House of Commons
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 11 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
Mr Speaker
Just to let everybody know, he is going to be joining the all-party parliamentary rugby league group. [Laughter.] Well done, Louie.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) to his place, and of course I welcome the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) to hers—a great promotion for her. The work of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), has been invaluable in what we can do together, especially with covid.
I commend the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb) throughout his tenure as Minister for School Standards, during which time the proportion of disadvantaged pupils entered for the EBacc increased from 9% in 2011 to 27% in 2021.
Nick Gibb
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those words. As he will know, the EBacc combines core academic GCSEs in subjects that advantaged families take it for granted that their children will study—maths, English, at least two sciences, a humanity and a foreign language. Given the importance of those subjects, what measures is he taking to ensure that schools meet the target of 75% of year 11 pupils taking those GCSE exams by 2024, and 90% by 2027?
Nadhim Zahawi
I think my right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we have already achieved GCSE entry levels of over 95% in English, maths and science, and over 80% in humanities. On language GCSEs, however, the situation is slightly more challenging. That remains the biggest barrier to achieving the ambition, which is why we remain committed to reforming the subject content of French, German and Spanish GCSEs.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I support a relentless focus on standards in the core academic subjects, but resources also count. Given that Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis shows that the most deprived secondary schools saw a 14% real-terms fall in spending per pupil between 2009-10 and 2019-20, can the Secretary of State say whether that disparity in investment has improved or harmed social mobility and social justice?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. I hope that he backs the record investment in education—£86 billion—that the Chancellor provided in the Budget. The Sutton Trust—I hope the hon. Member appreciates its research—suggests that, in 2016, the 300 schools that had increased EBacc take-up were more likely to achieve good GCSEs in mathematics and English, with pupil premium pupils benefiting the most. That is real levelling up from this Government.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Minister for Further and Higher Education (Michelle Donelan)
We are considering reforms to continue to drive up the quality of higher education, promote genuine social mobility and ensure better value for money for both the taxpayer and the student. I will not comment on speculation, but we remain committed to a fairer funding model for students in higher education and will conclude the post-18 review in due course.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I know that she is as aware as I am of the effect of lockdown on the education of the current generation of students, so may I urge her, whatever decision she and the Department come to regarding the threshold for student loan repayments, to ensure that we do not do anything that would be perceived as punishing this generation—a generation that feels so hard done by as a result of the necessary decisions taken over the past two years?
Michelle Donelan
My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner on behalf of students. I reassure him and the House that we are committed to a funding model for higher education that is fair for students and the taxpayer—a system that enables those with the ability and the ambition to go to university, complete their course and get a graduate job.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is notorious for sitting on reports—he must have piles—but Augur predates even him. With regard to higher education funding, there are reports that the repayment threshold on student loans may drop to £22,000 before graduates start paying back their student loans, which would be both regressive and burdensome. It would be regressive because, according to the IFS, a cut in the repayment threshold would impact worst female graduates and those from more deprived backgrounds, and burdensome because a graduate earning £30,000 a year would have to pay about £400 more on top of £500 more in national insurance contributions, which would represent a real-terms tax rate of 50%. Will the Minister confirm that changes to the threshold will be guided by the principles of fair and progressive taxation? When can we expect the Government’s response to Augar?
Michelle Donelan
As I have already outlined, we will report back on Augar shortly. The principles underlying our policies are: a more sustainable student finance system, driving up quality, seeing real social mobility and maintaining our world-class reputation in higher education. That is what we stand for and will continue to work towards.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I welcome the new shadow Education team to their positions. Young people in England already graduate with an average of £50,000 of debt as a result of the huge tuition fees, so for the Government even to contemplate lowering the threshold for student loan repayments will only compound the financial struggles of those young people. It is not good enough to say that we will hear about Augur shortly. Augur recommended that tuition fees be lowered by this academic year. So can the Minister explain why, contrary to recommendations by experts commissioned by her own Government, tuition fees have still not been lowered?
Michelle Donelan
As the hon. Member will know, the Augur report was comprehensive, so it is right that we look at everything outlined in it and take our time to get this right. As I have said, at the heart of our decision making will be: students; ensuring that our higher education institutions retain their international reputation; and ensuring genuine social mobility. I wish that Opposition parties would focus on that, too.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
We are supporting young people to ensure that they have the skills for high-quality, secure and fulfilling employment through the plan for jobs package, which is £500 million of Department for Education funding. That includes, of course, a £3,000 cash boost for employers hiring new apprentices, which we are extending to the end of January.
James Daly
Holy Cross College in my constituency provides a broad range of BTEC qualifications to its students, which has played a crucial part in widening access to higher education. While I welcome the introduction of T-levels, will my right hon. Friend confirm, following the recent announcement delaying proposed changes by a year, that BTECs will remain an option for young people seeking the necessary qualifications to secure a high-quality job and a bright future?
Nadhim Zahawi
Mr Speaker, I hope to make T-levels as famous as A-levels and to give you a T-level pin like mine to wear on your lapel as well. I am happy to confirm that we will continue to fund some BTECs and other applied general qualifications in future where there is a clear need for skills and knowledge that A-levels and T-levels cannot provide and where they meet new quality standards.
Suzanne Webb
The electric vehicle revolution will dominate the urban west midlands—or, some may say, the west midlands will dominate the electric vehicle revolution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must continue to align the post-16 education system with employer demand to ensure that we have the skills for that revolution and to develop our own home-grown talent?
Nadhim Zahawi
I totally agree. That is why our reforms are focused on giving people the skills they need to get great jobs in sectors of the economy that need them and on putting employers at the heart of our skills system, and I hope of course that one day I will visit a gigafactory in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Jane Hunt
Loughborough College already does an amazing job in providing high-quality skills to people of all ages in Loughborough. However, it is going one better by using Government funding to build a new T-levels centre. Will my right hon. Friend agree to visit the site to promote the great work being done to make ready for this new chapter for education in Loughborough?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am delighted that Loughborough College has benefited from our T-levels capital fund to create fantastic new facilities. I would be happy to visit its new T-levels building and to see where it is now offering these world-class qualifications in digital, construction, health, education and childcare.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Lots of factors contribute to making a job high-quality and students should be given the tools to identify them for the future. On that basis, what steps are the Government taking to improve knowledge of the gender and ethnicity pay gaps in schools?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. We always strive to make sure that children have the highest level of information when they make these decisions, including careers advice, contact with businesses, and, soon, through the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, the ability to go much further in terms of experiencing what providers can offer.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State referred to apprenticeships in his original answer. We believe that they are a key way to help young people into high-quality jobs, but the introduction of the apprenticeship levy saw a 36% fall in the number of people doing apprenticeships, even before covid. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has described the apprenticeship levy as having “failed on every measure”, stating that it will continue to
“undermine investment in skills…without significant reform”.
Why does not the Government’s current skills Bill contain any measures to reform the levy or to boost apprenticeships?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the shadow Minister. Obviously, he was not listening to the Budget, because apprenticeship investment is going up to £2.7 billion a year by 2024. I remind him that, since we came into office, there have been 4.9 million apprenticeship starts. The focus is very much on quality, and I hope he would applaud the fact that 50% of all apprenticeships are among the under-25s and that level 2 and 3 apprenticeships are 50% of that, too.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Key subjects such as design and technology and information and communication technology have seen the proportion of students taking them up decline by 70% and 40% respectively, so surely the EBacc should be improved to ensure that education better prepares pupils for the world of work. Will my right hon. Friend emulate the work of the former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who made design and technology compulsory, and be aware of the 84,000 young people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months? We are behind many other OECD countries.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee, who has been a champion for skills for most of his career. Computer science is very much part of the EBacc. Our overhaul of ICT, in which we have invested more than £80 million, has made a real difference. We continue to make sure that schools deliver not just the EBacc, but a much broader set of GCSEs. Design and technology is incredibly important to that, as I know this is to people such as Sir James Dyson.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Minister for Further and Higher Education (Michelle Donelan)
The student and graduate routes offer a streamlined process and are a competitive post-study work offer for international students. We are working with the Home Office to drive reforms forward to improve high-skilled migration routes for innovators and top talent, as well as making the UK the most exciting place to locate as a researcher.
Martyn Day
Since Brexit, the number of EU students studying in UK universities has fallen by 56% in Scotland, 54% in Wales, 42% in Northern Ireland and 36% in England. There has also been a massive drop in EU school trips to the UK due to the scrapping of group passports and increased paperwork for visas. How does the Minister plan to repair the damage that Brexit has caused UK educational and cultural institutions?
Michelle Donelan
We value all international students, including EU students, not just for the financial benefit, but for the cultural benefit and the benefit to our society. That is exactly why we updated our international education strategy. We are on track to see 600,000 international students a year and to increase our education exports to £35 billion, and we have appointed an international education adviser.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Of the 16 Afghan scholars sponsored by the Council for At-Risk Academics, 10 remain trapped in Afghanistan; four, with the welcome help of the Home Office, have managed to come to the UK; and two remain waiting for visas—one of them in hiding. Will it be possible for the Ministers to co-ordinate efforts with the Home Office to ensure that those who have paid-for studentships in the UK get their visas as soon as possible?
Michelle Donelan
We already work very closely with the Home Office. I am more than happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the case in more detail.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
All children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities should be prepared for adulthood at every age and stage of their education. We committed in the national disability strategy to supporting pathways to employment for disabled learners, including strengthening the supported internship programme and ensuring that traineeships and apprenticeships are accessible.
Wera Hobhouse
Bath and North East Somerset Council, together with Bath College and Virgin Care, run a partnership called Project SEARCH to help young people with physical and learning disabilities to develop the skills that they need when they want to access the employment market. I pay tribute to that project, but far too many disabled people nationally face huge difficulties in accessing employment after leaving school and the support that they get at school. Will the Minister support a successor programme to Kickstart that is particularly tailored to disabled young people? Will he make recommendations and work together with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions?
Will Quince
Our ambition is for every child and young person, no matter what challenges they face, to have access to a world-class education that sets them up for life. We know that with the right preparation and support, the overwhelming majority of young people with SEND are capable of sustained paid employment. So what are we doing? We have a £1.2 million grant to the Education and Training Foundation, a supported internship programme, our work with our DWP counterparts and the adjustments passport pilots. It is all about preparation for adulthood and work.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
We established the SEND review because we are determined to help children with SEND to realise their potential and to prepare them for later life. We are increasing funding for SEND, including £2.6 billion over the next three years to deliver new places and improve existing provision for pupils with SEND.
Elliot Colburn
I was pleased to celebrate with Carshalton and Wallington families the Second Reading of the Down Syndrome Bill—a legislative milestone that will require schools and councils, among others, to take account of new guidance. Unfortunately, in councils such as Lib Dem-run Sutton Council, which has been slammed by Ofsted for its diabolical management of SEND services, there is concern about the implementation of the new guidance. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that failing local authorities do not scupper the potential for this important Bill to unlock new opportunities for children with Down’s syndrome?
Will Quince
Sutton was revisited by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission in 2020 and was found to have made progress in all previously identified areas of weakness. The Bill aims to improve services and life outcomes for people with Down’s syndrome, and we will support local authorities in the implementation of any future reforms. I know that my hon. Friend has concerns; I think that I am meeting him tomorrow to discuss the issue further. I look forward to it.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Prior to the pandemic, there was a crisis in SEND provision, and it has only got worse—from bureaucratic hurdles to children having to face long delays before being assessed. It is having a devastating impact: 27% of families waiting for an education, health and care plan assessment are waiting for more than six months, despite the legal deadline of 20 weeks. I am sure that the Minister agrees that this is wholly unacceptable, so what action is he taking to ensure that children are assessed within the legal deadline and provided with the appropriate support that they need in school?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I will tell her exactly what we are doing. We have increased the high needs funding budget by £750 million a year for each of the previous three years. The spending review of 2021 provides a further £1.6 billion to that budget, an extra £2.6 billion in capital funding, an extra £42 million—but the hon. Lady is right: it is not just about money. That is why we have the comprehensive SEND review, which will report in the first quarter of next year.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The past two years have been incredibly difficult for children with special educational needs and disability. While the Government continue to delay the publication of the long-awaited SEND review, families are suffering now. Some 15,000 children with an education, health and care plan are still waiting to receive the provision specified in their plan, and more than 40% of plans are not issued within the statutory 20-week period.
Can I press the Minister again? Families up and down the country with children with SEND are losing confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver. What is the Minister doing now to support children with SEND and their families who are suffering while this Government continue to let them down?
Will Quince
I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. I agree with her that the pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on young people with SEND and their families, and we are committed to helping pupils, including those with SEND, to make up for lost learning. We have provided additional uplifts for those who attend specialist settings; we have invested that extra £42 million. I accept that the SEND review is taking longer than we wanted it to, but it is a priority for me and for the Government, and there will be a report in the first quarter of next year.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government have announced an additional £1 billion recovery premium over the academic years 2022-23 and 2023-24, building on this year’s recovery premium. It will help schools to deliver evidence-based approaches to support the most disadvantaged pupils. This funding is in addition to the dedicated schools grant pupil premium, which was £2.5 billion this year, and the national tutoring programme.
David Simmonds
There are significant budgetary pressures within the dedicated schools grant, which affect a number of Government Departments. What discussions is my hon. Friend having to ensure that those challenges are properly addressed?
Mr Walker
I often discuss with colleagues across Government areas of mutual interest, including how best we can support young people with special educational needs and disabilities. The autumn spending review committed an additional £4.7 billion to the core schools budget, including funding for SEND to help the sector respond to the pressures that it is facing. I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the trebling of the budget for high needs capital, and the continuation of our safety valve programme.
Jane Stevenson
For many years Wolverhampton’s education outcomes have been below those of our neighbours in the Black Country, and we are currently experiencing a youth unemployment crisis in our city. How will these measures help to reverse that trend in places such as Wolverhampton, where there are a significant number of disadvantaged pupils?
Mr Walker
Employers tell us that good numeracy and literacy are key to securing employment, and our three-year £1.5 billion investment in the national tutoring programme—complemented by £2.5 billion for the pupil premium and the new two-year recovery premium, worth £1 billion—focuses on raising disadvantaged pupils’ achievements in those key areas for employment.
Ben Bradley
We know that additional face-to-face learning will be an important factor in helping students to catch up after lost time at school during the pandemic, especially, perhaps, disadvantaged young people. Can my hon. Friend update the House on the progress of the national tutoring programme, and what efforts is he making to ensure that young people in Mansfield who really need it are able to access it?
Mr Walker
As I have said, the programme is on track in terms of recruitment, and like schools throughout the country, those in Mansfield can benefit from Government-funded tutoring to help children to catch up after months of lost learning during the pandemic. Mansfield’s schools can also take advantage of the chance to appoint an academic mentor, or to provide tutoring support in-house.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
I understand that Lydiate Primary has been facing challenges with buildings in poor condition, and the former Minister for the School System met the hon. Member to discuss that school in particular. The Department spoke to Sefton Council last year, and I would encourage the school to continue to work with the council on its plans for investment. We will also set out details for future rounds of the school rebuilding programme next year.
Bill Esterson
Staff at Lydiate Primary School do an excellent job, but the building is damp, the heating system needs constant repairs, the roof leaks, the basement floods, and parts of the building are unsafe. The Department has just carried out a survey, and the surveyor has told the school that he is extremely concerned about the state of the building. Does the Minister agree that no child should have to go to school in such a poor environment? Can he tell me when the survey will be published, and will the Government commit themselves to giving the children and staff at Lydiate Primary School what they need if, as seems likely, that is what their own survey recommends?
Mr Walker
As the hon. Member will recognise, the Government allocate billions of pounds every year in capital funding through local authorities, and work alongside them in this respect. We will continue to work with Sefton Council to ensure that the right funding and the right response to the report are produced. However, I am sure the hon. Member will welcome the fact that schools in his constituency are being supported by both the outgoing priority school building programme and the new rebuilding programme, and that is something that we want to continue.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
Our review of technical education at levels 2 and 3 is providing new routes to work, ensuring that all students have qualifications, designed with employers, that meet the needs of the economy.
Henry Smith
From next September, Crawley College in my constituency will be offering an expanded number of T-levels, including in healthcare, science, education and construction. Would my hon. Friend like to pay a visit to that institution to see those opportunities for local 16 to 19-year-olds?
Alex Burghart
Any invitation to Crawley is too good to miss, and I would be absolutely delighted to come and see the roll-out of T-levels in my hon. Friend’s constituency. In my time as a Minister, I have had the pleasure of seeing many such colleges, and students and tutors are united in their enthusiasm for the project on which they have embarked.
Mrs Drummond
If the Government are keen on improving skills, levelling up and improving technical qualifications, including for green jobs, is this not the time to seriously consider having a 14 to 18 curriculum so that students can study these subjects in depth?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the position that she has just outlined. The Government are committed to providing young people with technical skills and the knowledge to progress. Indeed, strong university technical colleges such as the outstanding UTC in Portsmouth are succeeding in equipping their students with these vital skills. I understand that she met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to discuss this the other day.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
The Turing scheme is the UK’s global programme for studying and working abroad. Widening access is central to it, and students from disadvantaged backgrounds are offered additional financial support including an increased grant towards living costs and funding for travel-related costs. I understand that almost half of those who go on the Turing scheme will be from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Dr Davies
The arrival of the Turing scheme is good news for young people in my constituency, including those at Coleg Llandrillo Rhyl who are planning a trip to France in the new year. Can the Minister give me an update on how the scheme is benefiting those in Wales more widely?
Alex Burghart
Absolutely. One of the things we wanted to do when we designed Turing was to ensure that it was a UK-wide programme and that young people from all parts of the United Kingdom could take advantage of it. That has included Wales, and indeed north Wales. Recently, I was lucky enough to speak to participants from across the UK, and we are seeing young people doing remarkable new things and having opportunities that they would otherwise not have been able to take advantage of.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Scotland received £8.3 million under the UK Government’s Turing scheme, compared with £22.6 million under the Erasmus+ scheme. Given that this £14 million reduction will clearly impact opportunities for young learners to study abroad, when will the UK Government seeks to close this gap and properly fund study abroad?
Alex Burghart
The UK Government are putting £110 million into Turing, and I am delighted to say that in the first round 29 Scottish providers have been able to take advantage of this Treasury-funded scheme. More than £8 million in funding has already gone to Scotland. The other day, I was lucky enough to be at Glasgow University, where I met the chancellor and students, who were absolutely delighted with the opportunities that it was providing.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
We have announced that we will provide an additional 500,000 devices for disadvantaged children and young people this year, on top of the 1.35 million delivered already. This brings our total investment to support remote education and online social care to more than £520 million.
Sir Desmond Swayne
But that is no substitute for face-to-face learning. What can the Ministers say to those parents who are exasperated by their children even now being sent home to begin remote learning?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that the evidence is that children benefit from face-to-face learning, and that is why our priority is for schools to deliver face-to-face education to all pupils. Regular attendance at school is vital for children’s education, wellbeing and longer-term development. Where a pupil cannot attend school because they are following public health advice relating to covid, schools must provide immediate access to remote education. I am pleased to confirm that the figures as of 25 November showed that 99% of schools were open to provide face-to-face education.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
In a recent survey of providers, 90% said that the Government’s contractor for their flagship national tutoring programme was not prepared for its launch. With children into their third year of disruption, what action will the Minister take to ensure additional tutoring support reaches every child who needs it?
Mr Walker
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, and I look forward to working opposite him. The national tutoring programme is on track overall, and we are seeing strong take-up of the school-based element, with increasing take-up of the academic mentor element. We want to see more take-up of direct tutoring, and we are working closely with Randstad and its sub-providers to ensure it steps up and increases as we hit a higher trajectory later in the year.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Reducing transmission in schools is of the utmost importance to me, and I will do everything in my power to keep schools open. We have provided guidance to settings regarding testing arrangements on their return in January.
Kate Griffiths
As the Secretary of State knows, carbon dioxide monitors can help to identify quickly where ventilation needs to be increased in classrooms. Will he give an update on the roll-out of these monitors in schools?
Nadhim Zahawi
Over 99% of eligible settings have now received a CO2 monitor, with more than 320,000 now delivered. Final deliveries will be made before the end of term. Feedback from schools suggests the monitors are a helpful tool in managing ventilation, sitting alongside the other protective measures in place to manage transmission.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
I recognise the impact on education of buildings in poor condition, which is why we have allocated £11.3 billion since 2015 to improve the condition of schools. In addition, the school rebuilding programme will transform the learning environment of 500 schools over the next decade. We are considering responses to our consultation on prioritising the remaining places in the programme, and we plan to set out our response early next year.
Mr Holden
I have unusual schools in my constituency, given the size of the rural population. I would like the Minister to meet me to discuss Witton-le-Wear Primary School, a small primary school in which the building is in quite good condition but the conditions for learning are not great, and Delta North School, an alternative provision provider that is looking to increase its provision for local people. I would look forward to it if he could meet me to discuss these two important constituency schools.
Mr Walker
It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency not so long ago. I understand that the layout at Witton-le-Wear poses challenges, although it has sufficient capacity. The previous Minister for School Standards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), met him in July to discuss the school, since when officials have visited the school and set out the funding available to the Durham local authority to prioritise local need. Of course I would be happy to meet him.
I understand that Delta North is an independent school and, as a private business, we expect it to secure its own investment for development. We know that independent AP can play a useful role in the system, but we rightly prioritise the needs of state-funded schools when allocating public funds.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
We are working to upgrade further education colleges through the FE capital transformation programme. We are investing £1.5 billion between 2020 and 2026 to tackle poor conditions in the FE estate and to ensure our colleges are excellent places for people to learn.
Damien Moore
King George V College in my constituency has a reputation for producing outstanding A-level results, with students going on to do great things. It is a model for how things can evolve in the education sector. Will the Minister commit to joining me on a visit to the college to see how it could be a blueprint for development in other areas across the country?
Alex Burghart
Going to Southport would be as great an honour as going to Crawley. I would be delighted to see how Southport is taking advantage of the £480,000 it recently received from the FE capital transformation fund.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Minister for Further and Higher Education (Michelle Donelan)
We are supporting adults to get the skills they need through the adult education budget, and we are delivering on the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee, which includes the offer of free level 3 courses for jobs, skills bootcamps and, from 2025, the introduction of a lifelong loan entitlement, enabling more flexible and modular study across higher and further education.
Stephen Crabb
Giving people greater choice over how and where they study is one of the keys to improving the skills of our workforce and opening up new opportunities, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s new lifelong learning entitlement has the potential to transform options for learners across the whole of their lives?
Michelle Donelan
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. The LLE is at the heart of our skills revolution and will open up higher and further education by allowing people to study in a more modularised fashion. With that extra flexibility, it will be much easier for people to reskill and upskill, which will in turn support our businesses, our productivity and job creation.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
The free schools programme has created hundreds of new schools, including Eden Boys School and The Olive School in Bolton, both judged as outstanding by Ofsted. Before signing a funding agreement to open any new school, the Secretary of State will always have regard to local consultation on the proposals.
Chris Green
Getting planning right is one of the biggest concerns my constituents have. The proposals to build a new school on the Captains Clough playing field drew a huge number of people to a public meeting I recently held. Will my hon. Friend the Minister commit to meeting me and working with my constituents to ensure we get the right school in the right place?
Mr Walker
I understand that an initial site search put forward Captains Clough as a preferred option, but we are aware of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and others, and that a local group has submitted a village green planning application. We are exploring options with the local authority to resolve those concerns, but of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
We are committed to improving school outcomes everywhere and are investing a further £4.7 billion by 2024-25 in the core schools budget in England, over and above the 2019 spending review settlement for schools in 2022-23. In 2022-23 the national funding formula is providing a total of £6.7 billion, targeted at schools with higher numbers of pupils with additional needs, which comes on top of the pupil premium funding.
Karl Turner
I pay tribute to the school leaders, teachers and support staff teaching the kids in east Hull. The truth is that kids in Yorkshire and the Humber are 12 times more likely to be attending an underperforming school than their counterparts in the south of England. If the Government are serious about levelling up, is it not time they started looking at primary schools in the north of England?
Mr Walker
I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for ensuring that the progress we have seen over past decades in London and the south-east is replicated across the country. That is a consistent drive of this Government; I am glad that some of the changes we have already made, such as the national funding formula and the introduction of the pupil premium, are pointing in that direction, but I will be happy to visit more schools in the north of England, including primary schools, with him and others to ensure that we can continue to drive progress in this area.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
The whole nation is appalled by the story of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. No child should ever be subject to a campaign of such appalling cruelty, and I will make a statement to the House later today on the steps we are taking to learn the lessons of this tragedy and ensure that we can prevent other children from experiencing such horrific abuse.
James Daly
The Derby High School in my constituency offers an outstanding educational provision, but has ambitions to ensure that all its pupils have the skills, training and knowledge needed to access high-quality jobs at the earliest opportunity. In line with that ambition, the school is seeking funding to develop a technology centre. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and the school’s inspirational head, Ms Hubert, to discuss how that transformative vision can be achieved?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the great work of our schools. I would be happy to meet him and the headteacher of the high school, Ms Hubert, to discuss plans for how we can build on the success of pupils in Bury.
Mr Speaker
We now come to Bridget Phillipson and welcome her as the new shadow Secretary of State.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for his warm welcome, and welcome his intention to make a statement later today on the tragic death of Arthur.
The Secretary of State will be aware that in the north-west and the west midlands, just 40% of children aged 12 to 15 have been vaccinated. Will he use the Christmas holidays to vaccinate our children, support schools in planning for next term and get ahead of the virus?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s kind words. We will do everything to make sure that we continue to vaccinate 12 to 15-year-olds. Of course, those who had their vaccine early on will be due to have their second jab by mid-December—the middle of this month—now that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has recommended that they have second jabs. We will continue to deliver those jabs using not only school settings but vaccination centres to make sure that we really drive the uptake of vaccines for 12 to 15-year-olds.
Bridget Phillipson
It is now more than six months since the education recovery chief Sir Kevan Collins resigned in protest at the Government’s abject failure. Their total failure to support our children risks letting down a generation. Why will the Secretary of State not bring forward proper proposals, like Labour’s clear, costed and achievable plans, which match the scale of the challenge that our children face?
Nadhim Zahawi
Instead of focusing on an arms race of increasing inputs of billions of pounds, we are focusing on outcomes. Those students with least time left in education—the 16 to 19-year-olds—are getting an extra hour of education a week. There was £800 million for that in the Budget and an additional £1 billion for secondary and primary school pupils, especially those who are most disadvantaged. Of course, we have heard today about the national tutoring programme, which is going at pace and will deliver real differences in levelling up to those who most need it. I hope that in future the hon. Lady will continue to look at evidence rather than worry about inputs.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Minister for Further and Higher Education (Michelle Donelan)
I absolutely agree that it is important for people of all ages to have access to higher education and training wherever they live. Learners in Bolsover are served by three general further education providers in the surrounding area, but I shall work with my hon. Friend on this issue and urge him and the Derbyshire local authority to use the published process to bring it to the attention of the Education and Skills Funding Agency for consideration. In addition, secondary schools rated good or outstanding by Ofsted can put forward proposals for the addition of sixth-form provision.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I associate myself and the rest of us on the SNP Benches with the Secretary of State’s remarks about little Arthur.
Reports that the student loan repayment threshold will be lowered are most concerning for those who are already experiencing graduate debt. Will the Minister detail the discussions she has had with Treasury colleagues? Will she confirm whether any proposed threshold change would be applied retrospectively?
Michelle Donelan
As the hon. Member knows well, we will not comment on speculation. We will shortly respond in full to the Augar review, and the best interests of students, taxpayers and universities will be at the heart of that report.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Michelle Donelan
Ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to pursue STEM subjects is a key priority of this Government. We fund multiple programmes to boost STEM uptake, particularly among girls—that includes providing £84 million to improve computing teaching and participation at GCSE and A-level and £76 million for maths teaching for mastery—and we have more than 20,000 STEM ambassadors, of whom 40% are women.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Michelle Donelan
The prize route is just one option under our global-talent route, through which we have received thousands of applications since it was launched in 2020. As the hon. Member knows, the prize route has a high bar: only those who are at the pinnacle of their career and who have already received and accepted prestigious prizes in their field qualify. The list of awards was drawn up in consultation with the relevant global talent-endorsing bodies and we continue to keep it under review.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
In-person education remains our absolute priority. Our guidance is clear that settings should do everything possible to keep children in face-to-face education safely. We are working across the sector to ensure that face-to-face education and childcare are prioritised and I will do everything in my power to keep schools and nurseries open. I was particularly pleased to see some of the excellent work that is going on with academic mentors at Dunton Green Primary School in my hon. Friend’s constituency recently.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
On Friday, I met with a fantastic group of students from Gosforth East Middle School who have been inspired by COP26 to make changes in their own school. They want to cut emissions, so they surveyed their teachers to find out why more of them do not have electric cars. Hearing that the main barrier is cost and that there is no access to a salary sacrifice scheme, the students want to know what the Government are going to do, given that it would boost manufacturing, support them with the cost-of-living crisis and significantly cut emissions in all our towns and cities.
Nadhim Zahawi
As a former Minister at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I can tell the hon. Lady that it is about ensuring that we deliver affordable transport that is green: not only cars but other forms of transport.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Mr Robin Walker
My hon. Friend is right that parents should have up-to-date assessments of the quality of education at their child’s school, which is why, from the start of this term, Ofsted resumed routine inspections of the full range of schools, with the aim of each school having at least one inspection by summer 2025.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Covid-related pupil absences have risen by about 47% over the past fortnight and many schools are struggling with staff absences, too. Given that we know that good ventilation is key in schools, can the Minister give us an update on the Bradford pilot that was started earlier this year? What is going on with regard to air purifiers, when will that trial report and will he implement its findings?
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady is right about the importance of this issue. As we heard in the Secretary of State’s update, CO2 monitors are being rolled out successfully across the school estate. The Bradford pilot is owned by the NHS, so, of course, we will work closely with it on interpreting, and implementing action on, its findings.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in thanking those providing these important services in his constituency. The Government are providing additional support through establishing mental health support teams in 35% of schools and colleges in England by 2023 and enabling all schools and colleges to train senior mental health leads by 2025.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The biggest issues that children with special educational needs face in York is not only the coming together of the multi-disciplinary team in a timely way, but inadequacy. When the Minister is looking at his SEN review, will he ensure that there is a multi-agency workforce plan in place to meet the needs of all children with additional needs?
Will Quince
The hon. Lady is right in this regard. The SEN review will, of course, be looking at that and it will report in the first quarter of next year. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss the issue further.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Nadhim Zahawi
Mr Speaker, I am sure that you will agree that democracy and the role of Parliament are central to citizenship education, which prepares pupils to take an active role in society. Parliament’s excellent free education service offers a range of resources, including the resumption of school visits to Parliament, outreach visits to schools and online workshops.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Three months ago, I raised the appalling conditions at Russell Scott Primary School in Denton, which the Daily Mirror dubbed
“Britain’s worst built school where pupils paddle in sewage and get sick from toxic fumes”,
after a botched £5 million refurbishment by Carillion. What progress have Department for Education officials made with Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council to get the school urgently rebuilt?
Mr Robin Walker
I remember well the hon. Gentleman’s Westminster Hall debate on this issue. We continue to work with Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. In that debate, he put in a bid for the next round of the priority school building programme, and, as I mentioned earlier, we are consulting on our approach to that.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for ensuring that any mitigation is proportionate. The most important thing is that we prioritise face-to-face education. Keeping children in school is my absolute priority, and I have said from the Dispatch Box today that I will do everything in my power to maintain that situation. Of course, directors of public health can advise temporary additional measures, but they should always be proportionate. As long as schools continue to be open, they should be holding nativities, and delivering every other one of their important functions.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Earlier I made the case to the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), for a new school at Lydiate Primary School. His answer was to talk about maintenance, but that is just a make-do-and-mend approach that really is not going to cut it for the children of Lydiate Primary School; it is very short-sighted and would be poor value for money. Since 2010, the school capital programme has been cut from £9.1 billion to £4.3 billion. If the Government are serious about levelling up, will they put the money back in and rebuild schools such as Lydiate Primary School?
Mr Robin Walker
The Prime Minister announced the new school rebuilding programme in June 2020. We have confirmed the first 100 schools as part of a commitment to 500 projects over the next decade, including Deyes High School in Sefton. We are investing a total of £5.6 billion of capital funding to support the education sector in 2021-22.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State welcome tomorrow’s ten-minute rule Bill, which proposes universal screening for dyslexia in primary schools, and stronger support for teaching and assessment? I know that the Secretary of State, with his extraordinary life story, shares my passion for this agenda, so will he put his full weight behind it?
Nadhim Zahawi
My right hon. Friend is a passionate champion and advocate for the technology behind screening for dyslexia. I will certainly take a close look at his Bill tomorrow.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
After the sad news that he has announced— that he is stepping down at the next election—I call Barry Sheerman.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Is the Secretary of State aware that in the 10 years that I chaired the Select Committee on Education, one point came through really strongly—that every bit of money that we put into early years is the best investment that we can possibly make? When are we going to take that seriously and have good, accessible and cheap pre-school care, and the best Sure Start and children’s centres, like those we created under Tony Blair?
Nadhim Zahawi
I know that I can call the hon. Gentleman my friend because he is a passionate champion of education and of early years, and has been for a long time. In fact, he showed me around his think-tank, with which he did such tremendous work. He will be pleased to hear that we are delivering family hubs, which are not just about investing in bricks and mortar, but are evidence based when it comes to what can be done in the early years for families that need the most help.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Storm Arwen has killed a load of the electricity supplies not only to homes across my constituency but to schools. Will the Minister ask the Department to feed into the Ofgem review to ensure that if there are power issues in future, schools such as the small schools in Weardale or schools like St Bede’s in Lanchester are not cut off and children are not cut off from education as they have been over the past two years because of covid?
Mr Robin Walker
I would certainly be happy to meet my hon. Friend further to discuss this while we also discuss the situation at Witton-le-Wear.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a fact that hungry children cannot learn. The Scottish Government have implemented the Scottish child payment of £10 a week, which has already been described by charities as a game changer in supporting families across Scotland. It is getting doubled to £20 per week in April. Is it not time the UK Government did more to support vulnerable families and looked at reinstating the £20 a week universal credit uplift?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very proud of the work we do on breakfast clubs and on the holiday activities and food programme, which I helped to set up when I was a Minister in the Department, and where there is now £200 million-plus a year.
Storm Arwen: Power Outages
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on the current situation regarding power outages cause by Storm Arwen.
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
As the House will know, the Secretary of State updated Members last week on how we are continuing to work to ensure that power is restored to people’s homes following Storm Arwen. We have provided a named contact for MPs, on request, for each network operator, which I was delighted to do personally with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on Friday morning.
Storm Arwen was the worst storm in over 15 years in terms of the disruption and damage caused. Those most badly hit have been in northern England and Scotland, and some have now been without power for over a week. That has made life incredibly difficult and stressful for many residents, and I want to assure them that help is there.
On Wednesday, I visited County Durham and on Friday I visited Aberdeenshire to see first-hand some of the devastation caused by Storm Arwen, and yesterday the Secretary of State was also in the north-east of England. I thank the engineers, the emergency workers and our armed forces who are on the ground for their incredibly hard work and perseverance in challenging conditions. We have removed the compensation limit to allow customers affected to claim up to £140 per day if they are without power.
I am glad to say that 99.8% of those affected by the storm have had their power supply restored so far—but this is not good enough. It is completely unacceptable that about 1,600 of them were still in this position as of this morning, although the situation is improving each hour. The remaining areas affected are in the north-east of England, predominantly the Wear valley surrounding Eastgate, where I was on Wednesday. I have been assured by the network operators that all efforts are focused on having power restored to those households in the next days.
Mr Jones
First, I am disappointed that the Secretary of State is not here today to address us on this very important issue.
There is something seriously wrong with Northern Powergrid—not with the engineers and individuals who are out restoring power but with the management and senior management of that company. The Secretary of State, during his visit, said that he met, as I know the Minister met, local managers, and I thank the Minister for his phone call on Friday morning. But in the past 10 days I have had constituents in Craghead, Stanley, High Handenhold, Edmondsley and parts of Chester-le-Street without power. Some have now had it restored, but Blackhouse, Edmondsley and parts of Craghead are still without.
I ask the Minister to go back to the power company, as it cannot give the assurance that he has just given to those communities: it says on its own website that there is no date yet for restoring power in parts of my constituency. Constituents have had to experience sub-zero temperatures in terrible conditions. That has been made worse by Northern Powergrid.
On the night of Friday 26 November, I understand that internally the company issued an emergency for County Durham. That was not transmitted to the local resilience forum until Wednesday 1 December, which only became apparent to the county council and other resilience forums when an enterprising council officer started plotting on a map how many homes were affected. What has made the situation worse is Northern Powergrid’s communications, which raised people’s expectations that power was coming on, so people have stayed in homes when they should not have done. Likewise, information now is still not good. I was even told last week by an employee of Northern Powergrid, “Just ignore what is on the website—it’s complete nonsense.” If they are saying that, what confidence can my constituents have in that information? The communication has been appalling and made things worse.
The other thing that has made things worse—particularly in my constituency, parts of which are not rural, but are in towns—is the age of the components, so I will ask three quick questions. First, will the Minister do an urgent, independent assessment of the resilience of the grid, especially since we have the storm coming in tomorrow night? Secondly, what has been done since 2013? Thirdly, what can be done to force the company to pass information on to the bodies that need to know, including the resilience forums? What compensation or money will be put forward to Durham County Council and others for the money they have expended so far?
Greg Hands
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those further questions, and for his concern. It was good to have a chance to give him an in-person update on Friday morning on the situation in County Durham and particularly in relation to North Durham, and to pass on contact details for Northern Powergrid.
The Secretary of State gave a statement last Wednesday from this very Dispatch Box. He was in the north-east yesterday and is currently on an urgent call with Phil Jones, who heads up Northern Powergrid.
On the responses, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the communications have not been effective. I said to Phil Jones in person last Wednesday that the communications were not good enough, particularly in the first few days. I was joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), who gave directly to him the frustrations she had had, including that there had been no social media response. I think those messages landed well with Northern Powergrid.
On Wednesday, I also visited the call centre at Penshaw, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the incredible work being done in those call centres. I remember meeting Nicola Chipp, Dave Rose and many others who have been putting in long shifts in that call centre. For the first 48 hours, it was quite difficult to get into the call centre in the storm’s aftermath, but some incredible efforts are being put in there.
A lot of engineers have come from right across the country. When I was there on Wednesday, 200 engineers were there—there are even more today—ensuring that those last properties get reconnected. In terms of reconnection by tomorrow, that is the assurance given by Northern Powergrid. Hundreds of generators have been deployed in the area. Finally, on the independent assessment, what the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Ofgem do after these events is conduct an independent assessment and a lessons learned process, which is exactly what we did following Storm Desmond seven years ago.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this urgent question, and I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for visiting my constituency over the past week. There are some real issues here about the relationship between energy companies and the local resilience forums. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and its associated regulations in 2005 set out the guidance for how energy providers should engage with local resilience forums, but we need to know from Ministers what assessment they have made of the communications from Northern Powergrid. Does the law need strengthening if it is not passing information over quickly enough?
To make another quick point, we welcome the Ofgem review, which should be a helpful step in the right direction, the fact that the £700 cap has been removed and the doubling of the daily allowance for my constituents. However, many of them in the run-up to Christmas will have spent a huge amount of their own cash on going into hotels or other accommodation and on extra food. Will the Minister put the Government’s shoulder to the wheel to ensure that Northern Powergrid gets that compensation to my constituents as quickly as possible? The run-up to Christmas is an especially expensive time of year for people, and they need to have that money.
Greg Hands
I commend my hon. Friend, with whom I spoke on Tuesday and Wednesday. It was a pleasure to visit his constituency. At Ireshopeburn, I saw the generator being connected to the community centre by engineers from across the UK, including from UK Power Networks in south-east England. I saw the relief centre at St John’s Chapel and I was in Eastgate, so I saw things first hand in his constituency.
To answer my hon. Friend’s question about our assessment of the comms, I have already mentioned that the comms from Northern Powergrid were not good enough in those first days. I am sure that that will be part of the review process that the Government will do with Ofgem as part of the response to all these storm events. On Northern Powergrid, we put the experience of many Members of the House and their constituents in those first few days firmly to Mr Jones, and I think that that message landed.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the engineers, the Army, the emergency services and, most of all, local people in affected areas for their heroic response to the crisis. It is totally contemptuous for the Business Secretary to be available for a photo opportunity yesterday but not to be available today to come to the House to account for the Government’s performance. That simply adds insult to injury for communities in the north of England that have been badly let down by the power networks and by central Government in their crisis response and oversight of the system.
I will ask the Minister some questions. Some 10 days into the crisis, why has the Government’s emergency committee Cobra still not met to co-ordinate the response? Over the weekend, a local Conservative councillor in Durham said:
“if this happened in London…or in the south-east, everything would have got thrown at it.”
Are people in the north not entitled to think that he is right and that they have been treated as second-class citizens? Why did it take a week for the Army to be called in when Members on both sides of the House were calling for that at the start of last week? Why are thousands still without power when the Secretary of State told us last Wednesday in the House that people would be reconnected by Friday? Will the Minister now apologise to communities in the north for the Government’s performance?
The Minister said today, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, that he wants to learn lessons, but we have been here before. After the 2013 storms, multiple reports were produced—I have them here for him—that identified problems of communication, the vulnerability of the network and the complacency of the companies. After that event, during which 16,000 people were cut off for 48 hours, customers were told that they could expect to see “significant improvement”. This time, however, the performance has been far worse. Is not the only conclusion that the Government have been asleep at the wheel not just in the last 10 days but for the best part of a decade?
The climate crisis means that we will face many more such events. The Government must get a grip. Instead of a cosy Government-led process, overseen by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Ofgem, will the Minister now establish what the situation demands—a proper independent inquiry into the performance and failures of power companies, regulators and the Government to ensure that our country and communities are never left that vulnerable again?
Greg Hands
Let me deal with each point in turn. It would not be fair to say that yesterday was a photo opportunity. The Secretary of State visited the armed forces, engineers, local residents, the relief centres and so on. It was most definitely not a photo opportunity, but an opportunity, as I discovered in County Durham on Wednesday and in Aberdeenshire on Friday, to thank those who had responded. Engineers had come from Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man to assist and we felt that it was right to go and thank them for their efforts. The Secretary of State is on a call at the moment with the Prime Minister and the head of Northern Powergrid.
On the response, the point here is that the mutual aid system is in place between the distribution network operators. The right hon. Member will know from his time as Secretary of State the importance of the mutual aid system—the NEWSAC, or North East South West Area Consortium, system—whereby different companies across the United Kingdom provide help to each other when a storm comes in. That is why engineers can be deployed right the way across the country. That is the most effective thing, because restoring power involves quite dangerous, health and safety-intensive work to restore overhead power cables, and those are the people one needs to be able to do the job.
The right hon. Member says it took a week to bring in the Army, but it is for the local resilience forum to say what the needs are locally. As soon as the local resilience forum in Aberdeenshire and that in Durham gave us the call, the Army was deployed very quickly indeed. He talks about investment, and I mentioned earlier that £60 billion has been invested in the network over the last eight years.
I learned at first hand on Wednesday in County Durham and on Friday in Aberdeenshire about the particular nature of this storm. There was the unusual wind speed and the fact that, rather than the prevailing south-westerly winds, the wind came in from the north-east, which makes a big difference for the power network. There was also the nature of the icing and the accumulation of icing on cables, which was a particular part of the storm. One of the engineers I spoke to in Durham on Wednesday described how he had experienced this particular set of circumstances only once before in his 35-year career in the industry.
Finally, on climate crisis, the right hon. Member is right: of course, there will be similar events like this and more of these events in the future. That is why we need to do everything we can—for example, with our net zero strategy in October—to make sure this country becomes more resilient to these kinds of events. We are currently doing the joint consultation with Ofgem on the future system operator, and that is exactly the kind of response that we need: a net zero strategy for how we equip the country overall, plus in particular how we make sure that the grid becomes more resilient to these kinds of events in the future.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his visit to Aberdeenshire on Friday, particularly to probably one of the hardest places to get to—I am not saying that Banff and Buchan is a hard place to get to—when we went to visit the engineers on the ground in a wooded area just outside the village of Methlick in my constituency. I think they really appreciated the visit from my right hon. Friend, and we certainly appreciated the work that they have put in.
I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s remarks in his opening statement thanking those engineers as well as the resilience partnerships and emergency services. Will he join me in also thanking the local communities, individuals and community groups that have come out in force and shown community spirit, as they have done throughout the covid pandemic as well?
On the communications issue that a number of hon. and right hon. Members have raised, can I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that the review that has been announced by Ofgem will look not only at the lessons learned and what went wrong with communications during this storm, but at what we can do in future to reach out to those who have become overly dependent on social media and handheld devices, and how we can go back to how we managed to communicate, say, 20 years ago?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and it was invaluable to have his assistance on Friday when visiting his community in Banff and Buchan. I met the SSE engineers at Methlick, and this is also a good occasion to thank in particular Mike Coull from the Little Kitchen, who has been working flat out to provide free fish and chips to the community affected in Methlick. I thank my hon. Friend for everything that he has done to keep his constituents posted and to make sure he fulfils his role here in the House, scrutinising the UK Government.
It was also a pleasure in particular to meet in Aberdeenshire those who had come from across the UK to assist. I was talking to one of the engineers who had come up from Liverpool, and there was a genuine professional satisfaction in coming from right the way across the country to help people in their time of need. I saw that from right across the UK, and I think people were very thankful for that. I also join with my hon. Friend in thanking the local communities.
On the review, of course people have become more dependent on electricity. Generally, that can be a good thing for us, particularly with electric vehicles and electricity as a source of power, but we also need to recognise that greater dependence means a greater responsibility, which I am sure will be part of the joint BEIS-Ofgem review coming up.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I, too, pay tribute to the fortitude of those who have been affected and the fantastic community support that has been provided, as well as to the workers doing the work and challenging the elements. However, the reality is that it is completely unacceptable for people to be without power for 10 days, and it is unacceptable for the Minister to stand here and say it is unacceptable—and that communications are unacceptable—without telling us what he is doing to sort out these unacceptable conditions.
With so many faults—way more than were predicted by modelling—what discussions have the Government had about whether the modelling is robust enough? What assessment are they making of the robustness of the network itself, of the recovery plans, and—we knew the storm was coming—of whether people understood the effects of the storm and other factors, such as trees being felled by the wind?
Customers and Parliament were given dates for when electricity would be restored, but those have proven to be wrong, so what assessment have the Government made of how the electricity companies have undertaken that work? It is quite clear that they did not have a grip of the situation. Was all the technology deployed that could have been deployed, such as drones and other remote working devices? Was sufficient tree-clearing equipment and labour deployed in the aftermath?
The Minister spoke about the mutual aid, but that clearly has not been sufficient to resolve the situation. It is quite clear that the Army should have been deployed more quickly. Why did the Government not offer the use of the Army? What compensation will be provided to customers, particularly hospitality business, and how will lessons learned be conveyed to Parliament? The Minister spoke about lessons learned from Storm Desmond. Why were those lessons not sufficient?
Greg Hands
As I mentioned, I spent Friday in Aberdeenshire seeing the situation on the ground. I was joined by Chris Burchell, the managing director of SSE, and I put him on the spot about his communications. I think they were better in the first few days than those of Northern Powergrid, but it has been a difficult time for everyone concerned.
On the calling out of the Army, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is a role for the local resilience forum, the Grampian local resilience partnership. On Friday I also met Jim Savege, the chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council, who I think chairs or leads the local resilience partnership. He was very satisfied, I think, with the response of the Army and others. I met the 3 Scots when I was in Aberdeenshire; I understand that 45 Commando and the 39 Engineer Regiment have also been deployed. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in thanking them for the work they have been putting in to help the community.
In terms of assistance—the NEWSAC scheme and the ability to deploy engineers from right across the United Kingdom—the hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on the message from the industry about the importance of the UK response in being able to deploy people. A lot of engineers were deployed in Scotland; 630 were deployed from elsewhere in the UK. These are highly qualified, highly capable, very technical people. Two hundred and eighty-five of them came from the rest of the UK to Scotland, and 400 are currently in the north-east of England. I particularly want to minute my thanks for the efforts they have put in right across this United Kingdom.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for securing the urgent question, and I thank Ministers for their extensive engagement over this horrendous crisis.
I associate myself with the concerns raised by my County Durham colleagues—not least the shock that I think we all felt at learning in a meeting with Durham County Council on Friday that the communications from Northern Powergrid had meant that the response from the local resilience forum was slowed by about five days. That meant we could not get boots on the ground or house-to-house support for the people who needed it. Five days wasted—that is an absolute disgrace. We really need to ensure that we hold Northern Powergrid’s heels to the flame for that one.
I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) said about ensuring that compensation will be paid before Christmas. It is a difficult time financially for so many, so if Ministers could add pressure on Northern Powergrid on that point, I know that it would be much appreciated by all those who have been affected.
I have two quick questions. First, what preparations are the Government undertaking, in conjunction with local resilience forums, for Storm Barra, which is going to hit over the next few days? Secondly, on the BEIS and Ofgem review, will the Minister expand a bit on what the consultation will look into, in terms of the infrastructure and its resilience? Will he also say whether the review will look into emergency provision to ensure that enough support—things such as emergency generators—is available to those who are hit in these horrible crises?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement with me and the Secretary of State on behalf of her constituents, and in particular for making meetings at relatively short notice. I agree that communications from Northern Powergrid were simply not good enough. I have reflected on that and we put that across strongly to Phil Jones.
On when compensation will be paid out, as I understand it, most is paid automatically, but it does take some time to process. I am told that it may take up to three months. I hope that it can be quicker, and I am sure that we can put that view across to the company.
It is not my job to be a weather forecaster, but we expect Storm Barra to hit the island of Ireland in particular. On preparations, an established process is in place whereby the NEWSAC committee would assess the likely landfall of the storm in the UK and start making preparations, often in conjunction with Ireland. I should also minute that engineers from the Republic of Ireland were in the UK helping out last week.
On reviews and resilience, previous reviews have of course led to important reforms. The 105 telephone number was created as a result of a previous review, as indeed was the NEWSAC network of mutual aid throughout the United Kingdom. Such reviews are strongly empowered, and while I would not want to prejudge what a review would look at, two things that I would expect it to look at carefully are communications and the resilience of the network in particular places.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I have to say that I am absolutely astonished that the Minister just gave an assurance that help is there, but went on to say that compensation will be available within three months. People in constituencies like mine, people in the north and people in Scotland—people who have been devastated by Storm Arwen—cannot wait three months. Let us be honest: it is an insult to the people who have been badly affected. Will the Minister look at ways and means of channelling much more financial support into badly affected constituencies so that the people at the bottom who have been devastated by this can receive compensation, not just for power cuts but for devastation to property, loss of property and so on?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. I understand the passion that he feels, but a lot has been done on the ground. I saw for myself the provision of accommodation by hotels, inns, pubs and so on, as well as the provision of food and hot meals—everything from a cup of tea in a community hall. There has been a huge community response right across the affected regions. We have also worked closely with the British Red Cross in providing relief to people on the ground.
It is completely unacceptable that some people are still without power. I think that 99.8% of people have now been reconnected, but it is an unacceptable time for the 1,000 or more people who are still not reconnected. The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have all said that. We obviously need to learn the lessons, and an established process is in place for that. I have already pointed out how previous such storms have led to really strong improvements to the system, and I would also expect that to be the case this time.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is quite rich to hear criticism from Scottish National party Members after it took the Scottish First Minister four days to even comment on the fact there was an issue in the north-east of Scotland, given that the power went off. I join him and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) in thanking the workers from Aberdeenshire Council, the emergency services, the armed forces and, of course, the Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks engineers who did a power of work to restore electricity to north-eastern Scotland.
Although a lot has been said about the resilience of the energy network and a review of that, will the Minister join me in looking into a review of the communications network? Part of the problem last week seemed to be that whether someone was able to report faults or was offline in their area depended on which mobile network they were on, so I ask for his support in calling for a review from Ofcom of the mobile communications network.
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his invaluable assistance on Friday in Aberdeenshire. I do not think he and I will ever forget meeting the engineers who had been working up to 17-hour shifts just outside of Kemnay. They had been at that all week, including with help from right across the UK. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the communications network. We have become more dependent on electricity and networks. I am sure that that will be part of the review to see what lessons might be learned and whether there can be other ways to approach the communications problem in future.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I might be able to enlighten the Minister, given his earlier comments about Met Office warnings, because we need to give it some credit: it was right on the ball originally about Storm Arwen regarding the wind strength, the timings and the wind direction. It has issued two warnings today, Minister, that tomorrow—7 December—Storm Barra will bring strong winds and snow to my constituency and further north.
Storm Arwen and the response have exposed the deep north-south divide in this country. Individuals and communities in my constituency—I have not had any ministerial visits—have been left without support for over a week. It took five days for the Secretary of State to make a statement, and he did not do that willingly. It was only after multiple requests through the Speaker from Members on both sides of the House from Monday onwards that the Secretary of State came to make a statement, and it took five days for a major incident to be declared. It is too easy to put all the blame on Northern Powergrid and poor comms. At every level, be it the Minister’s Department, local government, the resilience forum or Northern Powergrid, questions must be asked, and I believe that a public inquiry is the only independent and fair way to assess the whole scandal and hold all those involved accountable. Will he support a public inquiry?
Greg Hands
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments as a local MP, but I reject absolutely his allegation of some kind of north-south divide. The response was very swift from the engineers, and that was the most important part of the response. As I mentioned, 630 engineers came from across the UK. I put on record my thanks to Western Power Distribution—117 came from western England and Wales—to Northern Ireland Electricity Networks, which sent 26 engineers, to the Isle of Man, and to the Electricity Supply Board in the Republic of Ireland, which sent 27.
The NEWSAC process started on the Friday before the storm came in. Obviously, time is needed to see the impact of the storm and where the engineers should be deployed from and to. Simply a forecast that a big storm is coming does not, in any sense, give a prediction of where the damage that will need to be repaired will be. The NEWSAC process is the right one. I have confidence in that and I want to minute again my thanks to the engineers from right across the United Kingdom who helped out by doing the incredibly difficult job of restoring and sometimes rebuilding—in Weardale, I saw a whole process of rebuilding the power line. We cannot underestimate the difficulty and very intensive nature of that job, particularly at a time of poor weather.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and echo colleagues’ comments in thanking the Government, local government, the armed forces, volunteers and engineers for their efforts to help people during this dreadful crisis. I also pay tribute to the resilience of residents in Cumbria, elsewhere in the north of England and across Scotland for facing up to this dreadful crisis. I fear that that resilience will be tested again and again with more and more named storms coming. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that in the lessons learned process, we ensure that support for communities will get to them as soon as possible, in terms of generators and calling in the Army? We know in Cumbria, when we have flooding and such things as foot-and-mouth, that calling the Army in early is an important lesson to be learned, so whoever has the job of calling them in, please can we do that as quickly as possible?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement throughout the process on behalf of his Cumbria constituents. He makes some very good points. We will be asking all Members to give their input into the lessons learned process, which might relate to anything from communications to extra resources. I can tell my hon. Friend that, at the peak, 755 generators were deployed in the most affected areas in the United Kingdom; that number is now approximately 500.
With respect to calling out the armed forces, it is principally a matter for the local resilience forum in the first case to make a local assessment of needs. I stress that repairing and rebuilding power lines is a job for engineers. With respect to other relief, other workers and other people who can provide support for local communities, it is a job for the local resilience forum to make an assessment.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
While power is slowly being restored to many of the villages in Durham, we face further disruption from Storm Barra. Constituents in villages such as Croxdale are now experiencing problems with internet access, badly affecting their ability to work from home and support disabled family members. Can the Minister promise my constituents that increased Government support will arrive immediately if Storm Barra causes further disruption? Will he do everything in his power to work with Openreach and providers to get internet access restored to my constituents as soon as possible?
Greg Hands
Of course we will be working, particularly with local resilience fora. The Secretary of State had a series of meetings on calls with local resilience fora through last week, learning and assessing at first hand what their needs are. If Storm Barra is of a similar magnitude or even anywhere close, I would expect that process to continue. With climate change, we can expect the frequency of such events to increase, and we need to make sure that local resilience fora are ready to meet those challenges.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I say very firmly to the Minister that it is simply unacceptable for customers to have to wait for up to three months for compensation payments? This is an accounting function—a billing function. It is easy to press the right button and get the compensation of £140 a day to these poor people before Christmas.
Greg Hands
I stress that I am not apologising on behalf of the companies, but it is “up to three months”; I hope that it will be a lot quicker. Of course the Secretary of State and I will engage with the distribution network operators to make sure that it is done as quickly as possible. Ofgem is engaging with them as well.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
On the Minister’s visit to Aberdeenshire, he managed to visit Banff and Buchan, where he met the local MP, and west Aberdeenshire, where he met the local MP. As the Member for Gordon, I can only assume that my invitation must have been lost in the post somewhere.
When it comes to getting in military support, yes, it is for the local resilience partnerships to make the request, but as the Minister knows full well, a strict set of criteria has to be fulfilled before the request has a chance of being approved. As part of the review of this incident, will the Minister commit to looking at the criteria for military aid for the civilian authorities so that in any future event like this we stand a better chance of being able to deploy the military at an earlier stage, when they can arguably have the greatest impact?
Greg Hands
I am told that the hon. Gentleman’s office was informed that I was coming to Ellon in his constituency, but may I use this opportunity to thank the school in Ellon and particularly the local responders, the local resilience partnership and others who were there providing assistance? The local armed forces, 3 Scots, were there as well, providing really excellent help to the community.
Once the local resilience forum had called out, or said that it needed assistance, the response was incredibly fast: I think it took less than half a day to make that deployment. I talked to the military liaison officer in Aberdeen on Friday; she was absolutely clear that she is a keen member of the local resilience forum and as soon as the call went out, the response was extremely quick.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Given the fallout from Storm Arwen and the disruption to the power grid, will the Government use this opportunity to look into the feasibility of placing more power cables underground?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend has asked a good question. The difference in cost between underground and overground is considerable, and such action would also be very disruptive. I think that a more organic approach should be taken, involving working with the companies and the engineering resources that we have. In general, however, my hon. Friend is right: an underground grid will be more resilient than an overground grid, and I am sure that that too will feature in the review.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Is this not about Northern Powergrid investing nothing in the network while stuffing its investors’ pockets with profits, and the Government allowing it to put profits before people?
Greg Hands
No, it is not. In the last eight years, the distribution network operators have invested about £60 billion in the network, and I am confident that the structure is right. I think that the way in which the companies collaborate in the NEWSAC mechanism works extremely well, and we should be thankful for the engineers and others who have been out there, including those operating the call centres. As I have said, I think that the communications, particularly in the first days, could have been much better, but I have no doubts about the structure of the market and the electricity network operators.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
We all know that this was an exceptional storm with exceptional wind speeds coming from an unusual direction, and we all know that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the engineers and back-room staff who supported the recovery. However, my constituent Craig Fraser, from the north-west of Montrose, was without power for six days—it was restored on Thursday—and for the first four of those days, he could not obtain confirmation from SSEN that there was a problem in his area. What can the UK Government do to mandate minimum standards in surveys of damage caused to network lines after a storm and data logging of customers’ reports of outages?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive question. I would say to his constituent Craig Fraser that I think it is unacceptable that it took him more than four days to get an answer from SSEN. After this session, I will give the hon. Gentleman the details of the dedicated contact at SSEN, if he does not already have it, and I will also try to raise the matter with the chief executive, Chris Burchell. A key aim of the review will be to look at why the communications were not as good as they should have been, particularly in those crucial first few days.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State can make it to the north-east for a photo-opportunity, but he will not come here to answer our questions. If thousands of homes in the south-east were without power, he would be here.
Last month the Government showed their contempt for the north-east by failing to invest in our transport infrastructure, and now we see the consequences of their failure to invest in and support our energy infrastructure. Why were there not enough generators? Why were no proper plans in place? Does the Minister accept that the energy markets as they stand are not working for the north-east, and will he do something about it?
Greg Hands
I am sorry, but I do not accept that. First, it is not right to criticise the Secretary of State for going up to the north-east on a Sunday to see members of the armed forces, and to thank the engineers and the community responders. As you will remember better than anyone, Mr Speaker, he came here last Wednesday to make a statement on the situation. There has not been a delayed response from the Secretary of State.
The hon. Lady also asked about generators. In fact, 755 were provided at the peak of the relief effort, and 500 are still being provided. I thought that she might join me in thanking some of those who are working so hard on the ground—not just the engineers, but those in the call centres. They are making tremendous efforts to ensure that those who have been disconnected are reconnected and that people have the help that they need in the short term, as well as ensuring that we learn the lessons of this unique storm.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Given that we are likely to see more severe storms, and even with the lessons learned from previous storms and the mutual aid system that the Minister has referred to, is not the review going to have to look at increasing capacity—I am talking about materials, machinery, generators, spares and people—in order to be able to deal with these events more effectively so that people do not have to wait so long to have their lights and heating put back on? Who does the Minister think has the principal responsibility for ensuring that that capacity is there when storms strike?
Greg Hands
The right hon. Gentleman raises some good points, but I do not want us to prejudge the review. He has mentioned quite a few things that he thinks we were short of. I think he is saying that we were short of generators, for example. I have already said that 750 generators were deployed. Of course we need to look at whether we have the right number of generators in terms of the capacity, but I would not want to prejudge that important review and the process behind it. Let us wait and let the review run its course. We have learned some really important lessons from previous reviews, for example on setting up a dedicated phone line, the mutual support and the network of engineers from across the country. Let us not prejudge that review.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Thousands of us in communities across Cumbria have had a devastating 10 days that have been exhausting and even harrowing. I am pretty sure that all of us would agree with the calls for a public inquiry to learn the lessons. I think everyone agrees that lessons need to be learned. However, with Storm Barra approaching, those lessons need to be learned literally overnight, and those lessons are about timeliness as much as anything. Why did it take five days for the Government to come to this House and address the issue? Why did it take until the middle of last week to scramble and deploy additional generators, when that could have happened on the Saturday, eight or nine days ago, so that families were not without heat and light for so long? The relevance of the Army is that it is significant in boosting the capacity of the engineers and also in going from door to door to reach vulnerable people who had no telecoms whatsoever. They include elderly people with care needs who were tucked up in bed to try to stay safe. I want to say a massive thank you to the people in those communities who stepped up to this challenge, and to the engineers who are out there making things better overnight, but what can the Minister say to my communities about how the Government will act to make things better next time?
Greg Hands
I do not think that a public inquiry is the right course. It would inevitably take a long time. It would be better to use the established and effective review mechanism that we already have in place, and I invite the hon. Member and all right hon. and hon. Members to participate in it and give their views. I would say that NEWSAC, the mutual aid scheme, was deployed as soon it practicably could be, actually in advance of the storm coming in. I think that that has worked well. On the role of the Army, it is principally a matter for the local resilience forums to make assessments of the resources they need and then to put in that call. From my experience in Aberdeenshire on Friday, I can tell the House that, when the local resilience forum put in that call, the response was close to immediate.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you give me some guidance on the absence of the Secretary of State from this urgent question? Yesterday, he claimed to be getting a grip on this crisis, but today he has run away from answering questions in this House. The truth is that there are very serious issues here, and the Minister has had to come up with a hastily arranged “dog ate my homework” excuse in which he claims that the Secretary of State is on the phone to Northern Powergrid at the moment. He could have been on the phone before this urgent question or after it. This is an insult to the people in the north of England and an insult to this House.
Mr Speaker
It is not for me to choose who comes to the Dispatch Box. It is up to the Government to decide who they provide, and the Minister was very thorough in his long answers to questions. You have also been in government, and you were the ones who chose who stood at the Dispatch Box. I do not think the points you raise will have gone amiss. You did say that the Secretary of State was meant to be on a phone call, and it was with the Prime Minister as well. I am sure people will check to see if that is the case, as I am sure it is. If the Minister says it is the case, it must be the case.
Mr Kevan Jones
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) that it is disappointing the Secretary of State is not here to answer questions.
The Minister said he and the Secretary of State have visited affected areas. It is very strange that they visited only those with Conservative Members of Parliament. He got off the train in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), and no doubt to get to Weardale you have to travel through my constituency, but they made no effort to go anywhere but where they have a Conservative MP. I am sorry, but politicising the crisis is not right.
Greg Hands
I will deal with it head on, because not only did I take a call from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on the Friday morning but I visited and talked to individuals in the call centre, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who was informed of my visit. So we actually visited there. On Friday, I visited Ellon, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). So yes, we visited Conservative-held constituencies, but we also visited Labour and SNP-held constituencies. I urge the right hon. Member for North Durham to withdraw that allegation.
Richard Thomson
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is an important distinction to be drawn between visiting a constituency and inviting the MP to join you. I wonder how I might be able to correct the record, as the Minister said something that does not seem to be exactly in accord with how arrangements were made.
Mr Speaker
This is becoming a political decision, which I do not want it to be. What I would say to Ministers is that, when they visit an affected constituency held by whichever political party, it is good order to see the MP, and it should not look like they are visiting the constituencies of just one political party. I am sure that would never happen and I am sure it will be resolved in future.
Arthur Labinjo-Hughes
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement following the sentencing of the stepmother and father of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes on Friday.
The whole nation is distraught at Arthur’s tragic and horrific death. Across the House and across the country, we find it impossible to imagine how any adult could commit such evil acts against a child, particularly a parent or carer to whom the child looks for love and protection. I know colleagues and people outside this place are seriously troubled that Arthur was subjected to a campaign of appalling cruelty, and was murdered after concerns had been raised with local services.
I assure colleagues on both sides of the House and the public that I am as determined as they are to get to the truth, to expose what went wrong and to take any action necessary to protect children. To do so, serious questions need to be asked.
I make it clear that police officers, teachers, social workers, health workers and others go to work each day to try to make things better and to do their best at what are very difficult jobs. Those already serving our country’s most vulnerable children deserve our thanks, and I want to be extremely clear that no safeguarding professional should be the victim of abuse. The targeting of individuals is wrong and helps nobody, but that does not mean we should not seek to understand what went wrong and how we can stop it happening again.
The public deserve to know why, in this rare case, things went horrifyingly wrong and what more could be done to prevent abuse such as this from happening again. Since the horrendous deaths of Peter Connelly, Daniel Pelka and, sadly, others, the Government have established stronger multi-agency working, putting a shared and equal duty on police, councils and health in local areas to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, alongside a role for schools. I am sure hon. Members across the House will recognise that improvements have been made from previous reviews, but the question now is whether that is enough.
In order to look at issues nationally as well as locally, we established the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel in 2017 for cases such as Arthur’s. Given the enormity of this case, the range of agencies involved and the potential for its implications to be felt nationally, over the weekend I asked Annie Hudson, chair of the national panel, to work with leaders in Solihull to deliver a single, national, independent review of Arthur’s death to identify what must be learned from this terrible case.
The review will encompass local government as well as those working in the police, health and education sectors. Officials in my Department are already in close contact with the Solihull safeguarding partnership, which is grateful for the support offered and agrees that this approach is the best way to deliver comprehensive national learning and identify any gaps that need to be addressed.
Annie and her colleagues on the national panel, who come from the police, health and children’s services, have dedicated their lives and decades-long careers to bettering the lives of the most vulnerable children in our society. I have every faith that their review will be robust, vigorous and thorough. I have already assured Annie, as I assure you now, Mr Speaker, that she will be given all the support she needs to do the job properly.
The review will focus specifically on Arthur’s case and identify where improvements need to be made, but I also want to make certain we have looked at how all the relevant local agencies are working now, including how they are working together. For that reason, I have also asked Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation to lead a joint targeted area inspection. I have asked that each of these inspectorates be involved because of the range of local services that had been involved in Arthur’s and his family’s life during the preceding months.
These joint inspections are well established, but a new and ambitious approach will be used, with a sharp focus on the entry point to the child protection system across all agencies. That will mean we can truly look at where improvements are needed by all the agencies tasked with protecting children in the Solihull area, so that we can be assured that we are doing everything in our power to protect other children and prevent such evil crimes.
As part of this inspection, all the agencies tasked with protecting children at risk of abuse and neglect in Solihull will have their effectiveness considered, and be instructed on where improvements must be made in Solihull and where learnings can be applied in other areas around the country. The inspectorates met today to plan the work and the work will begin next week. I, as well as officials in my Department and across Government, could not be taking this matter more seriously. I have been working this weekend to bring everyone together to make sure the work can start immediately. Over the coming days, we will publish terms of reference and timelines for the national review and local inspection.
More widely, we are already investing heavily to help the legions of dedicated professionals on the frontline to deliver the care that we all know every child deserves. Since the spending review in 2019, there have been year-on-year real-terms increases for local government, as well as the unprecedented additional £6 billion funding provided directly to councils to support them with the immediate and longer-term impacts of covid spending pressures, including children’s social care. Yet we have also known that the care system needed bold and wide-ranging reforms, which is why we have the independent review of children’s social care happening now. I know that Josh MacAlister, who leads that review, will make recommendations on what a decisive child protection response needs to look like, given that that sits at the core of the system he is reviewing. Importantly, the review will look at how social workers, especially those with the most experience, can spend time with families and on protecting children. We all know that social workers do their best work with families, not behind a desk.
I look forward to receiving the review’s recommendations in due course. In any complex system, it is imperative to investigate thoroughly to learn and improve that system. My mantra continues to be that sunlight is the best possible disinfectant, because if we are to improve services where they need improving, we must share data and evidence.
I thank the prosecuting barrister Jonas Hankin QC, his team and the jury for their service in this troubling case. As the court heard, Arthur’s tragic death was the result of the cruelty of his father and his father’s partner. No Government anywhere in the world can legislate for evil, but we will take action wherever we can to stop this happening again, because we must do more. To do more, I end my statement with a plea to everyone in our country: anyone who sees or suspects child abuse can report their concerns to local children’s services or by contacting the Government-supported National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children helpline for adults or practitioners who are concerned about a child or young person. So if you see or suspect child abuse, report it. If you are worried about a child you know, report it. If something appears off, or you see something that troubles you, report it.
As we uncover what went wrong and what led to Arthur’s tragic death, we must also strengthen our resolve to make sure that we prevent these crimes as much as they possibly can be prevented. We must make sure that those who would do wicked acts to children face justice. We must do absolutely everything in our power to protect vulnerable young children from harrowing and evil abuse. I commend this statement to the House.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
This has been a truly horrendous case. My heart goes out to everyone who knew and loved Arthur and to all those involved in investigating and bringing to justice the depraved and wicked individuals responsible for his death. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the frontline workers right across children’s social care who work so hard to support families day in, day out.
