of the year.
Amendment 225 would restrict the circumstances in which an SVRO may be made. Currently, proposed new Section 342A(3) provides that an SVRO can be made if a bladed article or offensive weapon was used by the offender in the commission of the offence or that the offender had a bladed article or offensive weapon with them when the offence was committed. This allows for circumstances where a bladed article or offensive weapon was not used in the offence, but the offender had a bladed article or knife with them when the offence was committed.
I remind the Committee that for an SVRO to be made a person must be convicted of an offence involving a knife or offensive weapon. So the Sikh or chef, in the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would not generally be convicted of an offensive weapon attack—and that applies to the electrician and his mate. I am sorry; I am trying to read my own writing here.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I have a quick question, because I want to be clear about this point in relation to something the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said earlier. If a Sikh, who is carrying just their religious knife, is in a fight and is convicted of common assault, is the SVRO now available in that context?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is always dangerous to talk about specific cases but, if the knife has not been used in the commission of the offence—
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
If the Sikh was going about his business with his knife in his pocket, he would have reasonable excuse. If he then got into a fight and the knife was not used in the commission of the common assault, the knife would be irrelevant to the case. But I must absolutely caveat my comments: the court would decide the facts of the case.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Could I further clarify what the Minister has just said? If the Sikh becomes involved in a fight and does not go for the knife that they are carrying during that offence, the Sikh can still be made subject to an SVRO, because they committed an offence and had a knife with them at the time the offence was committed, even though the weapon was not used.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have just fallen into a trap that I do not like to fall into, which is to take on specific cases. The court would have to determine the facts of the case to decide whether the knife was relevant and, therefore, whether an SVRO could be made.
Lord Paddick (LD)
This is Committee and it is important to get this clear. My clear understanding of the legislation is that it does not matter whether the knife was used in the commission of the offence; it is simply the fact that the person had a knife with them when they committed the offence which means that not only can that person be made subject to an SVRO but any person convicted with them who did not have a knife can also be made the subject of an SVRO by the court. So, without using specific examples, can the Minister please clarify that I am correct?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
What I can clarify is that I will not take theoretical cases again. But the court would need to consider whether in the circumstances it is proportionate to make an order. That does not go into the specifics of any given case.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Minister might want to take some advice on this, but I think the relevant piece of legislation in Clause 140 is proposed new Section 342A(3)(b), which says that
“the offender had a bladed article or offensive weapon with them when the offence was committed.”
They do not have to use it; it is just the fact that they are carrying it and have it on them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I backtracked quite a bit to say that the courts would then make the judgment call on whether the SVRO would be made, based on the facts of the case. I am not saying that, theoretically, it could not happen, but the courts may decide otherwise. It would depend on the facts of the case.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Perhaps I may just add that it seems so widely drawn that the first condition, in proposed new subsection (1), is that there has to be an offence. It does not say that there has to be an offence involving violence. So, first there has to be an offence. Then you engage proposed new subsection (3)(b): during the commission of the offence, whatever it might have been, did the person involved carry a knife? If the offence was, say, a driving offence, I am sure that an SVRO would not be applied for or granted, but there is a large area of discretion here. When you take it a little further into proposed new subsection (4), it is simply an offence—the carriage of a knife and the question of “ought to have known”. So the whole thing wanders off into this speculative landscape where evidence does not seem to matter and it is all mental constructions. I am sorry for going on.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is no problem at all; this is Committee, where we clarify these issues. But I think it is fair to say that the trigger for the SVRO, essentially, is the conviction.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
An interesting criminal law debate is developing and I cannot resist joining in. I very respectfully suggest to the Minister that this is a situation in which the use of examples, if they are worked up, is very important and would be extremely useful. My view is that she is right about some of this but possibly not all of it, and that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is possibly right about quite a lot of it but wrong about some of it—for example, the relevance of previous convictions, which may be used far more these days than he imagines. Previous convictions are available as evidence of propensity and are frequently used in criminal trials. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that a series of indicative examples should be worked up and put in the Library in advance of Report, because it would make these questions much easier to answer.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank my noble friend—and he is my noble friend because he has come to my rescue time and again. I am not a lawyer and even less of an expert in criminal law.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Perhaps I could just say that those examples should include, if they are right, non-violent offences where a weapon is not used in the commission of the offence in any way, where the person only has the weapon on them, and they have an accomplice who did not have a knife on them but should have known that the person had one concealed on their person when they committed a non-violent offence without using the weapon.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I will most certainly do that. So this is offences where the knife is not actually deployed and the person with the individual with a knife in their pocket would not have known that the knife was in their pocket. Without getting myself into further trouble, I would say that the courts would take those facts into consideration—but I will elect to write to noble Lords with as many permutations and combinations as I can possibly think of before Report.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I have no wish to get the noble Baroness into more difficulties, but the problem arises because she said that the court would have to consider the relevance of the carriage of the knife to the offence, and that is quite simply wrong. I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness, before any examples are produced, would concede that, and then discuss whether these amendments are not very important in light of the answer. There is the weakness—the lack of the nexus between the carriage of the knife and any offence that is proved.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I need to reflect further on what noble Lords have said. I will try to answer the noble Lord’s question in a letter before we start talking about examples. We are, after all, in Committee, and I am learning, like other noble Lords, as we go along.
Amendments 226, 226A and 226B would remove the provisions that enable a court to issue the SVRO if two or more people commit an offence but not all of them used or were in possession of the weapon—that is slightly going back on what we were discussing. When a knife offence or offensive weapon-related offence is committed, it is not always the case that all the offenders had the weapon in their hands—as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out—during the commission of the offence. But if the court is satisfied that a person knew or ought to have known that another person committing the offence had a knife or an offensive weapon during the commission of the offence, and this person committed an offence arising out of the same facts, we think it would be appropriate for an SVRO to be available. Again, I will put the various permutations and combinations to noble Lords in a theoretical way. This would allow SVROs to be made in relation to all the individuals who were involved and were convicted of such an offence, should the court consider an SVRO to be necessary in respect of those individuals.
This provision intends to cover situations such as a robbery or a fight where a weapon was used by one individual, but where other individuals convicted of offences related to the same facts knew, or ought to have known, that a weapon was being used or carried by another person involved in the offence, even if they themselves were not carrying the weapon. This is very similar to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, except that that individual was brandishing the weapon.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am sorry, but that is not what the proposed law says. It does not talk about when there is a fight and somebody uses a weapon, and a person who was with them should have known they had a weapon. What the Bill as drafted says is that anybody who commits any offence—such as, for example, smashing a car window—who has a knife in their pocket can be given an SVRO. It may be that that is what was intended, but it is not what the legislation says.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
What I am saying, and what I said earlier, is that it will be up to the courts to decide whether it is appropriate, bearing in mind the facts of the case, and whether the court thinks an SVRO in respect of an individual is necessary to protect the public or any particular members of the public in England and Wales.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
First, I want to thank the Minister and do not want her to think any of this is meant to be aggressive or to interfere with what she is doing. Secondly, these hypotheticals are incredibly important to test the provisions; they are not some attempt to be clever and dance on the head of a pin. It is super important to get the criminal law right, and that can only be done, in my view, by testing it against the sorts of scenarios being offered.
The Minister quite rightly says, “We are creating a disposal, and in the end the courts will have to administer it”. None the less, the Government are creating the disposal and setting thresholds for its availability. With respect to her, the Government must have a policy and intention, and there is therefore a valid question about whether it is the Government’s intention in drafting and pursuing this legislation that, for example, any male Sikh, or any Sikh, who carries a ceremonial knife, however small, will always theoretically be subject to this additional exposure to a disposal to which, by definition, people of other faiths will not be subject. I am not saying that to be inflammatory, but we have to get this right. The Minister herself has talked about equality impact assessments, and so on. It may be that this proposal slipped through the net and is worth looking at again before the next stage.
This is not just an issue for the Sikh community but for other people such as chefs or electricians who are carrying knives and are involved in a crime that theoretically is potentially not even violent crime but perhaps minor shoplifting, possession of prohibited drugs or whatever. They are now, suddenly, potentially subject to this disposal. It is not simple enough to assume that when a specific disposal such as this one, with draconian consequences, is made available for sentences it would never be used. The courts might rightly think that the Government’s policy must have been that if you carry a blade or point, regardless of whether you were carrying it illegally in the first place, you take your chances, and that if you get involved in shoplifting or is found in possession of drugs, that is too bad—you now get this additional penalty and it serves you right. That is the signal that we are sending on violent crime. I hope that that is not the intention but if it is, the Committee will need to know.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We have covered a spectrum of different types of offending and behaviour. We must not forget that at the point at which—no pun intended—someone is issued with an SVRO, they will have been convicted by the court of a knife or offensive weapons offence. The court will also, I am sure, take into consideration previous patterns of behaviour. If the Sikh who got involved in a fight and had his knife with him had no previous convictions for weapons offending, that would be quite different from a repeat offender. It would be for the court to consider whether to impose the SVRO. I hope that I have made that clear and that it will become clearer to noble Lords by the examples I will provide.
Of course, we will consider, in the light of the Committee, whether we have got all the permutations and combinations right. That is what noble Lords do best—scrutinising legislation, and I have the benefit of some serious legal players around the Chamber.
I now move on to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, about the disproportionate impact that SVROs might have on some vulnerable groups—primarily women who might be coerced into carrying weapons. I completely empathise with the circumstances in which such women might find themselves. We discussed domestic violence only a few months ago and know the effect that coercive control can have on women. At the heart of what we are doing is committing to preventing offenders of all ages, genders and backgrounds becoming involved in serious violence by developing resilience, supporting positive alternatives and delivering timely interventions.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. My amendment takes out the part that states that a person “ought to have known” that someone else was carrying, rather than that person carrying. That is the bit that is particularly pernicious in terms of the woman that I was talking about.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I completely understand that point it in the context of the previous debate. One of the things that we will be testing as part of the pilot is the impact of SVROs on the individuals subject to them, and how to ensure that vulnerable offenders—because sometimes people are caught up in these things completely unwittingly—are directed to local intervention schemes to help steer them away from crime. But SVROs used as part of a wider crime prevention approach will send a clear message that, if people are vulnerable and want to move away from crime, and in particular if they are being coerced into carrying things, or coerced generally, we will of course support them.
Amendment 228 seeks to increase the requirements for SVROs to be made. It would require that an order can be imposed only if the SVRO is proportionate to one or more of the relevant aims of the order. It is already a requirement for the court to consider the making of the order necessary to protect the public, or any particular member of the public, including the offender, from the risk of harm, and to prevent the offender committing an offence. It would be for the court to decide the seriousness of any offence, based on the individual facts of the case, and to decide whether it is necessary and proportionate for an order to be made in respect of an individual. Any order made will be at the court’s discretion.
An individual convicted of an offence involving a bladed article or offensive weapon could cause harm to any member of the public, including particular individuals. The provisions in the Bill allow a wide range of considerations to be made, so that an SVRO will have the greatest impact and protect members of the public, including the offender themselves, from the risk of harm.
Amendments 229, 230 and 231 seek to amend the evidentiary requirements for an SVRO to be made. They would provide that the court may consider only evidence led by the prosecution and by the offender and would remove provisions that allow courts to consider evidence that would have been inadmissible in the proceedings in which the offender was convicted. We think it appropriate that the court can consider a wider range of evidence about the offender that may not have been admissible in the proceedings. This goes in some sense to the heart of what we have just been discussing. For example, in answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the offender may have a history of knife carrying that would be relevant to whether an SVRO would be necessary to protect the public.
Amendment 239 would make the guidance to be issued under Clause 140 subject to the affirmative procedure, as recommended by the DPRRC in its report on the Bill. As I have indicated in response to other amendments, we are considering carefully the arguments put forward by the DPRRC and will also reflect on today’s debate before responding to the committee’s report ahead of the next stage of the Bill.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—through the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—has tabled Amendment 240 to Clause 141, which makes provision for the piloting of SVROs. I talked about this earlier. I can assure noble Lords that we will take the matters set out in Amendment 240 into consideration as we progress the design work for the pilot and agree the terms of the evaluation. That said, the general point is that it is not necessary to include such a list in the Bill. The approach adopted in Clause 141 is consistent, for example, with the piloting provisions in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 in respect of knife crime prevention orders.
Working with the four pilot forces our aims are: to monitor and gather data on a number of different measures—including, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the impact of SVROs on serious violence; to build evidence on reoffending and the outcomes for offenders who are subject to SVROs; to understand and learn how we ensure that vulnerable people are directed to local intervention schemes; and to understand community responses to the orders.
I think we can conclude by agreeing on the need to do all we can to tackle the scourge of knife crime, which is wrecking far too many lives. I hope that I have been able to persuade noble Lords of the case for the new orders as part of our wider work to prevent and reduce serious violence, and that I have reassured the Committee—although not on certain things, on which I will have to write—that many of the issues raised will be considered as part of the piloting of SVROs in advance of any national rollout. I reiterate my commitment to consider further the DPRRC’s recommendation in relation to parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this group, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Coaker.
The Minister asked what works. The centre-right think tank Policy Exchange recently produced a report saying that, in reducing serious violence, the emphasis should be on community policing and not on stop and search. That summarises what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was saying. The Minister, in earlier proceedings in the House this afternoon, talked about how trust in the police had been seriously damaged recently. Despite that, the Government are giving the police more and more powers that are likely to further damage trust in the police.
The Minister talked about communities—particularly black communities—wanting this sort of thing in order to stop their young people dying on the streets. After I left the police, I went to a pupil referral unit, and students from the unit took me to a local council estate where a young mother holding a baby had been stabbed to death. As we looked at the scene, they said to me, “Yes, we want the police to take knives off the street, but we want them to target stop and search at the people who have got the knives.” To do that, and to target stop and search at those people who are carrying knives, the police need community intelligence, and these sorts of provisions are likely to push the community away, rather than encourage people to come forward with information. Do not get me wrong: targeted, intelligence-led stop and search based on community information can be effective in taking weapons off the street, but quite clearly, as I said on Section 60, with suspicionless stop and search, only one in 100 stop and searches results in a weapon being recovered.
The noble Baroness said that these provisions are very similar to domestic violence prevention orders on the balance of probabilities versus reasonable doubt. Throughout the course of that Bill, we persistently said that that was not acceptable, so the noble Baroness should not be surprised that we are saying it about these orders. However, we need to do all we can to reduce serious violence on our streets. The difficulty is where you have provisions such as this that prove to be counterproductive.
We will come back to this at Report—I can guarantee that. But at this stage, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I move Amendment 231A in my name and speak to the other amendments in this group. These amendments relate to what happens after a serious violence reduction order has been granted.
Amendments 231A and 231B remove the requirements for the offender to give, and update the police on, information about where they are living, including the home address on the day the order is given—which will be given to the court in any event and is therefore not necessary—any other place they regularly reside, and any place they move to or intend to spend more than a month living at. Noble Lords should ask themselves what the purpose of this power is. Is it so that the police can trace the offender, track their every move and then wait outside the place where they live, to stop and search them as soon as they leave? Create a power to stop and search someone who may or may not have carried a knife in the past if you must, whether you suspect them of having a knife on them at the time or not, but to enable, or even encourage, harassment of these individuals by supplying the police with continually updated information about their whereabouts smacks of stalking by the state.
As I will point out in a moment, SVROs can be renewed indefinitely. One of the most important ways a young criminal can turn their life around is to move away from the area where they were involved in a gang, for example, to start a new life. These provisions mean that their reputation follows them, making it even more difficult for them to be rehabilitated. They may have moved on, but the police will continue to stop and search them at will, without any reasonable cause to suspect that the individual is doing anything wrong. The offender would be justified in thinking, “What is the point? May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.” On the previous group, the Minister said that if an offender wants to move away from offending the Government will support them. Updating the police continually about where this young person has moved to, and enabling them to target that individual through stop and search, even though they are trying to turn their lives around, does not sound to me like supporting them in trying to move on from offending.
For similar reasons, the proposed power to give a chief constable for the area where the offender lives, and the area where the police believe the offender is or intends to come to, to apply to a court to extend or renew the SVRO should also be removed, as proposed by Amendments 235 and 236. The chief constable for the area where the offence was committed should be able to apply to have the SVRO varied, renewed or discharged—that is fair enough—but this should not be the case for any chief constable, anywhere in the country, who knows or even just thinks that the offender might be coming to their area. Offenders who genuinely want to turn their lives around should be able to move on with their lives. If they move home and fall into their old ways, the police in the area where they have come to notice can ask the chief constable in the area where the original offence was committed to make an application on their behalf. These provisions are unnecessary and potentially counterproductive in reducing serious violence.
Amendment 238 limits the number of times an SVRO can be imposed. Although each SVRO is restricted to a maximum duration of two years, SVROs can be renewed indefinitely. This means that our electrician’s mate could potentially be stopped and searched by the police, without any reasonable suspicion that he has anything unlawful on him, for the rest of his life. There are very few offences where there is not a spent period, after which the conviction no longer has to be declared. Yet the provisions in this Bill mean that, on the balance of probabilities, someone for whom there is no evidence of their ever having carried a knife could be targeted by the police for suspicionless stop and search for the rest of their life.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
These are good amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has tabled because, as he said, they deal with what happens after an SVRO is given. The various amendments raise various questions that the Minister will need to answer. I want to highlight a specific point which, in terms of proportionality, I would like the Minister to consider. A Section 60—stop and search without suspicion—is normally given for 24 hours and, if extended beyond that, is very limited. As the noble Lord pointed out, and did so in the previous debate, this can be six months or up to two years. It can then be added to again; there is no time limit to end it. We need some clarity on that. In Committee, that is the sort of detail we want to go into.
More generally, so much of this—again, as in much legislation—will be by regulation. New Section 342B on the meaning of a serious violence reduction order includes subsection (1)(b), which says that the requirements and prohibitions will be done by order—admittedly, to be fair to the Government, by affirmative order in this case. But it is quite an ask of Parliament to pass an Act which gives the Secretary of State the ability to have these serious violence reduction orders with all sorts of requirements and prohibitions in them without us really knowing what they would be. I looked on the website and tried to find a draft, skeleton or suggested possibility of what they might look like, but I could not see one—unless I missed it. Often, with respect to legislation, you get draft regulations or a draft idea. It would have been extremely helpful for the Committee if some idea of the sorts of things that might be considered had been given to us.
New Section 342C(1) states:
“A serious violence reduction order may impose on the offender any requirement or prohibition specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
Again, to be fair, that will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but these are the sorts of details which mean that we are passing this legislation almost blind in terms of some of these things. These will be really severe restrictions on the liberty of the individual. Even if they are regarded as a good thing in terms of reducing knife crime—which is what we all want to achieve—we are giving the Government the power to legislate and make all sorts of regulations and prohibitions to be included as part of a serious violence reduction order without knowing what they may be.
New Section 342B(7) says that these regulations will be made only after the pilots have taken place. I do not expect this to be done by Report, but could we ask the Government to consider giving us an idea of what these regulations and prohibitions might be as those pilot projects proceed, so that we get some idea of them as the pilots go on? We would then have some way of understanding what they might be when we come back to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is quite right to have raised many of these issues, which seek to press the Government more so we can try to understand what they mean by some of the proposals they have listed. I ask whether more information could be given as to what prohibitions and regulations we might expect to be included in any serious violence reduction order.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I propose to deal with just one amendment, Amendment 233, which is concerned with the defence of reasonable excuse. I concentrate on that because my noble friend Lord Paddick has covered the ground in this group. But it seems to me—and I agree with what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, have said—that this group offends against principles of our criminal law and rides roughshod over them, because the overall purpose of the Bill seems to have taken precedence over any degree of thought being given to the detail of what is actually being done.