I welcome the announcement by the Attorney General’s Office that the sentences handed down on Friday will be reviewed under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s clear determination to get to the bottom of what has happened and his action in ordering a national review and a joint targeted area inspection. It is right to put in place as soon as possible inquiries into not merely how individual agencies acted but how they acted together.
It is vital that whatever lessons can be learned from what happened and did not happen in Solihull are acted on as soon as possible. Searching questions must be asked about the way in which services operated locally, but questions must also be asked nationally—questions about how the services that should be keeping children safe are overseen and about why, tragically, cases such as this keep happening.
I know that the Secretary of State takes these issues just as seriously as I do. I very much hope he will urgently review the way in which services are inspected, challenged and improved. I ask the Secretary of State, who has not been in his post for too long, also to ensure that his own Department gets its house in order.
In 2016, the Department committed to a target, which was that by 2020
“all vulnerable children, no matter where they live, receive the same high quality of care and support, and the best outcome for every child is at the heart of every decision made.”
The then permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that this target was delayed until 2022 because the Department did not have a detailed plan in place to deliver it. The Committee found that the Department had made only limited progress in improving the quality of children’s social care services. In 2019, the permanent secretary accepted that having nearly 60% of local authorities rated lower than “good” by Ofsted for children’s social care was “terrible”. Indeed, he told the Public Accounts Committee:
“I am not able to sit in front of you and say that there will be no councils failing their Ofsted inspections in 2022. Clearly, there will be. Some schools fail, some hospitals fail and some councils fail.”
Failure should never be an acceptable outcome for any public service, and that is especially true when it comes to protecting children. For too long, this Government have tolerated failing children’s services and a failure to protect children. Vulnerable children are being failed, and that cannot go on.
The Secretary of State must now set out how he plans to tackle that culture—that failing services are acceptable in our country, acceptable for our children—in his own Department just as much as in Solihull. That is the challenge that he faces, and that is the standard by which he will be judged.
I have one final point. We have heard a lot in recent days about the unimaginable suffering that this little boy endured at the hands of two evil individuals who brought an end to his short life. I hope that we can remember also how, in better days, Arthur lived his short life. I hope that, while we do not hesitate to learn from these tragic events, we also, as far as we can, remember Arthur for who he was, not for what others did to him or for how he was let down. I hope that when we hear his name, we think first of a gentle, caring, happy child, the little boy who was remembered so movingly by so many across our country this weekend, the little boy with the beaming smile who should still be here with us today.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her words, and especially for her final few sentences about the way that we should remember Arthur, and the fact that there are family members grieving for him today.
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about making sure that we continue on the path to improvement. Having spent a good amount of time as Children and Families Minister in the Department, I think that the team has really focused on those improvements in children’s social care. The hon. Lady said that we have a long way to go. I recognise that there are challenges, but it is also worth praising the teams both in the Department and in local government up and down the country. Not that long ago, only about 37% of local authorities had a good Ofsted inspection. The one thing I would correct her on is that it is not so binary as pass and fail, because, actually, it is very much about areas of improvement in children’s social care. That 37% has now risen to 57% of local authorities that have a good inspection.[Official Report, 16 December 2021, Vol. 705, c. 5MC.] Of course, we will have to continue on that path and keep going further. None the less, I am very pleased to see her supporting the course of action that we are taking today.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Chair of the Education Committee, Robert Halfon.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I strongly endorse what the Secretary of State has set out about the review, and I also welcome the comments, particularly the moving comments at the end, of the shadow Secretary of State.
As I understand it, Arthur was not in school—he had been kept at home by his father—when this tragedy happened. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that, putting aside the 200,000 children sent home because of covid, who are known about by the school system, there are another 100,000 ghost children, as I call them, who are lost in the system. They not returned to school for the most part, and are potentially subject to safeguarding hazards—county lines gangs, online harms and, of course, awful domestic abuse.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we are not discussing these issues again in this House following a further tragedy similar to the one that we have just heard about? Will he proactively make a real effort to work with the local authorities, the schools and the regional commissioners to make sure that those 100,000 children, who are mostly not in school, are returned to school and are watched by the appropriate authorities? We must get those children back into school, otherwise we may face—I hope not—further tragedies along the way.
Nadhim Zahawi
My right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Education Committee, is absolutely right to raise this concerning issue, which is a focus for my Department; I am working closely with other Departments and agencies to work through it. He will know that we launched the See, Hear, Respond programme, which is aimed at supporting vulnerable children and young people whose usual support networks were impacted by the pandemic and national restrictions. The tragedy for Arthur is that he was never off the school register. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend’s point is a powerful one.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
It is unusual that we are here in this House with so much cross-party agreement on an issue, but the Secretary of State spoke from the heart and with a genuine desire for change, and I hope that we can be supportive of that. I join him in commending those who brought Arthur’s killers to justice, and offer my condolences and those of Scottish National party Members to Arthur’s family and loved ones.
This tragic death has affected us all. The footage of the little boy saying, “No one loves me” will remain with many of us; I think that parents hugged their own children a lot harder when they heard that. We are shocked for two reasons: first that these people exist and were put in charge of such an innocent little soul; and, secondly, that opportunities were missed that would have prevented this tragedy. The Government review is important, but if failings are found to be due to resourcing, will the Secretary of State commit to funding child protection services properly and directly? It is not enough that such services come through councils. If direct Government funding is needed, will he ensure that that happens?
The Secretary of State talked about agencies working together. How is he going to monitor how well that actually happens? There has to be cross-party working on this issue, so will the Secretary of State today assure us that he will genuinely listen to cross-party recommendations and suggestions for improvement? None of us wants to have another Arthur, Baby P or Victoria Climbié, so let us do the best of politics on this issue and ensure that no other vulnerable children are harmed.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for so generously offering cross-party support. I hope that she will remember that I always worked on a cross-party basis to co-operate and co-ordinate when I was Vaccine Deployment Minister. I hope that, through the Josh MacAlister review, we can ensure that we reach out across the House and share thoughts, as well as through the two reviews that are specific to the tragic death of young Arthur.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his engagement over the last 72 hours.
“No one loves me” and “no one is going to feed me”: those are the words that broke the heart of my town, and, it seems, of our country as well. A young lad who never had a chance; he experienced unimaginable brutality in his short life. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no stone will remain unturned and no difficult question unasked, that this investigation will proceed without fear or favour, and that at the end of it we will know clearly and publicly who failed Arthur and how he was failed? In addition, will he ensure that the investigation focuses on the clear breakdown in partnerships between the likes of social services, the police and educators? Why on earth were they not talking to each other? At the very least, we owe it to Arthur that every lesson from this horrific tragedy is learned and that no town has its heart broken like Solihull has had.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s words. The words of Arthur have, I know, torn the heart of the nation. I assure him that both reviews will be able to go wherever they need to. I hope that he agrees with me that transparency is the best disinfectant in this case. I thank and commend him for making himself available at all times when we needed to make contact and discuss with him and his office what we were planning to announce in the House.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Little Arthur’s murder has really affected those of us who have direct experience of working closely with abused children. It is a matter of record that when the Secretary of State was Children’s Minister and I was his shadow, I repeatedly warned him that pursuing this Government’s agenda of cuts, increasing bureaucracy, deregulation and privatisation of child protection would cost a child’s life. Like his predecessors, he ignored me. However, I know that the Secretary of State is a genuinely caring man, and I certainly do not have all the answers here, but will he please meet me so that we can at last work together to make sure that no other precious little life is so brutally taken again?
Nadhim Zahawi
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. I think her characterisation is slightly unfair in the sense that we work towards improving the system, and the teams both in the Department and on the frontline do tremendous work. We worked on Step Up to Social Work and Frontline, which delivered thousands of new entrants into the social care system. Since 2017 we have seen an uplift of 10% in the social care workforce, which I hope she will agree is to be commended.[Official Report, 16 December 2021, Vol. 705, c. 6MC.] But I am very happy to meet her because I know she cares passionately about this subject.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I stand with great sadness today. My constituents in Meriden who are served by Solihull Council have been devastated by the death of Arthur. My thoughts go out to those who loved him, and I pay tribute to that young boy with that beautiful smile.
I welcome the announcements of the inspection and the review today. I do not think any Member of Parliament ever wants to be standing here addressing circumstances such as this. I completely agree on the Attorney General’s review of the sentencing. I have to admit that many times over the past few days I have thought they should lock them up and throw away the key. Unfortunately we have been here before. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents that the inquiry will bring meaningful change that will protect children like Arthur in future?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s important question. I reassure him that both reviews will be thorough and will be shared with the House, but will also feed into Josh McAlister’s overall review of children’s social care. I have to say that 29 years minimum for the murderer of Arthur, and 21 years for his father, is what the court could deliver, but I know that the Attorney General has had a request to look again at the leniency of that sentence.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said earlier that he will do anything it takes to protect children, so can he assure the House that if it transpires that one of the main issues behind the horrific and cruel death of this child was not enough social workers and too much pressure on existing social workers, he will make the case to his colleagues in Government to make the right level of resources available?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s question. I thank the 34,000 social workers who, today and every day, are out protecting young people. We continue to look to bring more people into the profession; as I mentioned, there has been a 10% rise since 2017. Whatever the reviews recommend—including of course the McAlister review—that is exactly the thing that we will look to implement.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am sure the Secretary of State shares my sense of déjà vu. This tragic case reveals familiar failings raised: 12 years ago, by Lord Laming in his report into Baby P and how we need to have better joint working; 11 years ago, when we started publishing serious case reviews so that we can all learn from them; and 10 years ago, when I launched the Munro review—crucially, not as a knee-jerk reaction to a recent tragedy—to free up social workers from the bureaucracy that was keeping them from eyeballing and face-to-face time with those vulnerable families. While definitely welcoming the Government’s determination to respond urgently with a review, may I suggest that first the Secretary of State reviews why the findings of previous reviews have not been acted on or why the system has not allowed the necessary changes to happen?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He has what I would describe as institutional memory of the children’s social care system. His work as Children and Families Minister in the Department has remained invaluable. He is right to challenge us on ensuring that what we intend to implement from those reviews, including the Munro review—the Department accepted the majority of its recommendations—then happens operationally on the ground to reflect that. That is equally important, and that is why the MacAlister review is so important. It deals with the operational challenges, so that we can turn some of this stuff into reality on the ground.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the tone of his statement. As someone who once did this work, I am loth to start picking on individuals; I do understand. I want to say to him that leadership in this kind of work is very important, and I hope that some aspect of the inquiry will look at senior management appointments and the apparent senior managerial merry-go-round, which can allow someone to leave a failing department and assume an almost identical post in a neighbouring authority.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his important question. The reviews will look at all aspects of the failures in this tragic case. It is worth reminding the House that directors of children’s services work also very closely with chief execs and lead members. From my time as Children and Families Minister, I remember that it is that combination of leadership that delivers the right outcomes that we want to see, but the review will look at that as well.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a children’s doctor. Arthur’s case has shocked and saddened all of us, but as Members have already said, we have been here before with similar cases. In my career, I have seen and looked after far too many children who have been injured and hurt by those who are supposed to love them and care for them the most. I welcome the Secretary of State’s review and I hope it will successfully reduce the number of cases. I want to focus my question on justice in particular, because I have seen cases where we have identified problems, but people have been let down, either because the Crown Prosecution Service has accepted lesser pleas to avoid court cases—I remember in one case, the barrister did not know the name of the children he had come to represent in local care proceedings—or sentences have been passed that have been hideously too low for the severity of the heinous crimes committed. When the Secretary of State is doing his review, can he confirm that he will be working with the Ministry of Justice on these cases, too?
Nadhim Zahawi
I can certainly confirm that we will be working with Ministers across Government on this.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, the sentiments expressed within it and the actions he is taking. Like everyone else, I have found the details of this case harrowing, not least because Arthur was the same age as my daughter. It is just unbelievable, and my thoughts are with all those who knew and loved him. Given that we know that among the social worker workforce there is a high turnover rate, a 7.5% vacancy rate and a quarter of that workforce is due for retirement in the next 10 years, will the Secretary of State commit, whether through this review or the MacAlister review, to looking at the recruitment, retention and training of social workers? Given that their workload has gone up while there have been some £2.2 billion of cuts to social services over the past decade, will he commit to whatever resources it takes? We cannot put a price on a child’s life.
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to ensure that we continue to retain the more experienced social worker leadership, and I hope that the MacAlister review will make some operational recommendations on that. Of course, we had two successful schemes with Frontline and Step Up to Social Work, which resulted in thousands of people coming into the social care profession and the number of social workers going up by 10% since 2017. She is right that if we look at the system overall, we have far too many agency workers, which I think is her point. We want that experience and leadership to be working full time in a local authority system rather than on an agency basis.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his tone throughout. I know that he was passionate about child safeguarding as Children’s Minister and that children are in safe hands with him at the helm, so I am grateful for that.
This horrific case shows that fundamental reform of children’s social care is long overdue. Lessons learned and case reviews are not enough. Does the Secretary of State agree that the problems with children’s social care are systemic and that the challenges faced are not just about funding? Does he agree that scapegoating individuals, particularly inexperienced social workers, will not improve the care of the most vulnerable children?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we must ensure that we deliver better outcomes. We recognise that, which is why we made a manifesto pledge to have the MacAlister review. I am confident that the review will deliver recommendations that I hope we can be ambitious about and deliver rapidly.
My hon. Friend is also right that we cannot continue to have review after review. We have to learn from them and operationally implement the recommendations. I am passionate that, in complex systems, we must have thorough investigations, because that is how they are improved and made failsafe for those they protect.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
When I was the Chair of the Education Committee for 10 years, we heard about some awful tragic cases such as this. My heart goes out to little Arthur and anyone who knew him. I like the tone of the Secretary of State’s opening remarks. When the investigation about baby P—baby Peter—went on, there was a hue and cry from the popular media that some politicians joined. I still have a guilty conscience about the way that Sharon Shoesmith was hounded out of office. We have never apologised for what happened to her.
The Secretary of State will know that good children’s services and good multi-agency working are expensive. We need the resources in local government to deliver. When I was the Chair of the Select Committee, one of the most worrying things was the reluctance to square up to the fact that we should know where every child in our country is. Home schooling has put a big question mark over knowing what is happening to children in the home environment. Does he share my concern and could we have a conversation about that at a later date?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his very important question. Just to unpack a little bit of it, I think he is right to say that we need to make sure we know where every child is. There are some excellent examples of home schooling with parents who really do a great job, but that is not always the case. I know that he cares passionately about the work of children’s social services, and I hope that he will continue to care about this when he leaves this place, as he has announced he is doing. He will be sorely missed, I think, and his input will be missed.
On the hon. Member’s point about local councils, in this year’s and next year’s budgets, they have about £51.3 billion of core spending power for their services. They have had a real-terms increase for what they can do, with the £6 billion to cope with covid as well. Nevertheless, I think it is important that we do not scapegoat anyone, and he is absolutely right that we have to make sure we allow both the panel and the review to take their course and report back to this House.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I would go back a little longer than other people, and refer to the Jasmine Beckford case, as well as the Victoria Climbié case, the Baby Peter case and now that of Arthur. The one common theme throughout this whole terrible series of events is that the opportunities to take a child to safety were missed. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the message goes out to frontline children’s social workers that if they have a suspicion—a suspicion—of a child being abused, it will be thoroughly investigated, and if necessary that child will be removed to a place of safety?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is right to remind us of the cases of Beckford, Climbié and now, tragically, Arthur. I think social workers are doing a tremendous job, and I think it is important that multi-agency work—for whatever reason, and we will find out through these two reviews—missed Arthur in this case and did not take him away. The father and partner were obviously evil and manipulative, but nevertheless we have to make sure, if there is any evidence, any inkling, any iota of harm to any child, that the child is taken away immediately.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Some 300,000 children a year are affected by parental imprisonment and, as I understand it, Arthur was one of them, so what this case highlights is the lack of a statutory mechanism to identify and support such children. The moment he was put in his father’s charge—I will not say his father’s care—that identification and support should have been there. I am due to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), to discuss this on Monday, but can I urge the Secretary of State that the issue needs flagging up within the review?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I know from my time as children and families Minister that she has been campaigning on this issue and I know she is meeting the Minister for children and families on Monday, but I will certainly take a very close look at what she says and feed back to the panels.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I must declare that my sister is a social worker. No one can understand how beautiful little Arthur died at the hands of the people who were charged with caring for him. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend, and I know that he will be absolutely determined in his passion to get at exactly why this happened and the learnings we can take forward. However, does he agree with me that it is now finally time really to look at and deal with the case load that these social workers have to deal with? Some of them have excessive case loads with very complex cases. Can we finally give social workers the confidence, the safety and the time to be able to do the job that they love and get up every morning for to keep children safe?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s incredibly important question. She will, I hope, remember that, when I was children and families Minister, I was the champion of social workers, and I will continue to be the champion of social workers as Secretary of State. I am very confident about the MacAlister review—hence why it was such a priority for us for it to be in our manifesto. It is so important that we now get this right, and case loads are very much a part of that, as she quite rightly identifies.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The most important job the state must have is to protect vulnerable children, but social care faces a mounting crisis. I know the Secretary of State, and I trust entirely that he will do everything in his power to get to the bottom of what led to this terrible tragedy, but will he please at least acknowledge that the 60% cuts to local authorities in the past decade are potentially having a dramatic impact on these services?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will always go where the evidence leads. The reason why we asked Josh MacAlister to conduct the review prior to the tragic murder of this innocent young boy is that we want to make sure that we deliver a system that is fit for purpose. We have made more funding available, but it depends what the review comes back with, and I will certainly return to the Dispatch Box and go through that with colleagues to make sure that we get this right.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
May I say, as many have, what a relief it is that my right hon. Friend is at the helm on this issue? This has been a bone-chilling case. He was right in his statement to say that no Government anywhere in the world can legislate for evil, and we have seen evil in this case. We also know that hard-working professionals cannot be everywhere all the time.
Quite rightly, the campaign to end violence against women and girls has a high national profile and commands the respect of Ministers across Government. May I urge my right hon. Friend to begin such a crusade to combat neglect and violence against children, so that, as others have noted, the precautionary principle—the taking away of a child if there is a scintilla of a doubt—is at the forefront of people’s minds, the resources are available, and the law stands four-square behind them?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question and suggestion. I would certainly like to take that away, and to work on a cross-party basis to make it culturally unacceptable for children to be neglected, harmed or abused in any way.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his commitment to get to the bottom of this. I associate myself with all the remarks made by Members across the House. Like many Members, I have two young children; I hugged my six-year-old and four-year-old that little bit tighter this weekend, in just so much sadness.
I have highlighted in the House before the shortcomings in the safeguarding system, which need to be addressed, but I would also like to draw the House’s attention to young girls and young children who are in vulnerable situations and, in some cases, are not known to the authorities. I have highlighted the problem with hidden gang-associated girls, many of whom are never picked up. Will the Secretary of State ensure that all children at risk of violence and exploitation are identified and properly cared for?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her moving words about her own children; I felt exactly the same way this weekend about my nine-year-old daughter. The hon. Lady highlights a very important point. The MacAlister review is very much about making sure that we have a system that is decisive when it comes to the protection of children.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I ask him to be mindful—I know he will be—of learning the lessons from other tragic cases, particularly that of Baby P, where we saw a massive increase in referrals and in the number of children taken away from the care that they were in. We need an increase in resources for social workers in the near term to handle that increase in referrals, and I do think that a balance needs to be struck between taking children away from their parents, or the home that they are in, and making sure that they are safe. Will he ensure that he sends that message to social workers?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s important question. She is absolutely right about how social workers identify support networks for children—I have seen them do that brilliantly. Of course, if there is a scintilla of doubt in terms of any harm being caused to a child, they absolutely should be taken away. She also makes an important point about learning from previous cases and the additional work that will now be placed on the social work frontline. We are cognisant of that, and I know that the Minister for children and families is looking at how we can continue to support the frontline.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Unfortunately, we are too good at setting up reviews and blaming others. This House needs to take some responsibility. In March 2018, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) published a report with me, based on consultation with children’s charities, local government and social work professionals. It said that, after £2 billion-worth of cuts, children were at risk and could not be protected. We put forward proposals for the Budget that year, in the following year and in the following year.
We have seen a 40% cut in early interventions on children. We all get emotional about this—I was on childcare for 15 years and dealt with children who had been abused, and I never, ever want to see it again. I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s sincerity—we have worked with him and in most cases he has done a good job where he has been—so this is a message through him to the Chancellor: we need an emergency funding package for children’s services now. We cannot wait months for another review. Social workers are overworked and, actually, underpaid and disrespected. We need them to be properly funded and supported.
Nadhim Zahawi
I would respectfully say that I do not think anybody in this House would ever disrespect the social work workforce or any social worker. I also think that evidence-based strategy is important, and that is why the MacAlister review is so important. It is worth remembering that local government’s core spending is increasing by an average of 3% in real terms each year for the spending review period. So more money is going into local government, but, depending on what the MacAlister review delivers, I would certainly be the first to make the argument for properly resourcing children’s social care.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
May I, like others, thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the tone of the statement? Does he agree that the Children Act 1989, which provides the main legislative and operational underpinning of children’s social care, is perhaps in need of updating? Does he have a view about how that might happen?
Further, picking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), does he agree that it is a weakness in our local safeguarding partnership model that schools and education are not a statutory safeguarding partner?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has deep experience in the area. He is right that we need to carefully consider all possible routes to help ensure that children’s social care has the powers that it needs to protect vulnerable children like Arthur. It is important that we wait for both reviews before we look to make specific legislative improvements. We obviously need to ensure that the national panel report and the findings of the joint targeted area inspection come back. Of course, we also have the independent MacAlister review. I will not rule out legislative changes if we need to make them.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
May I also thank the Secretary of State for the tone of the statement? He keeps mentioning increases in local government core funding in the spending review period, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, that does not outstrip a decade of damage that has left a perfect storm for children’s services alongside increasing demand and ballooning case loads for social workers. There are massive pressures in the system. I ask him sincerely to go to the Chancellor, to make the case for children’s services and to get the additional resource that is so desperately needed so that no vulnerable child is failed as little Arthur was.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. Funding is one important part of the equation—absolutely—but equally important is making sure that we look at what went wrong and why, and how we will fix that operationally. People such as Martin Narey, who I was speaking to during the week, would say to the House that this is about not only funding, but making sure we have the operational competence to support children’s social care and the frontline in doing their job. Social workers tell me all the time that the best place for them is working with families, rather than dealing with all the bureaucracy that sits behind this.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I have never met a social worker who does not go to work every day to make a difference to the people they serve. I fear that, in this nation, we do not always hold social workers in the high regard that we do teachers, police officers, nurses and doctors, and that needs to change. As a former cabinet member for children’s services, I believe fully that this is about local accountability and that local councillors, whether the lead member or the leader of the council, have a role to play in keeping children safe. This is not just about the directors of children’s services and the social workers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that the Department for Education worked with the Local Government Association and other organisations in local government to ensure that cabinet members and council leaders really appreciate the role that they have to play in keeping our children safe?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question; I touched on the answer a bit earlier. She is absolutely right—I have seen really good evidence of high-performing children’s services when the chief executive and the lead member work to support the director of children’s services and the frontline, and really understand how the system works in their locality. I can reassure her that I and the Minister responsible for children and families, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), will leave no stone unturned in the work we do on this with local government.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I agree with the Secretary of State that our experienced social workers need to spend more time working with families and not be stuck behind a desk doing paperwork, but a direct consequence of more than a decade of cuts to local government is that experienced social workers have left the profession because of feeling overburdened by rising caseloads. It is also directly because of those cuts that they have to do more paperwork, and we can see that pattern emerging in 10 years of research by the British Association of Social Workers. I invite the Secretary of State to make time for a meeting with me, as an officer of the all-party group on social work, and the BASW to discuss the things that we can do to encourage the retention and recruitment of social workers, so that we can have experienced social workers working directly with families.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. I will certainly make time for that, as will the Minister responsible for children and families, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. She raises a really important point. When I held that portfolio, I remember that we had What Works in children’s social care, which was an evidence-led approach to the issue. I am very happy to look at the evidence that she and the APPG can provide, as well as to bring the team that is leading on What Works in children’s social care.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Like many others, I found myself in tears at the weekend thinking about what happened to poor little Arthur. I welcome the fact that the sentences will potentially be reviewed, but we should not get over-optimistic. At best, we might see an increase of a few years, because sentencing practice in this country falls woefully short of what most people think of as justice in cases such as this. Every person I have spoken to and everyone who has contacted me wants to see both these despicable individuals locked up for the rest of their lives. I hugely welcome the changes that we are making on premeditated child murder so that someone should expect a whole-life tariff, but does my right hon. Friend agree that any adult who murders a child should expect to spend the rest of their life in prison, regardless of whether it was premeditated?
Nadhim Zahawi
I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue, which he and I have discussed recently. Quite rightly, he reminds the House that last week the Government announced that we will amend the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to include Tony’s law, which will increase the maximum penalty for child cruelty and for causing or allowing serious physical harm to a child from 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for causing or allowing the death of a child from 14 years to life imprisonment.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the thoughtful but determined way in which he has approached this tragic situation. He mentions the need for multi-agency working. I am sure he is right about that, but might I suggest that the review looks at the possibility of placing a duty on those agencies to share information, because that seems to have been a problem in this case, and of establishing a mechanism whereby information received is properly assessed to see what further steps should be taken? As others have said, we need the resources to make a system like that work.
Nadhim Zahawi
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. Although there is a duty to work together and to share information, I want the investigation to look at how well that is working and how we can improve it. Clearly in this case it has not worked, which is why we have lost poor Arthur.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
If it takes a village to raise a child, let us not make it the case that a whole village has to raise the issue before concerns are addressed. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the review will look at outcomes rather than following rules? Let us allow multi-agency groups to be bold, make bold decisions and have the confidence that we will support them.
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend raises a fundamental issue, which is that the system needs to have the confidence and ability to safeguard, protect and build on relationships that a child may have with other family members via kinship care, if necessary, or otherwise. That comes through high-quality leadership, which is why that was so much the focus of my work when I was Minister for Children and Families. I know that the present Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, continues that work, but my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) is right that the review should look at it too.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I have 15 years of experience in children’s social care as a social worker. I thank the Secretary of State for saying that he will be a champion for social workers. The death of Arthur is absolutely tragic.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. However, it is not a new phenomenon that social workers are overworked and spend most of their time doing bureaucratic work. The Munro review, Louise Casey and Josh MacAlister have stated that social workers spend far too much time on the bureaucracy of their work instead of being with families. Social workers are overworked. What interim measures will the Secretary of State put in place now? What are the timescales for when the review will be completed?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Lady for her 15 years of service as a social worker. She is absolutely right. In the first quarter of next year, there will be a reduction in that bureaucracy; that is coming down the line even before the review.[Official Report, 16 December 2021, Vol. 705, c. 6MC.] She is also right to say that there is too much bureaucracy. I will never forget going out with a brilliant social worker in Brighton who is a phenomenon, doing incredible work with the most vulnerable young people. She said to me privately, “I know I shouldn’t be saying this to you, because you’re the Minister, but I’m not good at using some of these technologies and this bureaucracy. That’s why I’m finding it so difficult, so I’m going to retire.” That is the sort of thing that I think the MacAlister review needs to look at very thoroughly.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and his commitment to leave no stone unturned in this tragic case. In my constituency of Workington, teachers often find themselves on the frontline of social work; I put it on the record that I am the husband of a teaching assistant. Some of our secondaries are pilots for the social workers in schools project. We know that early intervention is key, so will my right hon. Friend look at rolling out the social workers in schools project to primaries across Cumbria as well?
Nadhim Zahawi
I will certainly take a good look at that pilot. In my time as the Minister for Children and Families, I saw similar projects that did tremendous work in schools with the most vulnerable children and their families.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for the tone of what he has said this afternoon.
The tragic death of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes has shocked and grieved our nation and served as a painful reminder that not nearly enough has been done to protect vulnerable children since the death of Baby P more than a decade ago. Lord Laming, who chaired the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié, has warned that 10 years of austerity measures have seriously undermined the ability of social services to protect the young people most at risk of serious harm. Does the Secretary of State agree that urgently restoring funding lost since 2010 is essential if we are to stop any other child from suffering as Arthur so tragically did?
Nadhim Zahawi
I think it important to note the £4.8 billion that local government will receive over the spending review period, but I hope the MacAlister review will give us an opportunity to look at how we can make the best use of funding operationally, and also to understand where the bureaucracy lies in order to free up the frontline and make social work an attractive profession. All that work will continue apace once we receive the review.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I want to offer my deepest condolences to little Arthur’s family and friends. As colleagues throughout the House have said today, this is a truly dreadful case.
I thank the Secretary of State for his tone and his commitment on this important issue, but I should like to hear more from him about his willingness to leave no stone unturned and do whatever it takes in exploring how we can support these vital public sector workers who need so much help and encouragement at this difficult time. Will he look into social workers’ pay, the numbers of social workers and the integration of different agencies, and will he indeed leave no stone unturned—which should include looking at his own Department?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Member, and I thank all colleagues for the input and the tone of these important exchanges.
The MacAlister review is looking at exactly those issues—how we can ensure that we deliver the best outcome, and the support that we offer the frontline. The incredible work that social workers do day in day out, week in week out, year in year out, does not receive much recognition, and sadly it only reaches the Dispatch Box when there is a tragedy like that of Daniel Pelka or, now, that of young Arthur. I want to place it on record that social workers are not on their own, that they are not forgotten, and that they will always be supported. I hope that both the review I have announced today and the MacAlister review will mean we can continue our support for the frontline to ensure that we secure the best possible outcomes for the most vulnerable children and families in our country.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Is the point of order relevant to the statement and the exchanges that have just taken place?
Ms Abbott
I believe so, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In response to my question about resources, the Secretary of State for Education implied, certainly, that he would be willing to support any recommendations on finance made by the MacAlister review. However, the Secretary of State would have known perfectly well that his Department has signed a contract with MacAlister which says that he cannot “assume” any additional Government funding, that any recommendations about funding must be matched by savings elsewhere in Government over a period, and that any recommendations must be “affordable” to Government. How can the Secretary of State assure the House that he is willing to support recommendations of extra money when the contract that his Department has signed would seem to imply that any such recommendations would not be acceptable?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Lady, but that is not actually a point of order for the Chair. Obviously, it has enabled her to put her point on record and to seek any clarification on the details of the Secretary of State’s reply to her, on which he may wish to give further information. I am sure that he has heard what she has said, and I know that if he feels he has anything further to add, he will do so.
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
I would like to start by welcoming the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) to his new position and by wishing his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), all the very best in his new role. Throughout this national effort, I have always been grateful for how we have been able to work together across the Floor of the House in a constructive manner, and I look forward to that continuing.
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the pandemic. The omicron variant is continuing to spread, here and around the world. According to the latest data, there are now 261 confirmed cases in England, 71 in Scotland and four in Wales, bringing the total number of confirmed cases across the UK to 336. This includes cases with no links to international travel, so we can conclude that there is now community transmission across multiple regions of England. Beyond our shores, confirmed omicron cases have now been reported in 52 countries, with 11 countries including Romania, Mexico and Chile all reporting their first cases this weekend.
This is a global battle and we are playing a leading role. On Friday I spoke with the director general of the World Health Organisation to share our findings so far and discuss how we can work together to tackle this common threat. We are learning more about this new variant all the time. Recent analysis from the UK Health Security Agency suggests that the window between infection and infectiousness may be shorter for the omicron variant than for the delta variant, but we do not yet have a complete picture of whether omicron causes more severe disease or how it interacts with the vaccines, so we cannot say for certain at this point whether omicron has the potential to knock us off our road to recovery.
We are leaving nothing to chance. Our strategy is to buy ourselves time and strengthen our defences while our world-leading scientists assess this new variant and what it means for our fight against covid-19. Today, I would like to update the House on some of the latest measures that we are taking. First, we are taking balanced and proportionate measures at the border to slow the incursion of the new variant from abroad. We have seen with previous new variants how strong defences at the border, combined with the capacity we have built for genomic sequencing, can give us the best possible chance of identifying and responding to new variants. This includes our travel red list, which allows us to react quickly through targeted measures when the data shows cause for concern.
Analysis from UKHSA shows that at least 21 omicron cases in England alone are linked to travel from Nigeria, and there is a strong indication that omicron is present there. Nigeria also has very strong travel links with South Africa; it is the second most popular flight destination from Johannesburg. Based on this evidence, we made the decision to add Nigeria to the travel red list, and this came into force at 4 o’clock this morning. This means that anyone who is not a UK or Irish citizen or a UK resident and who has been in Nigeria for the past 10 days will be refused entry. Those who are must isolate in a Government-approved facility for 10 days, where they will take two PCR tests. I know that there has been a spike in demand for these facilities due to the rapid expansion of the red list and that some people have experienced issues returning home. However, we are ramping up capacity as quickly as possible. We have already brought several new hotels on board in the past few days and we expect to double the number of rooms that are available this week.
When this new variant is appearing in more and more countries every day, we also need to look beyond the red list and strengthen our measures for a wider range of travellers to ensure they give us the protection we need against this potential threat. UKHSA’s finding that omicron may have a shorter window between infection and infectiousness means that pre-departure testing could have a greater role to play in identifying positive cases before travel. As a result of this new data and the greater spread of omicron across the globe, from 4 am tomorrow anyone travelling to the UK from countries that are not on the red list must also show proof of a negative PCR or lateral flow test. This applies to any traveller, whether they are vaccinated or unvaccinated, aged 12 and above. They should take a test as close as possible to their departure, but not earlier than 48 hours before.
Of course these measures will bring disruption, and they will impact on people’s plans to spend time with their loved ones, especially over the festive period, but we are taking this early action now so that we do not have to take tougher action later and so that we can take every opportunity to prevent more cases from arriving in our country.
I reinforce to hon. Members that these are temporary measures while we improve our understanding of this new variant. We will be reviewing the measures, along with the other temporary measures we have announced, and we will update the House next week. I firmly believe that whenever we put in place curbs on people’s freedoms, we must make sure they are absolutely necessary, and I assure the House that we will not keep these measures in place for a day longer than we have to.
Secondly, as well as acting to slow the incursion of the variant from abroad, we are also strengthening our vital defences here at home. Late last week we had the brilliant news that another new treatment has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency after it was found to have reduced hospitalisation and death in high-risk adults with symptomatic covid-19 by 79%.
Another defence, of course, is our vaccination programme. On Saturday we recorded almost 450,000 booster jabs in a single day, and yesterday we announced that we had hit the significant milestone of 20 million booster doses and third doses across the United Kingdom. In the past week the UK booster programme has reached more people than the adult population of Greater Manchester, and we are expanding this life-saving programme even further as part of our target of offering all adults in England a covid-19 booster jab by the end of January. To put this plan into action we will be recruiting 10,000 more paid vaccinators. We are also deploying about 350 military personnel in England this week to support the vaccine booster programme, and there are already more than 100 personnel deployed in Scotland to support their vaccination efforts.
We will have more than 1,500 pharmacy sites putting jabs into arms across England, along with new hospital hubs and new vaccination centres. We are bolstering our booster programme so that we can protect as many people as possible, strengthening our collective defences as the virus goes on the advance this winter.
One of the most dangerous aspects of covid-19 is how quickly it adapts. When the virus adapts, we must adapt, too. We cannot say for certain what omicron means for our response, but we can say that we are doing everything in our power to strengthen our national defences so we will be as prepared as possible for whatever this virus brings.
I commend this statement to the House.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State both for his kind, warm words of welcome and for advance sight of his statement. I am looking forward to our exchanges.
Last week I paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), and I do so again today. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who did a magnificent job in the shadow Health team.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South took a constructive approach to the Government’s response to the pandemic, and I intend to continue in the same vein. Covid-19 is still with us and, with new variants presenting significant challenges to our lives, livelihoods and liberties, the goal must be to ensure we can live with the virus through effective vaccines, treatments and common-sense public health measures. In that spirit, I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements and join him in his call for everyone who is eligible to come forward to get the booster jab, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition did just this morning.
Vaccination remains the greatest tool we have in our fight against the pandemic. For the Government to achieve their overall target, they need to reach 500,000 booster vaccines a day. Labour called on the Government to set that target; I believe they have, and we support it. We desperately want the booster campaign to be successful, so can the Secretary of State today update us on when he expects to hit that target of half a million booster jabs a day? I also ask when boosters will be rolled out to under-40s, and I should probably declare my interest in that question as I do so.
On the wider vaccine roll-out, hon. Members across the House will have been frustrated and concerned at reports this weekend that too many hospital beds and resources are having to be diverted to those who have chosen not to receive the vaccine. With pressures on the NHS this winter expected to reach unprecedented levels even before the emergence of omicron, what is the Secretary of State’s plan to persuade the one in five people who are eligible but not yet fully vaccinated to get the jab?
The arguments in favour of receiving the vaccine are overwhelmingly strong. It is a safe and effective tool in our defence. What research has the Secretary of State undertaken into the reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and what steps is he taking to put in place effective reassurance measures to encourage take-up, particularly among those groups that are less likely to have taken up the vaccine and are disproportionately suffering with the virus?
Can the Secretary of State update the House on the reasons for the slow progress in vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds? The initial target of offering all 12 to 15-year-olds the vaccine by October half term has been missed, with current trends suggesting some teenagers will not receive the vaccine until February. What is his plan to speed that up? We want everyone to be able to enjoy Christmas this year, but to make that happen the Government need to bring forward those common-sense measures that can limit the spread of the new variant while having a minimal impact on our lives, jobs and businesses, especially in the busy pre-Christmas trading period.
I was pleased to see the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accept Labour’s call for the reintroduction of pre-departure tests for those travelling to the UK but, given the likelihood of new variants, will the Government now introduce as a standard response to new variants overseas stronger border controls, testing and contact tracing, so that they are not again accused of locking the door after the horse has bolted? Can the Secretary of State explain why the window for pre-departure tests is 48 hours and not less? Can he act with his colleagues in Government to address the racket of soaring testing costs and poor provision of hotel quarantine accommodation?
A year ago, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies recommended ventilation support for schools. The Government’s pilot of air purifiers in schools is not due to publish its full report until October next year. Meanwhile, a primary school in Paisley has today shut for a week following a suspected omicron outbreak. In the past two weeks, the number of students missing school has increased by 62%, meaning disruption to their learning and an impact on parents as they have to stay home with their children. Children have seen their education disrupted enough, so will the Secretary of State now roll out the ventilation support needed to protect our schools?
We have one of the lowest levels of sick pay in Europe. Workers in low-paid and insecure employment who contract covid are still being put in the impossible position of choosing between going to work and feeding their family on the one hand, and staying at home and protecting our public health on the other. Will the Government finally look again at increasing and expanding sick pay?
Finally—I am sorry to have to end on this note—I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the effectiveness of the Government’s response to the pandemic and public compliance with the rules will depend on public confidence in those setting the rules. Residents in Ilford are this week being prosecuted for holding an indoor gathering of two or more people on 18 December 2020, and rightly so. Is it not time that the Government come clean about the event in Downing Street on that same day, admit they broke the rules and apologise? Or does the Secretary of State believe, as the Prime Minister appears to, that it is one rule for them and another rule for everyone else?
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the measures that I talked of in my statement. I am pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), had his booster jab today, as did, I think, the chief executive of the NHS, along with many thousands of other people.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general support for the booster programme and the importance of vaccines and for the call he has made for more people to come forward. The booster programme is steaming ahead at blistering pace: 2.6 million people across the UK were boosted last week and some 3.6 million are already booked in to get their booster—that is probably the highest number we have seen for boosters. I am confident that we are on track to meet our commitment to offer all adults across the UK a booster jab by the end of January. We are already far ahead of any other country in Europe and most certainly still will be when we achieve that by the end of January.
The hon. Gentleman was right to point to the importance of vaccination more generally, especially in respect of those people who have not yet even taken up the offer of a first vaccine jab. We estimate that around 5 million people across the UK have yet to take up the offer of a jab. Our general vaccination rate across the population—more than 88% of those over the age of 12 have had at least one jab—is one of the highest in Europe, but we need to do even more to get to that missing 12%. A huge amount of work has gone into that effort, especially in respect of communications and dealing with misleading information on vaccines, as well as improving access. In the past week, perhaps because of the concerns about the omicron variant, we have seen more and more people coming forward for vaccinations for the first time. That is of course to be welcomed, and we will continue to build on that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about responses to any potential future variants. It is reasonable to think that there will be future variants, but we will reserve judgment on them until we come across such issues. In any case, there will always be a balanced and proportional response based on what we know at the time. I do not think it would make sense to set out that response in advance.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of testing, whether using PCR or lateral flow tests. We have rightly removed more than 100 providers from the Government website in recent weeks, and some 20 were removed this weekend for showing misleading prices. We will continue to take a tough and hard line on that, because of course no one should be misled and the pricing and availability should be absolutely clear.
The hon. Gentleman asked about ventilation in schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education gave further information last week on that and the improvements being made.
On sick pay, it is important that we have rightly kept in place access from day one rather than returning to the situation before the pandemic.
In terms of rules, of course they should apply to everyone, regardless of who they are.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I strongly support the balanced and sensible way in which the Secretary of State is buying time until we find out how dangerous this new variant really is. How is he preparing the NHS for the potential worst-case scenario that we might face, particularly in respect of the 10,000 NHS beds that NHS providers think are occupied by people waiting for a social care package? Given that in the first wave many people sadly died at home from stroke and heart attacks because they did not want to go into hospital, what are we doing for emergency care? Also, on cancer care, 45,000 fewer people started cancer treatment in the first wave, so how will the Secretary of State make sure that when we switch the NHS on for omicron we do not switch other services off?
Sajid Javid
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support—he is right to talk about the importance of buying time—and for his comments about the NHS and the need to prepare. I reassure him that ever since we discovered omicron the NHS has been spending a substantial amount of time preparing.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the importance of discharges; they were important before but, where a patient is ready to be clinically discharged, they have become even more important now in the light of omicron. The recent funding that we provided for discharges—almost £500 million over this winter period—will help.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
As the Secretary of State has highlighted, we do not know about omicron’s severity, but its mutations certainly suggest a risk of increased transmissibility and possible immune escape. However, it is expected that vaccines will still provide protection—including, hopefully, against serious disease—so I echo the Secretary of State’s call for people to get vaccinated if they have not already done so.
With S-gene dropout providing an early PCR marker for omicron, can the Secretary of State clarify what proportion of labs in the UK assess the S-gene, and particularly what proportion of all the private labs providing travel testing, which are obviously critical in our defence against seeding cases into the UK?
I welcome the logical reintroduction of a pre-travel PCR, but does the Secretary of State recognise that the average incubation of covid is still five days, and does he not agree with the call from the Scottish and Welsh Governments to have a day 8 test for release?
Will the Government now hold a four-nation Cobra meeting to discuss the response and also commit to providing support for the travel sector and any other businesses that might be impacted by public restrictions going forward?
The Secretary of State described this as a global battle, and he is right, but the establishment of omicron in the UK is a stark reminder of the failure of wealthy nations to take a global response, as they promised last spring. While almost 90% of adults in the UK are doubly vaccinated, fewer than 4% in low-income countries have received at least one dose and less than a quarter of their healthcare staff are protected. The UK Government promised to deliver 100 million doses by next summer, but have so far delivered fewer than 10 million and, shamefully, destroyed 600,000 doses in August. It is estimated that the UK will be left with almost 100 million excess doses, so will this Government not accelerate their donations to COVAX?
Finally, 130 countries support the principle of waiving intellectual property rights and technological transfer to mount a global response to this pandemic, so why are the UK Government blocking the TRIPS waiver when most of these vaccines were developed with millions of pounds of public money?
Sajid Javid
First, let me thank the hon. Lady for her support for vaccination in general. Right across the UK, it is really making a difference, and I thank her for her comments on that, and especially on the importance of the booster programme.
On testing for this variant, she talked about the proxy measure, which is the S-gene dropout. There are other methods being deployed alongside that, which stop short of sequencing, but they take much longer, and the capability is not universal. Between these two proxy methods, the majority of testing centres can pick up the potential marker for omicron, but we are expanding that so that all testing centres will be able to do it very soon.
The hon. Lady talked about the restrictions. I point her to one of the important points that I made earlier, which is that the restrictions are temporary. As soon as they can be removed, we will remove them, and that is what industry and others want to see—as soon as we do not need them, we will remove them without any delay.
The UK can be proud of its commitment to vaccine donations to the developing world. We have a commitment of 100 million by June 2022. We have already delivered 22 million to COVAX and bilaterally. Another 9 million are on their way in the next couple of weeks, and we will meet our commitment.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
The early indications of omicron are that it is more transmissible, but that it potentially leads to less serious illness than other variants. I understand that that would be the normal progress of a virus. Variants will continue to appear year after year. When will the Government accept that learning to live with covid, which we all have to do, means that we will most certainly have an annual vaccine and that we cannot respond to new variants by stopping and starting sectors of our economy, which leads to businesses going under and jobs being lost?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend makes a very important set of points. She is right about what the early data suggests about transmissibility. We are certainly seeing that here in the UK, and we are also seeing it in the reports from our friends across the world.
On the severity of the variant, we should not jump to any conclusions. We just do not have enough data. Most of the data that is available at this point in time is coming from South Africa. That is where most of the world’s cases are, but it is important to remember that it has a younger population. South Africa also had the beta wave, and beta as a variant is much closer to the omicron variant. While it is quite possible that there will be a difference in clinical outcomes from infection, it is too early to jump to conclusions.
None the less, my right hon. Friend is right in her final point. Of course we must learn to live with this virus; it is not going away, as she says, for many, many years, and perhaps it will lead to annual vaccinations. We have to find ways to continue with life as normal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Colleagues will be aware that there is a further statement and quite a lot of business to get through this evening. If I am to get everybody in, I will be looking for brief questions and brief answers.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I refer the Secretary of State to the issue of third doses. I welcome the Government’s policy of giving people with compromised immune systems a third dose, and I declare my own interest in that. I ask him, though, why is there so much confusion around who is responsible for advising people with an entitlement to a third dose. There is a lot of confusion between secondary and primary care providers. Secondly, why is it not possible to go online to book an appointment for a third dose as it is to book one for a first, second or booster dose?
Sajid Javid
The reason it is not possible to go online to book a third dose is that, often, the GP will need to make a judgment on the particular individual. A lot of cases are different, and often it depends on the reason why that individual is immunosuppressed. It could be for a temporary reason. It could be a long-term issue. It also depends a lot on whether that individual has had any other recent infection. It is a clinical decision. It is right that it is made by a GP, but as soon as that decision is made by the responsible clinician, that person should of course get their third dose as soon as possible.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Many of us have constituents who were caught out when South Africa was added to the red list and are now in compulsory hotel quarantine. Given the information that my right hon. Friend gave us today, if someone has had a negative PCR before travel and a negative day 2 PCR, what is the medical rationale for retaining 10-day quarantines? Is it possible to find ways of having safe early release, so we are not using up the capacity that we have unnecessarily?
Sajid Javid
The medical rationale is around the incubation period of the virus. Most of the data that we have today is based on previous variants that we have had time to assess. With this particular variant, as my right hon. Friend will know, there has not been enough time so far, but as we learn more, we will change our policies should we need to do so.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Last week, I asked the Vaccines Minister whether the Government would allow immunocompromised people the opportunity to have antibody tests. She helpfully said that she would look into it. Has the Secretary of State discussed that with her, and what are his thoughts on antibody testing for those who do not yet know whether the vaccines work on them?
Sajid Javid
I believe that, in certain conditions, immunocompromised people can have antibody tests. It is a decision made by their clinicians. I think the hon. Lady is asking whether they can be made available more generally. We are taking expert advice on that. I want to reassure her, on more support for the immunosuppressed, that some of recent treatments that we have recently purchased and that are being authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency will also provide a much higher degree of support.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The travel sector has been devastated by two years of covid emergency. It will have met with despair new, expensive testing requirements and a collapse in confidence among people who would otherwise be booking their holidays. What will we do to help the travel sector, and when will we get to a stage where we deal with covid without having to damage such significantly important parts of our economy?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend is right to talk about the particularly acute challenge facing the travel sector. It has been hit hard not just by the measures that have been taken here at home but by the international measures that have been taken by so many countries, so it is not just about the UK-based decisions. The answer really lies in making a quick decision about omicron. She will know, as I have said, that we will update the House and hopefully have much more data on the variant by next week. Hopefully, if that data is helpful, then pressures can be eased in the travel sector. Should it be less helpful for the travel sector, the Government will have time to review what other measures they might be able to take to help.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Current Government guidance in England is that if someone has tested positive for covid, they should not have another PCR or lateral flow test for 90 days, yet the guidance for those wishing to return to the UK is that if they have recently recovered from covid and are no longer infectious, they should have a lateral flow test—apparently because it is less likely to return a positive result. This appears to be contradictory advice, so will the Secretary of State tell the House what advice he can give to UK citizens who have caught and recovered from covid abroad regarding how they can best return to the UK in time for Christmas?
Sajid Javid
UK citizens who are abroad and wish to return home should comply with the requirements, but the right hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, which I will take away and look into further.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you will find it as comforting as I did that the Prime Minister’s official spokesman this morning confirmed that the Government were confident that next week they would have more data than they currently do, and that the Government would update Parliament before the House rises for Christmas; that is very welcome. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman also reserved the right to implement measures, if necessary, during the recess. It is perfectly reasonable that the Government retain that power, but if restrictions are important enough to implement during the recess, the House should be recalled for us to debate and vote on those matters. May I have an assurance from the Secretary of State that that is what will happen?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend should be assured that there will be a further update next week, as I have also just committed to. As he says, if—and it is a big if—it were necessary for the Government to take important action during the recess, of course people would expect us to take that action. As for whether Parliament should or should not be recalled, that is something that I will take back to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Health Secretary confirm that he expects next week’s update to contain much more information about the threat that the omicron variant poses in terms of seriousness of illness, so that we can have some insight into that issue, and will he tell us if he does not expect that to be the case? Will he also comment on the fact that more than 25% of Government Members who are in the Chamber today are not wearing masks? What does that do for the compliance of people outside who are meant to wear masks on public transport and in shops?
Sajid Javid
As each day goes by, we are getting a little bit more information, but I do think that by next week we will have more information, given the samples that have arrived at Porton Down and other labs across the world. However, I will caveat that by saying that I cannot give any guarantee about how much information we will have; I am sure that there will still be many unanswered questions at that point. As for masks, our rules are clear.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I welcome the emphasis that the Secretary of State has put on vaccinations and boosters—not on locking down the economy—in his statement today. As a fellow Worcestershire MP, I wonder whether he is aware that in very rural parts of Worcestershire—for example, Tenbury Wells in west Worcestershire—it is on occasion a long way to travel to get a booster jab, and that home visits for people who have care at home can also be difficult to access. Will he suggest to the system that we put more emphasis on the rural delivery of booster jabs?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that we are massively expanding the availability of vaccines. That process has already begun in the last week or so, with more pharmacies coming on board—many in rural areas and in the heart of communities—as well as more hospital hubs and vaccination centres. We are recruiting some 10,000 paid vaccinators to help us to do just that.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Although it will still take another couple of weeks fully to understand the impact of the omicron variant, we do know that this strain of covid-19 is considerably more transmissible. As a result, I am sure that it is reasonable to expect more people to be pinged or asked to self-isolate. In the light of that, will the Government bring forward urgent reforms to increase and extend statutory sick pay so that workers are not forced into poverty as well as self-isolation?
Sajid Javid
To support people who may have the challenges to which the hon. Gentleman referred, sick pay will begin on day one. We also have the hardship fund, which can help with particular cases.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
The travel sector has been devastated by uncertainty and constantly changing rules. I welcome the Secretary of State’s saying that that these measures are temporary, but will he set out in detail the criteria on which he will decide whether they should be lifted and when?
Sajid Javid
I fully understand my right hon. Friend’s point about the impact on the travel sector; that should not be lost on anyone. We all understand why the action has been taken, but we must not forget that the sector is hugely important to the economy, and that it has been hit hard again and again. Next week’s update—the review point—will be important to provide more certainty. As I said to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), we cannot guarantee that we will have all the answers to our questions, but that information will certainly help to provide more certainty.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I have a constituent whose mother has been fast-tracked for end-of-life nursing care in a local care home. However, my constituent was told that she would not be able to visit her mother at Christmas, despite this being her last Christmas. The reason that the care home gave for suspending visits on Christmas day was to make it easier for the staff, because the covid
“testing would be too time consuming”.
That flies in the face of Government guidance, which says:
“Visits at the end of life should always be supported…in the final months and weeks of life…not just the final days or hours”.
Will the Secretary of State issue guidance to care homes, emphasising the importance of visits at Christmas, particularly for people at end of life?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I most certainly would like to help with that. I am sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent. As she says, visits at end of life should always be made available; there should be no excuses. I would be happy to look into the case that she has mentioned, if she provides me with more details. I will also check the general guidance.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Why has some of the substantial extra money for the health service not been used to expand bed and associated staff capacity in hospitals, and why were the anti-covid Nightingale hospitals not used for the pandemic to prevent the virus from spreading to the district generals?
Sajid Javid
The NHS and social care has £5.4 billion of extra funding over the second half of this financial year. A lot of that funding is being deployed to create extra capacity, especially with work on discharges between the NHS and the social care sector, because people can be clinically ready to be discharged, but the care packages have not always been easily available.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How many of those who have tested positive in the UK are ill?
Sajid Javid
The number of confirmed cases in the UK is 336. By definition, they are all infected. Some may be asymptomatic and others will be feeling ill. As far as I am aware, none of them has so far been hospitalised.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that early detection and isolation is fundamental for the new omicron strain, but does he realise that Rochdale, for example, was receiving some hundreds of PCR tests until August and that this has now been ceased? Some of the national testing centres in my constituency are also being downgraded. Will he look at this matter, because it is clearly taking us in the wrong direction?
Sajid Javid
I believe that the UKHSA is carrying out some half a million tests, approximately, a day. In the light of some of the concerns around the omicron variant, with the need for greater testing, that testing capacity is being increased.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Nigerian high commissioner to London has called the inclusion on the red list of African countries, especially Nigeria, nothing short of “travel apartheid”. Omicron is classified as a mild variant, with no deaths and no hospitalisation, unlike the delta variant, so when will the European countries that have the delta variant be added to the red list? It is time for an international approach and not a discriminatory approach.
Sajid Javid
The only way our approach discriminates is in terms of the risk of the virus. The hon. Lady will know from the information that I have shared today and the Government have shared previously that the epicentre of this variant is southern Africa at the moment. The reason Nigeria has been included is that at least 21 cases in England are clearly linked to Nigeria, but we have also taken into account further reports such as Ghana having reported 25 cases linked to Nigeria. She will also understand that some countries do not have the same ability to test or sequence, and so we, with other countries, provide them with that support. It is right that whenever we have the data, we must act to protect British public health.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
As of last week, as feared, my constituency—like many others, I am sure—is seeing Christmas events cancelled and moved online, including all manner of festive performances in schools. Local authority guidance is often what is cited. Given that last week national Government went out of their way to ask schools to go ahead with Christmas performances such as nativity plays, I am keen to understand who head teachers and other event organisers should follow—the town hall or this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Can I once again urge the need for brevity if we want to get everybody in?
Sajid Javid
I would encourage everyone to look seriously at the national Government guidance. Our guidance is clear. Even before the emergence of the new variant, we all knew that covid-19 likes the colder, darker days that winter brings. There is plenty of guidance. I would encourage people to go ahead whether with nativity plays or Christmas parties, but to continue to follow the guidance that was always there.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Recent, quite staggering, figures from the respected charity Macmillan Cancer Support show that nearly 50,000 people in the UK are still missing a cancer diagnosis compared with the pre-pandemic period. I know the Secretary of State is new to his post, but there is a whole weight of evidence, including petitions and letters from MPs. Will he commit to address the severe capacity pressures within cancer services in the imminent elective recovery plan?
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best Christmas present anyone can get this year is to go and get their booster jab?
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Will the Health Secretary update the House on whether we should expect an economic support package not just for the aviation sector but for tourism and other sectors that might be affected if further restrictions apply? Will he also say more about how we can ensure that provision of the covid vaccine, which is a global public good, can be accelerated so that countries that are at risk get the support they need? If we had acted faster, earlier, this particular variant might have been prevented. We need much more international leadership, led by our Government.
Sajid Javid
On vaccine donations, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to a similar question. In terms of transport, I also refer her to an answer I gave previously.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
My constituents Mike and Carol Parkin are paying £2,700 for the privilege of being imprisoned in a Delta hotel in Milton Keynes and my constituent David Brayshaw £3,700 for being in a 3-star hotel in downtown Hounslow. The highlight of the day is meals in boxes, with plastic cutlery, that are inedible, cold or both. Can we go back to a proper quarantine where people can go home? What they are getting is very poor value indeed.
Sajid Javid
I think my hon. Friend will understand the difference in terms of public health between a managed quarantine facility and home quarantine, but he is right to point to an important issue. Of course no one is going to enjoy being quarantined in this way—why would anyone? I think everyone understands the issues, but it is really important that the quality of care provided there is equally decent and of good quality. If my hon. Friend can share with me some of the information he has about his constituents, I would like to look into that.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
As chair of the all-party disability group, I have been hearing from people right across the United Kingdom saying that some of the individuals who have not yet been vaccinated have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. They have a fear of going to large-scale vaccination centres but do not yet have adapted vaccination regimes with specialist learning disabilities nurses who can attend to them. Could the Secretary of State assure the House that this will be taken forward and that the most clinically vulnerable will not be left behind?
Sajid Javid
It is important that there is easy access for everyone to get vaccinated. The hon. Lady has given a really good demonstration of why that is so critical for every part of our community. If it is helpful, the Vaccines Minister will be pleased to meet her, as chair of the APPG, to see what more we can do.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Vaccines are clearly our way out of this, but does the Secretary of State agree that treatments are also important, and they have come on in leaps and bounds? Sotrovimab reduces the incidence of death or hospitalisation by 80% and molnupiravir got its approval last week. Does he agree that while we are very good at R&D we are less good at rolling out these extraordinary therapeutics? Will he do everything in his power to make sure that the NHS has access to those drugs as soon as possible since they reduce considerably the problem that covid and its associates will pose in terms of mortality and serious illness?
Sajid Javid
Yes. I know my right hon. Friend speaks with experience and I agree with him absolutely.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
If we are going to have to live with covid and given the high infection rates among young children, what possible justification can there be for delaying funding to schools to improve ventilation to reduce transmission?
Sajid Javid
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary said something about the importance of ventilation last week.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Many, many of my constituents in Scunthorpe have come forward and had their jabs and boosters, and I hope my right hon. Friend will thank them, as I do. But I still speak to a very small number of particularly younger people who are sincerely worried about having the vaccine. What can he do to reassure them that it is safe and effective and that they should come forward and take the opportunity to have theirs?
Sajid Javid
It is important that we do whatever we can through using the right communication channels. It is also important that we provide the easiest access possible. For example, some of the mobile vaccination units have had a disproportionately high success rate with younger people.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Luckily, the omicron variant was picked up quite quickly in South Africa due to its genome sequencing capability; otherwise we could be in a worse position. What are the British Government doing to support international efforts to enhance genome sequencing capability across the world so that the next variant of concern is identified as quickly as possible, wherever it comes?
Sajid Javid
I think we can say that we are leading the way on this. The UK Health Security Agency has established a database that is open for all countries to access to post their data. Even the discovery of the omicron variant and its potential risks was done here in the UK.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I echo concerns about the travel and aviation sectors. This is a real blow for them. The Secretary of State will remember that back in June or July he took a decision to remove restrictions, in the face of heavy scientific advice that he needed to carry on with restrictions. That decision was the right one. Will he give an undertaking that this time round he will also face down the more conservative elements of the scientific community, do the right thing and keep the restrictions as minimal as possible?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I am happy to give that commitment to my right hon. Friend, for all the excellent reasons he gives. We were absolutely right, back at the start of the summer, to open up our country, including removing travel restrictions. That is one of the reasons, with regard to the dominant delta variant, why the UK is in a much better position than many other European countries today.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When it comes to public health compliance, consistency and clarity of message is important. The variant does not understand the difference between an indoor setting on transport or another indoor sitting, so why can the Secretary of State not ensure that all indoor sittings have the same rules applied to them?
Sajid Javid
I believe that the response we have had is balanced and proportionate.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is no longer in her place, has already confirmed and reminded the House that the normal evolution of a virus is to increase in transmissibility, but reduce in pathogenicity over time. The Secretary of State has already informed the House that none of the 336 cases of omicron confirmed in the UK has yet resulted in hospitalisation. Does he agree that that is tremendously good news and that we should look forward next week to hopefully having all restrictions lifted?
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Several of my constituents have met difficulties in booking hotel quarantine for their return from South Africa due to problems with Corporate Travel Management being unable to verify certain card payments or with getting bookings, despite the website showing availability. As a result, they have missed flights and had to book others in their stead, which have had to be paid for. Will the Minister therefore commit to reimbursing such constituents for the failures of the system?
Sajid Javid
I am not aware of the details of the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but a variety of credit cards and payment systems can be used. If he believes there has been a failure of the system, I would be happy to take a closer look at that.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what he is doing to promote the availability of the vaccine damage payment scheme, and does he recognise that that could be a good counter against vaccine hesitancy? When, however, will the scheme be made fit for purpose?
Sajid Javid
We are reviewing that scheme, for reasons that my hon. Friend has brought up in the past in the House. I agree that it is important to have confidence in vaccines, and that scheme has a role to play.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Throughout this pandemic, while we have all made sacrifices, we have been watching those imposing the rules repeatedly breaking them. The final straw is that last Christmas, as families spent time apart and their loved ones died alone, No. 10 was in full party mode. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that the upcoming covid inquiry will include a thorough examination of any misconduct in public office?
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
For what reason is the Department of Health and Social Care making an announcement on extensions to the red list, rather than the Department for Transport, as has been the case previously?
Sajid Javid
Departments across Government work together on the pandemic, and that means that my Department works very closely with the Department for Transport.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Not all, but most Members of this House and the general public would support the Secretary of State when he says that he has to impose further curbs on people’s freedoms, but does he not accept that people would perhaps be a bit more enthusiastic if when he comes back to the Dispatch Box, he fesses up, accepts that there was a knees-up in No. 10 last year when people were dying without family members there present with them, and apologises on behalf of the Prime Minister?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I have a constituent who is stuck in South Africa and due to come back on Thursday. He has been given a medical exemption from hotel quarantine, so he has to have managed quarantine at home for 10 days, but there is a problem with Corporate Travel Management, because it will not let him book his PCR test for day two and day eight unless he also books a hotel quarantine package. Will the Secretary of State help to unblock the problem with Corporate Travel Management?
Sajid Javid
Yes, there are in certain cases, as my hon. Friend points out, medical exemptions to the hotel quarantine system. The problem that he points out should not be happening, so I will be happy to look at that case with some urgency.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I very much welcome the measures taken to accelerate the booster programme. Will my right hon. Friend look at what more can be done to support our excellent vaccinators and volunteers in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire to fully roll out as quickly as possible the increased capacity of vaccinations that we need to see?
Sajid Javid
Yes, there has been an excellent roll-out of the vaccine throughout Staffordshire. Alongside the rest of the UK, there is going to be a real step-up in the number of vaccination access points available.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Different variants will keep coming at us in the years ahead. In that regard, I heard a very eminent physician on Radio 4 saying that one area of concern was our reaction to the new variants. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House and the country that we are absolutely on the ball when it comes to a new variant appearing and are ready to do all that is needed to keep us safe and safeguard our liberties?
Sajid Javid
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. When it comes to genome sequencing, which is crucial to identifying new variants and any of the risks they may or may not bring, the UK is second only to the United States in our capability.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Many of my constituents have been in touch to express concern that they cannot register the vaccination status of 12 to 15-year-olds on the NHS app. Can my right hon. Friend provide an update on when they will be able to do that?
Sajid Javid
Yes. That facility may not be in the app—it may be through a letter or a process—but it will still provide what is needed in terms of travel for that age group. That hopefully will start next week.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I fully understand that my right hon. Friend is treading water until we know more about the omicron variant, its response to the vaccines and its virulence, but can I press him on the nature of any likely Government response if those answers are poor? We know what lockdowns mean: damage to youngsters, damage to businesses, damage to lives and damage to liberties—not least the £400 billion while we waited for the vaccine and got it rolled out over a seven-month cycle. Can he please assure me that under no circumstance will we do the same all over again and hope for a different outcome? He knows as well as I that there will be yet another variant some time down the line.
Sajid Javid
I do not want to pre-judge the review, but I know that my hon. Friend would agree that our best form of defence is our vaccine programme, and the fact that we are doing better than any other country in Europe in our booster programme gives us a really strong level of defence.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Over 90% of the people getting the most serious care for covid are unvaccinated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if people are not getting a vaccine without good reason, they do not just endanger themselves, but put a strain on the NHS that it does not need when trying to treat people for other conditions?
Sajid Javid
I agree with my hon. Friend. Taking a vaccine should be a positive decision. With the exception of NHS settings or social care settings, no one should be forced to take a vaccine, but people who have not yet taken a vaccine should know, as my hon. Friend said, that they are not only endangering themselves, but wider society. That hospital place that they might take perhaps would have been taken by someone else with a different illness. I urge them to please think of others.
Ten-Year Drugs Strategy
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s new 10-year strategy for addressing illicit drug use, which has been published today.
Illegal drugs inflict devastation on a horrifying scale. The impact on individuals, families and neighbourhoods is profound. The cost to society is colossal—running to nearly £20 billion a year in England alone—but the greatest tragedy is the human cost. Drugs drive nearly half of all homicides, and a similar proportion of crimes such as robbery, burglary and theft. More people die every year as a result of illegal drug use than from all knife crime and road traffic accidents combined. The county lines drug dealing model fuels violence and exploitation. The need for action could not be clearer. Today, we are setting out how we will turn that around. Our new strategy “From harm to hope” is a blueprint for driving drugs out of our cities, towns and villages, and for ensuring that those affected get the help that they so badly need.
In February 2019, the Government commissioned Professor Dame Carol Black to conduct an independent review of the issues and challenges relating to drug misuse. In July, Dame Carol published the second part of her review. Both parts together formed a call to action. We accept all Dame Carol’s key recommendations, and this strategy sets out our response in full.
The task of gripping the issue cannot be undertaken by any one Department alone. A collective effort is required, which is why we have developed a whole-system approach, with a focus on three strategic priorities: first, breaking drug supply chains; secondly, delivering a world-class treatment and recovery system; and thirdly, achieving a significant reduction in demand for illegal drugs over the next generation. It is a truly whole-of-Government effort that takes in contributions from a number of my ministerial colleagues. I thank Dame Carol Black for her thorough reviews and championing of this important agenda.
I am pleased to tell the House that our strategy is accompanied by nearly £900 million of dedicated funding. That record level of investment will bring our total spending on drug enforcement, treatment and recovery to more than £3 billion over the next three years. That is unprecedented and a clear signal of our commitment, and that of the Prime Minister, to addressing the challenges.
Using that funding, we will mount a relentless and uncompromising campaign against the violent and exploitative illegal drug market. That will include: further action to prevent drugs from entering the country; the disruption of criminal gangs responsible for drug trafficking and supply; a zero-tolerance approach to drugs in prisons; and a continued focus on rolling up county lines, building on the success of our efforts to date.
The county lines phenomenon is one of the most pernicious forms of criminality to emerge in recent years, which is why we ramped up activity to dismantle the business model behind that threat. Since that programme was launched just over two years ago, we have seen the closure of more than 1,500 county lines, with over 7,400 arrests. Importantly, more than 4,000 vulnerable, often young, people have been rescued and safeguarded. Those results speak for themselves, but we will not stop there. By investing £300 million in throttling the drugs supply chain over the next three years, we will take a significant stride towards delivering the objectives of our beating crime plan and levelling-up agenda.
Tough enforcement action must be coupled with a renewed focus on breaking the cycle of drug addiction, which is why we are investing an additional £780 million in creating a world-class treatment and recovery system. That is the largest ever single increase in treatment and recovery investment, and the public will expect to see results—and so do we.
The strategy sets out how the whole-of-Government mission aims to significantly increase the numbers of drug and alcohol treatment places, and people in long-term recovery from substance addiction, to reverse the upward trend in drug-related deaths, and to bolster the crime prevention effort by reducing levels of offending associated with drug dependency. To achieve that, we are setting out a clear stance today that addiction is a chronic condition and that when someone has been drawn into drug dependency, they should be supported to recover. Of the £780 million, £530 million will be spent on enhancing drug treatment services, while £120 million will be used to increase the number of offenders and ex-offenders who are engaged in the treatment that they need to turn their lives around.
Treatment services are just one part of the support that people need to sustain a meaningful recovery, so we are investing a further £68 million for treatment and additional support for people with a housing need and £29 million for specialised employment support for people who have experienced drug addiction. That enhanced spending on drug treatment and recovery will also help to drive down crime by cutting levels of drug-related offending.
The harms caused by drug misuse are not distributed evenly across the country. Although our strategy is designed to deliver for the country as a whole, it is right that we target our investment so that the areas with the highest levels of drug use and drug-related deaths and crime are prioritised. That will be a key step in levelling up such areas and supporting them to prosper.
Local partners working together on our long-term ambitions will be key to the strategy’s success and we will develop a new set of local and national measures of progress against our key strategic aims, with clear accountability at national and local levels. We will also continue to work closely with our partners in the devolved Administrations to embed collaboration, share good practice and strengthen our evidence base in this UK-wide challenge.
The new strategy sets out our immediate priorities while also highlighting our longer-term goals. We want to see a generational shift in our society’s attitude towards drugs, which means reducing the demand for illegal drugs and being utterly unequivocal about the swift and certain consequences that individuals will face if they choose to take drugs as part of their lifestyle. We will improve our methods for identifying those drugs users and roll out a system of tougher penalties that they must face.
Unlawful possession of drugs is a crime and we need to be clear that those who break the law should face consequences for their actions. That is why our commitment includes going even further in this mission with a White Paper next year to ensure that the penalties for recreational use are tougher and have a clear and increasing impact. Those penalties must be meaningful for the individual, which is why we are considering options such as increased powers to fine individuals, requirements to attend drug awareness courses, and other reporting requirements and restrictions on their movement, including—possibly—the confiscation of passports and driving licences.
Alongside that, our strategy commits to research, innovation and building a world-leading evidence base to achieve a once-in-a-generation shift in attitudes and behaviours. A new £5-million cross-Government innovation fund and a new research fund will start that decade-long journey. That will include a review by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on how best to prevent vulnerable people from falling into drug use. A national drugs summit will be also held in spring next year to bring together experts, educators, businesses, law enforcement and Government to discuss the issue.