Amendment 233 in the names of my noble friend Lord Paddick, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would permit a reasonable excuse defence to an offence committed where an offender subject to an SVRO tells a constable that they are not subject to such an order. The Liberty briefing, for which we are all very grateful, points out that an offender may have committed the proposed offence of telling the police constable falsely that they are not subject to an order even where they honestly and even reasonably believe that the order—the SVRO—is no longer in force, or where they do not understand the question because English is not their first language, or for any other reason.
Looking at the proposed offences under new Section 342G(1), the reasonable excuse defence is presently available only in respect of offences under (a) or (b) of that subsection. The first is if the offender
“fails without reasonable excuse to do anything the offender is required to do by the order.”
The second is where the offender
“does anything the offender is prohibited from doing by the order.”
But there is no reasonable excuse defence available for any of the other three offences. Under (c), I think “notifies the police” means providing to the police,
“in purported compliance with the order, any information which the offender knows to be false”,
while (d) covers denying the order which is the subject of Amendment 233m which I have addressed, and (e) is where the offender
“intentionally obstructs a constable in the exercise of any power conferred by”
the legislation. None of the last three has a reasonable excuse defence available.
In thinking about this proposed section, one is reminded that reasonable excuses may arise in odd and unpredictable ways. Legislation ought to avoid criminalising any behaviour for which the citizen has a reasonable excuse, because criminalising behaviour in these circumstances brings the law into disrepute. If there is no reasonable excuse, the offence is committed and conviction will follow—but if there is a reasonable excuse, there ought to be no conviction.
We have only to remind ourselves that there may be a reasonable excuse for disobeying police officers’ requirements. Tragically, Sarah Everard was persuaded to enter Wayne Couzens’s car, with awful results, because he purported to have the right to require her to do so. We should be open to the view that automatic obedience to the requirements of a police officer is not always sensible, and that offenders, even though subject to SVROs, might well have reasonable excuses for non-compliance with police officers’ requirements.
I suggest that the Minister and her colleagues ought to think about whether reasonable excuse should not be a defence to all these offences. Initially, they might consider that there would not be many cases where a citizen would have a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. But they might also wish to reflect that that does not mean that, in those cases where citizens do have a reasonable excuse, they should be found guilty of a criminal offence. This is an important lacuna in the proposals made here—that reasonable excuse will be no answer to conviction.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has explained, this group of amendments deals with further aspects of the new serious violence reduction order. Amendments 231A and 231B would remove the requirement for an offender subject to an SVRO to notify the police of their home address; any changes to their home address; the address of any other premises at which the offender regularly resides or stays; or the address of any place they decide to live in for a period of one month or more.
We included notification requirements in the legislation in order to help officers to identify those subject to an order in their area. It is a common feature of other offender management regimes, including in relation to sex and terrorism offenders, so we are not breaking any new ground here. We stated in the draft statutory guidance that the police should use the notification stage to engage with the offender and clarify the effects of an SVRO: that is, to explain to the offender in ordinary language the requirements and effects of an SVRO and what offences may be committed if they breach the order. This, along with an up-to-date description, could be used to assist with future identification when conducting a stop and search. It is therefore important that we keep the notification requirement as currently drafted to ensure that officers are able properly to identify those subject to an order.
Amendment 233 would create a defence so that an offender can tell an officer that they are not subject to an SVRO if they have a reasonable excuse to do so. I do not see any circumstances where it would be reasonable for an offender not to tell an officer that they are subject to an SVRO if they are asked. It may be that the noble Lord wants to cover circumstances where an offender subject to an SVRO has a reasonable excuse for carrying a knife. In such circumstances, it would be for the police, and ultimately the courts, to decide whether the reasonable excuse defence was made out in the event that the offender was arrested and then charged with an offence in relation to the possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his support on the duration of SVROs, about which I did not hear an explanation from the Minister. I presume that the Committee can assume that we are right that SVROs can be renewed indefinitely and that there is no legal restriction on that. That is clearly unacceptable, and we will return to it on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also made an important point about the blank cheque nature of the prohibitions that can be imposed when somebody is subject to an SVRO. They will be decided only by regulation, which on all accounts the House will not see until after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames for covering my omission in not talking about the reasonable excuse defence amendment.
The Minister said that we are not breaking any new ground. With respect, allowing the police to stop and search somebody purely on the basis of previous conduct without any reason to suspect that they have something on them at the time of the stop and search is breaking new ground. Therefore, different rules should apply.
I understand the provisions in the Bill about various chief constables in various parts of the country being given the power to vary or extend these orders, but, again, the Minister did not answer the question why the chief constable in that area cannot simply ask the chief constable where the original order was made to vary, revoke or extend.
The Minister seems to place a lot of reliance on the pilot schemes. I am reminded of my lengthy service in the Metropolitan Police, where I was told that there was no such thing as an unsuccessful pilot. It was rather telling that the Minister said that account would be taken of what happens during the pilots before the SVROs are rolled out to the whole of England and Wales, but not “if” the pilots prove to be effective, they will be rolled out to the rest of England and Wales.
However, we will return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(9) In this section, “home address”, in relation to the offender, means—(a) the address of the offender’s sole or main residence, or(b) if the offender has no such residence, the address or location of a place where the offender can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the offender may select.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides a definition of “home address” for the purposes of the notification requirements which must be included in a serious violence reduction order.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely in debate on the following amendment.
Amendment 240A
“Women’s Justice Board
(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Women’s Justice Board for England and Wales.(2) The Board is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; and the Board’s property is not to be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.(3) The Board must consist of 10, 11 or 12 members appointed by the Secretary of State.(4) The members of the Board must include persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have extensive recent experience with women in the criminal justice system.(5) The Board has the following functions, namely—(a) to meet the particular needs of women in the criminal justice system;(b) to monitor the provision of services for women in the criminal justice system;(c) to advise the Secretary of State on—(i) how the aim in subsection (5)(a) might most effectively be pursued;(ii) the provision of services for women in the criminal justice system;(iii) the content of any national standards the Secretary of State may see fit to set with respect to the provision of such services, or the accommodation in which women are kept in custody; and(iv) the steps that might be taken to prevent offending by women;(d) to monitor the extent to which the aim in subsection (5)(a) is being achieved and any standards met; (e) for the purposes of paragraphs (a) to (d) above, to obtain information from relevant authorities;(f) to publish information so obtained;(g) to identify, make known and promote good practice in—(i) meeting the particular needs of women in the criminal justice system;(ii) the provision of services for women in the criminal justice system;(iii) the prevention of offending by women;(iv) working with women who are, or are at risk of becoming, offenders;(h) to commission research in connection with such practice;(i) with the approval of the Secretary of State, to make grants to local authorities and other persons for the purposes of meeting the aim in subsection (5)(a) and the provision of services to women in the criminal justice system, subject to such conditions as the Board considers appropriate, including conditions as to repayment;(j) to provide assistance to local authorities and other persons in connection with information technology systems and equipment used or to be used for the purposes of the aim in subsection (5)(a) and the provision of services to women in the criminal justice system;(k) to enter into agreements for the provision of accommodation for women in the criminal justice system, but no agreement may be made under this paragraph in relation to accommodation for women in the criminal justice system unless it appears to the Board that it is expedient to enter into such an agreement for the purposes of subsection (5)(a);(l) to facilitate agreements between the Secretary of State and any persons providing accommodation for women in the criminal justice system;(m) at the request of the Secretary of State, to assist in carrying out the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to the release of offenders detained in accommodation for women in the criminal justice system; and(n) annually—(i) to assess future demand for accommodation for women in the criminal justice system;(ii) to prepare a plan setting out how they intend to exercise, in the following three years, the functions described in paragraphs (k) to (m) above, and any function for the time being exercisable by the Board concurrently with the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (6)(b) below which relates to securing the provision of such accommodation, and(iii) to submit the plan to the Secretary of State for approval.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) amend subsection (5) above so as to add to, subtract from or alter any of the functions of the Board for the time being specified in that subsection; or(b) provide that any function of the Secretary of State which is exercisable in relation to women in the criminal justice system is exercisable concurrently with the Board.(7) The power of the Secretary of State under subsection (6)(b) includes power—(a) to provide that, in relation to any function that is exercisable by the Secretary of State in respect of particular cases, the function is exercisable by the Board only— (i) where it proposes to exercise the function in a particular manner, or(ii) in respect of a class of case specified in the order, and(b) to make any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision (including provision for any enactment to apply subject to modifications).(8) No regulations under subsection (6) may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(9) In carrying out their functions, the Board must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State and act in accordance with any guidance given by the Secretary of State.(10) A relevant authority—(a) must furnish the Board with any information required for the purposes of subsection (5)(b), (c) or (d) above; and(b) whenever so required by the Board, must submit to the Board a report on such matters connected with the discharge of their duties as may be specified in the requirement.A requirement under paragraph (b) above may specify the form in which a report is to be given.(11) The Board may arrange, or require the relevant authority to arrange, for a report under subsection (10)(b) above to be published in such a manner as appears to the Board to be appropriate.(12) In this section “relevant authority” means a local authority, a chief officer of police, a local policing body, a local probation board, a provider of probation services, a clinical commissioning group and a local health board.(13) Schedule (Women’s Justice Board: further provisions) has effect.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision for the establishment of a “Women’s Justice Board”, along the lines of the Youth Justice Board. The drafting closely follows the form of the provisions establishing the YJB in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 240A and 259C in my name and that of my noble friend Lord German, who has had to leave, call for the establishment of a women’s justice board. It has been pointed out in Committee that these are very long amendments. I understood from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that the second of them may be the longest in what is still, on day 9, an extremely full Marshalled List, but the drafting is modelled on the drafting of the legislation establishing the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I do not propose to spend any time considering its detail.
However, it is widely acknowledged that the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales has been a great success. It has benefited from the effect of concentrating effort, research, learning and resources on youth justice. It has focused on recognising and addressing the difficulties of young offenders in the criminal justice system and on helping children to achieve their potential while aiming to minimise the harms that follow from young people’s contact with the system.
Perhaps most significantly, it has had the outcome of the number of children entering the youth justice system reducing year on year. Between March 2006 and 2020, the population of under-18s in custody in England and Wales fell from 2,832 to an average of 780 in the year 2019-20. Of course, the remaining cohort represent the most intractable cases and present the most difficulties. Nevertheless, that success in reducing youth offending has been remarkable. It is the aim of these amendments to establish a women’s justice board that can produce similar successes.
Much has been attributable to the success of the Youth Justice Board in attracting extremely effective and committed leadership. On these Benches, we are very proud of the work that has been undertaken by my noble friend Lord McNally, but the leadership of successive chairs, such as Frances Done and Charlie Taylor, as well as the current chair, Keith Fraser, has been a major factor in the board’s success. Establishing a women’s justice board on similar lines would also be likely to attract effective leaders, who would bring immeasurable benefit to women in the criminal justice system.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 240A and to agree with everything my noble friend Lord Marks said. In particular, I echo his support for the work of the Youth Justice Board over the years.
Amendments earlier today have discussed the problems with the regime of youth offenders, and the Youth Justice Board has proved that this particular expertise is vital in a holistic approach to youth offending. A key element of that is the specialist training for all staff in contact with young people in the criminal justice system. The Youth Justice Board has very successfully reduced the number of young people in custody.
Many of the amendments to the Bill are about women, whether around violence against women and girls or the specific difficulties that women and girls face in the criminal justice system. Time and again, we have heard that different parts of the criminal justice system—police, courts, the Prison Service and probation —do not understand the particular problems that these women face. It is very important to note that the majority of female offenders have committed non-violent offences, and that a large proportion have suffered domestic and sexual violence or coercive control, usually at the hands of their partners.
The creation of a women’s justice board would mirror the principles behind the Youth Justice Board. It would oversee the key issues relating to prevention, custody and rehabilitation, and ensure that everyone in the justice system—not just the criminal justice system but also the family courts system—would receive specialist training.
One important area to consider is alternatives to custody. These should be consistently used, where appropriate, because evidence suggests that they work much better. There are benefits for the welfare of children; this should be considered when sentencing mothers and carers, to prevent the lives of their children being more disrupted. There is also evidence that this will reduce the chances of their children having problems at school and entering the criminal justice system themselves. The wider benefits of maintaining family and community links mean that female offenders’ rehabilitation will be more successful.
I know that the number of women offenders with custodial sentences has reduced, but this Government have placed the protection of women, especially those at risk from violence, at the heart of the Bill. The creation of a women’s justice board would be a key pillar in ensuring that women are given the support that they need to prevent them committing offences and to take into account their family responsibilities in considering custody and rehabilitation.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 240A and 259C, so comprehensively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. Ever since the formation of the Youth Justice Board, I have been keen on the idea of a women’s justice board, with the accompanying offender management teams, particularly if it was matched by a Prison Service appointment of a director of women’s prisons—a change to the operational management structure of the Prison Service that the MoJ should consider, as I advocated to the Minister when debating an earlier amendment.
The Minister for Prisons and Probation could chair an executive board, consisting of the directors-general of the prison and probation services and the chairmen of the Youth Justice Board and the women’s justice board, obviating any need for Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, which merely inserts a layer of bureaucracy into the executive board—in other words, between the Secretary of State for Justice and individual prison governors.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I absolutely love this amendment—that is probably the kiss of death for it, so I am sorry about that. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has a superb idea in seeking to establishing a women’s justice board. Importantly, it would not just look at prisons, courts and policing but would advise on the steps that should be taken to prevent offending by women in the first place. That is crucial. Obviously, the women’s prison population is very different from the men’s: far fewer are convicted of violence, sex offences and drugs offences, with the majority being sentenced for low-level offences such as theft, and trivial things such as non-payment of the TV licence or council tax debt. As has been said, women in prison are also very likely to be victims as well as offenders, with more than half of women reporting suffering domestic violence and more than half reporting childhood trauma.
I know the Government have a whole thing about being tough on crime, but actually, you have to be fair as well. At the moment, the Government are being totally unfair to all kinds of groups and populations within our society: this would be a good way to start rebalancing.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, although we have equality—quite rightly—there is no doubt that women need to be dealt with differently from men in their situations of going to prison and in prisons. There is no reason not to be tough on crime, but there is every reason to follow these two admirable amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. It is time that women’s very special situations were recognised, partly as the mothers of children—we have had some appalling stories of women in prison who are pregnant—but partly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just said, to stop them offending and to find the best way to deal with them. It may well be that prison is necessary for some of them, but it may well not be necessary for some of those who actually do go to prison if this new board were in place and could provide some of the services that are so admirable in the youth justice system. So I strongly support these two amendments.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I add my support to these amendments. Will the Minister, when he comes to reply, agree that the application of the justice system to women poses especial challenges for everyone involved in the justice system, from the Secretary of State downwards? Does he agree that, at the moment, regrettably, there is a crisis of confidence as to how the criminal justice system in particular, but also the civil justice system, addresses the needs of women? Does he therefore accept, as has been suggested by previous speakers, that the creation of a women’s justice board would focus much-needed attention on these important topics?
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, my role as a loyal government Back-Bencher is to help my noble friend the Minister, and I think I can do that best by strongly supporting these amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
We on this side of the Committee strongly support these excellent amendments. The Youth Justice Board was set up in 1998. Its first chair—a Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Warner—gave it a really good start. The whole point is that it gives real drive, not as part of government but within the state, to make changes, because everybody recognises that children and young people have different needs, both to divert them from the criminal justice system and when they are there. Similarly, in respect of women, this is a real opportunity; give it drive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, as the amendments’ explanatory statements make clear, and as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, identified, the intention is to provide for the establishment of a women’s justice board for England and Wales which mirrors the rather lengthy provisions setting up the Youth Justice Board. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words. I can assure him that I gave his amendment very careful thought, and my approach to it has not been adversely affected by the support given to it by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I also heard what my noble friend Lord Attlee said about his role being to help me: with noble friends being so helpful—well, I will leave that one there.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support of noble Lords from around the House for the proposal to establish a women’s justice board. I pick on two points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, arguing that women have very special needs. Those are sufficient justification for considering the establishment of a women’s justice board.
I then move to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said about the establishment of the Youth Justice Board. He talked about how it gave “drive” to the consideration of the needs of young offenders and the assistance and help given to them; I should have mentioned the work of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as the board’s first chair because it was extremely important. It provides some answer to the point made by the Minister, who picked up on the issue of time. The Youth Justice Board was established in 1998. Under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, it started work in that year. It is 23 years since then, and every one of those years has been a success. That is extremely important. In the view of those who spoke in favour of this amendment, we could get equivalent drive and movement in catering for the special needs of women through the establishment of a women’s justice board. It is entirely artificial to draw a distinction between youth justice, where there is certainly a separate structure, and women’s justice, where there is no separate structure and women offenders are treated as part of the adult population.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lady Brinton drew attention to the family needs of women and the devastation produced for women and their children by contact with the criminal justice system. When it is acknowledged that women in the system have very particular needs, as the Minister did fairly, it is enough for me to say that the distinction he drew is artificial. I also accept my noble friend Lady Brinton’s point that the women’s justice board would deal with family court issues as well as criminal court issues. Although I have talked about the criminal justice system, the wider justice system and its help for women are also seriously in need of the extra drive of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, spoke.