Preventing drug use is always a better route than dealing with the consequences of harms. The strategy also sets out our commitment to evaluating mandatory relationships, sex and health education in schools, and to supporting young people and families most at risk of substance misuse. The new strategy marks the start of a journey and we will publish annual reports to track progress against the ambitions contained in it.
Illegal drugs are the cause of untold misery across our society. The Government will not stand by while lives are being destroyed. This is about reducing crime, levelling up our country and, fundamentally, saving lives. Our new strategy sets out how we will turn the tide on drug misuse, and I commend this statement to the House.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Over the last 20 years, we have seen a stark pattern of class A drug use. Between 1996 and 2011, the use of class A drugs was on a downward trend year on year. Since 2011, the use of class A drugs has increased every year. Drug deaths are at an all-time high and we have seen the emergence of increasingly violent and exploitative gangs that use technology that is way ahead of the Government to groom kids and sell them drugs.
The question Dame Carol Black answered in her review on drugs was why that has happened, and her conclusions were damning. We have gone backwards over the last 10 years, with drug abuse up and drug treatment down. She said that
“drug misuse is at tragically destructive levels in this country…Funding cuts have left treatment and recovery services on their knees. Commissioning has been fragmented, with little accountability …partnerships…have deteriorated. The workforce is depleted…and demoralised.”
I could go on.
There has never been a greater need for a 10-year plan to try to undo the 10 years of damage caused by Conservative Governments. In his statement, the Minister talked of ambitious plans, but what is missing is any recognition that the policies followed by Conservative Governments over the last 11 years have caused such damage. The truth is that the Government have dropped the ball on drugs and on crime.
I have been going round the country over the last few weeks and I have seen the damage that has been done. Communities of good people with hopes and dreams have been invaded by serious organised crime that trashes our streets and preys on our young by offering false hope of money and a future. There are two-for-one deals on Insta: “Introduce a friend and get your drugs half price. You help us, we’ll help you.” Thousands of children at risk of abuse are taking a punt on their futures at the hands of thugs, and whole communities are having to deal with antisocial behaviour and the crime that follows drug addiction. This is Tory Britain.
I will not join the Prime Minister’s fanfare about the biggest investment in a generation, because this Government have overseen the biggest failures of a generation; and I mourn the loss of life. Instead, today I hope that the Government mean what they say, and want to welcome the strategy—at last—and ask some questions of the Minister.
I welcome the funding, the commitment to 54,000 new treatment places, the closure of the 2,000 lines we hope to close and the ambition to save 1,000 lives, but will neighbourhood policing be brought back to the levels we saw in 2010—so crucial for catching those who sell drugs in our communities—because we know that only 400 of the first tranche of 6,000 officers are in frontline roles? Will the 50% of police community support officers we have lost be replaced?
Can the Minister explain why he is not funding treatment to the level that Dame Carol Black has called for? We count a shortfall of over £200 million. Will the Minister look at the new offence of child criminal exploitation, accept Labour’s suggestion of putting modern slavery offenders on a register similar to the sex offenders register, and look again at all the amendments we have tabled to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to impose longer sentences for adults who involve children in criminal enterprise?
While this Government have dithered on drugs, those selling and producing them have been working hard. They have new, exploitative ways of pushing their products around the country, and they have chilling ways of advertising them online to our children. A shocking 58% of 18-year-olds reported seeing drugs being sold online, often via Instagram and Snapchat.
Can the Minister confirm that the statistic that the Government have shut down over 1,500 deal lines actually means they have taken or shut down an individual phone or phone number, not that they have necessarily caught the groomers and the exploiters? Most criminal gangs will keep copies of their customer list that can be sold for thousands of pounds. I have heard the police talk about using an order to force a communications provider to disconnect a device or phone number, and the line was back up in an hour. How many actual networks have been shut down?
What is the Minister doing to recruit more analysts? What is he doing to work with social media companies, which should not allow the sale of drugs on their networks, to get ahead of the criminals online? How are the telecommunication companies involved in his plan?
Finally, prosecutions for drug offences are down 36% since 2010 and convictions down 43%. This is alongside an overall drop in prosecutions since 2010—down 40%. Why has this happened, and what is the Minister doing about that? All around this country, people know what impact drugs are having on our communities and they want something done about it. This statement and this drugs plan, however the Minister presents them, are not about levelling up; they are compensation for cuts over the last decade, for lives lost and for communities that have had to bear the brunt of the Government’s complacency on drugs.
Kit Malthouse
I am afraid that, while I obviously welcome some of the hon. Lady’s pleasure at what we are doing in the plan and I recognise, as she does, the need for some action, these exchanges between us have a slightly tiresome pattern, if I may say so, which is that I announce some new initiative and the hon. Lady starts talking about the events of 12 years ago, somehow implying that we are not really doing anything at all. Even if I accepted her premise about the pattern over the last 10 years—which, for the record, I do not—it would be refreshing, would it not, if she and her party were willing to accept some culpability for the financial situation that we inherited well over a decade ago. Somebody had to sort out the finances of this country, as we had to in 1979 as well, and if we had not done that and sorted out the money side of it then, I hesitate to imagine what financial situation we would be in now.
While the hon. Lady points to the pattern of consumption, she strangely seems to forget that drug consumption now is well below the level it was in many of the years of the previous Labour Government. In fact, consumption of class A did not really start to turn in this country till about 2014, not 2011, as she pointed out. That was because the industry, as it were, or the business of drug distribution reacted as any business would: it found different products and new ways to distribute, made products cheaper and stronger, and started to exploit people in a way we had not seen before.
We commissioned Dame Carol Black to do this study. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who has just left the Chamber, commissioned it when he was the Home Secretary, because we recognised the alarm being caused in neighbourhoods, towns, cities and villages across the country, and we wanted to do something about it. That plan has now resulted in our strategy that we are publishing today, and we firmly believe it will make a big difference over the next decade.
The hon. Lady should not imagine—and I slightly take umbrage at her accusation—that we have sat on our hands more recently. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, over the last two years that I have been in this job, I have dedicated myself to the Prime Minister’s command that we should roll up county lines. We have closed 1,500 deal lines, which has resulted in 7,400 arrests and, importantly, over 4,000 young people have been rescued from the clutches of those gangs. [Interruption.] I hope she, and her colleagues muttering at me, will welcome those results and, frankly, congratulate the police on manufacturing a modus operandi of dealing with these gangs that is often dismantling them permanently.
The three big exporting forces of London, West Midlands and Merseyside have seen significant investment by the Government over the last two years to deal with this problem, and as a result, we have seen big falls. If we look at a county like Norfolk, only 18 months ago it had well over 100 county lines, and the number of county lines in that county can be counted on the fingers of two hands. There have been great results across the country, and I am disappointed that the hon. Lady has not recognised that. So the idea that somehow there was some dithering on drugs is completely unfair. We have closed down a large number of deal lines, but there is still a long way to go. We think we are down to about 600 active lines now across the country, and that over the next two years, with the investment we have put in place, we will be able to drive them down even further.
The hon. Lady did ask an interesting question about the role of telecommunications companies and the use of technology. One of the things we have learned over the last two or three years is that these businesses, as it were, of distributing drugs are uniquely vulnerable because of their use of telecoms to distribute, market and communicate with their customers. We will be talking to telecommunications companies about how they can help us.
On the hon. Lady’s final accusation that this is not about levelling up, we know that the impact of drugs has been disproportionate across the country. The north-east, for example, suffers much more than any other part of England. Again, Blackpool, where we have put a Project ADDER and where we are doing significant work, has the highest number of drug deaths in England. There is a disproportionality out there, and we are determined to address it. We will start our work in those kinds of areas, and that will be a key part of our levelling-up agenda in the years to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. If everybody could resume their seats. As you can see, there is a lot of interest in this. We still have three other bits of business following this so, please, no statements—just ask questions, so I can get in as many people as I possibly can.
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend on his statement and on the drugs strategy that he and I worked on together? In particular, I commend Dame Carol Black’s recommendations 17 to 19 relating to the Ministry of Justice—on the treatment of prisoners in custody, arrangements for release and, indeed, the issue of a co-ordinator role in the probation service to join up those vital support services. Will he make sure that those provisions in particular are carried out as soon as possible?
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. and learned Friend was pivotal in the development and thinking around the plan, particularly from a Ministry of Justice point of view, and I am very grateful that he was, given his wide experience. He is quite right that while we can put in place high-quality treatment, it needs to be consistent across the country, particularly for those leaving the secure estate, but it also needs to be part of a jigsaw of recovery that includes housing and employment. The argument he used to make is that for success we need three pillars—a job, a house and a friend—and for a drug addict, that friend can often be a therapist, and we believe the same.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and his letter, and of course we all desperately want to see the consumption of drugs and the devastation he referred to tackled urgently. Aspects of the strategy are welcome, including acceptance of Dame Carol Black’s recommendations—I think he said “all”, but perhaps he could clarify that—as well as funding for treatment, including harm reduction; more use of diversion from prosecution; work to tackle organised crime; and a commitment to collaboration with the devolved Governments.
However, I do not think the Minister will be shocked that I want to push him again on the need for overdose prevention facilities. I appreciate that he does not share my keenness for them, but given there is strong evidence from other countries that they help to reduce harm significantly, surely there must now be some trials conducted in the UK to confirm whether they can help here, too. That would be exactly strengthening the evidence base he has referred to a couple of times in his statement. Can I also push him on drugs checking facilities and on the regulation of pill presses? What are the implications of his strategy for these policies, because as far as I can see, it is silent on them?
If the Minister cannot answer those questions positively, then what really is different about this strategy compared with the other six that have been produced in the last quarter of a century? Is he not at risk of recycling the failed war on drugs in relentlessly ramping up punishment when the Home Office’s own research shows that that does not work? Is the UK not at risk of being left behind by the evidence-led public health approaches being followed by many other countries across Europe, north America and further afield?
Finally, the Minister may be aware of the campaign to tackle stigma launched today by the Scottish Government, recognising that people struggling with a drug problem should get support and treatment like those with other health conditions. Will he agree that tackling such stigma is vital in order to encourage people to seek the help that they need?
Kit Malthouse
I obviously recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concern in this area, given the scale of the problem in Scotland, which is by far and away the worst in the western world. I know that the party of which he is a member, and the Government in place in Scotland, have relatively recently made a similar investment along the same lines in health treatment.
On drug consumption rooms, I have always said that my mind is open to the evidence, and I am in correspondence with my counterpart, the drugs Minister in the Scottish Government, about what that evidence might be. As far as I can see thus far, it is patchy. It is very hard to divine the difference between an overall health approach on drug consumption and the specific impact of a drug consumption room. However, we continue to be in dialogue with the Scottish Government, as we are on pill presses and, indeed, on drug checking. My commitment to the drugs Minister in Scotland was to continue that dialogue and see what we could do.
On overdose prevention centres, at the moment, under current legislation, we believe there are a number of offences that would be committed in the running of one of those rooms, and that is a legislative obstacle to their running. In the end, though, the biggest impact we have seen in all parts of the world that have been successful in this area has been from a widespread investment in health and rehabilitation. I hope that the Scottish Government will support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, who has been very concerned about this issue and has been driving a campaign forward in the Scottish Parliament.
On stigma, I am afraid I do not necessarily agree. While we want to work closely to make sure that those who are addicted to class A drugs get the treatment they need, we need to be careful not to send confusing signals to those people who otherwise indulge in class A drugs and drive a huge amount of trade but do not regard themselves as addicted. I will be interested to see what the progress is in Scotland.
The key thing in all the home nations is that, as we roll out our various policies, we learn from each other. My pledge is that I will continue the home nations summits, which I have been holding regularly, most recently a couple of months ago in Belfast, to make sure that we do exactly that.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I think this new long-term strategy looks excellent. It is a thoughtful piece of work, it is funded, and I think it strikes the right balance between head and heart, so well done to the Government. Chapter 3 deals with support for families and mentions “family-based” treatment, particularly where
“parents are themselves dependent on drugs or alcohol.”
Could the Minister expand on that a little? Is that through the new family hubs that were announced in the Budget? Is it through local authorities? Will he just say a bit more about that, please?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words of encouragement. It has been an enormous effort across the whole of Government to put this plan together. I congratulate my team, and I thank my fellow Ministers who have worked on putting it in place. My hon. Friend is quite right that we need to focus very much on drugs in the home. The funding that is put in place, although it is routed through the Department of Health and Social Care, will go to local authorities, which will then be able to design their own services locally to fit their own requirements and demographic. Some of that might be in the home, some of it might be residential, and some of it might be on an out-patient basis. We do not want to be prescriptive at this stage, but this will be channelled through local authorities, which can design services appropriately.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome the measures set out in the Government’s new strategy and the funding that goes with it. I particularly welcome the emphasis on disrupting supplies and dealing with those who already have addiction problems. One piece of the jigsaw that seems to be missing, although I may have missed it, is targeting of so-called drug barons and the extent to which money laundering is going on in this country, always through legitimate businesses and increasingly, I think, through some private landlords. Will the Minister say a word about how the Government intend to tackle that specific problem?
Kit Malthouse
The right hon. Gentleman puts his finger on one of the key issues. One of the issues that I have discussed with the police is that when we arrest people, they ought to be high-quality arrests of people who have unique skills, so that when they are taken out of circulation, specific damage is done to the business of drugs. I have likened it, in this festive season, to that Christmas cracker joke: “How do you kill a circus? Go for the juggler.” We need to make sure in each of these groups that the juggler is dealt with on a systemic basis, but key to doing that is following the money.
The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that, with the Minister for Security and Borders, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is here on the Front Bench and leads on economic crime, we have an operation under way with the National Crime Agency called Project Plutus, which is about both intercepting that money and, critically, learning about the flows of money, within the UK—whether that is into property assets or elsewhere—and internationally. If we can cut the money flow, then the business itself becomes pointless and hopefully it will disappear.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I strongly welcome the Minister’s plan and intent, and I wish him every success with it. On that money point, will he make it clear to the people making these big profits that the state will pursue them to take the money back?
Kit Malthouse
We absolutely will, and our plan contains an ambition to significantly increase the denial of assets to the criminal fraternity. We know that this business, if it is a business—a horrible business—is prosecuted for profit. It is all about the money, so if we can make it a low-return, high-risk business, we will deter a lot of people from getting involved.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I welcome the focus in the strategy on treatment and recovery; £780 million is a significant investment, and I commend the Government for that. On supply and demand, I fear we are being offered an enhanced version of the same general approach that has failed for the last 50 years, and I am sad to say that it will fail for the next 10 years. On drug consumption rooms, the Minister said that the evidence is “patchy”. Surely, then, this is the time for some proper trials and pilots so that we can get the evidence. There is a lot of talk in the strategy about evidence; surely the Government have a duty now to allow some of those trials to get the evidence that these drug consumption rooms—I prefer to call them overdose prevention centres—can save lives.
Kit Malthouse
As I say, I think there is a big difference with this plan, which is that on the supply side we are very much coming at this from an economic point of view. We have done an enormous amount of work to examine the nature of the business. We are not necessarily looking at the individuals involved, who very often are replaced if they are arrested—sometimes within hours—but fundamentally at the structure of the business, and interfering with it in a way that means it does not reoccur, using the method of distribution and communication against the business to make sure that we stamp it out. We are showing success across the country, particularly on county lines.
On drug consumption rooms, as I say, we remain open to evidence. We are looking at the evidence that has been presented by the Scottish Government, and we will respond to the Minister there shortly. However, as I say, even if that evidence was compelling—I am not convinced that it is at the moment—there are legislative obstacles that mean that we have no option for the moment but to focus on health investment and making sure that we ramp up treatment and rehabilitation, which we have seen have effect across the world.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I welcome the commitment in the strategy to building a world-leading evidence base, and the funding of it, with a cross-Government innovation fund to test and learn. Given our desire to become world leaders in this space, will the Minister confirm that that evidence will include international examples and evidence?
Kit Malthouse
I am more than happy to confirm that we will look anywhere in the world where there are good ideas that are having impact and effect, but the evidence has to be properly evaluated, properly peer reviewed and scientifically proven, because we are dealing with people’s lives here. Across the world, we have seen unintended consequences from measures taken on narcotics, which we do not want to repeat. I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this area and that he is very well informed. I hope that, over the months and years to come, we can communicate regularly on this issue.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister will know that many women end up in the criminal justice system because of substance misuse and addiction, and often exploitation. Can he say how the drugs strategy that the Government have announced today will link to whole-system approaches to women’s offending, such as we have applied successfully in Greater Manchester to roll out a programme of support that enables women to desist or avoid entering the criminal justice system?
Kit Malthouse
First, all those in the secure estate who have a drug dependency or drug problem will receive a treatment place. We have made the commitment that 100% will be covered, and that obviously includes female offenders. On top of that, we want to ensure that as they exit the secure estate and rejoin society, they can also access high-quality treatment places configured to their own requirements, demographics and geography. It will be down to local partners to design those services off the back of the funding that we are providing. Our only ask is for a rigorous evaluation and results framework in each area of the country to show that the money we are investing has the desired impact.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Sobriety tags—wearable devices that monitor alcohol consumption in offenders—were trialled first in Lincolnshire and have been rolled out due to their success in preventing 90% of people from consuming alcohol while wearing them. Could such an approach be useful for those taking drugs?
Kit Malthouse
I congratulate my hon. Friend on an extremely good question, and a very topical one. She will be pleased to hear that this morning I met the Korean ambassador and that country’s superintendent of police, with whom we do an awful lot of work, not least on international money flows. I raised in particular my interest in the research and invention by a Korean research institute of a drugs tag—a wearable device that detects drug consumption in somebody’s sweat. We are very interested in the technology and have a fund that we can invest in such technological developments. She is right that, on sobriety ankle tags, we are seeing 97% compliance, and we think that there is a role for such checking in drugs.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. I know and the Minister knows—we all know—that penalising drug users does not save lives, and the uncoordinated criminal justice system that we suffer makes a bad situation worse in Wales, where drug deaths have increased by 78% in the last 10 years. The devolution of justice to Wales would allow a whole-system approach to offender rehabilitation. If that is good enough for London and for Manchester, when will it be good enough for those families who presently have to grieve in Wales?
Kit Malthouse
I am afraid that the devolution of justice in Wales would not achieve the right hon. Lady’s suggested objectives, not least because the drug supply lines into Wales run from forces in England—from Liverpool, the west midlands and London. A co-ordinated approach to the problem is required from a policing point of view, making sure that we enforce consistently across the country where we can. My view is that enforcement in Scotland, for example, is held back by that lack of co-ordination. We would like to try to improve it. We need to work more closely together, but we cannot pretend that this problem affects the home nations separately. We must work together.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s 10-year strategy to fight the evil that is the drugs industry. I particularly welcome the emphasis on holding professional classes to account for their actions. They may want to buy their Fairtrade coffee and go to the farmers’ market to buy organic food, but perhaps they should spend more time thinking about the cocaine that they buy for their weekend parties, because that fuels county lines, which is possibly the worst grooming and safeguarding concern for our young people. Does he agree that we must treat the drug barons involved in county lines as predators who are using and grooming children? Perhaps we should look to put them on the sex offenders’ register and ensure that they are held to account for their crimes against children.
Kit Malthouse
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. She represents what is sadly one of the drug epicentres of the country in central London, and she is right that much of the drug abuse, violence and degradation is driven by casual, thoughtless use by people who do not regard themselves as addicted but who are nevertheless complicit in the violence. In spring next year, we hope to publish a White Paper with a structure of escalating impositions on such individuals, which means that we will be as likely to see a drugs operation outside Lancaster Gate or Bayswater tube station or in Belgravia as in other parts of the capital to ensure that we get among those people. She is right that we must focus very much on those drug barons and put them behind bars if we possibly can.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). We do need to clamp down on those barons who exploit our young people. That includes those who exploit young girls—they often do not get talked about in the whole issue of county lines—who are criminally exploited, gang-raped and sexually assaulted by drug barons; they used them even during lockdown to push drugs up and down the country.
Will the Minister outline how he will help not just the Metropolitan police but forces across the country to get the technology and investment they need to deal with this issue? The drug barons get smarter every day—it is not just about burner phones; they adapt their business models day in, day out and are always one step ahead—so the police need resources now.
Kit Malthouse
I agree with both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). Of the £300 million that we will be spending, £145 million will be on enhancing and turbocharging our effort against county lines.
Both hon. Members made a good point about the pernicious nature of the exploitation perpetrated by these drug dealers on young people. I hope that they will both be interested to know that police forces have brought successful prosecutions on the grounds of modern slavery. It would be good to see a prosecution on the basis of child grooming, not least because we think it would be an enormous deterrent to a drug dealer to know they would spend their time inside on the sex offenders’ wing.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Government’s 10-year anti-drugs strategy. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing join me in congratulating Northamptonshire police, which has had considerable success in recent months and years in busting county lines drug gangs in and out of Kettering and the county, aided not least by automatic number plate recognition technology? Can we have more ANPR so that we can identify the vehicles that the drugs barons are driving around in?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that Northamptonshire police’s bust a couple of weeks ago was remarkable. It was a huge one, intercepting drugs valued into the many millions of pounds. That will have had a massive impact on that particular business and, I guess, left it vulnerable to those who want to collect the debts.
My hon. Friend is right that the key to interfering with this business—it is critical—is gripping the transport network. As I hope he knows, we have funded a taskforce in the British Transport police, which every day is intercepting drugs and money, and young people exploited on the rail network. Our analysis of ANPR, making sure that we understand movements and therefore raise the likelihood of a drug interception on the road, improves every day. I hope he will see that in his constituency in the months to come.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
A shiny new 10-year strategy sounds good, but the Government also need to address unfinished business. Three years after the Minister’s Government legislated for medical cannabis on the NHS, why have only three prescriptions ever been written for it, leaving families broke, having shelled out privately to fund their kids’ amelioration of pain?
Kit Malthouse
That is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, but, where requests have come to me to facilitate the acquisition of those products for affected families who need them, we have moved heaven and earth to do so as quickly as we could. The hon. Lady might be interested to know that we are reaching the end of a piece of work by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on barriers to research and medical exploitation of particular compounds. I hope that we will be able to publish that soon and cover some of the regulatory hurdles that she points to.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I welcome the 10-year strategy’s focus on both prevention and enforcement as well as treatment. I welcome that it pledges to implement, I think, all of Dame Carol Black’s excellent recommendations, but there was one glaring omission in her terms of reference: any attempt to address the underlying legislative structure of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. From that moment, we have seen a burgeoning of the illegal industry, and that is our current drugs problem. Do the Government have any intention to address this underlying, much more difficult and intractable issue?
Kit Malthouse
I understand what my hon. Friend said about the implications of the Act. At the moment, we do not have any plans to revise it, but we will bring forward a White Paper in the spring that will lay out, in particular, where we want to go on dealing with the overwhelming volume of drug consumption, which is among those who do not regard themselves as addicted.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I also welcome the move, if it is genuine, to begin to treat the serious use of class A drugs as a health, rather than a criminal justice, problem. That will make a material difference if the money is there. We know that one driver of criminal gangs is high-volume cannabis sales that allow the structure to remain intact. Will the Minister look very seriously at evidence from Portugal, for example, on using administrative methods, or from parts of North America or other European countries where cannabis has been taken out of the drug supply industry? It is radical, but it may make a real difference.
Kit Malthouse
Our intentions are genuine and the money is there; I hope and believe that the strategy will make a difference over the next decade. As I said, we will look at evidence from around the world. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that it is widely accepted that the legalisation of cannabis in California has been a disaster. Although Portugal has seen the number of drug deaths drop, drug consumption has risen, and it still does enforcement very heavily on supply. The picture across the world definitely needs examination, but I am not sure that it will lead to the lessons that he outlines.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I know that my right hon. Friend will need no persuading on this point, but will he set out his view on how the strategy will help those of us who represent rural constituencies and our rural communities? Very often, this is seen as an urban problem. He knows that county lines comes into the small, rural market towns of North Dorset, as it does into other counties, and missing the opportunity to nip that problem in the bud would be a huge omission.
Kit Malthouse
As a rural Member, I have seen the impact of county lines in my constituency, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the pernicious effect of this method of distribution and marketing is felt in towns and villages across the land. Drug dealers have become very entrepreneurial, very crafty and clever in the way they do business, so we must be as well. I hope that in his county, in mine and in counties across the country, we will see a reduction in drug dealing in towns and villages and, as a result, a reduction in violence and degradation.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have worked in addiction services and I am the current chair of the all-party group on the 12 steps recovery programme for addiction. As the Minister will know, 12 steps programmes can really augment recovery, with a focus on long-term maintenance and support. The fantastic thing about them is that they are absolutely free. Will the Minister agree to meet Lord Brooke and myself from the all-party group to discuss how we can work in an integrated way regarding narcotics anonymous and alcoholics anonymous to help rehabilitation in future?
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
A number of buildings in Stoke-on-Trent South have recently been used to cultivate drugs, so will my right hon. Friend look at what more can be done to increase the punishments for those who allow their buildings to be used for such purposes, or do nothing to stop it?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend raises a very good point. There are penalties in place, but I would be more than happy to look again at whether we are achieving the deterrent effect that we need. As I hope he knows—this is quite interesting—at this time of year when it is cold, one of the things that the police helicopter does, when it has spare time, is to go and look for buildings that are not exhibiting quite the same pattern of heating as others or are more insulated, because that is often a sign that something untoward is going on.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I have also seen the impact of county lines on my constituency. Criminals who run county lines rely on using and abusing children. That could have been cut by imposing 14-year sentences on adults who involve children in criminal enterprise and by their going on to the sex offenders’ wing when they are caught. The Government whipped their MPs to vote against Labour motions to do just that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Will the Minister explain why he chose to block a sentencing regime that would protect vulnerable children as well as cutting county lines far faster?
Kit Malthouse
A number of very serious child exploitation offences that carry very heavy sentences are committed in relation to drugs. As the hon. Lady knows, in that Bill we are raising the penalty for child cruelty from 10 to 14 years. I hope that when she looks at the full package of sentencing, she will support the Bill, which she voted against.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I really welcome the strategy; it is fantastic news for Loughborough. I take this opportunity to thank Leicestershire police for the work that they have done over the past couple of years through Operation Lionheart; hopefully, the strategy will help to get us to phase 2 of Operation Lionheart, in order to go further and faster.
One thing that happened there, for example, was that when the police came in and arrested someone for drug dealing, and a closure order was operated by the council, everybody came out on to their balconies to clap and cheer the people who were doing the arrest. It was fantastic —really amazing. My first ask is: please can we have phase 2? Secondly, what are we planning on doing to work with voluntary groups such as the Carpenter’s Arms and the Exaireo Trust to really get rehabilitation going?
Kit Malthouse
I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend is delighted by the actions of her local police force. I know that Leicestershire police are working hard on drugs in her constituency and elsewhere, and they form a critical part of the team effort, not least because of the transport links: many drugs gangs transit through Leicestershire on their way to other areas from those big exporting cities.
As for the local structure, we urge the organisations—councils, largely—that are leading on the rehabilitation effort to make sure that they are tying in some of the really valuable third sector organisations that have enormous experience and are thirsting to come along and help, very often from their own sense of commitment and to do good in their community. I am sure that my hon. Friend’s local health leaders on the programme will involve the organisations that she referred to.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Clearly, the cost to individuals, communities, the criminal justice system and the police system in the north-east is increasing, and that is a huge concern. Although there is much to welcome in the drugs strategy and in Dame Carol Black’s report, it seems that the Government are placing ideology above public safety. I say that because I always want public policy to be informed by the evidence. I have a spent a good deal of time in the drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party parliamentary group and there is ample evidence for the positive effects of heroin-assisted treatment programmes. Will the Minister consider the evidence and reconsider his position on heroin-assisted treatment rooms to save lives and create safer communities?
Kit Malthouse
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is conflating heroin-assisted treatment with overdose prevention centres, but as he may know, heroin-assisted treatment is under way in Cleveland. When licences are applied for, we look at them on their merits and on a case-by-case basis. I am happy to entertain other applications if people want me to. I will take the same view: that we have to look at them on a case-by-case basis and see what investment goes alongside that to make sure that we get the wraparound approach that will result in the recovery that we want.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
A couple of years ago, I spent a day with paramedics in Scarborough. I was surprised to discover that they were getting an increasing number of call-outs to professional people in their 50s and early-60s who are suffering from serious, sometimes fatal, heart disease. The reason? Regular cocaine use over a number of years. Does the Minister agree that people who think that drug use is a victimless crime might well find themselves being the victims themselves?
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. A lot of people underestimate the impact that illicit drugs can have on not only their physical health, but, importantly, their mental health. I think all of us may have experience of meeting those who have perhaps taken too many drugs in their past and have seen the damage that that has done to their brains, as well as to their bodies. That is perhaps one of the education items that we need to include in our deterrence campaign.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
In 2016, in response to an HIV outbreak, Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board proposed a supervised drug consumption room—an overdose prevention room. The Home Office has sat on that request and blocked it for five years with absolutely no justification, while people in Glasgow, in my constituency, have died. When the Minister next comes to Glasgow, will he show the bravery that the Scottish Government’s Minister for Drug Policy has shown, come for a walk with me and tell me why people injecting in their groin in the snow tomorrow should support his drugs policy?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady often vents her fury and anguish about the situation in Glasgow, which is appalling, on me. She rarely does it on our Scottish Government colleagues—
Kit Malthouse
They, of course, have presided over the incidence of drug deaths in her city for many years now. Happily, they have made an investment in health just recently—just before the election in which they were standing to be re-elected as the Government. The hon. Lady can shout at me all she likes, but until she shouts at me and the Scottish Government, it will be hard to take her completely seriously.
Having said that, I believe that the strategy that we have put in place will have an impact in the hon. Lady’s constituency, not least because in the early part of 2019, as she will recall, it was enforcement efforts by the National Crime Agency in this country—in England—that intercepted 27 million street benzo tablets destined for Glasgow. That is the kind of impact that we can have on behalf of the whole United Kingdom.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I speak as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm and as vice-chair of the drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party parliamentary group. Addiction is never a choice; I am grateful that the Government are now talking about drugs in terms of rehabilitation and addiction, not just criminality. However, the cheapest and most readily accessible drug is alcohol. When will the Government develop an addiction and rehabilitation strategy that will include alcohol? This is one thing I never thought I would say, but I agree with hon. Members on the SNP Front Bench. We need to tackle the stigma of addiction, so will the Government agree to tackle it and remove the exclusion of addiction from the Equality Act 2010?
Kit Malthouse
As my hon. Friend may know, alcohol-related crime is of deep interest to me. That interest was behind my 10-year campaign to bring in sobriety ankle bracelets, which are having an enormous impact across the country with 97% compliance. While this strategy is drug-focused, it is worth pointing out that, as I am sure he knows, quite a number of people have an addiction both to drugs and to alcohol. The provision of treatment services that are primarily for their drug addiction will have a spill-over effect on their alcohol addiction; I hope that he will see an improvement in that as well.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
One of the frustrations that my constituents have is that if they live in a flat and someone else in the block is a persistent cannabis smoker, the whole block can reek of cannabis. It affects their health; it affects their children’s health. They go to the landlord, but the landlord says, “We won’t get involved unless there’s a police prosecution”—and more often than not, the police will not prosecute people for smoking in their own home. Is there anything in the strategy that will put an end to the misery that people experience in that situation?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point—a good counterpoint to issues that others have raised. As part of our strategy, in the next year we will produce a White Paper that we hope will contain a new system for changing such behaviour and deterring individuals from such casual, thoughtless and often cruel drug consumption, which not only interferes with his constituents’ happiness and enjoyment of their home, but drives an enormous amount of violence on the streets.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and its emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation, but throughout the country, as we speak, shopkeepers and small businesses are at the mercy of drug-addicted shoplifters. In Greater Manchester, a shoplifting offence will be occurring at this moment with no response from the police. Shops are being pillaged. People have no defence to this type of drug-related crime. Although we want to concentrate on rehabilitation and ensure that we have the best treatment in place, we have to protect the victims of crime as well.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is exactly right. As he may know, last year I wrote to chiefs across the country to urge them to take such offences as seriously as possible as part of our general confrontation of crime in a retail environment. He is right that individuals who undertake such low-level crimes to fund a habit need to be punished for them, but at the same time we need to ensure that they do not do them again, which means treating their addiction.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The year-on-year cuts to treatment services have been devastating, and we have also lost a lot of the skill of professionals working across treatment services. Will the Minister publish a workforce plan that not only rebuilds the treatment service, but ensures that people are skilled up to work in residential settings as well as in drug consumption rooms?
Kit Malthouse
We have undertaken to publish an annual report to Parliament evaluating our progress on all these matters.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I very much welcome the strategy that the Minister has outlined today. I entirely agree about the vile practice of county lines drug dealing; having joined officers from Thames Valley police in Aylesbury on drugs operations, I know that one of the most shocking aspects is the way in which criminal gangs manipulate vulnerable people by taking over their home and using it as a base to carry out their trade. Can the Minister tell the House how the drugs strategy will help to tackle that evil exploitation?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The practice of cuckooing, particularly where it targets often vulnerable adults in a destination drug-dealing town or village, is a really horrible thing to witness and often results in violence and victimisation. The £145 million that we are putting in to turbocharge our effort on county lines, making sure that the big exporting forces are co-ordinated through the national county lines co-ordination centre with the importing forces, will allow us to get ahead of exactly the kind of exploitation that my hon. Friend points to.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party parliamentary group fully supports Dame Carol’s recommendations as key. Will the Minister meet the group to discuss how treatment providers and service users can be actively consulted to make sure that the strategy works?
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Drug dealing, unfortunately, happens under everybody’s nose in Keighley, which is why I am so delighted that the Government are delivering this plan. It was only a couple of months ago that a constituent sent me video evidence of drug drops by a Keighley taxi firm. One of the most harmful aspects of drug dealing in my constituency is the grooming of young children and getting them involved in the practice from an early age. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that we will stop that vile practice by tackling the drug barons with much tougher sentences?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is exactly right. One of the most unpleasant characteristics of county lines is the exploitation—often victimisation and terrorisation—of vulnerable young people. They are often given drugs; they become addicted; they then run up debts and are forced to deal drugs on behalf of these appalling individuals. Over the past two years, the police have rescued a little over 4,000 individuals from exactly that situation. We hope that the investment we are making will rescue a hell of a lot more.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I welcome the strategy’s holistic approach, but there is an element of irony in it, given that it is the Minister’s party that has cut 60p in every £1 to local authorities over the past decade and has failed to address the structurally flawed police funding model affecting counties such as Bedfordshire, which has contributed to increasing drug-related issues in towns such as Luton. Will the Minister commit to addressing the core funding formula issues affecting forces such as Bedfordshire, to ensure the longer-term resilience of our police to tackle organised crime groups and drug-related crime in Luton?
Kit Malthouse
I am hesitant to point out that it was the hon. Lady’s party that crashed the economy, but nevertheless I feel compelled to do so. As she may have heard me say from the Dispatch Box, we have committed to bringing in a new funding formula, and work is under way to devise exactly that.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
As somebody who has lost a family member to drugs, I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this 10-year strategy. I know only too well the misery that drugs cause children, families and communities, which so often leads to death. Does the Minister agree that addiction is an illness and we need to treat it as an illness? Sending people to prison time and again does not cure the problem, whereas access to good treatment is the solution.
Kit Malthouse
I agree that addiction is an illness or affliction that is outwith an individual’s control. Although addiction often drives individuals to commit crime, for which they must be punished, we have a duty to make sure that there is no repetition, which means that we need to treat the addiction in the best way possible in the circumstances. I am very sorry to hear that my hon. Friend has experienced that loss; there are too many families in this country who are in the same situation. I hope that our strategy will mean that those numbers reduce.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Richard Lewis, the chief constable of Cleveland police who is soon to take the helm at Dyfed-Powys, wrote in The Guardian recently that problem drug use must be seen as a health issue as opposed to a policing issue. His view was based on his experiences of the heroin-assisted treatment pilot programme in Middlesbrough. Will the Minister work with the Welsh Government to roll out that pilot across Wales so that it is seen as a treatment-based alternative to street drugs, dismantling the demand that sustains the operations of criminal gangs?
Kit Malthouse
I am already working with the Welsh Government as much as possible. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have an ADDER project in south Wales, and we are working in close partnership with the Welsh Government on the health side to try to drive the numbers down.
While I am interested in examining heroin-assisted treatment, I am more interested in the new pharmacological treatment that is being rolled out in Wales. A monthly injection of depot buprenorphine effectively kills the craving for opiates, particularly heroin. I think that 600 or 700 people are now receiving it in Wales and indeed in England, with fantastic results. That is the kind of innovation of which we would like to see more.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Drugs bring nothing more than pain and misery and leave nothing more than blood on our streets, fuelling human slavery, terrorism, child sexual exploitation and, ultimately, death. I therefore welcome the £145 million investment in tackling county lines, but does the Minister agree that we must win the war not only against those who push drugs but against those who find it socially acceptable to take them? Does he agree that we should pursue every possible solution, whether it is treatment, rehabilitation or stop and search, but should also introduce far longer and tougher jail sentences for those who push drugs?
Kit Malthouse
Well, Mr Speaker—Mr Deputy Speaker, I should say. Forgive me, but maybe, one day.
I agree with my hon. Friend that those who promote drugs, in his constituency and many others including mine, deserve sentences that will deter others from following their path. We need a 360-degree approach, attacking supply—as we are doing now, with ever greater skill—but also dealing with demand. By killing both, we will drive those people out of business completely.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement, but the Minister must know that delivering this strategy will demand a change of mindset on the Government’s part. All the services that will be required to co-operate have suffered serious cuts over the last 10 years. We have lost 21,000 police officers, and drug and alcohol services and probation services have been cut severely. Will this new money do no more than backfill the holes that have been left by the Government cuts, or will we actually see any new services?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman is refusing to accept any culpability for the financial situation of the country 12 years ago, when a number of Members—certainly on our side of the House—were still teenagers. Notwithstanding his claim, however, we intend to build a world-class treatment system that will require the acquisition of skills and personnel across the country; and, as I have said, we have undertaken to come to the House annually to report on our progress.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank the Minister for paying tribute to the Norfolk constabulary in his opening remarks. They have done a fine job in smashing county lines drug dealing.
Recreational cannabis undeniably causes harm to individuals and society. When I was a much younger man, I was asked to play football—mainly because I was not very good—with a drug rehabilitation group, and I saw at first hand the devastation that drugs had caused those young men. Notwithstanding the arguments that legalisation would eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade, I feel that it would not. Can the Minister assure me that we will never legalise cannabis, and that this new strategy will ensure that we crack down on illicit drug use and the misery that it causes?
Kit Malthouse
I recognise the situation that my hon. Friend has posited. Indeed, if we look around the world at the countries that have gone down the path that he eschews, we see a pattern of impact that is not completely desirable—and of course we do not know what the impact of overuse of that particular substance will be in the long term, particularly the impact on young people’s mental health. We currently have no plans to change the status of cannabis, and I hope that my hon. Friend will participate in the promotion of the White Paper when it appears in order to bring about the change in behaviour that both he and I seek.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I had hoped for something better, especially from this Minister, and I think that a great many people will have been disappointed by his statement. Rather than bringing fresh thinking to the problem, he is doubling down on the failed strategies of the past. He knows that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is not fit for purpose—he has already accepted that it constrains and compromises his ability to deal with this problem—so will he commit himself to an evidence-led review of the legislation?
Kit Malthouse
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed, and is disappointed in me in particular. I have to say that I am disappointed in him, because while some of us try to remain open-minded on this issue and seek evidence, I am not sure that his position is shifting at all.
As I have said, we are making a significant investment in what is internationally accepted to be the most efficacious way to deal with pernicious addiction to heroin and crack, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, as he has welcomed it in Scotland. No doubt he has accepted and welcomed what the Scottish Government are doing, and I hope he will accept and welcome what we are doing here, and will not be in denial just because it is us. I hope he will be encouraged by the fact that our plan includes a commitment to build a really strong, world-beating evidence base, drawn from across the world, which will allow us to make drug policy into the future. While we have a 10-year-ambition, this is a journey that we are just starting, and we will learn as we go. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will undertake to learn too.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
As this Government seek out more people to arrest, tomorrow the Global Commission on Drug Policy, backed by 14 former Prime Ministers and Presidents, will call on Governments to break their addiction to punishing users, and to legalise and legislate instead. When will the Government learn, from 50 years of experience, that they cannot arrest their way out of a drugs crisis?
Kit Malthouse
If we followed the hon. Gentleman’s logic, we would give up arresting burglars.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Beacons in Blantyre, which is in my constituency, aims to provide treatment for those with drug addiction whose needs are not being met through the traditional routes. It is volunteer-led, and, crucially, it looks for volunteers with lived experience. It is an excellent community asset. Have the Government considered the ways in which organisations of this kind can contribute to successful intervention and rehabilitation across the UK?
Kit Malthouse
As I said earlier, we hope that those who design the local frameworks to bring about the recovery chains that we want to see will take account of the skills and facilities that can be provided by the third sector, but in the hon. Lady ‘s constituency that will obviously be a matter for the Scottish Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for answering questions for more than an hour.
Point of Order
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing it.
I have just discovered that the United States Government have finally decided on a diplomatic boycott of the winter Olympic games in China. As you will know, many Members on both sides of the House who are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China have called for the UK Government to do the same. It is a matter of distress and annoyance to us that my Government have failed so far to express a view on the issue. Has the Chair received any signal that the UK Government are likely to come to the House and say whether they—both Ministers and officials—will also boycott the winter Olympics? They should do it now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for his earlier mention of it to me. I have not received any information to date that the Government intend to make any statement on that or any other matter this evening, but should they change their mind, Members will be notified in the usual way and there will be a scrolling announcement on the Annunciators. In any event, the Minister on the Treasury Bench has heard the point of order, and I am sure she will bring it to the attention of the relevant Ministers. Should a statement be made, either tomorrow or later this week, the House will be informed in the usual way.
Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No.4)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 February 2021 in the last Session of Parliament (Armed Forces Bill: Programme), as varied by the Orders of 23 June 2021 (Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No. 2)) and 13 July 2021 (Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No. 3)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Leo Docherty.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Bill
Monday 6th December 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 6 December 2021 - (6 Dec 2021)
20:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 221 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 215 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 3 to 50.
Leo Docherty
This Bill delivers for our armed forces, renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, improves the service justice system and delivers on the Government’s commitment to further enshrine the armed forces covenant into law. We therefore resist Lords amendment 1, principally because we have faith in the service justice system and the protocol that this Bill creates to ensure that serious cases involving murder, manslaughter and rape are heard in the jurisdiction—civilian or military—to which they are best suited.
The amendment seeks to introduce a presumption that these serious offences are heard in the civilian courts. Such a presumption is unnecessary. The service justice system is fair, robust and capable of dealing with all offending. Indeed, that was the conclusion of the retired High Court judge Sir Richard Henriques QC in his recent review, which came before the House in October 2021. On page 199 of his report, he fully agreed with the Government’s decision to retain unqualified concurrent jurisdiction for murder, manslaughter and rape.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister rightly refers to Sir Richard Henriques’ report. Sir Richard is someone for whom I have great regard. My hon. Friend will also know that, prior to that, there was a report by His Honour Judge Shaun Lyons, who had served as an officer and as a senior circuit judge. It was Judge Lyons’ recommendation to do away with concurrent jurisdiction that led to the amendment in the Lords. Why does the Minister feel that it would be appropriate to take on board the rest of the Lyons report recommendations but to leave out this particular one? That seems a little strange, given that it was accepted that, overall, the Lyons review was a very constructive piece of work.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which brings me to my next point. Sir Richard’s endorsement of the service justice system capability echoes the conclusion of the process audit that was conducted as part of the Lyons review of March 2019 to which my hon. Friend referred. It had previously found that the service police do indeed have the necessary training, skills and experience to investigate allegations of domestic abuse and sexual assault. However, to answer his point, we continually seek to improve our capability, which is why the creation of a new defence serious crimes unit—which this Bill delivers in clause 12 —headed by a new provost marshal for serious crime demonstrates the Government’s commitment to achieving the highest investigative capabilities for the service justice system. In simple terms, this is a good thing for all defence people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The evidential base that seems to have been in the news this last while shows a rise in the incidence of sexual abuse and harassment in the Army. Will this legislation be retrospective? In other words, will those cases that have happened in the last few years be investigated, and will there be a reduction in cases in the future?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Given the reports of increased allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment, which have been movingly pointed out through the work of the House of Commons Defence Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), the Ministry of Defence’s response will be to ensure that all those categories of alleged crime or misconduct are considered outwith the chain of command. I look forward to talking more about this when my hon. Friend brings forward her debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday.
Sir Robert Neill
The Minister rightly refers to the improvements in the service justice system, which we all recognise. However, as I understand it, the service justice system does not have some of the safeguards that are available under the criminal procedure rules on the treatment of vulnerable witnesses, in relation to special measures being taken in the same way. In particular, in the criminal justice system we are now rolling out pre-recorded evidence under section 28 for the alleged victims of crime. Would he at least undertake that, if we have concurrent jurisdiction, the same safeguards and protections will apply equally, for witnesses and defendants, under a service jurisdiction arrangement as they will now under the civilian procedure? It would be unfair if witnesses or defendants had a lesser standard of service and lesser protection, particularly in the case of vulnerable complainants.
Leo Docherty
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In addition to the formation of the defence serious crimes unit, we are making non-legislative changes and enhancements in procedure so that the experience of the victim in the civil or military system has parity. We look forward to keeping the House updated on that.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the setting up of the serious crimes unit, but it is a matter of fact, as we heard in evidence in Committee, that the number of incidents that will be investigated is quite small compared with those investigated by the civilian police. The serious crimes unit will therefore always be at a disadvantage in terms of not having the knowledge and the breadth of experience that is available to civilian police forces.
Leo Docherty
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we are trying to consolidate experience across all three services and have a much closer working relationship with the civilian police. We look forward to seeing how the new format rolls out, but we have confidence in the structure.
With these improvements, the MOD will be in a stronger position to respond to serious crime. However, if things do go wrong, the independent service police complaints commissioner—a body also created by the Bill, in clause 11—will be able to determine the appropriate course of action in response to a complaint. These measures will ensure that the service justice system is more effective and efficient in the round and that it provides a better service to those who use it, which will in turn increase public confidence in the system.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Would the Minister care to comment on something that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who chairs the sub- Committee, said? She said:
“Military women are being denied justice. It is clear to us that serious sexual offences should not be tried in the court martial system.”
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Leo Docherty
In simple terms, there are circumstances —normally involving the welfare of the alleged victim—in which it would be advantageous for a case to be heard in the military context. Those cases might be small in number, but it is important for the sake of the victim that agility and choice are retained in terms of our approach.
Furthermore, while the Government accept the need to improve decision making in relation to concurrent jurisdiction, we do not agree with the Lords amendment that an Attorney General consent function is the best way to achieve that. That is because, for the Attorney General to make an informed, meaningful and final decision, the request for consent must come at the end of the investigatory process when key decisions on jurisdiction have already been made. The Government instead believe that a better approach is to strengthen the prosecutors’ protocol. Clause 7 ensures that decisions on jurisdiction are left to the independent service justice and civilian prosecutors, using guidance they have agreed between them. In simple terms, where there is disagreement on jurisdiction, the Director of Public Prosecutions always has the final say. For this reason and others, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 1.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
This Bill has so much to recommend it, and it is so good. I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who has done incredible work on this. However, I am struggling to understand what extenuating circumstances there might be where a military court would be better placed to opine on rape than a civilian court. In cases of torture, I completely understand this, given the concept of civilians and military individuals understanding how torture might manifest itself, but in cases of rape involving soldier on soldier or man versus woman on the street, I cannot understand what extenuating circumstances would require a different type of court.
Leo Docherty
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. The advantage of having a choice between civil or military jurisdiction relates to the possibility of a serving person being involved in a case of rape in which their welfare would be undermined by it being heard in a civilian court because of the slower process of the case and the fact that its being heard in the civilian jurisdiction might impede any postings or normal career progression. My principal point relates to the welfare interest of alleged victims, where having agility and choice is advantageous.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Who chooses the jurisdiction in which such a case is heard? What grounds would they hear to inform that choice?
Leo Docherty
The civilian prosecutor always has the final say.
It is clear that Lords amendment 2 fails to recognise the purpose of this legislation. The new covenant duty works by requiring listed public bodies to have due regard for the principles of the armed forces covenant when exercising a relevant housing, education or healthcare function. This amendment seeks to add the Secretary of State to the list of public bodies but, of course, none of the housing, education or healthcare functions is a function of the Secretary of State. This amendment would therefore not serve any meaningful purpose.
Of course the Secretary of State, like other Defence Ministers, is entirely accountable for delivering the armed forces covenant and reports annually to Parliament to that effect, and he answers Defence questions and attends other parliamentary events. In designing the covenant duty, we carefully considered which functions and policy areas the new duty should encompass, including those that are the responsibility of central Government. We were mindful that central Government are responsible for the overall strategic direction of national policy, whereas responsibility for the actual delivery of nuts-and-bolts frontline services and their impact generally rests at local level. The inclusion of central Government, by naming the Secretary of State in the scope of the duty, is simply not necessary.
The other vital element of our approach rests with the new powers granted to the Government to add to the scope of the duty, if need be. The new covenant duty is evergreen and can effectively adapt to the changing needs and concerns of the armed forces community. We continue to engage with the Covenant Reference Group, which is made up of independent representatives from service charities, such as the Royal British Legion, and officials from local, devolved and central Government. This will feed into our existing commitment to formally review the overall performance of the covenant duty following this legislation. The review will be submitted to the Select Committee on Defence and will also be covered in the covenant annual report.
Furthermore, the Bill requires that the statutory guidance in support of the covenant duty is laid before Parliament in draft so colleagues can inspect and scrutinise it before it is brought into force. Ministers and the Ministry of Defence will continually be held to account on the delivery of the armed forces covenant.
Sir Robert Neill
The Minister is being most generous with his time, for which I thank him profoundly. He will know that the author of this amendment is the noble Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Margaret Thatcher’s Lord Chancellor and the current president of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, of which I have the honour to be the deputy chairman. He does not exactly have a record of being antagonistic towards our armed forces, but he is concerned that there does not appear to be a legal commitment in the Bill to the armed forces covenant. If this be the means, or if there be some other means, will the Minister at least give us an assurance that the Government will look to introduce a legal commitment to the armed forces covenant, to go alongside the moral and political commitments that we already have? If that could be achieved, we will be happy.
Leo Docherty
I do not doubt the commendable spirit behind the noble Lord’s intention, but this is a case of unnecessary law being bad law and a potential complicating factor. For that reason, principally, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 2.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind the House that this debate finishes at 8.39 pm, so we do not have a lot of opportunity. Could Back Benchers please focus on pithy, short contributions?
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is truly an honour to be standing in front of you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in my new role as shadow Minister for the armed forces.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who recognised the essential contribution made by our armed forces to the safety and security of our country and who played such an important role in scrutinising this legislation.
In my previous role as shadow Minister with responsibility for Afghanistan, I recently stood at the Dispatch Box to commend the courage, dedication and professionalism shown by our armed forces in the most challenging of circumstances. Two weeks ago I was pleased to pay tribute to those who served in Operation Pitting when they visited Parliament. This House, our country and the free world owe a huge debt of gratitude to those service personnel who, for 20 years, prevented terrorist attacks from being launched from Afghanistan and who secured opportunities for women and girls that would never have been possible otherwise. I thank them for their heroic service.
I look forward to engaging with the Minister. I assure him that I will support him when his Department is doing the right thing, but I will also hold him robustly to account when the Government fail to stand up for our armed forces or to act in the national interest.
As the Opposition have noted throughout its passage, this Bill is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to tangibly improve the lives of our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families. I know they are held in the highest regard by Labour and by all on both sides of the House. For them and for all others who have served, we have a duty to make this legislation provide the very best.
Labour supports this Bill in principle, but we have consistently pressed the Government to ensure they match their lofty rhetoric with tangible action. As it stands, the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant for all personnel, veterans and their families. That is why I am pleased that the amendments passed in the other place so closely mirror those that Labour pressed during the Bill’s Commons stages. I therefore hope the Government will take this opportunity to think again.
Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK, except when the Attorney General has given consent. For too long, it has been clear that the investigation and prosecution of these crimes within the service justice system simply does not work. The latest Ministry of Defence figures show that, from 2015 to 2020, the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 9%, whereas the latest data available suggest that the conviction rate was 59% for cases that reached civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. More than three quarters of victims were women, and seven in 10 victims held the rank of private.
Lords amendment 1 directly addresses the treatment of women in our armed forces, which is rightly receiving public attention, and it is an issue that disproportionately affects women in the lower ranks. Until there is fairness, transparency and justice in these cases, the actions of a tiny minority will be allowed to tarnish the reputation of our world-class armed forces.
Sir Robert Neill
Those statistics bear out a significant concern that also exists in the civilian jurisdiction. There is a disparity in parallel authorities between victims and perpetrators. Does the hon. Gentleman think we should be particularly anxious to ensure that the same protection, the same support and the same procedural devices to protect witnesses—screens, special measures and so on—are available were any of these cases to be heard in a court martial setting as opposed to a civilian setting, where they would automatically be available? The position of the private soldier is not dissimilar from the position of the employee who is taken advantage of by her boss, for example, or something similar. There is a strong case for seeking to ensure equity, in whichever court a case is tried.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area is clear for all in this House to see. He is absolutely right that, given the chain of command, ensuring protection for witnesses and victims is essential. We clearly have more confidence in the civilian system to guarantee those. He asks whether the service system could provide those protections, but that seems a very odd way to go about it when the capacity and capability already exist in the civilian system. Why reinvent the wheel?
Will Ministers take this final opportunity to listen to the recommendations of a Government-commissioned, judge-led review, which expressed surprise that these cases were still being handled by courts martial? Will they listen to the expertise on their own Back Benches, as we have just heard, including the proposals made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in her Defence Sub-Committee report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life”? Most importantly, will they listen to service personnel and veterans themselves?
More than 4,000 actively serving women and veterans contributed to that report and its recommendations. Today, a serving member of the Royal Navy whose court martial rape case collapsed due to a number of basic errors made by a service prosecutor called on the Government to back this amendment. She was one of three women who launched a judicial review of the Defence Secretary’s decision not to adopt the recommendations of the Lyons review. She says:
“The value of this amendment for women like me cannot be overstated… This amendment will make the process independent. It will encourage more service personnel to report crimes. It will mean we have some protection from the appalling consequences we suffer when we report rape within our units.
“I am urging the government to accept this amendment. As service personnel we are citizens of this country and we deserve justice just like everyone else.”
Alicia Kearns
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps a sensible compromise might be to have this matter come back before the House in a year’s time, if the Bill does pass, to see whether cases are being properly prosecuted, whether we are getting the prosecution rates we need and whether women are being supported to get the justice they deserve when those senior to them commit the most abysmal and horrific of acts—acts that would be considered war crimes if they were done against a civilian but, because they are done by someone in the chain of command, somehow are considered a completely different situation?
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s experience and expertise, particularly in the field of foreign affairs. However, I think her proposal does not really make sense for where we are right now in this Chamber. We need to see a Government showing leadership. Those brave ladies who have come forward are showing that leadership, and I hope this Government will pay heed to it. The moment of truth is upon us, and we need to see that vote and that leadership now. These women have courage beyond their service to our country. They are showing this Government the way. I urge colleagues across the House to support the amendment.
I turn now to Lords amendment 2, which places the same legal responsibility to have “due regard” to the armed forces covenant on central Government as the current drafting requires of local authorities and other public bodies. This Bill piles new and often vague statutory responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, but, mysteriously, those do not apply to central Government. In practice, this would create a farcical situation whereby the chair of school governors has a statutory responsibility to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, but Government Departments—including the Ministry of Defence—do not.
As the Royal British Legion has pointed out,
“many of the policy areas in which members of the Armed Forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national government or based on national guidance.”
Help for Heroes, Cobseo and other service charities know this too, as do Conservative Members, both in this House and in the other place. Ministers must not be allowed to offload responsibility for delivery.
How can it be that social care, pensions, employment and immigration are among the long list of areas we know will not be covered by this legislation? The exclusion of the Ministry of Defence from the responsible public bodies also means the Bill offers little to actively serving personnel. Our armed forces have gone above and beyond both to support our frontline response to the pandemic in the past year and, as I have mentioned, in Afghanistan. What a contrast between the selfless service of our military personnel and a Government who are missing this crucial opportunity to make long-overdue improvements to the standard of service accommodation, while at the same time handing most of them another real-terms pay cut this year.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend mentions immigration, health and a whole range of central Government Departments responsible for delivering the covenant for our armed forces personnel. Does he agree that there is a missed opportunity in this Bill to deal with the situation facing many foreign and Commonwealth veterans who have bravely served—alongside our Welsh regiments, for example? We know the contribution of Fijians in that regard. There is a missed opportunity here, but there are other opportunities coming up where these issues may be resolved; does he urge the Government to support them?
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s personal and political expertise in this area. He is absolutely right that this was an opportunity to right the wrong he has so eloquently set out. There will be an opportunity tomorrow—our Front Bench has tabled an amendment—and there will be other opportunities, but it is a moral point of principle, and I hope the Government will listen and do the right thing in the vote tomorrow.
Without this amendment, the Bill’s principles will not deliver practical action for the squaddie in dilapidated single living accommodation who is without basics such as heating and hot water, the veteran struggling with their mental health who has to endure waiting times for treatment more than twice as long as Government targets, or the dispersed service family who struggle with the cost of childcare and getting in to work. Ministers must not be allowed to offload responsibility for the delivery of the covenant to cash-strapped local authorities and other overstretched public bodies. Central Government must be held to the same measurable, enforceable, national standards as local authorities and agencies. Only then can we truly end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.
The Government are set to reject these amendments. Their majority means they may well win the votes, but in so doing the Conservatives will lose any credible claim to be the party of the armed forces. Service personnel will be asking why this Government’s manifesto pledge to put the covenant further into law delivers no improvements to their day-to-day lives. Veterans will be asking why they still face uneven access to services. Women will be wondering whether a career in the services is for them. These arguments will come back to the Government again and again—from this House, including from Government Back Benchers, from service charities, from armed forces communities and from the Opposition Benches, because Labour will always stand up for our armed forces.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
As I rise to speak in this debate, I first pay tribute to the officials in the Department. I know this is a complex Bill and that with legislation such as this we must operate within the art of the possible. There are clearly areas where everybody would like to go further, but I understand the constraints and the dynamics at play, particularly around legislating for the armed forces covenant and so on.
However, there is one thing I am afraid I will not let pass without shining a spotlight on it: the issue of violence and sexual offences staying in the military justice system. I rise to speak with one purpose, and that is to resolutely support my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in the work that she has done in this space. She has worked tirelessly, initially against the current but then with some support, to highlight the totally unacceptable experience of females in the military.
Today is a really difficult day for my hon. Friend, and unnecessarily so. I understand differences of opinion, particularly in this space, but where the evidence does not point to the decisions being made by those on the Front Bench, I am afraid I will speak up time and again.
Unfortunately, I was in the room when this decision was made. The evidence did not support the Secretary of State at the time and the evidence does not support the Secretary of State today. I cannot vote against the Lords amendment; it is not the right thing to do. Let me be clear: when the Secretary of State made that decision it was against the advice of the officials in the Department and against the advice of his Ministers.
Conviction rates for rape are lower in military courts than they are in civilian courts. That is a fact. We can pull up the facts at different times and during different processes on the journey to a sexual conviction, but the reality is that the conviction rates for rape are lower. Over the past five years, the average conviction rate for rape in civilian courts, when using Ministry of Justice data, is 34%; over the same five years, using the same data—the MOD’s data—the average conviction rate for rape is just 16% in military courts. Using Crown Prosecution Service data, the figures are even worse. In practice, this means that a military woman is far less likely to get justice than she would in civilian life. We cannot accept that. We cannot accept that on the Government Benches.
The MOD accepts that the contested conviction rate at court martial is significantly lower than it is in the Crown court. The Department suggests that, because the numbers involved in the service justice system are relatively so much smaller, the comparison is of little value. That does not make sense—it is ridiculous and illogical. We have to be honest: there is no point coming to this place and railroading through legislation that we all know to be the wrong decision simply because one individual has his course set and refuses to back out of that alley.
Alicia Kearns
Does my hon. Friend agree that it takes enormous courage for anyone to go to court in cases of child abuse, domestic abuse or rape—the issues we are talking about? I worked in the victims department at the Ministry of Justice, supporting people to go forward and get prosecutions, and one in seven Rutland residents is a veteran. Does my hon. Friend also agree that an insidious silence is forced on victims, gagging them and preventing them from going out to get justice in the first place, let alone once they get to a court?
Johnny Mercer
I do agree with those observations. To be honest, when I came into my role as the Veterans Minister, I knew that the experience of females in the military was totally unacceptable. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham published her report, a lot of what she wrote was not a surprise to me. I have daughters who want to join the military. It is something that we absolutely have to sort out.
I wish the Secretary of State was in his place. He has clearly laid his position on the line on this issue. Last week, he said that in 2020 1.6% of rapes reported to the civilian police made it to court, compared with 50% of those reported to military police. I cannot see how that can possibly be true, unless the numbers are so incomparably small as to be totally misleading. The trouble is that our lack of honesty in this place tonight—
Johnny Mercer
Not in here but in what is coming forward from the Department. It places my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham in an absolutely invidious position. It is a straightforward integrity check for her.
Johnny Mercer
Sorry—does the right hon. Gentleman have an intervention to make?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman was the Minister who took the Bill through Committee; if he felt so strongly about this, what did he do about it? He is saying that since he is no longer a Minister he is now passionate about these issues, but he did nothing when he was a Minister.
Johnny Mercer
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that he was nowhere near the Department when I was a Minister. He has absolutely not a clue as to what I did to try to change this. He has no clue whatever.
Johnny Mercer
The right hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to make a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Defence and go and look at all the ministerial submissions on this issue, but that would require his dealing in the realms of fact rather than his rather pointless rhetoric. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him outside this place but this is a serious issue that frankly deserves better contributions than that—
Johnny Mercer
I am not going to give way. I am absolutely not going to give way for another interlude like that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham has done her work on this issue. It is a serious point. She has found the evidence and that evidence has been backed up by professionals, but in the Department there is one individual who is refusing to back down from the alleyway he has found himself in. My hon. Friend’s is a really valuable voice: she is the first female from the ranks to make it to this place. She has an extraordinarily valuable and powerful voice. For her to lose her position tonight because she has that integrity is not what we do. It is not teamwork and it is not the way this Government should operate. I support her wholeheartedly.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument and I certainly think that these issues are best dealt with in the civilian courts, but where I have a problem with the Lords amendment is in respect of the power invested in the Attorney General. I am not sure that the Attorney General, as a Law Officer, should have that power. I would welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on that.
Johnny Mercer
That is a really fair point. Such provision has not existed before and it is always dangerous when we start going down that route of bringing in new protocols specifically to deal with the challenges of sexual assault that we have here.
I plead with those on the Front Bench: the issue of the female experience in the military defines what we do. I note that the response, last week, was to double the number of females in the military. The only problem is that we have already missed our target for doing that in the first place. It is pointless to give strongly worded statements to the chiefs or to say that we are going to double the numbers if so many people—the young women we saw in the work from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham—simply do not come forward because they do not think they are going to have any fairness, any rigour or any real prospect of a conviction for their horrendous experience.
Members will find no one prouder of the military in this place than me but there is a singular problem. I do not buy this stuff about a culture problem—I am afraid I am on the other side of the fence on that: the military is the most wonderful life-chances machine this country has—but there is a problem with holding our people to account, whether in respect of lawfare or other issues. It is exactly the same here. If we do that and hold our people to account, we will get on top of this problem without losing good people like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, whose work I commend. I am incredibly proud of her; the Government should be as well and should implement all her recommendations.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It was certainly interesting to listen to the contribution from the former Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
Over the past year, personnel have supported the vaccine roll-out, transported petrol to petrol stations and, most recently, aided those impacted by Storm Arwen. Overseas, members of our armed forces have put their lives on the line to evacuate those at risk in Afghanistan and are actively engaged in operations ranging from peacekeeping to combatting the international drugs trade. Our personnel are our greatest armed forces asset and we must do our best to ensure that any legislation that impacts the lives of serving personnel is evidence based, carefully considered and ultimately beneficial.
This Bill has presented a once-in-a-decade chance to improve treatment and conditions for serving personnel and their loved ones while also implementing desperately needed reforms to the service justice system, which is currently failing to deliver for many victims. Sadly, despite the efforts of those in the other place, the Bill is lacking in ambition and many of its provisions are tokenistic.
Lords amendment 1, which we will be supporting, removes the military from the handling of the most serious of crimes. Very recently, the Defence Secretary held a meeting with senior members of the Army to discuss allegations of sexual violence by members of the armed forces. This came after the Defence Committee report on women in the armed forces, which exposed the culture of sexism, intimidation and secrecy within the armed forces and the flawed systems that allow serious acts of misconduct to go unchallenged. Some 64% of the more than 4,000 servicewomen who submitted evidence to the report stated that they had experienced sexual harassment, rape, bullying or discrimination. That figure should cause all of us great discomfort.
Last week, the MOD’s response to the women in the armed forces report announced the introduction of new measures, including sexual consent training and the doubling of the number of female personnel. However, it is hard to see, with the current laddish culture that is being promoted, how women will be encouraged or attracted to join. More ambitious and swifter action is required.
Lords amendment 1 to clause 7 requires a protocol between the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would create a presumption that serious charges against serving personnel would be heard in civilian courts. There is good reason for this. In the five years until 2019, rape conviction rates in civilian courts were approximately 59% compared with the shockingly low 9% of those heard in military courts. The chances of seeing justice are “shockingly low”, according to the Victims’ Commissioner. We heard this evening from the Minister that the reason why these would continue to be held in military courts is that they could be held swiftly; it was for the welfare of the victims.
I would like to hear from those victims whether they think that their welfare is being looked after by the current system. The majority of these cases are currently prosecuted through court martial, where the boards have a largely, if not entirely, male majority who cannot possibly understand the lived experience of women. The Government have stated that female representation must be on the court martial board, but no quotas have been specified, so it is questionable whether this will make any difference.
Within the military, there is evidence of poor victim care and poor investigations, as military police have little experience of complex sexual violence cases. The evidence backing the amendment is clear: for justice to be delivered, these offences must be tried in civilian courts, as these courts have experience of dealing with complex cases, particularly in relation to rape and sexual assault.
The provisions within Lords amendment 1 are also recommended by the Lyons review and the Defence Committee report, which contended that
“service personnel remain citizens and in these serious cases when the civil courts are available to them, they should be tried in that forum.”
This move also has the backing of the Victims’ Commissioner, a former chief constable and, most importantly, many serving personnel and veterans.
Lords amendment 2, which we support, would require the Secretary of State to have due regard to the covenant. The Bill, as introduced, largely applies to local government. The UK Government should be subject to the same legal standard on the covenant that they are seeking to apply in the devolved context and to local councils. We know that many areas of policy in which serving personnel, veterans and their families face disadvantage—forces’ housing, pensions and employment to name but a few—are the direct responsibility of the UK Government. Disappointingly, many live issues are entirely ignored by the Bill, including: Commonwealth veteran immigration; justice for LGBT veterans; and forces’ housing, which continues to cause major issues for personnel.
We will continue to work with the Minister to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for serving personnel and veterans, but, sadly, I do not think that this Bill is a vehicle through which we will do it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We do not have very long left, so I am hoping that Members will take only five minutes in order to allow everybody to say something.
Sir Robert Neill
May I make a few very short points to amplify those things that I mentioned in the course of interventions?
Overall, this is a very good Bill. I respect and entirely accept the good intentions of Ministers in that regard, which is why I am saddened that, in relation to Lords amendment 1 in particular, we are in danger of undoing some of the good. We are in danger of damaging the reputation of a good Bill by what appears to be a degree of stubbornness. I do not blame the Minister personally for that; he has been most generous in his interventions. None the less, taking on board the evidence of the Lyons review and also of Sir Richard Henriques, lawyers whom I respect very greatly indeed, I cannot help but feel that the Government have failed to achieve a compromise that ought more readily to be available. I urge them to consider that in the time between the Bill’s leaving this House, if they have a majority tonight, and its going back to the other place.
For example, let us look at Lords amendment 1 in particular. It is pretty clear that, with the best will in the world, the service prosecution system, precisely because of the small numbers that go through it, will struggle ever to have the level of expertise required to deal with what in the civilian world would be regarded as RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—cases. The CPS has specialist Crown prosecutors and specialist counsel. Cases are tried by ticketed circuit or High Court judges, who are specifically authorised to try cases of such gravity, where particular sensitivity is required with witnesses. The criminal procedure rules have a host of safeguards—both before and in the course of a trial—to ensure that complainants in the system are treated with the sensitivity that the nature of such a case should involve.
It might have been easier to sustain the position on Lords amendment 1 if we were simply talking in terms of murder and manslaughter, but even that would be stretching it. The inclusion of the rape and serious sexual offences element seems needless and not really supported by the evidence. The Henriques argument will be stronger on the murder/manslaughter point, if there be any. I hope that Ministers will think about that again before the Bill goes back to the other place.
As we update criminal procedure—reference has already been made to section 28 and pre-recorded cross-examination —all those things require advocates on the prosecution side, investigators on the prosecution side, advocates on the defence side and tribunals highly experienced in these matters, and swift and prompt listing. I take the Minister’s point about concerns with delay, postings and so on, but in truth those issues apply in the civil courts as well. The answer is to have those cases expedited, rather than to take them out of the system; I hope that he will think about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made an interesting observation about the jurisdictional position in relation to the Attorney General. I accept that that is a novel point, and perhaps it has some force that we have not debated enough. The answer, surely, rather than reject this amendment out of hand, is to seek a compromise, perhaps beefing up the protocol, in which the Director of Public Prosecutions has, in effect, a determinative role. Perhaps we could look at that as a model, rather than putting a Law Officer of the Crown into that unusual jurisdictional position. That ought to be done between now and the Bill’s return to the other place. I urge Ministers to think again on those important issues.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 2. I would hope that we could at least have a commitment that if the noble Lord Mackay’s amendment is not the vehicle through which to do it, the Government have a means of putting into law—either through this Bill or elsewhere—a commitment in law, as well as morally and ethically, towards the covenant. We all know that we all do have that commitment, but it would be a shame again to spoil the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar. I hope that Ministers will reflect on that.
I have had no involvement with the Bill before. I look at it simply as someone who has spent the whole of his life in the criminal justice system, both prosecuting and defending, including in courts martial as well as in civilian courts. I hope that those suggestions are constructive and might help us to find a way forward that can make an excellent Bill—one that leaves both Houses with a greater degree of consensus than we currently have on two difficult points.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Four minutes each. I call Matt Rodda.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
We have covered a wide range of welfare issues tonight. I want to highlight one in particular, which has great resonance in my constituency of Reading East and, I believe, in the Minister’s constituency of Aldershot: the case of Gurkha soldiers who retired before 1997. As many Members will know, the Gurkhas have served our country with distinction over more than 200 years. However, soldiers who retired before 1997 receive very modest pensions—far smaller than those of other British soldiers. Many veterans live in my constituency and manage to exist on a very small income in a high-cost part of the country, and that experience is common across parts of west London, Hampshire and other areas close to their regimental base in north Hampshire.
This unfair treatment has led to a determined campaign by both Gurkha veterans and other former British soldiers to make good this wrong. Sadly, in the last few months this led to a number of Gurkhas going on hunger strike. I visited the hunger strikers as they took their action outside No. 10, which was a very moving experience. I pay tribute to them, and to the others who have supported their campaign. I appreciate that the Minister, and indeed the Secretary of State, have now intervened and responded to the Gurkhas’ concerns and that they are about to have discussions with the Government of Nepal. I welcome that. I support the Minister’s work on this and look forward to a better outcome. However, I remind him that this issue has been dragging on for some time—some years, indeed—and for many of the families involved this is a very difficult time. Prices are rising. Many families are living on very modest incomes, as I said, often in relatively high-cost-of-living parts of the country, and we should be doing so much more for them. They are a wonderful part of our armed forces and have given such great and noble service to this country.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I will speak to Lords amendments 2 to 13.
In principle, I welcome the Bill, which will strengthen the legal basis for the armed forces covenant. The covenant represents a series of promises to the armed forces community—servicemen and women, reservists, veterans, and their families. The covenant covers a number of areas the community might need support in, such as housing, education and, vitally, healthcare. Most are devolved policy issues in Scotland and held at local level by councils and health boards. I have personally turned to the covenant when dealing with casework; I am sure many of us have. It is not necessarily easy to navigate, because responsibility for the things it covers is held in so many different places.
Lords amendment 2 to clause 8 would go some way to addressing that. It includes the Secretary of State in the list of specified persons within the scope of the covenant’s duty of due regard. Without this amendment, due regard will largely sit at local authority level, with no overarching duty placed on national Government. The amendment has been called for and supported by charities such as the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland, which work with the very people the covenant seeks to support. They are perhaps best placed to tell us what is needed to make the covenant work in the way it should. The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland say that in their experience the responsibility for the most prevalent issues faced by the armed forces community does sit at a national level.
I know from personal experience of helping veterans in my constituency that while healthcare definitely sits right at the top of the list of concerns, there are others that are just as important but reserved to the UK Government—for example, pensions. In one case, it took months of chasing, and my constituent had spent a year on it before reaching out to me, before satisfactory progress was made. I thank the Minister for the help that he gave in that case.
In summary, the covenant is an important tool if it is given the legal basis it needs in order to work in the way it should. The amendment moves us closer in the right direction by ensuring that responsibility for national issues is held at a national level. Consistency is key.
Mr Kevan Jones
I rise as a supporter of the military justice system. The problem here is the idea that anyone seen to be supporting amendment 1 is somehow against the military justice system. Well, I am not. I have served on every single Armed Forces Bill Committee, as a Minister or Back Bencher, for the last 20 years, and I firmly recognise its importance.
However, the important thing is that we need to put the victim at the heart of the system, as Professor Sir Jon Murphy said in his evidence to the Select Committee, and that is not necessarily always the case in the military system. We had evidence from the Victims Commissioner and from retired Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen, who also raised the role of the chain of command and the complaints system in stopping the number of complaints coming forward. This has got to take place, and I support Lords amendment 1, because we need to send a signal to young men and women in our armed forces that if they are a victim of serious sexual assault, for example, it will be taken seriously and be dealt with on par with what would be done in the civilian world.
I welcome the setting up of the serious crime unit, but I agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I am not sure it will have the volume of work to get the expertise that is needed. Reference has been made to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and her report, which I worked on as a member of the Select Committee. It is loud and clear: people are not coming forward with complaints, because they do not feel that the system is fair. If we back Lords amendment 1, it will send a clear signal.
As for the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), he is a bit like a lead actor in a play who seems to have been sat in the audience for the entire time during the play, because when he was in Committee, all he did was parrot the lines that were in front of him—if he could find the right page to turn to. I am sorry, but some of us will not take this nonsense, trying to rewrite history about his ineffective role as a Minister.
I also support Lords amendment 2. When I was Veterans Minister, I produced the Green Paper, which was the forerunner for how we got the welfare pathway into law. One thing was clear: Departments should be part of welfare, which surrounds the covenant, because increasingly the services are directly influenced by Departments. Housing in the armed forces is an obvious one, but health and others are increasingly involved. I therefore support amendment 2. The other thing about amendment 2 is that with this Bill we are putting the onus again on local government without any extra resources to carry those functions out.
Finally, I make one point to the Minister. One of the issues around speedy outcomes for justice in our military system has to be speedy investigations. It is an issue that I raised, and I know that Lord Thomas of Gresford raised it in the other place. I raised it in Committee. The Minister made some commitments to look at it, and I would be interested to hear what he has to say.
Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]
Monday 6th December 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Dormant Assets Act 2022 View all Dormant Assets Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-I Marshalled list for Report - (12 Nov 2021)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Over the past decade, the dormant assets scheme has released more than £800 million to tackle systemic social challenges and to support the communities that need help most. This Bill is estimated to unlock £880 million of additional funding to ensure that the dormant assets scheme can continue to support innovative, long-term programmes addressing some of our most pressing social and environmental challenges. The scheme is led by industry and backed by the Government. Its aim is to reunite owners with their financial assets; where that is not possible, the money supports vital social and environmental initiatives across the UK.
Consumer protection is at the heart of the scheme. Dormant assets remain the property of their owners, who can reclaim any money owed to them in full at any time. However, only a small percentage do so, meaning that the rest of the money lies dormant. The scheme responds to the imperative to put the money to better use.
The Bill marks the completion of a five-year review in collaboration with industry leaders, including an independent commission and a public consultation. The scheme’s success is down in no small part to the commitment and drive of the banks and building societies that have led the charge on unlocking dormant assets for the public good. However, it is only right that the scheme continues to grow and evolve.
Currently, only assets from dormant bank or building society accounts are eligible to be transferred into the dormant assets scheme. The Bill will enable Reclaim Fund Ltd, the scheme’s administrator, to accept a broader range of asset classes in the sectors of insurance and pensions, investment and wealth management, and securities. Of course, there could be even more dormant assets to unlock in future. The Bill will therefore introduce a new power to provide the flexibility to expand the scheme through regulations.
I stress that the four core principles that underpin the scheme—voluntary participation, reunification first, full restitution and the additionality principle—will remain unchanged by the Bill. The Bill will require the Secretary of State to
“carry out periodic reviews of…the operation of the dormant assets scheme and…any use made of the powers”
to extend the scheme.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There are many worthwhile projects that local communities would like to bring forward. How can they feel that they are part of this project and gain advantage from dormant bank accounts?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There will be a consultation; I or the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), will come to it later.
The Bill makes provision to reflect Reclaim Fund Ltd’s establishment as a Treasury non-departmental public body and names it as the scheme’s only authorised reclaim fund. In addition, the Bill includes a new power for the Treasury to designate additional authorised reclaim funds in future. To guarantee consumer protection, the Bill’s money resolution will enable the Government to cover the liability, in the form of a loan, for reclaims should any authorised reclaim fund face insolvency.
The Bill will amend the approach to distributing dormant assets funding in England, aligning it with the model used in the devolved Administrations, who have powers to focus funding through secondary legislation, provided that it is within the parameters of social or environmental purpose. In England, the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 restricts the English portion of funding to youth financial inclusion and social investment. The Bill will enable the current restrictions to be removed from primary legislation and put into secondary legislation so that the scheme can respond to changing needs over time. The Bill will require the Secretary of State, before making an order, to publicly consult on the social and environmental focus of the English portion of funds. No changes to the existing restrictions can be made until and unless a new order is laid.
After 10 years of operation, it is right that we carefully consider how the scheme can deliver the greatest impact once it has been expanded.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
With the expansion in the amount of money and the number of areas subject to the scheme, there is a danger that we could end up swamping the economy in those areas. We therefore need to broaden out the scope of the good causes towards which the scheme can work.
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for that point—a legitimate point that will be raised in different ways across the country during the consultation, and one on which the Secretary of State will need to reflect in due course before an order is laid.
It is vital that we afford everyone a fair and open opportunity to have their say, so the Government plan to launch the first public consultation, which will last for at least 12 weeks after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Until we have launched the consultation and fully considered the responses, the Government are not prepared to make decisions or commitments on the ways in which future funds will be used in England. To do so would clearly undermine the validity and transparency of the consultation exercise.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Under the current legislation—the Charities Act 2011—urban regeneration is one of the areas that distributions are allowed to go into, but it is not clear whether they can go to, for example, a regional mutual bank. As my hon. Friend knows, the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking is strongly in favour of that. Could the point be clarified in the Bill to facilitate a quicker move to fund those regional mutuals?
John Glen
In short, no; that will not feature on the face of the Bill. However, my hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for that cause, and I am sure he will make a hearty contribution to the consultation which will inform the Government’s response in respect of those future parameters.
Mindful of time and the need for contributions from so many Members on both sides of the House, I will end by reiterating that the Government are committed to supporting industry efforts to reunite more owners with lost money, and to provide a practical way for unclaimed and unwanted funds to be put to good use. The dormant assets scheme has achieved that, and we are determined to ensure that it continues to be a success. I hope that the Bill will command cross-party support this evening, and that we will be able to work together on expanding the scheme to unlock hundreds of millions of pounds more for good causes throughout the country in the years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2008, Labour set out a new principle in the House: to put dormant assets from bank and building society accounts to work, first by trying to reunite owners with their accounts but then, when connections failed to materialise, by moving assets to address social and environmental good causes. Labour’s vision has since released nearly £8 million to infrastructure bodies which, in turn, have multiplied the investment and expanded the work of civil society. I continue to argue that the pounds spent by civil society organisations stretch much further than those spent elsewhere in the economy.
This is a success to celebrate, but the last two years have been tough. As the sector's campaign slogan in response to the pandemic says, charities have been “#NeverMoreNeeded”. Demand went up and funding down as shops were shut and fundraising dried up. That is why this legislation is really “never more needed”, but it also furthers Labour’s ambition to introduce other assets into the reclaim fund, now that the principle has been established and the scheme has proved successful.
The three-year review should have taken place a decade ago, and the legislation before us today should have already released millions of pounds. If it had, the sector might have survived the last two years more securely rather than ending up where it is today. Today we are urging the Government to press on while also ensuring that the Bill is in good shape.
Charities have been tested throughout the last decade as the state failed to give the sector the back-up that it needed. Charities and Labour have shared values and a shared sense of purpose. We want to do all we can to transform our society, and that is why we value charities so highly. Bursting with dedication and expertise, civil society really is the heartbeat of all our communities.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Government put more than £150 million into the charity sector last year, and does she think that that was welcome, not enough or too much?
Rachael Maskell
As I was going on to say, that money reached only 14,000 charities out of 169,000. As we see demand spiralling, we are seeing charities struggling. The Government could have been far more generous, as they have been to many other sectors during the pandemic.
Every organisation has had to reinvent itself, digging deeper into its reserves, borrowing where possible, and appealing to the ever-generous public for help. We saw charities and mutual aid groups spring up in every corner of every community. Where the state stopped, charities took their service ever more deeply into our communities. That is why this legislation really matters, and why Labour will support its passage through the Commons today. It arrives in a better state thanks to the extensive work undertaken in the other place, and I particularly thank Lord Bassam of Brighton for his skilful handling of it, to help it to reflect the priorities of civil society.
In looking at the detail of the Bill, we are pleased to see that the principles that Labour set out in 2008 remain, including that of reuniting assets with their owners through extensive tracing processes and ensuring that the owner will always be able to claim the value of their asset in full if they seek to do so. The principle of this being a voluntary scheme will remain, whereby participants can opt in, and I encourage everyone to do so. When dormant assets have been through thorough tracing processes, the asset then transfers to the reclaim fund, which is responsible for any reclaim that might occur, moving surplus into the hands of identified organisations. Labour is most grateful to Big Society Capital, Access, the Youth Futures Foundation and Fair4All Finance for the way in which they have multiplied the value of these assets and invested them wisely to help people in our communities. Likewise, we are grateful to organisations in the devolved countries.
Part 1 of the Bill expands the opportunity for the inclusion of other financial dormant assets. The consultations to get to this point have been thorough, and each new product carries its own racing mechanisms and timescales to reduce risk. We welcome the inclusion of all the named assets, but I want to press the Minister further on pension schemes. While there is some inclusion, I know that he is making the case that until the pensions dashboard has been thoroughly tested, he is reluctant to expand in this area. I appreciate that there has been significant delay in the introduction of the dashboard, which has caused the Government significant embarrassment. This delay is denying good causes the assets that they want to put to work.
Perhaps the Minister could set out a timeline for further widening the scheme to these kinds of products. It would be good to hear from him what other assets he is considering for later inclusion, whether they are direct cash or non-cash assets. Charities cannot wait to benefit, and nor can the public. The powerful testimonies from current beneficiaries demand that the Government seek to expand. I know that the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place raised many helpful suggestions as to how that could happen. Wherever funds can be identified, Labour wants to see them put to work for social and environmental good causes.
Part 2 of the Bill focuses on a number of themes, the first of which is the reclaim fund. Moving it under the auspices of the Treasury is a positive move, placing it independently but with lines into the Treasury. However, it is Labour’s consideration that, 13 years since the scheme’s passage through this place, it should be reviewed. Each reclaim product should be assessed separately according to the levels of real risk to the reclaim fund. If data from the first phase is observed, the scheme could be more generous in its support to beneficiaries. The sector agrees with that. A regular review would also help to identify any risk in the scheme. The Government will now be responsible for underwriting any deficit that might occur with a loan to the scheme, but it is far better to avoid such risk in the first place. My broader question is therefore: is the balance right?
Before I address the matter of where the money is spent, I also want to raise the question of the next stage of the Bill. After such detailed consultation over many years, we need to ensure that there is no further significant delay in preparing and instituting secondary legislation. Labour wants to see this process commence on the heels of this legislation, for it to be thorough and allow sufficient time for response and for it then to be expedited through secondary legislation.
I am most grateful for the addition of clause 29 to this legislation. It was added on Report in the other place and it highlights a deficiency in the distribution of the reclaim fund. That is impeding civil society from thriving across many communities and impeding the social levelling-up agenda. Imagine doing a jigsaw and finding one piece missing: it mars the whole picture. The reconstruction of civil society is the same. All the schemes need to be in place, but the exemption of the community wealth fund has meant that whole swathes of communities have been robbed of the opportunity to build the very partnerships that could tackle the deepest of challenges.
In my own constituency, we have a thriving and growing voluntary sector under the superb leadership of York CVS. However, we have areas of real deep entrenched deprivation. Tang Hall Big Local, a local trust, has now developed micro-level infrastructure to start tackling social injustice in the Tang Hall area. It is utterly amazing to see the multi-agency approach and the multiple offers, alongside community engagement—225 such areas have been mapped out.
Imagine areas where there is no thriving CVS or a well-developed civil society sector, on which the new integrated care systems in the Health and Care Bill depend. Imagine this loss in the most deprived and challenged areas, as they often are. The amazing things that charities do just would not happen; the vital partnerships and social infrastructure would not be built. This is at the core of what the community wealth fund does. It empowers communities to develop the partnerships needed to transform themselves. Its inclusion will mean greater equality, which is surely what levelling up is all about.
That is why the inclusion of the community wealth fund in the Bill to build social infrastructure is so vital. The principles of the Bill and the 2008 Act are too broad to provide such a framework without clause 29, and the principle needs to be framed in primary legislation. Without it the funds could go elsewhere and will not meet the ambition that I trust the Government share with Labour.
The Government do not need further pilots, as there are 150 projects at various stages of development. Those projects have been evaluated and will continue to prove their value. When it comes to the civil society sector, the Government always seem to have the knack of overcomplicating things and missing the opportunity it presents. If they really wanted to build back better, they would have poured investment into community wealth funds and seized this moment to bring about social transformation. That is why Labour has pushed so hard so see it included in the Bill, and the Lords supported it. I trust for the sake of its impact that the Government will not lose the opportunity to reaffirm the principle of a community wealth fund in primary legislation to complete that picture.
In closing, I put on the record my thanks to the thousands of organisations that have shown their support for taking the reclaim fund forward, and to the participants in the dormant assets scheme to date for their co-operation and engagement. Across our communities, staff and volunteers are building civil society, fighting inequality and injustice, and supporting people with every need. Their contribution is outstanding and their support is utterly amazing. It gives us all such pride to reflect on all they do. Putting money to good work for them to multiply its benefits has always been a principle that Labour has advanced, and we will again throughout the passage of this Bill.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people. Several key supporters of the APPG have benefited from the dormant assets scheme, in which I know my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury takes a keen interest. His has often been a lone voice in the wilderness when it comes to financial education for young people, and we are grateful for his support.
It would be fair to say that the current dormant assets scheme has far exceeded expectations since the passage of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. I was a financial journalist at the time, and I well remember that it was seen as revolutionary but relatively small-scale—a staging post. The then Government thought it would raise about £400 million, but it has raised £800 million. I also remember that there were a lot of questions about exactly how it would be brought about, how fair it would be and whether people would get their money back.
There were also questions about whether people would find their money was just taken, whether it would be an example of the state effectively piling into people’s lives, but we have seen a huge amount of fairness. No one can complain—even those from 1864 who lost money from their National Savings and Investments account have not come forward to say they have been mistreated in that respect.
I have seen in my constituency the huge amount of good this scheme has done. Ordinary Magic, a group based in Shirley, received £60,000 through the fund this year, and it is providing support to local children—we know from the tragic events this weekend exactly how welcome this is in my community—who are suffering from mental health conditions by providing psycho-education workshops to teach parents how to enable their children to get through these difficult times and difficult situations. It also provides personal, social, health and economic education sessions in schools, enrichment holiday clubs and breaks for children and carers, which is hugely important.
As Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I believe it is incredibly important for our young people, particularly those living among some of our most deprived communities, to have access to the performing arts. I make reference to the Citizens Theatre, based in Glasgow, which is fantastic in its outreach. I know for a fact that it goes out into the local community; I believe it even tries to recruit young actors in chicken shops, cafés and other such places. The distribution of the dormant assets scheme is therefore providing enrichment experiences that young people in Glasgow need to expand their confidence and explore their identities through the stage. That would not be the case had it not been for this legislation, which has cross-party support.
However, I believe we have a major disparity in the existing system, whereby the devolved Administrations have more flexibility in how the dormant assets funding is distributed in comparison with England, where the funding is restricted to groups promoting financial inclusion—obviously, I have an interest in those—and social investment. While financial inclusion and social investment charities both do important work, it is only right that we widen our funding distribution here in England as well.
That is why I support the Bill before the House. Under this legislation, the Government will be in a position to increase the flexibility on how funding is allocated over time. As they see the money come in, they will be able to suit the distribution of those funds accordingly and be able to bring about real change. That is to be done through amending the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008, allowing the Government to set out additional clauses through secondary legislation. It will thus be subject to a departmental consultation in the public domain, which is important, and will need the support of hon. Members through parliamentary approval, as per usual.
Supporting this change by approving the legislation before us will allow the Government to bring themselves in line with our devolved Administrations, so they can set their distribution priorities through secondary legislation. According to the Association of British Insurers, which I understand is backing the Bill, it is estimated that £2.1 billion currently sits in dormant insurance and pension products. Let us just think of the life-affirming, life-changing effects that that £2.1 billion, if correctly and safely distributed with the right to reclaim, could have on our communities across the country.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) in his ambition for community banks. I also place on the record my thanks to those within banking and financial services who work tirelessly year in, year out to reconnect dormant assets with their customers. They really do not give up—even with the case in 1864 with National Savings & Investments, they are probably still writing letters. Indeed, I know the sector invests millions each year in reuniting customers with their money. However, despite some of their best efforts to reconnect dormant assets with the customer, sometimes we know it is simply not possible. That said, with the greater move to online banking, customers should be in a far better position to keep track of their finances and securities.
Finally, it is welcome that, following the Government’s public consultation in July 2020, the existing scheme will be expanded to include assets from the insurance, pensions, investments, wealth management and securities sectors. This step will pump even more funding into the dormant assets scheme, in turn supporting some of the most innovative and inspiring work in the third sector.
As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) stated, we know the charity sector has had an incredibly difficult pandemic; £750 million was hugely welcome, but the total shortfall across the sector was £4 billion. Let us hope that some of the redirected resources from this scheme can go towards that third sector, to ensure that they can continue the work they do.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
We in the Scottish National party welcome the Bill and the expansion of the dormant assets scheme. The extra £880 million now available as a result is very welcome, especially in what is an extremely difficult time for so many up and down the country. Already the scheme has delivered £745 million for social and environmental initiatives. By expanding the current list of assets that qualify for the scheme, up to £1.7 billion more could be made available.
The Minister will doubtless be aware of the remarks made in the other place about the Bill. Peers wanted clarity on its potential costs and more detailed impact assessments of the expanded scheme. Baroness Barker specifically warned that such details are important so that the scheme does not become a
“piggyback fund for government when times are tough.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 May 2021; Vol. 812, c. 1039.]
Perhaps the Minister can assuage her concerns and give us the detail that she asked for.
It is good to see that the Bill makes some changes to distribution in England; the Secretary of State will have more freedom to spread assets through secondary legislation, thus allowing England to catch up with Scotland and the other devolved nations. As Lord Triesman pointed out in the other place, the example set by the devolved nations through their innovative thinking about how to spend the funds allotted to them provided the impetus for the expansion of the scheme in England through this Bill.
The pandemic has shown that the needs of the population can change dramatically and suddenly. Flexibility in secondary legislation is a useful tool to deal with such change, but we must also ensure adequate consultation and scrutiny. We welcome the requirement for the Secretary of State to launch a public consultation and to consult the National Lottery Community Fund before replacing or changing an order. However, it may also be desirable to expand such consultation beyond that fund and to include the devolved Ministers responsible for spending in their nations and representatives of the voluntary and social enterprise sectors.
It is reassuring that the expanded scheme will focus on reuniting owners with their assets. With the expanded range of qualifying products, it is estimated that £3.7 billion-worth of financial assets lie dormant. With the elderly and vulnerable—especially those without digital skills—among those most likely to lose access or connection to their accounts in an increasingly digitised world, such efforts are vital. That is why we on the SNP Benches welcome the enhanced tracing and verification measures that could lead to the reclamation of as much as £2 billion.
The Bill should be effective, but if we could get clarity from the Minister on some of the points raised here and in the other place, it would be much appreciated.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I am supportive of the Bill and the widening of the jurisdiction of the legislation.
As I said in an earlier intervention, my brief remarks will be centred on community banks, which, as both Ministers on the Front Bench—my hon. Friends the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston)—know, the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking believes are at the heart of social purpose. Indeed, the APPG’s recent “Scale up to level up” report makes the case for regional mutual banks and community development financial institutions, which could—and in the case of CDFIs do—play an important role in fairness, making sure that we level up properly, and in regional distribution in terms of regional recovery.
Let us look at how regional mutual banks worked in Germany after the most recent financial crisis. In the five-year period between 2008 and 2013, UK commercial banks withdrew financing to small and medium-sized enterprises by around 25%, whereas in the same period co-operative and community banks in Germany increased lending to SMEs by 20%. That was an incredibly important time for SMEs—they need funding to get through crises of that kind—and co-operative and community banks take a different approach to lending. Commercial banks are important in the UK but regional mutual banks could play an important role by getting patient capital to where it is really needed, which is to SMEs and the productive economy.
Regional mutual banks are not just a feature of Germany, and this is not just a romantic ideal; they are very much part of every G7 economy, with the US, Germany and Japan being examples of where they work very effectively. They are not currently part of the UK banking sector—they used to be—but the APPG sees them as crucial to levelling up because they can have a genuine regional focus.
Similarly, there are some very good examples of CDFIs. A business enterprise fund in Bradford, Yorkshire, is key to making sure that people who are financially excluded are financially included. Regional mutuals are full-service banks. CDFIs are not full-service banks, but they make sure that people on low incomes are properly banked, which again works very much on a relationship-based approach. They also lend quite significantly to small and medium-sized enterprises.
There are 50 CDFIs around the country. They rely very much on grants and loans rather than getting money from the markets, so it is incredibly important that they see more funds going into them. I see this as a real opportunity for some of our less well-off communities to thrive in the future. These organisations are sector-based, making sure, for example, that people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and women are properly supported.
One very good example of how CDFIs work is Prima Bakeries in Cornwall, which is featured in our report, “Scale Up to Level Up”. At the time, the business had 19 employees. It was refused banking from its high street bank, so it went to its local CDFI, South West Investment Group, which lent it the money it needed to get through. It now has 96 people employed in that organisation. That shows how CFDIs take a different, relationship-based approach, rather than simply looking at the pure numbers, which the big banks tend to do.
It would be very simple for us to try to expand the current legislation—I take on board my hon. Friend the Minister’s comments about going through a consultation. The difficulty with consultations is the time that they take. I know that it is a 12-week consultation, but this kind of stuff might take months or years to implement. It is quite clear from section 3(2)(c) of the Charities Act 2011 that urban regeneration is an area that qualifies for the distribution of dormant assets, but the people who distribute them, Big Society Capital and Fair4All Finance, currently think that regional mutuals and CDFIs do not qualify for those funds.
If we could put something into the legislation, a simple clarification rather than a wider consultation, on the basis that these sectors could be funded through dormant assets—I know that there will lots of different people trying to pitch for all kinds of different things—it would mean money going to those organisations much more quickly. If they are key to levelling up, which I absolutely believe they are, it would be good to see that consultation. We are looking for about £100 million to pump-prime these organisations with this funding. I will table an amendment to the legislation to discuss this at a later stage, because it would be better to expedite this issue than wait for a long-term consultation. No doubt we will have more time to discuss that at a later stage.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We have very little time left, so I must ask for very short speeches, please.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
May I start by declaring an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on philanthropy and social investment and also chair of a national charity that has benefited from dormant assets funding, as well as the many organisations that the all-party group represents?
Since the last Labour Government introduced the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008, with cross-party support, more than £800 million has been distributed to good causes. The four organisations that have been involved with the distribution—Big Society Capital, Fair4All Finance, Youth Futures Foundation and Access, the Foundation for Social Investment—have a proven track record and an evidence-based approach to investment and support to charities and social enterprises across the country.
It is vital that this Bill builds on the work and the evidence underpinning the allocation of funding. It is also vital that we look at some of the things that these organisations have achieved. Big Society Capital alone has used the £425 million of dormant assets to bring in another additional £2.5 billion of social investment from other investors, so it is vital that we ensure that that is built on and that there is not a power grab by Ministers to allocate funding to their favoured causes. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the consultation will be meaningful and not an attempt to take away the proper accountability, scrutiny and good governance that underpins the current allocation of funding, through these agencies, to good causes in our constituencies up and down the country.
Since 2019, the Youth Futures Foundation, which has a fund of £90 million, has started to allocate funding to young people. I have seen how the charity that I chair has benefited; 70% of the beneficiaries are from working-class and ethnic minority backgrounds in different parts of the country. Many other organisations up and down the country are also doing really great work with young people. Youth Futures Foundation has distributed nearly £19 million to 143 civil society organisations engaging about 18,000 people during the pandemic, and there is much more to do for those who face disadvantage and discrimination. As I have said, the work of Big Society Capital has meant that organisations have been able to build a social economy in their areas, which has had benefits in a wide range of fields such as tackling homelessness and building new social businesses across the country.
Let us build on the achievements reached under the last Labour Government and the cross-party consensus that has underpinned the work of these multiple organisations. I hope that the Government will ensure that lessons are learnt from the scandal of the towns fund. There have been big concerns about funding being allocated when Ministers have more control over it and there is less accountability; funding must not be dictated by political favouritism. Likewise, we hear the scandals of the personal protective equipment contracts, with separate pathways for those who have close connections with the ruling party. We must ensure that we do not fall into those traps, because there is a great deal of cross-party consensus on supporting organisations in our constituencies up and down the country.
During the pandemic, we have seen how vital it is to support charities. I have been fortunate to be able to work with colleagues in the Conservative party, as well as Liberal Democrats, SNP Members and others, through my all-party parliamentary group. I hope that Ministers will take heed of the representation that has been made and ensure that, rather than the duty to consult just being paid lip service to, there is proper protection and good governance in the future allocation of the dormant assets funds, and that they do not just dish out money to their pet causes, dictated by political considerations rather than what is in the interests of community organisations and charities across our constituencies and our country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We have less than 20 minutes left, so four minutes each please. I call Gareth Davies.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker; I will keep my remarks brief.
This fantastic Bill will unlock literally hundreds of millions of pounds to support communities and community businesses throughout the country. The Bill is clear about where the money is coming from, so let me talk briefly about where the money could go to. The Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 unlocked funding to support our UK social investment sector, and I very much hope that this Bill will do the same. The UK social investment market has tremendous potential to transform communities up and down the country, and to support businesses that have a social benefit and charities that have specific, targeted interventions. While discussing this Bill, it is important that we reflect on the time since the 2008 Bill. In the brief time that I have, I will highlight three points.
First, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), in 2012 £425 million was taken from the dormant assets pool to form Big Society Capital, which was the world’s first social investment organisation. As she quite rightly pointed out, it has done significant and brilliant work to mobilise social investment capital, and has helped to fund a lot of businesses and charities around the country. However, it is important to point out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) did, that it is constrained by the very specific, ringfenced scope of the legislation at the time, to the extent that its mandate has almost become overtly philanthropic. If we are really going to unleash the potential of social investment, it is vital that we look at the organisation’s scope to be able to invest in businesses that have a social impact and make money. Their financial track record over the past eight years shows that they have a made a loss in six of those years. If we spoke to the organisations themselves, they would agree that if they were given more freedom to invest across the country in different types of business, they could do a lot better.
My next point is on what are commonly known as social outcome contracts, which were first launched in 2011. These are highly complex, very illiquid and somewhat risky arrangements. We have had 87 launched in this country since 2011. They were billed as a way of mobilising billions of private capital. Unfortunately, they have only mobilised £73 million. I therefore urge caution on the Government ahead of proceeding with allocations in future to make sure that they are not investing in social outcome contracts that may not deliver what they say they will.
However, there is one area that I would encourage the Government to look at as part of their consultation, and that is to bolster our liquid, tradeable social bond funds and the market that is out there. These are issued by corporates and charities to ringfence capital that has a social impact. We are a genuine world leader in this. Last year there was $59 billion of issuance that could multiply quite exponentially given what has happened with green bonds. I encourage the Government to look at that in more detail.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The whole programme of dormant assets and the social investment that it has mobilised has been a great success story. I pay tribute to Sir Harvey McGrath, the outgoing chairman of Big Society Capital, and to his team; and also to Nick Hurd, formerly of this place, who chairs the Access foundation, his colleague Seb Elsworth, and others there. They have done an absolutely tremendous job. Mobilising £8 billion of private money for £800 million of dormant assets is not bad.
I recognise the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies). The fact is that some programmes do fail. The whole point of investment is that they do not always work. We have to keep an eye on the overall returns that funds like this generate. However, there are some tremendous success stories, including in social outcome contracts. I declare an interest regarding the one I founded—the West London Zone for Children and Young People, which has leveraged public money through social outcome contracts very successfully, bringing in significant private investment and delivering great outcomes for young people.
I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) said, it is not appropriate for us, as MPs or Ministers, to be dictating the objects for these sorts of funds. Nevertheless, I hope she will not mind if I make some suggestions of the sorts of projects that would be useful for this. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is absolutely right that there is a massive gap in our finance sector in this country where we need small regional banks lending particularly to family businesses. That is absolutely crucial. If this money could support that, I would absolutely welcome it.
Then there is the opportunity for investment in personal debt projects. I particularly reference the suggestion by Fair4All Finance of creating a jubilee debt fund to tackle problem debt. We could do that. Community foundations and existing charities can and should be used as objects for significant capital injections. They distribute money very effectively to small local charities and causes.
Finally, there is the idea of a community wealth fund mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I absolutely agree with her suggestion. I pay tribute to Matt Leach and Margaret Bolton of Local Trust, who seem to have got those on both sides of this House pretty much in their pocket when it comes to lobbying for this brilliant idea, which I endorse too. A community wealth fund could do all the things that we are describing to get money to all these projects, whether commercial, charitable or social enterprise. That is the sort of economy we need— a mixed economy that includes all these different and great innovations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must try to leave time for the Minister; therefore two minutes will be just fine.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I broadly welcome this legislation, as it expands a positive initiative. I understand the scheme is voluntary, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thinking on whether we could move towards a mandatory system for our larger institutions.
The focus of my remarks is on the use of the funds. As has been stated, today, the money can only be used for youth, financial inclusion or social investment in England. It has been helpful to have those priorities set out in legislation. It gives certainty to funders and guaranteed income streams, so I am wary of the decision to strip it all the way back to consultation. I thank Ministers for the time they have taken to explain to me that the additionality principle is still in place and that the money must still be spent on social and environmental causes. That has given me some reassurance, but I wonder whether there is a halfway house we can reach, where we retain the new flexibility that the Minister would like to have for the Government, while perhaps having a focus on things such as geographical and deprivation-linked spending, so that we can tackle some of the challenges around levelling up at the same time.
I often find that the most deprived areas are the least able to put themselves forward to apply for funding. If there was some kind of linkage to that, it would be welcome. That is why I support some of the suggestions on a community wealth fund for the 225 most deprived or left-behind neighbourhoods in the country, one of which is Crewe St Barnabas in my constituency. I have seen at first-hand the deprivation challenges that that creates. Backing the community wealth fund, even if not through legislation, but in the consultation process later on, would send a powerful message to those wards and those parts of the country that the Government are serious about levelling up. I thank the Minister for his remarks.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I will try to be as quick as I can. First, I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake); I agree with everything he said. Primarily, I want to speak to the proposal for the creation of the community wealth fund through the Bill. The Government have made it clear that levelling up is one of their top priorities. That has been demonstrated through the establishment of a Department, new funds for levelling up, the £200 million community renewal fund and so on. That is all very welcome, but it is only part of the story. Those things will not by themselves be sufficient to level up the most deprived or left-behind neighbourhoods. They are focused on shovel-ready physical infrastructure—an excellent starting point—but we should not forget that we also need to build the social capital needed to develop and sustain prosperity in left-behind neighbourhoods.
I agree with the Government that we need to invest in community-led infrastructure at the neighbourhood level to ensure that the levelling-up agenda is successful. A community wealth fund would complement existing initiatives by addressing the need to help communities develop and sustain the social infrastructure that is the lifeblood of strong communities, building social cohesion and laying the foundations for a strong local economy.
The community wealth fund, which would invest in the 225 most deprived or left-behind neighbourhoods in this country, would repair the social fabric in those communities where it is most frayed. That is the particular focus of the all-party parliamentary group that I jointly chair, and I thank everyone who contributes to it for increasing my motivation. We also need to consider how we deliver this fund and what we do, and I would like us to consider the idea of the late Jonathan Sacks that a social covenant, which is relational and human, is preferable to a social contract, which is transactional and bureaucratic. This Bill has the potential to further strengthen families, communities and the nation, and I would like the Minister to consider that as a methodology for getting it there and letting us trust the people. I will explore that further in my ten-minute rule Bill on Wednesday.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentlemen for being really brief; that was totally brilliant.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their valuable contributions in the debate today, many giving examples of the huge impact that dormant assets funding has had in their constituencies, and we see that right across the country. I am pleased that the Bill has such obvious support across the House and in the other place. It is clear that we all share the ambition to ensure the scheme’s continued success in unlocking dormant assets for public goods.
I would like to address some of the points raised today. Time will not allow me to give full details, and we will be debating the issues and details of this Bill in its later stages. I am also happy to discuss with colleagues across the House issues raised today ahead of the Committee stage, should there be an appetite to do so.
Members have raised a wide range of issues, in particular regarding future spend considerations. Clause 29, as mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), enables the Secretary of State to launch a public consultation on the social or environmental purposes of the English portion of the dormant assets funding, as the hon. Member for—[Interruption.]—as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) pointed out. Sorry, this is what happens when Members change constituencies. We do not have the flexibility in England that they have in the devolved Administrations, and that is something we would like to correct, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) mentioned.
The Government plan to launch a consultation that will last for 12 weeks after the Bill receives Royal Assent and clause 29 is commenced. We anticipate that summer 2020 is the earliest that that will be possible. The consultation will enable the public to have their say on how the impact of the scheme can continue to be felt by the people and communities who need it most. We are committed to ensuring that the process is broad and inclusive.
As the consultation is dependent on the Bill passing with the measure included, it is too early to speculate on the causes that may be included, and I would not want to pre-empt the conclusions of the recommendations. As we have heard this evening, however, many suggestions are being put forward by hon. Members in this place and the other place about vehicles or future causes that could be included, and we are certainly open to hearing them.
We are not opposed to considering, for example, community wealth funds, as articulated by several hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned alternative measures involving mutuals and credit unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) mentioned alternative measures too. We will consider them all in the consultation.
As outlined by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in his opening remarks, the Bill is designed to ensure that we continue to have the core principles in mind, such as additionality, as raised by several hon. Members. It is important that that underpins the success of the scheme, as it has for the last decade. The 2008 Act describes additionality as
“the principle that dormant account money should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by…a Government department”
or devolved Administration. I reassure hon. Members that that principle will remain, which will ensure that funding is directed to causes that fulfil the scheme’s objectives while being additional to central or devolved Government funds.
I reassure the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and others that that means that the Government do not have direct access to dormant asset funding and cannot influence it. The money must go to the appropriate causes, as defined in legislation, which have a continuing focus on social and environmental purposes, which is pivotal. As I said, several hon. Members have mentioned alternative measures and we look forward to continuing the dialogue with them about where the funding should go, but the core principles will continue to apply.
We will continue the debate in the future stages of the Bill, but I reiterate that its key purpose is to present the opportunity to significantly expand the scheme—we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds of additional funding—while protecting participating institutions and rightful owners. We want to continue to make sure that, where possible, money goes back to those who own the funds or are rightful owners of the money.
As a result of the Bill, we hope to release hundreds of millions of pounds of additional funds for social and environmental causes across the nation. I look forward to working together to pass this important piece of legislation, so we can proceed with that expansion as soon as possible to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in deploying dormant assets at scale to society’s benefit across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Dormant Assets Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13 January 2022.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.
Dormant Assets Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dormant Assets Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Treasury for the purpose of making loans to, or in respect of, an authorised reclaim fund.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to bring to a conclusion proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on the motion relating to the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly may be entered upon and continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Steve Double.)
Parliamentary Partnership Assembly
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That this House:
(1) notes the provision in Article 11 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union for the establishment of a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (PPA) consisting of Members of the European Parliament and of Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as a forum to exchange views on the partnership, which:
(a) may request relevant information regarding the implementation of that agreement and any supplementing agreement from the EU-UK Partnership Council, which shall then supply the Assembly with the requested information;
(b) shall be informed of the decisions and recommendations of the Partnership Council; and
(c) may make recommendations to the Partnership Council;
(2) agrees that a delegation from the UK Parliament consisting of 35 members should participate in such an Assembly; and
(3) confirms that the procedures currently applying to the nomination, support and funding of delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly should apply to the delegation to the EU-UK PPA.
The motion asks the House to endorse participation in a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly with the European Parliament. Article 11 of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement states:
“The European Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom may establish a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly”—
consisting of Members of both Parliaments—
“as a forum to exchange views on the partnership.”
Since January 2021, informal discussions have been held between Members and officials in both Houses and with the European Parliament about the possible shape of such an assembly. There has been correspondence between Mr Speaker and the President of the European Parliament about the interest in mutual co-operation between both Parliaments. I would like to thank particularly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) for his work on behalf of the House in supporting these discussions.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hope Hansard noted the “Hear, hear”, which I think came from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). [Interruption.] Oh, no, it was my right hon. Friend.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Indeed. I also thank the head of the Interparliamentary Relations Office, Lynn Gardner, for her assistance. Following these initial exchanges, the European Parliament confirmed its intention, on 5 October, to appoint a delegation of 35 Members to the PPA, announcing the names on 18 October. This matches the envisaged size of the UK delegation, as set out in today’s motion.
As the motion sets out, it is intended that the procedures currently applying to the nomination, support and funding of delegations to other treaty-based parliamentary assemblies—the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly—will apply. If both Houses agree to the participation of the UK delegation, the next step will be for the members of the UK delegation to be confirmed formally through a written ministerial statement in the same way as for the UK delegations to those assemblies. The Government expect to make this written ministerial statement shortly.
Following discussions between both Houses and others, this delegation will consist of 21 Members of this House and 14 noble Lords, and it will respect the party balances, with Members from the party of Government having the majority on the delegation, including six noble Lords.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
It probably does not need saying, I suppose, that the context and the needs of the people and the economy of Northern Ireland will continue to loom fairly large as this relationship evolves. There is precedent, from 2016, in the Brexit Select Committee, whose composition ensured that it accommodated a range of views from Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Member outline how the different views—indeed, the totality of views—from Northern Ireland will be represented in this partnership?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is obviously an important point. The composition of the delegation has not yet been confirmed, and we will have to see what names are announced in the ministerial statement, but I would make the general point that this House is able to represent the views of the whole of the United Kingdom in any delegation it sends out. That is of course very important.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) on the make-up of the delegation, it is important that the views of those of different traditions in Northern Ireland, both nationalist and Unionist, are incorporated and spoken of in the assembly. I think that is what the Government intend to try to do, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how that will take place?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is one United Kingdom, of which my hon. Friend—the hon. Gentleman, to be more accurate—is a great advocate. It is important to understand that Members of this House can represent the whole of the United Kingdom, otherwise we would be insisting that every delegation should have a Member from Somerset or from Yorkshire, and I can see that that would be attractive. Although I very much understand the importance of Northern Ireland, any delegation from this Parliament can represent the whole of the United Kingdom without trying to divide it up into its constituent parts.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
As a former member of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, the Leader of the House is fully aware of the legal and policy expertise of the Committee’s members. We have been doing this for a long time—in my case, for 37 years on that Committee. If I may respectfully suggest so, I believe it would be wholly appropriate for representation on the UK delegation to be ensured for a reasonable number of members of the European Scrutiny Committee, who would play a very good and sensible role, as we do in COSAC—the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union—and other committees, to ensure that we can make a major contribution to the proposed assembly.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend has played a good and sensible role in the history of this nation since he has been a Member of Parliament, and his distinction is, I think, unparalleled in the European debate, so I note what he says. He has of course written to me about this matter and people are aware of the representation that he has made.
Mr Bone
The Leader of the House is being charming, in his normal way, but the hon. Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have a fair point, and the Democratic Unionist party is a substantial party in this Parliament, so why does it not automatically have a right to a place on this so-called delegation—if, I might say, it goes ahead?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is always punctilious in not anticipating a decision of this House—or, indeed, of the other place—and he is quite right to do so. As I said, there will be 35 members—21 from this House and 14 noble Lords. The composition has not yet been announced, but of course if right hon. and hon. Members and noble Lords wish to be on the delegation, there is still time for them to apply. However, I stress the fundamental constitutional point that this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom and a delegation from it represents the whole of the United Kingdom.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Mr Rees-Mogg
How could I refuse to give way to the hon. Lady, who is so diligent in her attendance in this House? She is competing with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Margaret Ferrier
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and a Member representing a Scottish constituency, it is important to me that Scotland and the other devolved nations are properly represented in the make-up of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. The trade and co-operation agreement impacts all four nations, so will the Leader of the House ensure that all devolved legislators are involved in the decision making?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. In a delegation of 21 Members of this House, there will naturally be places for the SNP. As regards how the whole delegation will work, that will be determined by the assembly itself and whether it gives observer status to members of devolved bodies.
Mr Goodwill
Does the Leader of the House recognise that there are other ways that Members of this House can engage with the European institutions? For example, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs was in Brussels two weeks ago and had a very long meeting with Commissioner Šefčovič, which was very positive.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who makes a very valid point. We can ensure that we have good and friendly relations with our closest neighbours in all sorts of ways. This Parliamentary Partnership Assembly will be an important way of doing that, but the work of Select Committees, and particularly of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in this immediate context, is very important.
Article 11 of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement gives the PPA the power, once established, to request and receive relevant information from the Partnership Council regarding the implementation of the agreement and any supplementing agreement, and to be informed of the decisions and recommendations of that council. The PPA may also make recommendations to the Partnership Council, and perhaps most importantly, it will provide a structure for the exchange of views between MEPs and Members of the two Houses.
Based on the informal discussions between institutions so far, if agreed by this House, the full PPA is likely to meet twice yearly, once in London and once in Brussels or Strasbourg. Each meeting of the PPA is expected to result in a summary report, which will be made available to all Members. [Interruption.] Bless you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether it is normal for Hansard to report this, but, for the elucidation of the note takers, Madam Deputy Speaker sneezed.
The trade and co-operation agreement sets out a framework for our relationship with the EU. I look forward to the assembly providing a structure for the exchanges of views between our Parliaments.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Well, here we are. I am glad that the Government have stopped dragging their heels and finally brought forward the motion to ratify the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly—which I will refer to as the PPA because it is too much of a tongue-twister for this time of night. However, there is still an unfortunate lack of detail. Their noble lordships referred to that before the motion was put down, and I do not feel that things are much clearer. The right hon. Gentleman gave us some information, so he will be pleased to hear that I have already ticked off a couple of my questions, but several remain. I wonder whether he can furnish me with more information.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the assembly will meet twice yearly. Will it always meet exactly twice yearly, or is that a minimum or a maximum of twice yearly? How will the assembly be expected to report to the House, and how often? Will it be after every meeting or once a year? How will the Partnership Council and the PPA connect? He said that the PPA will be able to make recommendations to the Partnership Council. What power will the council have to pursue them? What power will this place have to scrutinise the Partnership Council’s adoption, consideration or otherwise of any recommendations?
How will the chair of the PPA be appointed? Will there be a co-chair system as there is with the Partnership Council? Will the chair be apportioned under party lines as happens with Select Committees? In particular, may I press him on—I already mentioned this—how the PPA will report to this House? I know that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is important that Committees report to the House and that we have a proper system of scrutiny, so I would like more detail on how he expects that to happen.
I will pick up the points made by hon. Members about representation for Members of the devolved legislatures. The European Parliament will shape some of the laws that will apply to the people of Northern Ireland under the protocol. Whether the right hon. Gentleman and others think that is a good or bad thing, it is nevertheless a thing, so there must be some structure to enable parliamentarians in Westminster and Stormont to engage with MEPs throughout the legislative process. If there will not be any representation from the devolved legislatures —I understand that all three have written to ask for that representation—what else will be done to ensure a range of voices, views and experiences?
The right hon. Gentleman says that any of us in this place can represent the whole United Kingdom, but he must know that I could not represent Somerset as well as he—nor he Bristol. Therefore, there must be some respect for the differences of experience and knowledge brought by perspectives from around the House as well as the different party representations and backgrounds. Their lordships—as did, I think, the Institute for Government—cautioned against a narrowing of those voices when it comes to consideration of how the protocol will affect the people of Northern Ireland. That is incredibly important.
Thangam Debbonaire
I am glad that the hon. Member asked me that. I am keen on it because the European Union is still our nearest neighbour and, whatever the circumstances of our parting of ways—he knows that I voted against that while he campaigned for it, but we have moved on—Brexit has happened and we must now work out how we will relate to our near-neighbours. We will have to negotiate with them over matters as diverse as climate change, the prevention of terrorism, scientific knowledge and how on earth we handle the next pandemic —if there is one. For all those things, we will need good relationships and some form of parliamentary dialogue. The Institute for Government and their lordships have said that that is critical. As it is also part of the trade and co-operation agreement, it would be a shame if we said that we will not have a formal method of dialogue.
We can have informal methods of dialogue, but, for our alliances in this modern world, with our global outlook and our new outward-facing image, which I know the hon. Member wants us to have, it is better to have some formal method of dialogue with our nearest neighbours. For example, climate change, in particular, knows no borders. On the issue of criminals who want to escape either from the United Kingdom or from the European Union, we are the nearest to each other and we need to co-operate. I hope that is helpful for him; that is why I am keen on it.
In conclusion, the PPA is a key part of maintaining the communication between Westminster and Brussels. Regardless of how we got here—and, goodness me, have we not all spent a long time getting here over the past six years?—we are here. It is now of great importance that we get this relationship right. We have to keep our international relationships as a strong part of what we offer in this new global Britain so that our global standing is not diminished. Brexit has happened, whatever our views, and in order for this country to go from strength to strength, we have to make it work. That has to include having a good relationship with the European Union. I hope that the Leader of the House can answer at least some of my questions and, if he cannot do so now, that he will commit to our having further dialogue on this subject as soon as possible.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I will just take my mask off, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say how I delighted I am that we have reached this point and that it is possible to have this motion before the House tonight? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, the treaty—the trade and co-operation agreement—is permissive. We do not have to set up a parliamentary assembly, but I very much hope that we will.
As for my interest in this, I was asked by the powers that be, including the Leader of the House, to lead on discussions with the House of Lords and our counterparts in the European Parliament on taking the proposals forward. I place on the record my thanks to the noble Lord Kinnoull, who has been leading for the Lords on this matter, for all his help in the discussions. I am glad that we managed to reach agreement so easily across the two Houses about the overall composition of the delegation in terms of the party balance and numbers, including between the Houses, so that this is a parliamentary delegation—albeit with a Commons majority, as this place would expect.
I started work on this project some time ago with an expectation that we might even be able to hold an inaugural meeting of the assembly before the summer recess. Unfortunately, however, sitting patterns in the European Parliament and our own, and internal processes that have to be gone through with so many groups in the European Parliament and parties here, meant that it was only in October that the European Parliament decided that it would establish a delegation and published the names. This is still awaiting ratification, so passing this motion tonight, followed by the motion in the Lords, will allow us to move forward so that we are ready once the European Parliament has completed its processes, which I believe is likely to happen on 12 December.
In some ways, it is disappointing that this has taken us such a long time, but that has enabled me and Lord Kinnoull to have useful discussions with Select Committee Chairs, in particular—I have appeared at the European Scrutiny Committee and the Liaison Committee to discuss how we might take this forward. The good work done by those Committees can feed into the work of the UK delegation and the UK delegation can feed back to the House and Committees on proceedings in the PPA. I look forward to seeing that develop further.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is in his place, I make it clear that neither the PPA nor the delegation to it will duplicate the work of any existing Committee of the House or existing delegations—for example, that to the Council of Europe. That is very much the view of the European Parliament’s Committees, too.
The role of the assembly is to exchange views on the partnership between the EU and the UK. It has powers to request information and to make recommendations to the partnership council, but it will meet probably twice a year, which is what happens with other similar bodies that the European Parliament has with other countries. It cannot be expected to do anything like the detailed scrutiny done by our specialised Committees here in Parliament.
I hope that Select Committee members will use the assembly as a platform to share their expertise more widely. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone that the European Scrutiny Committee has a lot of expertise to offer, although of course the exact composition of the delegation will be a matter for the usual channels.
Sir Oliver Heald
As my hon. Friend may know, there are a number of assemblies—the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE and so on—that follow a similar pattern whereby a written ministerial statement appoints the membership. However, I believe that the usual channels are very keen that the assembly should have geographical range and should take account of balance, equalities and so on. Personally, I think that if we wanted to go for something different, we would have to change the whole system that we operate in this Parliament for assemblies.
Mr Goodwill
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if we used the way that Select Committees select people, we could end up with no member from Northern Ireland, for example? That would not be acceptable, in my view.
Sir Oliver Heald
I certainly hope that our approach will mean that we have a very good range of geography, equalities and so on, which is difficult to achieve in any other way. The House may at some time decide to change how it sets up assemblies, but I think that that would take some time. I would like to see this assembly up and running.
The European Parliament’s other bilateral bodies normally meet over an afternoon and a morning, say, or possibly over a slightly longer period. It is customary for them to open with a state-of-play update from the co-chairs of the governance structure of the agreement in question, which in this case would mean the Partnership Council. I would expect that the assembly might hear from Vice-President Šefčovič and Lord Frost and then put questions to them; there might then be thematic debates on topical matters or discussions on emerging legislation from both sides, depending on what the delegations wanted. Plenaries often conclude with votes on resolutions, but that is not a template that has to be followed religiously.
If the House passes tonight’s motion, there will still be steps to take before the first full-scale meeting can take place. The delegation will have to be appointed, as the Leader of the House has explained and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) and I have just discussed. The plenary’s practical and procedural workings will also need to be arranged. There are templates for that in other bilateral bodies of the European Parliament and we have some ideas of our own, but we expect to have a pattern of perhaps two meetings a year and to be able to reach agreement on how the body will work.
Lord Kinnoull and I have already had discussions with the devolved legislatures to ensure that they are kept up to speed, ahead of the bureau that will be deciding the agendas, and that they can have input into the process so that their views are known. It has been suggested that the interparliamentary forum used for Brexit might be reconstituted for that purpose so that the three legislatures could come together and talk to us ahead of the bureau. I would like the three legislatures to have observer status so that they could be at our meetings and have informal discussions—which are as important as the formal ones—about how the plenary works, but that is something that would need to be agreed with the European Parliament.
I hope that the House will agree that today’s motion is a positive step towards building a new relationship between this Parliament and the European Parliament, following Brexit. I look forward to the UK delegation being established and beginning its work.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I welcome the news that the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly will, hopefully, heave into view in the next few months. The aim is to create a working relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Parliament, to look at the impact of the trade and co-operation agreement, and to be able to make representations and recommendations to the Partnership Council to improve its implementation. That means that the make-up of the assembly will be critical in recognising and, indeed, trying to tackle the differentiated impact of Brexit across the four nations of the UK.
Will the Government not therefore accept the need to consider including representatives of the devolved Parliaments? We have already heard a discussion about how to secure the representation of not just one view but all the views from Northern Ireland. However, Scotland and Wales are also massively impacted by Brexit, and I welcomed the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who did at least consider how that inclusion could be achieved.
Sir Oliver Heald
I certainly feel that there should be an inclusive approach, but the agreement refers to the membership of the assembly being from this Parliament and the European Parliament, so I think we would be talking about observer status.
Dr Whitford
Perhaps when the Leader of the House sums up the debate, he will explain to us what consultation has been carried out with the devolved Parliaments— particularly Northern Ireland, obviously, but, as I have said, Scotland and Wales have also been massively impacted by Brexit, and the impacts differ according to local economies, cultures and demographics. It is important that all those voices are gathered and represented.
The chair of the delegation will obviously be a very important figure, and, according to the documents, should be elected at the first meeting. It is vital that this is not a Government anointment of the kind that we have seen in some of the important Select Committees. We are talking about a parliamentary delegation, not an intergovernmental delegation.
A key role of the assembly will be trying to repair the relationship with our European neighbours, which is at rock bottom. The brinkmanship that we have seen over the last year, and repeated threats to the Northern Ireland protocol—a deal that the Prime Minister was quite happy to claim as his own personal breakthrough in the run-up to the 2019 election—have undermined trust. We often hear that with trust, many of the issues surrounding the protocol could be eased, but—with a German husband, and having watched German media and heard the views of Germans about what has happened here—I know that trust is now utterly absent when it comes to whether the UK will keep its word on anything in the future, which makes it likely that moving forward through the challenges of the next few years will be very difficult.
Unfortunately—particularly if meetings are only going to be six-monthly—what the assembly simply cannot replace are the myriad interactions, formal and informal, between officials, between experts, between Ministers and between Heads of State that used to happen when the UK was a member of the EU. They were able not just to influence policy but, often, to defuse tensions. It should not be forgotten that the interactions on neutral ground between John Major and Albert Reynolds made possible a relationship, indeed a warm friendship, that allowed the UK and Ireland to work together and reset the British-Irish relationship in the early 1990s.
As a Scottish MP, I will obviously be speaking up about the impact of Brexit in Scotland, which I see in my own constituency and my colleagues see throughout Scotland in all our sectors: in fishing, in farming, in the NHS, in social care and in tourism. It is important that we speak up for the majority of voters in Scotland, who frankly did not want Brexit and still do not want it. I look forward to a time when Scotland will return to the EU as a modern, independent country in its own right.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I would simply like to make it clear, as has already been indicated, that the partnership assembly will not be a decision-making body, and nor is it foreseen as such by article 11 of the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. Decisions regarding the UK’s new trading relationship with the European Union rest with the UK Government, led by Lord Frost in the trade and co-operation agreement partnership council and various specialised committees. The partnership assembly will, however, be a potentially useful forum for Members to meet Members of the European Parliament to discuss the new UK-EU trade agreement and other related issues—rather like COSAC, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and so forth. As I have said before, the UK may have left the European Union, but good working relations with European counterparts are important for trade and wider co-operation. I believe that the partnership assembly can contribute to stabilising UK-EU relations, and to that extent I welcome the establishment of this arrangement.
With regard to what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has just said about the dire consequences of Brexit, I have to say that that is a pretty average mantra these days from the remainers who persist in saying that there was somehow a level playing field before and that the EU is a democratic body of the first order. Quite frankly, I have never known a body to be described as democratic when it makes its decisions in the Council of Ministers behind closed doors by majority voting—[Interruption.] It is not. I have been a member of the European Scrutiny Committee for 37 years and I know what I am talking about, and so does the hon. Lady, because she was on that Committee with me.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Member not recognise that the Cabinet makes decisions behind closed doors as well? Many Parliaments and Governments make decisions behind closed doors.
Sir William Cash
There is a simple distinction between I have said and what the hon. Lady has just said, because the Government do not pass legislation but the Council of Ministers does. That is the fundamental difference. At this point, I shall resume my place, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) would like to give me another lesson in constitutional law.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Certainly not: my hon. Friend and I have disagreed about many aspects of this matter, but he was absolutely right to say that however we voted in the referendum, that is in the past. He was also right to say that this assembly could have a useful place in securing a sensible relationship between ourselves and the European Union. He and I know that we have not always agreed on this matter, but I would absolutely agree with him—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am happy to let the hon. Gentleman finish, but he should do so briefly.
Stephen Hammond
I will finish on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I will also be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having been a Member of the European Parliament for 16 years, I am very glad to see progress being made on this forum. In case some Members have not heard of it, I want to introduce the concept of sincere co-operation, which is at the very heart of how the European Governments do business in the democratically elected Council of Ministers and how the MEPs do business. They are of course individually democratically elected in the Parliaments of the European family. That is how we will engage with this, from the Scottish National party perspective. We will sincerely co-operate to find solutions, because bejesus, solutions need to be found to this. I urge all Members on both sides of the House to engage with this forum in a problem-solving, can-do spirit. It could be a useful forum to help to resolve the difficulties that we have.
The Leader of the House talked about this forum representing the whole of the UK, but then smirked at us as if to say that that would be a challenge for us on these Benches. I am a deeply proud Scottish European, and I am deeply proud of representing the SNP in Stirling within this House. I believe that Scotland’s best future is as an independent state within the European Union, rejoining the family of nations. Some people in Stirling disagree with that—although fewer and fewer, I have to say—but I represent them every bit as much as I represent those who voted for my party and who will vote for independence.
I also want to see our closest neighbour, by which I mean the UK, having the closest, friendliest and most frictionless relations with the European Union—the European Union that my party seeks to join. It is in our interest to see a co-operative assembly that engages to find solutions. It is in the interest of our wider constitutional project, but it is also in the interest of our friends and neighbours in England, Wales and, especially, Northern Ireland.
Solutions can be found and will be found, and they will be found by engaging honestly without the dogmas and ideologies of the past, by engaging honestly with the reality of how the European Union functions and by working across parties to find those solutions. We will engage specifically in that way and in that spirit.
I have a couple of concrete questions, because a lot of ground has been covered in this discussion. Six months is nowhere near frequent enough for the scale of the problems the assembly will need to address. At the very least we will need to contemplate working groups, so that we can have a plenary session as well as more specific working groups.
The role of the devolved Administrations is crucial to the credibility of the assembly, both within and outwith these islands. The perspective of all the different Members of this House is a singular prism, and surely we need to make sure that the multiplicity of views across these islands is properly respected and reflected. “Perspective” is not another way of saying “opinion.” The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly view this stuff differently from the way that Members of this House view it, and those voices must be properly heard.
The election of the assembly’s co-chairs must be dealt with by the assembly. This is not an intergovernmental body, and it must not be a Government stitch-up. This must be an organisation that reflects with credibility the multiplicity of views across this House and across these nations, because the European Parliament certainly does. The European Parliament is putting up serious people who will look to do a serious job, and I hope the UK side will do the same.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I join those who welcome the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly finally being set up. I was a Member of the European Parliament for five years, and indeed the deputy leader of the Conservative delegation. We fought that election under William Hague with the slogan “In Europe, but not run by Europe”. I felt slightly uncomfortable during my time there, like a difficult lodger in their House, whereas now I look forward to being a good neighbour. Neighbours should get on and resolve their problems.
For many Members of this House, the European Parliament is a complete mystery. Many people tell me it is just a talking shop, that it has no real power and that it cannot do anything. If that were the case, we would be wasting our time tonight. However, the European Parliament has very important powers, including the power of co-decision and the power to engage with the Council, with the Commission acting as a sort of go-between, in hammering out the details of legislation. In many ways, we will be in a position to see what legislation is coming forward from Europe—not legislation that we have to comply with, but legislation we will have to bear in mind as we consider what we can do to have equivalence.
I am reminded of the representation I once had from Norwegian butchers—Norway is a member of the European economic area—and their regulations were coming to them via fax. They had no opportunity to engage in how the regulations were formulated. When the European Union intended to ban carbon monoxide as a packaging gas for meat—meat packed in carbon monoxide can go rotten while still looking fresh, and they wanted to keep the meat fresh as long as possible while it was transported to the north of their country—all we could say to them was, “Well, maybe you could get some Swedish colleagues to put down some amendments.” I think we will be in a better position than many members of the EEA.
There are already some encouraging signs from the European Parliament. Members may remember the argument we had on bivalve molluscs, the classification of the waters in which they are harvested and whether they need to be purified here in the UK or could be purified, as had happened before, in France. In fact, the chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries, Pierre Karleskind, was very much on our side. He thought it was ridiculous that mussels and other bivalve molluscs imported into the European Union from the UK should have any change to their regulation given that nobody had been poisoned—or at least very few people had been poisoned.
There are encouraging signs that the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly will be a workshop in which we can hammer out some of our problems and where we can see things coming towards us on the horizon. As I mentioned earlier, I was in the European Parliament two weeks ago. I met Barry Andrews MEP and David McAllister, who I hope will be on this particular assembly. We were talking about what the limitations of the assembly would be, and my view was, “Let’s just push the margins until somebody tells us to stop.”
I think we can engage on a whole variety of issues. In the future, we will have to look at things such as gene editing, where the UK is moving forward with legislation to have more of it, so we can still trade with the European Union. There are things such as the equivalence rules, as we sign trade deals around the world, to assure the EU that the rules in Australia, New Zealand or the United States, while maybe not being the same rules they have in Europe, have equivalent protections and safeguards.
Furthermore, as my friends across the way from Northern Ireland, the hon. Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), have alluded to, the protocol is the big issue on the agenda at the moment, and we must ensure we can make that work. Indeed, today the European Commission announced €920.4 million for the Republic of Ireland to help with Brexit, so they are having problems south of the border just as we are north of the border.
I very much look forward to the assembly’s being set up, and I think it will be a great opportunity to engage with our friends across the channel and build good relationships. The main plenaries may only be every six months, but I am sure we will be able to build on those contacts and friendships to ensure that we can be more on top of things on a day-to-day basis as we move forward.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. I will speak briefly, because I have a very simple point to make, and I would like to hear the response of the Leader of the House. It will be about Wales, of course—I am sure that is no surprise. There are two points I would like to make in relation to Wales, touching on what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned earlier.
We know the value of Welsh exports to EU countries fell by 27.5% last year, a loss of £3 billion. It was the largest decrease of all the UK regions and nations. Meanwhile, Stena Line has said that trade is down 30% in the ports that connect Wales and Ireland. If, as appears to be the case, representatives of the devolved Parliaments are to be excluded from this assembly—we tabled that as a written parliamentary question, and we were told that that they would be excluded—there is one fundamental question I must ask. I believe I am the only representative of a constituency in Wales here in the Chamber this evening. How will the Government ensure that Wales has a strong voice to defend our interests? Will the Leader of the House therefore be able to tell me how many seats Welsh MPs will hold on this assembly?
The matter of geography is extremely important. Yes, Members of Parliament can speak for other areas within the United Kingdom, but I can see a situation where there will be no representative from Wales, and that to me is wrong. In addition, how will the diversity of Wales’s interests be represented on this assembly? Fundamentally, that geographical question matters now, because it will set a precedent for the future, and if the precedent is set wrong in the here and now, it will reflect on the democracy in an organisation and an arrangement we all hope will be successful.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who made her point very clearly to the Leader of the House.
When I came into this debate, I was not sure of my view on the whole issue of the PPA. Having listened to the debate, I am absolutely certain that I am against it, and I have a number of reservations that I would like to draw to the attention of the House before it divides.
When a new thing starts, it is a good idea to see who is in favour of it. We know Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition are very much in favour of it—the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) spoke with passion about it, and she also spoke with passion about the fact that she was against leaving the EU. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) spoke with eloquence, as usual, and made it clear that in fact the SNP would be campaigning to go back into the European Union.
I thought, “Well, they’re in favour, and that’s not a good thing for a Conservative, so perhaps I’d better look in the European Parliament and see how they voted on this matter.” I think the vote was on around 5 October: 686 MEPs voted for it, with two against and four abstentions. I hope if I had been in the European Parliament, I would have been one of those who voted against.
I am very much in favour of scrutiny, but I am in favour of this House’s scrutiny of the Government, not of sharing that scrutiny with another body. One reason why people voted to leave the European Union was to rid ourselves of the involvement of the European Parliament. The Leader of the House may say to me that I do not have to fear that because there are only 35 of them and there are 35 of us, but we now know that the membership of the assembly will be decided broadly on a party political basis in proportion to the numbers in this House. That would automatically give the European Union a majority in the assembly, because Labour Members and SNP Members would undoubtedly take the side of the European Union.
Alyn Smith
I am really quite offended on this point, actually, although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to joust on it. The idea that I would vote for anything other than the interests of the people of Scotland and the interests of the United Kingdom in the interests of the European Union is entirely wrong. I hope that my speech was a suitably balanced contribution that said that we will try to find solutions for the whole of the UK. We have our constitutional position and constitutional priorities. I was elected in Stirling with 51% of the vote, having stood on a pro-EU, anti-Brexit, pro-independence platform—and I won the seat from the Conservatives, I have to say. The United Kingdom is not one place; it is a series of lots of places. Those voices need to be properly reflected and allegations of bad faith are really not conducive to this debate.
Mr Bone
Goodness me! There was no bad faith: I was just trying to support the SNP in its campaign to support the European Union and get back into it. That is why I say there would be a majority for the European Union in the assembly. If it is just a talking shop, I suppose it does not really matter, but then if it is, why are we setting it up?
Mr Goodwill
I think my hon. Friend is misunderstanding how UK parties worked together, even in the European Parliament—for example, if there was a national interest, they would vote together. I see the assembly working, when we have a joint problem, on how we are going to fix it together. A number of problems will need to be fixed both now and in the future and it will help to have lines of communication. It will not be like some debating chamber, like Prime Minister’s questions; it will be a serious tool that we can use to fix things.
Mr Bone
My right hon. Friend makes a vital point, but I would take things down a slightly different path. I would re-establish the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, which was a Committee of this House and could scrutinise our relationship with the European Union. It would have no MEPs on it and would be a Committee of this House. I think Lord Frost is doing a tremendous job, but it is right that a Committee in this House should scrutinise that job, not a committee made up with Members of the European Parliament.
Sir Oliver Heald
Of course, the European Parliament has set up a number of bilateral organisations with other countries. Some of them have arrangements whereby both delegations have to agree before a resolution can be passed. There is a vote of the whole body, but equally the support of both delegations is required; would my hon. Friend perhaps find that a helpful mitigation?
Sir William Cash
Just before my hon. Friend moves away from the principle, will he give way?
Sir William Cash
I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) mentioned fixing things just now. I have to say that fixing something gets very close to the idea of making a decision and, as I said in my few remarks, the assembly is not a decision-making body. Any attempt to usurp the processes that have been identified by agreement and to turn it into a decision-making body would be extremely unwise, because what we can agree to do by agreement we can agree to undo.
Mr Bone
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That was one of the things that concerned me. I picked up from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) that his view was that this assembly should push the boundaries, but I thought that that was what we had stopped when we left the European Union. We do not want that sort of dialogue. Scrutiny in this House is absolutely right, and I would absolutely welcome a Select Committee, but I do not want a committee of Members of the European Parliament interfering in the sovereign business of the United Kingdom. It is not as if we have to create this assembly. Under article 11, it is the possibility of doing it. We should all reject this in the Division Lobby. I am absolutely certain that the British people do not want to see this. Either this is something that is dangerous or something that is a total waste of money.
The final thing that made me decide that this was a bad motion was the statement that the make-up of this parliamentary body will be decided by the usual channels—the usual channels are the Whips. Goodness me, I am a moderniser. Why cannot we have democracy? Why cannot these delegations be elected like we elect Members to Select Committees? If the House decides that it does want this assembly, we should not allow the Whips to appoint who is on it. There was talk of course, quite rightly, of how the chairman of our delegation or our assembly members is to be established. I have my fears that, if the usual channels get involved, the vote will be fixed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) mentioned the Council of Europe. I remember a former Speaker having a battle with the Government over this, trying to establish that it was this House that appointed the members, and that they should not be removed because the Government wanted that to happen over some argument relating to Brexit.
There are a whole number of reasons why we should reject the principle of this and also the way that it has been set up, so I hope that the House will not approve it tonight.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I thank everyone for participating in this debate? I will try to answer as many of the questions as possible.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, asked for some of the detail Some of how it operates will be a matter for the PPA itself to determine. In terms of how it reports to this House, it is expected that it would make a report after every plenary session and that the chairman would then be able to report to this House in the way that Select Committee Chairmen do by asking the Backbench Business Committee for time on a Thursday to make a report or, indeed, to ask for a debate.