Saying that, I detected some flexibility in the Minister’s speech. I hope that, in discussions with him between now and Report, we may find some room for movement. On that basis, even if he does not admit that flexibility now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“Training for offenders
(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) After section 276, insert—“276A Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure for offenders aged at least 18 but under 27(1) A sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure is available to a court dealing with an offender for an offence where—(a) the offender is aged at least 18 but under 27 when convicted,(b) the offence is punishable by that court with imprisonment in the case of a person aged 21 or over,(c) the court is not required to pass a sentence of—(i) detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure (see section 259), or(ii) custody for life (see sections 272 and 275), and (d) the court is satisfied the offender would benefit from the training that would be provided.(2) The power of the court to impose such a sentence is not subject to section 230 (threshold for imposing discretionary custodial sentence).(3) Section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (duty to release) is not applicable to a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure.276B Term of sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure(1) The maximum full term of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure that a court may impose for an offence is the same as the maximum term of imprisonment that it may impose for the offence in the case of a person aged 21 or over.(2) The minimum term of a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure is 12 months.(3) The term of a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure must be the term (not exceeding the permitted maximum) that in the opinion of the court is commensurate with—(a) the seriousness of the offence,(b) providing enough time for the three stages of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure to be effective, and(c) providing a sufficiently strong incentive for the offender to be motivated to meet the improvements in conduct, training, education and performance determined under section 276C in order to move onto Gradual and Safe Release under section 276I.(4) In forming its opinion for the purposes of subsection (3), the court must take into account all the information that is available to it about the circumstances of the offence, or of it and the associated offence or offences, including any aggravating or mitigating factors.(5) The pre-sentence report requirements in section 30 apply to the court in relation to forming that opinion.(6) See section 232 for additional requirements in the case of an offender suffering from a mental disorder.(7) The court may impose a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure only if it is satisfied that the offender would benefit from it.276C Improvements in conduct, training, education and performance(1) When imposing a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure, subject to subsection (2), the court must determine what objectively measured improvement in conduct, training, education and performance is to be achieved by the offender before being considered for the final stage of training (gradual and safe release).(2) When making the determination mentioned in subsection (1) the court must set improvement requirements that—(a) are demanding but achievable,(b) can be objectively measured using the system mentioned in subsection (3),(c) take into account the capacity of the offender to improve, given sufficient incentive,(d) take into account the seriousness of the offence in question,(e) take into account the needs of the offender,(f) take into account the availability of training offered by the Secretary of State, and(g) significantly improve the chances of the offender exclusively engaging in legitimate employment. (3) The Secretary of State must devise and implement an objective system for measuring the offender’s improvement in education, training and conduct.276D Location and security of training and electronic communications(1) The Secretary of State must locate the necessary training centres in rural locations sufficiently remote to—(a) sever the trainees from malign gang influences,(b) eliminate trainees’ access to illegal substances,(c) eliminate trainees’ access to mobile phone signals and illegal electronic equipment,(d) provide the necessary security by means of remoteness rather than physical security, and(e) minimise expenditure on physical security.(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) the Secretary of State may—(a) direct telecommunication companies to take steps to have the effect of electronically isolating trainees, and(b) make a drone exclusion order and emit electronic signals designed to cause any drone to crash or to come under the control of the Secretary of State.(3) Before making any direction under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must individually consult every adult resident directly affected by the requirements of any such direction.(4) The Secretary of State may offer inducements and compensation to residents adversely affected by directions made under subsection (2).(5) The Secretary of State may conduct the training mentioned in sections 276G and 276H in such locations as he or she sees fit.276E Training teams (1) The Secretary of State may arrange for trainees to undertake their training as part of a team.(2) The Secretary of State may arrange for training teams to be composed with trainees from multiple regions.(3) The Secretary of State may arrange that the teams are competing against each other, especially in exercises.(4) The Secretary of State may arrange that a team can be disadvantaged in terms of privileges and conditions for the team if—(a) the team does not predominate in a training exercise, or(b) a member of the team commits misconduct. 276F Components of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure(1) There are to be three stages of Detention for Training at Her Majesty's pleasure—(a) Basic Compliance Training;(b) Employability Training;(c) Gradual and Safe Release.(2) Trainees must be required to pass out on each stage of training before attempting a later stage of the training.276G Basic Compliance Training(1) The Secretary of State must structure Basic Compliance Training to instil—(a) hope,(b) pride, and(c) discipline.(2) The components of Basic Compliance Training must include, but are not limited to— (a) hope for the future,(b) appearance, dress and bearing,(c) teamwork,(d) nutrition and cooking,(e) basic literacy and numeracy,(f) map reading,(g) first aid training,(h) personal conduct and anger management, both theory and practice, and(i) field craft and camping.(3) The purpose of Basic Compliance Training is to allow the Secretary of State to take greater risks with the trainee and to give the trainee increased personal responsibility for his or her actions.276H Employability Training(1) Employability Training must be composed of trade training, education and personal development.(2) The Secretary of State must structure Employability Training to minimise the probability of re-offending and maximise the offender’s chances of securing permanent good quality legitimate employment.(3) The components of Employability Training must include, but are not limited to—(a) hope for the future,(b) dress and bearing,(c) teamwork,(d) nutrition and cooking,(e) basic literacy and numeracy,(f) map reading,(g) first aid training for a First Aid at Work Certificate,(h) personal conduct and anger management, both theory and practice,(i) adventure training,(j) training in basic fire fighting,(k) training in safe operation of hand-held power tools,(l) training in basic risk assessment,(m) training to acquire a basic construction skills certificate,(n) training to operate a forklift truck,(o) training to erect a prefabricated aluminium access tower, and(p) training exercises both long and short, to test and practise skills.276I Gradual and Safe Release (1) The Secretary of State must structure Gradual and Safe Release to minimise the probability of re-offending and maximise the offender’s chances of securing accommodation and permanent good quality employment.(2) The components of Gradual and Safe Release must include, but are not limited to—(a) arrangements for safe accommodation, not necessarily in the area where the offender was previously resident,(b) arrangements for employment to suit the capability of the offender,(c) requirements not to visit designated areas or places,(d) curfew requirements,(e) abstinence from substance abuse requirements, and(f) tagging requirements. 276J Release on temporary licence for offenders Detained for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure(1) The Secretary of State may grant Release On Temporary Licence (ROTL) to any offender serving a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure subject to the conditions in subsection (3).(2) When granting ROTL the Secretary of State may require the offender to—(a) wear an approved tag,(b) adhere to geographical limits,(c) adhere to sobriety requirements,(d) not engage in substance abuse,(e) not use an unauthorised mobile phone or other types of electronic equipment, and(f) not meet or communicate with certain persons or classes of persons.(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) are—(a) an offender who has not passed out on Basic Compliance training can be granted ROTL only in exceptional circumstances,(b) ROTL can be granted for weekend leave,(c) ROTL can be granted to enable an offender to travel from one training location to another, and(d) when the offender is on the final stage of Gradual and Safe Release, ROTL can be granted to attend work or live away from prison facilities for extended periods.276K Effect of non-compliance or not engaging with training(1) Where the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are met, the Secretary of State may apply to the court to have the remaining part of the offender’s sentence converted to a sentence of imprisonment for the remaining portion of the sentence.(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) are that the offender sentenced to be Detained for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure consistently—(a) fails to make reasonable efforts to comply with the training requirements,(b) makes little or no attempt to address areas for improvement identified by the court under section 276C, or (c) fails to honour the terms of ROTL under section 276J.276L Appointment of mentor for offenders Detained for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a mentor to each offender Detained for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure.(2) The role of the mentor is to provide—(a) a positive male role model for the trainee,(b) a lay person with the necessary skills to look after the interests of the trainee,(c) a person to whom the trainee can complain about any mistreatment, perceived or real,(d) a person who can skilfully deal with bureaucracy on behalf the trainee when on Gradual and Safe Release, and(e) a person who can attend any passing out or other events.(3) The Secretary of State and prison governors must engage constructively with any mentor appointed under this section when the mentor is undertaking these duties.””
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I have already sent a detailed paper to most noble Lords. I would like to make it clear that I will not seek the opinion of the Committee or the House at any point. When we debated short sentences and Amendments 212 and 213, I think that most of the Committee was sure that the current prison system was largely ineffective at preventing reoffending. After looking closely at our penal system during 2018 and 2019, I would say that the current system is not able, or even designed, to secure an improvement in education, training and conduct. Without improvements in these areas, reoffending is inevitable. Noble Lords frequently berate Ministers for the poor state and ineffectiveness of our prisons. Rather fewer noble Lords have been prepared to suggest significant reforms and how we could do very much better.
Internationally, we need to be an exemplar rather than a laggard in prison reform. Although there are many areas of potential improvement in our prison system, none is as pressing or potentially beneficial as the management of prolific minor offenders, or PMOs. I am sure that the Committee will accept that it is almost impossible for a functionally illiterate or innumerate young person to secure legitimate employment. At YOI Feltham, I have seen high-quality, well-motivated teachers with good facilities struggle to get illiterate offenders even to sit down in a classroom, let alone learn. I am not convinced that a conventional classroom environment is the right one for these youngsters. Furthermore, they need exceptionally strong incentives to improve their standard of education as well as their conduct. Unfortunately, there can be cultural issues pulling in the opposite direction.
Several factors militate against securing an improvement in their education, training and conduct. Most significantly, within conventional prisons, there is a drug and gang culture with a huge illicit economy, coupled with an illegitimate hierarchy. All this is facilitated by illegal mobile phones. In recent years, I have come to hugely admire prison officers and governors for their work. They do their very best, but it is the regime we ask them to operate that is a problem.
With my Amendment 241, I propose a new sentence for PMOs, and that is detention for training at Her Majesty’s pleasure, or DFT. Release would be dependent upon achieving the required, objectively measured improvements in education, training and conduct, and the level of improvement required would be set by the courts. If the offender fails to make reasonable efforts to comply, the court would be able to require the whole of the rest of the sentence to be served in the conventional secure estate. That is a very strong incentive.
I would like to be clear that this is not a rehash of “short, sharp shock”, a scheme that was designed to be beastly to offenders in order to deter them from reoffending; nor is it a boot camp. With the former, little was done to improve offenders’ skills, so it was not surprising that they continued to reoffend.
The training would be undertaken in remote rural locations in order to sever connection with local gangs, drugs and illegal mobile phones. The remoteness would provide the security rather than the secure estate, with its forbidding stone walls. The training would be undertaken as part of small, multiregionally composed teams, and being a leading light in the Peckham Warriors would not cut much ice. Since the training would be demanding and fulfilling, at the end of the day the trainees would be more interested in sleep than drugs or getting up to mischief.
I will not weary the Committee with too much detail, as it is set out in my amendment, mainly on page 14 and 19 of the Ninth Marshalled List, as well as in my paper. However: the first component is what I call “Basic Compliance Training”, which is designed to instil hope, pride and discipline. Hope is extremely important, because we currently have a suicide rate in the prison system of at least one per week. The purpose of BCT is to allow greater risks to be taken at later stages of the training. One of these could include the use of ROTL, if appropriate, to comply with the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, with respect to contact with families.
The employability training phase is self-explanatory. The point is that trainees need to be given some useful qualifications to make them employable. Take construction work: you cannot just put on a pair of safety boots and walk on to a construction site as a labourer. You need to have a basic construction skills certificate to be safe and competent. DFT would provide the necessary training and testing. This is just an example. Why are we not already providing PMOs with that training—universally and not just in one or two lucky cases?
At the risk of enraging the Daily Mail, I can assure the Committee that there would be elements of fun in the training. This could be especially so in exercises which might be held in an international aid scenario. In my experience, fun is essential to motivate trainees within a disciplined organisation.
The final stage is “Gradual and Safe Release”, which is essentially a glide path to full release rather than what we talked about at Amendment 210, which is a binary “in or out” situation and often doomed to failure. The Committee has already discussed UC and accommodation problems associated with release. There is also provision for a mentor to prevent a variety of adverse outcomes and help the trainee deal with bureaucracy on release.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I like many elements of the proposal from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. We all know that the youth justice system, in theory if not in practice, is focused on diverting young people from criminal justice towards a better life. At 18 years of age, however, this sort of falls off a cliff as young adults get dropped into the mainstream criminal justice system and are left to fend for themselves. This leaves a huge population of young adults stuck in the adult prison system and missing out on essential learning and the foundations for developing work, family and social lives. These young people are also often illiterate.
Those important years of young adulthood—when one is no longer a child but lacks experience and wisdom—are lost in prison, and can never be retrieved. I like the aspect of this amendment, therefore, that would create a structured system of personal development and rehabilitation for those too old for young offender institutions but too young to be written off by society as lifelong criminals. There are issues about the tuition they would be given, because many of them might have problems such as autism or dyspraxia: they would need specialist help. That they would, however, be leaving better informed and educated than they went in is a positive for them as individuals and for society.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I have some sympathy for the noble Earl’s amendment because of two experiences of mine. First, I had to undergo 10 weeks of basic compliance training when I did my National Service. It had many of the elements listed here. Hope for the future was there. Certainly, a lot of attention was paid to dress and bearing, teamwork, first aid training, conduct and anger management, fieldcraft and so on. I underwent that for 10 weeks as a recruit. Later in my national service, having become a commissioned officer, I was responsible for training recruits, and I noticed a remarkable difference in their behaviour and appearance between the beginning and the end of the 10 weeks. That impressed on me the value of the training that the Army was then able to provide.
At a later stage in my life, when I was prosecuting criminals, usually in Glasgow High Court, a lot of those who were being prosecuted I could see in my mind’s eye as people who might have been among my platoons of people undergoing training. My great regret was that we had not been able to get hold of them before the gang fights took place that led them to being prosecuted and ultimately going to prison. There is a lot of force in what the noble Earl has suggested. In those days—I am talking about my national service days—there was an enormous force available within the Army to conduct all these procedures. This is not easily managed. You are required to train the trainers and you must have the facilities. However, the philosophy and thinking behind the noble Earl’s amendment has a great deal to recommend it. He is talking about people who have already been convicted, but it would be lovely if one could intercept them before they got into the criminal system in the beginning. We cannot do that but, at least if they have been convicted, we can do something to prevent reoffending, which is what I think his amendment is driving at.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may respond to what noble Lords have said. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned young offender institutions. When I was getting educated by Frances Crook, I asked her, “How often do inmates at a YOI get taken out on camp?” She said to me, “John, you should ask how often they are taken out of their cells.”
In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, I am not proposing conscription or a national service-type solution. However, the points that he makes are absolutely what is informing my thinking. He made a valid point about the need for instructors and I am not proposing the use of the military to provide that function. Prison officers ought to be taking up that role and I envisage, among other things, youngsters who trained as Outward Bound instructors who cannot necessarily get particularly well-paid employment then training as prison officers and being double-hatted. There are a lot of things that we could do if we wanted to do them.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will not address the detail of the noble Earl’s amendment, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that there is a great deal of merit in the call for more and better training within the penal system. We have long taken the view that training within prisons in particular is inadequate, poorly arranged and often unavailable. We therefore commend the noble Earl for the thrust of his amendment and certainly commend him for the care and dedication that he has given to setting it out in detail and in the briefing that he circulated.
We are not convinced of the need for a new sentence of detention for training at Her Majesty’s pleasure but we agree with the heart of the amendment, which is the focus on skills to train for future employment, for which there is a great need. The classroom-style of training does not always work. What is needed is training for skills on the job and for soft skills because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, not everyone is suitable for the basic training that perhaps the noble Earl has in mind. There should be a combination of practical, soft and technological skills. We are all for better training. However, we seek the Government’s work to be directed towards the provision of that sort of training—better training and more of it—within the criminal justice system and overcoming the barriers to prisoners being work-ready by the time they finish their terms of imprisonment because, at the moment, there is a serious deficiency in that area.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I join noble Lords in commending the noble Earl for the effort and work that he has put into this and the fact that he has thought it through. I also commend what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said. It was obviously not a detention for training centre that he was passed to, but his experience was successful in diverting him from the criminal justice system. That is an indication that it worked, even if he ended up in the criminal justice system as the Lord President of the Court of Session and a member of the Supreme Court.
I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said. There are parts of this that we would all agree with. However, we on this side would not support this as a separate sentence. If one looks at the detail, it requires the setting up of a number of rural detention centres. The right thing is for the Government to look at the elements aimed at trying to rehabilitate those in the criminal justice system and use them in the existing system, rather than setting up a whole new network. We admire the noble Earl’s work but think that this is not the appropriate way forward.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the amendment from my noble friend Lord Attlee would seek to introduce a new sentence of detention for training at Her Majesty’s pleasure. It is aimed at offenders who are at least 18 and under 27. The key principle is that release would be gradual and dependent on the offender reaching the required performance levels in conduct, education and training. It would be served in training sites in remote rural areas.
I thank my noble friend sincerely for presenting his genuinely interesting idea—I was going to say “novel”, but we have all watched “Yes Minister”. He has done what he said others have not by thinking positively and constructively about what we can do in the future, rather than just criticising what we do now. I think that we all share his desire to reduce the reoffending rate for young adults. Training and education can enable people to turn their lives around and stop reoffending. I reassure my noble friend and the Committee that the Government are already taking action that addresses those issues.
My noble friend is right to be concerned that offenders leave prison illiterate and innumerate and is right to say that that significantly increases the prospects that they will reoffend. We all share those concerns. I can reassure the Committee that many offenders already achieve accredited qualifications in the fundamental basic subjects of English and maths while in prison. We recently published data that shows that, between April 2019 and March 2020, over 30,000 prisoners started English and maths courses and over half of this number completed the courses and received accreditations. Over and above that, many more will also have undertaken vocational training. However, we are not sitting on our laurels. We recognise that there is more to do. We welcome external scrutiny by the Education Select Committee, which has launched an inquiry into prison education, and Ofsted, which recently announced that it will be conducting a review of reading in prisons.
On employment, we want to make sure that the prison education and skills offer for prisoners is aligned with what employers want and need. We know that there is a correlation between getting a job when you come out of prison and not reoffending. We want to prepare prisoners for employment and the Deputy Prime Minister has made that a clear priority. We want to have partnerships with more businesses and build on the work that we already do with companies such as Halfords, Timpson and Willmott Dixon. We are also making sure that the Civil Service plays its part. In the beating crime plan, we have committed to recruiting 1,000 prison leavers into the Civil Service by 2023.
Over and above that, we want to make sure that we have effective community supervision. Not only will that keep the public safer by providing early intervention, it will deflect offenders away from future offending as well. We set out in our sentencing White Paper an agenda of reform for not only punishing but, importantly, rehabilitating low-level offenders. We have set out a number of measures in this Bill as well: problem-solving courts, suspended sentence orders and extending the use of electronic monitoring. I believe that those measures will support offenders to change their lifestyles for good. In that, of course, I share the aims set out by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the response of all noble Lords in this short debate. I would tease my noble friend the Minister and invite him at some stage to read a recent report to the Chief Inspector of Prisons that stimulated some of my thinking.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, mentioned soft skills, which are extremely important. I know that anger management training is done within the prison system, but one thing I envisage is on exercises: the trainees have to practise anger management scenarios where they are faced with someone being stroppy and have to respond in the right way, and you can really only do that in an exercise outside the ghastly prison environment.
That takes me on to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about isolation. The inside of a prison is absolutely ghastly. If you have youngsters who are already mentally fragile, having had a ghastly upbringing, which everyone in this Committee knows about, and then stick them in a conventional prison, it is the worst possible environment. That is why I am proposing that, to try to rebuild these youngsters, we need to do it in the beautiful countryside, not inside a ghastly prison. But I am extremely grateful for the response of the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
“Rehabilitation of offenders who are addicted to drugs or alcohol
(1) Offenders who commit offences other than murder, manslaughter, terrorism or sexual offences, and who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, must be given a sentence with a requirement to attend a residential rehabilitation unit.(2) An offender who refuses to attend or fails to remain at the unit must serve the remainder of their sentence in prison.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, picking up on what the Minister said about rehabilitation, this is a probing amendment; I have no intention of taking it further. However, there are a very considerable number of people who arrived in prison with drink and drug addiction. All too many of them pick up addiction—perhaps not drink but drug addiction—in prison. The trouble is that, when they leave prison, they almost certainly will not have had very much, if any, help. There are a few systems—but very few—and they are almost certain to reoffend because, once you are addicted to drugs or to drink, you are going to reoffend because you need the money.
There is a cycle of offences by vulnerable people who have taken up drink and drugs who may be committing drug offences but are equally likely to be committing offences of burglary, theft and other similar crimes. So I am suggesting that the Government put in place at least one residential unit as a pilot project. I know Governments like pilot projects; the great problem is to get them beyond the pilot. In this case, I would like them to get to first base, to a pilot project where a drug or drink addict—generally a repeat offender—should be sent to that residential unit as a probation order, with a requirement to stay there. If they do not want to go or do not stay the course, of course they have a sentence of imprisonment and go back to prison.
It really might help a considerable number of people. With any luck, it might reduce some of the prison population. So, although the up-front cost of such a residential unit would no doubt be expensive, I suspect it would become cost-effective in the long term. I am not certain that this is really appropriate for primary legislation, but I have put it here to nudge the Government into trying to do something. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the probing Amendment 242 from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As the Minister referred to “juvenile” earlier, I remind the Committee of his views on heavy drinking: that it can be either a civilising force or the bane of civilisation. In society today, particularly in those who offend, it might be the latter.
The Liberal Democrats have long believed that the best treatment for drug and alcohol addiction is to treat it as a health emergency for the individual and society. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, outlined, there are already interventions in prison for those with addictions, whether drug or alcohol. But many are talking therapies, many of which, as a result of the pandemic, remain on the phone or on Zoom, and it is certainly true that we are hearing that offenders are finding that less effective.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is right: a custodial sentence is the right time to think about dedicating time and energy to a residential rehabilitation course, where there are no distractions or problems of cancellation or changes of prison where you cannot continue with the same course. The NHS Integrated Substance Misuse Treatment Service in Prisons in England report, published in 2018, says:
“The purpose of health care in prison, including care for drug and alcohol problems, is to provide an excellent, safe and effective service to all prisoners equivalent to that of the community—whether the aim is stabilisation, crisis intervention or recovery from dependence.”
The guiding principles are “Recovery”, “Reducing harm”, “Reducing deaths in custody” and “Reducing reoffending”.