On the PPA’s relationship with the partnership council, that is fundamental: it will be able to seek information from, and make representations to, the principal structure, and the principal structure is the partnership council, under the agreement that we have with the European Union. I think that answers the key parts of the hon. Lady’s question. I accept that some of the detail is yet to be determined because it will be dependent on decisions that are made by the PPA itself.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) mentioned the issue of observer status. He quite rightly said that that would be a matter for the PPA to determine for itself. None the less, that would be a way of including representatives of devolved Parliaments. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) questioned this as well. The issue is that, under article 11, it is a partnership arrangement between the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of the European Union. Obviously, both those Parliaments have Parliaments within them—the Parliaments of the member states and the Parliaments of Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly and that is therefore going to be an arrangement between the PPA.
The speech of the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) was extremely helpful—I am sorry if I smirked—because Members from all parties are part of delegations that represent the United Kingdom, and that includes the SNP. I thought that his contribution was genuinely helpful and positive. I note that he thinks that six months is not enough, but that would again be a matter for the PPA. He raised the question of devolved Parliaments, as did the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. This is sometimes a much more sensitive issue within the European Union and the member states of the European Union than the settled devolved settlement that we have in this country. It is therefore not entirely in our hands, but I greatly appreciate the positive spirit with which he wishes to put his views forward. I am rather more grateful to him for not re-running the Brexit debate than I am to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who did seem to want to run the Brexit debate all over again.
Mr Rees-Mogg
No doubt.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) said, this is absolutely going to be a positive partnership. He is right to say that matters could be discussed informally that may lead to positive solutions, that having such dialogue will be beneficial, and that there will be contact beyond the plenaries.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) asked about membership. There will be 21 Members from the Commons and 14 from the Lords. Twelve will be Conservative MPs, seven Labour and two from other parties, but there will also be 12 substitutes—eight from the Commons and four from the Lords—which will be five Conservatives, two Labour and one other. It will up to the parties to decide which part of the United Kingdom those Members come from, but I reiterate that delegations are able to represent the whole United Kingdom.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has missed the point. His point against the hon. Member for Stirling was unfair, because the delegations have to agree as individual delegations. Therefore, even if it were the case that people were going to vote the way that the European Union told them, which I think is extremely unlikely, if the UK delegation and the majority of Conservative Members on it did not agree to that, that could not be the decision of the PPA; so that point was wrong. There are benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) pointed out, to a non-decision-making body.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I understand it, when they were active as a substitute, they would have a voting right as a substitute to ensure that the delegations are properly attended, but there would not be double voting rights, if the hon. Lady sees what I mean.
This is a fair and friendly proposal that will work by improving our overall relationships with our nearest neighbour, which is a good thing to do, even if one is as staunch a Eurosceptic as I am, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—the doyen of Eurosceptics—is.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House:
(1) notes the provision in Article 11 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union for the establishment of a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (PPA) consisting of Members of the European Parliament and of Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as a forum to exchange views on the partnership, which:
(a) may request relevant information regarding the implementation of that agreement and any supplementing agreement from the EU-UK Partnership Council, which shall then supply the Assembly with the requested information;
(b) shall be informed of the decisions and recommendations of the Partnership Council; and
(c) may make recommendations to the Partnership Council;
(2) agrees that a delegation from the UK Parliament consisting of 35 members should participate in such an Assembly; and
(3) confirms that the procedures currently applying to the nomination, support and funding of delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly should apply to the delegation to the EU-UK PPA.
Business without Debate
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UN International Day of Persons with Disabilities
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I am delighted to take this opportunity formally to mark United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities here in the House of Commons. This is an annual day that seeks to promote the rights and wellbeing of persons with disabilities at every level of society, and to raise awareness of their wellbeing in all aspects of political, social, economic and cultural life.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Next year marks the 150th anniversary of the legislation that gave the right to vote in secret, but this is not the reality for many blind and partially sighted people. Does the hon. Lady agree that not only must this right be protected but work must be undertaken to ensure that there are practical options in place at all polling stations across the UK?
Dr Cameron
I absolutely do agree that those rights should be enshrined and that the democratic process should be open to all.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that if we want people to vote, we want more people with disability in this House? Does she agree that it is a shame that none of the learning from the covid pandemic that might have made working here more flexible for someone with a disability or chronic illness has been kept?
Dr Cameron
I thank my hon. Friend. That is extremely important and I will move on to speak about many of those issues. We should continually be learning and applying best practice. It is extremely important that measures are taken to improve representation in this House for people with disabilities.
There are 14.1 million people with disabilities in the United Kingdom—one in five people—yet despite making up one of the largest minorities, disability often fails to reach the top of the equality agenda.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward; it is something of great interest to us all. Does she agree that watching the Paralympics has reminded us of the superior ability that so many of our disabled people possess and that their contribution to our society should be highlighted and praised not simply on this day but every day?
Dr Cameron
I totally agree. That is an excellent point well made. The Paralympics has shown people that those with disabilities have absolutely specialist skills and abilities that shine through. My one caveat would be that having spoken to Tanni Grey-Thompson in the House of Lords just the other week, I know that many people with disabilities now feel that one of their only options in life for employment is to become a Paralympian. While we all hope that people can achieve their full potential, not everyone can be a Paralympian, or an Olympian, so we must create other opportunities for employment for people with disabilities so that they have opportunities in everyday life.
Over the past 18 months, in my position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, I have heard from thousands of people with disabilities who have largely felt invisible and forgotten during the pandemic. I have therefore been determined to elevate the prominence of people with disability across Parliament, having most recently tabled early-day motions 607 and 621 respectively commemorating UK Disability History Month and the International Day of People with Disabilities. I commend all Members of the House to sign these as a mark of recognition that, as has been mentioned, people with disabilities play a vital role in our society at every level.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on this debate and on her stamina in making her speech at this time of night. Is she as concerned as I am that we are reflecting not just on the International Day of People with Disabilities but on getting out of covid? Unfortunately, disabled people were disproportionately affected in terms of covid deaths; they represented six out of 10 covid deaths. One of the themes of this year’s International Day of People with Disabilities is leadership. If we are going to address the inequalities that have driven the disproportionate death toll on disabled people, we will all have a role, within this place and outside, in ensuring that we do not see that in the future.
Dr Cameron
Absolutely. That was a fantastic intervention and well worth hearing by all, because it is so important that we take lessons from this pandemic and make sure that people with disabilities never again feel invisible, forgotten or that they are at the back of the queue in terms of service delivery. We all have a duty to work collectively to ensure that best practice is put in place across the UK. I take the opportunity today to raise awareness and offer suggestions to Government on what I hope will be at the forefront of their mind as they consider the implementation of the crucial national disability strategy.
First, I highlight the priorities of the all-party parliamentary group in getting people with disabilities equal representation in politics and our political discourse. This year’s theme, as we have heard, is, “Leadership and participation of persons with disabilities towards an inclusive, accessible and sustainable post covid-19 world”. In line with that aim, the all-party parliamentary group has been championing social mobility and access to political mentorship. We have worked with Government and the Department for Work and Pensions to host disability-confident workshops in this House, which resulted in more than 100 of my cross-party colleagues participating and pledging to offer a variety of work experience and internship opportunities to people with disabilities in their constituencies up and down this United Kingdom. That is fantastic, and I hope to follow that up with an additional session early next year.
We have about 24% of the House participating, but we will not stop until 100% of MPs are offering people with disabilities opportunities for work experience in their offices. I request that the Minister champion this type of inclusion across the Cabinet and with colleagues, as this initiative is entirely cross-party. It is an endeavour to ensure that no matter their background, everyone in the UK can have the opportunity to meet their full potential. We have continued to keep diversity and politics central to our work in the all-party parliamentary group and have also launched an inquiry into access to elected office, and I will be presenting its recommendations in this Chamber in 2022.
In the past two years, we have had 17 meetings of the all-party parliamentary group, focusing on a disability-inclusive covid-19 response. Members have tabled more than 200 written questions and 400 oral questions on disability issues. We now have a membership of more than 200 MPs, making it one of the largest all-party parliamentary groups in Parliament. I encourage MPs who are not yet members to join us, but I would like the Minister to note how important working on disability issues is for people across the House and across the UK at large.
The inequalities that people with disabilities face in everyday life have been exacerbated during this pandemic. While covid has affected us all, it has had a disproportionate impact on the lives of people with disabilities. The Office for National Statistics estimated that disabled people made up a staggering 59% of all coronavirus deaths during the peak of the pandemic. Research from Sense shows that nearly three quarters of disabled people believe their needs have been ignored and they have not received enough support. Furthermore, nearly two thirds of disabled people have said their mental health has worsened, showing that we need a holistic approach. We need not only a focus on physical health, but an approach that deals with mental health and wellbeing needs.
Sense has launched a petition alongside our APPG calling on Government to ensure that disabled people are a key focus of next year’s pandemic inquiry. The petition has already gained more than 26,000 signatures. Echoing that, I would like the Minister and the Government to ensure that the panel leading the inquiry is representative of people with disabilities and looks closely at the issues involved.
With almost three quarters of disabled people feeling as if their needs have been forgotten, it is vital that they are central to our recovery strategy. People with disabilities should never have to experience the lack of information and the loss of everyday practical, health and social support, as they have seen during this pandemic. Only last week, I met with local parents in my constituency who are still awaiting day services to resume after such a long time, and I heard about the negative impact on young people’s wellbeing, who are becoming introverted, losing confidence, becoming depressed and experiencing cognitive decline. I am heartened that local authorities will look afresh at the issue and we will closely monitor that to ensure it is addressed satisfactorily.
Economic research by Scope and the Disabled Children’s Partnership shows that the experience is widespread. There remains a £2.1-billion funding gap in disabled children’s health and care. That has led to an entirely unacceptable contrast between the quality of life and opportunities available to disabled children and their families compared with those without disabilities.
Freedom of information requests by the Disabled Children’s Partnership reveal that NHS trusts are struggling to meet targets for therapy appointments. Many local authorities have cut respite care and are struggling to meet targets for education, health and care plan assessments, which leaves many children unable to access diagnosis and vital services. As a result, nearly three quarters of disabled children surveyed saw their progress in managing their conditions regress during the pandemic.
Remedying the disability health and care gap is crucial in our post-covid inclusive society. I request that the Minister addresses that urgently. Much has been said lately about social care, but little has been said about the social care requirements of children and adults with disabilities, who have been largely missing from the conversation.
On employment, people with disabilities have the right to expect the same access to financial security and career satisfaction as those without disabilities. If we are to champion leadership and participation, access to work must be prioritised. In the UK, as in other countries around the world, people with disabilities face significant barriers to accessing and staying in employment. The starkest evidence of that disadvantage is the disability employment gap, which remains shockingly high at more than 28%.
Disabled people in employment also face a stark pay gap of 19.6%, which shows that equality is far from being reached. It is clear that the Minister must take urgent action to enable people with disabilities, particularly young disabled people, to emerge into the labour market for the first time. Will the Minister consider a programme similar to the kickstart scheme that could address some of those issues, and discuss it with Cabinet colleagues?
Not enough of the Government’s attention has been on the demand side, from the point of view of what the Government can and should do to encourage employers to ensure that their workplaces are properly accessible to disabled people, and that the barriers disabled people face are identified and removed. With that in mind, the all-party group, in collaboration with stakeholders such as Disability@Work, had several meetings with the former Minister for Disabled People and officials from the Cabinet Office Disability Unit and the Department for Work and Pensions. We outlined a package of proposals aimed at encouraging employers to engage more fully with the disability employment agenda. I would value a follow-up meeting now that we can meet in person again.
Last week, I was delighted to visit Coca-Cola in my constituency to mark International Day of Persons with Disabilities and to encourage its steps towards disability inclusion in its workforce. It is one of the valuable 500 pledge signatories—companies that are prioritising inclusion and leading the way.
It is fundamentally wrong that disabled adults who are unable to work, including more than 600,000 who are not expected to look for work because of their illness or disability, are left out from the announced universal credit support. That widens the equality gap for those who are most disabled and vulnerable across our society. The Government must look at that and support people into work. They should also support those who cannot work and ensure that they are not further disadvantaged.
I also ask that the Minister looks at supporting the entrepreneurship of people with disabilities. Too often in this House, debates about disability are about the Department for Work and Pensions, but they should be about all the Departments equally, including the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It should be about people harnessing their skills. People with disabilities should be able to be employers and should have the support to overcome the financial barriers to doing so. They should be able to start their own businesses, employ others and mentor others into work.
It is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and I would like to conclude by asking the Minister to ensure that the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has disability equality at its core, and that while we support girls into school, which is extremely valuable, we also support girls and boys with disabilities internationally, via our UK aid, to enter and complete education and employment.
It is staggering that just 1% of women with disabilities across the world are literate. It is essential that education programmes fully include girls with disabilities in developing countries and provide effective, targeted support to address the barriers they face and enable them to thrive and fulfil their potential. Globally, an estimated 33 million children with disabilities are not in school, and children with disabilities are two and a half times more likely than other children never to attend school in their lifetime. The barriers they face can include schools not being accessible, teachers not being trained to properly support students with disabilities, and a lack of assistive technology and rehabilitation.
Everyone across the UK believes that aid should reach the most vulnerable, and a focus on children and adults with disability worldwide is a focus that we can all agree on. I urge the Minister to ensure that this remains core, and is expanded across our programmes. I pay absolute tribute to staff in the Department in East Kilbride in my constituency for their fantastic, innovative disability inclusion work.
In summary, as we join together here to mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities in Parliament, we have the opportunity to include disabled people at the forefront of policy and policy making. No longer should disabled people feel forgotten, no longer should their needs be at the back of the queue, no longer should they be hit with the brunt of the pandemic and no longer should their services be depleted. In the summer of 2020, the Prime Minister responded to my open letter on a disability-inclusive response to the pandemic by pledging an “ambitious and transformative” national strategy for disabled people. The strategy, though broad, has a long way to go to live up to this ambitious and transformative approach. It is vital that the Minister harnesses the motivation of this Parliament, the cross-party colleagues who want to contribute, the all-party parliamentary groups and the Government to ensure that the United Kingdom is a leader in disability inclusion, and that the opportunity and ability to meet and fulfil potential is extended to all.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
I am delighted to join you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) in speaking in this debate to celebrate the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Can I start by thanking the hon. Lady for all her work leading the APPG on disability and the work of other hon. Members in that group?
The theme for this year’s International Day of Persons with Disabilities is leadership and participation towards an inclusive, accessible and sustainable post-covid-19 world. We have all seen the challenges that covid-19 has brought, especially for disabled people. It is a timely and important theme, and we aim to step up our efforts to build back better and fairer for a society that is truly inclusive of all of our citizens.
We are committed to improving disabled people’s everyday lives. That is why, in July, we published the national disability strategy, and our long-term vision is to transform disabled people’s lives. The strategy aims for both a positive vision for long-term societal change and also a practical plan for action now. I welcome the hon. Lady’s argument, which is quite right, that this needs to be broad. That is why the strategy sets out probably the widest-ranging set of practical actions to improve the lives of disabled people ever to be developed by Government—across jobs, housing, transport, education, shopping, culture, justice, public services and so much more. Commitments come from every part of Government, and will be delivered and held to account by ministerial champions in every part of Government. That is all in the service of opening up opportunities and breaking down barriers. Everybody should be able to participate fully whoever they are, wherever they live and, importantly, whether or not they have a disability.
One of my top priorities, therefore, is to deliver on that plan, and we are making good progress. For example, in September the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy launched a consultation on making flexible working the default in Britain; the Department of Health and Social Care has trials well under way to test new training on autism and learning disability; the Cabinet Office is creating a taskforce of disabled people’s user-led organisations to improve such organisations’ access to Government contracts; and the Department for Education is investing a further £300 million this year to create more school places for children and young people with special educational needs and disability—and there is so much more.
Attitudes towards disabled people and disability are changing, but we know that there is far more to do there as well, so we will develop a UK-wide campaign to increase public awareness and understanding of disability, to dispel stereotypes and to promote the diverse contributions that disabled people have made, and continue to make, to public life. Of course, disabled people fundamentally have the same wants and needs as anyone else: to access public services, to travel, to shop, to enjoy leisure, to meet friends and family, to work, to learn, to develop—to have full and fulfilling lives. I will add at this point that the Government are committed to reforming health and social care, and in a way that works for people with disabilities. Our recently published White Paper is a bold step in delivering our vision for a reformed adult social care system that is fit for the future.
Further advancing the rights of disabled people is as important now as it has ever been. We have heard from disabled people that there is so much more to be done, and we fully agree. The Government are committed to supporting a long-term movement for change on disability inclusion, as reflected in our national disability strategy, in the UK and through our international influencing and programmes around the world. I was glad that the hon. Lady remarked on the great work done by many of her constituents. I thank her for those points, which I endorse.
We remain fully committed to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which the UK ratified in 2009. That treaty promotes and protects the full enjoyment of human rights by disabled people. The central elements of our strategy complement those of the UNCRPD and focus on the issues that disabled people say affect them the most in all aspects of life. Indeed, our strategy was informed by the voices of more than 14,000 disabled people and carers who answered the UK disability survey, as well as the many disabled people’s organisations and charities that shared their experiences and issues.
It is an absolute priority for me to listen directly to the voices of disabled people, too. I intend that to include using our regional stakeholder networks across the country, which include disabled people, disabled people’s organisations, parents and carers, and working with disability charities and those businesses that are leading the way on disability issues, such as through Disability Confident.
Last Friday, to mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, I had the great privilege of hosting a group of disabled people and others at No. 10 to hear about their challenges and successes. We discussed participation in politics and public life, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s points on that theme. We are fulfilling our promise to review the way in which the UK Government engage with disabled people, again in discussion with disabled people and organisations and charities. I think that will, in turn, continuously make our work better and fairer.
I want to say a word more about the pandemic, on which the hon. Lady raised very important points. Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have worked hard to ensure that disabled people have access to employment support, disability benefits, financial support, food and medicines, as well as accessible communications and guidance, during the outbreak. We continue to monitor the impact of covid-19 to ensure that the needs of disabled people are understood and to help shape the Government’s ongoing response.
Debbie Abrahams
I am afraid that that was just not reflected in Greater Manchester. I welcome the Minister to her place, but I think she should know that 80% of those disabled people who responded to the survey by Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People—a substantial number responded—were not eligible for support. An algorithm identified those who were eligible for support, and 80% were not, even though they had substantial disability needs.
Chloe Smith
I am sorry to hear about the experiences of the hon. Lady’s constituents and am happy to discuss that further. I am conscious of her work on the Work and Pensions Committee and know that she takes a great interest in this area, so I look forward to taking that further with her.
I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow about young people with special educational needs and disability. That is at the heart of her work, as is absolutely right. Throughout the pandemic, the Government sought to ensure that parents and carers could continue to access respite care to support them in caring for their disabled children. To support that, councils have been able to draw on more than £6 billion of unringfenced direct Government funding to help them with the immediate and longer-term impacts of covid-19 spending pressures. We have also extended access to assistive technology for that group, with investments in remote education and accessibility features that can reduce or remove barriers to learning. I hope that that will start to address some of the disproportionate impact on their learning from the pandemic. I acknowledge her suggestion about the composition of the covid-19 inquiry.
I turn to employment, on which excellent points were made. I am determined to make further headway in reducing the employment gap for disabled people, building on the progress already made. Too many people who can and want to work do not have the opportunity to do so, so the Government are looking at concrete action to help disabled people into good jobs and to progress, with a commitment to continue to break down barriers and improve support.
We have more work coming out shortly, including a consultation on workforce reporting. We are looking to encourage employers to recruit, retain and progress their disabled employees and to be Disability Confident in doing so. I share the hon. Lady’s call for hon. Members to take part in Disability Confident in any way that they can. I also welcome the recent initiative of the disability employment charter and met just today with some of its signatories.
Coupled with our strategy, the Green Paper on health and disability that my Department published in July sets out our ambition to support and empower disabled people to achieve their full potential. Our response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation also ensures that better support is provided to help disabled people to start, stay and succeed in employment.
The UK has been a leading global voice on disability inclusion, having hosted the global disability summit in 2018. We have done much work in follow-up. We support interventions around the world to promote the rights and dignity of disabled people. We recognise that, at home, the Government have a leading role in the further transformation for disabled people that we must achieve. But we must do this together, so this is a call for action across society. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for calling today’s debate and pleased to work with her on this challenge.
Question put and agreed to.
Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing. I also remind them that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 0000).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Fovargue. May I start by apologising to the House for having to bring this legislation back? On 20 October, a Committee considered three statutory instruments on heavy commercial goods vehicles. Today’s order relates to the second of them. This legislation underpins what is known as Operation Brock, which is the multi-agency response to cross-channel travel disruption. I very much regret to inform everyone that an error occurred in the drafting of the legislation as passed. It is a technical definition that requires correction.
Paragraph 2.7 of the explanatory memorandum explains what has taken place: the amendment to the definition of
“the relevant class of road”
was not made correctly. We seek to amend this.
If members of the Committee would like to understand the issue in more detail, they may turn to article 2(2) of the order. The words between “means all” and “other than” were omitted in the law as passed and we need to insert them. I apologise unreservedly for this. One of the Government’s lawyers had a personal emergency at a crucial time of the legislation and a version of the legislation was passed that contains this error. It ought not to have happened. We are reviewing procedures to make sure that it does not happen again, but I wanted to start by being entirely frank and honest to the Committee about what has taken place and saying that we need to put it right.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) took the three statutory instruments through on 20 October. This legislation was first put in place in 2019 as preparation for a no-deal departure from the European Union. It has been amended on a number of occasions since then. Operation Brock, as the Committee will know, is an alternative to Operation Stack. It allows trucks on cross-channel journeys to be queued on the coast-bound carriageway of the M20 between junctions 8 and 9 when there is serious disruption at the ports, as hon. Members who represent that part of the world will be well aware. The contraflow on the London-bound carriageway keeps the M20 open to other traffic in both directions, with access to the junctions.
As I say, the error that has occurred is in the second of the three orders, the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2021, which amended the original Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019. When Operation Brock is active, the 2019 order restricts cross-channel heavy commercial vehicles from using local roads in Kent, other than those that are on the approved Operation Brock routes. The error that has been introduced is to the definition of the roads, which can be found in article 2(2) of the order before us. The error does not prevent the Kent Resilience Forum from initiating Operation Brock. Indeed, it has not been necessary to implement it in the relatively short period since the legislation was made, but the error would affect the extent of the enforcement powers that the police would have to use against heavy goods vehicles using specific roads to avoid the Brock queue.
In short, the police need powers to stop lorries rat running in order to avoid the routes they are meant to be taking. If the Committee is minded to approve this change, we will put right the error in the legislation. Again, I apologise for the mistake and that further legislation has been necessary. Operation Brock is an essential part of traffic management to mitigate any disruption of the short straits, and correcting the mistake will ensure that the legislation works as intended, and as the Committee that approved it on 20 October intended.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under you for the first time, Ms Fovargue. I thank the Minister for his frankness and honesty on this technical error. It would be remiss of me not to touch briefly on the impact that the profound shortage of drivers is having on the haulage sector, and all the organisations and companies that rely on it. It has been exacerbated by long-standing Government inaction and incompetence on this issue. The knock-on effect of the crisis will be more chaos in our supply chains, inevitably leading to more disruption ahead of Christmas, which is such a crucial period for our whole economy.
The SI is obviously just a technical tweak to ensure that we have the right legislation. It demonstrates an inability to establish reliable contingency measures that would helpfully avoid some of the chaos that we have seen for hauliers and local residents in that part of Kent. Although commercial flows in and out of the country should face minimal disruption, we cannot keep relying on short-term emergency measures. I will not reiterate all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on the previous Committee, but it is clear that there needs to be a longer-term solution to this crisis, not just a reliance on emergency provisions. She said that there should be an effort to ensure
“efficient operations at borders, close co-operation with the European Union and working with industry and local communities to identify ways to minimise the disruption.”—[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 20 October 2021; c. 6.]
That is something that I think everyone in this House could agree on.
The provisions are deeply unpopular in Kent. They can be quite short term, and are costing taxpayers an awful lot of money. We will not oppose today’s measure, because it is just a technical tweak, but I am glad to have put those points about Government action on the record.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I will briefly make three points. First, the Minister said that Operation Brock was an alternative to Operation Stack; I would much prefer to hear him use the language that it is a replacement for Operation Stack. Operation Brock is an inconvenience in Kent. Operation Stack was a disaster for my constituents and many others in Kent, so I hope that that was merely a linguistic slip.
Two other points arise from the SI. The first is that, as the Minister said, the Government have not had to use Operation Brock since we last passed a similar, though deficient, SI. Therefore I repeat my plea that the signage on motorways, and in particular on local roads, be improved so that lorries are not encouraged by their often old-fashioned sat-nav to go through villages to reach such things as the inland border facility in Sevington in my constituency, which continues to cause distress to those who live in those villages and to my constituents.
My final point, which again I hope the Minister will take away and encourage his officials to look at, is that one benefit of keeping lorries off local roads, and of the new lorry park that was opened in my constituency on Friday by his ministerial colleague, the noble Baroness Vere, is that there is now no excuse for lorries to park overnight in either residential areas or business parks in the area, where they have been wont to park recently, claiming that there are not enough parking spaces. Kent County Council used to have enforcement powers generally across the area against those lorries, but those powers have lapsed. I strongly urge the Department to consider reintroducing them, because that would complete the circle and allow my constituents and others to feel safe from having lorries parked inappropriately in their residential or business areas overnight.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I will not detain the Committee for long. I will reiterate a couple of points that the hon. Member for Ilford South, my former colleague on the Transport Committee made, and make one other. He touched on the driver shortage. We are all well aware that there was a driver shortage of circa 100,000. The Office for National Statistics suggests that around 16,000 fewer EU nationals are here as drivers. Sadly, we are all getting used to the grim reality of empty shelves in our shops. I would love to detain the Committee by going on about how Brexit has ruined things and why independence for Scotland is obviously the only solution for us, just to hear the groans from the Government Benches, but I will not.
The Transport Committee is looking at this issue at the moment. Having ignored the warning signs from industry and from the Opposition for many years, just when do the Government plan to get our supply chains moving again and keep them moving? We have looked at how the industry attracts and retains drivers; at pay and conditions, which was have seen an uptick in; at the lack of appropriate facilities; and at road safety. Full import controls are planned over the next few months, including checks on sanitary and phytosanitary goods, which were due to come in in October but will now come in in January. Export health certificates were due to come in a couple of months ago and will now be introduced in July.
We need to see much more robust arrangements, not least for the drivers, who face pretty hellish conditions. They have been forced to accept handouts from kind-hearted volunteers over fences or even lowered down from bridges. I would like the Minister to explain what the Government plans are to improve that situation and to ensure there are contingencies in place should those plans fall through.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I have a couple of points, mostly to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said.
A couple of years ago, the Government allowed the use of map data from Ordnance Survey to be made available to the mapping software that underpins many GPS systems. We had a particular problem in Sandwich some years ago, which was always deemed to be the quickest route when lorry drivers, particularly foreign ones, were using free Google-type map data. At times it looked like going through the middle of Sandwich was the easiest route. I am pleased to report that there seems to have been an improvement on that, and we are not seeing that issue like we used to.
I understand that the purpose of the draft order is just to put right what should not have been wrong in the first place, but in easy language, does this permit the police and other authorities in the case of Operation Brock to use their powers to stop what might be called rat running? Could they force or cajole—I suppose force, as it has a statutory basis—traffic moving through Kent just to those roads so specified? That would be helpful. That is how I understood it, but I have not tried to interleave this order with the existing statutory instruments that it replaces.
Robert Courts
I thank all hon. Members for their points, which I will take one at a time. The hon. Members for Ilford South and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North both made points about HGV drivers. I will not go into great detail because it is slightly off topic, but I would point out that the Government have taken decisive action on that. The Department for Transport alone has taken 30 measures and they are having an effect already. We have taken decisive action and we are seeing those measures take effect.
These are contingency measures, but working closely with local authorities, Kent Resilience Forum and those at the borders to make sure we have a smooth flow is what we do on a day-to-day, monthly and ongoing basis. These are contingency measures, because sometimes events take place that are outside the control of any of us. A good example is covid and the covid measures. It is important that we are able to ensure the smooth flow of traffic and to protect the people of Kent and their quality of life at the same time.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet asked about the powers that are available. A £300 fine is available to the police if drivers do not use the intended roads. That is, in essence, what we are putting right today—ensuring that they have those powers. That is why the roads are specified in the definitions I pointed to in my earlier remarks.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford asked about the use of the word “replacement”. He is quite right; I said “alternative” and he asked me to use “replacement”. These measures do replace Operation Stack, and he is quite right to ensure that we have clarity on that. He also asked me to take away the points about making sure that signage is adequate. I will take that away and talk with the noble Baroness Vere, as I will his point about overnight parking to ensure that his residents are protected. I will go away and have those conversations and report back to him.
I think I have covered all the points made by right hon. and hon. Members. I reiterate my apologies for having to trouble members of the Committee with this statutory instrument, but I hope they will join me in supporting it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Treasury
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the loan charge and asked for a review. He will have heard in my speech and will know that we had a review less than two years ago. I know that this is an issue that concerns many Members. We did legislate as a result of that. We legislated on 3 December 2020. As a result of the review, 30,000 individuals benefited. In fact, 11,000 were removed from the loan charge.
[Official Report, 1 December 2021, Vol. 704, c. 1000.]
Letter of correction from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer).
Errors have been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray).
The correct response should have been:
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the loan charge and asked for a review. He will have heard in my speech and will know that we had a review less than two years ago. I know that this is an issue that concerns many Members. We did legislate as a result of that. We reported on how we implemented these changes on 3 December 2020. As a result of the review, an estimated 30,000 individuals benefited. In fact, an estimated 11,000 were removed from the loan charge.
Petition
High Income Child Benefit Charge
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 11 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
Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva
(2 years, 11 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
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking in the debate. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Members are asked by the House to take a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the estate, which can be done either at the testing centre, formerly the Members centre in Portcullis House, or at home. Please give one another and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 590405, relating to research into Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The petition closed with 111,186 signatures, including 162 from my constituency. First, I thank the petition creators, the Bedford-Gay family, FOP Friends, Dr Alex Bullock and Dr Richard Keen, for meeting with my office to share their stories and experiences of, and expertise on, fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. I am incredibly grateful for their help preparing not only me but other right hon. and hon. Members for this debate. Many colleagues are keen to speak, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who has been a champion for his constituents on this issue. I look forward to hearing his contribution. I will keep my comments brief to give others the opportunity to speak.
FOP is a very rare, genetic, degenerative condition that causes the body’s bone to develop in areas where normally it would not, progressively locking joints in place and making movement more difficult and, eventually, impossible. Those with the condition will eventually become 100% immobile, almost like a human statue, with a healthy mind locked inside a frozen body. It is one of the most debilitating and disabling conditions known to affect children in their early years, with no treatment, cure or prevention.
Once it progresses there is no way to reverse it, because trauma causes more activity. Something as small as a knock, a bump or a fall can trigger more bone growth. Likewise, the trauma of misdiagnosis and related medical treatments such as biopsies and injections can trigger bone growth. Even unrelated illnesses such as flu can trigger bone growth, so I can only imagine the stress and horror caused by the last two years of the covid-19 pandemic for families with children suffering from FOP. FOP does its worst damage in a child’s early years. While the condition will progress over time at different rates and no two individuals will have the same journey, most people with FOP are immobile by the age of 30.
The statistics and details of FOP are powerful, but not as powerful as the stories of those experiencing this condition. I am very grateful to the petition creators, Helen and Chris Bedford-Gay, for sharing Oliver’s story. When their son Oliver was three months old, he had what some medical professionals considered to be funny toes and a lump that began to appear on the back of his head. Oliver’s consultant concluded that the lump was not cancerous but should be removed none the less. Shortly after Oliver’s first birthday, the consultant diagnosed him with FOP. The family were led to believe that he would be fine as long as he avoided contact sports such as rugby. It was only later, when Oliver’s parents searched for more information, that they discovered the true implications of a diagnosis of FOP.
FOP results from a single gene mutation, which was discovered only in 2006, so there is very little information on or experience of this condition easily available to the public or medical professionals. With such a large barrier to access to relevant knowledge and guidance, the Bedford-Gay family were seemingly alone, with nowhere to turn for help and support. At that point there was just a small patient group but no dedicated UK charity to support families with FOP and fund research. That prompted the Bedford-Gay family to establish Friends of Oliver, now known as FOP Friends. In short, FOP Friends aims to further research into FOP and related conditions by supporting current and future research projects, to support families suffering from the condition and to raise awareness. Since the charity began, FOP Friends has raised more than £700,000 to help that work and has been able to work alongside the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, the FOP research team at the University of Oxford and other international FOP patient organisations in this fight. Since Oliver’s diagnosis, there have been leaps forward in research, awareness and treatment, thanks to those organisations. However, there remains so much more to be done, and it cannot be done alone. FOP Friends has three key asks of Government.
The first is to increase research funding into FOP. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead will no doubt delve deeper into that topic, so I will not steal his thunder. However, I will say that the University of Oxford FOP research team, led by Dr Alex Bullock, has been investigating how the mutation that causes FOP is activated in patients and what might be able to prevent it from progressing, but that research receives no Government funding. The team’s research into a new drug that could treat FOP has been put on ice due to the covid-19 pandemic, and it is unlikely that external funding will be sourced to conclude this clinical trial.
As a rare condition that only impacts one in a million people, many consider there to be no commercial incentive to fund commercial research. However, because of the effects of FOP, research into it could help solve problems in unwanted bone growth, and conversely, how to encourage it in other major disease areas, including military injuries or surgeries, severe burns, osteoporosis or heart disease. FOP is just the tip of the iceberg of the research. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for the Oxford team to obtain emergency funding for a clinical trial that is already under way. While the Government have pledged more than £6.6 million of funding via the National Institute for Health Research and UK Research and Innovation for more general bone disease research, there is some confusion about how this has or will be applied to FOP research. As I understand it, that funding has not been seen by the Oxford research team. I would be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on this issue and the potential mechanism for the team to access emergency research funding.
Secondly, the petitioners call for the Government to transform the standard of care that patients receive. The Government’s rare diseases policy, the UK Rare Diseases Framework, offers a vital opportunity to transform and improve standards of care for patients and families across the country. With only a handful of NHS clinicians with FOP experience, FOP patients receive varying levels of medical care and home support. I am aware that FOP Friends does amazing work assisting families in school settings with education, health and care plans. Carers of FOP patients are often parents or siblings as the specific needs of FOP patients can be tricky for others to understand or manage. Too often, the ability of those who suffer from FOP and their families to work, live and contribute to society is limited by the condition without wider institutional support. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm and outline further how the UK Rare Diseases Framework could better support FOP patients and their families.
Thirdly, the petitioners call for the Government to help increase awareness of FOP and to transform diagnosis. As I mentioned, as it is a fairly newly discovered condition, there is a serious lack of knowledge and experience of FOP. Misdiagnosis and mistreatment, such as through biopsies and vaccinations and so on, can cause the condition to worsen and trigger irreversible bone growth. Early diagnosis is crucial not only to treat the condition but to prevent avoidable early progressions, which is why it is so important to raise awareness of FOP among medical practitioners. I understand that there have been calls to make the teaching of FOP mandatory in medical schools, so I would appreciate the Minister’s saying a few words on that.
A genetic test exists to confirm a diagnosis of FOP, but currently only specialist clinicians can request a test. An application has been made to include FOP as part of the roll-out of the NHS genomic medicine service, which is funded by NHS England, to allow a wide range of clinicians to request a test if they suspect FOP. I understand the directory of approved tests will be updated in April 2022, and I hope the Minister will enlighten us as to whether FOP will be included in that because that will increase access to genetic testing and reduce the time to diagnosis.
I want to once again pay tribute to Oliver and his family, as well as the many organisations, researchers, campaigners and other families who have worked tirelessly to fight FOP, many of whom I am sure we will hear about this afternoon. I appreciate that many other colleagues want to get in, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, who has a great degree of knowledge in this area, so I will bring my remarks to a close. I hope that we can have a productive debate on this issue and the key asks outlined by the petitioners.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and a real honour to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), whose speech was exemplary. I thank him for leading this e-petition debate and I thank those who secured it. To get more than 100,000 signatures for something so rare is incredible. I also thank the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who leads admirably on this subject across the House. He has my full support on anything going forward.
Mike Kane
The right hon. Member heckles me: he will hold me to that, and so he should. He will not find me wanting.
It is a great honour to talk about FOP today. I am here on behalf of a young constituent, Oliver, who lives in my constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale East, with his brothers Leo and Harry and his mum and dad, Chris and Helen. I welcome Chris, who is here today in the Gallery, and thank him for taking the time to tell me about Oliver and how FOP has impacted their family life.
Oliver, who is now 14, was diagnosed with FOP in 2009. It impacts one in 2 million people. There are just 800 diagnosed cases in the world and only 50 in the UK. It is effectively a single letter that changes or mutates in the genome and over time results time in bone growth in muscles, ligaments and tendons. Usually, children are severely impacted by the time they are 10 years old. They are often contorted and immobile by the age of 20 and have an average life expectancy of around 40 years.
I have enjoyed hearing about Oliver and how he loves to read, play badminton and go to scouts, including to camp, where he slept in a hammock in the rain—not something I would do, but a mark of his extraordinary resilience. Oliver and his family really have shown resilience in the face of adversity, as do many families who suffer with the condition.
It is right for me also to pay tribute to the staff and pupils at Oliver’s school, Sale High in my constituency, who have given Oliver the opportunity to become more independent and to make friends on his own terms. They let him leave lessons shortly before the end of class—apart from history, where he insists on staying until the end because it is his favourite subject—so that he is not jostled in the corridor while moving from classroom to classroom. Those small adjustments give Oliver and his friends the opportunity to live as every 14-year-old should, with increasing independence and agency. May I place on record my personal thanks to Jayne O’Grady, who I know well as headteacher at Sale High School? She does a remarkable job, and I look forward to continuing to work with her to improve the fabric of that school, which is so desperately needed.
Oliver’s family and the wider FOP community have been phenomenal in their efforts to secure funding for FOP. The charity that they have set up, FOP Friends, is the only charity in the UK that focuses on research into the condition. It receives no Government funding at all. It is believed that advances in FOP research could have implications for more common bone conditions. If we know why bone forms in the way it does in FOP, researchers think that the same knowledge could be applied to people with limb damage and osteoporosis, and it could be helpful in cases of joint replacement. Developments made in FOP could eventually save the NHS money in care costs.
Although rare diseases are individually rare, within the population they are quite common, affecting one in 17 people at some point in their lifetime. The Government recognise the challenges faced by people affected by rare diseases, including ultra-rare conditions such as FOP, and in January 2020 they published the UK rare diseases framework, whose goal is,
“to help patients receive a final diagnosis faster”.
It also seeks to raise awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals. For example, there are only three doctors in the UK who have a specialist interest in FOP.
In summing up, I pay tribute to Oliver and ask if there is more that we can do to enable people like Oliver and others diagnosed with rare diseases in the UK to feel confident that we hear them and will support research into FOP, in line with the Government’s own framework.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I have served under your chairmanship for many years, Sir Roger, and it is a pleasure to do so again today. Many of us in this room are parents, grandparents or godparents to children. What is so amazing about the petition we are debating is how quickly over 100,000 people said, “We have to do something about this,” for such a rare condition. Petitions come and go, but we only have to look at the photographs to see what the condition does to human beings. We only have to Google FOP and look at the videos on Facebook and other sites to see the devastating effect it has on people’s life expectancies and on their loved ones.
For me, every child deserves the chance to have a childhood, but the condition—for all intents and purposes—removes that. It is a life-damaging, life-reducing condition that is so rare, as my colleagues have said, that very often when it is presented to top physicians and consultants with over 30 years of experience, they have never seen it before. In my constituents’ situation, when Alex and Dave first saw Lexi—they already had a lovely child, Ronnie, who is now three—they looked at the child, like we all do when we first see our grandchildren or children, and said, “There is something wrong.” When they said to the specialists that “There is something wrong with her feet”, they were told that she had bunions —she was a new-born child. Rightly, they questioned it. They questioned it and questioned it and, in the end, Lexi was probably the youngest child in this country to be diagnosed with FOP.
The family joined what is now FOP Friends, and that community has been formed to try to do two things. One thing is to understand how and why FOP progresses and how to stop that progression—I will come back to that in a second. The second thing is to try to understand for other parents how not to have a child with a genetic change at conception and to actually allow things to be addressed. That research is being done only in one place in the country, and that is Oxford University. It is purely funded by FOP Friends.
I have worked with colleagues in Pennsylvania and around the world on FOP, and we do not know how many children are born with FOP around the world. They are born with it; it happens at conception. We do not really know how many children are born with it, because in other parts of the world they do not even understand what FOP is. There is a really dynamic specialist in America, who has worked with families over many years. In America, there are groups that come together from all over America. I saw a video of them barn dancing together only the other day. Many of them are frozen in their skeletons. I circulated some photographs to colleagues earlier on. Those photographs—for anybody who has a heart—are heartbreaking. An eight-year-old child in one of those photographs has a deformity in her spine, which is frightening for the parents.
What we need to do, perhaps, is say this to the Government, from across the House and across society. The Government are doing wonderful work. Governments have done wonderful work, but this Government in particular are doing wonderful work in the area of rare diseases and conditions. But this disease is so rare that it falls out the bottom. How can it be right, in this day and age, that we have to fundraise? There was a wonderful fundraising event done by my local football club, Hemel Hempstead Town football club, to raise money for research. That research will benefit the NHS and, as was said earlier, will have knock-on effects for other conditions, on how bone structure grows and how it does not grow, on why it grows and where it grows.
As a result of this condition, there is a child, my constituent, who is probably never going to crawl. She will probably walk before she crawls. She is never going to have that experience. Her parents will never have the experience of saying, “Where has she gone?”, which we have all had with our children when they have been crawling away and exploring life, because her neck is now starting to freeze, at 10 months of age.
What I would say to the Minister is this. We can go into great detail, as my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) did, about the different types of research. We can go into the different reasons as to why we cannot do it. I am sure the Minister will turn round and say, “Well, I can’t give a blank cheque, so let’s see what the research can produce.” But until we know how much money we have for the research, we cannot actually say what can be done.
There is a small group of us in this Chamber today. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) could not be here with us this afternoon, but I know he wanted to be. However, I have spoken to lots of colleagues across the House, and we are not going to go away. Of course, much depends on what the Minister says. She may shock us all and write a blank cheque, although I fully understand why she probably will not. But we do need some progress. We need to say that these children are so important. It does not matter if there is one in a million or 500 in a million. These children’s lives and their futures are important, and we need some progress so that they can possibly see some light at the end of the rainbow.
These parents are doing everything they can for their loved ones. Is it not about time that the Government, and we in Parliament, did everything we can for these children? By the way, I think we probably need to fill the House of Commons main Chamber in a debate on this subject, because the more people hear about it, understand it, see the photographs, see the distress and see children who had their childhood robbed from them when they were conceived, the more chance we might have of getting the money in the two areas where we need the research.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Thank you, Sir Roger, for calling me to speak in this debate. I add my congratulations to the mover of the motion on the petition today, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). I am grateful that we all have an opportunity to speak about this rare disease and how it affects some of our constituents.
It is absolutely amazing that we are actually having this debate, when we consider how rare this disease is. That says something about the temerity of and strength of feeling among those who are in FOP Friends, those who suffer from the condition and those in our society who are just genuinely concerned about it. This matter weighed so heavily upon them that it had to be brought to the House. When I consider that one in a million or one in 2 million may have this condition, it is amazing that they have been able to lobby, cajole, persuade and encourage people to sign this petition and get it to the Floor of the House. That fact should not just be left on its own. It should not be underestimated just how significant an effort has been made by so few. It is important.
My constituency has, I think, the largest petitioning group in Northern Ireland—658 petitioners—and across every constituency in Northern Ireland between 100 and 200 constituents did this, yet in Northern Ireland there are known to be only two cases. That says something about the power of lobbying, and it puts a great onus on Members of this House that our communities have felt so strongly that this matter has to be debated even though it affects a very small section of our society. That is what Parliament is about: helping the most vulnerable; helping those who are left behind and can be forgotten. It is absolutely certain that without this debate, FOP would hardly have been heard of. It would have been discussed among those who had a genuine interest in it, or a connection with someone who has the condition or with their family, but to debate it on the Floor of the House is incredibly important—indeed, it is a landmark, and it is important to say so.
Each Member who has spoken so far has mentioned an individual who they have known, and I have been contacted by Lucy Fretwell and Zoe, her sister, who both have this condition. It is incredibly rare that one sister would have this condition, but both do. They wrote to me to say that FOP
“only affects one in a million people. Unfortunately, FOP has affected my sister and I and we have been diagnosed with the disease. Zoe and I have been living with it for 30 years. We are the only two people in Northern Ireland that suffer from FOP.”
She was so concerned that this matter must be debated, and she implored Members to be in this debate, so it is a privilege for me to speak for Zoe and Lucy today.
Sir Mike Penning
Part of this debate is about the fact that we do not really know how many people have this condition. I have referred to the misdiagnoses that we have seen—we can google them. People have had amputations in other countries because they thought this condition was cancerous, and the amputation made it worse. If we had better diagnosis and better expertise and knowledge out there, I think the figures would be much higher in the province.
Ian Paisley
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is only through awareness that we know this condition is probably much broader and deeper in our society. Those few who have been diagnosed are obviously encouraged and energised to write to us and lobby about it, but he is absolutely right that they are only the tip of the iceberg. Those people know about the condition, but many others do not. I for one do not believe that over 3,000 people from Northern Ireland petitioned us on this matter because of two people. There are many more across our society, but we have to look at the facts that are in front of us and relay them to the House.
I will make one other point in today’s debate, which is that the Government have a framework for dealing with rare diseases. That UK framework is critically important, because it commands the Government to do two things: help patients and increase awareness. Today, we are doing the second part of that. We are increasing awareness by having this debate and encouraging the Government to be more active and respond on these matters. Increasing awareness is vitally important, but when it comes to helping patients, no Member of this House can do anything about that. It is the Government who can do something about it by doing what these petitioners ask for: directing resources into research into this rare disease, making sure that that research not only is dedicated and focused, but hopefully leads to outcomes.
If there is any country in the world that should be proud of what medical research delivers, it has to be this nation. Look at what we have delivered over the past two years through targeted, effective research. If that is what we can do under emergency conditions, what more could we do if there were some targeted research and resources directed at this condition?
Like many others, I implore the Government to listen to the pleas of Lucy, Zoe and the many thousands of others who we are aware of. I encourage the Government to respond positively to this petition.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and all colleagues who have spoken, because party politics comes nowhere near today’s debate. We are all here with one purpose, which is to raise awareness about fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, which I will refer to as FOP.
I am not aware that any of my constituents have the condition. However, 584 of my constituents signed the petition, and I took that as a direct instruction from my employers—that is what they are—to be here today. I suspect that it had something to do with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, one of my constituency neighbours, being so active on the issue.
Like my colleagues, I am very proud to live in a country in which 111,000 people signed a petition relating to 80 people—children, in the main—that we are aware of, although I absolutely take the point that there might be quite a few more cases that have not been correctly diagnosed. That is humbling. It is worth pausing on that for a moment. We are a nation of 67 million people. One might think that something that has affected only 80 people does not really matter, but it matters hugely. All those individuals matter as individuals. That is what we are talking about today.
Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva is a variable and progressive illness. It can lock a person’s jaw. It can make eating, talking and dental care extremely difficult. It can lead to breathing difficulties. I have looked at the photographs that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead brought to the debate—for those who want to google them, they tell a powerful story.
I was interested to read about the palovarotene trial. I understand that there were 107 participants, which might not sound like a particularly large number. However, as we have said, FOP is a very rare disease, so it is significant. I understand that 62% of the people treated with palovarotene saw a reduction in new heterotopic ossification volume, which seems encouraging. I am not a clinician, so I do not know if that result is high enough to put the drug into widespread use. It certainly seems encouraging to me. I too pay tribute to the researchers at the University of Oxford. As we all know, they have done amazing work on vaccines for the pandemic this year. It is incredible that they are researching FOP as well.
I am pleased that our Government have a rare diseases framework, which was published this January. I read through it to prepare for this debate, and I want to say to the Minister and her Department that I think the framework’s aims are absolutely right. We have already spoken about the four priorities: helping patients get the right diagnosis faster; proper awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better co-ordination of care; and improving access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. Those all seem absolutely right.
There are five underpinning themes that go along with the framework, the first of which is patient voice. The second is national and international collaboration; we have already heard about the research at the Universities of Oxford and Pennsylvania, and I am sure that researchers from both universities talk to each other and follow each other’s work. There is digital, data and technology, which is so important for that knowledge flow to take place and for people to be aware of the latest research. There is wider policy alignment in how we look after people with FOP. Finally, there is the research that we have been talking about.
I am pleased that the National Institute of Health Research has funded eight studies in this area. However, I have heard that FOP Friends is also funding a great proportion of this research. I have a suggestion for the Minister. I know she will not be able to respond to it now, but I ask her to take it back to the Department and discuss it with the Secretary of State and officials. I understand from the research that I have done for the debate that FOP research would help not only its victims, but people with military and blast injuries, joint replacements, severe burns, sporting injuries, osteoporosis, heart disease, atherosclerosis and chronic anaemia. If we took the smallest proportion—maybe even 0.1%—of the funding for all research into other conditions and earmarked it for FOP, we would provide a significant additional pot of money for FOP research without severely affecting the research into those other conditions. That would be a legitimate transfer of funding, given the benefits that FOP research would have for those other medical conditions. I mention that for the Minister’s consideration. I do not know whether that is feasible, but it could be a short-term way of getting more FOP research when budgets are tight.
The point about medical schools is really important. I have a lot of sympathy for medical students, who have an awful lot to learn in their five or six years at medical school. The seriousness of FOP and the amount of misdiagnosis—we are hearing about amputations and cancer treatment, which, tragically, make FOP worse—show the importance of medical students and doctors of the future knowing about FOP, so that we can get those affected on to the right treatment pathway as soon as possible.
Let us look at whether a little funding from research into related areas could go towards FOP, and ensure that FOP is on the radar of medical schools so that the UK has more than three expert clinicians in the field. We will need to significantly increase that number if we are to do the right thing by the people affected.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for leading this important debate. I am not aware that anyone from my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts has been diagnosed with FOP, but I thank everyone who signed the petition, including 104 people from my constituency.
I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) for so clearly setting the scene. I echo his comments about more funding being required. I was heartened to hear that Oliver’s school is making appropriate changes to accommodate him. As a former teacher of social subjects, I am especially pleased to hear that history is one of his favourite subjects—that brings me great joy.
I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who said that FOP is incredibly rare and that it is indicative of democracy that so many people have signed the petition. I thank him for telling Lexi’s story and for all the work that he does to raise awareness of FOP.
As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, the power of lobbying is so vital to democracy, so I welcome the fact that this rare disease has been brought to the House’s attention. He spoke powerfully about sisters Lucy and Zoe and how they are the only known cases in Northern Ireland. I echo his comments about the genuine concern that misdiagnosis could mean that the figures are higher than we think. I also thank the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who spoke powerfully of the positive progress that has been made in tackling and raising awareness of this rare disease.
Let me take a moment to thank Chris for launching the petition. As has been said, Chris and his family created FOP Friends after his son, Oliver, was diagnosed with this rare disease. At the time of Oliver’s diagnosis, there was no charity in the UK that focused on supporting those with the disease. Since its creation, FOP Friends has helped to support those with FOP and their families, and to raise genuine, good public awareness about the need for medical research into the disease.
There is no known cure for FOP. The disease is caused by a mutation in a gene, a mutation that was only discovered some years ago. The rarity of the disease means that research in the United Kingdom has been limited, as has been stated already. Only the University of Oxford has a dedicated programme looking into FOP, with most of the funding for the research coming from donations from charities such as FOP Friends.
Sir Mike Penning
I just want to pick the hon. Lady up on something. If I am wrong, perhaps the record will be corrected, but I think that all the funding—all of it—comes from fundraising by FOP Friends. That is a very important point.
Ms Qaisar
The right hon. Member is correct that all the funding comes from FOP Friends. I misread my notes, for which I apologise.
The lack of proper funding for research is holding back progress in finding a cure. Further progress can be made by improving the levels of potentially international co-operation in research into the disease.
The benefits of finding a cure for FOP are numerous. As was said by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, those benefits might not just be limited to helping those with FOP. By improving our knowledge of what causes FOP and potentially finding a cure, the medical profession may gain invaluable insight to help it to combat more common health problems, such as osteoporosis, fractures and even battlefield injuries.
In January 2021, the UK rare diseases framework was released. It aims to improve the lives of those living with rare diseases, such as FOP, and it proposes a four-nation approach to support those living with a rare disease. That includes nation-specific action plans that aim to improve the effectiveness of combating rare diseases. It is hoped that the framework will help patients to receive quicker diagnosis, will increase awareness within the healthcare profession about spotting the signs of rare diseases, such as FOP, and will improve access to specialist care, treatment and drugs.
The Scottish Government understand the importance of the framework and are committed to implementing the 51 commitments outlined within it. They also welcome the progress that has been made in Scotland in delivering genomic medicine and in empowering patients through the UK’s rare diseases forum. Of course, still more can be done. Over the next two years the Scottish Government will continue to develop an action plan that works closely with the rare diseases community. The consultation will ensure that those with a rare disease, including FOP, are appropriately reflected in governmental policy. That will ensure that those with rare diseases have proper access to services in areas such as mental health and social care. The Scottish Government remain fully committed to ensuring that there is continual improvement in supplying patient-centric care that is safe and effective for those living with a rare disease.
To better detect rare diseases such as FOP, the Scottish Government have allocated an additional £4.3 million over the next two years to ensure that regular genetic testing includes tests for rare diseases. Improvements in genetic testing will help to increase the number of rare diseases picked up by these tests, allowing doctors to provide the correct support and treatment for patients. The Scottish Government are committed to doing what they can to improve the lives of those living with rare diseases, but they fully appreciate that more still can be done.
Sir Mike Penning
I appreciate that this is a devolved matter, but in many cases these children do not have two years. The hon. Lady has seen some of the photographs, so she knows the condition that will deteriorate further with these life-threatening diseases while the consultation goes on for two years. As I say, I appreciate the matter is devolved to Scotland, but as with England and Wales, Scotland has to say, “Two years is too long. Let’s sort it out now.”
Ms Qaisar
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. I do not think that anyone would disagree that all Governments need to do more in tackling the problem. He spoke, very powerfully, of his constituent, and it is incredibly important that Ministers in all four nations are listening very clearly.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister, and the Government, will agree that more funding is required to combat rare diseases such as FOP. I look forward to hearing her contribution. The petition has helped to raise awareness of an incredibly rare disease, and I again want to put on record my thanks to the family for bringing the issue to the Floor of the House and encouraging people to sign their petition. It highlights the need for action by Governments to combat rare diseases. I hope it is not too long until we find a cure for FOP, for Oliver and for loads of other children like him across the four nations.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. As we have heard, despite fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva—or FOP—being an ultra-rare disease affecting only one in a million, more than 111,000 people have signed the petition, including 162 people from the hon. Member’s constituency and 108 from my own, showing the high level of public support for the issue.
I pay tribute to the contribution from the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), whose constituent, Lexi, has recently been diagnosed with FOP, and to Lexi’s mother, Alex, and father, Dave, who have been instrumental in the petition’s success while also raising awareness and money for research themselves. I was pleased to see that there were signatures from across the country, but the support from Hemel Hempstead massively outweighed that from anywhere else, evidencing the incredible drive and leadership shown on Lexi’s behalf. Again, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member. He and colleagues who have spoken today have all highlighted the issues around the lack of funding and the need to raise awareness.
We have heard lots of excellent contributions, so I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for highlighting their constituents’ cases and the issues around funding and the lack of awareness. It is incredibly shocking that the only source of funding for research into the disease is from FOP Friends, so I also recognise, and thank it, for the work it has done.
As we have heard, FOP comes from mutation of the ACVR1 gene, causing muscles, tendons and ligaments to convert to unwanted bone growth, starting from a very young age. It debilitates and disables, before progressing to cause immobility and ultimately death. While progress happens at different rates, both naturally and because of the trauma it induces, most people with FOP are immobile by the age of 30.
Sir Mike Penning
The hon. Lady has touched on an enormously important point that I did not mention in my comments. Lots of people think this is all about trauma—that it is all about bruising or impact—but for a lot of people with this terrible condition, there is no logic. There is no trauma; it just develops and goes through. We have the two sides of it. Trauma, yes, and that is where the research into this particular condition is so important.
Feryal Clark
I absolutely agree. There is a need for investment into research of all aspects of this illness. Life expectancy for people with FOP is, on average, 40 years, which is absolutely shocking. It is a horrible condition that nobody would wish on their worst enemy. It is clear that we all agree on the need to act to improve outcomes for the approximately 70 people in the UK who we know of who are suffering as well as for everyone living with it across the world. Thankfully, we know that action can be effective, both in diagnosis and care.
The average age at diagnosis is eight years old, despite the existence of genetic tests to confirm diagnoses and other signs that occur far earlier than that. Usually, the benefits of early diagnosis are common sense—it is just a matter of time, and time spent untreated is time in which a disease or condition can worsen. However, FOP is different. As I and other Members mentioned, trauma generates FOP activity, worsening the condition and speeding up its progress. Any time spent undiagnosed is time when trauma can occur unknowingly, not least in young children, who are not particularly robust or careful; I have a seven-month-old myself, so I know it is really difficult to prevent little babies from moving around. We do not need to stretch our minds to imagine the accidental trauma that could take place in a child with FOP up to the age of eight.
In the first instance, early diagnosis avoids the need for investigative diagnostic procedures that can themselves trigger irreversible FOP activity in an individual, and it does not stop there. Early diagnosis means other adaptations can be made at home and school, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East spoke of the adaptations made in school for Oliver. It means that alternatives can be used to potentially damaging immunisations, usually injected into muscle; knowledgeable clinical care can be established; and of course, simple behavioural changes can be made to avoid unnecessary trauma in these individuals. Those simple things can make a tremendous difference, yet the genetic test that can make that happen can be requested only by specialist clinicians, of which there are not many. Given how few people suffer from FOP, the likelihood of that request happening prior to diagnosis seems monumentally low, let alone its happening an optimal time. The directory of approved tests for the NHS genomic medicine service will be updated next April, and we heard hon. Members call for the Government to ensure that the FOP test is included. I hope to hear the Minister commit to heed those calls.
I also urge the Minister to explore other avenues, such as technology to improve doctors’ awareness of symptoms or new born genetic screening, which will have impacts far beyond FOP and could help many of the one in 17 people who live with a rare condition. The Government have already set out their vision for this in the UK rare diseases framework, so I do not think anything new is being asked for today—simply for them to follow through on their promises.
Just as with diagnosis, it is often the case that the most difference can be made to rare diseases by improving standards of care. For those living with FOP, that can also be transformative. With so few specialists or experienced clinicians, it is no surprise that levels of care vary, but that does not mean that the status quo has to be maintained. The nature of FOP means that some activity needs urgent action, and of course, specialist assistance is needed throughout. The UK rare diseases framework offers an opportunity here, too. I am keen to hear from the Minister the Government’s plans to improve care for those with FOP universally through that mechanism and to ensure that all those living with FOP now and in the future get the care that they need.
My final point is a broader one that applies to rare diseases in general. We have many of these debates, and quite rightly, because every person who lives with a rare disease has a different experience. Collectively, rare diseases affect as many as 3.5 million people across the UK. Although individual approaches are needed, a collective approach is also important. I welcomed the publication of the UK rare diseases framework, because not only can collective action help to improve standards of diagnosis, treatment and care, but individual approaches can help others. For example, as we have heard, increased research into FOP could help joint replacements, military injuries, burns, sporting injuries, osteoporosis, heart disease, chronic anaemia, and even brain cancers. That principle will apply across the rare diseases spectrum. It is disappointing that after the rare disease framework was published, the then public health Minister confirmed that no new funding had been allocated. My ask of the Minister, and my question to the Government, is simple: how will the Minister deliver on the priorities that the Government set out in that framework?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for leading us in this debate. It is incredible that a condition that affects fewer than 100 people across the UK has generated so much support, and that is testament to everyone involved. I particularly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for always putting his weight behind the campaign, and for sharing the experience of his constituent, Lexi, and the impact that this condition has on her life and that of her family. I also thank the campaigners, and their FOP friends, for their important work in this space, as well as all those across the United Kingdom who are affected. We heard the story of Oliver from the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), and it is through such stories that we learn about the full impact of this disease. This is not just a condition that young children have to live with, because there are ordinary day-to-day things that they can no longer do, and that may worsen their condition or shorten their life expectancy.
We heard from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) about Zoe and Lucy—the two people we know of in Northern Ireland who have this condition. If nothing else, this debate has highlighted and raised awareness of the condition, and there may be parents out there whose children have similar symptoms and who might now think about pushing for investigations to see whether they are affected. It is important that rare diseases such as FOP get the attention and resources that other more common conditions routinely receive. Although rare diseases, by their very nature, are rare, today we have heard that collectively one in 17 people will be affected by a rare disease at some point in their lifetime. That amounts to 3.5 million people in the UK.
The Government have recognised the issues and challenges faced by people with rare diseases such as FOP. For too long such diseases have been the Cinderella of conditions, and resources have traditionally been targeted to those most affected by other conditions. This Government are the first to change that and to raise the profile of rare diseases, in terms not just of awareness, but also of resources.
As we have heard, FOP is a rare genetic condition when abnormal bone development occurs where bone should not normally grow. It has the most debilitating effects, whether reducing mobility or even leading to respiratory or heart failure. The tragic situation is that although some medication can treat some of the symptoms, there is no effective treatment for the disease, and certainly no cure. We have heard about the effect that the condition has on life expectancy for some of the youngest people in our society. We are not 100% sure of the causes of FOP, because although a genetic mutation happens, we do not know whether it is a hereditary condition. In some cases it is hereditary, but in many it happens spontaneously. There is a huge amount of research that needs to be done, not just on curative treatment, but on understanding the cause. That is what the petitioners have called for today—research into that area. It is frustrating with rare diseases that, in any clinical research, the more people who are affected, the quicker the results are.
Sir Mike Penning
I think it is important that I correct the Minister’s point. There is no evidence at all that this is hereditary. The gene is affected at conception. That has been researched, and we know that gene testing can happen. For the record, can we please make clear that this is not a hereditary condition?
Maria Caulfield
I was pretty clear that it happens spontaneously in the cases that we know of. It is a genetic condition, but not necessarily hereditary.
Finding quick answers to research questions requires a large number of people to be involved. The frustrating thing with rare diseases is that they affect so few people that, even if there was a wealth of research, the low numbers mean that research results are often frustratingly slow. That is no one’s fault; it is the nature of rare diseases. That is why the Government have brought in the rare diseases framework. We want to pool resources to bring research into many rare diseases forward.
The Government are committed to increasing spending on research by 2026-27 by £22 billion, moving further on our target of having 2.4% of our GDP in research and development by 2027. We recognise that research is the answer to most of the questions that have been asked today, and we are significantly increasing funding for it. Members of all parties raised the UK rare diseases framework, which is central to our ambition and was launched in January, setting, for the first time ever, four main ambitions for rare diseases.
The first ambition is to get a faster diagnosis. We have heard how important that is for FOP. The longer children have symptoms that are not diagnosed as FOP, the more likely they are to come to harm. Playing in the playground or even coming into contact with people who have colds or the flu can make their condition significantly worse. Getting a faster diagnosis is crucial.
The second ambition to increase awareness among healthcare professionals is crucial. Even something as innocent as doing a biopsy to try and find out the cause can have negative effects. As a nurse of 25 years, I have never come across a case of FOP. I am sure there are many GPs and hospital doctors who will be in the same position. Increasing awareness is crucial.
The third ambition is the better co-ordination of care. There should be a treatment pathway that should be followed by anyone affected by this condition or any rare disease. For me, what is most crucial and will be of the most benefit to parents and those affected by the disease is our fourth ambition: improving access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. We have heard today that there are only three specialists dealing with this condition. It is important to support those who specialise in this. They are the ones who will be asking the valid research questions and who will be able to undertake the research. For me, that ambition is crucial.
Alongside industry, medical research charities and specialists, the Government are funding research into rare conditions such as FOP via the National Institute for Health Research and UK Research and Innovation. The Department of Health and Social Care is investing over £1 billion every year to fund and enable research. I am concerned to hear that campaigners and FOP Friends are not finding that the specialist centres can access that funding. In the past five years, the NIHR has funded one study into FOP at its biomedical research centre, which has specifically looked at the potential for repurposing saracatinib, an ovarian cancer drug, to see whether it will work with this condition.
Seven other studies relevant to FOP are also being funded. If those working in this field are not able to access funding for their research projects, the Clinical Research Network offers a flexible package of free support to help plan, place and successfully deliver clinical research in any field of rare diseases. I am happy to meet campaigners and specialists if they are not getting access to that support, because it is available to them.
Sir Mike Penning
The Minister has taken the words right out of my mouth. Will she and specialist civil servants in her Department meet the campaigners? Not a huge group—just a few people to come together to work out how they can get access and make a successful bid so that the children can get the help that they need?
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely. I would be very happy to do that. Part of this will probably be the co-ordination of what funding, help and support there is for researchers, and then bringing the researchers together.
I reassure those who signed the petition that the NIHR does not ringfence funds for research. The fund is open to everyone, whether they have one of the most common diseases in the country or one of the rarest. The £1 billion research fund is available to all, and funding applications are available for any aspect of human health. When applications come forward, they are subject to peer review, so research colleagues look at it and judge it, with awards being made on the basis of clinical need—clearly, today we have heard of a clinical need that exists—the value to healthcare services, value for money and scientific quality, so there is no barrier to people applying for the funding.
Since 2010, the Medical Research Council has contributed funding to three projects underpinning relevance to FOP and underlying conditions as well—a total of £6.6 million. Outside those studies, UKRI and NIHR have also looked at supporting musculoskeletal health, which, although not directly FOP-specific, will have relevance to that condition.
Andrew Selous
I just want to take the Minister back to a point she made a moment ago about the trials for new drugs being limited to a very small number of people because FOP is a rare disease. I wonder what the solution to that is. Do we try to get people with FOP all the way around the world to participate in a trial? I am not sure how many people would be needed for a trial for it to be validated by the Minister’s Department. There were 107 in the trial that I mentioned, which I presume is too small. I wonder how we overcome that when in each individual country there are only a very small number of people to do the trials on.
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely. Just to be clear, it is not the Government who would validate the trials; it would be the scientific community. If it is drug-related, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency would go on to change licences if it found a treatment that was applicable to FOP. In many conditions with such low numbers, often there are global studies, and the funding would not be restricted to a UK-based study. If it was part of a global study, I am sure that that would be acceptable. That is why it would be helpful to meet so that the support and mentorship available to researchers who are thinking of applying for funding could bottom out some of those issues.
I want to reassure colleagues who raised concerns that rare diseases are being pushed up the agenda. The rare diseases framework that was published in January is the first of its kind, and should reassure parents and children with FOP that this is an absolute priority. For too long, rare diseases, because numbers are low, have not had the significance, priority and attention that more common diseases with lots of campaigners and patients have had. The framework will push this to the top of the agenda.
The second reassurance I can give is that funding is available; there is £1 billion per year for clinical research across the board. Just because it is a rare disease does not exclude FOP from these funds. From a practical point of view, it does make research harder, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) highlighted. However, this does not mean that FOP researchers cannot apply for these funds; there are other criteria that are applied to low-volume scenarios.
Thirdly, I want to reassure Members that clinical research is happening. There are one or two studies that have taken off in this area; often that is the catalyst that needs to happen. I am hearing from colleagues across the House, who have constituents who are affected, that there is a desire to do more research. Very often, this desire is what is needed more than anything to find the researchers who want to do the research and have research questions—whether those are about diagnosis, treatment, or, ultimately, a cure. The funding is there to help support that, and there is practical help and support to bring those studies to fruition. Let me reassure colleagues that, as the Minister, I believe that research is the answer to many of the questions that have been asked today. I am very aware of how distressing this condition is, and the impact that it has on both the quantity and quality of a young person’s life. The Government are committed to ensuring that all rare diseases get better access to the resources that are there. With particular regard to FOP, I am sure that we can work with colleagues across the House to deliver answers to some of the questions they have asked today.
Elliot Colburn
I thank colleagues for their contributions today. I feel that the debate has demonstrated the House at its best. We have heard some really powerful contributions. It was a pleasure to hear more about Oliver’s story and life from the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). I express my thanks to him for bringing that to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) has been a real champion of this issue for so many years; we are truly privileged to be party to his expertise and knowledge in this area—I thank him.
Sir Mike Penning
There is a lot of praise going around this House for the MP for Hemel Hempstead. However, Alex and Dave Robins are the reason that my constituents have signed the petition the most. They deserve the praise—not the MP for Hemel Hempstead.
Elliot Colburn
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right—he has taken my next sentence out of my mouth. If he could also pass on the best wishes of the whole House to Lexi, I am sure that hon. Members—
Elliot Colburn
I would be more than happy to. I thank the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for telling us Zoe and Lucy’s story—the only two known cases in Northern Ireland. That demonstrates that this is a UK-wide issue, and I echo the comments of the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), about how incredibly important a four-nation approach is. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for talking us through some of the issues around research; some of the suggestions he made about research funding are worth exploring—I do hope that these can be taken away.
It is incredible that, given the rarity of this disease, we have reached the point where over 100,000 people have signed a petition to bring us here. It demonstrates the power of the petition system; it is humbling, as a member of the Petitions Committee, to see a campaign like this take off. I really think that this is only the beginning. There was a lot of reassuring stuff in the Minister’s reply. I am particularly happy with the offer to facilitate a meeting with campaigners and researchers; I do not think it is too bold of me to suggest that the Petitions Committee will be happy to help facilitate and co-ordinate that. As a Committee, we will keep a keen interest in the progress of this campaign.
I finish by thanking the petitioners, in particular the families of those living with FOP, who are the ones who have brought us here this afternoon. It must be incredibly difficult to have to reiterate these stories over and over again—how upsetting that must be. I would like to thank Chris, who is in the Public Gallery, for his attendance. Once again, I thank colleagues for being here to kick off what I am sure is the first of many discussions that we will have on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 590405, relating to research into Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva.
Written Statements
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transforming Public Procurement
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Efficiency and Transformation, Lord Agnew Kt, has today made the following written statement:
Public procurement accounts for around a third of all public expenditure. Now that we have left the EU we have a huge opportunity to reform how this money is spent so that it better meets the needs of this country. We can create a new, simpler procurement regime that will reduce costs for business and the public sector by reducing bureaucracy and improving commercial outcomes. Such a huge amount of Government spending must be leveraged to play its part in the UK’s economic recovery from the pandemic and unleash opportunities for small businesses and social enterprises to innovate in public service delivery.
This Government intend to put in place a new regime that will ensure we remain compliant with our international obligations. This includes the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Government Procurement which gives British businesses access to £1.3 trillion in public procurement opportunities overseas. This two-way street allows us to maximise value for money for UK taxpayers, whilst ensuring that UK companies are able to compete abroad.
In December 2020 we published the Green Paper on Transforming Public Procurement which set out the proposed new regime. We received over 600 responses with feedback from procurement professionals in central and local government, the education and health sectors, small, medium and large businesses, the charity and social enterprise sectors, academics and procurement lawyers. This, in addition to feedback from a series of workshops attended by almost 1000 stakeholders, provided us with a range of views and insight from contracting authorities, suppliers to the public sector and other interested parties.
The analysis of feedback has been completed and I am now announcing the publication of a detailed document that summarises responses received to the consultation and provides the Government’s response to each individual question. We have considered carefully all of the comments received. Overall, levels of support for the proposed reforms were high and many responses recognised the ambition and breadth of the package of proposals. The majority of answers to individual questions were positive. In many instances, there is no change to the proposals set out in the Green Paper, however in others the Cabinet Office has clarified or amended the proposals based on the consultation feedback. I am grateful for all those who took the time to respond.
In summary the proposals will:
Simplify and consolidate the current legislation as far as possible into a single, uniform regulatory framework, which will remove duplication and make procurement more agile and flexible;
provide a number of sector-specific features where necessary, including tailored rules to better suit defence and security procurement in order to protect our national interests;
ensure that procurement supports local and national priorities, allowing public sector buyers to give more weight to bids that create jobs and opportunities for communities, and support action on climate change;
strengthen the approach to the exclusion of suppliers from procurements, making it simpler, clearer and more focused on suppliers who pose an unacceptable risk;
give much greater transparency throughout the procurement lifecycle;
give new rights for subcontractors experiencing payment delays in public sector supply
chains;
put in place a new Procurement Review Unit to oversee the integrity of the public procurement system.
We are working closely with all the devolved Administrations on the development of the new regime. On 18 August 2021, the Welsh Government published a written statement confirming that provision for Welsh contracting authorities is to be made within the UK Government’s Bill.
The publication of the consultation response is a key milestone in delivering the ambition to create a procurement regime that better meets the needs of our country. We are currently finalising the Bill to implement these proposals and intend to introduce it as soon as parliamentary time allows.
[HCWS444]
National Security Vetting
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
My noble Friend the Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, Lord True CBE, has today made the following written statement:
I am pleased to announce the introduction of a new level of National Security Vetting on 1 January 2022.
The accreditation check, which will be applicable to certain roles within the civil aviation industry, will help mitigate the threat from insiders at airports whose access can be exploited to harm national security. An updated statement of the HMG Personnel Security and National Security Vetting Policy, which details the accreditation check, will be published within the Personnel Security Controls on www.gov.uk from 1 January 2022. A copy of the Personnel Security Controls will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS443]
Ten-Year Drugs Strategy
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I am pleased to announce that today we are publishing the Government’s new 10-year drugs plan to cut crime and save lives.
Illegal drugs can have devastating effects on individuals, families and neighbourhoods, as well as costing society nearly £20 billion a year in England alone. The number of deaths from drug misuse are at the highest levels recorded, and drugs drive nearly half of all homicides and acquisitive crimes such as robberies, burglaries and thefts. The county lines model of drug distribution has also brought new levels of violence and exploitation to neighbourhoods across the country.
In 2019, the Government commissioned Professor Dame Carol Black to undertake an independent review of drugs to set out what more can be done to tackle drug harms. The second part of this review was published in July of this year. We are pleased to have accepted all of Dame Carol’s key recommendations, and the strategy we are publishing today sets out our response in full.
We are clear that these problems cannot be addressed by any one Department alone. This task requires a whole-of-Government approach, which is why our ambitious strategy focuses on three core strategic priorities:
Breaking drug supply chains;
Delivering a world-class treatment and recovery system; and
Achieving a significant reduction in demand for illegal drugs over the next generation.
The strategy is backed by nearly £900 million of additional funding over the next three years. This record level of investment will bring our total spending on drug enforcement, treatment, recovery and prevention to more than £3 billion over the next three years.
An oral statement that will be given in the House of Commons later today will provide further detail on the commitments and investment we are making in relation to each of our three strategic priorities and the new frameworks for national and local accountability that underpin this.
The strategy will be available on gov.uk, and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS445]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 11 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, the Committee will adjourn and resume after 10 minutes.
Beyond Brexit: Institutional Framework (EUC Report)
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Kinnoull
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Beyond Brexit: the institutional framework (21st Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 246).
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, on 24 December last year the EU–UK trade and co-operation agreement was concluded between the UK and the EU. Few of the 500 million people directly affected would not have been grateful for the clearing of this first great hurdle in establishing the new relationship between the UK and the European Union. The European Union Committee and the other members of our committee family set about analysing what had been agreed that day, which comprised not just the trade and co-operation agreement but two other agreements and 15 declarations. These were the final reports of the family of European Union committees of this House. Those committees—there were seven when I succeeded as chair the outstanding noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho—have sought for almost five decades to scrutinise all matters and to inform the House and people more widely of every relevant issue through report, correspondence or debate.
The suite of five Beyond Brexit reports, three of which we are debating today, were the final reports of the European Union Committee after nearly 50 years of service to the House and just over 50 Brexit-related reports to the House. I hope that the committee today and, through it, the House will warmly thank the staff who have enabled matters. In the Brexit period of almost five years, these 25 or so officials were led by Chris Johnson. I know that all will want to recognise his outstanding service and to thank him. The clerk of the European Union Committee throughout the period was Stuart Stoner, and equal recognition and thanks are due to him and to all the staff concerned. I especially want to cite those who are in less frontline roles. The contributions of all were essential to our efforts in this long period of sustained activity. It is fitting that the noble Lord, Lord True, is today standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Frost. He has also been most helpful and generous with his time in public and privately, and I place on the record my thanks to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for his similar support.
I turn now to our report, Beyond Brexit: the institutional framework. Some 11 months or so on from the announcement of the trade and co-operation agreement, we have two associated agreements on nuclear matters and classified information, and 15 declarations, which I shall call the TCA package. This debate represents the first opportunity for the House to take general stock of the position and how it matches up to the various words and aspirations of the TCA package. In the interests of time, I will restrict myself to four areas, knowing that the speakers’ list for this afternoon’s debate will enable us to cover many others in this huge, varied and complex arena.
In particular, I will leave all mention of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol to my noble friend Lord Jay of Ewelme, the chair of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee. I very much look forward to his contribution, as I do those of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, the redoubtable chair of the EU Services Sub-Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, an outstanding veteran of the European committee family, who is stepping in for the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, the equally strong chair of the EU Goods Sub-Committee.
The first of the four areas I want to consider is governance. The TCA governance apparatus comprises 24 committees and working groups of various types. I remind all that this is in addition to the eight set up under the withdrawal agreement. At the top of the tree is the Partnership Council, a very powerful entity that can itself agree changes to the TCA, in much the same way that the Joint Committee, at the top of the withdrawal agreement tree, can.
The speed with which the TCA was created inevitably and rightly left much detail to be agreed at a later stage. The logical fora for discussions on this quantitative detail were the committees, particularly the 18 specialist committees and four working groups of the TCA. These bodies are staffed by officials, not politicians, but I regret that they do not seem to be operating in a meaningful way. Recent Answers to Questions in the House have suggested that they have not even all yet met; and other disclosure has suggested that often, the ones that have met have not had agendas which would suggest that substantive discussions are going on. I therefore ask the Minister to update us on the position of these bodies. Have they now all met? Are they now operational as bodies that will tweak the TCA to the mutual benefit of the signatories?
The second area that I want to touch on is the 15 declarations. The first declaration is a joint one concerning financial services regulatory co-operation between the UK and the EU. The second paragraph states:
“Both Parties will, by March 2021, agree a Memorandum of Understanding establishing the framework for this cooperation.”
No such MoU has been signed, although technical negotiations were concluded back in March. This failure to sign the MoU means, in turn, that the EU will not assess the UK for equivalence, which was originally promised for the end of July. The curious result is that the People’s Republic of China has 14 financial services equivalence decisions with the EU, Mexico has 13 and the UK has just one, which relates to clearing and is time-limited.
A later joint declaration concerns the UK’s participation in EU programmes. This includes Horizon Europe. That declaration’s fourth paragraph states:
“It is the Parties’ firm intention that the Specialised Committee on Participation in Union Programmes will adopt the Protocols at the earliest opportunity to allow their implementation as soon as possible, in particular with the ambition that United Kingdom entities would be able to participate from the beginning of the programmes”.
As yet, however, the UK’s vast higher education and research community has no access to Horizon Europe, which is now nearly a year into its seven-year cycle. Could the Minister comment on the above examples and commit to providing the Committee with a full picture of the declarations a year on?
The third area concerns the dispute resolution provisions under the TCA. Chapter 4 of our report is devoted to explaining these complex arrangements. The conclusions set out in paragraphs 129 to 135 note, among other things, that the provisions are “novel”. We have seen in the disputes over fishing with France outstanding matters that need to be resolved. The two remaining disputes, one over UK waters and one over Jersey waters, have been rumbling on for some considerable time, with much work both being done on the megaphone by politicians and in offices by patient officials in the UK, the EU and France. These disputes represent in the TCA the first public test of a dispute, yet the resolution machinery is not being used. This is an active choice by both parties to the TCA, for either is able to engage the process.
I firmly believe that the parties need to use the dispute resolution procedures as part of the confidence-building process in the whole of the new TCA apparatus. Whatever the seemingly attractive reasons for dealing with these problems outwith the TCA apparatus, that reasoning is wrong when looked at in this wider view. Will the Minister explain why the current fishing disputes with France are not being dealt with using the TCA dispute resolution provisions within Part 2 of the TCA?
The fourth and final area concerns the scrutiny of the TCA, in particular parliamentary scrutiny. We dealt with this in paragraphs 76 to 91 of our report. I begin by thanking the Government for their part in the substantial efforts to bring into being the parliamentary partnership assembly. Indeed, I understand that the relevant Motion will be brought to this House later this week. I hope that it will allow the parliamentary partnership assembly to meet later, in the first quarter of 2022. The vital interparliamentary dimension of the new relationship between the UK and EU will then be immeasurably strengthened.
However, the scrutiny committees of both Houses have yet to conclude an agreement with the Government as to how to scrutinise the TCA and the withdrawal agreement. The European Union Committee and its sister committee in the House of Commons had the benefit of the scrutiny reserve resolution in a four decades old agreed process. The current interim and ad hoc arrangements for the TCA and withdrawal agreement serve no one well and are inconsistently applied, as they have not been set out in a clear and precise way.
The winning formula will include agreement on which documents—with, of course, appropriate Explanatory Memoranda—will be deposited with the scrutiny committees; how and when the contemplated textual changes to the TCA and withdrawal agreement will be scrutinised; how often and for how long Ministers will commit to appearing before the committees; and the way briefings will be given on meetings of the Partnership Council and the joint committee. Will the Minister comment on the necessity for proportionate scrutiny and on the wisdom of having these matters agreed in writing in advance?
In closing, I note once more what rare beasts liberal democracies are. We live in a world replete with far less attractive authoritarian regimes where basic freedoms such as free speech are withheld. The things that divide the UK and the EU currently are of a small nature compared with those that unite us. The DNA of the proud European Union Committee, and its torch, have been passed to the European Affairs Committee and several of the other new and vibrant committees of this House. Our work will continue. I therefore look forward very much to this afternoon’s debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on securing this collective debate on reports which were published more than eight months ago. The EU Services Sub-Committee did at least have an opportunity to touch on the report before us in a debate on 22 July on our earlier report, seven months after leaving the EU. It was difficult to draw conclusions then because of the impact of the pandemic and the souring of the atmosphere around the Northern Ireland protocol. Members of the sub-committee had very different views on the wisdom of leaving the EU, and I pay tribute to them for focusing on issues on which we could agree. I also thank Dee Goddard, who was an outstanding clerk to the committee.
The report emphasises how central to the UK economy services are. The UK exported 317 billion of services to the EU and imported 217 billion from the EU in 2019. The UK has consistently run a trade surplus in services. The committee and the services sector welcomed the trade and co-operation agreement on 24 December as being preferable to no agreement, but recognised that significant challenges remained and that negotiations on the shape of UK-EU trade and services relationships would continue in the years to come. We felt that it was in both sides’ mutual interest to ensure that there was a positive and co-operative relationship.
On financial services, our concerns were on equivalences, the need for a deep level of regulatory co-operation between the EU and the UK to help manage future divergence, and the need for Parliament to consider how best to scrutinise the new powers of the regulators. It is clear that we have made little progress on equivalences or on a deep level of regulatory co-operation. It is possible that the larger companies are finding ways around this. However, I have one anxiety and one deep concern.
The financial sector is made up of small companies, mainly outside London. My anxiety is that they will need strong support from government, and I am asking the Minister for assurances on the level of support available to them. My deep concern is about the lack of scrutiny in Parliament of the regulators’ new powers. This, of course, is not necessarily a matter for the Minister. The Treasury Select Committee in the other place has decided not to undertake detailed scrutiny of any changes, and the House of Lords is not giving priority to this either. A separate committee is required to deal with what could be a full-time job.
The Government and regulators now hold significant power in setting financial services regulations. The services committee said that the Financial Services Bill was a missed opportunity and recommended setting up a committee dedicated to scrutiny of the financial services sector. I believe that Parliament at present is not providing proper scrutiny of the changes in the financial sector. There are many other areas of uncertainty that cannot all be covered in time available. On research and education, how much good will would be lost by leaving Erasmus, and would the Turing scheme be an adequate replacement—or, if not a replacement, would there be proper funding? On legal services, there is the question of whether smaller firms would receive sufficient help and advice from the Government, the impact of no agreement on mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and the general issue of mobility of labour.
I want to focus on the creative industries for a minute. They are a hugely important and influential sector, worth £100 billion in 2019 but already hard-hit by the pandemic. The committee expressed deep concern about the potential impact of mobility provisions in the TCA on the more than 2 million people employed in the creative industries, which would make touring prohibitively bureaucratic and expensive. Recent reports show that, apart from a few minor concessions by individual countries, the cost and uncertainty around cabotage, carnets, visas and work permit charges are causing major difficulties.
The European Commission stated in 2019 that, in the music business,
“UK acts … dominate the European panorama”.
There is a restriction of 90 days in 180 days over all member states on visa-free touring. In practice, some countries, such as Austria, Poland and Sweden, have applied additional restrictions on those 90 days or a requirement to be employed by a registered venue, such as in France. The opera singer Jennifer Johnston has said that the standard rehearsal period for performances is 84 days, which means that she can do only one opera every half a year in the EU. Although the Government have granted a cabotage easement, suspending the inbound rules on cabotage for EU-flagged trucks, this creates an imbalance as it is not reciprocated. The fear is that specialist hauliers will move from the UK, which currently has the vast majority of these trucks, to EU countries, with a consequent loss of UK jobs.
The music industry is looking for a transitional support package and a permanent music export office—ultimately, a cultural touring agreement covering the geographic area of Europe. The costs of carnets and permits, as well as restrictions on merchandise, are already affecting the industry; despite the Prime Minister’s promise that he would work flat out to find solutions, there may have been a lot of effort but there is very little to show for it. If the Minister is unable to update us on this, perhaps he will write to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, with the exact position.
In its report of 17 November this year, the International Agreements Committee outlined its views on the negotiating objectives that the Government should adopt on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP. If we are to ensure that the UK’s standards are safeguarded in a number of areas—including intellectual property and the protection of personal data, which I have not had time to deal with today—the Government need to be clear whether they are seeking carve-outs or embarking on a whole new philosophy involving lower standards and protections.
Finally, our UK services sector is a major success story; so far, the Government have succeeded in only minor acts of mitigation. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, indicated, it is a matter of some urgency that the infrastructure for mutual co-operation and consultation is up and running as soon as possible.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I speak today as a member of your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee and chair of the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
I want to focus my remarks today—it is of course the centenary of the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement on 6 December 1921—on Northern Ireland. Although the reports before us on services and the institutional framework are extremely important, they are of less relevance to Northern Ireland than the report on the trade of goods, so most of my remarks will relate to that report. However, I must say, the focus is rather different for Northern Ireland and Great Britain than for the United Kingdom and the European Union. How do we ensure that there is no physical border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland without leading to an unacceptable border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The sub-committee on the Northern Ireland protocol was established in the spring of this year as a sub-committee of the European Affairs Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, so we are comparatively new. The members of the committee are, however, immensely experienced. A number of them are very active in today’s politics in Northern Ireland, and they span a wide range of political views. The committee published its initial report in July; it was debated here in the Moses Room in September. It was agreed by unanimity. That unanimity did not, of course, in any way disguise the different political views in the committee, but it did show that all members of the committee, whatever their political views, believe that the Government’s focus in negotiations on the protocol must be on the effects on all communities in Northern Ireland.
Since last summer, the committee has continued its scrutiny of the different provisions of the protocol and its operation. It is worth stressing that the protocol is indeed in operation, even if the implementation of certain provisions of it have been deferred. We looked first at Article 2 of the protocol, on individual rights. This is an important part of the protocol, even if it is often neglected through the focus on trade provisions. It is less relevant, however, to today’s debate, although I am glad that the Government have just replied to the committee’s letter on the subject, which the committee will consider later this month.
We have also considered the provision of medicines to Northern Ireland. This is an issue that affects everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of their views on Brexit, the protocol or the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. No matter what your political view, if you cannot get the medicines you need, you are vulnerable. The committee took evidence from representatives of the pharmaceutical industry in October and wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, last month. In its letter, the committee highlighted industry concerns over the cost and operational impact of the protocol; the scale and very real risk of product withdrawal; the limited scope for the cross-border supply of medicines on the island of Ireland; the analysis of the impact of the extension of the grace period for medicines; the EU’s non-paper on medicines; and the proposals in the Government’s Command Paper. The committee noted industry’s views that, ideally, medicines should be removed from the scope of the protocol, but with the important proviso that this or any other solution must be on the basis of agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
I note recent comments by Vice-President Šefčovič expressing confidence that a solution on medicines can be reached, possibly before Christmas. This is a crucial issue for the people of Northern Ireland. It would be helpful to have the Minister’s views on the position now in the talks between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and on the Government’s response to Vice-President Šefčovič’s statement that the EU is ready to take unilateral steps to address the issue if necessary.
Two other issues have been at the front of the committee’s minds this autumn: Article 16 and the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. The committee’s work this autumn has been against the background of the Government’s stated willingness to invoke Article 16 if necessary and their assessment that the circumstances exist to justify doing so. Last week, the committee held an evidence session with a panel of distinguished legal experts on the mechanics of triggering Article 16, the legal consequences of doing so and relevant precedents in other international agreements. The committee also explored other legal powers open to the UK and the EU to address the problems to which the protocol has given rise, the legal status of the grace periods now in operation, the implications of Article 10 on state aid and the role of the European Court of Justice. The committee will be looking at these issues further in the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, does the Minister agree that there is a marked gap between the likely consequence of Article 16—more negotiations between the UK and the EU, if in a rather different context—and the widespread assumption that invoking it will somehow amount to an abrogation of the protocol as a whole?
Finally, the democratic deficit under the protocol, by which EU legislation applies to Northern Ireland without its explicit consent, and various proposals to enhance Northern Ireland’s voice and influence both within the United Kingdom and the European Union, were key themes of the committee’s July report. In October, the Commission published a non-paper on engagement with Northern Ireland stakeholders and authorities. The committee subsequently held a virtual seminar on the democratic deficit with politicians representing all viewpoints, from Westminster, Stormont, Dublin and the European Parliament, as well as academic experts and business representatives. The committee is continuing its interparliamentary engagement through meetings with the chairs and members of equivalent committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Parliament in Dublin.
A less visible but extremely important part of the committee’s work in the context of the democratic deficit is the scrutiny of EU legislation applying to Northern Ireland under the protocol. I was much involved in scrutiny work while we were a member of the European Union, but nothing then was as important as looking hard now at the Explanatory Memoranda provided by the Government on directives, regulations and delegating implementing regulations that apply to Northern Ireland across a wide range of policy areas and to which, as I have said, the Northern Ireland authorities have not explicitly consented.
Our correspondence with Ministers and their replies are published on the committee’s website and copied to the chairs of the relevant committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are grateful for the valuable feedback that we have received from them and from others such as the Ulster Farmers Union.
The quality of Explanatory Memoranda from government departments has improved since I drew the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, to this issue in a debate here a few weeks ago. It is, however—and let me be polite—still variable. This is not an academic exercise. I know that departments are busy, but this issue is of serious concern to members of the committee, particularly those from Northern Ireland. The Government surely have a duty to provide a full account to Parliament through our committee of the implications of each new or amended law that applies to Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will redouble their efforts to ensure that?
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I left the EU Committee in July 2019. I am speaking today largely because the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who is chair the EU Goods Sub-Committee, asked me to. I think she did so largely for continuity, because the reports that you see today are built on work that has been going on for many years, in this House and in the EU Committee. A lot has happened since 2019. However, much that was done then needs to inform how we assess the work we are looking at today. In some senses, I feel that the loss of the EU Committee may well end up being a little premature. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has reinforced that view.
The committees have been a significant means of scrutiny, initially of EU legislation and activity, which included the UK’s role in the EU. As we have heard today, there is still not that settled body of institutions and processes that enable effective scrutiny and accountability. I know there is widespread concern about that among Members of this House.
I put on record my thanks to everyone concerned with the committee. They treated me enormously well and kindly when I was on it, even when I was not participating that much because I was ill. I learned an enormous amount from them and from what was going on in the committee and in the EU, which I hope has served me well in my activities in this House.
The report before us on trade in goods recognises that its conclusions are inevitably “preliminary” and that
“the nature, causes and longevity”
of the issues
“are likely to become clearer over the coming months and years.”
That is another reason why I say that scrutiny and accountability in future will be exceptionally important.
The issues in this report reflect much of the evidence we heard some two and a half years ago and form the basis of the concerns of the business community and others today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, has said to me, complex processes and the consequential paperwork have remained significant issues for many businesses, particularly small businesses. It is therefore very important that the Government seek to ensure that, in working with the EU on the implementation of what they are agreeing, they try to reduce the complexity and paperwork for the trade of goods.
The recent crisis in the ability to move goods was a salutary lesson to us all. It demonstrated that the haulage industry faces incredible challenges—not just shortages of labour and drivers but the shortage and poor quality of facilities for those moving goods. I do not know about others here, but I was severely embarrassed to hear the stories of what those workers have to put up with when they transport goods and are stuck on motorways or in car parks, unable properly to use services to look after themselves, let alone the goods they are seeking to move. The problems of the haulage industry also demonstrated to us just how reliant we are on the ability to move goods just in time, as they say in modern manufacturing, where the intricate co-ordination of the supply chain really has to come together.
We have been incredibly unfortunate to have a global pandemic at the same time as leaving the EU. However, the EU remains our largest and nearest partner for trade in goods, and we have to be able to come out of the pandemic in the best possible position to develop trade in goods and services.
I am sorry to keep going on about it but, as many will know, I come from the north-east—the region of England that has the highest proportion of its economy per head of population based on manufacturing. Therefore, it trades with the EU more per head of population than any other region. I have a particular interest in ensuring that all that is talked about in this report works. Unfortunately, in this year, the latest figures for the north-east show an 11% decline in trade with the EU. Unless that is halted, it will have a medium to long-term effect on not only wages but the whole economy—on levels of poverty, levels of disadvantage and so on. I am sure that is not what the Government want. If they want levelling-up, they must address this issue with urgency and have in mind the longer-term effects of decisions that they take today.
Much that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, my noble friend Lady Donaghy and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, have said about institutions and how we develop our relationship with the EU is extremely relevant to this debate. We spent a lot of time and energy on the nature of that relationship before the final outcome, with the agreement signed in December 2019. I remain of the view that we will be far more successful in negotiations if we act as grown-ups, treating each other with respect and as we would wish to be treated ourselves, while keeping our word and acting with integrity. However, there is sometimes a view that if we work in that way we will be seen to be rolling over in negotiations. That is absolute nonsense; if I was being really difficult, I would say it reflects old-time male attitudes.
Let us grow up and treat our partners as real partners who are able to contribute to the development and success of our country as well. We can contribute to countries across Europe being successful and they can contribute to our success. If we think that in today’s world, we can do it all without them or that sort of relationship, then we are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The people of this country have the right to demand that we deal honestly and fairly with them, which also means dealing with the EU in that manner.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, this triple debate surely falls into the “better late than never” category, being nearly a year after the reports were published and with none of the committees and sub-committees who authored them still in existence. However, I am delighted that we have today been addressed by some of those former chairs. Fortunately, their successor committee, the European Affairs Committee, on which I have the privilege to sit, is still chaired by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who led off our debate so admirably.
Looking first at the matter of trade in goods, about which our European Affairs Committee is on the point of publishing a further report, the issue that stands out, to me at least, is SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary controls. This is resulting in much lost or delayed trade and substantial increased costs on business, in the absence of an agreement between the UK and the EU. These controls are also an important element in the problems which have arisen over implementing the Northern Ireland protocol, about which my noble friend Lord Jay spoke so powerfully. Such agreements between the EU and a third country on SPS do exist. They exist between the EU and Switzerland and the EU and New Zealand. The Commission has indicated, so I understand, that it could contemplate a time-limited duration for an agreement with the United Kingdom, which would meet the eventuality of that agreement conflicting with any free trade agreement that the UK might want to enter into.
Why do the Government not use the trade and co-operation agreement machinery to explore the possibility of an SPS accord, given that several options are available? It is simply not a convincing answer to say that this was considered during the pre-Brexit negotiations and discarded. That was then and this is now, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is fond of saying in a different context. Nor can it reasonably be answered that the absence of a SPS agreement was endorsed by the result of the 2019 election. I doubt whether many people down at the Dog and Duck would be aware of what the acronym “SPS” means or entails, let alone that they were voting to do without it without an agreement with the EU.
On the report on trade in services, there seem to be two issues that stand out, both of which have been referred to by previous speakers: performing artists and Erasmus. The committee on which I serve now is already in correspondence with the Minister over performing artists, but so far this feels more like a dialogue of the deaf than a constructive and concerned response to the dire situation into which one of the most vibrant and profitable sources of our invisible exports has been cast following Brexit. The Government’s reliance on bilateral contacts with individual member states to seek remedies to the sector’s problems has so far borne absolutely no fruit and is unlikely to resolve the cat’s cradle of problems over visas, cabotage, carnets and activities involving several member states at a time.
The evidence we took revealed the sector’s impression of the Government’s complacency and obfuscation at the damage caused by Brexit, not simply that due to Covid, as it became daily more evident. Here too I suggest that it is not enough simply to say that the EU rejected our preferred solution in the pre-Brexit negotiations and we rejected theirs. Sure, but it is surely time now to go back to the negotiating table, bilaterally and with the EU as such, and through the TCA’s machinery to explore alternatives to those two failed attempts. I hope the Minister will now say that the Government are prepared to do that.
The decision to drop the UK’s involvement in Erasmus+ has never been properly explained, let alone justified. It looks like an act of vandalism that has brought to an end a process of co-operation that benefited hugely generations of students on both sides, and, of course, generations who have yet to get to university. The Turing Scheme is no substitute since it provides for no reciprocal access to our universities. It would surely make sense now to explore whether some basis for co-operation between Turing and Erasmus+ can be worked out. Again, I hope the Minister will undertake to explore the potential for that.
The final recommendation of the report on the UK-EU institutional framework reads as follows:
“What is vital … is that both sides approach the new relationship constructively, in good faith, with the aim of rebuilding the trust that has been so undermined in recent times. Liberal democracies are precious, and they should work together, not pull apart.”
One can say only ditto to that, and deplore how far short of fulfilling those worthy objectives the actual conduct of the relationship has fallen in the intervening period.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very glad that we are debating these three important reports this afternoon, because it seems to me that their subject matter is still as topical as it was when they were written.
I joined the goods committee during its deliberations. I believe I was asked to do so because I chair the Cumbria local enterprise partnership, an organisation close to the front line. I drew on my experiences and connections in whatever I may have been able to contribute to the committee’s work. In a previous incarnation as a Member of the European Parliament, I was also a spear-carrier during the reigns of the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, in charge of UKRep during the establishment of the single market, and perhaps had something to bring to the process of reverse-engineering what we put in place then.
From my perspective, the Brexit referendum and the 2019 general election were exercises in democracy that led to political outcomes, which in turn led to changes in economic and commercial life here in this country that may or may not turn out to be economically or commercially optimum or sensible. Such considerations were of a second order to the political ones.
I see Brexit as a political process propelled by a national wish to change our constitutional relationship with the European Union. It seems to be common ground between all involved that this would bring about real short-term damage to business, commerce and the economy. The longer-term disagreements relate to whether there will be consequential benefits. The detail depended on whether we had a hard or soft Brexit and whether there would be a deal. In my view, it seems we have a hard Brexit with a deal—and these reports are about that. This is the bed we have made, and we are now all lying on it.
As has already been said, the impact of Brexit is intimately tied up with the impact of Covid. I believe it is impossible fully to disentangle them now. However, work commissioned by the Cumbria local enterprise partnership and carried out by Nicol Economics, applying Treasury metrics, and the Cumbria Intelligence Observatory suggests that, bearing in mind regional variations, our experience is very similar to that elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and that the economic impact of Brexit appears to be roughly double that of Covid, if such a simple way of looking at it has any validity.
Some 4% of the Cumbrian economy relied on direct exports to the EU, supporting 7,000 jobs—with all the implications that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, talked about. The Cumbrian labour market, especially because of the county’s economy’s reliance on the visitor economy, has been badly hit—in particular, obviously, the tourism and leisure sector. For example, earlier this year it was possible to take a self-catering holiday but impossible to get an evening meal if you wished to eat out, because they could not find staff for the restaurants and pubs.
The logistics industry has been very hard hit by both the availability of drivers and the associated rules and regulations, as has already been pointed out. As has also been mentioned, supply chain issues make obtaining inputs to manufacturing and dispatching products extremely problematic. This is true not least in the construction sector, where there is significant double-digit inflation, up to and beyond 20% or 30%. Small businesses are simply giving up on exporting to the EU.
Interestingly, when I was in Germany in the autumn, staying with an old MEP friend, I discovered from talking to him and his wife over the dining room table that it is exactly the same for small businesses on the continent. It is not worth their while bothering to try to export to this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, touched on, there are all kinds of concerns in the agricultural industry, many of which are outside the remit of this debate.
Two things stand out in particular. First, young people appear to have been disproportionately affected, first in respect of jobs themselves and secondly by the long-term impact of problems relating to training and skills. Secondly—this has been exacerbated by Covid—large amounts of working capital have been destroyed. This is likely to make trading out of the problems and navigating the way to a future commercial environment more difficult.
The third of these reports relates to the mechanisms for future relationships between us and the EU, and, while no doubt recognising that much might be done to recalibrate the detail as far as Great Britain is concerned—I have no expertise or wish to comment in detail on Northern Ireland—I doubt there is much political appetite on either side to drill down into it. As far as domestic policy is concerned, I very much hope that the levelling-up agenda—which seems to take as long to gestate as this afternoon’s debate—can take positive steps to deal with the immediate collateral damage to the economy that has been brought about.
The north of England expects the Government will do their duty, and we are watching. For me, however, the big imponderable is the rest of the world, where it seems that substantive change has yet to emerge—although, of course, whatever the particular trading arrangements, there are always commercial opportunities. Setting aside wider political considerations, which may well play quite a big part in this, it seems that the fly in the ointment is that, in the words of a friend of mine, “regulation is the new tariff”. Increasingly, access to a market is not synonymous with being able to put goods for sale on to that market. This concept appears to be anathema to many traditionalists, but one has only to look at the debate around fair trade, COP 26 and the environment to see how this approach is gaining traction in all kinds of places. Of course, that was the basis of the EU single market, which we have rejected.
It will be interesting to see how this will evolve, but in the meantime, we have no idea whether we are waiting for the boat to come home or whether we are “Waiting for Godot”.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The pleasure of debating these excellent reports has been perhaps too long deferred, but every cloud has a silver lining, and the accident of timing means that our views will be responded to by the noble Lord, Lord True—a genial, subtle debater, and not at all frosty.
I intend to talk only about the institutional framework report and its description of the array of committees set up to manage the relationship. They have been described by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull; I will not repeat that. To me, the most striking thing about this huge construct is that nowhere in any of these committees is anyone from the 27 EU member states. We are on one side of the table, the Commission is on the other side, the members states are nowhere. That is because it is a framework for managing separation and divergence in areas of Commission competence. It is a framework for managing inevitable problems arising from separation.
It seems that the UK side did not want any similar structure for co-operating on common problems—problems that we and the 27 face in common and where we might share a common interest, such as Covid, global warming, refugees, or an ever more assertive China. The EU side did want a structure for regular meetings to handle such issues; all its association agreements with other third countries contain one. It particularly wanted one with us on foreign and security issues, but we said no. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, giving evidence to the Select Committee, is quoted at paragraph 57 of the report as explaining that there was “no need” for the treaties to provide for regular high-level meetings because
“they will happen naturally and organically”.
Really? How many have there been? I cannot recall any. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether we have proposed any. Should we not?
I do not want to criticise the framework; I think I understand the role of the various committees and I hope that in due course they will all get around to meeting, but the structure needs to be supplemented. Quite seriously, I think we need to overcome the temptation to celebrate difference and to recognise that splendid isolation is not always all that splendid. In tackling global problems, our closest neighbours will often be our natural allies and co-operation can make sense, but it needs a framework—ad hoc arrangements can be difficult with 28 diaries—and most countries find the discipline of an ordered schedule, agreed agendas and prepared meetings rather helpful. Regular contacts also diminish distrust, whereas meetings missed mean more misunderstandings, and mutual trust seems to be in rather short supply right now. My point is quite a big one, and I do not expect the Minister to buy it today—but I ask him seriously not to reject it and to agree to think about an additional framework for handling issues common to us all but not problematical between us.
I want to make three smaller points. First, the TCA records agreement to set up a civil society forum to meet at least once a year. Mr Gove told the committee that he welcomed the idea. I like the idea—dialogue diminishes distrust—but we do not seem to be rushing to set up the forum. Can the Minister say why? Are the Government now consulting civil society on how our contingent will be constituted? If not, when will they?
Secondly—and closer to home, because it directly concerns your Lordships—whatever happened to the parliamentary partnership assembly set out in the treaty, to consist of Members of this Parliament and of the European Parliament? Mr Gove welcomed that too, and so do I. I am not party to whatever discussions there may have been between the two Houses, but it seems that the hold-up in setting up the assembly lies on this side of the channel. The European Parliament’s team is out on the pitch warming up, but we still seem to be having a selectors’ meeting. I presume that the discussions between the two Houses are ongoing. Can the Minister tell us what Mr Rees-Mogg’s position is? Is it recumbent? Is it laid back? Is it supine? Is our Leader actively seeking to rouse Mr Rees-Mogg? Does she accept the recommendation of the Select Committee in this report that the Government table the necessary constituting Motions in both Houses?
I think the partnership assembly could be rather useful in a number of practical ways, not least—and here I touch on the area of the noble Lord, Lord Jay—in allowing Northern Irish voices to convey, directly to European Union legislators, Northern Irish views on single market laws that would apply in Northern Ireland. More generally, the assembly could help to bridge the trust gap. We should talk to the 27 quite a lot, and talking to MEPs would not be a bad way to start as a supplement to, and not a substitute for, proper intergovernmental contacts.
Finally, can the Minister tell us who is now responsible for bilateral relations with our 27 neighbours? Is it the Foreign Secretary or is it the noble Lord, Lord Frost—as I think I recall we were told when he was appointed? If it is the noble Lord, can he and does he draw directly on FCO expertise? I ask because the episode of the unfortunate letter to President Macron worries me. It could have been better drafted had an expert eye looked at it. Releasing it in a tweet before the Élysée had seen it could have been avoided had experts been involved. It is easy to say that we have had enough of experts, but these things matter, and it is a fool who mocks the custom and practice of diplomacy. That is why I am delighted that my queries will be answered by the Minister, a true diplomat.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and to reassure him, or perhaps apologise to him, that this time I am not intending to tweet a video of his speech. That does not reflect a lack of importance in today’s debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, said, this is crucial to the well-being of all Britons, and perhaps particularly to those in some of the poorer areas of the country often subjected to the Government’s “levelling-up” rhetoric.
It is worth while going back a year to the ratification of the TCA by Parliament. The Institute for Government criticised the measly one day allocated to scrutinising the agreement. It also noted how the short time between ratification and implementation made it difficult for firms, particularly small firms. The Institute of Directors said:
“On the guidance … there were reams of it coming quite late in the day”.
A year on, it is worth asking: how much better off are we? We are now in this rather small Room, with an extremely distinguished panel participating. It is perhaps not the centre of the House’s attention, let alone the country’s, yet scrutinising what is happening is absolutely crucial.
There is an enormous amount of detail here. I will just pick out some points from each of these three reports. The Government’s responses to them all, which I will focus on, often stray towards the perfunctory, with phrases such as “world leading”, which sadly we are all too familiar with. I pick out the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in the response to the report on the institutional framework, which was so formidably introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The Government say:
“We are confident there will be the necessary regular political level engagement both with the EU institutions and bilaterally with the Member States at all levels.”
I have a direct question for the Minister: is he pleased? What adjective would he use to describe the contents, volume and results of contact with EU institutions and, bilaterally, with Ministers and officials in EU states?
I move on to the trade in services report. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, talked about minor acts of mitigation on many of the issues that it covers. I will pick up on just two such areas of particular interest, which I have pursued very much over the past year, one about creative industries and the other about the loss of Erasmus+ and the inadequacy of the replacement, the Turing scheme. In the Government’s response on the crucial issues around haulage, cabotage and carnets, they say that
“the Department for Transport is looking at possible steps to support UK specialist hauliers”.
As many noble Lords have noted, Covid has been an additional, massive barrier, and has somewhat frozen the whole situation. We hope, at least, that we are coming to the point of this being unfrozen. What steps are the Government planning to support hauliers and the creative industries generally? I note again that the government response says:
“It is important that businesses and individuals confirm the processes in advance of their journey.”
That sentence stresses the difficulties faced by the creative sector, both artists and businesses that work to support them.
On the Turing scheme, the Government’s response talks about how Turing is only for outward mobility, and about relationships with individual institutions. Heidelberg University in Germany, the Sorbonne in France and many institutions across the Commonwealth are mentioned. Does the Minister acknowledge that the universities, which have also had so many pressures in the age of Covid, are facing enormous pressures if they have to build up one-to-one relationships? Are the Government working to make that easier?
Finally, I come on to the trade in goods. Here, the Government response again talked about the difficulties, as the committee did, for small and medium-sized enterprises. I want to point the Minister to the report from the Federation of Small Businesses, which came out just a few days ago and noted that only a quarter of small companies believe that they are ready for the new border checks that will come in in January. These include import customs declarations for EU goods; the companies will have to make those declarations and pay those relevant tariffs at the point of import. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, when it comes to food, drinks and products of animal origin, they will have to give notice in advance. Can the Minister tell me whether he is confident that we will be ready for this yet further change?
I want to conclude with some brief reflections on the position of trade in general. I come to this debate with a different position from that of most other noble Lords, because I do not go “Yay—trade! More trade!” What I am interested in is the well-being of the people of the UK and of the planet, and the well-being of the planet. The Government often seem to be trying to push trade with other parts of the world while supporting free trade agreements—which are of great concern, particularly to our farmers—at great cost to the environment and to existing businesses. New Zealand is looking to operate through the living standards framework in all the decisions made by its Treasury and its other bodies. In the other place last week, the Green MP Caroline Lucas had a debate in which she talked about a well-being economy. I wonder if the Minister has given thought to the idea of well-being trade: trade that is not a win for us at the cost of someone else, but a benefit to people operating within the physical limits of this one fragile planet.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for securing this debate. I also want to say a word on the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who managed to steer so many disparate views together to produce a report which is so comprehensive on the subject. Others have spoken today about SMEs, the Erasmus programme and, equally importantly, the creative industries, which have suffered so greatly from what has happened. However, I want to take a very narrow perspective.
In most respects, it is too early to tell whether the TCA works but there is one area where we can see a problem ahead. It is illustrative of a major problem with which we have to deal, and it is the Lugano Convention. I am not interested in its details but why there is the refusal to allow us to accede. It is really for one reason alone: competition. How are we going to deal with that and make our services competitive? I regret to say that I want to do this through the microcosm of the law. I hope the Committee will forgive me, as it is not that technical a subject in this respect.
The key to the success of our system has been English law, and I say that as a Welshman. It is important to appreciate that we have huge advantages in this country. We have good leadership and our judiciary is outstanding; we have huge support from the City of London and the professions; and to be fair to it, the Ministry of Justice has done a bit, particularly since the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, was appointed a Minister. However, the real issue is: how do we deal with competition? First, we must not be complacent. I am sure we are not, but what is the key to this? The law is developing at an immense pace at the moment. I had thought of saying something about climate change, but thought that it might be a little tricky.
I think it is safer for me to stick to an area where the change has been accelerated massively by the pandemic: the importance of digital infrastructure and the trade in data. This is a very fast-moving area. Certainly in Europe at the moment, much less attention is given to the GDPR, which seems to have been our focus, than to the industrial value of data. Therefore, we have to look to the future of English law, which is the basis of the success of our legal profession, and ensure that it is taken cognizance of and fitted into the fast-developing changes.
We ought to reflect on the fact that our system is flexible, innovative and has a long tradition of leadership, but rhetoric sometimes forgets that we share a common European legal heritage. To pick up what the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, said, should we look at competition in this area by subtle co-operation, or do we indulge in a stand-off or rhetoric that does not help? I have no doubt that if we are effectively to deal with competition in this area in law—it applies equally to regulation—our job is to participate on a co-operative basis to show that we have the skills to lead, which we do. However, we will not get anywhere in deploying those skills unless we act with an openness that enables us to put forward ideas and solutions that allow the basis of our law to be recognised as the way forward.
Therefore, I want to ask the Minister whether we can stop using a rhetoric that discourages co-operation. My whole experience in Europe, particularly over the last couple of years—I mean not just the European Union but Europe as a whole, working closely on the development of European Union law and transnationally—is that the only way we will succeed in competition is by friendly co-operation, with a keen eye on our long-term goals. This is a long game, and we must not lose it by rhetoric that does not foster co-operation and the subtlety with which we have managed our legal system. The common law has always been a magpie: it takes good ideas from everywhere. It is not nasty to other people or disrespectful of them, but acknowledges everything with gratitude. I hope we can go forward on that basis.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am deservedly the last Back-Bench speaker in this debate. I am not on any of the committees, but I have engaged with Europe for practically all the 31 years I have been in your Lordships’ House.
This is a car crash that is causing enormous damage. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, said that this is bad, masculine behaviour. It is much worse than that: it is like the man who is trying to get a divorce and who does not care about the children who will have to be taken care of. He has just walked out and, having promised himself that he will be free, he really does think he is free. But he is not: he has to stay and talk about detailed arrangements—what they are going to do with the children, the property and so on.
In a sense, I do not think the Minister can do much about any of the things the committee raised, because the political attitude in which Brexit was conducted—especially by the winning section of the Conservative Party—and all the things that went before it were so hostile to Europe and so committed to getting out without any thought of what would take its place. There were Ministers saying, “We will conduct free trade agreements with 100 countries in no time whatsoever, because that is the new logic”. It was as if they had not held a responsible job in their lives.
All that said, the real question these reports raise is: what can be done to save the situation, especially for people who, without having had any political role in the matter, are suffering extremely? That is partly because negotiations to sort out these problems were not conducted properly and partly because there is still a hostile atmosphere, especially around Northern Ireland, which is very damaging.
The creative industries have been mentioned. The poor musicians and people who do plays, who need to go and reach audiences on the continent, are flummoxed by the fact that simple travel arrangements have become very difficult. An incredible number of new regulations have arisen. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that regulations are the new tariffs. They are the non-tariff barrier to exceed all other non-tariff barriers.
I say this to the Minister: whatever happened in the past, let the past be gone. Yes, we got Brexit done, but Brexit has not been done yet. Doing Brexit was a matter not just of getting something passed through the House of Commons—I say the House of Commons because it was the more reluctant Chamber—but of looking after the people affected by this major decision to just go out without having thought about it, ignoring all the complaints and difficulties that have been mentioned. People are seen as remoaners or effete—it is nonsense. Get realistic and look after the people suffering from the consequences of the decision. The decision has been made and cannot be reversed—we know all that—but can we please have some sense in which people know what they face in the new situation? They may be heavy vehicle drivers, artists or people in financial or legal services. Is there a single place they can go to find out the situation? Can we have some map, for the next six to nine months or for the future as it develops, of how the situation will be resolved to some kind of post-Brexit normality? It is badly needed by people.
These reports are very helpful and competent. I used to be on one of the European committees in the Boswell era, not the Kinnoull era. We looked at the financial services problem. We knew how much the competitiveness of the City would depend on how clearly we defined the relationship between us and the EU. It is no good saying, “The City is so powerful, it doesn’t need any other people”. That is not the situation any more.
I am making a plea on behalf of all the people suffering from this great dash to so-called freedom. Yes, we won, but can we please now have some nurses to heal and patch up the wounds that people are suffering from? There is a great wreckage. We need to clear the wreckage and clear the road for the future.
It is not a matter of our pride against Europe. Yes, agreed, we won against Europe outright, but can we now please have some sense and helpfulness from the Government, not this constant warlike atmosphere about what we will not do at any cost to make life easier for our citizens as far as trade with Europe is concerned? Europe will take care of itself; we have to take care of our citizens, trade and economy, which are suffering. If noble Lords do not believe me, they could read the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility which talks about “scarring” due to Brexit. It is costing us 4% to 5% of GDP. This is a serious matter, and the Government ought to let go of their pride and get some business done.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, having listened to the excellent speeches this afternoon, I am aware that I am a complete newcomer to this House and to this debate, but I am not a complete newcomer to having arguments about Brexit.
I would like to make noble Lords aware, if they were not already, of how grateful Members in the other place have been, particularly since the referendum but before that too I am sure, to the European Union Committee and its sub-committees for their work. They were invaluable in supporting work while I was an MP. It has also been very refreshing to take part in a debate on our relationship with the EU that has been relatively easy to follow. We have not talked about humble Addresses or taking control of Order Papers or any of that. By and large, the discussion has been forward facing and not backward looking, which I very much welcome.
I pay tribute to all the noble Lords involved over what I now understand is five decades-worth of work. It is older than me, so I have the utmost respect for the work that has taken place. I find it strange, as a newcomer, that we debate these reports on quite fast-moving issues so long after they are published. I wonder whether that is normal here, or whether the Government might try to assist in enabling us to do this in a more timely way.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, although it is interesting that he has been assigned to this debate, given the ministerial responsibilities of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, his evidence during the course of the inquiries we are debating and the many references to him in the Government’s response. I hope the Minister passes on our best wishes to him; it would have been good to see him here as well. I do not know whether this decision is part of a wider pattern, but I note that he has taken to making Statements on the last day of term, or when the Commons is not sitting, and issuing Written Statements rather than Oral Statements. I hope that will not become a habit.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has been meeting regularly with Mr Šefčovič, and I hope that Members’ comments and concerns can be relayed to him. They are real and immediate problems that urgently need to be resolved, such as that of ensuring the supply of medicines to Northern Ireland. Triggering Article 16 would be a failure of negotiation and lead us nowhere. Can the Minister please share the Government’s latest thinking on this issue?
Many of the trade issues raised in the reports are just as important today as they were when the documents were published in the early part of the year. Although figures have stabilised for some sectors, disruptions or other barriers to trade remain for others, and deals are still lacking in areas such as financial services. The Government need to think much more about the practicalities for businesses—red tape, bureaucracy and fragility of supply chains. The Government cannot pretend that these are not problems; it is their responsibility to solve them. This has to work. As my noble friend Lady Armstrong said so well, failure to address these issues will hold back regions such as the north-east.
We are all familiar with issues around the supply of labour, whether it is HGV drivers, fruit pickers or abattoir workers. They have left UK businesses urgently making contingency plans. In the case of the agri-food sector, some farmers are exporting animal carcasses for processing before re-importing them, which adds to delays and costs. As we have heard, an SPS agreement of some sort is urgently needed on some basis—through equivalence or some other mechanism—to smooth trade, especially with Northern Ireland. These issues are not going to go away. Our food and drink industry, which is our biggest manufacturing sector, is something we are all proud of; it needs an active, engaged Government working alongside, not against, it.
On trade flows, last week, we saw figures that highlighted the volume of goods that used to flow through the UK while transiting between the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the EU but which now bypass our ports and businesses entirely. Brexit has happened, but I do not agree with everyone who argues that our economy can never thrive again; we have to make our new status work and the Government do not need to relitigate the arguments of 2016 and 2019. We have, sadly, heard that happening, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I have to say, in recent months. Even though the Government are possibly addicted to, or just habitually used to, those debates, we have to move on; this means working together to tackle shared problems such as climate change and refugees with our nearest international neighbours.
On the institutional side, some of the various joint bodies have only recently been established and have been slow to meet. Despite controlling parliamentary business prior to the summer, the Government insisted that it was not their responsibility to bring forward the necessary Motions in both Houses to enable the appointment of UK representatives to the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. Having glanced at the Order Paper in the other place this morning, I gather that this may have moved on, but can the Minister confirm what is happening with that? Many of the specialist committees have met for the first time only in the past month or two, with the specialised committee on customs co-operation and rules of origin meeting on 7 October and the equivalent body covering road transport on 24 November. If we are going to have these committees, we should treat them seriously, so can the Minister explain what Her Majesty’s Government are going to do to ensure that these structures work effectively and that the UK gets the best from them?
We have heard concerns about lack of parliamentary scrutiny, particularly when such issues as cabotage, the creative industries and financial services are not resolved. The Government, as well as assuring us that these issues are in hand, need to resolve them fully; scrutiny and challenge will be part of that process for the long term. We have seen too many short-term commitments and statements. What have been lacking are behaviours that indicate to the country that the Government have long-term stability for business at the forefront of their mind. We desperately need stability and predictability. Although the final text of the TCA has been published and ratified since the reports were published, side agreements are still lacking. The Treasury has seemingly abandoned financial services equivalence, it seems to me, while the long-term status of Gibraltar still has not been confirmed in a legal text. Can the Minister update us on that?
We need normality. My worry is that constant wrangling becomes the new normality. The Government really must ensure that that is not the case. Dispute resolution seems to be a necessary part of the landscape at the moment. It is inevitable, I suppose, that there will be disputes; it is vital that the Government and the EU together show that they are able to navigate issues in a timely and effective way. This has not been the case so far, and both sides need to do better on fish and—tragically, I think—on Northern Ireland. There must be a calm, mature approach. It is in nobody’s interest to fail to get on with its neighbours. The approach we have seen harms our international reputation. This matters if we are to secure first-class trade deals; it also matters that we are reliable partners, especially given our role in peace and security around the world. Even allowing for Covid, the Government’s handling of Brexit and our future relationship with the EU is not being managed well. If the Government do not change their approach, I am afraid that our regions, our communities and the people of this country will be worse off.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may say in preamble that it is never, and certainly is not, the intention of this Government to be triumphalist, aggressive or divisive on these questions. That has always been the position of Her Majesty’s Government. We see the European Union as a close friend and partner, as the Prime Minister repeatedly states, and we wish for nothing other than good relations with our partners. I hope that I can disabuse the noble Lord, Lord Desai, of his fears on that count.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for the contributions made today. As noble Lords will know, parliamentary scrutiny is invaluable and essential in my judgment. The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that this House can play a full role in making this new relationship with our European partners a success.
These reports were published in March and have all been responded to in writing by the Government, but it is welcome that the Committee has had this opportunity to debate them. I have found it a fascinating debate. Progress has been made since the reports were published, even in the face of a global pandemic and the resulting international economic downturn that has affected our partners and ourselves in different ways.
First and foremost, the trade and co-operation agreement has been fully ratified, both in the EU institutions and in the UK by this House and the other place. This landmark moment fulfilled our promise to take back control of our laws, borders, money, trade and fisheries. The importance of this crucial first step was rightly highlighted in the reports debated today. I therefore thank noble Lords on all sides of the argument for their efforts, which ensured that ratification occurred as swiftly as possible in what were challenging and unprecedented conditions.
I also place on record my thanks to the then European Union Committee of this House, along with its sub-committees, which duly scrutinised the trade and co-operation agreement in its series of Beyond Brexit reports. I am grateful to the committee for its valuable work on each of these. Equally, I thank the successor committees—the European Affairs Committee and the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland—for continuing the work of scrutinising our new relationship with the European Union. I hope that it will not be invidious or embarrassing if I express what I think is the sense of all noble Lords who have spoken: that is, the affection, respect and gratitude that we all feel for the noble Earl who initiated this debate for his leading role in all these fora.
On trade in goods, the trade and co-operation agreement was the first free trade agreement that the EU has ever reached based on zero tariffs and zero quotas. This is in line with our aim to provide liberalised market access for goods. I remind noble Lords that the intention on our side was not to seek fully frictionless trade, as the EU was clear that this would require regulatory alignment with its rules. Instead, a balance was struck that safeguarded the UK’s regulatory autonomy and sovereignty as an independent trading nation.
The report notes the importance of establishing the governance—I will return to this—that underpins the TCA as a route to improving UK-EU trade. I am therefore pleased to confirm that, immediately following ratification of the TCA, the Government have established the committees that support the agreement. With one exception, all those committees have already met, including the Partnership Council chaired by my noble friend Lord Frost. As I say, I will return to this point, but the UK and EU have already begun to discuss shared objectives and address the agreed commitments made in the TCA that will help to promote trade in goods between us.
The report also reflects on how important support and good communication between government and industry is; I agree with what many noble Lords said on that. The Government have committed significant funds and resources to supporting and listening to industry and others, and will continue to do so. We are also ensuring that they have a formal voice in the implementation of the TCA, through the civil society forum and the domestic advisory group. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about them; I will return to them later.
On trade in services, the Government welcome the report’s recognition of the unprecedented and highly liberalised provisions in the TCA for digital services and professional and business services, which will help to ensure that these important UK sectors continue to thrive. The Government also agree that UK businesses need our support to maximise the opportunities of our new relationship with the EU as they recover from the impacts of this pandemic. That is why we have provided extensive guidance for those exporting services to the EU and introduced the new Professional Qualifications Bill, which will provide certainty to business and help to maintain the incoming flow of professionals by giving more autonomy to UK regulators to tailor recognition according to the needs of their profession.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, made important points about the law. The Government recognise the importance of the legal services industry in the UK and the role that it plays in facilitating professional services generally. That is why we fought hard for this sector in last year’s negotiations to secure unprecedented provisions regarding the right of UK solicitors, barristers and advocates to practise in the EU using their UK title in both UK and international law. This will be key in ensuring that the UK remains an attractive and competitive trading partner in professional services with the EU, and that, as the noble and learned Lord hopes, UK law remains popular as the governing law of choice for commercial contracts worldwide.
The Government recognise the major contribution that the financial services sector makes to the UK economy. We took swift action to ensure a smooth end to the transition period and have since set out the forward path for the UK’s regulatory landscape in financial services. The UK remains committed to world-leading regulatory standards and has been clear that it stands ready to work with the EU to promote important emerging sectors such as green finance and fintech.
I turn to the report on institutional frameworks. As it helpfully sets out, there is a wide range of supporting governance that underpins the agreement. The breadth of this institutional structure and the mechanisms that it contains are designed to reflect the significant breadth of the agreement, the wide range of areas of co-operation that it covers and the unique nature of the agreement itself. This is only right. As I set out a few moments ago, the UK and the EU are now using these channels to implement the agreement and improve the trade between us. I assure noble Lords that the reports being debated today have contributed significantly to the helpful discussions being had in these fora.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, made an interesting and penetrating speech about UK-EU trade in goods. She referred to a number of factors, most notably Covid lockdowns across Europe and businesses adjusting to our new trading relationship, which made it inevitable that exports to the EU would be lower at the start of this year than they were at the start of last year. Indeed, the Office for National Statistics cautions that it is difficult to disaggregate the various factors and identify the underlying causes at this point, so we cannot yet draw any clear conclusions. Despite this, overall freight volumes between the UK and the EU were back to their normal levels by February 2021, and we are seeing food and drink exports grow. Exports increased in seven out of 10 of the UK’s leading export markets during the first half of 2021.
As I said, the deal maintains zero tariffs and zero quotas on trade in goods between the UK and the EU. This is the first time that the EU has ever agreed to complete tariff-free, quota-free access in an FTA. It provides for streamlined customs arrangements, including recognising our respective trusted trader schemes, to support the smooth flow of goods at the border and reduce administrative costs for traders. I agree with the noble Baroness on the need to improve, for example, conditions for road hauliers.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others said that sanitary and phytosanitary checks were creating difficulties for some sectors exporting to the EU. We proposed equivalence commitments in line with the WTO SPS agreement and the EU’s past FTA practice during the TCA negotiations. Given this, the EU’s refusal to include equivalence mechanisms was, to us, surprising. Nevertheless, the TCA contains provisions to co-operate with each other to review our respective SPS measures to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.
The EU is applying a number of trade restrictions on UK exports. Some of these are due to blanket bans in EU legislation, such as the prohibition on the import of live bivalve molluscs from class B waters from third countries. Others are due to the EU not granting the UK full listed status, such as the ban on the import of seed potatoes and the granting of Part 2 rather than Part 1 listing for the movement of pets. I put in a plea for Dilyn the dog.
We remain unconvinced of the risk basis for these restrictions given our high biosecurity standards, and have consistently raised these trade barriers with the European Commission, including through the specialised committees. Any solution will need to safeguard UK sovereignty and autonomy and cannot involve aligning with EU law. However, I assure noble Lords that we stand ready to discuss such an equivalence-based agreement with the EU, and have raised it through the partnership council and the specialised committees that noble Lords referred to. In general terms, EU member states can, and do, attend specialised committees.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, the noble Earl and others raised financial services. In his Mansion House speech in July, the Chancellor set out the Government’s vision for an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens across the United Kingdom.
The UK and the EU’s financial markets are closely linked, and the EU remains a key international partner for us. We hope that the EU will continue to be a champion for international trade and openness. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle: international free trade has been one of the greatest boons to poor people and raising people out of poverty across the world in the history of mankind. We look forward to collaborating with the EU on a range of issues, such as green finance, in the next year.
The Chancellor was clear in his Mansion House speech that the EU will never have cause to deny the UK access because of poor regulatory standards. We welcome the European Commission’s recent announcement regarding the extension of an equivalence decision for the UK’s central counterparty clearing houses. The Government have made sure that the EU has all the information it requires to make a positive decision for the UK for all equivalence regimes, and we remain open to answering any further questions that the Commission may have. On the MoU, raised by the noble Earl in his opening speech, technical discussions have been concluded; the MoU can be signed once the EU has completed its formal processes that are required under its rules.
Many noble Lords referred to the UK’s participation in Union programmes. The Government are committed to the UK being a science and research superpower, and we value the strong collaborative partnerships that we have globally in the areas of science, research and innovation. Through the TCA, the EU and the UK agreed terms for participation in Horizon Europe, Copernicus and Euratom research and training. As the underpinning EU regulations were in draft at the time, a joint declaration was agreed, setting out the parties’ intentions to formalise the UK’s participation at the earliest opportunity and with the view that the UK would participate from the beginning of the programmes.
Although the UK stands ready to uphold the agreement reached last year, we continue to see delays from the EU in formalising UK participation. That is disappointing. The EU is obligated to finalise our participation under the TCA; it would in fact be a breach of the treaty if this were not delivered in a timely manner. Our priority is supporting the UK’s scientists and researchers. That is why the Government announced on 29 November a financial safety net, in the form of guaranteed funding for the first wave of eligible and successful applicants to Horizon Europe who have been unable to sign grant agreements with the EU as a result of these delays. We will support our science and research community, no matter the scenario. We had a set of alternative plans developed in 2020 and are revisiting these. We will certainly keep the House informed.
As to Erasmus, I know that is a matter of regret to some noble Lords. We considered carefully which programmes were in our interests to join. The UK would have made a large net contribution to the Erasmus+ programme. We have chosen instead to pursue a global exchange programme under the new Turing Scheme, providing opportunities in Europe as well as around the world for young people to experience international education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised the important question of touring musicians. She was echoed by a number of noble Lords in their rightful concern about creative industries. The UK has a creative heritage of which we are rightly proud. It was perhaps inevitable that, following the UK’s departure from the EU, there would be changes in how creative professionals toured. I know that this, exacerbated by the pandemic, has led to uncertainty in the sector, since working and touring in Europe is such an important part of their professional lives. In the negotiations for the TCA, we sought to ensure that touring artists and their support staff would not need work permits to perform in the EU. Our proposals were rejected by the EU, although we have been able to agree similar measures with other like-minded partners, for example Norway and Iceland.
I am aware that there have been calls for the Government to negotiate a visa waiver. It is not government policy to seek such agreements and neither did the EU propose a visa waiver for paid activities during the TCA negotiations. What was proposed by the EU was a reciprocal visa waiver for short stays, for example as a tourist. However, nothing in this proposal would have compelled member states to change their visa regimes for paid engagements such as performing at a concert.
Our focus now is on working directly with member states, which are principally responsible for deciding the rules governing what work UK visitors can undertake. Having engaged with EU member states, we have established that UK musicians and performers do not need visas or work permits for some short-term tours in at least 21 EU countries. This includes Spain, a key touring market for the UK, which changed its rules on visas last month. This change is testament to the efforts of the sector as well as the Government.
I was asked about the governance framework. The first partnership council meeting took place on 9 June 2021. The meeting marked an important milestone in the relationship between the UK and the EU as friendly trading partners and sovereign equals.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The Minister unfortunately did exactly as I predicted, which is to describe in great detail why nothing was done for the performing artists in the negotiations pre Brexit. He explained carefully why our proposal was rejected by the EU and its was rejected by us, but he has not said anything about what we propose to do to remedy the damage being done, other than to refer to the bilateral contacts that we have had with member states. I am sure that the Minister knows perfectly well that many aspects in that sector cannot be dealt with successfully bilaterally. There is a need for both bilateral and collective discussion as things such as cabotage, carnets and so on cannot be dealt with bilaterally. Can the Minister not simply say that the Government will pursue, bilaterally and through the TCA, all avenues possible to get a better deal than we have at the moment, and not go back to Tweedledee and Tweedledum saying, “They said this and you said that in the negotiations”, but to see whether we cannot move forward on this bilaterally and collectively?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord repeats the points that he made earlier. I have repeated and set on record the efforts made by the United Kingdom Government on behalf of these important industries and drawn your Lordships’ attention to progress that has been made. Without going over this ground again, I reassert the Government’s concern for the well-being of these industries. It is time to move on. I have already pursued, without an intervention, a good deal of time.
I was asked about the number of meetings of the specialised committees that have taken place. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that the Government take these seriously. As of Monday 6 December, almost all the TCA specialised committees have met. Nine of the 10 trade specialised committees have met. The SC on VAT is due to meet on 15 December. The delay is due to internal EU processes to prepare for decisions to be taken jointly by the UK and EU at the initial meeting. The Specialised Committee on Participation in Union Programmes is the only outstanding SC yet to convene. I understand that it will convene later this month. If I am incorrect, I will come back to noble Lords.
On the civil society forum, about which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, asked, the Government sought public views on how to engage with business and civil society groups on TCA implementation. We published the official response on 19 October. An expression of interest campaign was launched to determine membership. We received 83 expressions of interest. Individual businesses are not included in the scope of the domestic advisory group and the civil society forum, but they can engage departments through existing channels outside these fora. After careful consideration of possible dates, the first meeting of the domestic advisory group is planned for early 2022. The Government are in discussions with the European Commission to finalise the exact date for the first civil society forum, which is also planned for early 2022.
As for the parliamentary partnership assembly, noble Lords will be aware—I know I invite another intervention, but it is the reality—that this is a matter for Parliament rather than the Government. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and to the Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire in the other place for their continued work on this important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked whether my noble friend Lord Frost was responsible for relations with individual member states. That is true, but he works hand in glove with the Foreign Office, with the active involvement of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.
I was asked about parliamentary scrutiny of the TCA. My noble friend Lord Frost of Allenton has been discussing these matters with the chairs of committees tasked with scrutinising the Government. These discussions are approaching their final phase and will, I trust, be agreed shortly. While I listened carefully to the noble Earl’s requests and will pass them on, I do not wish to cut across these discussions. The scrutiny of individual departments on matters relating to their individual policy remits, through EU committees and the normal committee processes, is included. In the interim, the Government are working diligently to ensure that committees can properly scrutinise government policy.
In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, my noble friend Lord Frost has reminded colleagues of the importance of scrutiny and of Explanatory Memoranda being timely and of the highest quality. It is an important point, and I assure him that it has been taken on board.
The noble Lord also asked about the Northern Ireland protocol. In referring to this, I apologise—I know that he would wish me to do so—that my noble friend Lord Frost is unable to be here. Noble Lords will understand the current activity on this front. The Government are in intensive discussions with the EU with the aim of delivering significant changes to the Northern Ireland protocol. Most recently, my noble friend Lord Frost spoke with the European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, last Friday via a videoconference. They covered the full range of outstanding issues; my noble friend welcomed the Commission’s professed readiness to make progress on them. The UK Government still want to find a negotiated solution if possible; we are ready to keep working constructively and intensively to that end. I must tell noble Lords that the gap between our positions is still significant, and progress on many issues has been limited. The UK Government’s position remains as before: the threshold has been met to use the Article 16 safeguards to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement if solutions cannot be found. However, my noble friend Lord Frost will speak to Vice-President Šefčovič again this week, and the UK and EU teams will have intensified talks in the coming days.
There has been some potential convergence on the medicines issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked me about, but agreement has not yet been reached. So far, we have been unable to consider all the details of the EU’s proposals in the way we need to in this sensitive, critical and highly technical area, where solutions must work in practice and genuinely solve the problems. We continue to believe that more progress is needed on customs and SPS arrangements if we are to deal with the fundamental issue of improving the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There have been some constructive talks on subsidy control, but the issue remains unresolved, as does the wider issue of governance.
I have a detailed response on Gibraltar that I should give to the noble Baroness, but I am looking at the clock. I can give it to your Lordships now; perhaps I should. In 2020, the EU insisted on a two-phase process for negotiations which required a separate UK-Spain agreement—the framework—prior to formal UK-EU negotiations on a legally binding treaty. On 31 December 2020, the UK Government, the Government of Gibraltar and the Spanish Government reached agreement on a political framework to form the basis of a separate treaty between the UK and the EU regarding Gibraltar. The negotiations between the UK and the EU on that treaty began in October, and three rounds have taken place so far; the FCDO is leading on these negotiations. In the discussions to date, the UK has made clear the need for an agreement that reflects the delicate balance in the political framework and Gibraltar’s unique circumstances and is proportionate to Gibraltar’s size and the small volume of trade at stake. The UK remains steadfast in its support for Gibraltar, its people and its economy in any scenario and will not compromise UK sovereignty.
I have spoken at great length—I apologise to your Lordships for that—but the reports were of fundamental interest and importance. I have sought to answer many of the questions asked in the debate, though perhaps not to everyone’s satisfaction. I conclude by thanking noble Lords not only for their valuable contributions this evening but for their extraordinary hard work, intelligence and thought that have gone into producing these reports. I have no doubt that they will help us going forward as we seek to cement our new relationship with the EU alongside other international partners. That is our wish, and I hope it is a wish that all of us, whatever our past feuds and differences, now share.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this utterly absorbing debate on three reports that remain very current despite being quite old. I thank the Minister for being on his feet for half an hour and batting back many of the balls in his typically agreeable way.
One of the most notable comments, to me, was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. She said how pleasant it was that this was a forward-looking debate. From here, as we look at European Union things, it will be important to be forward-looking. It is for historians to deal with the past; it is for us, I am afraid, to deal with the future. There are many issues to be addressed.
That takes me to something that I had forgotten today but that I think we should note: the centenary of the Anglo-Irish treaty. It is an incredibly important document and my relatives had something to do with it; I feel it is worth marking. In his excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, listed the many issues that his committee is dealing with in Northern Ireland, in what is a very complicated and difficult environment all round. I am glad that his committee is able to shine its light on things and explain to people what is going on in a way that I feel is very clear. He gave a wonderful speech, which I am looking forward to reading. It showed just how many hard yards there are to go on that.
Outwith Northern Ireland, I felt that four themes came through this afternoon. The first was scrutiny. I am the person dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on scrutiny. We have not as yet been able to get to a satisfactory position on that. It is heartening to hear that so many others worry about it. I hope that message will be taken back by the noble Lord, Lord True, to say how much we care about finishing this off and getting to a settlement on it.
The other three issues have a common theme. The first was SPS and the wisdom of reaching some sort of agreement on it. I declare my interest as a small-scale farmer. We do not export anything, but the idea of being in the export business with the current SPS things is very frightening indeed. It stretches through to many other bits of our industry.
The second issue was performing artists. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was the first person to talk about this. I will back up a bit of what he said. Three different types of action need to take place. There is a certain amount of unilateral action that the Government can take to at least ease some of the issues. The Government have started to deal with the bilateral actions, although the bilateral deals done with the various European countries are wildly different and not done on a common basis, so it is very complicated for ordinary mortals to understand the situation in a given country. Then there are the things that need to be dealt with by the trade and co-operation agreement machinery. That is a very complicated task, and it needs a lot of co-ordination to get it right. We have started what I think will be a long line of correspondence on this, but I hope the Government will feel it well worth putting in the effort for this vast industry of more than £100 billion of turnover per year.
The last thing was the machinery of the trade and co-operation agreement, and it is not heartening to hear that one of the specialised committees has not met yet and many of the others have met only to agree their rules of procedure. I am afraid that is an indication of the common theme among those last three issues: the state of the relationship between the UK and the EU. I very much regret it. In culture, history and blood, these are our neighbours and friends—and we have fallen out with them.