Recovery is key, but the reality is that the numbers are not good. The last report from the Ministry of Justice Alcohol and Drug Treatment in Secure Settings: 2018 to 2019, shows that the current arrangements have mixed results. It reports that of 53,000
“adults in alcohol and drug treatment in prisons and secure settings”
in that year, around 65% started treatment and just under 60%
“left treatment in secure settings.”
The report says that only just over a quarter of those who were discharged after completing their sentence were free of dependence. The figures for young people receiving treatment, principally for alcohol and cannabis problems, are not dissimilar. Of those young people who left secure settings in 2018, under 30% completed their treatment successfully.
Continuity of care between treatment services is absolutely vital, and the proportion of adults successfully starting community treatment within three weeks of release was only a third. The intensity and focus of residential courses for people addicted to drugs and alcohol already has a higher success rate, and if attended near the start of their sentence could well mean that they have a real opportunity to learn to live with recovery.
Public Health England’s evidence review of drug treatment, published in 2015, says:
“The costs to society are significant. Latest estimates by the Home Office”,
in 2013,
“suggest that the cost of illicit drug use in the UK is £10.7bn”.
Of those costs, NHS costs are 1%, enforcement costs 10% and drug-related crime costs 54%. Public Health England’s review notes that, in all, around 50,000 people received drug treatment in prison in 2015-16. Nearly one-third had also received drug treatment in the community. The numbers are stuck. They are not improving.
The review makes two key points: waiting times to access a course and active steps taken to prevent a drop-out are significant in achieving a good outcome. This amendment proposes a mechanism that would not only prove beneficial to the offenders attending it, with a higher rate of success than the range of other interventions currently used, but would serve society and significantly reduce the costs of drug-fuelled crime.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I had a very sheltered upbringing: I do not know where I could get any recreational drugs. If I went to a pub, I would probably find myself trying to buy recreational drugs from an undercover police officer. The one way I could certainly get some drugs is to get myself sent to prison on remand, because I could get drugs in a prison. I would like to hear from my noble friend the Minister what he is doing to stop drugs getting into prisons. It would be very helpful to understand how drugs get into prisons. Who is bringing them in? That is why my previous amendment referred to “remote” and “rural”, because it would be virtually impossible to import drugs into that establishment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we support this amendment from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As she said, there is a cycle of offences for vulnerable people with drink and drug problems. In many ways it forms the vast majority of cases that we see in magistrates’ courts. I have come from Westminster Magistrates’ Court today and I can assure her that I dealt with as many drug and alcohol cases as I usually do. To use the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the numbers are stuck where they are. Things are not getting better.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, gave a very full and insightful summary of the statistics. I have been a long-standing member of the drugs and alcohol all-party group. This is an intractable problem that we see throughout the criminal justice system.
The initiative from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is to have a residential rehabilitation unit at the start, essentially, of any potential custodial sentence, and if people dropped out, they would then get a custodial sentence. It might work and it may well be worth a try. I will make one comment—I hate doing this, because one of the consequences of being a magistrate is that one becomes a sceptic, but nevertheless I will say that I think drug therapies work better when people do them voluntarily. I often say to people when I release them on bail on a drugs offence, whatever the offence, “If you can engage voluntarily in drug rehabilitation”—very often those are the same services that they are statutorily required to go to—“then any sentencing court when you come back to be sentenced will look on it more favourably.” Sometimes that message gets home.
Despite that note of scepticism, I still support the noble and learned Baroness’s amendment. It is another approach. There needs to be a multitude of approaches to address this scourge, and this particular approach is worth a try.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, this probing amendment from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, would require the courts to impose a sentence with the requirement to attend a residential rehabilitation unit where the offender has a drug or alcohol addiction, unless they had been convicted of murder, manslaughter, a terrorism offence, or a sexual offence. So, we are dealing here with the position at sentence. I will come to my noble friend Lord Attlee’s point about drugs in prison, although that is a slightly different, albeit related, point from that raised by the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this short debate. I say to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that I deliberately pitched this too high because I recognise that consent is an absolutely crucial part of any treatment. The nub is that I would like the Government to set up their own residential unit and make it an extremely important part of the sentence, so that the judge or the magistrate can say, “If you are prepared to agree to go to the government residential unit, where you will have to stay until you are told that you can leave, you will not go to prison, but if you do not agree then the sentence will be” whatever it may be. That is what I am looking for from the Government. At the moment, the Government are using everybody else’s residential units. They are expensive, infrequent and insufficient. If we are to crack what is going on, even to a small extent, with rehabilitation for those who are constantly in and out of prison suffering from drink and drug addiction, the Government must put some money up front, produce a residential unit and then say, “That should be a pilot project to see what the success rate is.” Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I oppose the Question that Clause 165 stand part of the Bill; I seek not to add but to remove something from the Bill. Section 9B of the Juries Act 1974 gives the judge the power to consider whether a disabled person can undertake their duties as a juror when there is doubt on the part of court officials. New Section 9C requires the judge to consider whether a British Sign Language interpreter would enable the juror to be effective. The rest of the clause is concerned with sensible, consequential provisions.
The Committee should note that the judge is involved only if there is doubt on the part of officials. A potential juror with an effective hearing aid would not go through the Section 9B process since there would be no doubt that they could be effective. I undertook jury duty many years ago, long before arriving at your Lordships’ House. It was indeed interesting to me, but I regarded it as a duty or an obligation. It is not a right or a privilege in addition to being a duty, as, for example, voting in a general election is. Therefore, I see no requirement to make these special provisions so far as a completely deaf juror is concerned.
I accept that many deaf people can also lip-read, which would no doubt supplement the assistance of a BSL interpreter. My concern is surely that many cases turn on the credibility of the witness and, sometimes, which witness is not telling the truth. Suppose in a case involving an expert witness, counsel is asking searching questions and makes a provocative suggestion. The expert witness might calmly respond, “No, that is not correct”, knowing full well that opposing counsel will return to the matter later. However, what the deaf juror inadvertently could pick up is, “No, that’s wrong”, which might appear to be the counsel having the witness on the ropes, when that is far from the facts.
A further difficulty might arise in the jury room when deliberating the verdict. I have been in the jury room. Discussion could be fast and furious, and I cannot see how the interpreter could possibly keep up. It would be possible to slow the proceedings down, which might be beneficial, but since we do not research how juries operate we cannot tell what the effect would be. The other jurors may simply ignore the deaf juror.
Finally, the clause also, quite properly, makes consequential provisions that put the interpreter under the same obligations of confidentiality as the other jurors. However, he or she is not a decision-maker and will still be in a different position, and we cannot know what, if any, chilling effect on discussions may arise from the interpreter’s presence. I expect noble Lords supporting me will come up with far better arguments than mine, but I oppose the Question that Clause 165 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I have added my name to the noble Earl’s opposition to Clause 165. I understand that jury service is a civic duty and there are strong equality arguments that a deaf person should not be disqualified because they cannot proceed without an interpreter. I also understand that the judge has discretion over whether the nature of the issues in the case makes it appropriate for a sign language interpreter to retire with the jury, and that the clause makes it very clear that the interpreter will have a duty not to interfere in or influence the deliberations of the jury. I understand all that, but I have concerns about the consequences of allowing a 13th or 14th person to sit in the jury room. I say 13th and 14th, because there will be a need for at least two interpreters, as any one interpreter is going to struggle to perform this task for more than 30 minutes at a time.
The first set of concerns relates to the effects on the dynamics of the jury. A jury depends on effective communications between the 12 persons serving on it. To ensure that the interpreter performs their role effectively, he or she may need to intervene in the deliberations to prevent people from talking over each other; and the interpreter may need to ask people to repeat themselves or to clarify what they are saying. This will have an effect on the dynamics of the jury room. There is also the potential problem that what is said by the interpreter to the deaf person cannot be understood and monitored by the rest of the jury.
That was the first set of concerns. The second type of concern is that Clause 165 makes provision only for a subset of otherwise excluded members of a jury. We are not making any provision for potential jurors who have insufficient command of English to participate effectively, or persons who cannot read relevant documents because of a low level of literacy or poor eyesight. The clause also makes no provision for deaf or hearing-impaired people who do not use British Sign Language but instead use text communication systems. It is a bit odd to make provision only for deaf persons, and then only for a subset of deaf persons.
My third concern is that, as I understand from helpful discussions with the Minister, provisions similar to Clause 165 have been the subject of testing in other jurisdictions, but no modelling has been done with shadow juries in this country. The noble Earl mentioned that we cannot do research with real juries, but research is often done with shadow or model juries. I ask the Minister whether it would not be sensible, before such a significant change to jury trial is introduced in this country, to conduct some research with shadow or pretend juries to see how this is going to work.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I participate in this debate and support this amendment with personal reluctance. I think I am allowed to say this: my wife spent the whole of her professional working life treating children born with genetic or birth injuries. Her whole ambition was that that little boy or girl should be able to lead a full and complete life as a member of the community. Some of them did lead absolutely full lives, but some were too—to use the word that was used in the days when she was working—disabled to do so. I know from her experience how crucial it is that opportunities are available to people who have either been born with or acquired disabilities of this kind so, on a personal level, I am reluctant.
However, on a professional level, I must remember that I served as a barrister, doing many jury trials, then as a judge, also doing many jury trials. I have dealt with interpreters of language and interpreters for the deaf. I will not say much more than Mr Pannick—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—did, but I do want to say one or two things.
First, this paper misses that one of the most crucial facts in what a jury must decide is an analysis of who is telling the truth. It is obvious in almost every case. May I draw noble Lords’ attention to a case I had to deal with? A man was charged with rape. There was a long record; it was just after tape recorders were introduced and before the police had learned to realise that you do not bully people into confessions. There on the tape recorder was a clear admission: “I admit I raped her.” The counsel for the defendant gets up and says, “I want the jury to hear the tape recording.” “Why?”, asked the judge—me. “Have you not checked that it is correct?” “Yes, I have, my Lord”, said the defence. “That is why I want the jury to hear the tape. I shall be submitting to the jury that, if they hear the tape, they will realise that the admission that is plain on the paper simply was not a true confession.” Of course, I agreed. The case unfolded and the tape recording was heard. I have no idea what the 12 members of the jury thought about it but, to me, it was perfectly obvious that, after he had been told about 23 times that he had in fact committed the rape, the man said, “All right, I admit it”, in a tone of complete resignation. His mind was not going with an admission; he was just fed up with the fact that the police had not listened to him.
Can we pause and think of that case in the context of the proposal here? What is to happen to a deaf juror who cannot hear the resignation in the admission? The interpreter cannot do it. They cannot say how it is said—for example, “I think that he was reluctant” or “I think that it is a true confession”. The interpreter cannot help the juror, or they become part of the jury. What happens then? What happens in that case is simply a more vivid example of what happens in just about every single criminal case: someone, as the noble Earl suggested, is lying. It may be the defendant. It may be the witness. Perhaps a kind way to put it is that somebody is badly mistaken, if it is a witness. However, the analysis of who is right and who is wrong is a long, drawn-out process in which the jury must see and hear the witness and observe any hesitations or changes of expression. There are all sorts of little clues about how to make the decision on credibility. With great respect, somebody interpreting using sign language is not going to be able to get across the tone in which the evidence is given. It is simply not possible.
I move to another point—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has made it already. Go with me into the jury room. I have seen jurors who are very cross and upset. You can tell that when they come back, because they are not agreed on their verdict and there they are: heated, anxious and worried. That is because every member of a jury, or virtually every member, I ever came across was determined to exert himself or herself to fulfil their public responsibility to reach a true verdict, so if they disagree about whether somebody is guilty, of course they are going to get steamed up. How will the dynamics work? Is it really being suggested that, within the jury room, the 12 of them should be together and that every time any one of the 11 who is not deaf makes a contribution, whether a comment, a long sentence or a paragraph, nobody can respond until such time as the interpretation has finished? I do not think that is real. I also think that, with the presence of interpreters—there will undoubtedly be at least two because half an hour of that work is extremely arduous—there will be at least 14 people. Go to any meeting that you are involved in and if somebody is there who is not actually involved, not responsible for what is going on, it changes the dynamic for all.
Let me leave the 13th or 14th person in the room and come to my fundamental objection. It will be the first time, as far as I am aware, when a jury room’s sanctity will be broken. We have always worked on the basis that what goes on in the jury room is private—not just confidential—to the 12 members of the jury. This is a very serious step for us to be taking. I can assure you that the next stage will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested, “Well, somebody is not able to speak English but has a citizen’s obligation. He or she should serve on a jury with a language interpreter.” I can assure you too—and this is perhaps more urgent—that there will be a whole series of academic professors dying to get into the jury room to see how juries reach their verdicts. So far, we have resisted it—in England, at any rate. What will happen to the confidentiality and privacy of the jury system if we let this door open?
That seems a fundamental issue of principle; it is not a matter of practical possibilities—as things improve, as science and technology get better. We are setting a very serious precedent. Although, of course, we cannot imagine it ever happening, I cannot help feeling in my remote dreams that, one day, a Secretary of State for the Home Department may say, “Why are these people being acquitted? It is a very good thing for us to have somebody in the jury room just to make sure that they are following the judge’s directions to them.”
I have three further points to make. The first is the language point—I have made that. Secondly, what is the role of the deaf juror in the context of his or her obligations to do jury service? If somebody turns up at court who can use or understand sign language, will it be compulsory that he serves on a jury? Everybody else has to turn up; there has to be a very good reason—there is an obligation to act as a juryman. Do we say, “Well, in the case of the deaf person, there’s a special dispensation?” In which case they are not being treated like everybody else. We need to examine that, because I would have thought that there is many a deaf person who would be willing to serve on a jury, but there will be quite a lot who would not.
Finally, while we are examining the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about possible shadow research, why are we not looking at the technology that is available? It is at least possible that my objection in principle could be addressed through technology. We all know that any time we turn on our television and some extraordinary language from the Baltic countries is being used, little lines come up to tell us what is being said. All members of the Bar with successful practices—and I never did have one—work in courts where all the evidence emerges on a screen as it is given. Why is that not being looked at? Why in relation to the principal issue are we not finding ways that a deaf juror can be accommodated within the jury room without any interpreters being present at all?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I ask the Committee to forgive me for using legal language. Some years ago, I had a case in Newport. It was a murder trial in which the victim was profoundly deaf, the defendant was profoundly deaf and four or five of the witnesses were profoundly deaf. This trial proceeded with three sign language interpreters always in the courtroom: one for the defendant, one for the witness and one behind the judge, positioned so that everybody, including the many profoundly deaf people in the public gallery, could see what was happening.
When I first looked at this provision, I thought, like everyone else would, that surely a person who is profoundly deaf should be entitled to carry out their public duty. But the practicalities of it make that an impossible idea. For a deaf juror, there has to be a succession of people interpreting what is going on in the court in sign language. First of all, that is an immense burden on him—he is different from everyone else; and, secondly, while what is said in the court can be heard by everyone else, we do not know whether the person doing the signing gets it right. Nobody can really tell if that is the case, unless, as in my case, you have someone familiar with sign language in the box with the defendant.
How can we be sure that that juror understands the nuances of a summing-up, in which the judge sets out the law that the jury is to apply? Can it be the case that some other person who knows sign language checks that the proper interpretation is being made of what may be very technical language? As I learned, the sign language interpreter is not translating word for word but is conveying ideas. During that case I also discovered that sign language interpreters and witnesses who give their evidence by signing are quicker than people using ordinary speech. It is not a slower procedure, rather it actually speeds things up; the rest of the court have to hold the sign language interpreters back.
However, in the jury room, there is no way in which a profoundly deaf person can follow the arguments being made—passionate and otherwise: nobody can be sure that every nuance of what the other jurors are saying is being transmitted, and nobody can be sure that an interruption or question from a profoundly deaf person is being accurately translated and represents his thoughts.
I take the argument of principle that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, put forward, but from a practical point of view, and from my experience of that trial, it is impossible for a fair trial to take place.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I do not think I can add very much to the points that have already been made on the difficulties which this proposal is likely to give rise to, except to say that one has to remember that hearings in criminal trials take a very long time. I do not know whether we, who have never had to be instructed in sign language, are able to tell whether a deaf juror can maintain concentration by that method throughout the entire day that the trial goes on, and indeed whether the interpreter can conduct that process throughout the entire day without relief. Maybe you would have to have another interpreter to come and take over after a reasonable interval, as you often had to do with shorthand writers in the days when they were used.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this is a very difficult issue and one on which I would normally expect to find myself on the side of assisting persons with a disability, for precisely the reasons given just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, but also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, at the beginning of his speech. That would be assisting persons with a disability such as deafness to take a full part in jury trials, even as members of a jury, so I completely share the reluctance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in finding myself opposing the Government’s proposals and wishing to restrict the assistance proposed for people with the disability of deafness.
One has every respect for the fact that similar proposals were considered in Scotland in 2018, as explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but I have come to the conclusion that it is simply incompatible with a fair trial by jury for one or more of the jurors to be assisted by one or more sign language interpreter—it is an important point that it may take more than one to give coverage throughout a trial. It seems to me that the presence of an interpreter in the jury room would raise a number of questions that are simply impossible to answer in a way that is compatible with this new proposal. The questions may reflect some of the concerns that noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have expressed in this debate.
The first is: would the interpreter be bringing a personal view of the evidence and the discussions to bear on the juror concerned, for whom he or she was interpreting? The associated question is: how would we know that the interpreter was bringing that personal view to bear on the juror concerned? The next question is, in one sense, the converse of that: would the contribution of the juror concerned to the deliberations of the jury as a whole genuinely reflect the contribution which that juror would have made had the interpreter not been present? That, of course, affects not just the juror concerned but all the other members of the jury as well.
Then there is a third and very obvious point, made as a result of the speed with which jury deliberations necessarily take place and which reflects the points made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford: how accurate is the interpretation that is achieved in any particular case? Again, the second point that arises from that is: how is that accuracy to be monitored? How do we know how accurate the interpretation is? Of course, it is not just the interpretation of the contributions to the deliberations that that particular juror has to make, but also the interpretation to that juror of what all the other jurors who might agree or disagree with that juror’s point of view may be saying.
Also, how far would the contributions of other jurors be affected by any actual or perceived views of the interpreter? We come back to the questions raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, of the dynamics of the jury room. We all know from experience that people gathered together carry different degrees of forcefulness, persuasiveness and believability. It is almost impossible, it seems to me, to rule out forcefulness or persuasiveness on the part of the interpreter, as distinct from the part of the juror concerned.
So I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on the principle and with other noble Lords who have spoken on the dynamics of the jury room. I also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on the point he made about the centrality of privacy in the jury room. We have always believed and held to be cardinal that jury deliberations are private and nobody else should be involved. The noble and learned Lord took the Kafkaesque point that maybe the Government would ultimately want a representative in the jury room. Even if we do not go that far, the principle is there to protect the privacy of jurors. The presence of third parties—or 13th and 14th parties—weakens that. I also take the point that many potential jurors who are deaf may not wish to serve on a jury and may see the effect of their disability as something that cannot be overcome by recourse to an interpreter.
These difficult questions are recognised in Clause 165 by the proposed new Sections 9C(4) and 20I of the Juries Act 1974, which create a new offence of an interpreter intentionally interfering with or influencing the deliberation of the jury. For my part, I cannot see that those proposed provisions could ever provide a satisfactory answer to the problems. The difficulties come not from the risk of intentional interference or influence but from the actual effect of unintentional and unintended interference or influence by a forceful interpreter, or a jury that did not follow what the interpretation was affecting.
Our system depends on the interaction between the views of 12 independent jurors, who have all listened to and considered the same evidence in the same way during the course of the trial. Each and every one of those jurors will have weighed up the truthfulness and accuracy of the evidence given by witnesses giving oral testimony and will have been influenced, partly at least, by the way in which that testimony was delivered. They will have formed their own views of that before they ever get to the jury room.
In this context, Section 10 of the Juries Act requires the discharge of potential jurors with insufficient understanding of English to enable them to act effectively as jurors. They need that understanding in order to interact with and understand the meaning, force, style and believability of the evidence, as they must. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, no foreign language interpreters are permitted, for obvious and good reasons, and I am entirely unpersuaded that the interests of justice would be best served by permitting interpreters of any language, including sign language, to accompany jurors into the jury room.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, there have been some very strong speeches from some very eminent lawyers, talking about the underlying principles of the jury room. Set against that, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, there are very strong equality arguments in favour of the proposal by the Government.
I served on a jury many years ago, but I want to talk about my experience as a magistrate. Magistrates are both judge and jury. About two years ago, the Greater London Family Panel of magistrates recruited a deaf magistrate. As far as I know, she has been sitting successfully for the last two years. I am in a position to know because I am currently chairman of the Greater London Family Panel and would be told if there were any complaints or observations related to the way she was performing. I have not heard any and, as far as I know, it is absolutely fine. She sits with a regular interpreter, who is familiar to her, and with the other magistrates when they are determining these very sensitive issues.
Earl Attlee (Con)
I would like to quickly pick up on one thing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, touched on, which was the position of a blind juror. I would have no problem at all with a blind juror. I expect that there are blind jurors and that the current legislation in Section 9B already provides for that without any difficulty.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, this was an especially thoughtful and constructive debate. I agree with the words that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, used to describe the debate. His reference to the magistrate was interesting, but the problem with all analogies is that they are different. I am going to focus specifically on the jury issue because I recognise that a number of Members of the Committee have made particular points about jurors.
I will start with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who referred us to the Equality Act; that is an important starting point for the debate, although it may not be the finishing point. We must ensure that the services of the courts are accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities. We must pay due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity wherever possible. That, in a nutshell, is why Clause 165 is part of the Bill. Having said that, and because I know that this will be a debate that is looked at by those outside this House as well as by those inside it, let me place on record what need not be said but I am going to say it anyway: that everybody in this Committee shares that aim. We heard a very personal example from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, of Lady Judge’s work in this area. Again I say this for the avoidance of doubt where there should not be any: I am proceeding on the basis that all who have questioned or opposed our proposals do so with the very best of motives and certainly not for any other reason.
Trial by jury is a fundamental aspect of our criminal justice system, and serving as a juror is one of the most important civic duties that anyone can be asked to perform. I agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee that it is a duty and not a right, but the Government and I want to ensure that as many people as possibly can perform that duty. Reasonable adjustments can be made by our courts to enable most people with disabilities to complete jury service. This, importantly, includes deaf jurors who can lip-read. I invite the Committee to reflect very carefully on the position of the deaf juror who can lip-read and to consider it in respect of each of the objections that have been put. I will come to some of them to which this would not apply, but a number of the objections would potentially apply to a juror who is deaf but who can lip-read. Nobody else in the court is likely to know how good the lip-reading is, whether the lip-reader gets every nuance, or how lip-reading affects the dynamics either in the jury box or in the jury retirement room.
That is the first point we get from the deaf juror who lip-reads, but there is another point as well: it underlines the proposition that there is no bar in principle to a deaf person serving on a jury. This is about one issue only, which is the 13th—I will come back to the 14th—person in the jury retirement room. That is why we need the legislation, because at the moment it is 12 and no more; I put the jury bailiff to one side. The issue at the moment is that, unlike a lip-reader who, if the judge considers that they can effectively discharge their duties as a juror—which I will come back to—can serve on a jury, a juror who needs a British Sign Language interpreter is unable to get that assistance because entry to the deliberation room is limited to the jurors, and no one else may enter. The essential point that this clause focuses on is permitting the BSL interpreter to go in, thereby enabling that juror to fulfil their duty.
I recognise that there have been what I might call practical, and almost philosophical, principled objections and concerns raised about the proposal. I note that the Bar Council of England and Wales has expressed its support, subject, it is fair to say, to the right safeguards, which I believe we have in place. I reassure the Committee that we considered the safeguards very carefully in developing the legislation. We looked at research and current practice in the USA, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland—which is planning to legislate for this form of interpretation—and Australia, where provision is already made for BSL interpreters or the equivalent in its jury systems.
I will first deal with the philosophical or principled objections. I understand the reservations that this might undermine the jury deliberation process, and I understand the argument, although I do not accept it, that interpreters could unduly influence or impact the dynamic of the discussions. There has been a lot of research, particularly in New South Wales, to explore whether deaf people can sufficiently access court proceedings and make informed decisions as jurors. The research suggests that deaf jurors are not hindered from speaking during deliberations and that other jurors seemingly have no issue with the presence of the interpreter or interacting with the deaf juror.
We have put safeguards in the Bill to help to address these issues. Offences relating to research and sharing research during the trial will apply as much to the interpreter as they do to the jurors. As has been pointed out, there is a new offence whereby an interpreter intentionally interferes in or influences the deliberations of the jury or proceedings before the court. I have said “interpreter”, but I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out—I acknowledge my gratitude to him and others for sparing time to discuss this with me—that there will be two BSL interpreters present in the jury deliberation room, not only because they need to switch over as it is a very intensive process for the interpreter but because it has the benefit that they will be able to monitor each other and maintain a consistently high quality of interpretation. To take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I say that the nuances will be as much picked up by the sign language interpreters as we can anticipate—or not—that they will be picked up necessarily by a lip-reader.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that the jury room is not just confidential but also private; those things are different, and it is both. There is no intention to allow the academics or the researchers in. There is certainly no intention to move from what I think in the judicial review context is called “the judge over your shoulder” to the Minister standing over the juror’s shoulder. We are certainly not going there.
The interpreters will be bound by a confidentiality agreement and be bound by law, and there is an offence to keep everybody honest. They will also be required to swear an oath or affirmation to that effect, alongside their existing interpreter’s oath or affirmation.
I turn to the practical concerns around the nature of evidence and whether a deaf juror will be able to interpret facial expressions, together with audio evidence, effectively. Again, I heard the example from the noble and learned Lord as to how something was said in a tone of complete resignation. The word used in the Act, and in this clause, is “effectively”. The judge would have to decide whether the juror could effectively discharge their role as a juror. This provision does not require judges to admit such jurors on to the jury; it simply removes the blanket ban that would otherwise be present. It means that jurors who need a BSL interpreter can be considered alongside other jurors for whom other reasonable adjustments might be required.
The ultimate decision will be for the trial judge, who will take into account the nature of the case and the nature of the evidence that is going to be heard. No doubt he or she would want to hear submissions from the parties, although they would not be bound by them. As I have said, none of this is new. Again, I ask the Committee to consider how the trial judge should deal with a juror who says, “Well, I lip-read.” The trial judge, again, would have to consider what the evidence in the case was going to be and whether they were going to be able to fulfil their role effectively. There is no difference in principle, and the test and approach of the judge would have to be the same.
I accept that there will be cases where a deaf person would not be able to serve on a jury. I expect that there will be cases where a lip-reading juror might not be able to serve on a jury—for example, if the evidence is audio only and there is nobody to look at; there is just a telephone call playing.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I ask this question out of ignorance. Can the Minister confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, which is that a BSL interpreter does not interpret in the way that a foreign-language interpreter would, but rather attempts to summarise the gist or essence of what has been said?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I was going to come to that point, but let me deal with it now. BSL is treated as a language. It has its own grammatical structure and syntax; it is recognised as a minority language in the UK. There is not a sign for every word, but words can be spelled out where a sign is not possible. The noble Lord and I have both had cases where we have had simultaneous foreign language interpretation. It is also the case that not every word in every language is easily translatable into another language. Certainly, we have looked at that point, and we do not think that that should be a bar to a deaf juror effectively participating in a jury. For these purposes, BSL is sufficient to enable the juror to participate effectively, but depending again on the nature of the case, that may be a factor in a particular case which the judge would want to take into account.
It is important to start from the proposition that everyone should be able to serve as a juror unless there are good reasons to believe that they would be unable to do so effectively. I underline that word “effectively” in the instant case. I come back to the fact that deaf jurors who can lip-read serve successfully, and we do not believe that there is a reason why there should be a blanket ban on jurors who need BSL interpreters to serve.
Picking up some other points, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, asked about the obligation point and whether there would be a special dispensation. No, there would not be a special dispensation. Like any other juror, the deaf juror who needed a BSL interpreter would have to ask for permission to be excused. Of course, given that the judge would also be considering whether they could effectively participate, perhaps the anterior question would be their effective participation, and then the question would arise as to whether they could be excused. That would also apply, of course, to any other juror who was a lip-reader. One would imagine that a judge would be sympathetic to a lip-reading juror who might say to the judge, “I know that I can serve, but I am very concerned that I might miss something. My lip-reading is good, if not 100%, but I would rather not serve.” Ultimately, however, that would be up to the judge. There would not be a special dispensation.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, first I pay tribute to my noble friend for his response to our concerns. When I read the Bill, as all noble Lords do, I read it carefully and this clause immediately attracted my attention, because I thought it would be of interest to your Lordships. I think the best course of action is to incorporate this clause into the Bill and then recognise that this matter is far beyond my pay grade and we should perhaps leave it to other noble and learned Lords to pursue it at a later stage if they think it is necessary. I think we should put the question.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 187, line 17.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, these amendments in my name make two straightforward revisions which will allow these provisions to operate more effectively and support the principle of open justice across our courts and tribunals. Let me divide them into two groups.
Amendments 243, 244, 245, 248 to 261 inclusive and 325 expand the scope of Clauses 167 and 168 so they apply to all of our courts, tribunals and all bodies that exercise the judicial power of the state, with the exception of the Supreme Court, for which there has already been separate provision, and devolved courts and tribunals, for obvious reasons. This is an important amendment. It ensures that all jurisdictions may use these powers to provide transmissions of proceedings to remote observers in order to uphold the principle of open justice, subject, of course, to further regulation, guidance and judicial discretion.
Digital technologies have become mainstream, even in our smaller and what might be called more obscure jurisdictions. It is now evident that these powers should not be limited to HMCTS courts and tribunals but would be best made effective in all courts and tribunals. Importantly, that also ensures that the offence of making unauthorised recordings or transmissions of proceedings is applied universally across our entire justice system and not just in specific jurisdictions. This will shorten the length of the Bill by around six pages by removing the need for a distinct schedule for tribunals. I was going to add, “making this legislation simpler”, but that might test the patience of the Committee.
Ensuring that our courts and tribunals are as open and transparent as they can be is an ongoing task. The president of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, recently published his review of transparency in the family courts. With respect to the president, it is right to say that that was a phenomenal piece of work, which has been well received. The remote observer clauses in this Bill are in harmony with his recommendations, as the Bill allows transparency by permitting journalists to observe family hearings remotely if they cannot attend in person.
The second part of this group of amendments, Amendments 246, 247, 262, 324, and 329, provide technical amendments so that the secondary legislation to enable these powers may be introduced on time. Let me explain what I mean by that. The remote observation provisions in the Bill are intended to replace the temporary and less extensive powers in the Coronavirus Act. They have been vital in allowing our courts to administer justice effectively and transparently during the Covid-19 pandemic.
We want to make sure that there is no gap in the legislative cover. It has therefore become necessary to ensure that these new powers can be enabled in secondary legislation before the date that the existing legislation expires. With this Bill now not expected to receive Royal Assent until only shortly before that date, these amendments take the necessary step of allowing the enabling secondary legislation for these powers to be introduced by the made affirmative procedure. These amendments therefore provide that legislation is continually in place to uphold open justice in remote hearings.
As this morning, I am aware that the group contains amendments from other noble Lords, so I will pause there to allow them to introduce their amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I shall speak to Amendment 259B in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned lord, Lord Judge.
Clause 169(2) would allow a jury to be in a different physical location from the judge, so long as all 12 members of the jury are in the same place as between themselves. I am very concerned about this proposed power. In order to ensure the effective management of a criminal trial, a judge needs to be in the same room as a jury. The judge needs to be able to communicate effectively with the members of the jury. The judge needs carefully to watch the jury to see that they are focused and ensure that their needs are addressed. The judge needs carefully to watch the relationships between the 12 members of the jury. The jury needs to be able to communicate speedily and easily with the judge if it has any particular issue that it wants to raise. Members of the jury need to be able to study the witnesses giving evidence—what they say, what they do not say, and their body language and facial expressions while doing so. All this is so much more difficult through a computer screen, as we have all discovered, whether through court proceedings or parliamentary proceedings, during the pandemic.
I have had very helpful discussions with the Minister about this matter, and I am very grateful to him and thank him for those discussions and the time that he has devoted to them. I understand from him that the Government have no plan to encourage the use of remote juries. Instead, as I understand it, the Government believe that this would be a useful power essentially for three reasons: we may be afflicted by another pandemic; there may well be advances in technology; and, in any event, this power may be useful today if a judge and lawyers, for example, go on a site visit and one or more members of the jury is physically disabled, in which case the site visit can be watched by the whole jury online. That is the example that the Minister gave me.
I have to say that I find these justifications unpersuasive. I am always suspicious of broad powers being taken in legislation “just in case”. I certainly do not doubt the Minister’s good faith, but his assurances as to what is intended to be done under this proposed power do not bind—cannot bind—his successors in office to what he has done; they may have very different proposals or intentions as to the use of these powers. With great respect, the site visit example is, I think, very far-fetched. I am not aware of any such problem in any case in recent years, if ever.
In any event, if Ministers think that provision should be made for such a limited, specific use of remote hearings, with juries in a different place to the judge and the defendant, let it be made clear in the drafting of the clause that a remote hearing cannot take place with the jury in splendid isolation from the judge, the witnesses and the defendant in relation to the hearing of oral evidence, the submissions of counsel or the summing-up by the judge.
Although they have not yet been spoken to, I express my support for Amendments 259A and 259B, both of which concern aspects of the proposed power to be conferred on the court to require a person, including a defendant, to take part in proceedings by audio or video link. I can well understand that this may be a useful power for a preliminary hearing, but not for a substantive trial, unless the defendant consents to that. I am very unhappy about this in relation to young persons.
There are real issues as to whether a defendant would have effective access to a hearing, were his or her presence to be remote, and real concerns as to whether they could effectively communicate with their legal representatives. The Ministry of Justice may be hoping to save some money if it does not need to transport defendants from prison to court, but I am doubtful that it will save much money because it will need to invest in very high-quality computer systems. In any event, I fear the price will be a reduction in the quality of justice, and that price is too high.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I do not wish to be taken as suggesting that what works well in Scotland should necessarily be applied in England and Wales, but I think I am right in saying that there has been some attempt in Scotland to allow juries to be remote. The problem one has is that a judge cannot be in two places at once. I think it was thought more appropriate that the judge should be close to the place where the evidence was being taken, with the juries remote in some other room because of the need for social distancing and so on. My point is simply this: I suggest once again, with great respect, that the Minister should find out what has been happening in Scotland and what the experience has been. They may have decided, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it should not be continued. I simply do not know, but it is worth exploring to find out exactly what the position is.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, despite Covid—I know it is not over yet, but despite the 18 months we have had—I have not heard it suggested that one solution to the problems that the courts face is that juries should act remotely. We have trial by judge and jury. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, but I want to be just a bit more down to the realities of it. What happens in court when the jury is unhappy with itself or with some of its members? The judge has a most delicate task to perform. On my old circuit—I am sorry to say that the Midlands circuit has this—one juror smelled; he stank, and the jury were extremely unhappy about it. Can all that be done remotely, when the judge is responsible for looking after the interests and needs of the jury as a whole? Do we send messages down the line? How is it accommodated? It requires huge tact, skill and, I think, the personal touch.
My other concern about this provision was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—it is the usual one, I am afraid; you have all heard me talk about it. Why should we give these huge powers when we do not need to give them?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group to which I would like to speak. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made the overarching point that he is suspicious of broad powers being taken in legislation. It seems to me that those amendments which are not the Government’s address the broad powers which the Government are seeking to take in this group.
Amendments 245A and 245B, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would remove children from the application of Clause 167, providing that remote observation and recording of court proceedings may not occur in cases where a party to the proceedings is a child under the age of 18.
Under Amendment 259A, also in the name of my noble and learned friend, a court may not give directions for live links in criminal proceedings where a party to them is a child under the age of 18. The amendment in my name, Amendment 259BA, would require that all defendants who might appear on a video or audio link from a location outside the court should be subject to a health needs screening. Screening information must be made available to the judge responsible for listing before the listing is finalised.
We have all had a variety of experiences of dealing with remote links. I have done it many times over the last 18 months and in a number of jurisdictions. I was pleased that the Minister referred to Sir Andrew McFarlane’s report about trying to increase the transparency of family courts. I have read that report and it is interesting. There is the idea there of permitting journalists to observe family courts remotely. However, there is another side to this coin. Yes, we pat ourselves on the back for getting through a difficult situation—I have done it myself—and we have all managed to make the various parts of our lives work, including this House, but I do not think that anyone would say that the manner of getting through things within the court system or within this House or this Committee is as good as doing it in person.
The amendments I have spoken to look at arguably the most vulnerable people who potentially proceed through the criminal system and at whether there should be a form of review around whether that is indeed suitable. The amendments I have referred to talk about people under the age of 18, but there is a wider point, because there has been criticism of the way in which we in the family court system have proceeded remotely. I have literally taken away a child from a mother remotely, by telephone. It was the best thing to do in the circumstances, but nobody would argue that that was the best way to proceed when the court system and other forms of support should be in place and available.
There are overarching and broad powers being sought through this group of amendments. The amendments in my name and those in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, are basically looking for exceptions to this, where the situation is so sensitive that these overarching powers should not be taken and there should be further research and assessment of their appropriateness. The amendments in my name deal with young people under the age of 18. I have had a number of hearings with such young people. Sometimes they go okay; sometimes they simply switch off and do not have a clue what is proceeding within the court system.
I hope that, when the noble Lord comes to sum up, he will be able to say something about ongoing reviews of particular appraisals of young people being able to participate in these types of hearings, and that there will not be a blanket approach, as is proposed in his group of amendments.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I wanted to hear what he had to say about his amendments and those in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
I speak first to the amendment to which I have put my name, Amendment 259B—on which I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said—about excluding jurors from the operation of the provision permitting participation in criminal proceedings by remote live links.
The proposal in the Bill is that the problem of jurors taking part in criminal proceedings by live link should be dealt with by a requirement that all members of a jury taking part through a live link should be present at the same place. So the suggestion is that, by being present at the same place, the jurors would be able to decide a case whether or not they were physically present at the trial. I do not believe that suggestion is accurate or that it responds adequately to the difficulties posed by the proposal that jurors should be able to attend remotely.
In the last group we considered how important it is for jurors to be able to see and hear witnesses giving their oral testimony live, with a view to assessing the truthfulness of those witnesses and the accuracy of the evidence they give. That involves a very personal judgment about credibility and reliability. Reliance upon that judgment—the independent judgment of 12 citizens, as distinct from the individual judgment of a professional judge—is what marks out the jury system. I believe it is what has given the public confidence in the system that we all have. I do not believe that that judgment is capable of being reliably made by live link.
Post Covid, we can all see the attractions of remote hearings. As a barrister, I have appeared in many such hearings over this period, as I dare say others have—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has. For hearings before judges alone, or before arbitral tribunals, they generally work well. Indeed, for many civil hearings, I suspect we will not go back to the system of all-oral hearings for a significant percentage of our work. That will be a matter for individual judges, arbitrators and lawyers, depending upon the particular circumstances of the cases before them.
However—this was the case that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made—even during the pandemic and despite the pressures of increasing trial backlogs, we have not gone down the road of holding jury trials without jurors being physically present to hear the evidence and being in the same place as the judge. In my view, that is for good reason, so I invite the Government to think again and to accept Amendment 259B.