We need to rebuild that trust and respect. A little bit of that will be in the parliamentary partnership assembly; a little bit will be everywhere. I know that people in this Room who have taken time to speak in this debate will all feel that very strongly. I do not think there is anything to ask the Government because I think they agree, but in the rebuilding of those it is important to realise that everything communicates—every newspaper article in the Daily Mail; everything. We need to rebuild them because, as I observed in the last bit of my speech, the real issue in life is the authoritarian regimes and the nasty way in which they deal with their populations. We are very lucky to live where we do.
Beyond Brexit: Trade in Services (EUC Report)
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Donaghy
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Beyond Brexit: trade in services (23rd Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 248).
Beyond Brexit: Trade in Goods (EUC Report)
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Beyond Brexit: trade in goods (24th Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 249).
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, as agreed by the House last week, from today Oral Questions will no longer have speakers’ lists. As it is over 18 months since we conducted Questions without a list, the arrangements may be unfamiliar to newer Members of your Lordships’ House. There are also new arrangements for the calling of those Members who are eligible to participate remotely in the work of the House. The Leader of the House will now outline briefly how Question Time will operate.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank the Lord Speaker. As he rightly said, from today Oral Questions will no longer have a speakers’ list. I will briefly set out on behalf of the usual channels how Question Time will work.
With no lists there will be no agreed speaking order, so supplementary questions will rotate around the parties and groups in the Chamber. Those noble Lords who are permitted to take part virtually may do so in Questions provided that they give notice. Like Members in the Chamber, they are not guaranteed a chance to speak; whether they are invited to do so will be agreed in advance with their parties and groups. During Questions, at an appropriate point I will indicate that the House will hear virtually from a Peer belonging to the party or group whose turn it is.
As noble Lords observed in last week’s debate, the spontaneity of Question Time plays an important part in the House holding Ministers to account. However, some Peers have said that they did not feel as comfortable joining in with Questions. Therefore, as the Senior Deputy Speaker observed, it will be incumbent on all Members to respect the House’s tradition of self-regulation, mutual respect and courtesy. As part of that tradition, it is important that during Question Time the House hears a range of views and from as many Members as possible in the time allowed. Rather than return to the previous seven minutes for each Question, we are now allowing 10 minutes. That should mean that at least 10 supplementary questions can be asked and answered, which I hope will ensure that the House can hear from Members on all sides of any issue.
As noble Lords are aware, the Companion sets out that Ministers’ initial replies should be brief and no more than 75 words and that subsequent replies should also be concise. The Companion also states:
“Supplementary questions should be short and confined to not more than two points.”
It goes on to say that supplementaries should be
“confined to the subject of the original question, and ministers should not answer irrelevant questions. The essential purpose of supplementaries is to elicit information, and they should not incorporate statements of opinion. They should not be read.”
In brief, that means that all supplementaries should take about 30 seconds and ministerial replies should be correspondingly short. I hope that noble Lords will observe these courtesies to ensure that Question Time works for the whole House.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I wonder whether we can ask a question. Why can we not ask a question?
Hate Crimes: Misogyny
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to make misogyny a hate crime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls. We have asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of hate crime legislation, including whether additional protective characteristics such as sex and gender should be included. The Law Commission is due to publish its recommendations imminently and it is important that we hear what the commission proposes before deciding on a position on this matter.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I am still haunted by the thought of the last few hours of Sarah Everard—how her life changed in an instant and how terrified she must have been. It could have been any young woman, because the murdering misogynist who is now serving time had prepared to pick any young woman. There are online groups that objectify and dehumanise women and girls and they radicalise young men, who go on to commit acts of aggression designed to intimidate, humiliate and control women. When will the Minister act on making misogyny a hate crime to counteract the widespread misogynist culture in the police and elsewhere and the shameful drop in rape convictions?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, what the noble Baroness has outlined goes far beyond misogyny, although I totally appreciate her question, in that quite often it starts with misogyny. On rape convictions, which I heard her mention right at the end, she will know that a rape review has been carried out, the intention of which is to improve the response right through the criminal justice system.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, we were all terribly shocked as we heard about the appalling murder of Sarah Everard and there has been a greater emphasis and scrutiny on the embedded epidemic of violence against women and girls and the misogyny that goes alongside it. Does the Minister agree with Mark Hamilton, the Deputy Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, along with growing numbers of other senior police officers, who said:
“I think this is a welcome addition to how we respond to crime … in this area … it’s a good way of understanding offender behaviour and preventing things escalating from the more minor offences”—
as we saw with Wayne Couzens—
“up to sexually motivated crime and murder”?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I would not describe Sarah Everard’s killer’s misdemeanours as minor, but I know exactly where the noble Baroness is coming from, which is the trajectory from which these things start, and I do not disagree with her on that. I am very happy with what the Government have done for the past few years: £100 million towards tackling violence against women and girls; stalking protection orders; allowing new offences to tackle forced marriage and revenge porn; and, of course, passing the landmark Domestic Abuse Act.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is it not wise to await the outcome of the review, because there is a danger in having a proliferation of crimes on the statute book?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It certainly is and I think that I have articulated to the House that that is what we intend to do.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that, although we welcome the Law Commission’s review, in any consultation prior to a Bill, it is profoundly important that the terminology used is defined as part of the consultation? We are seeing too many consultations coming forward without clear definitions, which is entirely confusing for the public to respond to.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that terminology is important—and terminology changes, so it is important to keep up to date with it.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, on 15 November, the Minister said, in response to an amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, that she would ask police forces to record and identify any crimes of violence against the person where the victim perceives it to be motivated by hostility based on their sex. If she has not already done this, when will she do it? Does she accept that, whatever policy is adopted following the Law Commission’s report, women should be able to expect the same approach across all police forces?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that we need consistency across police forces. I know that we are working with police forces across the country to assist in the endeavour that I outlined to my noble friend Lady Newlove.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, in some recent terrorist crimes in America, the perpetrators have been found to be members of incels—involuntary celibate—groups. Do the Government monitor membership of these groups in the UK or does that wait until the time of the review?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Without going into the details, monitoring of some of the threats that we face goes on in the UK. Noble Lords will have seen in the press some examples of where that has led to more violent crime.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, we saw with the killer of Sarah Everard that he was part of the police and was protected by a quite toxic culture within the police. Does the Minister agree that if we had misogyny as a crime, the police themselves might improve on their behaviour?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It was clear from the murder of Sarah Everard and the ensuing inquiry that we need to look into an awful lot of areas: the culture, vetting and other elements of what might have led to what happened. It probably goes beyond misogyny.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, when the Minister responded to my noble friend, she said that she was waiting for the outcome of the Law Commission’s review and its recommendations. Does she agree that the Government need to do more than just respond? They need to proactively act. She mentioned the various other measures that the Government have taken, but here is a golden opportunity to act. What legislation are the Government looking at to move the agenda forward to recognise the recommendations of the Law Commission and the rape review?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that it is not just about looking at the recommendations, but about seeing how we can put them into legislation and how they become part of our efforts to fight hate crime in whatever form it exists.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, even before we decide whether we should bring in hate crime for misogyny—hatred of women—could the Government clarify that they understand what women are and untangle the definition of women from the confusion around gender? Secondly, is there a danger that, in talking about an epidemic of misogyny, we might frighten young women into thinking that all young men hate them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We need to strike a balance. On defining what women are, I do not think that the time that I am allotted today is long enough—the noble Baroness is tempting me, but I shall not be drawn into that. However, I think that the language that we use should be very clear so that everyone knows what we are talking about. Balance is incredibly important here as well, because we do not want a generation of terrified women.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that what the National Education Union calls everyday sexism should never go unchallenged in any education setting? It is quite clear that sexism at any level can lead to misogyny among men and boys later.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is incumbent on us all, whether we are parents, teachers or somebody else with influence on children’s lives, to teach them the value of respect towards each other and towards the opposite sex.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that, before making misogyny a hate crime, it would be wise to look more widely at the various offences that already exist and to add this if it is appropriate, or possibly to widen some other offence to include it. There is a grave danger, as has been said, of making too many offences.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right, and we look forward to the Law Commission’s recommendations in this area.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, building on the response that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lady Blower, could she say what actions her colleagues in the Department for Education have taken following the Everyone’s Invited website and the emergence of very powerful evidence of the kind of thing that my noble friend was talking about?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am not particularly equipped to talk about Everyone’s Invited, but I will go back to the point that was made, which the noble Baroness is following up on, which is that respect for other people, whether of the same or opposite sex, is incredibly important in a civilised society, and we all need to lead by example.
Gambling: Children and Young People
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the research by Dr Raffaello Rossi and Professor Agnes Nairn What are the odds? The appeal of gambling adverts to children and young persons on Twitter, published in October.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I draw attention to my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, this research is a useful contribution to the evidence base and will be considered carefully in our ongoing review of the Gambling Act, which is taking a close look at the impacts of advertising wherever it appears. Gambling adverts must already not be targeted at children or appeal particularly to them. The committees for advertising practice will soon publish more on their plans to tighten the rules in this area.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will know that the research indicates how easily children can be influenced by gambling advertisements even when they are not targeted at children; indeed, under-age gambling is illegal, yet a third do it and over 60,000 are now classed as problem gamblers. Does the Minister agree that, in developing new gambling legislation, we should do what we already do for alcohol, drugs and smoking, and adopt a public health approach, prioritising prevention of harm in the first place?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right that a public health approach involves prevention as well as treatment. There is a wide range of provisions in the advertising codes designed to protect children, as well as vulnerable adults, from harm. The Committee of Advertising Practice has consulted on further strengthening the rules on appealing to children. We expect an announcement by the end of the year.
Lord Watts (Lab)
This is a very important issue. Does the Minister agree that the Lords committee that looked at the reform of gambling struck the right balance between protecting the vulnerable and allowing people to gamble if they wish to do so?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Certainly, I had the pleasure of serving on that committee before I joined Her Majesty’s Government. I thank noble Lords who also served on that committee. That work and much else, including the research that we are discussing today, will be taken into account as part of our review of the Gambling Act.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of Peers for Gambling Reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has already mentioned, 60,000-plus young people are diagnosed as suffering from gambling-related harm in this country. What consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to ensuring, perhaps under the online harms Bill, that social media companies will provide an opt-in age-verification tool so that we can provide additional protections for our young people to protect them from these adverts?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I assure the right reverend Prelate that the Gambling Act review is taking a close look at the rules regarding advertising on social media. We want full use to be made of all the scope that technology offers when it comes to targeting adverts appropriately.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, as chairman of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme board, I ask my noble friend: will he look carefully at our proposals for an online verification proof of age scheme to ensure that underage children are not accessing gambling on the internet?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I have said, there are already strict rules on the targeting of adverts relating to children but, as part of the Gambling Act review, we will certainly look at the evidence that my noble friend cites.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, it is of course right to shield children from adverts promoting gambling but, as we have heard in this House on a number of occasions, that requires the age stated by the individual for access to be accurate in the first place. As social media companies themselves acknowledge that the systems and safeguards may not work as well as they should, can the Minister confirm that the minimum standards required will be incorporated into the upcoming online harms Bill? Will Ofcom be responsible for ensuring that these standards will protect children?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that the online safety Bill is in pre-legislative scrutiny in your Lordships’ House, and a Joint Committee of both Houses will be looking at this important area, as will the Gambling Act review.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, wishes to speak virtually. I think this is a convenient point for me to call him.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, the University of Bristol research shows that gambling adverts are much more attractive to the 16-to-24 age group than to adults, so will the Government expand the definition of “young persons” in the advertising codes from 16 to 17 to 16 to 24?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising requires paid-for social media adverts to be targeted only at people aged 25 and above and YouTube content produced by an operator’s own YouTube channels must be restricted to accounts verified as being 18 and above. However, all this will be looked at as part of the Gambling Act review.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, Twitter says it would never knowingly market to minors, yet our experience and the report make it clear that that just does not work. Some people want to see these adverts, but I come back to the question of opt-ins and ask the Minister if he will commit to an opt-in protocol for advertising for gambling.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend tempts me to pre-empt the work of the Gambling Act review, which is ongoing. It is certainly looking at issues such as that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, would the Minister consider advising football clubs not to have betting companies on their shirts but instead to follow the good example of Heart of Midlothian Football Club, which for six years had Save the Children on its shirts and now has the motor neurone disease charity MND Scotland, funded by Dell Technologies? Is that not the way forward?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are looking broadly at the issues of advertising and marketing, including in relation to sports clubs, and have called for evidence on these as part of the review.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, as a former Minister for Gambling I have always been very concerned about not only the effects on children of the advertising that we see now on social media but the whole effect of the incredible rise in advertising on our normal media—that is, on television and radio. Can we please have a comment from the Government as to whether we think this has gone too far, as I do, and whether they have any ideas for the future as to how we might restrain those advertisers?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Operators must advertise responsibly, and we are committed to tackling aggressive practices. We have called for evidence on advertising and sponsorship as part of our review. The Public Health England evidence review, which we discussed some weeks ago, did not find evidence that exposure to advertising and marketing was a risk factor for harmful gambling, but we continue to keep this issue under review as we review the Gambling Act.
Newport Wafer Fab
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the strategic importance to the United Kingdom of Newport Wafer Fab prior to its takeover by a Chinese-owned company.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, we welcome trade and investment where it supports UK growth and jobs and meets our legal and regulatory requirements while not compromising national security. Where we believe there are concerns, we raise them, and where we need to intervene, we will. As the Prime Minister said at the Liaison Committee in July 2021, the National Security Adviser is reviewing this takeover and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment until his review has concluded.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister for that reply, and I understand that he cannot say a great deal more about the review. Nevertheless, can he say something about the clarity of the Chinese Communist Party’s position in comparison with that of the UK, in that it has a clear strategy of undermining resilience and security; promoting dependency; acquiring intellectual property and data; and destroying competitiveness through slave labour in everything from green energy through to surveillance equipment made in places like Xinjiang, which the Foreign Secretary has called a slave state practising genocide? In letting it acquire the UK’s largest-selling silicon chip factory, what account has been taken of these things; the National Security and Investment Act, which will come into effect in January; the integrated review; and the Competition and Mergers Authority’s position?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I totally share the noble Lord’s concerns about the actions of the Chinese Communist Party in Xinjiang, Tibet and various other areas where they commit appalling human rights abuses. However, as he will be aware, I cannot comment further on this particular takeover. The National Security Adviser is reviewing it and he will do so on national security grounds.
Lord Robathan (Con)
On Chinese takeovers, does my noble friend share the concerns of a great many of us regarding the way that the Chinese are extending their influence—buying their influence—and taking over the Commonwealth, be it in Barbados, Sri Lanka or sub-Saharan Africa? There have been newspaper reports about this. It is a deliberate thing. They are trying to supplant British or western influence and plant their influence in the Commonwealth and elsewhere.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I share the concerns of my noble friend. This Question is getting more into foreign affairs than it is into business affairs, but I understand what he is saying. I have seen the reports and I share his concern.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I am disappointed by the response from the Minister. The Chinese have made a huge effort to gain intellectual property over a number of years. I had to go and warn them about this way back at the end of the 90s—they paid no attention then and they are doing it now, more and more. Here is a company with a large chunk of intellectual property, working in the area of chips—something the Chinese are not good at because the Americans have now stopped giving them to them, as they were in the past—and it seems as though we are not really focusing on this. Do we have a real strategy for constraining China’s aims in this area? It is extremely worrying.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Nexperia is not new to this particular company; it already owned 15% of it before the latest takeover. As I said, I cannot comment any further on that particular transaction, but we will look carefully at all the facts of the case. Our powers are being strengthened with the National Security and Investment Act coming into force on 4 January next year. We have retrospective powers under that Act and we will not hesitate to act if we need to.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, hardly a week goes by without the semiconductor shortage impacting some of our businesses in this country. It is not just about security; it is about manufacturing. Meanwhile, there is an investigation into Newport Wafer Fab and a separate one going on into Arm. Would it not make more sense if there was a holistic view of the semiconductor business in this country and a task force put together, so that we can secure indigenous supplies of these absolutely vital components?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is of course aware that we have announced action in both of those cases: both the instances he mentioned are currently being reviewed. As I said, if we need to take action, we will. On his broader question about semiconductors, we already offer a lot of support to industry through the research councils and the catapults and will continue to do so. It is an area that the Government are acutely aware of.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, this is part of much wider picture, of course. Can the Minister assure the House that, in their forthcoming national resilience strategy, the Government will deal with such industrial issues in a sufficiently agile way that will be able to cope with a rapidly evolving corporate and technological landscape?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord makes a good point, which is why we have strengthened our powers under the National Security and Investment Act, recently passed in this House. We look forward to implementing that legislation on 4 January. It will require notifications in 17 key areas of the economy. On top of that, the Secretary of State has additional call-in powers.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a disaster if the last remaining large semi-fab business fell permanently into the hands of the Chinese?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said in response to an earlier question, Nexperia, the company concerned, already had 15% of this company anyway, and already owns other semiconductor manufacturing plants in the UK. The noble Lord can read its statement as to what it intends to pursue for this business, if he wishes to do so.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, wishes to speak virtually. I think this is a convenient point for me to call him.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
Is not the real issue whether Newport Wafer Fab, now employing around 450, would have survived without positive Chinese intervention offering long-term viability? If there is real concern over the survival of UK strategic hi-tech, why not revisit lessons learned in the 1970s from Labour’s NEB, the Conservatives’ NEDC and BTG, and the role that Inmos played in the early development of chips? Without a national initiative, we are conceding all to Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China, and a whinging United States of America, and losing markets.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, I cannot comment further on these transactions, as the noble Lord knows, but semiconductors are an important aspect of our industrial future. We have some excellent manufacturing companies in the UK, and we want that to continue.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, one of the stated objectives of a project awarded by Innovate UK to Newport Wafer Fab is to provide the UK with a novel sovereign gallium nitride capability. Can my noble friend tell the House how that capability can possibly remain novel, or indeed sovereign, following acquisition by a foreign state-backed entity?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord tempts me but I cannot go any further than I have already stated. This takeover is being reviewed by the National Security Adviser, and we hope to reach a decision shortly.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, while there can be no doubting the strategic importance to our national security of the part played by Newport Wafer Fab, can the Minister explain why the Government did not intervene in a takeover earlier this year? Could he tell the House what tools the National Security Adviser will have at his disposal that could be applied when the ongoing review is completed?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not sure to which takeover the noble Lord refers that we did not intervene in—perhaps we should have a separate conversation about that. But it is clear that the Government as a whole have substantial power. As I said, the new NSI Act comes in on 4 January, when it will be commenced, but we have retrospective powers that can go back to November 2020 under that Act.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I go back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about a strategic overview. How many other firms in the semiconductor supply chain are foreign owned?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not have that information to hand. It would depend on what firms the noble Lord refers to and what form of suppliers they were. There are many hundreds of companies that serve some of these large manufacturing plants. As I said in response to an earlier question, we understand the importance of semiconductor manufacturers. We support this by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and we support the commercialisation of projects under the Compound Catapult, and we will continue to do so.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the suspicion locally is that the security part of the review is over, and the hunt is on to buy up shares for Nexperia to create a Chinese-UK company. Given the importance of this to electric vehicle manufacturing, of which there is a massive need at present, and to jobs to be created locally, does the Minister agree that this should be the Government’s prime initiative, and that we need a speedy solution so that investment can take place?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know the concerns locally about the investment. I have spoken to Newport’s MP about this, and she expressed her views on the takeover. As I have said, we have taken all those factors into consideration, particularly that of national security, which the National Security Adviser is currently considering this takeover on, and we will reach a decision on that shortly.
Ministerial Code
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish an updated version of the Ministerial Code.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Ministerial Code is the responsibility of the Prime Minister of the day. It is customarily updated and issued on their assuming or returning to office, and any amendments to the code are a decision for the Prime Minister.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I recognise that the Prime Minister issued the latest version on almost the same day when he advised Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament so that he could avoid parliamentary scrutiny of his actions for another couple of months. Is not it time now, given the widespread concern about behaviour in public life and the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, for a more measured review, which might well include asking for comments and contributions from the relevant committees of both Houses?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, high standards in public life are of fundamental importance. I respectfully submit, regularly from this Dispatch Box, that we are fortunate in this country in the high standards we have in public life. Of course this Government look carefully at reports and advice given on various aspects. As the noble Lord will know, we are carefully considering a number of recently published reports and will respond in due course.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Would it be a good idea if Ministers obeyed the law, rather than seeking to overturn it either in judicial review or by a court should they be found to have flaunted it?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not certain what specifically the noble Baroness is referring to. This Government respect the judgment of the courts and that is a principle of our polity, but any Government are entitled to review the existing law and submit to Parliament proposals for changing it.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend read paragraph 9.1 of the Ministerial Code? It says:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
Does he agree that in the last 20 years that paragraph has been widely overlooked? Would he agree that it should either be abolished or enforced—with Ministers who breach it losing their passports?
Lord True (Con)
That would be a novel sanction for Ministers; obviously I welcome the proposals made this morning on another matter. I have read that, and I personally take it very seriously. As a Minister in your Lordships’ House, I believe that the first duty is to your Lordships’ House. Like my noble friend, I am advancing in years and I remember the days when news was news and not spin disseminated aforehand. We should all aspire to respect for Parliament.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, if the Prime Minister respects Parliament, he surely has to respect the Ministerial Code. It seems that he has a rather arm’s-length relationship with it at times. Perhaps, instead of having a review, we should see the code adhered to, which I think would please your Lordships’ House more than seeing it change. When the code is reviewed, we should also look at the foreword from the Prime Minister, because I think perhaps his priorities were wrong when he drafted that, as Brexit is mentioned three times yet integrity is mentioned only once.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that events evolve and that what must remain constant is high standards of behaviour. Personally, I am proud to be a Member of my right honourable friend’s Government, and I do not share the view held of him by some on Benches opposite.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the first paragraph of the Ministerial Code requires Ministers to follow the principles of public life, which include integrity, openness, honesty and leadership. Did the Prime Minister exhibit these qualities when he allowed No. 10 to be used for an illegal Christmas party on 18 December last year?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said: standards in public life are important. I believe that the Prime Minister respects those fully. As far as the alleged events the noble Lord refers to, I point him to the statement made by Downing Street: that No. 10 has always followed, and continues to follow, Covid regulations at all times.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister sets the Ministerial Code and is the ultimate judge of standards of behaviour, but now highly reputable bodies are increasingly calling for reforms. It is the age-old question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Does the Minister agree that, to restore public confidence, the code needs to set stronger standards on how Ministers should use social media and respond to lobbying?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, obviously the use of social media and lobbying are important and relevant matters. As the noble Baroness will know, there are recommendations before the Government and the country on lobbying, for example. My right honourable friend recently wrote to the Speaker supporting action on lobbying in the other place.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, as it is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to update the manual, has he been asked whether he will do this? If not, will my noble friend undertake to ask him?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the answer to the first question is that I think your Lordships have frequently suggested it. I will draw my right honourable friend’s attention to the remarks of my noble friend.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I recently wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, asking him to investigate a breach of the Ministerial Code by Ministers misquoting the cost of HS2. He said that, under section 1.4, he would have to ask the Prime Minister first. Is there not a conflict between the Prime Minister’s personal and possible political role and that of making a judicial decision on such issues?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, a case was determined this morning relating to the operation of the Ministerial Code, which I am sure your Lordships will wish to study. The independent adviser has confirmed that he is content that the Transport Secretary followed the process required under the Ministerial Code for the declaration of his private interests.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, is it not the simple fact that the only person accountable to the British public is actually the Prime Minister, through elections, and all these people who call for some other person to be in charge of the Ministerial Code forget that any such person would be non-electable?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, that seems to be causing some surprise on the other side—perhaps some of them have never actually faced the electorate, as many of us have.
Lord True (Con)
Others can investigate who has stood for election here and who has not. I agree with what my noble friend said. Ultimately, any Prime Minister is accountable in the conduct of his duty to the British people and is always conscious of that high responsibility.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Will the Minister think again? The Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament, and Members of the House of Commons individually are elected by the British people. The Prime Minister should be accountable to Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, by making Statements and by answering Questions—which the Prime Minister never does; he tries to make it leader of the Opposition’s Questions and challenges my right honourable friend Keir Starmer. Will the Minister, however, confirm that a number of organisations, including the Institute for Government, have recommended that the Ministerial Code should be incorporated in statute and that the independent adviser should be given more powers, including to start investigations? Why is this taking so long? Why is something not done about it, so that we have real democracy in this country?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have repeatedly answered this question in the House. I know that the noble Lord does not agree with the answer, but the answer is that the Prime Minister’s constitutional role as the sovereign’s principal adviser means that the management of the Executive is wholly separate from the legislature. It is for the Prime Minister to advise the sovereign on the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of the resignation of other Ministers. That is why it is right that the Prime Minister has responsibility for the Ministerial Code, which was underlined in the judgment this morning.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does the Ministerial Code regulate the private and public use of social media, which is a relatively new phenomenon and was not in place when it was first drafted? Is it not better to have strict rules so that diplomacy and tweeting do not become confused?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have never tweeted and I am not an assiduous reader of tweets.
Football: Casey Review
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to The Baroness Casey Review: An independent Review of events surrounding the UEFA Euro 2020 Final “Euro Sunday” at Wembley, published on 3 December 2021.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and I declare an interest as a vice-president of the charity Level Playing Field.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, for her thorough and important review. Her report rightly highlights that responsibility for the reckless and criminal behaviour at the Euro 2020 final lies with a small minority of individuals who sought to undermine the day for the overwhelming majority of fans. The UK has a long and successful record of hosting major international sporting events. The Government will now work with the police and football authorities to consider the report’s recommendations in full.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he not agree with me that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has produced a truly devastating report, which everyone—the Football Association, the police and the Government—have to take seriously? She makes it clear in her report that we shall never know for sure how close we came to a huge disaster involving major loss of life, caused by 6,000 ticketless fans outside the stadium who were ready to storm inside had England won the penalty shootout. Will the Government pay particular attention to recommendation 6.a:
“Particular attention should be made to ensuring those entering through gates provided for wheelchair users and other more vulnerable members of society are not endangered by the reckless actions of others”?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s report is thorough and very significant, and it includes a number of very important recommendations for the football authorities, the police, the Government and many others. We will be looking at them all and making sure that lessons are learned so that the sorts of scenes we saw at the Euro final are not seen again.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, would the Minister take on the fact that it was actually a total breakdown of communication and intelligence that allowed this to happen? Will the Government undertake to ensure that all those groups—the FA, the football authorities, the Metropolitan Police, wherever they are in the country—when we have a game of this magnitude are required to talk to each other, and not at the last minute but before the event takes place?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
There were meetings between the Metropolitan Police, the Government and others in the days running up to the final, but the noble Lord makes an important point about sharing intelligence during incidents such as these. I know that that was something that the noble Baroness looked into and it is one of the things that must be followed up.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, for her excellent report. We would expect nothing else from her but a high standard of product. The Euro 2020 final should have been a cause for pride and celebration, not life-threatening danger and shame. Of course, due to the nature of the disturbances at Wembley, it was not possible for the majority of the ticketless fans to be identified, ejected and, where appropriate, punished. During the recent Committee stage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we discussed whether those engaging in online racist abuse of sportspeople should be subject to banning orders, and we are hopeful that the Government will finally take action on this. Will the Minister now look more widely at what lessons must be learned from Wembley and whether the current banning-order system is enough to stop reckless behaviour at games? Does he agree that the Government should work more closely with the authorities and with clubs to improve the culture surrounding our national game? Without that change in culture, I fear that these instances will occur on other occasions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right that what should have been a happy and important day was marred, both by the racist abuse that we saw of some of the England players afterwards and by the disorder that the noble Baroness’s report addresses. In both of those instances, action has been taken to follow up. As noble Lords alluded to, the Government have set out that we will amend legislation to extend the use of football banning orders. However, legislation on its own is not the answer to disorder. That is why we will keep the legislation under review, but we will also be working with the football authorities and others to ensure that the minority of people who spoil days such as 11 July for the majority cannot do so.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister rightly referred to criminal behaviour. There is a mass of photographic evidence showing unmasked individuals behaving criminally. Can the Minister tell the House how many people have been charged with criminal offences, how many people have been convicted and what sentences have been imposed?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I do not have those figures. However, as the noble Lord points out, where there is CCTV footage and with the further evidence gathered by the noble Baroness in her report, it is obviously for the prosecuting authorities—rightly separate from Government—to look at that and take the decisions they feel are appropriate.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the most damaging outcome of the events at Wembley—notwithstanding the success of the Olympic Games in London and the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow and the undoubted soon-to-be success of the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham—is that international sporting bodies will be reluctant to send prestigious events to be held in the United Kingdom?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am pleased to say that the UK has a very strong track record in staging international sporting events, the vast majority of which go exceedingly well. We thank the noble Baroness for her report, to make sure that we have learned the lessons from this incident and will continue to do so in future.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the football authorities have a long record of mismanagement, both domestically and internationally. Does the Minister believe that we need a regulator in the UK to start to get some control over our football and the way it is run?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
That recommendation was taken up by my honourable friend Tracey Crouch in the fan-led review. The Government have accepted it in principle, but we will come back with our full response to the report and all its recommendations.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because that is something that would reassure the House and the public about how good the investigation has been. There is clear evidence, which we have all seen, and it should be available to the investigation. The problem with this type of event is that the crowd trying to get in often gets too close to the gates, by which time it is very difficult for anyone to intervene. One of the big things for Wembley is to see what can be done to prevent those without tickets getting anywhere near the gates. At that ground—though not at all grounds—it would be physically relatively straightforward. In time, it would be helpful for us to hear more about how architecture and engineering can make sure that this does not happen again.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord of course speaks with great authority. The Football Association asked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to undertake this review so that matters such as that can be looked into and, in due course, responded to properly. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to thank all the police and stewards who worked very bravely on the day to ensure that the situation did not escalate further and cause further injury or indeed loss of life.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, I am not accusing the Minister, but he seems to be conveying the impression that nothing is known about the circumstances of this. I am sure that is wrong; not least, how do several thousand people without tickets turn up at a match of such significance not just to the United Kingdom but internationally? It shamed our country and our football. Unless there is a thorough investigation into who organised this—I am quite sure it did not happen by accident—and what their purposes were in doing so, we shall never be able to say in future that it will not happen again.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I hope I am not conveying that impression. The report of the noble Baroness is very thorough and detailed; it was published on Friday and all those who will respond to it—the FA, the police and everybody else—need time to look at it with the detail and attention it deserves. However, the noble Lord is right to point to some of the things the noble Baroness found in her report: a lot of the people gathered there were not there to see the match—they were not even watching it on their mobile phones—but had the intention of causing disorder. It was a small minority of people who were intent on spoiling the day for the vast majority of people around the country and at Wembley who were enjoying it, and it is on them that we must focus our principal attentions.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness produced her remarkably good report very speedily. We should acknowledge that; she did a splendid job. The Football Association has aspirations to host other international competitions very soon. Can the Minister assure the House that everything will be done at the speed set by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to make sure that lessons are learned before we get into the next international competition?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As ever, we need both speed and thoroughness. The noble Baroness achieved both in her report and it is incumbent on everyone responding to it to do the same. I am pleased to say that the heads of FIFA and UEFA have reassured us that the incident in July should not have an impact on the outcome of any current bidding processes. As I said, the UK has a strong track record of staging international sporting events, and it is a record of which we are rightly proud.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, if that is the case, what reassurance can my noble friend give the House this afternoon that families who take their young children to what should be a joyful sporting event will be safe and will not be exposed to the same dangers as happened on that day?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. It was families with young children, or people who were there with friends or family with disabilities, who were targeted by some of the people trying to get into the stadium. The noble Baroness’s report looked into some of those instances and came forward with recommendations on how to ensure that minorities intent on doing harm do not mar such important days for others.
Companies (Strategic Report) (Climate-related Financial Disclosure) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 28 October and 1 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
Is the noble Lord objecting to agreeing them en bloc?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s Motion to move these Motions en bloc has been objected to.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I exercised the right that all noble Lords have to object to Motions being taken en bloc, not because I object to these two particular Motions being taken en bloc but because I object to the fact that, when the Leader of the House made a business statement earlier today, no other Member of the House was able to ask questions or make any comments. Yet it was a very substantial statement, and some of us wanted to point out that we object to decisions about who should speak virtually and who should speak in the Chamber being taken by a party-political representative—the Leader of the House—rather than by the Speaker. I was not able to make that comment; others wanted to make similar comments. I would like the Deputy Speaker, and anyone else who can, to raise the matter with the Lord Speaker, and I will do so myself. Perhaps the Minister will too. The issue is why there was no opportunity to question the Leader of the House when she made that business statement.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend. This is not directly the subject of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and I do not expect a comprehensive and detailed reply. But I urge him to talk to his ministerial colleagues, particularly to the Leader of the House, and make the point that—as my noble friend has said—a substantial statement was made that nobody could have known about: there is nothing whatever on today’s House of Lords Order of Business to tell us that the Leader of the House would be making a substantial statement. The essence of a sensibly functioning Houses of Parliament is proceedings that are intelligible. How on earth can someone in the Gallery know what is going on when someone gets up from the Bench, and they have not got the faintest idea who she is—I mean no disrespect to the Leader of the House—and makes an important statement, and the House continues as if nothing has happened? That is an unacceptable state of affairs.
I have, over the years, made a very small advance in this respect, if I may bring it up: there never used to be an announcement of the results of a hereditary Peers by-election. After much consideration of this revolutionary proposal, eventually it went up on the monitor and it appeared on the Order Paper that such an announcement would be made. This is probably the easiest question in the Minister’s long experience on the Front Bench, but will he talk to the Leader, so that, perhaps through the usual channels, we can get some intelligibility introduced into these important matters? That is all I have to say.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their esteemed interest in the Companies (Strategic Report) (Climate-related Financial Disclosure) Regulations 2021. I must have missed their references to this important statutory instrument during their speeches, but I entirely understand the point they are making and, of course, I will convey their views to my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (Amendment to Schedule 3) (England) Order 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 28 October and 1 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Network and Information Systems (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2021
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Order laid before the House on 2 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Coronavirus Act 2020 (Early Expiry) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Financial Services Act 2021 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) (Consequential Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Berkeley
At end insert, “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations fail to include a requirement for all charging points to be fully interoperable”.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly to my amendment to the Motion. I apologise that it was not put down when the regulations were debated in Grand Committee, so I will be as brief as I can. First, I welcome these regulations. My view is that they do not go far enough, but they are a very good start.
The key in my amendment to the Motion is that there needs to be more said and done to promote interoperability. Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“This instrument makes clear that a charge point should not introduce a new barrier to switching by being designed to lose its smart functionality when its owner changes supplier.”
That is very good, but it does not go far enough. In the debate in Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Rosser made some excellent points about interoperability and the Minister gave some good answers, but my concern is that electric vehicle use will not take off until there is full interoperability of the system, which I shall come to, and full confidence among users that they will be able to use the electric power supply rather like people use petrol stations now—in other words, they can guarantee that when they go to a supply, they will be able to connect up and get some power.
I have a very small, but I think critical, example of my little village in Cornwall where the parish council has put in two charging points in the car park. This is very important when the nearest petrol station is about 15 miles away. A friend who has an electric car tried to use them but they have been out of order all summer, when everybody goes there. He wrote to the supplier to say that its machines did not work, and the answer was that there was a technical fault. He then discovered from the car park owner—the parish council—that the reason they did not work was that the supplier had not paid the parish council the very small amount of money that it was due to allow the charging points to be placed there. This could be all over the country.
It is a minor detail, but we need to have some comprehensive regulations which cover charging at home, and what is in these excellent regulations, rapid charging, minimum waiting times, sockets on lampposts, facilities for long and short journeys, from wherever you pick them up. The most important thing of all is that one plug and one socket fits all, not like mobile phones at the moment. Will the Minister be able to give some idea about when there will be a comprehensive plan to make electric power for vehicles fully interoperable and fully comprehensive? I am sure she will agree that when that happens it will all take off. I look forward to her comments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that there are very few charging points across the north of England. There is also still a catastrophic power outage in parts of the north-east of England. Will she reassure the House this afternoon that there are absolutely no plans in the foreseeable future that any public service vehicles, such as buses, ambulances or fire engines, will switch to electric engines any time soon in the north-east of England?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I add to the excellent comments already made that there is an overriding concern among EV owners about whether you are safely going to get to the end of your long journey. You have none of those concerns if you are in a petrol or diesel car; you know that you will be able to refill your car. If you are in an EV, not only do you have the uncertainty as to whether the charge point will fit or will work, you also have to stand out in the rain in the corner of a motorway services feeling insecure.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords—My Lords, I agree with previous speakers. I took a short journey last week in my electric car to a hotel where there were six charging points. Three of them were for Tesla only—that is not me—and of the other three, one was occupied, one did not work and the other I could not make work. I will not detain your Lordships’ too long by saying that I nearly had a heart attack trying to get home worrying what was going to happen.
I should also add that in a new multi-storey car park in Botley, west Oxford, where I live, there are 14 charging points. Every single one is out of order—every single one. The building is operated by Savills, but I have had no response from it other than saying that it does not have a legal obligation to turn on these points. Not only that, but if you were able to make them work, you would have to be a member of a particular company that supplies the electricity and would need to have working wi-fi. This will not do. We do not want competition—we want uniformity and contactless payment.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We had a discussion on interoperability when we debated these regulations last Tuesday in Grand Committee. There were questions asked; the Government were asked to say in their response whether the wording in the Explanatory Memorandum—to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley has referred—in paragraph 7.6 constitutes in reality a requirement for all charging points to be interoperable. I expressed the personal view that it did not, but I asked for clarification on that point.
Later in the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government say that they have
“chosen not to mandate device-level requirements”
relating to demand-side response interoperability
“at this time … because the smart charging market remains nascent, and because delivering interoperability would require broader powers than those set out in”
the Automated and Electric Vehicle Act 2018. That comment was despite the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The ability of consumers to freely switch energy supplier is a fundamental principle in the energy market”,
which makes it rather surprising that we seem to have this delay over interoperability.
The Government, in the Explanatory Memorandum, also went to say that they
“intend instead to consider how best to deliver interoperability as part of a second phase of legislation, by looking at placing wider requirements on the entities … which could deliver DSR through charge points. Government aims to consult on this second phase of policy measures in 2022.”
I suggested that that was a somewhat vague timescale that contained no target date for actually legislating. I asked the Government whether they could be more specific in their response. The noble Baroness the Minister was good enough to say—which I appreciated—that she could not give specific answers to these questions when we were debating this last Tuesday and that she would write to answer all questions that had been asked. Irrespective of what the Minister intends to say in response now, I hope that we shall still be getting that written reply to questions that were not responded to last Tuesday.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for the opportunity to outline the Government’s position on interoperability. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the letter is coming his way; it will pick up all the points raised in in that debate and any raised from today’s debate—of course, today, I am focusing on interoperability, but I note comments made by other noble Lords on wider EV infrastructure. They will be aware that the EV infrastructure strategy will be published soon, which will set out the vision and action plan for charging infrastructure rollout, but I am aware that some more specific comments have been made.
There are many different types and forms of EV charge point interoperability, relating to both public and private charge points. Some forms of interoperability are already delivered by the market. For example, most private charge points sold in Great Britain are compatible with all EVs. Work is also under way within government to consider whether further action on interoperability is needed to deliver the best outcomes for consumers.
I turn first to private charge points. These regulations will embed further interoperability by mandating electricity supplier interoperability in law for the first time. This new requirement will ensure that consumers will retain the smart functionality of their charge point. The Government also considered including requirements for charge point operator interoperability in the regulations. This would have required all charge points to be compatible with any operator, but the Government’s view is that this type of interoperability would not be appropriate for such a nascent market. It would not materially affect the consumer experience and would be an unnecessary burden on the industry. Therefore, we are not bringing forward such requirements.
Further work is under way to consider other types of interoperability in the smart energy system, including for private EV charge points. This could include requirements to allow consumers to switch the provider of specific smart charging services. That is another type of interoperability, very similar to that enjoyed, for example, by smartphone users, who can change their mobile network provider without needing to purchase a new device. Crucially, consumers would be able to seek out new deals or better services, but that would not detriment the industry’s ability to innovate and develop new products and services. These are the sorts of things that the Secretary of State for Business aims to consult on in 2022. I have no more specific date today, but, as I said, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Turning to public charge points, in 2017 we mandated that rapid charge points must have CCS connectors to ensure interoperable charging. There are now only two EV models available to buy in the UK with CHAdeMO sockets, and one of those providers has indicated that future models will provide CCS—96% of rapid chargers come with both connectors.
In addition, in February 2021 we consulted on proposals to ensure that UK charging networks offer seamless consumer experience, and considered a range of different types of interoperability. This includes proposals on payment interoperability, which would mandate a minimum payment method, such as contactless, and explores whether we should intervene to ensure interoperable payment apps. The government response to that consultation on public charge points will be published shortly, with regulations being laid next year.
EV charge point interoperability is a critical policy area for this Government. As I hope to have portrayed today, there is not just one type of interoperability; there are several, some of which the Government are very willing to get involved in; others we will leave to the market. We are committed in our smart charging government response to explore those forms of interoperability, and then we will lay regulations.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for that answer and for the comments of other noble Lords: the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Rosser. Of course, I am aware that there are many different types of interoperability, but I recall, about 20 years ago, when I—probably like other noble Lords—was travelling around Europe on business, you had to have a bag of about 20 different plugs to plug in your phone, charge it and make the phone work. This will not work unless there is some reaction and force from consumers to have something that is simple and easy-to-use. I wish it well, and I look forward to what the Minister will send to us in the next few months but, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [HL]
Monday 6th December 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 View all Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 44-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (25 Nov 2021)
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, before we progress with Third Reading of this Bill, I will make a short statement about our engagement with the devolved Administrations. Officials have worked closely and collaboratively with the devolved Administrations throughout the passage of this Bill. The Northern Ireland Executive have passed a legislative consent Motion on this Bill. The Welsh Senedd is in the process of considering a Motion, and the Scottish Government are considering bringing a Motion forward. I am grateful for their continued engagement on this issue.
Motion agreed.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to lead the Bill through this House. Before the Bill moves for consideration in the other place, I want to take a brief moment to reflect on the Bill and its passage through this House.
This is important legislation that consolidates and strengthens the legal framework for pensions across all the main public services: that is, the NHS, the judiciary, the police, firefighters, the Armed Forces, teachers, local government and the Civil Service. This Bill ensures that those who deliver our valued public services continue to receive guaranteed benefits in retirement that are among the best available on a fair and equal basis. It is also vital in addressing the resourcing challenges facing the judiciary, recognising the unique constitutional role of judges.
It has been clear from the informed and considered contributions made throughout the Bill’s passage that we are agreed on the principles of fairness and equal treatment for public servants. I convey my gratitude to all noble Lords for their contributions to our well-informed debates, which have helped to ensure that we achieve this aim. The Government listened carefully to your Lordships’ arguments and concerns as the Bill progressed and made a significant number of technical amendments on Report—123 in total—which I think noble Lords will agree have strengthened the Bill.
In particular, we listened to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, during Grand Committee, regarding the importance of ensuring pension scheme members were provided with remedial voluntary contribution arrangements. I thank the noble Lord in supporting the Government to identify and address this important issue.
I would like to extend my thanks to all those who have engaged on the Floor of the House and in the meetings that we have had outside. In particular, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Davies of Brixton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for their close engagement on the complex area that is public service pensions. I hope that the note sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, earlier today provides some reassurance on her important points raised on Report regarding eligibility criteria for voluntary contributions.
In addition, I thank a number of your Lordships who made impassioned contributions to our consideration of the judicial mandatory retirement age, including the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton, Lord Woolf, Lord Thomas, Lord Hope and Lord Brown, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay.
I also thank the Bill team, ably lead by Fraser Johnston, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, officials across Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, all government departments with responsibilities for public service pension schemes, and the devolved Administrations for their extensive support throughout passage of the Bill.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Scott for her help as the Bill went through the House. There is a lot of technical detail in the Bill, with complex legal consequences, and the team’s guidance and expertise has been exemplary. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in expressing thanks for the support that the whole team has provided, including the updates, letters and briefings that noble Lords have received. On that note, I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courtesy and helpfulness during the passage of the Bill. It was very much a learning process for me as the first Bill to which I had given such a close and involved consideration. I learned lessons, one of which is to check which group a particular amendment is in and get it right. I thank the Minister, as well as the officials. We seem to be saying farewell, but I suspect that it is au revoir and that, in one way or another, we will be returning to these issues.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister; I thank him for the letter I received today, which answered the question that he referred to, as well as for his leadership and his open and engaging approach. He has ensured that we have had opportunities to be fully briefed on the Bill. As others have said, it is a very complex Bill, wide-ranging in scope, and has implications for millions of citizens, particularly public sector workers.
I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, I am sure that we have all learned a great deal from the Bill. I certainly know a lot more about public sector pensions than I did when we started out. I express my appreciation to the Bill team, for its expert help and support and, not least, its patience in explaining some of these complexities.
Noble Lords across the House have made valuable contributions; certainly, the judicial offices part of the Bill saw a very high-quality debate, with issues arising that apply not just to judicial offices but across the board, to public services and the holding of high office. Again, I thank colleagues for their co-operation. I believe that we have worked hard and well on this Bill.
Lastly, I put on record my thanks to Sarah Pughe in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, for her work on the Bill, and for the professional support that she has given me throughout its passage.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, has said. I thank the Minister and his team for their comprehensive support to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and myself. It was a very complicated Bill and I know that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, I needed some guidance through it. This is important legislation for public service pensions. It will guarantee pensions for public servants—something which, of course, we all agree with. We are aware that there may well be further amendments in the other place as well as further legislation given that there are ongoing cases currently in court. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton is relatively new to the House and, I have to say, he has started extremely well. It is not often, when taking part in your first Bill, that you manage to influence government policy in the way that he has; my noble friend deserves congratulations.
I was present throughout all the debates and, when we debated the mandatory retirement age, I felt there was a sense of relief because it was an easily understood issue. Many noble and noble and learned Lords took part in that debate with a level of passion not forthcoming in the other more technical parts of the debate. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for his support as the Bill transitioned through the House.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have just spoken for their kind remarks; I am pleased that we have got to this stage.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Monday 6th December 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 View all Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (3 Dec 2021)
Lord Trees
“(1A) The function of the Committee is to determine whether, in relation to the process of the formulation and implementation of policy subsequent to the Committee’s establishment, it is satisfied the Government is having all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the Committee’s remit relates to the process of the formulation and implementation of policy but only that which has been formulated and implemented after the Committee's formation.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare and a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, so it will come as no surprise to noble Lords that I broadly support the Bill. Moreover, in 2018 I tabled an amendment to the withdrawal Bill to bring Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty into UK statute. That was rejected by the Government at the time, but I suspect that if Her Majesty’s Government look in the mirror of history, they may feel that they should have accepted that amendment then; it would have addressed the issue of sentience at that time and given us a foundation to build on and make changes if so wished.
Article 13 had considerable scope for unintended consequences, and this Bill, which is Article 13 with bells on, has considerably more—hence the number of amendments, particularly from the Government Benches. The Bill goes considerably further than Article 13: for example, it sets up an animal sentience committee; it covers all government policy; it has no exceptions for cultural, historical or religious practices; it includes certain invertebrates; and it specifically allows for the retrospective consideration of government policy formulation. The considerable widening of the scope of Article 13, yet at the same time the lack of detail in many places, has led to the large number of amendments that we see today.
Amendment 1 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to whom I am grateful for their support, makes two key points. Clause 1(1) of the Bill establishes an animal sentience committee. Our amendment seeks to define, at the start of the Bill, two key aspects of that committee’s remit. The first aspect, which seeks to make explicit what I understand is Her Majesty’s Government’s intention, would introduce the word “process” with regard to the committee’s function in scrutinising the formulation and implementation of policy. It would make it very clear that the ASC did not have a function with regard to commenting on policy per se but, rather, on the degree to which the Government had taken animal welfare into account in developing that policy.
I suggest that that is a critical aspect of the Bill. For example, one of the briefings that we received says that the Bill entrusts responsibility to the animal sentience committee for considering the impact of its policies on animals as sentient beings. But it does not; it requires the ASC to consider whether the Government have considered the impact on animal welfare of the policies that they are developing. I submit that this is not mere semantics but a substantive difference, which introducing the word “process” in respect of the function of the committee makes clear. I note that other recent amendments—for example, Amendment 2 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland, and Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, have also included the word “process” with regard to the function of the committee and its scrutiny of the formulation and implementation of policy.
The other key point in Amendment 1, which is a feature of other amendments in this group—I think that is largely why it has been put there—is to exclude retrospective examination of policy formulation and implementation. It is exceptional that any legislation allows retrospective evaluation of actions, and I find it difficult to understand the justification of that. The ASC will exist alongside the current Animal Welfare Committee, which is advisory, and, if some historic legislation appears no longer fit for purpose or inadequate in any way, the AWC is perfectly placed to point this out and to make suggestions for either new legislation or the revision of existing legislation. That is totally within its remit. However, I would be interested to hear from the Minister of the justification for these retrospective powers, which—to judge from the number of amendments on this issue—a number of noble Lords find problematic. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 12, 14 and 16 in this group are in my name. However, I will first support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, which seems to be both sensible and necessary to be made to the Bill if we are to have a committee in this form at all. I also support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.
I have one query about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, which I will come to in relation to my Amendment 16. The first two, Amendments 12 and 14, underline the requirement in those amendments for the committee to deal with only future policy and when it is being formulated. Surely the value of this committee if it is to have any real effect is to perform a role not already covered by other committees, to draw attention to failures of consideration if it finds them when policy is being formulated or has just been formulated and before implementation, so that the defects can if necessary and possible be remedied before the policy is enacted.
In the Bill at present there is no limit as to how far back the committee can go. The draft terms of reference, which the Minister kindly sent us, express a hope—no more—that it will concentrate on more recent policies, but there is nothing to stop the committee going back as far as it chooses. Ministers come and go—so do civil servants. An examination of whether a past Secretary of State gave all due regard to the effect of a policy on animal welfare, possibly long enacted, will be difficult if not impossible in many cases. The additional cost of this committee, according to the terms of reference, is to be no more than half a million pounds from Defra’s budget. However, there is no calculation of how much time will be needed to be spent by other departments trying to answer the inevitable investigation into how decisions were made. It must take time from the work of those departments in each case, and of course be at public expense too. This committee surely cannot be intended to be a quasi post-legislative scrutiny committee, yet the Bill is without any limit as to its remit.
My Amendment 16 removes implementation from the committee’s remit. After Committee I looked forward to seeing the draft terms of reference because, as it stands, the purpose, remit, scope and any limits on the powers of the committee are not clear in the Bill. I hoped they would be remedied, at the very least, in guidance. Sadly, they are not. Instead, in a number of respects, the Bill and the terms of the reference are in direct conflict.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, in Committee a lot of us argued very strongly for several amendments, and one of course was to strengthen the terms of reference and ensure that the committee was free and independent from government interference. I was very happy to spend today arguing over various amendments and we have here a whole hotchpotch of them, some of which are fine. However, we also have a naked attempt to filibuster and scupper the Bill by the right wing of the Tory party. I say: “Shame on you”. This Bill is far from perfect, but it is better than it was. Noble Lords must know that the public care very much about this issue and want to see something on the books.
It was also, of course, a manifesto commitment by the Government. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite would have supported it and been loyal Conservative Party members. I shall not speak again in this debate, because I think that it is a complete waste of my time. I shall simply vote against all the spoiling amendments that noble Lords opposite have put forward.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and see her so loyally supporting my Government—and in the Lobbies as well, no doubt.
I shall add a point to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and, in reference to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, emphasise the question of the terms of reference and what they do to complicate the work of the committee. By the way, the chairman of this committee is supposed to spend 20 days a year on this, yet he has to look at all past policies, all future policies and all present policies in all aspects of government. That will be quite hard work for him.
The terms of reference note that the committee may seek outside input, including from “stakeholders amongst others”. If the committee is looking at process—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made—rather than policy, why consult stakeholders? Similarly, the terms of reference suggest that the committee
“may wish to prioritise policies … which are more significant in terms of Parliamentary, Departmental, Stakeholder or public interest”.
Is this about ensuring that all due regard is had to animal welfare in the process of reaching policy decisions or about the issues and decisions themselves? Will the committee focus on animal welfare issues that are of high profile as a result of campaigning by interest groups, which does not seem to have been the original intention?
The terms of reference refer to it being
“beneficial for UK Government Departments to seek advice from the Committee to assist them in understanding the effects of particular policies on the welfare of animals”.
It seems from wording like this that the committee will look not simply at process but at the policy itself that is under consideration. I hope that my noble friend will address this point, as it seems to be an issue of mission creep that we need to understand.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group but, before I turn to them, I congratulate my noble friend on his announcement last week with regard to soil. It was a significant step forward by Her Majesty’s Government, and one that is wholly welcomed by those concerned about our farming in this country and our ability to grow crops. I thank my noble friend very much for what he did last week and for his letter on it.
I turn to the Bill in front of us, to which I have tabled two amendments. Amendment 15 basically copies that of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who has just spoken, but it also has a second part to it, which is trying to be helpful to my noble friend to get him out of this particular problem. The problem is the retrospective nature of the legislation. In the terms of reference and accompanying letter, we are told that Defra expects the committee to produce between six and eight reports a year. I asked what the likely policy issues of Defra were that the committee would look at—to which the answer inevitably came back that it was up to the committee and not to Defra. However, I cannot believe that the committee will be kept busy looking at future policy of Defra; it is supposed to look across government, but the rest of the departments have to take absolutely no notice of the committee, because the Government merely “hope” that the rest of departments will pay attention to the committee. That is a positive step.
My Amendment 18 would allow the Bill to go through as it is worded but with the condition that, if there is going to be a retrospective report on policy that has already been implemented, the committee merely needs the written consent of the Secretary of State. That, surely, is a sensible way forward. It encourages the committee to look forward and not back and stops it from going on wild fishing trips into past, established policy to try to meet its target of six to eight reports a year. So the amendment is formulated in the hope that it will allow my noble friend to make a tweak to the Bill that will achieve the same result but with a little bit more sense to it.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, following Committee, in which I took part, this Bill has not really changed at all. As one who cares deeply about animal welfare and cruelty to animals, I would like to make a general comment before I turn to the specific amendments. The Secretary of State said recently, at a meeting that I attended, that he did not want to create a “hostage to fortune” in the future, but that is exactly what this Bill does. It is enabling legislation with no real detail; it has got such broad scope that it allows almost any interpretation. Frankly, it is the most terrible piece of legislation. It is a shocking piece of legislation and the Government should be embarrassed by it. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that this is yet another very un-Conservative measure for the right wing of the Conservative party, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out. It will be passed with the cheers of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. As taxes get raised to their highest for 70 years, do Ministers think people will continue to vote for a party that is not recognisably Conservative, or will voters desert us as they did indeed in Chesham?
Turning to the group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made an extremely good speech, pointing out so many things, and I cannot better it. But I will turn to other amendments later. I say to the Minister—and we have known each for some time and are friends, I hope—that this is a terrible piece of legislation and he needs to go back to the Ministry and tell them that.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lord Robathan’s remarks. I think this a perfectly terrible Bill, and I would like to speak to Amendment 1. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made the point that this Bill was Article 13 of the EU with bells on. He knows a lot more about this sort of legislation than I do. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to speak to this amendment, will explain why this Bill has to have bells on. Why could it not be just Article 13 of the withdrawal agreement? Why did we have to add things on to it? Many of us are disturbed at the propensity of our government machine—Whitehall departments—to always add things on to Bills and make them even more elaborate than they were originally intended to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, also made the point that his amendment was about process. Process, as I see it, and certainly in the days when I was in government, was all to do with legislation. When a department produced legislation, if that legislation affected other departments, it was circulated through those departments for their comments on it before it was ever submitted to Parliament. I do not quite understand what this new committee is going to do in looking at legislation before it is actually submitted to Parliament, compared with what happened before. Presumably, if the question of animal welfare came up, it went to the Department of Agriculture and it went to the Animal Welfare Committee who looked at it and said whether it was within its remit and whether it approved of it. So what is this committee doing that the Animal Welfare Committee did not do before? Perhaps my noble friend could elucidate that when he comes to speak.
Generally, what we are doing is expanding the whole mass of quangos and we have to think about the Climate Change Committee. It always advertises itself as a committee that advises the Government but seems to have a complete mind of its own when it comes to climate change. It seems to be obsessed with CO2 emissions. It never seems to champion or recognise what has actually been done in this country to reduce CO2 emissions, and it does not seem to take any account of the collateral damage. I hope this committee is not going to be another one like that.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I profoundly disagree with the two previous speakers, and I have no wish to be associated with the views that they expressed.
To look at one particular detail, my understanding of the committee is that it will produce reports which will then come to Parliament, where we can all see them. That publicity seems to me an excellent way of dealing with things. Of course, the committee would not be instigating legislation; it would be an advisory body. It will be up to the government departments concerned whether they choose to accept its advice, but at least we will know what this committee is thinking.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, although I do not entirely agree with her uncritical support of the Bill. I want particularly to support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, to which I have lent my name, but also generally to support the other amendments in this group. The characteristic they have in common is that they deal with the retrospective powers of the committee—its powers to look back at existing policy and past practice—which clearly cause a degree of concern. My comments are intended to be largely helpful to the Government.
I have heard it said that the Government cannot support this amendment or the general thrust of these amendments because farming practice and husbandry practice go back decades—indeed, hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Therefore, they would say that it is impossible to look at the current situation or a change in the current situation without looking back at what it is changing or at the past. I would have a great deal of sympathy, as I think many people in the House would, with the Government if they advanced that argument. My suggestion, which I hope the Government will be able to take account of, is that an amendment could be crafted, perhaps by the Government, in response to this debate which ensured that the new animal sentience committee could look at existing and past policy only where the Government were coming forward with a specific proposal to change it—that unless there was a proposal to change it, the committee would not be able to look at current and existing policy.
I realise that is not quite the same as the amendment I have put my name to in support of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, but I do not think any of us here are trying to pin the Government down to a particular outcome—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that she was generally supportive of this. We are coming together around a sort of principle, which is that the ability of this committee to roam into existing policy at will should be limited, and it should be limited in ways that keep it focused on the present and the future, rather than going into the past. If my noble friend could find a way of agreeing something along those lines, I think the force of many of the amendments in this group would fall away.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend. I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for boosting my right-wing credentials. I think one thing the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and I have in common is that we find ourselves a little out of kilter with our respective parties in relation to the Bill before us this evening.
I have amendments in the third group, so I would just like to put two general queries to my noble friend the Minister. I would hazard a guess that, had we had this Bill in front of us when we were both serving as shadow Ministers in the Defra team some years ago, we would have been minded not to accept what is in the Bill before us today.
I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in moving his Amendment 1. I am proud to be an associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association, and I commend him for his work in flying the flag for vets—I think he is the sole flyer of that flag in this House. He adequately addressed not just the process but the retrospectivity aspect of this amendment. Could my noble friend the Minister give us a reassurance this evening that it is not intended that the work of the committee will have any retrospective effect—that is, going back over old laws in its work—should the Bill be carried in its present form?
I would also like to associate myself with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and ask for what particular reason—for some reason the manifesto did not reach me this time, possibly because we are not allowed to be candidates—
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I did—my noble friend teases me, but I did. I did not always agree with every single item in every single manifesto, but my understanding was that we made a manifesto pledge to roll into national law what was effectively, as has been rehearsed here this evening, set out in Article 13 of the EU treaty—which I do not think I have read either. My understanding is that that was our commitment. So I would like my noble friend the Minister, in summing up this debate, to set out for what reason it was not acceptable simple to rehearse in UK law what we had already committed to in EU law, because I believe that that would have been acceptable.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I add for the benefit of my noble friend that the Conservative Party manifesto for the last election contained—I have looked it up—simply a pledge that
“We will bring in new laws on animal sentience.”
Nothing more was said in any detail.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for that remark.
I am going to go on and query the path the Government have gone down and why aspects of the committee may be subject to judicial review in connection with this Bill, whereas every other Bill that has been put forward by this Government has not been deemed to be subject to such a judicial review. If the Minister will reassure me that there will be no retrospective effect and that we will revert, if possible, to the very limited effect of Article 13, I think it would have the unanimous support of the House today.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments broadly consider the remit of the committee regarding policy. Clause 1 sets up the committee. The stated purpose of the Bill is to make sure that animal sentience is taken into account when developing policy across government, but policy is not always set in aspic and I find it concerning that the majority of the amendments that have been put down in this group would prohibit the ASC considering policy formulated and implemented before the committee’s formation.
At the start of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about unintended consequences, but we should also look at the unintended consequences of this group of amendments if they are accepted. We believe that the prohibitions that are being put forward would prevent the committee considering how the ongoing implementation of recent and historic legislation affects the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The impacts can be significant. To take an example, the primary legislation used to prosecute hare coursing is the Hunting Act 2004 and the Game Act 1831. We believe that the ASC should be free to consider how the implementation of those laws affect the welfare of hares as sentient beings. While the ASC will be likely to focus its work on emerging policy, we believe it needs the freedom to consider existing legislation where it feels it is appropriate to do so.
Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would require scientific evidence to be published. It is very important that scientific evidence is taken into account right across the committee. It is clear from the terms of reference that that will be an important part of its work. But again I have concerns: requiring things to always be published before being presented to Parliament could place an unintended scientific barrier in front of the committee. I worked in publishing for many years, and I know that sometimes it can take a long time. I would not want to see the committee’s work hugely delayed as an unintended consequence of this amendment.
I will keep my comments brief throughout Report. We discussed at length in Committee many of the amendments before us again today. I do not want to waste time going back over issues that we have already spent a lot of time on, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to people’s concerns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friends Lord Howard and Lord Caithness, for their amendments on the subject of the animal sentience committee’s remit with respect to existing policies. My remarks will address all the amendments.
This is the first piece of legislation I have steered through the House. I am conscious that I am in the presence of experienced legislators and people very much more experienced, perhaps, that I was in the other place where, when a piece of legislation was described as “terrible” or “poorly drafted” it was usually code for the fact that the speaker did not agree with it. Here, I am sure that that is not the case and that noble Lords are much more discerning, and I will seek to answer their points, be more conciliatory in my remarks and address their concerns.
I thank noble Lords for their discussion on this issue, and for the opportunity to put on record a clear statement on the remit of the committee. The Bill is already drafted so as to ensure that animal sentience is actively considered in current policy-making and implementation and, in line with its statutory function as set out in the Bill, the committee will be expected to prioritise current or recent policy decisions. Prioritising policies that the Government are currently pursuing fulfils the committee’s statutory function under Clause 3. This clause requires the Secretary of State to respond to the committee’s reports and is the only legal consequence the committee reports have. As I have repeatedly stated, the purpose of the Bill is to provide a proportionate, targeted and timely accountability mechanism. There are limits to how far you can hold a current Government to account for the decisions they did not make, and this would certainly not be timely. I hope this addresses points made by my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lady McIntosh and others.
However, the value of the committee is in looking at policy issues that are live in some way, and the committee would not be acting in the public interest if it did not do that. There would be no benefit for animal welfare, for the public, for Parliament or for the Government in discussing policies that have long been customary, revised or resolved. To put it more simply, the committee would not be doing its job properly if it sought to rake over old coals and to reignite past policy issues that are now closed. If this happened, it is something that would need to be raised with the committee chair as part of the performance management and governance processes that will be in place.
Seeking to impose a rigid form of words in legislation on these matters risks excluding the committee from areas where its scrutiny would be valuable. Attempts to distinguish current policy from established policy in statute would leave the committee wide open to challenge if interpretations of the wording differed. We are also of the view that, for the committee to provide targeted and effective parliamentary accountability, the committee’s report should not be subject to approval or preselection by Ministers. I would caution against the approach proposed my noble friend Lord Caithness, which would require Ministers to agree to the preparation of any report.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about process. Clause 2(2) envisages that the committee can examine what adverse effects a policy might have on the welfare of animals and whether the Government are aware of all those possible adverse effects and fully understand them so they can properly take them into account in their decision. This is clearly about the process followed in decision-making.
My noble friend Lord Ridley talked about the committee’s ability to consult stakeholders. He is right that the committee may choose to engage with a range of external bodies and individuals, as it sees fit. This stakeholder engagement is important as it will allow the committee to prioritise policies that are more significant in terms of the nature and scale of their effect on animals or the extent of parliamentary, departmental, stakeholder or public interest.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, could he answer the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that this is Article 13 with bells on? Why is so much added into this legislation, which goes way beyond Article 13?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It does not go way beyond Article 13, but it does create a committee that did not exist. There were other measures in the European Union which sought to give substance to the wording in Article 13—we will come on to talk about some of them, perhaps in the next group of amendments—by referring to cultural and other issues that were of concern to member states. We have tried to transpose the legal wording recognising animal sentience into UK law and have sought to make the Government’s decision-making better by giving them an expert committee to advise them.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Is not the noble Lord, Lord Trees, one of the most eminent and respected veterinary surgeons in our country? Could we not take his advice?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, a lot in my few months in this role. I respect his views and his counsel and, wherever possible, I take it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Perhaps I may press my noble friend, because I did not follow what he said about retrospectivity—or perhaps he did not say anything. Will he confirm that there is no retrospective effect? I listened very carefully to what he said about animal sentience; I hesitate to say it, but I think he is confusing animal sentience and animal welfare. I think the mood of the House is to keep Article 13 on animal sentience and let the other committee that is already set up to look after animal welfare do the perfectly good job it is already doing.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I will not detain the House by repeating the paragraphs I have put on record in relation to the prioritising policies that the committee will look at. That will be for the current Government and the policies they are currently pursuing, and it will fulfil the committee’s statutory function under Clause 3. I went on to say—I hope this was clear—that the committee would not be doing its job properly if it sought to rake over old coals and reignite past policy issues that are now closed. My noble friend and noble Lords will know that words said by Ministers at the Dispatch Box hold sway when people try to interpret legislation. I hope I have been as clear as I possibly can be about the remit of this committee and the kinds of priorities it will look at. I hope that has reassured my noble friend.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this short debate, and I thank the Minister for his answers. I note the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, which I and many others, I think, share, about the time, expense and bureaucracy that may be entailed in the legislation having retrospective force. I would still, however, say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, that I do not see why the animal sentience committee cannot look at current legislation and policy and comment on it. It is a statutory committee. I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and her passion for animal welfare, which I share, but I think that she said it was an advisory committee. The committee is statutory. It is a very powerful committee and is there to hold the Government to account, which is why more detail about its remit could usefully appear in the Bill. I respect the explanation by the noble Lord that the terms of reference are very clear about this, that and the other, but as I recall the committee itself can alter its terms of reference, because they are not made explicit in the Bill.
This issue of process is cardinal, and I hope it does not come back to bite us all. Having said that, I am not one to make futile gestures; I appreciate that the Opposition are not supporting amendments and that there is a strong government Whip. I support the essence of this Bill in toto, but one wishes to make constructive suggestions that might improve it. I very much appreciate the kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. With that, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Child Safeguarding
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement following the sentencing of the stepmother and father of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes on Friday.
The whole nation is distraught at Arthur’s tragic and horrific death. We, across this House and across this country, find it impossible to imagine how any adult could commit such evil acts against a child, in particular parents and carers, to whom children look for love and protection. And I know that colleagues and people outside this place are seriously troubled that Arthur was subjected to a campaign of appalling cruelty and murdered after concerns had been raised with local services.
I want to tell you and colleagues across the House, and I want to assure the public, I am as determined as everybody in this House to get to the truth, expose what went wrong and take any action necessary to protect children. To do so, serious questions need to be asked. I want to make it clear that police officers, teachers, social workers, health workers and others go to work each day to try to make things better—to do their best at what are very difficult jobs. Those already serving our country’s most vulnerable children deserve our thanks, and I want to be extremely clear that no safeguarding professional should be the victim of any abuse.
The targeting of individuals is wrong and helps nobody. But that does not mean that we should not seek to understand what went wrong and how we can stop it from happening again. The public deserve to know why, in this rare case, things went horrifyingly wrong, and what more could be done to prevent abuse such as this happening again in future.
Since the horrendous deaths of Peter Connelly, Daniel Pelka and, sadly, others, the Government have established stronger multiagency working, putting a shared and equal duty on police, councils and health in local areas to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, alongside a role for schools.
I am sure that Members across the House will recognise that improvements have been made from previous reviews, but the question now is whether that is enough. In order to look at issues nationally as well as locally, we established the National Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel in 2017 for cases like Arthur’s. That is why, given the enormity of this case, the range of agencies involved and the potential for its implications to be felt nationally, over the weekend I asked Annie Hudson, chair of the National Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, to work with leaders in Solihull to deliver a single, national, independent review of Arthur’s death to identify what must be learned from this terrible case. This will encompass local government, as well as those working in the police, health and education sectors.
Officials in my department are already in close contact with the Solihull safeguarding partnership, which is grateful for the support offered and agrees with this approach as the best way to deliver comprehensive national learning and identify whether there are any gaps that need to be addressed. Annie and her colleagues on the national panel who come from the police, health and children’s services, have dedicated their lives and decades-long careers to bettering the lives of the most vulnerable children in our society, and I have every faith that their review will be robust, vigorous and thorough.
I have already assured Annie, as I assure you now, that she will be given all the support she needs to do the job properly. This review will focus specifically on Arthur’s case, and identify where improvements need to be made. But I also want to make certain that we have looked at how all the relevant local agencies are working now, including how they are working together.
For that reason, I have also asked Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation to lead a joint targeted area inspection. I have asked that each of these inspectorates be involved because of the range of local services which had been involved in Arthur and his family’s life during the preceding months. These joint inspections are well established, but a new ambitious approach will be used, with a sharp focus on the entry point to the child protection system across all agencies. This will mean we can truly look at where improvements are needed by all the agencies tasked with protecting children in the Solihull area, so that we can be assured that we are doing everything in our power to protect other children and to prevent such evil crimes.
As part of this inspection, all the agencies tasked with protecting children at risk of abuse and neglect in Solihull will have their effectiveness considered and be instructed on where improvements must be made—both in Solihull, as well as where learnings can be applied in other areas around the country. These inspectorates have met today to plan this work, which will begin next week.
I, as well as officials in my department and across government, could not be taking this more seriously and have been working this weekend to bring everyone together to make sure this work can start immediately. Over the coming days, we will publish terms of reference and timelines for this national review and local inspection. Ahead of that, more widely, we are already investing heavily to help the legions of dedicated professionals on the front line deliver the care that we all know every child deserves.
Since the spending review in 2019, there have been year-on-year real-term increases for local government, as well as the unprecedented additional £6 billion funding provided directly to councils to support them with the immediate and longer-term impacts of Covid spending pressures, including children’s social care. Yet we have also known that the care system needed bold and wide-ranging reforms which is why we have the independent review of children’s social care happening now.