On the other amendments, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, explain his amendment about the need for health-needs screening, I agree with the noble Lord and invite the Government to accept that, too. As for the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thornton, I fully accept the argument that it would be unusual for the use of live links to be directed by a judge in a sensitive case involving children, but I can see an argument that some such cases might justify a direction. I see no reason not to leave it to the judge in any particular case to determine whether the use of live links would further or impede the interests of justice. In this regard, we need to remember that refusing a live-links direction may in many cases cause delay in the determination of those cases, and that such delay may lead to particular injustice in cases involving children, for whom an early determination of the issues surrounding their care is often of great importance. So, although I see the point of this amendment, I suggest that it is better to leave it to judicial discretion in cases involving children.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will know that, as a non-lawyer, I very often attend these debates because I do not trust lawyers to make decisions about themselves. I therefore intervene here because, on this occasion, lawyers have brought to the surface a most important issue.
I am interested in whether people believe that justice has been done, and it seems to me that extending, in these circumstances, the use of technology to overcome the presence of people in court has a fundamental issue for the generality of the public believing that justice has been done. I am a great believer in Zoom and Teams. They have made my life a great deal better and I have spent more time in the beautiful countryside of Suffolk than I had been able to do before, but I am very conscious of the fact that there are many things that you can do perfectly well—indeed, better—through these techniques and there are some things that you cannot. One of the things you cannot do is replicate the public’s confidence in the concept of a jury. The point, which was made by the previous speaker so adequately, is that it is different, and our system is different because we have this element.
I cannot believe that there are circumstances when it would be sensible for the jury to be in one place and the judge in another. Therefore, I wish to say to my noble friend, whose explanations throughout today and previous days have been remarkable—he has been able to defend some very peculiar things more effectively than most people have managed to do, certainly in the other House—simply this: we have here a position in which it is hugely important that the public should feel that justice is done. I do not believe they will if we do it this way.
As somebody who was a Minister for 16 years, I warn him that I see the civil servant here, who said to some Minister somewhere, “Better do this in case”. Some of the cases proposed are frankly incomprehensible, unlikely and totally beyond any sense—but it is the duty of civil servants to say, “Better not leave this out, Minister, lest it should happen and then we’d be in trouble”. I suggest to my noble friend that he would be in less trouble by not doing some of these things than he would be in the extreme possibility that he might need this power.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, there is a great deal to be said for the need for justice to be done, as the noble Lord has been saying, but there is another side to the coin, which is a trial within a reasonable time. That factor has been exercising the minds of those who have been trying to progress trials through the desperately difficult situation created by the Covid epidemic. I hope those times have passed but, in the defence of those who have been setting out remote proceedings, they have been doing so under great pressure. People have been languishing in custody for far longer than they should have been, awaiting trial, and that factor has to be taken into account in deciding what is the right thing to do. The noble Lord is absolutely right, of course, that the worst option is the one they were driven to—but they were driven to it for very good reasons.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful again to the Committee for a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Deben for the most back-handed compliment I have ever received and assure him that, when it comes to justice, I absolutely subscribe to the proposition that justice must be not only done but seen to be done. That reminds me to underline what Clauses 167 and 168 are about: they are about justice being seen to be done. These clauses do not mandate remote hearings; that is for a judge to decide. What they do is permit remote observation of those hearings, which underpins open justice.
When we look at issues such as this, we need to bear in mind that the days when the local newspaper would send people to sit at the back of the Crown Court or magistrates’ court are long gone. In the real world, you will have greater transparency if you have a live feed to journalists from the courtroom than if you say, “You’ve got to come along and take a note”. They simply do not any more, and I am concerned with making sure that we actually have open justice and that it is not just something we talk about.
Amendments 245A and 245B seek to prohibit those transmissions being made to remote observers in all cases where a child is among the parties. Amendment 259A similarly seeks to remove children from the application of Clause 169, which is about video and audio links in criminal proceedings. It would prevent the court, as a blanket ban, from making a direction to enable any participant in a hearing to attend by live link where a child is party to proceedings.
I absolutely agree with the intention of safeguarding children in our courts. We have debated that point in a number of areas of this and other Bills, but I suggest that these amendments are both ineffective and unnecessary. They are unnecessary because we already have in place sufficient tried and tested legislation and guidance to safeguard the privacy of children in these proceedings. Section 47(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prevents anyone being present at a youth court hearing except members of the court, parties and participants, accredited media representatives or specifically authorised persons.
In other courts, procedure rules provide that it is legitimate to hold a hearing in private
“to protect the interests of any child or protected party”.
Courts have a statutory duty to have regard to the welfare of children. Judges, magistrates and tribunal members retain judicial discretion over whether a case is to be heard in private, with full consideration of their duty to protect minors or other vulnerable parties, where necessary. The ineffective or counterproductive point is that there may be cases where it is beneficial for a child, whether as a witness or a defendant, to participate by live link. If one is focusing on cases where children can be affected, one also has to bear in mind that there are lots of cases which affect children where a child is neither a party, nor a witness, nor physically involved at all.
Clause 169, as drafted, gives courts the flexibility to make decisions to direct remote participation where it is considered in the best interests of child participants to do so. I draw the Committee’s attention to the word “may” in the first line of subsection (1) in new Section 51. It is vitally important that we continue to protect children. That is why we have built these safeguards into our provisions.
Amendment 259B, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke to first, seeks to exclude juries from the provisions in Clause 169 that enable a jury assembled together to participate in a trial through a live video link, where appropriate and deemed to be in the interests of justice. The Committee is entitled to a clear statement from the Dispatch Box and I will make one: there is absolutely no intention for this to become a regular feature of trials, with the jury sitting in one room and the judge and the witnesses in another room. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, reminded us, Scotland did put that provision in during the pandemic—I think cinemas were used, so that everything was on a big screen and the audio was very good. That was done in response to the pandemic, and this measure is a future-proofing measure.
I hear what my noble friend Lord Deben says about that and about civil servants tapping Ministers on the shoulder, but, since the pandemic, we have witnessed big changes in how we run our jury system. We have seen —and here I pay my respects again to judges and all others involved in the justice system, who have worked extremely hard to do this—suitable procedures put in place. But we have also seen how legislation tied our hands during an emergency and impeded our ability to progress quickly and make full use of the technological options open to us. We do not want that to happen again. Clause 169 is designed to provide courts with the flexibility to keep pace with new technology as it develops.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, that is the second reason for this clause. Technology is developing in ways that we could not have imagined a few years ago, and we have no idea where it will take us in the future. We want to be sure that we have a statutory basis to take advantage of technology as it develops, so that we can provide a justice system that is fit for the century that we live in and for the way that people live their lives. Those are the two main justifications for Clause 169.
I gave the noble Lord the example of a site visit. Again, I make clear that this is not the main justification for it, but it is important if one has a jury with a disabled person on it. The idea is shocking that, in 2021 a disabled person could be told that they cannot sit on a jury because, at some point during the three-week trial, it will look at the locus in quo, which is a room at the top of a winding staircase, and they cannot climb the stairs. The whole thing could be done very effectively via video, and so that is not a reason to stop them serving on a jury.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. Can he say whether there has ever been such a case?
While I am on my feet, I have another question. The Minister mentioned that technology may develop. I think the concern from those of us who have doubts about this proposal is not advancing technology but human communication. However good the technology becomes, there is still a vital distinction between watching proceedings on a screen and being in the same room as other people. I suggest to the Minister—this is certainly my experience and, I think, the experience of most lawyers and judges—that, although the courts have worked wonders during the pandemic, they have recognised the inferiority of any system that is within our contemplation by means of technology compared with being the same room. The ability to communicate and have an interchange with other people is manifestly weakened by having to do it over a screen.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Absolutely. I do not disagree that face to face is better; no doubt that is what we all feel in this Committee—that it operates much better when we are in the same room than it did when it was all on screens. I absolutely accept that. Let me give an example. Before I became a Minister, I did a three-week trial entirely on screen, with witnesses around the world. After about a day, you forget, and you get used to the new system.
I am not saying that we want this clause here because screens are better; we want this clause in the Bill because screens may be necessary if we have another pandemic and because we do not know where technology is going to go. I do not want to get too techy about it, but there is a very real difference between watching a screen in the sense of a computer monitor and some of the things that I have seen in banks, where there is a big screen down the middle of a table and six or seven of you sit in a row and look at it, while the people you are talking to have the same thing in their office. After about half an hour, you really feel that they are on the opposite side of the table to you. Again, I am not suggesting that that is suitable for courts, but it is an example of how technology can, and will, develop. We want to future-proof it, as I have said.
Amendment 259BA would require anyone taking part in any sort of criminal hearing via live link to submit to a prior assessment of their physical and mental health before the court could consider whether it is appropriate for them to take part in criminal proceedings over a live link. I share the concern of the noble Lord that we must ensure that audio and video links are used appropriately. Again, we have built safeguards into Clause 169, setting out procedures and guidance that courts must follow. The court must decide whether it is in the interests of justice; that includes taking the views of the person who would attend by live link on whether they can participate effectively in the proceedings. The clause also requires that the parties have an opportunity to make representations to the judge.
I also point out that, although the intention behind the amendment is understandable, perhaps even laudable, in practice, it could prevent or deter some people from using a facility that could help them to participate in hearings with as little distress, inconvenience and delay as possible. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 187, line 17.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
In calling Amendment 245, I must point out that, if it is accepted, I cannot call Amendment 245A by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 245
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands new section 85A of the Courts Act 2003 so as to cover all “courts” within the meaning of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (which include tribunals and other judicial bodies).
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 188, line 25.
“(8A) Before making regulations under subsection (8), the Lord Chancellor must determine whether the function of giving or withholding concurrence to the regulations would most appropriately be exercised by—(a) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales,(b) the Senior President of Tribunals, or(c) both of them.(8B) Regulations under subsection (8) may be made only with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Senior President of Tribunals, or both of them, as determined under subsection (8A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment responds to the inclusion of tribunals within new section 85A of the Courts Act 2003 (see the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 187, line 17) by providing for the Senior President of Tribunals to consent to regulations under that section in appropriate cases.
“(10) This section does not apply to proceedings in the Supreme Court.(11) This section does not apply to proceedings if provision regulating the procedure to be followed in those proceedings could be made by—(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,(b) an Act of Senedd Cymru (including one passed with the consent of a Minister of the Crown within the meaning of section 158(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006), or(c) an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly passed without the consent of the Secretary of State.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that Supreme Court proceedings and court or tribunal proceedings within devolved competence do not fall within the expanded scope of new section 85A of the Courts Act 2003 (as brought about by the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 187, line 17).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 281, line 12) removes provision that is unnecessary as a result of the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 187, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 187, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 281, line 12.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 187, line 17 and page 281, line 12.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 187, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 281, line 12.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 187, line 17.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“(10A) This section does not apply to proceedings in the Supreme Court.(10B) This section does not apply to court proceedings if provision regulating the procedure to be followed in those proceedings could be made by—(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,(b) an Act of Senedd Cymru (including one passed with the consent of a Minister of the Crown within the meaning of section 158(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006), or(c) an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly passed without the consent of the Secretary of State.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that Supreme Court proceedings and court or tribunal proceedings within devolved competence do not fall within the expanded scope of new section 85B of the Courts Act 2003 (as brought about by the amendments in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 190, lines 27 and 28).
““court” has the same meaning as in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (see section 19 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 190, line 28, expand new section 85B of the Courts Act 2003 so as to cover all “courts” within the meaning of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (which include tribunals and other judicial bodies).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at line 27 of the same page.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 286, line 4) removes provision that is unnecessary as a result of the amendments in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 190, lines 27 and 28.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 188, line 28) removes provision that is unnecessary as a result of the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 187, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 190, line 45) removes provision that is unnecessary as a result of the amendments in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 190, lines 27 and 28.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“Expedited procedure for initial regulations about remote observation of proceedings
(1) This section applies in relation to the first regulations made under section 85A(8) of the Courts Act 2003 (as inserted by section 167(1)).(2) The regulations may be made without a draft of the instrument containing them having been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament (notwithstanding section 108(3) of the Courts Act 2003).(3) If regulations are made in reliance on subsection (2), the statutory instrument containing them must be laid before Parliament after being made.(4) Regulations contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament under subsection (3) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any whole days that fall within a period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.(6) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (4), that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This enables the first regulations made for the purposes of new section 85A of the Courts Act 2003 as inserted by Clause 167 (which, in particular, will specify types of court or tribunal proceedings in which remote observation directions will be available) to be made subject to the ‘made affirmative’ procedure rather than the normal affirmative procedure.
Lord Coaker
“Offence of assaulting a retail worker
(1) It is an offence for a person to assault, threaten or abuse another person—(a) who is a retail worker, and(b) who is engaged, at the time, in retail work.(2) No offence is committed under subsection (1) unless the person who assaults, threatens or abuses knows or ought to know that the other person—(a) is a retail worker, and(b) is engaged, at the time, in retail work.(3) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, a fine, or both.(4) Evidence from a single source is sufficient to establish, for the purposes of this section—(a) whether a person is a retail worker, and(b) whether the person is engaged, at the time, in retail work.(5) The offence under subsection (1) of threatening or abusing a retail worker is committed by a person only if the person—(a) behaves in a threatening or abusive manner towards the worker, and(b) intends by the behaviour to cause the worker or any other person fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause such fear or alarm.(6) Subsection (5) applies to— (a) behaviour of any kind including, in particular, things said or otherwise communicated as well as things done,(b) behaviour consisting of—(i) a single act, or(ii) a course of conduct.(7) Subsections (8) to (10) apply where, in proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), it is—(a) specified in the complaint that the offence is aggravated by reason of the retail worker’s enforcing a statutory age restriction, and,(b) proved that the offence is so aggravated.(8) The offence is so aggravated if the behaviour constituting the offence occurred because of the enforcement of a statutory age restriction.(9) Evidence from a single source is sufficient to prove that the offence is so aggravated.(10) Where this section applies, the court must—(a) state on conviction that the offence is so aggravated,(b) record the conviction in a way that shows that the offence is so aggravated,(c) take the aggravation into account in determining the appropriate sentence, and(d) state—(i) where the sentence imposed in respect of the offence is different from that which the court would have imposed if the offence were not so aggravated, the extent of and the reasons for that difference, or(ii) otherwise, the reasons for there being no such difference.(11) In this section—“enforcement”, in relation to a statutory age restriction, includes—(a) seeking information as to a person’s age,(b) considering information as to a person’s age,(c) refusing to sell or supply goods or services,for the purposes of complying with the restriction (and “enforcing” is to be construed accordingly),“statutory age restriction” means a provision in an enactment making it an offence to sell or supply goods or services to a person under an age specified in that or another enactment.(12) In this section, “retail worker”—(a) means a person—(i) whose usual place of work is retail premises, or(ii) whose usual place of work is not retail premises but who does retail work,(b) includes, in relation to a business that owns or occupies any premises in which the person works, a person who—(i) is an employee of the business,(ii) is an owner of the business, or(iii) works in the premises under arrangements made between the business and another person for the provision of staff,(c) also includes a person who delivers goods from retail premises.(13) For the purposes of subsection (12), it is irrelevant whether or not the person receives payment for the work.(14) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the person charged with the offence knew or ought to have known any matter falling within subsection (12)(b) in relation to the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed. (15) In this section, “retail premises” means premises that are used wholly or mainly for the sale or supply of goods, on a retail basis, to members of the public.(16) In this section, “retail work” means—(a) in the case of a person whose usual place of work is retail premises, any work in those retail premises,(b) in the case of a person whose usual place of work is not retail premises, work in connection with—(i) the sale or supply of goods, on a retail basis, to members of the public, or(ii) the sale or supply of services (including facilities for gambling) in respect of which a statutory age restriction applies,(c) subject to subsection (17), in the case of a person who delivers goods from retail premises, work in connection with the sale or supply of goods, on a retail basis, to members of the public.(17) A person who delivers goods from retail premises is doing retail work only during the period beginning when the person arrives at a place where delivery of goods is to be effected and ending when the person leaves that place (whether or not goods have been delivered).(18) In this section, references to working in premises includes working on any land forming part of the premises.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to stand to move this important amendment here this evening. I declare my proud interest as a member of USDAW and of the Co-Operative Party. Amendment 263, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, provides for a specific offence of assaulting, threatening or abusing a retail worker, punishable by up to a 12-month sentence, a fine or both. I also rise in support of Amendment 264, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which I am pleased to add my name to. It provides for increased sentencing where an offence of common assault, battery, threatening or abusive behaviour, or intentional harassment is committed against a retail worker. It provides for, on summary conviction, 12 months or a fine, or both, and, on indictment, a sentence of up to two years.
I am very proud to present these amendments; this is a crucial issue for all of us across this Chamber and, indeed, in the other place, and one which has huge cross-party support, as we all want to do more for our retail workers. I am sure that the Minister is only too aware of this. An amendment in the House of Commons recently received significant attention and support from the Government Benches as well as the Opposition Benches. The issue has been campaigned on for years by workers, unions, parliamentarians, people who are interested in it and by the retail industry itself. It is time for the Government to act, and this Bill provides them with the vehicle to do that.
I hope noble Lords will bear with me while I talk a little about the scale of the problem. The Co-operative Group estimates that today, across its stores, 12 shop workers will be attacked and more than 110 will be abused and threatened. The British Retail Consortium estimates that, across the sector, every day 450 shop workers are abused or attacked. None of us condones that or thinks that it is acceptable; none of us is anything other than appalled by that fact.
The truth is that it seems to be increasing at a considerable rate. The Co-op Group, again, estimates that, in stores across the UK, there was a 650% rise in violence and a 1,700% rise in abuse towards their colleagues between 2016 and 2020. So, clearly, there is a major issue which individual retail and shop workers are facing every single day. Yet was it not just a few months ago that we were all talking about how essential these retail and shop workers, and others working in this sector, were to all of us? The pandemic gave us the chance to recognise the importance of people who perhaps in the past we had taken for granted, but whose real service to us we now recognised.
I do not know about anybody else, but during lockdown, going to the shops sometimes to get an essential supply became a day out. I am sure we are all aware of that. It was a fact that in every shop, store, service station or garage you went to, you actually met somebody else, and, frankly, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic, we had no real idea about the consequences of the level of human interaction that retail workers were having to do every single day as part of their job to keep us supplied with food and the services we needed. We talk, quite rightly, about what police officers and other emergency workers did, but the bravery of those workers as well is something that I know we all salute.
Now is the time for us to say that we recognise what they did during the pandemic and the service they provided, and perhaps for the first time properly recognise the importance of what they gave to the community as a whole. Is it not now time for us, as legislators, to respect that and act to create an offence or do something that actually delivers for them and prevents some of the unbelievable abuse that they receive? Let us remember as well that sometimes, of course, shop workers are targeted simply for enforcing the laws that we pass, whether it be laws on age-restricted products, or indeed, during the pandemic, laws with respect to wearing masks, and so on.
We also have to challenge the police and others on those instances when crimes were reported but the response was not what we would expect it to be. It is true that the police need to recognise that it is regarded as a serious matter when somebody is abused or threatened in a shop. Indeed, according to a freedom of information request made in 2020 by the Co-op Group, and bearing in mind that only serious incidents are reported, the police failed to attend in 65% of the incidents reported in Co-op stores. We need to do something about that.
We have had a Private Member’s Bill from the Labour MP, Alex Norris. In the past three years, there have been two separate Private Members’ Bills, both of which received strong cross-party support. My noble friend Lord Kennedy would wish me also to point to his work in this area—I would be in trouble if I did not. The Scottish Government have introduced a new offence following a Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the Labour MSP, Daniel Johnson, again supported by USDAW. So it can be done, and we are looking to the Government to act.
While the Bill was in the Commons, the leaders of 100 brands, including Tesco, Sainsbury’s, IKEA and Aldi signed an open letter calling for greater legal protection for retail workers, again showing their support. Abuse is not part of the job, and it should never become normalised, common or accepted. Nobody should go to work expecting to face abuse, threats or violence, but if these do happen, people need to be confident that the system is on their side. The current situation clearly needs to change, and the only way to do that is through strong and decisive action in Parliament.
Despite overwhelming evidence of the problem and a clear call for action from workers, employees and representative groups from across the sector, we are still waiting for the Government to respond, in stark contrast to the Scottish Parliament. I look forward to the response from the Minister, who I know cares about this issue, and hearing how she will respond to the pleas being made. There is a perfect opportunity to address this in this Bill. It is time for the Government to act; the time for waiting has stopped. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I offer strong support for adding a new power to this Bill to try to stop the disgraceful assaults on retail workers. I am glad that speaking today links me to my old friends at the trade union USDAW and the British Retail Consortium. I own some retail shares, notably in my previous employer, Tesco, and I should also refer to my register of interests.
It has been a very difficult 18 months for store workers. They have been the heroes of Covid, responding magnificently by keeping food on the shelves and delivered to our homes throughout. They have had to keep going relentlessly and cope with the bewildering array of changing Covid rules and regulations, often at a time when they are short-staffed because of the impact of the pandemic.
Nearly 3 million shop workers face a rising threat of violence as a result of customer anger at mask wearing, shortages and irritating or changing store guidance on Covid. This has added to assaults from those challenged for trying to buy alcohol, knives and so on illegally, and also attacks from shoplifters. I remember well dealing with what is probably now a relatively minor case when I was working in Tesco at Brixton. The woman concerned had several jars of coffee up her trousers and struggled and bit as we tackled her.
As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned in his compelling speech running through the long history of this problem, the British Retail Consortium says there were 455 incidents a day at stores in 2020, despite a huge investment in security measures such as body cameras, guards and panic alarms. A lot of this is related to wider criminal activity such as knife crime and drug-taking. It is a real worry for small shops: attacks can affect their viability and contribute to the disturbing rate of high street shop closures. It is also a huge issue for the larger retailers, which is why so many of their CEOs, including those of various Co-op groups, have come together to call for action in a recent letter to the Prime Minister. I will give an example: when I approached Tesco for an update, it said it faced over 1 million criminal incidents in 2020-21 and estimated that, on current trends, this would increase by another 20% this year unless something was done.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the general thrust of what has been said. We have heard from a remarkable coalition that includes trade unionists and a former chief executive—I think that is the correct appellation—of Tesco. In one sense, it does not matter exactly how the amendment is worded; the important thing at the moment, speaking as a former trade union official, as noble Lords may know, is that something should be committed in principle by the Government. It should be left to Ministers, ultimately, to choose the exact wording, but we should make sure that this hugely important principle, backed up by a lot of day-to-day evidence—most notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—is brought forward in some way. It should be acknowledged by the Minister, who has a good idea of the mood of the House on this.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 263, to which I was pleased to attach my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling it and providing a very clear introduction. I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for the amendment as well. I should declare, since we are doing lots of declarations, that I am a supporter of the Institute of Customer Service “Service with Respect” campaign, to add to our collection of organisations involved in this process.
We have already covered this in some detail, so I want to add just a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the fact that legislation is being introduced in Scotland already, and it is important to stress that part of that is an aggravating offence—if people have been trying to enforce the law, for example on the purchase of alcohol, et cetera. That makes the very important point that we are asking retail workers, who are often very low-paid and may not have much in the way of protection, to enforce the law for us, and that needs to be acknowledged in the law.
A lot of this discussion has focused on how difficult things have been during the Covid pandemic, and that is obviously true, but there is a really important figure from the British Retail Consortium in 2019, so it is pre-pandemic. There were 455 incidents a day, up 7% on the previous year, so this is not just some Covid situation that might disappear should the pandemic disappear; this is a long-term trend. A recent survey, also by the British Retail Consortium, of 2,000 workers over 12 months showed that 92% had experienced verbal abuse, 70% had been threatened and 14% had been assaulted. This really has to be described as an epidemic—it is a word we hear a lot, but this is definitely very much the case.
I also stress—here I may depart from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—that changing the law, which has been called for on all sides of the Committee, does not excuse employers from doing more, particularly large employers who have the resources to provide security. By the nature of my job, I very often travel late at night, having been speaking at a public meeting and catching the train home. I go into chain stores on those occasions and I often see very young workers, sometimes on their own, looking and clearly feeling very exposed and very much in danger. I think that often they do not have adequate security.
There is also a question to be asked, particularly of employers, about ensuring that these workers are paid properly, treated with respect and have decent conditions. That will affect the way the whole of society look at these workers, and, I hope, the way they get treated.
Amendment 263 is important. As has been widely said, there is a huge amount of support for it, but it does not excuse employers from doing much more. I also say that while I understand the impulse behind Amendment 264, I do not think that is the way forward. We know that we have a record prison population—it is something we have debated in other parts of the Bill—and that prison is not working, so just to have the knee-jerk reaction of, “Let’s make the sentences longer”, is not the answer. There has to be a recognition of the fact that these crucial workers need protection through some form of Amendment 263.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I very much agree with noble Lords who have said so much about the retail workers on whom we have depended so greatly and will continue to depend in the future and who face so many instances of assault and attack. The campaigns that this has generated show just how seriously we take this, but I have to ask, particularly in the light of Victoria Atkins’s commitment in the Commons, whether the Government have identified a serious gap in the law, filling which would alter the situation materially for the better, or whether the worst of the problem arises from inadequate police response to incidents. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, quoted figures for that. Perhaps there is an inadequate police presence in areas where this kind of attack is prevalent, or perhaps the inadequacy comes, in some cases, from the Crown Prosecution Service about cases that should be brought to court.
This kind of attack is affecting retail workers in a number of different situations. Some of it is drug related, with people desperately trying to get money to pay for their drugs and attacking shopworkers when they are found stealing goods from a shop. Some of it is alcohol related and alcohol enforcement related, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have pointed out, whereby shop workers have simply been trying to enforce the law. Where I live at the border with Scotland the issue is more complicated because the law is different on either side of the border.
Some of it is even hate crime of which ethnic-minority shop owners have been the victims. That is so awful when one thinks of the incredible contribution that, for example, Ugandan and Kenyan Asians have made in providing retail services at all hours of the day and night in all sorts of communities, including in some of the most difficult areas. Those shop owners deserve our support and protection, but we need to know how best to provide that.
One my concerns about the amendments and the approach taken so far, which is perhaps a tribute to the effective campaigning of retail workers and their organisations and representatives, is that a number of other groups of people who deal with and serve the public are also exposed. My mind turns to the staff of estate agents, for example—the Suzy Lamplugh case is a vivid reminder. It is not clear whether such staff are covered by the retail workers’ provision. They may be, but I am far from certain. I also think of transport staff, housing officers, local authority planning officers and even parking wardens. It is sometimes seen as some kind of joke to laugh at parking wardens and at how angry people get at them. Any kind of harassment or attack on people who are serving the public is no joke at all and requires the attention of government.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, however, that attention is not necessarily best served by simply putting in longer maximum prison sentences, thereby creating sentence inflation and generating far more expenditure on prison, which could perhaps be better spent on policing and community support of various kinds, including activities directed at young people in local communities who are drawn into violence. We need to look at what else we can do in terms of police response, CPS commitment and community support to support the staff who serve us.
If the Government have identified a significant gap in the law, a change to which would help those responsible for enforcement and protection, we would be interested to hear it. However, one way or another, we need to help those who are helping us.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, in some respects similarly to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I come to this debate with an open mind in terms of the specifics of the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I very much align myself with him and others who have spoken in that I am appalled at the assaults, attacks and abuse of people on the receiving end who work in stores of all kinds.
However, I will be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says as regards whether the law currently provides for these kinds of attacks. One of the things that I found extremely concerning in the briefing provided by USDAW and others was the lack of police response when shop workers were on the receiving end of an attack. When they contacted the police, there was little or no reaction. That is really troubling.
The only thing I want to add to what has been said relates to something that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, touched on. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also referred to the fact that we are asking shop workers in many respects to uphold the law for us. However, there is another aspect to the role of shop workers and shopkeepers that we do not mention often enough and is important. They are community leaders and people in whom we should encourage a sense of authority for themselves. I want people who are doing these jobs to feel that they are holding a position of power. They are responsible for a public place and when they are at work they are in charge. They deserve our respect for that. I see them much more than just as service providers; they are standard setters. In local communities, in particular in local convenience stores, they can make an enormous contribution to the health of a community and the way in which local people feel about themselves.
If the Government are inclined to go down this route of legislating in the way that has been proposed—and even if they are not—I encourage the Minister that there should be some effort in conjunction with legislation to promote the importance of retail workers, not just in the way they provide a service to us but in the way they are leaders of their communities and important to our maintaining the social norms and standards that are crucial to the health of our society as a whole.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I was not going to speak in this debate but, very briefly, as the police have been mentioned, I should mention a meeting I had fairly recently with a police superintendent in London, who worryingly told me that the police were being made aware that there were a large number of solvable crimes, where people could be prosecuted, and the police no longer had the resources to pursue those offences. From what has been said in the debate, and from the briefing from USDAW, it is extremely worrying if offences are being committed against retail staff, where there is often closed circuit television of the perpetrator, yet the police still do not have the resources to prosecute those offences. As we all know, if somebody feels they can get away with a crime, or word gets around that you can go to a particular store and get away with it because the police will not do anything, it encourages more people to engage in the offence.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his clear outline of the problem at the beginning of the debate. That was really helpful. I support the amendments creating the offences for assaulting a retail worker.
I look at this problem from a completely different perspective. Apart from the four years I was at university, I have spent all my life in really rural settings, so I identify with the weekly trip to the supermarket. We have a village shop which doubles up as the post office, but I cannot walk there because the roads are too narrow so I have to drive. It is a different sort of world. I identify with this from when I was at university in Leeds too; the corner shops at the end of terraces were exactly the same sort of set-up as a rural shop. But they had their problems. CCTV has now appeared in these shops, which was never there before. There was a level of trust, which is slightly eroded when people move into the village and behave in a different way. This sounds like the 1950s, and sometimes it is.
Whether we are talking about cities or villages, there are many small shops still, and a lot of them have post offices which keep them open. We should not forget that, because they serve a lot of people: where I live, a lot of people do not have cars, and older people really prefer going to the small village shop and still collect their pension there. But a single-handed shop with limited security and often no cameras is a danger, and these shop workers are vulnerable to assault, even in areas where you think everybody knows everybody else’s business. Will the Minister tell us, when she sums up, what sort of recommendations or advice are given to such small shops by the local police? Is there any government guidance to ensure that their safety and that of their workers are protected?
I thank the ACS for its really helpful background briefing. The two amendments are really interesting: one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is about the offence of assaulting a retail worker, and the other, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is much the same. Something should come back: whether it comes back from the Government or from amendments tabled by Members, we really need to put a marker down before the Bill finishes on the issue of assaulting shopworkers. It might be quite sensible if those who have added their names to Amendments 263 and 264 could sit down together to craft an amendment that would fit with all the points that were made in this short but really quite informative and well-informed debate, and then bring something back for Report.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling their amendments, and for the opportunity that I have had to discuss their amendments with them before today. Both have spoken forcefully on behalf of retail workers, and noble Lords will have witnessed the strength of their convictions and the deep basis of knowledge from which they speak. I cannot let this opportunity go by without paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who has—I could say harangued me for four years—shown such tenacity on this matter that he deserves a mention.
I start by echoing the comments made in the House of Commons by the then Minister for Safeguarding, in showing my support and respect for all those working in the retail sector. As my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston said, they have shown such tireless dedication as public servants, really, providing essential services to the public throughout the pandemic. I totally identify with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about going to the shops being the highlight of the day during the pandemic. It became a daily ritual for our household, certainly.
It is essential that we all feel safe at work, which is why assaults on any worker providing a service to the public is clearly unacceptable. It is really important that where such assaults or abuse occur, the perpetrators are brought to justice. In the Commons, Minister Atkins committed to actively consider this issue and that remains the Government’s position, but as part of that process of consideration I very much wanted to hear and then reflect on the debate today. I welcome the fact that those noble Lords who have contributed today spoke with such clarity and strength of feeling and gave us very good direction.
I want to say a bit more about the current position and the factors that the Government are weighing up as we determine how best to proceed in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked about the gap in the law. Obviously, a wide range of offences already exist covering assaults on any worker, including retail workers, and they include offences such as common assaults. The example that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe gave could encompass grievous bodily harm or, indeed, actual bodily harm, harassment and other public order offences, all of which criminalise threatening or abusive behaviour intended to harass, alarm or distress a person.
Furthermore, the courts have a statutory duty to follow sentencing guidelines, which state that it is an aggravating factor for an offence to be committed against a person who works in the public sector or who is providing a service to the public. This means that any offence that occurs against a victim providing a service to the public, including those working in the retail sector, will be considered by the court as meriting an increased sentence. I have also heard the comments and concerns about the provisions in the Bill that seek to increase custodial sentences—including the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, about sentence inflation—and it is crucial that we take into account the impact on our courts and prisons, as he said, when considering whether to increase sentences.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what meetings Ministers had held over the summer with businesses, trade unions and groups representing retailers to discuss this issue. The Home Office has undertaken extensive consultation on the subject of violence and abuse towards retail workers, and discussions on this subject go back several years, as I have previously stated. Similar amendments were tabled to previous Bills such as the Offensive Weapons Bill, which is why the Government committed to a call for evidence on the levels of violence and abuse faced by retail workers.
That response was published in July last year and it increased our understanding of the problems faced by retail workers. A programme of work has been under way through the National Retail Crime Steering Group, which the Minister for Crime and Policing co-chairs with the British Retail Consortium. The steering group brings together the Government, retailers, unions and trade associations, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the police-led National Business Crime Centre to make sure that the response to retail crime is as robust as it can be, as well as ensuring that key crime drivers, including substance misuse, are comprehensively considered. I hope that goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. It has been and continues to be an important forum for discussions on the causes of violence and abuse in the retail sector and for working together to find solutions and provide support to retailers.
The matter of violence and abuse against retail workers has been the focus of the National Retail Crime Steering Group for the past 18 months. The Home Office is leading a programme of work designed as a direct response to the call for evidence and agreed by the steering group and wider retail sector. To date, six task and finish groups have been established to develop practical resources to support retailers and their employees.
Earlier this year, the Home Affairs Select Committee conducted an inquiry into violence and abuse towards retail workers. In response, retailers, unions and trade associations put forward evidence about their experiences of violence within the sector. The Select Committee recommended that the Government consult on the scope of a new offence, recognising the particular pressure on those in occupations where they are asked to enforce the law, and taking into account the provisions of the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, which came into force in August.
As I have set out, the Government have engaged extensively with the retail sector and the police. In response to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Paddick, the police have recruited 11,000 of the targeted 20,000 increase to their number. The government response to the HASC inquiry makes clear the Government’s commitment to address this issue and to take into account the legislation in Scotland.
I assure noble Lords that the Government are continuing to consider whether changes, including legislative changes, are needed and will reflect carefully on the debate today. On the basis of that very firm undertaking that the Government are considering as a matter of urgency how best to balance those many issues, I hope the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response. I am an optimistic person by nature and I thought that there were grounds for optimism in the way in which the Minister talked about weighing up the options and looking at the various ways forward, including—and this was as a really important remark that noble Lords may have heard—“legislative change”. That is the key thing. A number of comments were made by various noble Lords. The Minister will have heard them. In the interests of time, I shall leave it there, but we will look forward to the Government coming forward with something on Report, or us tabling our own amendments. In thanking noble Lords for their support, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker
“Restorative justice
The Secretary of State must, every three years—(a) prepare an action plan on restorative justice for the purposes of improving access, awareness and capacity of restorative justice within the criminal justice system, and collecting evidence of the use of restorative justice,(b) lay a copy of the action plan before Parliament, and(c) report on progress in implementing any previous action plan to Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment aims to ensure that access to restorative justice services improves over time for the benefit of victims and to reduce crime.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, a couple of hours ago I received apologies from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who is unable to be with us for personal reasons and has been unavoidably detained. I hope noble Lords will allow me to read the comments that she would have made. As I say, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, apologises to the Committee, noble Lords and the Minister for not being here this evening to move this amendment. She has been, as I said, unavoidably detained and I know the Committee will forgive her absence.
Amendment 265 aims to ensure that access to restorative justice services improves over time, for the benefit of victims and to reduce crime. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare an action plan on restorative justice and for that plan to be laid before Parliament, alongside a report on the progress made in implementing earlier government action plans. In doing so, it is the hope of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that the Government will consider restoring ring-fenced funding for restorative justice.
Between 2013 and 2016, restorative justice received support from the Ministry of Justice via ring-fenced funding to PCCs. Since the change in 2016, in which the ring-fence was dropped, access to RJ has reduced in some areas to below 5% of previous levels. The APPG on Restorative Justice reported in its inquiry published in September this year that this
“has led to a ‘postcode lottery’ for victims of crime”,
with access varying hugely depending on which PCC or local authority area the victim happens to be in.
In 2014, the coalition Government made a commitment in their restorative justice action plan that every victim of crime should be made aware of RJ services. The plan committed to developing
“a more strategic and coherent approach to the use of restorative justice in England and Wales.”
In the Conservative Government’s 2018 update of the plan, the top priorities remained ensuring equal access to restorative justice for victims at every stage of the criminal justice system and improving awareness of RJ, how it works and how to access it. The APPG inquiry found that there was a lack of understanding of restorative justice and what a victim was entitled to, not only among the public but among professionals in the criminal justice sector.
I ask the Minister whether the Government hold statistics on how many victims have been offered restorative justice as part of their experience of the criminal justice system. What actions have been taken towards the priorities outlined in 2018 and when do the Government plan to publish an updated action plan? So often in this Bill, our debate has turned to the importance of prevention, and stopping offending and reoffending to break that cycle. The current Secretary of State for Justice listed preventing reoffending as one of his top priorities for keeping the country safe. Evidence has shown that access to quality restorative justice programmes is effective in reducing reoffending. In 2016, the Home Affairs Select Committee found that
“there is clear evidence that restorative justice can provide value for money by both reducing reoffending rates and providing tangible benefits to victims.”
I will not keep the Committee but, in coming to a close, will say that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, particularly wished to highlight that this amendment does not propose anything new or radical. It merely seeks to return to the funding arrangements and strategic direction in place prior to 2016. I look forward to the Minister’s reply, which I hope will be encouraging on the Government’s commitment to restorative justice. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 265. I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is not able to be in the Chamber.
Many years ago, when I was a magistrate and at the same time chair of my police authority, I wondered how we could bring in the concept of restorative justice. It was not an option for us then as it did not appear in our guidelines—that might have changed, I do not know. It was apparent, though, that repetitive cautions given to young offenders simply were not working. Something needed to change.
I became interested in restorative justice because of a remarkable chief constable, Sir Charles Pollard, who was then chief constable of Thames Valley Police. He had been advocating restorative justice for some time. He was extremely well supported by the chair of the police authority, Mrs Daphne Priestley. I thought it was a very interesting and potentially life-changing intervention for some young offenders, and so it has proved to be.
Restorative justice aims to foster individual responsibility by requiring offenders to acknowledge the consequences of their actions, be accountable for them and make reparation to the victims and the community. Initially for use with young offenders committing minor crimes, it quickly caught the imagination of communities, which liked the idea of a victim being able to confront their offender, who was made to realise the impact of their criminal behaviour. It is done with seasoned practitioners who have a wealth of experience in this discipline, as it needs to be a formal procedure. They have to ask the right questions in the right way for there to be a successful outcome, which would be when the offender realises the harm she or he has done and makes some sort of reparation to the victim. Meeting face to face, where both sides agree to that, can be a formative solution to an otherwise potentially serious punishment, even jail.
In London trials, 65% of victims of serious crime said that they would be happy to meet their offenders and talk about how that had affected them. The impact of this intervention has far-reaching benefits for everyone involved. Over the years, the success of the restorative justice model has worked alongside police forces, local authorities, the Prison Service, courts and schools. It has helped reduce permanent exclusions in schools, and in a sample case in Lincolnshire, in the first year of using this system the restorative service, as it is called there, worked on 53 cases. This was extended subsequently to 135 cases and became an integral part of the Behaviour Outreach Support Service there—BOSS—in which restorative justice sits with its partners.
Restorative Solutions, established by Sir Charles Pollard and Nigel Whiskin in 2004, is a not-for-profit community interest company that I think the Government need to contact for help with understanding just how important restorative justice can be to the benefit of victims of crime, and its potential to reduce criminal behaviour. It needs properly financing, of course, and to date that has not happened, so if the Government are really intent on reducing crime and helping victims, as they say they are, I suggest that this is absolutely the right solution for them to promote.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I apologise for not speaking on the subject earlier. The Bill is far too complicated for me as a whole. I saw this in the paperwork today and, surprisingly, I am here so I thought that I ought to say something.
I was on the first Northern Ireland Policing Board. One of the subjects that came up to us was restorative justice as it was being practised in Northern Ireland. The origins of it are very important. In our case, it came under the two communities and terrorism. Post the peace process and ceasefire, these local communities were trying to police themselves—partly because they rejected the police completely. Yes, they dealt out punishment beatings, kneecappings and far worse, but what was interesting was that, although the communities might not have liked the punishments, they began to see a reduction in bad behaviour on the streets.
When it came in front of the policing board, we looked at other countries. The fact that it came out of terrorism in Northern Ireland is not an indication that it would be no good or would not fulfil its true potential in England, because we looked at Australia, Canada, New Zealand and America, where it had been really very successful.
There was then the idea of how to get this to be more in line with justice, because, naturally, the Department of Justice and—I am not accusing them of this—judges, and to a certain extent senior policemen, were reluctant to see anything that was outside their immediate world taking over something of it. We went down the line of bringing it into being an official practice, and that took quite a lot of nerve.
But it is extraordinary, if you actually go and visit, to see what is going on. The most important thing is that restorative justice is victim based, not perpetrator based—that it is not a soft touch for the perpetrator. I will not speak for long on this, because I have not even prepared. But it is not just a way of solving things; it does a lot more. The victims are incredibly satisfied with restorative justice. A survey produced when they were doing a seminar on the EU day of the victim in February 2019 said that 85% of victims were satisfied with the outcome, and 69% of perpetrators did not continue. The bonus for society is multifaceted: fewer people get convictions for what may, at times, be on-the-spot bad behaviour or, as we have seen, 69% of them do not misbehave again, so they have a clearer record for future employment. It keeps them out of short periods of detention. It was used originally for youths, and we do not have enough well-supervised room for youths in detention. So restorative justice helps the victims, helps the perpetrators remarkably, and is very good for society.
In the 2016-17 Session, the House of Commons Justice Committee came out with its report on restorative justice and supported it. The committee particularly supported looking at Northern Ireland. It is really nice when we can say that you should look at something positive from us in Northern Ireland—however, do look somewhere else.
While we have been in this Committee, because I was panic-struck about having anything to say, I googled “restorative justice”. We hardly need this debate. There is not a bad word about it, and there are so many pages I gave up after two or three and wrote down a couple of notes on it. But this is something that successive Governments—including Labour when they were in power—have not given true support to.
What about our prison population? What about sending people into detention, the “college of crime”, when restorative justice has the potential to be such a success? As I said, I think this debate is unnecessary. Every single person in your Lordships’ House and everybody outside can google it and have a look. If the justice side, judges and some senior policemen are still slightly careful about it because it seems to be out of their hands, they may need a bit of persuading.
But funding is an issue, and I have just heard—because I have not looked at it—that the funding was reduced. This is madness. We know that budgets are a problem, especially after everything we have been through. They are a problem for the police, for social events such as this and for justice. But this is madness. This is cutting off a not very great budget which would be saving us. The figure is that every £1 spent has saved £8. I do not think that is very well substantiated, but there is a big payback, and the young people of this country—and we are moving on to adults in Northern Ireland—earn the support for a system that is socially good and good for our population.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, again, I was not going to speak in this debate, but it is important for me to share my professional experience of this. I once worked with Professor Larry Sherman, who was a leading academic on restorative justice at the time, on a pilot scheme in the Metropolitan Police. In support of what the noble Viscount has just said, two major things came out of that pilot.
One was about victim satisfaction. Obviously, the process was voluntary—victims were not made to confront their attacker if they did not want to—but many felt so much safer, for example if they had been mugged in the street, having met their attacker face to face than victims who were attacked by some anonymous person. They understood more about their attacker from that face-to-face meeting, so it is good in terms of victim satisfaction. This may be counterintuitive to members of the Government who feel that the public might see it as a soft option, but victims really benefit from this.
The other thing was the impact on perpetrators. Larry Sherman rightly pointed out that many offenders, particularly young ones, appear in front of a court but they never say anything. They plead guilty. They have a solicitor or a barrister representing them. They sit at the back, disengaged from the whole process, which happens without them participating in it at all. It has no real impact on them—apart from the custodial sentence at the end of it, perhaps. They do not quite understand why they end up in custody because they have not participated in the process at all. On the contrary, with restorative justice, they sit opposite the victim and the victim tells the perpetrator how that offender made them feel. This has a salutary effect on the perpetrator and their future offending behaviour.
I just wanted to tell the Committee about that experience because other noble Lords have not mentioned those two aspects of restorative justice.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, we have already had an extensive debate so I will be brief. I must note that I have heard my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb talk about this issue often; it is something that she is extremely passionate about. I have no doubt that she would have attached her name to this amendment had space been available under our systems.
We have heard some terribly powerful contributions, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. I really hope that the Government were listening. I am not sure that the point has been made that restorative justice should be the foundation of our justice system. It should be fundamental to what it is all about. At the moment, by contrast, it seems to be an afterthought added on at the end. This means that we have seen a loss of funding for some really practical things, such as restorative justice training for all prosecutors, including the independent Bar, so that they can better identify opportunities for restorative justice when handling cases. We also need to see restorative justice training for magistrates and judges so that they can be fully involved in facilitating it. Just as judges have a central role in enabling alternative dispute resolution in the civil courts, in the criminal courts, they should promote and encourage a restorative approach all the way from the initial arraignment right through to sentencing.
What we are talking about here is coming out after the awful event of a crime and repairing, restoring and making things better. We know well from our criminal justice system—a system at the end of which everyone comes out feeling worse about it—that what we have at the moment is not working for the people involved. It is not working for victims. It is not working to provide change for perpetrators. It is not working for the entire community.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I realise that I am breaching protocol because I was not here at the beginning of the debate on Amendment 265. I apologise profusely to the House and to the Minister. On a lighter note, one day we will have a Braille annunciator and an audible signal that I can pick up. I would not be here at this time of night if I did not care about this proposition and had not pledged to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that I would support it, so please forgive me; I shall be incredibly brief. I hope that the noble Baroness is recovering well.
Some years ago, I took part in what could be described as a slightly bizarre and almost unreal television programme, “Banged Up”. It was a five-part series in which real ex-prisoners, real ex-offenders, real victims and an ex-governor, who is now a criminologist at the University of Birmingham, took part in an experiment to see how people would react to understanding what they have done and being able to relate to their victims. It was remarkable: it brought home to me, and I hope to all those viewing, that restorative justice could make a difference to the victim and how they felt and to their future, and, crucially, to the perpetrator, in understanding the impact of their crime and how to then redeem themselves and put things right. It was crucial to both their futures.
I commend the initiative in demonstrating in this short debate how vital it is to remember that putting things right, and getting restorative justice to ensure that perpetrators do not repeat their crime, is far more important than punishment.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said. One of the most obvious applications for restorative justice would be in the aftermath of a road traffic accident. I touched on this during our debates on road traffic offences. The difficulty is that, in motor vehicle insurance, the contract prohibits the parties from discussing the accident at all, making it impossible to use restorative justice for road traffic offences related to accidents. Can my noble friend the Minister consider this and write to me on the point? I do not expect a reply right now.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
Restorative justice is a very wide issue, and one should not think that because it does not work for road traffic accidents it does not work. Furthermore, it is done only with the agreement of the parties involved.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we welcome this amendment and the opportunity to discuss restorative justice. We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for relaying the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who has a long-held commitment to restorative justice that is well known.
We fully support the amendment and are concerned that the Government should take in how important restorative justice is felt to be in this House. This debate has given us the opportunity to make that clear. We were privileged to have the explanation of the reasons for restorative justice and the comprehensive account of its birth and development from my noble friend Lady Harris, who set out, from her experience of police work and as a magistrate, how restorative justice has developed and its value.
The amendment is important because we—some of us, anyway—have concerns that, although there is this commitment around the House, there may be a danger of progress stalling. That is why it is so important that there should be a call for the preparation of an action plan, that it should be laid before Parliament and that there should be a report on the progress on restorative justice.
Members of the House will have been interested to hear the account of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on how restorative justice developed in Northern Ireland from a state of great hostility, where real potential enemies were confronting each other, and how restorative justice became reflective of community justice as perpetrators and victims came into contact. He made the point that this was very much not a soft option but was victim based, and that analysis from the circumstances in Northern Ireland was, I felt, reflected by the analysis of my noble friend Lord Paddick, who gave the history of restorative justice in London and dealt with the achievement of victim satisfaction and, interestingly, a greater feeling of safety on the part of victims. He also talked of the benefit for perpetrators in the contact between the victim and the perpetrator; that was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who was one of the signatories to the amendment.
I will be very interested—we will be very interested—to hear the Government’s response, which we hope will give us an indication that the Government take restorative justice as seriously as the speakers this evening do and that their commitment to it will be increasing and continuing.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for proposing the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who is unable to be with us this evening. She spoke eloquently at Second Reading about the benefits of restorative justice, and I am very sorry that she is not in her place this evening. I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee in wishing her well. She did, however, have a meeting with me on this topic, and I record my thanks to her for her time and for the discussion. She expressed concern that the Bill did not include provision for restorative justice. The amendment is trying to fill that perceived gap by requiring the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary to publish an action plan for restorative justice every three years.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for her support for restorative justice. I agree that, in the right circumstances, it can have far-reaching benefits. I have heard and felt the mood of the Committee on this point, but the truth is that I did not really need any persuading as to the importance of restorative justice. It can bring those harmed by a crime and those responsible for that harm into communication, and it can help everyone affected by the crime to play a part in repairing the harm; that is commendable. The Government support restorative justice where it can be suitably used.
However, with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I would draw a distinction between civil cases and criminal cases. We have to remember that in a civil dispute—this is part of the answer to the road traffic point, but I will write to my noble friend as well—there are two parties before the court. I can settle my case on whatever terms I want if the other person agrees. When it comes to crime, there is a public interest; we prosecute in the name of the public. We do not allow victims to determine always whether the offender serves a punishment or not. I am not saying that restorative justice is not applicable, but we have to remember that there is a different set of criteria and principled underpinnings to our civil justice system and our criminal justice system.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply and for the way in which he tried to answer the various questions that noble Lords raised. We have heard from many people about the importance of restorative justice. This is an important argument and debate that will not go away. It remains a priority for all of us and I am sure others will take this forward, including the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cashman
“Disregards and pardons for convictions etc. of certain offences
(1) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is amended as follows.(2) In section 92 (power of Secretary of State to disregard convictions or cautions)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), omit “or”,(b) in subsection (1)(c), at the end insert “or”,(c) after subsection (1)(c), insert—“(d) any other offence which falls within subsection (1A),”,(d) after subsection (1), insert—“(1A) An offence falls within this subsection if the offence— (a) regulated, or was used in practice to regulate, sexual activity between persons of the same sex, and (b) either—(i) has been repealed or, in the case of an offence at common law, abolished, or(ii) has not been repealed or abolished but once covered sexual activity between persons of the same sex of a type which, or in circumstances which, would not amount to the offence on the day on which this subsection comes into force.(1B) Where an offence of the type described in subsection (1A) covers or once covered activity other than sexual activity between persons of the same sex, the offence falls within subsection (1A) only to the extent that it once covered sexual activity between persons of the same sex.(1C) In this section, “sexual activity between persons of the same sex” includes—(a) any physical or affectionate activity between persons of the same sex which is of a type which is characteristic of persons involved in an intimate personal relationship,(b) conduct intended to introduce or procure such activity.”,(e) in subsection (3)(a), before the words “the other person” insert “in respect of an offence mentioned in subsection (1)(a)-(c)”,(f) in subsection (3)(b), substitute the full stop with “, or”,(g) after subsection (3)(b), insert—“(c) in respect of an offence that falls within subsection (1A) the conduct constituting the offence, if occurring in the same circumstances, would not be an offence on the day on which this subsection comes into force.”” Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this new Clause is to extend the current disregard and pardon schemes in England and Wales to enable individuals who were convicted of or cautioned for offences because of engaging in same-sex sexual acts, of a kind that would be lawful today, to apply to have a conviction or caution disregarded and, if successful, be pardoned.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendments 266 and 267 and pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Lexden and Professor Paul Johnson of York in doing so. Due to the lateness of the time I want to focus exactly on what our amendments do: they are focused on the pardons and disregards scheme. In 2012 the scheme was introduced to enable those living with a caution or conviction for a now-repealed homosexual offence to have that caution or conviction disregarded. In 2017 a further scheme was introduced to provide those so cautioned or convicted, both living and dead, with a pardon. A pardon, aside from its legal status, is a strong, symbolic apology to each and every person who has been wronged.
However, the disregard and pardon schemes in England and Wales are significantly flawed because they encompass only a small fraction of the laws that, over the decades and centuries, have immiserated the lives of gay and bisexual people. For five years I have worked closely with my noble friend Lord Lexden and, as I said, with Professor Paul Johnson at the University of York.
Significant problems, as I said, remain in this disregard and pardon scheme. The amendments before your Lordships would cover, for instance, now-repealed criminal offences such as the offence of solicitation by men, which was used to entrap gay and bisexual men, sometimes for doing nothing more than chatting up another adult man. The amendments would also cover the offences in the repealed service discipline Acts, which were once used to prosecute and punish consensual same-sex relationships. Those living with cautions or convictions for these and other relevant offences would be able to apply for a disregard and, if successful, be pardoned. Those who have died will be posthumously pardoned.
It is important that I am absolutely clear on one point: no one who was cautioned or convicted in respect of conduct that would be an offence today would be able to attain a disregard or receive a pardon. Our amendments to the Bill contain the strongest safeguards to ensure that those who committed crimes that today remain crimes cannot take advantage of, or benefit from, the disregard and pardon scheme. Equally, the extension of the disregard scheme that we propose means that it should be decided on a case-by-case basis by the Secretary of State, who would grant a disregard only if satisfied that the conduct in question would not be an offence today.
I could speak longer and in greater detail on crimes that have been perpetrated against homosexual men and bisexual men over 500 years, but I will say nothing more. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I endorse all that my noble friend Lord Cashman has just said. We have been close allies, as he mentioned, for five years, in a sustained campaign to bring far more gay people within the scope of a hugely important scheme, through which they can attain disregards and pardons for offences that have been rightly overturned by Parliament. The House will understand how earnestly we hope that the end of our campaign is at last in sight.
Our amendments include provisions originally incorporated in amendments to the Armed Forces Bill, now completing its passage through the House. The provisions in question have now been embodied in these amendments. This has been done on the advice of the two Ministers concerned—my noble friends Lady Goldie and Lady Williams—with whom most helpful conversations have been held.
I refer to the provisions that relate to the Armed Forces. More gay members of our Armed Forces need the belated release from past injustice that our proposal will provide. Many were routinely punished, sometimes with imprisonment, under the service discipline offences, for actions such as disgraceful conduct for engaging in consensual same-sex activity, even when, after 1967, this was perfectly legal for civilians. They must now have the redress that our amendments would provide. Medals have been restored to former gay service personnel. Their reputations must be fully restored, too, by the removal of the stains that they should never have borne in the first place.
It was through initiatives in this House that the disregard and pardon scheme was significantly extended, five years ago. It is immensely gratifying to know that wide support exists across the House today for the scheme’s further enlargement to bring redress to many more gay people who have suffered grave injustice, particularly former gallant members of our Armed Forces, who served our country in peace and in war.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to briefly and extremely humbly speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who signed Amendment 266. I am greatly honoured to follow two such champions of this matter of undoing great injustices of the past.
I want to record our support for this and also to ask the Minister a question—to which I do not expect an answer now. These clauses provide for people to apply. Why can we not have a situation where we go through, find and identify these case and wipe them clean? That is the question I was asked to ask, and I am asking it. I do not necessarily expect an answer now, but I am putting it on the record.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support these amendments, so ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. I also pay tribute to the Minister for her sympathetic approach to these issues over the years. These offences should never have been offences in the first place. It therefore makes complete sense that, if people were convicted of such an offence and they apply to have a conviction or caution disregarded, and if that application is successful, they should be pardoned. Of course, deceased persons falling into this category cannot apply to have a conviction or caution disregarded, but they should be able to receive a posthumous pardon if the offence qualifies. It has taken 500 years to get to this stage and the Government have been making progress on these issues. These are the final pieces of the jigsaw and we support them.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer also added his name to this amendment. We clearly support the amendments. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, who I understand campaigned for decades on this issue. I thought it was quite moving, if I may use that word, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, saying he earnestly hoped that he was coming towards the end of his campaign. I hope he is right and that the Minister may be able to give him some comfort in that respect. Everybody who has contributed to the debate thinks this is a thoroughly appropriate amendment and, even though it has been a very truncated debate, the passion and the sense of finality have come through, and I very much hope that the Minister will give a suitable response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is about three minutes to the witching hour and I am absolutely delighted to be able to respond on behalf of the Government to these amendments. I and the Government are committed to enabling those with historical convictions for decriminalised homosexual conduct to apply to have their convictions disregarded. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, Professor Paul Johnson and my noble friend Lord Lexden, we felt that this was the neatest way to do it, as opposed to any other way. We have been actively exploring whether further offences can be brought within the scope of the scheme, to enable more people, both civilians and ex-service personnel, to benefit from it.
I really want at this point to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lexden and to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who is my noble friend, and to Professor Paul Johnson at the University of York for his expertise on this issue. I am very grateful for the conversations we have had on these amendments and similar amendments to the Armed Forces Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Lords for reiterating their commitment during Committee to work with the Home Office and the MoD on the best way forward for achieving our joint desire to redress this historic injustice.
We accept that the current scheme may be too narrow, as it is essentially confined to convictions for the now-repealed offences of buggery and gross indecency between men, but, as noble Lords have indicated, other now-repealed offences were also used to unfairly target gay men and women simply because of their sexuality. In further righting these historic wrongs, we need to ensure that any disregards in respect of additional offences meet the established legal criteria to ensure that necessary safeguards are upheld—this is something we have agreed and that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. has outlined tonight. The disregard scheme was deliberately and carefully designed in a way that ensures that the Home Office does not inadvertently disregard convictions or cautions for behaviours which are still illegal today or which involved other illegal behaviours, such as underage or non-consensual sex or sexual activity in a public toilet, which is still an offence under Section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and pay tribute to the Minister, my noble friend Lady Williams. Brevity is the soul of wit, but tonight we have proven that it can also deliver that which is right and just. We will await the outcome of discussions and, as one would expect, reserve the right to bring forward proposals on Report if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.