I know that Josh MacAlister, who leads the review, will make recommendations about what a decisive child protection response needs to look like, given that it sits at the core of the system he is reviewing. Importantly, I know that the review will be looking at how social workers—especially those with the most experience—can spend time with families and protecting children, because we all know that social workers do their best work with families, not behind a desk.
I look forward to the review’s recommendations in due course, because in any complex system it is important—imperative in my view—to investigate thoroughly to learn and improve the system. My mantra continues to be that sunlight is the best possible disinfectant because, if we are to improve services where they need improving, we must share data and evidence.
Finally, I thank the prosecuting barrister, Jonas Hankin QC, his team, and the jury, for their service in this troubling case. As the court heard, Arthur’s tragic death is a result of the cruelty of his father and his father’s partner. No Government anywhere in the world can legislate for evil, but we will take action wherever we can to stop this happening again because we must do more. To do more, I end my Statement with a plea to everyone in our country. Anyone who sees or suspects child abuse can report their concerns to local children’s services or by contacting the government-supported NSPCC helpline for adults or practitioners concerned about a child or a young person. So if you see or suspect child abuse, report it. If you are worried about a child you know, report it. If something appears off, or you have seen something that troubles you, report it. As we uncover what went wrong and what led to Arthur’s tragic death, we must also strengthen our resolve to make sure that we prevent these crimes as much as they can possibly be prevented. We must make sure that those who would do wicked acts to children face justice. We must do absolutely everything in our power to protect vulnerable young children from harrowing and evil abuse. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I do not doubt the sincerity of the commitments that it contains. This has to be one of the most harrowing and tragic deaths any of us can imagine. My heart goes out to everyone who knew and loved Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. Talking to friends over the past few days, the first reaction they expressed was of course sorrow, but that was quickly followed by anger as to how such an awful fate could have been allowed to happen to little Arthur.
A serious case review is now under way and, while it is of course essential that it leaves no stone unturned in establishing what happened and what went wrong, it must also avoid simply repeating the recommendations of previous such reviews, such as those in respect of Victoria Climbié, Baby Peter, Daniel Pelka and too many others. Their serious case reviews reached conclusions that were depressingly familiar: warning signs were not picked up; the invisibility of children; poor early interventions and support for families; social workers’ high caseloads; and poor lines of communication between the various agencies. The main issue for Government this time is surely that these failures keep occurring. How can we avoid being here again in a year or two in similarly distressing circumstances?
Obviously, there are many questions to be asked in relation to what did or not happen locally, but I hope that the blame game that has already started will not point fingers at social workers, because it is well established that they are overworked and often lack the necessary experience to cope with distressing cases. In respect of the Statement, I welcome that it contains a clear defence of professionals in the various agencies.
Too many social workers on the front line who are recently qualified are sent into situations to deal with difficult households, often with manipulative parents such as Arthur’s. Social workers need to be supported by senior management, and by that I do not mean the directors of children’s services; I am talking about line managers and senior managers who themselves will have built up experience of troublesome families and should more often accompany inexperienced social workers, to provide the support that they need so that their teams can provide what is required by children in those difficult and often chaotic families.
If questions need to be asked about what happened at the local level, they also need to be asked in the national context. When the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Education gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in 2016, he committed his department to the target of all vulnerable children receiving the same high quality of care and support, with the best outcome for every child at the heart of every decision made. Three years later he returned to the committee and was obliged to admit that the target was delayed until 2022 because the DfE did not have a detailed plan in place to deliver the target. I do not like the blame game but, in the case of little Arthur, if it is going to begin then let it begin at the top, with a department that is inexplicably unable even to put in place a plan to protect the most vulnerable children in society. We are three weeks away from 2022 so does the Minister know whether her department yet has that plan ready? I do not expect her to be able to answer that question today, but we all deserve an answer and I hope she will write to me when she has it.
Let us not ignore the elephant in the room: the funding of local authorities and, by extension, their ability adequately to fund children’s services. Both have suffered substantial cuts through the austerity policies of Governments between 2010 and 2019—decisions, as I have said many times in your Lordships’ House, rooted in political ideology not necessity. The Minister mentioned the MacAlister review of children’s social care, which has already signalled that an increase in resources will be necessary to begin to bring children’s services up to an acceptable level. I look forward to that report when it appears next year, and I hope the Government will use it as an opportunity to reassess the importance that they attach to children’s social care and wider children’s services. We hear a lot about adult social care, and rightly so, but we definitely need to hear more about children’s social care. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to do—I hope I am quoting the Statement correctly—whatever it takes, whatever is necessary, to keep children safe.
Over the last few days my mind has consistently returned to an image of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes that appeared in many newspapers and on many websites. It showed a happy little boy in his Birmingham City football top, with a big smile, full of potential and with his whole life ahead of him until two evil monsters shamefully and horrifically cut his young life short. Let us try to remember that smile, not just the awful events that took it and his life away.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement, which I thought was very thorough. I agree with every word. It is a tragedy that Arthur lost his life in such a horrific way. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, talked about those photographs of a happy young child with his school bag on his shoulders. You just cannot believe how people can be so evil as to do that to a child, to poison and abuse him in the way that they did.
A single child abused, a single child suffering as poor Arthur did, is one life lost too many. Sadly though, as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, both rightly said, we have been here before. Daniel Pelka, Keanu Williams and Keegan Downer are the names of only a few children murdered by their guardians. What lessons have we taken from those previous cases to empower social services with the mission of preventing child abuse?
Let us not forget that the serious case review published after Baby P’s death in 2007 said it could and should have been prevented. Every agency involved in his care, including health, the police and social services, had been well motivated and wanted to protect him, but their practice collectively and individually was completely inadequate and failed to properly challenge the explanations of maltreatment. More than 10 years on from that appalling crime, we see this tragic murder of young Arthur.
I think people struggle to understand why the photographs of his bruising and the complaints raised seemed not to satisfy those concerned. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that this should not be a blame game against social services. As a head teacher, I worked with social workers a great deal and I found caring, hard-working individuals. However, not through the fault of any individual, I also found that bureaucracy meant that it took time for issues to be dealt with.
I remember the case of a little girl who we felt was being abused. We contacted social services, but a case conference had to be arranged and we had to make sure that all the partners could be at the case conference. We would be told, “We can’t make this date or that date”, as the weeks went on. Eventually, the case conference was held and, I am glad to say, strong action was taken in that case; we were right to have raised the flag on that event. The point I am making, however, is that it is not the fault of individuals—individuals care. No social worker, teacher, police officer or health worker wants this to happen. What they want to see is speedy action but, sadly, that does not happen because of the system that we currently have. In this case, these were evil people who, sadly, would probably have circumvented any system, but that is not to say that we should not have tried.
I was interested to hear the comments of the Children’s Commissioner on “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday. She made a number of important points and commented on the serious case review under way, saying that
“we need to see what that says but we must take decisive action and now.”
We cannot wait months, or whatever it may be, for this case review to happen; we need to know what we are going to do now. So I put it to the Minister: following the words of Dame Rachel de Souza, what does the Minister think we should directly do now?
It is essential that we protect vulnerable children and families. The national review needs to take into account the significance and scale of the circumstances of Arthur’s murder and allow findings to be disseminated around the country. We must identify the lessons that must be learned and ensure that nothing like this is ever allowed to happen again.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for the tone of their remarks and their support for the Statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I reiterate that we will leave no stone unturned in trying to understand and address what happened in this case, both in terms of its local implications and nationally.
I understand the focus of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on funding and the pressures that local government and children’s social care have been under, but I would say again that there really has been a shift; since 2019, there have been year-on-year real increases for local government. The latest spending review shows that the core spending power for local authorities is estimated to increase by an average of 3% in real terms each year until the next spending review. Importantly, that includes £200 million for family help, as part of a £500 million package to make sure that all children get the best start in life.
Both noble Lords asked what is happening on the ground, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised the issue of the performance of local children’s services teams around the country. He will be aware that we have moved from only 36% of children’s services teams being judged to be good in 2017 to, today, 50% being judged to be good or outstanding. Solihull’s children’s services team is currently rated as requiring improvement. We intervene decisively where local authorities are failing, and we continue to facilitate and fund sector-led improvement.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who said that we cannot wait; we need to do something now. Work had already started in Solihull. It is part of the strengthening families programme, which is very tailored support for local authority children’s services teams, where they follow a clear model. That work started in October this year. It is also getting support through the sector-led improvement partners, which is the more bespoke element, so the first takes well-understood and well-established improvement programmes and applies them in the local authority in question, and then the sector-led improvement partners allow for a more bespoke approach. Clearly, events such as this give a renewed urgency to the work that was already in train, and I will of course write to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, with more detail on the implementation plan.
Both noble Lords asked—possibly not in these words, but I hope I paraphrase accurately—how we avoid being here again. We have the two new reviews that we have just announced, and we will need to wait and see what they advise. We cannot pre-empt them. We also have the care review, which we hope will come forward with very practical, actionable recommendations focusing on empowering social workers to take those extremely difficult decisions to which both noble Lords referred.
I genuinely think that great progress has been made over the past 10 years in implementing almost all of the recommendations of Professor Eileen Munro’s review, and major investment is going into the workforce, with 10% more social workers today than in 2017. A great deal of work is going on. We are trying to ensure that that is sequenced and delivered in a way that is practical and effective on the ground.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the repeat of the Statement and I shall be very brief, but it is necessary to emphasise, yet again, that the awful suffering and death of this defenceless child at the hands of those to whom the child looked for love and protection must stay with us. It must be part of our thinking as we go forward.
The law makes it very clear, for all services dealing with child protection work, that the child must be at the centre and the focus of all their activities: the child is of paramount concern . It is very tough work being on the front line, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, was correct to say that each of those front-line workers deserves the support of more experienced staff around them who can take a more objective view and support them in what they are doing. As has been said, we must not fall into the trap of scapegoating the youngest, least experienced and most junior of people who go into this area of work.
The review is greatly to be welcomed, but I say to the Minister that it is right to say that since 2019 there has been an increase in local authority funding, but, boy, for the decade before 2019 there were cuts and cuts and cuts, year after year. That has meant that many of the support, preventive and family services that social workers could rely on to look at the relationship between the child and the family have disappeared.
I welcome the review, but it will take some time for it to complete its work, and I wish it well. But, to take some action now, would the Government be willing to write a strong letter to the senior people in each of these key services to remind them of their duties and responsibilities in law to protect children subject to the possibility of abuse or danger? It could be said these people already know this, but we have to be seen to react and we have to get across our concern and say, not just to the people of Solihull but to people nationwide who carry the responsibility for protecting children that now is the time for them to look at and support their front-line services to ensure that no child in their patch experiences this level of abuse and awful suffering. I hope the Government will consider doing that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. His remark at the beginning that we should never forget the terrible suffering of Arthur reminds me of when I founded the domestic abuse charity SafeLives. As I was having lunch with the noble Lord, I thought I should read his report into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié. As your Lordships can imagine, it was possibly the most terrible thing I have ever read. But reading it is obviously less awful than what these children have suffered, so I absolutely share his view that we need to keep that front of mind, and of course I will talk to colleagues in the department about his suggestion.
Baroness Kingsmill (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to add to the comments made. When I was a practising lawyer, I represented social workers in two child abuse inquiries and the two little girls, Kimberley Carlile and Jasmine Beckford, still have a place in my heart. They were brave little four year-olds who were murdered by their stepfather. In this case I think it was the stepmother who was the protagonist. At the time, I represented the social workers, but many other agencies were exposed to this child and were unable to recognise the symptoms of the abuse.
Nowadays, there is a greater awareness of the risk factors as far as children are concerned, and, perhaps, of the absence of proper parental care. But there are not sufficient funds to take the necessary protective actions, and for the necessary support to be given, maybe to parents who are struggling—which is not a popular position, but sometimes is a factor in child abuse cases.
We have to understand that this is a case of money, and of funding. Too many local authorities are struggling to provide basic services. There are many demands on their funds and there have been substantial cuts. I recognise that in recent times there has been some increase, but it is an increase on a very low base. There have been substantial cuts and a substantial shortage of services provided by the necessary agencies that need to be aware of and alert to these situations.
So I ask the Minister once again to raise these issues in the places where it can make a difference. We also need to recognise that we need to do some more research into why these parents behave in this way. It is too easy to describe them as monsters—they are, obviously; their behaviour is unforgivable, unimaginable and horrendous for the rest of us. However, in the two cases in which I was closely involved for many, many weeks, both the parents had themselves been victims of abuse. That does not in any way excuse their subsequent behaviour, but it is quite sensible to look at those situations as well.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that of course we need to understand, even if that does not excuse behaviour. To her first point, I agree that there is greater awareness of the risk factors that children face across a wide range of different aspects, but we are still battling with some of the same issues about sharing information, understanding the significance of information and, critically, acting on it. Clearly there is more work to do.
Funding is of course extremely important, which is why we have made the commitments that I have already set out. Also, the noble Baroness would accept that there are other aspects that go along with funding to make sure that we unlock the maximum impact for children, including how services are organised, how practitioners are empowered and supported and how they are trained. Those are all areas that we are investing in to make sure that we get the best result for our children.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, this of course goes right back over very many years, and we have been here before—in my case, right back to Maria Colwell. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has led this House and led the departments through these tragedies over many years. When people say that it will never happen again, I think that is a false line of thought—there will always be disturbed, distorted, evil parents. It goes against the grain—it is totally abhorrent—but we have to support those who are sceptical or cynical. It was said that social workers should be in the community and not at their desk; actually, they should be at their desk writing careful notes, liaising with others and making sure that we do everything in our power to diminish these appalling situations. It takes a village to bring up a child, as has often been well said. This is not only about the agencies; it is about the neighbours, the volunteers and the community as a whole.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with much of what my noble friend said, but I think that she would also agree that there are children who, when things happen, are genuinely hidden from us—or substantially hidden—and there are others to whom terrible things happen in plain sight. We should at least make sure that the latter are addressed effectively.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, sadly, we are here again. To the point from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, which is about looking to the future, one of the terrible things about this particular death was that we saw and we heard the torture of this child and the terrible life they were enduring. I wonder whether there, there might be some hope for the future in the sense that technological surveillance of the victim, as in this case, or the suspects—the people who eventually murdered him—may give us more hope. Sadly, this poor child was alone with the people who tortured him and eventually murdered him.
The Government are already experimenting with tagging. People can be monitored for their alcohol and drug intake and, if someone has a mental health issue, it is now possible to see whether they are taking medication. We could have technological surveillance of both the potential victim—the child—and the people who might hurt him, as in this case. Who is in the home at the time, who is available as a witness, the condition of the child—it is now possible to technologically surveil all these things. Some people may argue that this is an intrusion too far and an intrusion into the privacy of the family. But the only reason this intrusion is being suggested is that, presumably as in all these cases, a child is already at risk. This is not an intrusion without cause; it is an intrusion with cause, where no one wants to disserve the family, but everybody wants to make sure that the child is kept safe in the future.
Therefore, in terms of an immediate response, I wonder whether research in that area—or perhaps this review—could quickly look into that and pilot it. Of all the pilots that happen, that might give us some hope for the future fairly quickly. I worry that all our investments and all our encouragements do not make people work better. We will always have human error and people on the front line will be worried to make the wrong intervention. Perhaps that is what happened in this case. I think technology can assist. It would not be foolproof in any way, but I wonder whether it is some hope for the future.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord makes a really interesting point. I am not aware of whether that is an aspect that the reviews will be looking into, but I will take it back to the department and if there is evidence, I am very happy to share it with the noble Lord.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, someone I know with great experience in these matters tells me that in the years before the involvement of social services, in a case of suspected child cruelty the first knock on the door would be from a policeman or a policewoman. Occasionally that resulted in a bit of embarrassment, but I think perhaps children’s lives were better protected in those days. Perhaps we ought to give this matter a little more thought.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand the spirit of my noble friend’s remarks. With respect to him, the thing that first the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and then others have brought out is the fact that so often in these cases different organisations, whether it be the school, the GP, the police or children’s services, have different snippets of information about a child. Critically, and very often, we need to share those to get an accurate picture of that child’s life.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I associate myself with comments from other noble Lords about the tone of today’s Statement, which I think is a major step forward. However, will the Minister ask the two reviews if they will specifically look at the issue of sharing information and data? I ask that for two reasons. First, those of us who have been involved in these sorts of cases—I am afraid over decades—too often have seen perceived problems in sharing data and information behind the tragic outcomes. Secondly, we will tomorrow be debating the Health and Social Care Bill which includes a specific provision to improve the sharing of data where adults are concerned but says nothing at all about children. That surely could be one of the immediate things that we could do. Even if it was not a major problem in this case, it is a major problem too often, and we could do something about that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord makes very important points. I am not trying to suggest that we have reached anywhere like where we need to get to, but he will be aware that we published new information-sharing guidance in June 2018 and have followed that up with rolling out the child protection information-sharing system so that health and local authorities can share information. It is now live in what are technically known as unscheduled health settings, so A&E, and more recently, it has been expanded to include school nurses and health visitors. It is an important tool, and we expect it to be in all healthcare settings by March 2022-23. In terms of the Health and Social Care Bill, I am sure that as a result of what has happened recently, we will be reviewing every option, including the one the noble Lord referred to.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former police officer. I welcome everything in the Government’s Statement. In the aftermath of this horrendous incident, there will be many people—safeguarding professionals, police, friends, family and community—who will be dealing with guilt and hopelessness. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that every possible support will be made available to those who need it at this perilous time?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and I am pleased that I can reassure him. Obviously, there are children who will have been at school with Arthur and people who will have been involved in his life in many different ways, and we are making sure that all of them receive the support they need.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the review will look at the contribution of family breakdown? Evidence shows that children on the at-risk register are eight times more likely to be living with a natural parent and their current partner than the general population. Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children living with two biological parents. Will the review consider the contribution that robust prevention and early intervention can make to safeguarding children?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s last point, I know that he is aware, and extremely supportive, of moves that this Government are making to focus more on early intervention and on the first thousand days of a child’s life. In terms of whether the review will look specifically at family breakdown, I am not aware of that although clearly that appears relevant in this case. If it is different to that, I will let my noble friend know.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister let us know whether the review will look specifically at the effect of closing schools on this case? Many of us fear that although Arthur sadly lost his life, many other children have probably been abused because they have not been going to school and the schools have not been involved in monitoring and feeding back.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The issue of children being out of school is an important one. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that schools are an incredibly important protective factor for many children. That is why we are so keen as a Government, public health permitting, to keep our schools open with a real focus on attendance and working very closely with schools and children’s social care so that where children are not in school that is followed up and properly understood. In terms of the details of the review in relation to Arthur’s own attendance, as I said, the terms of reference are being set at the moment and I am not aware of the details.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, there are so many distressing factors involved in Arthur’s death, but perhaps one of the most upsetting is that he had family who loved him and who raised their concerns. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government will consider giving more focus to raising the awareness and status of kinship care, as recommended in The Case for Change?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope my noble friend will be pleased to know that in the Government’s independent review of social care we will be looking at how we can further support kinship families for all the reasons that my noble friend touched on. There are about 150,000 children in this country living in kinship care arrangements, so it is a really important element. In recent years, we have provided extra support to kinship carers who are looking after a child who was previously in care under a special guardianship order. Those carers can now access therapeutic services funded by the adoption support fund to help those children deal with the trauma that they have experienced. We have also recently changed the school admissions fair access protocol so that more children in kinship care will have access to schools that will support them with their kinship placement.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for Back-Bench questions has now elapsed.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Monday 6th December 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 View all Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (3 Dec 2021)
Lord Marland
“(1A) The function of the Committee is to determine whether, in the process of formulating policy, it is satisfied the Government is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.(1B) It is not the function of the Committee to comment on the policy decisions of Ministers or to recommend future policy or changes to existing policy.(1C) It is for Ministers to take into account any other considerations of public interest, including economic, cultural and religious considerations, as well as the impact on different species, in the formulation and implementation of any policy. (1D) Schedule (Animal Sentience Committee) has effect.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would clarify the Committee’s role and make clear the Committee is limited to commenting on process. It also makes explicit that Ministers should take into account any other public interest considerations. It gives effect to the Schedule, which sets out the Committee’s role and function.
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who, sadly, has fallen to the Covid virus, and we of course wish him well. It falls to me to take on the challenge of trying to persuade the Government, who so far have been pretty unpersuadable, to take this Bill more seriously and put it into better shape. For the record, I do not consider myself, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested, a right-wing Tory, even though some of my colleagues do. This has nothing to do with right or left. I think that the general feeling in the House was that this is a badly constructed Bill. I know that some of the government amendments have the support of the Liberal Democrats and Labour, which means that it is not a well-supported Bill.
For those who have just joined this debate, I say the following: I do not farm, and I rarely fish. I am not an industrial fisherman or commercial farmer; occasionally I shoot—but what I really enjoy is our green and pleasant land, and living in the countryside. As far as I am concerned, it has been under responsible stewardship for a very long time, or it would not still be a green and pleasant land. If I am a Tory, which I am, I believe the well-known Conservative Party tenet that people do better when the Government do least. Here we have a Bill that seeks to interfere with people and how they run their lives. It is not just this Bill on its own, in isolation; we should look at the general onslaught of change that is happening to farmers in the countryside.
How do we arrive at this place? It is extraordinary. I may be totally wrong, but I can count four animal welfare-related Bills, three of which come under a new umbrella of animal welfare created by Defra. Ministers say that they want experts to advise them on sentience, but they are getting loads of advice. They could just come to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and get terrific advice from him, or the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and get fantastic advice from her, because they are well-known experts. It is why they have been appointed to this House—among many other reasons, I hastily add. It just demonstrates another way of Defra interfering with farming, the countryside and fishing. It is setting down standards and definitions of standards that many other countries do not support. Not even the European Union has gone this far in setting out standards, insisting that our farmers and fishermen adhere to a certain group of standards.
Yet on the other hand, the Government are signing trade deals with these countries and allowing imports of various goods from countries that will not adhere to the same welfare sentiments that we do. We will still get lobsters from Canada—we will be able to get lobsters from Scotland, by the way, as this relates to the United Kingdom. We will still be able to get octopus from Spain not killed in the same way as we think it should be. We will get langoustines from Scotland and France killed totally differently than the ones that we have—and prawns, as we know, come from Thailand and other countries like that.
There is no civilised way of killing animals, or anybody, for that matter—whether it is slitting their throat, catching them in nets and leaving them out of air on fishing boats, hooking them and shooting them, stunning them or boiling them. They are all terrible ways to die. We should bear in mind that that is the case. Yet Defra is going to appoint a committee that sits as judge and jury on how these animals and sentient beings should be killed—in the animals’ case, but also it will give the description of sentient beings. This will destroy the livelihoods of our fishing industry, which will not be able to compete on the same level field, and it will make farming very difficult.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am speaking in support of Amendment 2 and Amendment 27, to which I have added my name. In short, these amendments seek to restore so-called Lisbon treaty provisions, or balancing considerations, to our laws on animal welfare, old and new. The arguments in favour are substantial, relating to practices in this country, and legal, relating to the avoidance of judicial review—on which I hope the House will listen to the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which was apparently inserted by reason of pressure from this country, says:
“In formulating and implementing the Union’s … policies”,
et cetera,
“the Union and the Member States shall … pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
Far be it from me to want to continue any European law, but this particular provision did in fact mirror what was already the situation in this country. My concerns if it is not enacted relate to medical research and religious traditions in killing animals.
The Lisbon provision successfully kept issues out of court, and religious minorities were content with it. Not to include this amendment is to open the door to vigorous disagreements over traditional practices and to more judicial review—and if there is one thing this Bill was supposed to do, it was to corral the committee and the Minister in policy issues. Muslim spokespersons are likely to be as worried about halal as are the representatives of the far smaller religious Jewish community. In the past, they have lived comfortably with the Lisbon balancing factors, and we want this to continue.
The committee might decide a particular point on this, but a Minister will have to take into account the wider considerations of cultural and religious organisations and form a view in accordance with them. Without the balancing factors that this amendment would introduce, both sides are wide open to judicial review.
The last time I spoke on this, I criticised the Bill as unnecessary and I worried about restrictions on medical research, inter alia. Living in Oxford as I do has meant witnessing protests by so-called animal liberationists. As recently as April this year, they were protesting just two miles away from the laboratory where the esteemed scientist Sarah Gilbert was working on the AstraZeneca vaccine—which, no doubt, some of them would be happy to take, and if not they would selfishly put others at risk. I hope that medical research is included in the term “public interest” in Amendment 2. The reference to legislative provisions in Amendment 27 is certainly meant to include the many laws we have about research on animals.
All our talk about inclusivity and diversity demands due respect for what is important to minorities and to others who have for centuries had a special relationship with animals and wildlife. We do not want today’s cancel culture extending to interference with medical research and peaceful coexistence, and Article 13 would be a safeguard. Moreover, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights could, through the Lisbon treaty, be brought to bear in this amendment.
On religious rites, particularly at issue in the present context is religious animal slaughter. The importance of expressly preserving in the Bill the right of citizens to adhere to their religious practices is perfectly clear. That right falls within Article 9 of the European convention and is reflected in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has highlighted in many cases the importance of the rights protected by Article 9 in a pluralist democratic society. Our own Human Rights Act 1998, which enabled disputes on convention rights to be resolved in our own courts, contains a specific provision, in Section 13, that:
“If a court’s determination of any question … under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation … of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.”
It is not necessary for present purposes to go into the nature of religious animal slaughter in the form of shechita or its Muslim equivalent. There is scientific evidence on both sides of the debate about the humanity of this. In fact, when one reads about the terrible cruelty, referred to earlier in this debate, that we routinely inflict deliberately or by accident—in the electrocution of chickens, the killing of pigs, the decapitation of rabbits, the suffocation of fish, the boiling alive of lobsters, et cetera, which we will get to—we really have nothing to be proud of in all our practices of killing animals.
It is clear that the protection of the right to manifest religious belief is enshrined in the treaty obligations we already have and our own domestic legislation. Therefore, there can be no good reason why, as in the case of Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, the considerations and recommendations of the sentience committee should not be made expressly subject to respect for religious rites and medical research.
On 6 July, the Minister gave an assurance about respect for halal and kosher traditional killing, but in the same breath he reminded the House that anything could be changed. Therefore, it behoves the Government to proactively accept Amendment 27—and indeed Amendment 2—both to safeguard religious rites and medical research and to minimise judicial review challenges. I cannot think of any good reason why the amendment should be rejected.
We hope to change the Minister’s mind before Third Reading, and I shall continue to press for this safeguard today and later. As the Bill stands, the committee is not required to respect medical research and rites and traditions, yet the Minister will be bound to consider them when receiving the committee’s recommendations. Without this amendment, his decision and legal position will be much more vulnerable and difficult. I therefore urge him most strongly to accept the amendments which place the Lisbon treaty back where it should be in this country.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I intervene very briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has just said, particularly with respect to medical research. I have looked up which kinds of animals were used in the development of treatments and vaccines for Covid-19 in the last couple of years. They include humanised mice bred to have human ACE2 genes in them. Experiments on SARS-like viruses were being done on these mice in one city in particular for many years before the pandemic: Wuhan. The animals also included Syrian hamsters, because they have similar symptoms to human beings; monkeys, because vaccine safety always has to be tested in non-human primates; ferrets, because they have very similar symptoms when they get respiratory diseases; pigs, on which vaccines were tested; and sheep, which were used for plasma for purifying antibodies. All of these were vital to the extraordinary speed with which treatments and preventions for Covid-19 were pursued in the last year.
Nobody is suggesting that the existence of this committee will result in the banning of such research or anything like that. But it is possible that, in formulating a research proposal of this kind, you might find you run up against legislation that, in deference to the sentience committee, says that an extra step needs to be taken to check that it is really necessary to use animals in this way. Be in no doubt: all of these animals suffered, and they suffered deliberately from diseases that we gave them as a result of this work. I would hate to think that this Bill would result in anything that slowed down the urgency of medical research in a situation like this.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 27, to which I have put my name. I have the great privilege of following the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in doing so. This amendment goes to the heart of what I see, perhaps eccentrically, as the problem with the Bill. The Bill seems to be about animals and their welfare, and it seems to be based on science, but really it is a Bill about humans and our moral standing. It is not about our moral obligations—all animal welfare legislation for the last 200 years either articulates or creates moral and legal obligations on us; that is what law does—but rather it is about our moral standing. It is the ambition of the people who are promoting the concept of animal sentience that it should be a common moral measure, putting humans and animals on the same moral plane, differenced only by the degree of sentience that they evince.
I find this a really false anthropology. So it is absolutely right that the Bill, which actually makes no reference to humans, should say something about them, if only to try to achieve a better balance in the moral architecture that the Bill seeks to create. Amendment 27 does that. It says that there are some things about human beings that should not be trampled on by this Bill, by the principle behind it, or by the animal sentience committee it creates. Those are quite basic things: they are to do with religion and religious practice, culture and your local region or locality—the place where you belong. All Amendment 27 does is ask that those things should be carved out and specially protected—not in an innovative way, because in fact they are already protected in the European Union treaty, in the language that we adopted before. It is simply about incorporating that language back, not in a copy-and-paste way but because we genuinely believe that those things about human life are important and should be protected. That is why I support Amendment 27.
While I am on my feet, I am going to make a comment on Amendment 48, in the same group. It is a slightly more procedural comment—it is really a question to my noble friend. We have been told since Committee, through the issuance of the terms of reference of the new committee—which are not statutory as I understand it, but of course I am always happy to be corrected—that it is to be set inside and corralled by, so to speak, a new Defra centre of excellence on animal welfare. Other committees that already exist will also be brought within that nest, but the other birds in this nest are not statutory committees—they are creatures or creations of Defra, whereas this new committee is a statutory committee. I simply do not understand—this may be because I am relatively new—how it is that, through some non-statutory terms of reference, a committee that we are today being asked to give statutory independence to, can be reliably told that it will be part of this centre. What if it decided not to be? It is going to have an independent board; what if the board decided that the centre trammelled it or interfered with its work? My question to my noble friend is this: if this committee is going to be on the basis he says, corralled inside the new centre for excellence, should that not be in the Bill?
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I understand the worries of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about including or not including matters that relate to medical science and the slaughter of animals by ritual, religious methods. But unless I am much mistaken—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the Act that deals with the slaughter of animals specifically exempts ritual slaughter from what would otherwise be illegal. By the same token, we have legislation that deals with medical experiments which already tightly controls what may or may not be done. I cannot see, therefore, that the amendment being advocated can have any real substance to it, given those restrictions, and also bearing in mind that the committee that is being set up, although it is being set up by statute, does not have legal powers of any kind whatever. It will be entirely up to the relevant Ministers whether or not they accept any recommendations from that committee. In order to change the rules about medical science or the slaughter of animals, I believe there would have to be primary legislation. I hope my noble friend can confirm this.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support Amendment 2 in the names of my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland. I also wish my noble friend a speedy recovery from Covid. As my noble friend Lord Marland, who spoke so convincingly to the amendment, said, the animal sentience committee will be both judge and jury. My worry is that it will also be legislator, since it seems to me almost certain that, in the way the Bill is currently drafted, it is likely to stray into the area of scrutinising policy as well as process.
I remain worried that the committee will also overlap with the work of the Animal Welfare Committee, as the Countryside Alliance and other institutions that actually understand nature and animal behaviour have pointed out. This committee is likely to be comprised of people who may have a huge understanding of matters of science and parts of the countryside but lack the experience to really appreciate the relationship between the countryside and the animal kingdom.
What about this animal welfare centre of expertise? I understand it is supposed to settle points of dispute with other committees. Which other committees is the new committee likely to be in dispute with? Obviously, it will be the Animal Welfare Committee. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we would wish to create an animal sentience committee which is obviously going to cover points that are already covered by the Animal Welfare Committee. I thought that, under this Government, we were likely to see some rationalisation and reduction of the number of committees and quangos being established. I regret very much that it looks as though we are likely to see the reverse.
I would also like to comment on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoken to very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. My noble friend Lady Fookes has just pointed out, quite correctly, that there are already exemptions for medical science in some legislation, but I think those exemptions are very much narrower than the exemptions that would be achieved by the amendment in the name of the noble Earl. The amendment is quite welcome, and I strongly support it, particularly as, having spent many years in Japan, I came to be very partial to Japanese cuisine. I fear that most methods used, including in this country by Japanese restaurants, to kill fish might fall foul of the opinions of the animal sentience committee. I think it could easily lead to a lot of unwelcome interference.
I also very much welcome the speech by my noble friend Lord Moylan, who explained so well that the sentience of animals is different from that of us. It is relative, and nobody would argue that the sentience of a dog is the same as that of a lobster.
I also strongly support Amendment 48, because to set up a statutory committee of this kind without including a schedule clearly setting out the committee’s role and functions is bound to lead to trouble.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I express my support for Amendment 27, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness have covered much of the ground that I wished to cover, and I agree with everything that they said.
Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty was not only binding on the UK before Brexit but—as the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, himself stated in a letter to Members on 13 May—the UK was one of the key EU members that lobbied for it, and it has not been suggested at any stage of the Bill that prior to Brexit the UK had any objection to the balancing factors in Article 13.
As I pointed out in Committee, the balancing factors mirror rights under the human rights convention. There is a powerful argument that the right to sporting and other recreational activity that are part of cultural traditions and regional heritage are protected by Article 8 of the convention as an aspect of the right to respect for private and family life. Like a number of other convention rights, it is a qualified right and is subject to interference if, among other things, it
“is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
None of those grounds has been identified by the Government as potentially applicable.
Most perplexing of all, however, is the Government’s failure to exclude religious rights from the purview of the sentience committee. This ground has been substantially covered by what my noble friend Lady Deech said. She referred to Article 9 of the convention, which expressly provides for freedom of thought, conscience or religion; that article expressly states that the right to manifest one’s religious belief is a right protected in practice and in religious observance.
The European Court of Human Rights, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said, has highlighted the importance of rights protected by Article 9 in a pluralist democratic society. Like Article 8, Article 9 of the convention confers a qualified right and is subject to many of the limitations that I have just listed with regard to Article 8. Again, none of those limitations has been suggested by the Government at any stage of the passage of this Bill.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 27, which carries my name. I have some difficulties with parts of it, which I will come to in a minute, but first I will make some remarks about medical research and the threat to it. The concern is very understandable, but in this case probably unwarranted. The question is not whether medical research will be exempted; there is very specific and substantial regulatory legislation in place to control medical research precisely. If there was a challenge as to whether the Government had considered the implications of their policy on medical research, they could answer, perfectly honestly, “Yes, we have the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, which is extremely detailed and requires persons involved in medical research to be licensed, the place in which that research is being carried out to be licensed, and each and every specific project, of a particular nature, to be subject to scrutiny and licensed”. I was a Home Office licence holder under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act for something like 25 years; one can argue very persuasively that due consideration and regard have been paid to medical research.
It is a great honour to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton, who exquisitely explained the reasons for incorporating these exemptions, which are included in Article 13. My noble friend Lady Deech knows that I differ with her in that I wish all animals to be stunned and rendered unconscious before slaughter. There is a huge weight of scientific evidence to support that. That is why it is illegal for most people, except those of particular religious persuasions—it is illegal for me as a veterinary surgeon—to cut the throat of a conscious animal without rendering it unconscious first.
However, I am a realist. I recognise all the points that my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton and my noble friend Lady Deech have made; religious freedoms are enshrined in our laws and internationally. That reflects current government policy to respect religious freedoms. I accept that point and am happy to support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for having been detained in the Moses Room earlier in another debate. Much of what I might have said has been put far better by my colleagues who have signed this amendment, in the shape of my noble friend Lord Trees, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and my noble friend Lady Deech, who has been incredibly helpful. I thank them very much. I also found the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton very persuasive on the basic and essential point.
I remind the House of a question I put directly to the Minister in Committee, right at the end, about what happens next. He said:
“I do not want to create a feeding frenzy for lawyers by putting anything in legislation that will increase opportunities for judicial review or any other legal measure.”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 294.]
That is what set me thinking about whether or not, in the true construction, this provision increased or decreased the possibility for judicial review. We just heard from my noble and learned friend about that, and about how the European Convention on Human Rights would work. I will not rehearse all the arguments or restate what others have said but it is my settled view that, if we do not restore something that was the law of the land until midnight of 31 December last year and then stopped, there is a strong probability—particularly with the arrival of this committee—of increased action in judicial review and increased action under the ECHR. That seems to me to trip the very test the Minister set himself in Committee. That is why I put the amendment down again and why I strongly believe we need to accept it.
A very interesting point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I need to think about it, but in my bones I do not feel it is a problem and, obviously, nor do my colleagues. I am annoyed with myself for not having had the time to talk to colleagues on the Labour Front Bench to explain more carefully why this is not some sort of attempt to wreck anything but is a genuine point; we are trying to make sure that the Government can govern and are not dragged to the courts the whole time on what are, after all, a series of very emotive issues. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, about that in Committee.
My simple hope, having discussed this at length yesterday—I am very grateful for the Minister’s time—is that we can have a meeting after Report, and I very much hope the Labour Front Bench will be there, where we can discuss this carefully, including taking into account the good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and come to some sort of resolution. As I said, the advice from people who care about this and genuinely know about it is that the very test the Minister set himself in Committee would be tripped if we did not accept this amendment. I hope that, if he cannot accept it immediately today, we will not have a messy vote but agree that this is the one issue to be taken away and discussed between now and Third Reading.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I support very much my noble friend Lord Marland in his amendment, both the principles behind it and its detail, and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, which was extremely well argued by her and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Lord, Lord Trees—modestly—and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
It strikes me that the Government have got themselves in a bit of a muddle on all this. The more I have listened to noble Lords behind me who obviously think the Government have got it wrong, the more I wonder why they are legislating in this way. If he had wished to do so, could the Secretary of State not simply have set up a committee by declaration, to do everything the Government want it to and try out some of these extremely complicated and difficult issues which have been raised not just today but in Committee? I feel it would have been a much better way to progress thinking and policy on this Bill and would not have made the sort of mistakes which I have a horrible feeling the Government are heading into by putting forward primary legislation in this manner, when we all know that changing primary legislation is incredibly difficult.
I hope my noble friend the Minister has listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who made a very fair offer of discussion on this extremely complicated policy matter, with the aim of coming forward with some rationally thought through amendments at Third Reading, which I would very much support.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Can I just add to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s remarks? The Government certainly have the capacity to create this committee, but why are they bothering to create a new one? I raised this in Committee and was told, “Oh no; the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee are doing two totally different things.” If you took that outside and asked people in the street, “Do you think there’s an enormous difference between animal welfare and animal sentience?”, they would slightly wonder what you were talking about. It is extraordinary that, as a Conservative Government, we did not take a well-respected committee—the Animal Welfare Committee—and extend its remit to include animal sentience. Surely that would have been the most sensible, straightforward way, without creating new bureaucracy, as well as massive expense and giving it a statutory basis.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, can I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has just said? I remind those in the House who have not looked closely at the terms of reference of the relationship that is anticipated between this new committee and the excellent existing Animal Welfare Committee. They are to have a joint secretariat with Defra, a joint website, a joint point of contact and the same Defra budget. Both will give views and advice about the effects on animal welfare of policy decisions, including prospective future policy and policy currently being formulated, and they will consult one another. The same people can be members of both committees and on occasions give joint advice and attend one another’s meetings. I repeat: I still do not understand why, with a powerful and excellent committee already in existence, we are spending time on the Bill in this House today.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have listened with care to what has been said and find the arguments convincing. However, I am slightly concerned about the proposition put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and supported by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. As I understand the procedure now, if the Minister agrees to such a meeting but then decides to do nothing, we can do nothing at Third Reading. I would like clarification that we could not bring forward an amendment at Third Reading unless there was an indication from the Government today that it would be accepted. I think that is the new procedure.
I have two questions for my noble friend that are relevant. Does he agree with the situation north of the border and the attitude taken by NatureScot that:
“The death of an animal, at an individual level, is not a welfare issue but the manner in which an animal dies is”?
If he agrees with that, will he give an instruction to the committee to follow that same principle? Does he also agree with the thoughts of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in New Zealand, which distinguishes between societal ethical values and public opinion? Again, if he agrees with that animal sentience committee’s thoughts, would he give the same instruction to the committee that he proposes to set up?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this small group of amendments, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, deals with the work of the animal sentience committee and touches on the issue of religious rites in Amendment 27, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. It is obvious from the contributions made that everybody feels very passionately about this.
Medical science is important and should be confirmed wherever possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, lots of safeguards around licensing of medical science are already in place. There is obviously a need to ensure that those for whom religious rites are an important part of their lifestyle are respected, as set out in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. Despite the fact that this was before Brexit, I believe the Government should and do respect this right, upholding the values of those for whom the method of slaughter of those animals which form part of their staple diet is protected.
Amendment 48, which has not had a huge amount of debate this evening, is consequential on Amendment 2 and sets out the detail of the way in which the committee will be constituted and work. The noble Lord, Lord Marland, has just set out a bit about that and there is detail in the amendment. However, I am afraid I do not agree with either him or the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on parts of the amendment.
Limiting the term of office to four years could lead to a loss of expertise on the committee, especially if all members were appointed at the same time—which could happen, since it will be a new committee—and, therefore, rotated off at the same time. Further, I find the list of who may not sit on the committee very restrictive. It could lead to someone with the necessary expertise and knowledge being excluded from being a committee member. However, I agree with this amendment in that there should be transparency and independence. That is the direct opposite of the first group of amendments, which sought to fetter the committee’s independence.
The detail in Amendment 48 is extensive. However, the draft terms of reference document is also comprehensive and indicates that Defra has thought carefully about how the committee is to be constructed and how it will carry out its functions. On balance, I am inclined to go with the Defra guidance on this issue but will be interested in what the Minister has to say on this subject and on the knotty issues around Amendment 27.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will talk first about the first part of Amendment 2, which looks at committee remit and policy. That has not really been discussed much in this debate so far. I draw attention to the terms of reference, because they include a lot of information about the role of the committee and policy. I put on record that we welcome a number of formal recognitions that the committee will have. It will: consider positive effects on animals as sentient beings in the policy-making process; report on any policy for which UK Government Ministers are responsible; examine policy decision-making by previous Governments where this has a significant bearing on ongoing policy-making. It is also important that the selection of the policy decisions it will choose to scrutinise will lie within the committee. I will make a final point on policy before moving on. I draw attention to the fact that it is not for the committee to reach a value judgment on whether a given policy decision balanced the welfare of animals with other matters of public interest.
On Amendment 48, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has pretty well covered all the areas I wish to draw attention to, so I will move on. The second part of Amendment 2 and Amendment 27 refer to having regard to cultural and religious considerations, as we have heard. Clearly, this is extremely important; the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in particular, demonstrated that passionately in her speech. As we have seen, Amendment 27 seeks to sustain an aspect of the sentience responsibility that applied when we were EU members: the derogation to Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which exempts cultural practices from animal welfare considerations.
Again, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that this derogation was negotiated during the Lisbon treaty by a very small number of EU Governments particularly looking to preserve practices such as bullfighting. I believe that we now have the freedom to widen our ambitions for animal welfare while still respecting cultural and religious practices. Indeed, the restrictions in Article 13 have frequently been cited as one of the key flaws in EU sentience policy that post-Brexit UK sentience policy can improve on. In fact, the then Secretary of State at Defra Michael Gove said in 2017:
“The current EU instrument—Article 13—has not delivered the progress we want to see. It does not have direct effect in law—in practice its effect is very unclear and it has failed to prevent practices across the EU which are cruel and painful to animals.”
Article 13 has not stopped any of those practices, but leaving the EU gives us the chance to do much better. This matter was discussed at length in Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, made some good points about existing legislation. In Committee, in response to noble Lords’ concerns, many of which were exactly the same as those expressed today, the Minister assured us that any Minister would have to take into account the wider considerations of cultural and religious organisations and form views in accordance with them. I hope that he can similarly reassure noble Lords today.
Finally, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that I am always happy to meet to discuss policy and legislation with anybody.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I start by wishing my noble friend Lord Mancroft a speedy recovery, and I am sorry he is not here. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marland for moving his amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others for speaking to it.
The amendment seeks to clarify the role and detail of the animal sentience committee. I reassure my noble friend Lord Marland and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the Bill already makes it absolutely clear that the only role of the committee is to provide an assessment of the extent to which policy decision-making has considered whether a policy may
“have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
We are sure that the Bill already makes it clear that the committee will not be authorised to stray into making value judgments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, just said, on how well a given policy decision balanced the welfare of animals with other matters of public interest. There is no need to specify explicitly in the Bill that it is for Ministers to take other public considerations into account when formulating and implementing policy, because this requirement applies as a matter of course.
Amendment 48 concerns the structure of the committee, criteria for appointments to it and how it is to operate. My noble friend’s amendment raises a number of points about the design of the committee, which I will address in turn. I agree with him about the optimal size of the committee. That is why we have already made it clear that there will be eight to 12 members, working part-time. We want the committee to have everything it needs to do its job well, and its members will be its most important asset. We are committed to ensuring that the committee is large enough to have a suitable breadth of expertise among its members, while not making it so large as to be unwieldy. Of course, the committee will always be able to consult outside experts when needed. Defra’s hosting allows it to be affiliated to the animal welfare centre of expertise and, as I have said, this means there will be enhanced liaison and co-operation between experts.
The committee has the statutory power to issue reports giving its opinion on whether, or to what extent, the Government are having, or have had, all due regard to the ways in which a policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The Bill already places a legal duty on Ministers to respond to the committee’s reports within three months of their publication. Once established, it will be for the committee to determine how it fulfils its statutory functions. The draft terms of reference set out how we expect it to work.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My noble friend repeatedly emphasised during the course of his reply that the decision on these matters would be made by Ministers, but he will know, as we all do, that the decisions of Ministers are subject to judicial review. We have heard from no less an authority than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that, without the language contained in Amendment 27 in particular, the risk of judicial review of those decisions by Ministers is increased, not reduced. What is my noble friend’s answer to that point?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My learned noble friend will know that there will be attempts to judicially review Governments at every stage of a process of policy, particularly in areas that are emotive and that carry great weights of public opinion in one way or the other. The question is not whether judicial review will be attempted but whether it will be successful. Last week Defra won a court case—as we do many times—against an attempt to take things to judicial review because the judge said it was not permissible to take the matter any further. That is why we have strictly limited the duties on Ministers that lie behind the Bill to only two areas. So I am not saying at all that there will not be attempts to judicially review, but I hope I can convince my noble friend that those attempts will not be successful because we have been so careful to limit the scope of the Bill.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Would the attempt at judicial review not be more likely to be successful if there had been a report from the animal sentience committee saying that there was something illegal about ritual slaughter?
Lord Benyon (Con)
With respect to my noble friend, no. As long as the Minister has set out that, “We have received this report and here is our response; we hear what you say but there are wider cultural and religious factors that I have to consider in taking my decision”, that will be absolutely within the terms of this legislation and will not be able to be successfully judicially reviewed.
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken so eloquently, including those who have supported my amendments.
The Government really are in a mess on this subject. They cannot defend the reason for the committee. They do not know who is actually running these decisions—whether it is Ministers or the Government. Most people, once torpedoed beneath the bows by the very eloquent and eminent noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would have given up and said yes, especially when followed by my noble friend Lord Howard, who underlined the terrible mess that the Government are in. The very fact that Defra has defended itself from legal disputes shows us the onslaught that is going to happen. If that were not enough, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made a brilliant intervention showing that committees are already in place to help them.
We on our Benches want to help the Government, not to hinder them—we want to make this better for them. But I fear they have lit a long fuse that is going to explode in our faces in five to 10 years’ time, and there will be nothing that we can do about it. It will traipse through the courts, there will be no defence to it and all the warnings that we have given will have been to no avail.
I am a loyal member of our party, so I am not going to invite the opinion of the House, but I sense that there is a strength of opinion in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, so I would certainly not want to interfere on any decision that she might make on her amendments—but I hereby withdraw my amendment.
Lord Robathan
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I have been asked to introduce this amendment. I think he is either on his sick bed or on a horse; I am not quite sure which.
Before I start, I will pay tribute to the Minister. He is making a pretty good fist of what is almost indefensible. I congratulate him but gently remind him that, although this may not be the result of social media, if memory serves me right he told us in Committee that, while still a Member of the House of Commons, he had had something like 200 messages—probably mostly from Liberal Democrat opponents—saying that the Government had to introduce an animal sentience Bill. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he told me that.
Amendment 3 and other amendments wish to introduce some clarity regarding the Government’s intentions about appointments to the committee and the committee’s own role in those appointments. For instance, should the Secretary of State appoint people; if so, what qualifications should they have and for how long should they be appointed; and, to quote from subsection (3), what “terms” will determine the appointments? I know my noble friend Lady McIntosh, a fellow “extremist right-winger”, will speak on later amendments on this subject.
One of the concerns expressed repeatedly as the Bill has made progress is the lack of clarity about the role of the committee, how members will be appointed and how the committee will operate. In response, the Minister agreed to publish the draft terms of reference, which has now been done, but the draft terms provide little additional clarity, and there is little if anything binding current or future Ministers. Indeed, the shortcomings of the terms of reference seem to confirm the concerns expressed by noble Lords at earlier stages. The terms indicate the establishment of this animal welfare centre of expertise, bringing together the various animal welfare advisory committees already in existence, as well as the new committee. This seems to be a recognition of the potential overlap and conflict between the various committees yet, unlike other committees, the sentience committee will enjoy statutory status and a reporting function to Parliament.
Perhaps most concerning is the ongoing lack of clarity as to whether the committee will be looking at and advising on the process of making and implementing policy, or indeed of policy itself. The terms of reference state that once established, it will be for the committee to formally ratify its objectives and responsibilities. As a committee established by statute, its objectives and responsibilities should be found in the establishing Act of Parliament, which we are discussing now. It should not be for the committee to ratify its “objectives and responsibilities”. These amendments, together with proposed new Schedule 1, seek to give some clarity and certainty where this is currently lacking.
I do not wish to repeat things that have already been said or detain the House unnecessarily, but I believe that the terms of reference leave unresolved a great many issues.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Robathan on stepping into the breach at such short notice and so eloquently moving Amendment 3. I will speak to Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10 in my name, and I associate myself with earlier comments on the general thrust of this Bill put by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, in moving his Amendment 2 in the earlier group.
I share the general concern of those who are sceptical about the need for this Bill. I see it as a further onslaught on farming and livestock producers, particularly those in the uplands. I yield to no one in my praise and admiration for the way they go out in all weathers to produce lambs and suckler cattle at this time of year and, especially, in the spring. We are conscious of the fact that, in the north-east of England, there are some 12,000 people without electricity; presumably, the farmers are having to milk the cows by hand, which, of course, takes a lot longer than would normally be the case by other means.
As I mentioned earlier, I would prefer that we keep to the basics of the manifesto. I have now had a chance to reacquaint myself with Article 13, which states:
“In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.”
This neatly makes the case for the main thrust of my argument—the reason why Clause 1 is not required is that it is adequately covered by Article 13. I look forward to hearing a strong argument and reassurance from my noble friend the Minister as to why that should not be the case.
I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Marland; it would seem that the Government are drifting away from supporting farming, maintaining self-sufficiency in our food production and our high standards of food production. However, through this Bill, the subsequent regulations and, no doubt, the advice of the committee being set up by Clause 1, we are actually making life much more difficult, in particular for livestock producers. I put on record my regret for that, particularly with respect to tenant farmers—and 48% of farmers in north Yorkshire fall into that category.
In speaking specifically to my Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10, I refer to the earlier arguments put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in private practice on what constitutes “an act” for the purpose of judicial review. I humbly submit to my noble friend the Minister that the animal sentience committee’s terms of reference—a final draft of which was sent to us on 17 November 2021—will indeed constitute an act that would be justiciable as regards a judicial review. Is there a strong reason why that would not be the case?
In Committee, when I moved similar amendments, I did not obtain the reassurances from the Minister that I sought at that stage. He argued that he did not want to put on the face of the Bill the length of time for an appointment. I argue in my Amendment 4 that appointments under Clause 1 should be
“for a period of three years”.
I argue in Amendment 6:
“The membership of the Committee is to include, amongst others … a veterinary surgeon; … an active farmer or person with knowledge of livestock production or land management; and … a person with knowledge of slaughterhouses”.
Abattoirs are, if you like, the final nail in the coffin for the animal, which is sent on its way. That is my plea for more detail in the Bill.
Equally, I have set out perhaps greater detail in Amendment 8. I lifted this text from an earlier Bill—it might have been the Trade Bill, now the Trade Act, with respect to the Trade Remedies Authority. I forget which Bill it was, but I am grateful for the help that I received from the Public Bill Office in drafting the amendment. In desperation, I have also retabled Amendment 10 to leave out Clause 1 in case I do not get satisfaction and reassurance from the Minister this evening.
The Minister’s argument is flawed. If he does not wish the detail to be on the face of the Bill since this would constitute an act that is justiciable in terms of a judicial review, I argue that it was equally inappropriate to put in his letter to us of 17 November, as well as in a separate printout of the terms of reference, what the remit and constitution of the committee would be. Even though it is a separate document, that is as justiciable as it would be if it were on the face of the Bill.
I am extremely proud to have been a student of constitutional law at Edinburgh University under the excellent tutelage of Professor JDB Mitchell, who was at the time a leading expert in administrative law. I keep his book in the kitchen. My husband sometimes thinks that I am confusing administrative law theory with my recipes, which is why I often leave the cooking to him. A more up-to-date authority that I turn to is the Public Law Project, which sets out, for example, what can be challenged. It says:
“Decisions, acts, and failures to act by public bodies exercising their public functions are all potentially challengeable by judicial review.”
I must be simple in not being able to follow my noble friend’s argument but, to be absolutely clear, why is it not acceptable to put in the Bill the level of detail that I am seeking, but acceptable to put it in the supplementary documents? These are easier to amend but, in my view, because they constitute an administrative act, they will be equally justiciable.
I end with a last request to understand why, when just about every other Bill introduced by the Government since 2017 has waxed lyrical as to the composition and remit of the committee it set up, that is deemed not to be subject to judicial review, yet this is subject to judicial review. With those few remarks, I look forward very much to receiving reassurances from my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments seeking to specify the membership of the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, have set out the rationale for their amendments and there are some contradictions. Amendments 3 and 5 would remove the Secretary of State from the process altogether, whereas Amendment 8 would leave the power to appoint with the Secretary of State. Amendment 6 would ensure that certain levels of expertise were included in the committee’s membership.
I agree that certain skills and level of expertise are important, and can see immediately from the list that a single person can have more than one skill level and fulfil more than one function. For instance, the law currently requires that a veterinary surgeon must be present in a slaughterhouse. Therefore, he or she will have knowledge of the way a slaughterhouse operates.
However, whether such people will have time to sit on the animal sentience committee remains to be seen. A veterinary surgeon who no longer works in a slaughterhouse might do, depending on their current workload, but setting the membership in legislation could be something of a millstone around the neck of the chair or the Secretary of State, whoever is recruiting the membership.
The list of what the animal sentience committee can and cannot do under the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is extensive and somewhat cumbersome. I believe it could be streamlined. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response to these issues.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, this block of amendments goes to the heart of what is wrong with the proposal. We all have an idea of who “the expert” is and what kind of person will give us the answers we want, whether that is a vet, someone banned from being a member of an animal rights movement, or whatever. The idea that there is some disinterested, impartial, patriotic expert who can somehow rise above the rest of us and be the only objective person is one of the most pernicious ideas in modern politics. We all have our opinions and starting assumptions, the “expert” more than anybody, if by “expert” we mean someone has spent his or her career in one field. They are the last person to whom we should contract out our decisions as a parliamentary assembly.
I totally understand that the Minister will want some flexibility, but a later amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising proposes a sunset clause. Maybe we could see whether the committee works out with the experts as proposed in the way the Minister assures us. If it does there will be no problem, and, if not, we will have another go at it. Perhaps that would be the wise amendment for the Government to accept.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all refer to the make-up of the membership of the committee and how it is appointed. Noble Lords who were with us in Committee may remember that when we debated membership of the committee, a number of us, including me, put forward amendments about its make-up and who should be on it. By the end of that debate, I felt that it had become absurd to prescribe exactly what kind of expert we should have and what area they should come from, because by the time we had finished it looked like the animal sentience committee would have a membership of around 170. We have to be practical and make sure we get the right kind of people on the committee without being specific in the Bill about exactly what job or experience they should have, because where do you end? At what point do you draw the line?
So it is important that within the terms of reference we have a clear understanding of what the committee’s role is; that is, to underpin and enhance a fundamental constitutional principle—namely, ministerial accountability. It is also important that the terms of reference make it clear that the committee is expected to operate and promote a culture of openness. It is therefore important that we have the right and proper people on it.
I am sure the Minister will point it out when he speaks, but the terms of reference clearly state that appointees will be experts—I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, is of the same opinion as Michael Gove that, we “have had enough of experts”, but there we are. Appointees will be experts with the appropriate experience relating to policy decision-making and the welfare of animals and the Secretary of State may seek to promote a diversity of expertise—which is important, as we need a proper diversity of expertise—so that the committee can offer high-quality advice on policy decision-making and its animal welfare implications.
From my perspective, and that of these Benches, the concerns that we raised in Committee about what the committee should look like and who should be appointed as a member have been answered by the terms of reference, and we are happy with what we see in that document.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable scrutiny of the Bill, and the envisaged structure and operation of the animal sentience committee. I will address the points raised in turn.
I start with Amendments 3 and 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft and ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Robathan, concerning the membership of the committee. These amendments would limit the power of the Defra Secretary of State in appointing members to the committee. We believe that the Defra Secretary of State is very well placed to be responsible for those appointments.
Defra has a long track record of recruiting expert advisers to give balanced, reasonable advice on animal welfare issues. Appointments will be decided in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments, and this is important. The aim of the code is to ensure the best applicants are appointed. Anybody suitably qualified and wishing to apply would need to be assessed alongside other candidates according to a rigorous selection procedure. Applicants would, in line with best practice, be required to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the recruitment panel. Your Lordships can be reassured that the process of recruitment of members to the committee will be rigorous and that members will be chosen on the merits of their expertise. This is what is needed for the committee to perform its role.
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her Amendment 4, concerning term limits for members of the committee. Before I get into the meat of her point, I will say that our commitment to supporting farmers is total. I ask her to read, if she has not already, a copy of the speech made by the Secretary of State on Thursday; it sets out our commitment to support farming and farmers, particularly in the upland areas that I know I know are dear to her.
I agree with my noble friend that the committee should benefit from fresh thinking and new perspectives, but this should be balanced against the risk of unnecessary churn and loss of talent. Setting inflexible term limits could prove disruptive to the committee’s work. It would be regrettable if a member’s term ended mid-report, for example.
Additionally, we should allow some room for manoeuvre in exceptional circumstances; for example, the ongoing pandemic. This was a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who may not have been referring to the pandemic, but her point was right. The pandemic disrupted recruitment to several organisations, and I would not want to take away the ability of the Secretary of State to apply short extensions to members’ terms if necessary.
We have sought to strike a sensible balance in the approach outlined in the draft terms of reference—I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her points about that. Members would, in general, be appointed for terms of four years, renewable once. This is the standard approach for public appointments of this nature. These are the same terms on which we appoint members of other animal welfare expert bodies such as the Animal Welfare Committee and the Zoos Expert Committee. It is tried and tested.
Of course, there will be safeguards. As set out in the terms of reference, the Secretary of State reserves the right to terminate appointments if he or she considers that a committee member’s performance, attendance or conduct has been unsatisfactory, or if there is a conflict of interest which threatens the integrity of the committee. I hope my noble friend will agree that our proposed approach strikes the right balance.
I turn to Amendment 6, also in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, concerning the membership of the committee. I agree with my noble friend that vets and livestock farmers have a lot to contribute when considering animal welfare. We recognise the importance of having experts with hands-on experience of working with animals on the committee. Anyone who is an expert in the fields of animal behaviour, animal welfare, neurophysiology, veterinary science, law and public administration who wished to apply would be assessed alongside other candidates via a rigorous selection procedure based on fair and open competition. We want to ensure that the committee benefits from a diversity of expertise, and we hope to encourage applications from a wide range of specialists.
That is one reason why we have sought to avoid being too prescriptive about the make-up of the committee, be that in the Bill or in the draft terms of reference. Also, the expertise required by the committee may change from time to time as the scientific understanding of the welfare needs of animals continues to evolve. It is important that the Bill leaves scope to adjust the committee’s membership as required. It is also important to avoid creating requirements in the Bill that are so specific that they lead to appropriate candidates being unable to fulfil the criteria. For these reasons, I would prefer an approach that encourages the recruitment of a diverse range of experts to the committee, rather than setting out too-rigid specifications in statute.
I turn to another amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, Amendment 8, concerning the governance and operation of the committee. When we last discussed this amendment, my noble friend stressed that it is
“intended to be entirely helpful”,—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 298.]
and I am grateful for the constructive suggestions that she has offered. The draft terms of reference reflect many of the points raised in the amendment. As I have said, they make provision for the Secretary of State to remove underperforming members, and they also propose term lengths and performance management procedures.
My noble friend has said that her amendment is based on the text used in the Trade Act to describe the Trade Remedies Authority. I would argue that the committee’s role and remit is very different from the authority’s, and so provisions appropriate to the latter are not necessarily suitable for this committee. For example, there is no need to create executive and non-executive classes of membership for the committee. It will be the members themselves who prepare reports, with assistance from the committee’s secretariat. There is little need to codify any delegation of functions. In the committee’s case, it is the Secretary of State who should ultimately be responsible for its good governance and effective recruitment. The draft terms of reference make this responsibility clear. I would be reluctant to dilute this accountability by delegating such responsibilities as the amendment proposes.
We have proposed an approach that makes Ministers accountable for ensuring the committee is run well, while avoiding excessive red tape. We want a timely, targeted and proportionate accountability mechanism. This requires the committee to have sufficient confidence and independence to offer meaningful scrutiny, but without conferring legal powers and responsibilities on it which are not appropriate for a body of this size and remit.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 10, also in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I understand that my noble friend and other Peers have queries regarding the need for such a committee and suggest its functions could be subsumed into the Animal Welfare Committee—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, earlier. The two committees have different roles. The animal sentience committee needs to be established in statute to provide for effective parliamentary accountability. The Animal Welfare Committee operates very effectively as a non-statutory body that provides expert advice on specific issues set out in remits issued by the Government. While both committees hold expertise in a similar area, their roles are distinct. For the legislation to require Ministers to publish a written response to a report by the committee, and to lay the response before Parliament, the committee must be referred to in the Bill. It is on this basis that the committee has a legal persona, and this role could not be undertaken by a completely non-statutory body such as the Animal Welfare Committee.
The animal sentience committee and the Animal Welfare Committee will be affiliates sitting within the animal welfare centre of excellence. We expect that, within the centre, the committee will have a particularly close working relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee. The two committees may refer issues to each other as required. However, the function to issue reports on how well central government policy decisions have taken the needs of sentient animals into account can be undertaken only by the animal sentience committee, in accordance with the parameters set out in the Bill.
I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that they will feel content not to press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he has not explained why he argued so vigorously in Committee that, if the details that are now in the terms of reference appeared in the Bill, they might be subject to judicial review. His view must be that, because they are in the terms of reference, they are not subject to judicial review. In my view, they constitute an administrative act, so how is he going to get round this and avoid judicial reviews?
Lord Benyon (Con)
If, as my noble friend suggests, we put details in the Bill that incorporated the types of people who had to be on the committee, and then if, for example, someone were off sick or had not been appointed or for whatever reason was not available at the point at which the committee wrote a report, that would leave the Government open to a successful judicial review. These are matters that we think sit absolutely in accordance with other committees that are set up across government, where the terms of reference are amendable without having to go back to legislation. This is a fast-moving area of policy and, in future, we may feel, after thinking about it for a while, that the terms of reference need to be amended. This allows, in an entirely normal way, the Secretary of State to make those amendments in consultation with others. I do not think that it would be wise to put it in the Bill because that would increase the risk of judicial review.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I have two questions for my noble friend before he sits down. Does he accept that the Animal Welfare Committee could have been put on a statutory basis and its remit expanded to take in animal sentience? Secondly, if there were a change in Government after the next election, could a Labour Secretary of State put totally new people on the sentience committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Let us deal with the second question first, then I will see if I can remember the first. A future Government can bring in legislation, if they have a big enough majority to get it through, to do anything they like within the law. We are a sovereign nation and they could take those decisions—indeed, they could populate arm’s-length bodies and expert committees with who they like.
On the first question, no we could not, because the Animal Welfare Committee has a different remit. For starters, it is a UK-wide committee and it is not a creature of statute; it gives expert advice as and when required. We wanted to have a body that is a creature of statute, so that there is parliamentary accountability in the process of policy-making.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, for one glorious moment I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was going to support the amendment that I moved—she disappointed me, but then what do you expect?
I do not wish to detain my noble friend the Minister any longer. I will let him off the agony and let him go and have some dinner. Notwithstanding the fact that I remain convinced that there is very little clarity either in the Bill or the terms of reference, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Health and Social Care
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as a serving non-executive director on a local hospital board, which is in the register.
I thank the Minister for the Statement from Friday concerning the winter and the NHS. If the House will indulge me for a moment, I put on record what a pleasure and privilege it has been over these years to have had my honourable friend Jon Ashworth, former Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as my boss. I welcome Wes Streeting MP to that position; his huge talent will challenge the health team in the Commons and keep them on their toes, I have no doubt, and I look forward to it.
Today, the Daily Telegraph carried a story saying that 10,000 hospital beds were taken up by patients waiting for home care. NHS Providers has done some research and warned that those beds are mostly currently occupied by elderly people who are medically fit to be discharged, but no care is available to look after them at home. The chief executive, Chris Hopson, said that hospitals are now having to deploy their own staff to take on care duties in the community in order to free up hospital beds.
The lack of social care surely lies at the heart of whether the NHS can cope with the winter pressures, deal with ambulances stacking up, tackle the backlog and deal with whatever Covid, and particularly the new variant, may throw at it. When Professor Stephen Powis, NHS National Medical Director, said:
“NHS staff have pulled out all the stops since the beginning of the pandemic, treating more than half a million Covid patients, while continuing to perform millions of checks, tests and treatments for non-Covid reasons”,
he could have added that they are exhausted and need our support and that of the Government to move forward.
We need to add in the fact that about one in 60 people in private households in England had Covid in the week to 27 November—up from one in 65 the previous week, according to the Office for National Statistics. One in 60 is the equivalent of almost 900,000 people. Although it is true that, thankfully, fewer people are hospitalised and even fewer are in ICU, that is still a significant number. But this rate of infection, with the new variant possibly being even more infectious, means that, apart from anything else, there will be a surge in people being off sick, including NHS and care staff.
It is too easy for the Government to say that the winter crisis and the huge waiting lists are simply the result of the challenges of Covid. The reality is that the entire health and social care system has been left dangerously exposed by this Government’s choices over the past 11 years. Before the pandemic, there were waiting lists of 4.5 million, staff shortages of 100,000 and social care vacancies of 112,000. This week, the National Audit Office starkly detailed that things are set to get even worse: waiting lists might double in the next three years.
Those NHS waiting lists stand at 6 million. Almost one in 10 people in England waits months, or even years, sometimes in serious pain and discomfort, because the Government have failed to get a grip on the crisis. Everyone understands that we are in the midst of a global pandemic that has placed the NHS under unprecedented pressure, but that does not excuse or explain why we went into the pandemic with NHS waiting lists already at record levels and with unprecedented staff shortages.
Of course, the investment described in the Statement is welcome, and the plan recognises the many challenges that the whole sector has faced over the past 18 months. Can the Minister say that the Statement is a credible plan to meet those enormous challenges? If it was a genuine plan to prepare for the winter, why did it arrive on 3 December? For example, I noticed that on one of the hottest days of the year, in August, people from GP practices, primary care networks and federations gathered to start to think creatively about managing their winter pressures in a session hosted by the NHS Confederation. When I served on a clinical commissioning group, we did our winter planning in June—it started in the early summer. The board on which I currently serve has been discussing winter pressures and our winter plans for months.
A serious plan to bring down waiting lists would have the workforce at its heart and would have clear targets and deadlines. A serious plan would recognise that, unless we focus on prevention, early intervention and fixing the social care crisis, there is no chance of bringing waiting lists down to the record low levels we saw under the previous Labour Government. A credible plan to tackle the NHS winter crisis—which was foreseeable and foreseen—would have been published long before 3 December. Without a serious strategy to build the health and social care workforce that we need, the plan is not a plan at all.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
I, too, thank the Minister for the Statement and I start by thanking all our NHS and social care staff, at all levels—back room or front line—for all they are doing to keep the NHS and social care going while under the most extraordinary, sustained pressure.
Like others, I am struggling to see what is new in the Statement, which admits that the funding mentioned is not new. Although there is marginally more detail on how some of it will be spent, it is very light on by when the extremely urgent investment will deliver the help that our NHS and the public who use it desperately need.
Repeatedly, the Statement, and the accompanying so-called policy paper, The Health and Social Care Approach to Winter, refer to the urgent need to recruit more staff for both the NHS and the social care sector. However, it reports that currently, the NHS has an 8% vacancy rate at all job levels, and the social care sector, which has had more than 100,000 vacancies for some time, has had a further 3% reduction in staff since March this year.
Although there are proposals to increase staffing, can the Minister please explain where those staff will come from if they have not been able to be recruited over the past few months? How long will it take to recruit them? It is good that money is being put into the workforce, but I struggle with any suggestion that that will help to deal with the current winter crisis. When will the staff who are desperately needed in health and social care be available to join the teams out in the wards?
Both the Statement and the report talk about using locum services for doctors and agencies for nurses and social care staff, but health and social care employers tell the public daily that the extra qualified people are just not there. One of the problems in social care at the moment is that the NHS is poaching nurses from care homes. Please can the Minister explain who is going to fill those roles, given that training those skilled personnel takes a lot longer than a few months?
I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about delayed discharges. We have all been asking the Minister and his predecessor about specific plans to help the social care sector overcome its problems in the workforce, not just for months but for years. The high level of staff vacancies continues to worsen. Can the Government help in the short term? For example, NHS Providers made the very helpful suggestion today that the Government help to fund a winter retention bonus for social care staff. NHS Providers understands that we must get the log-jam moving, and if the only way to do that is for the Government to help, please will they consider that proposal very seriously?
The Statement says that the NHS needs to be able to offer more appointments, operations and treatments, which is absolutely right, including with the NHS itself. However, the capacity to change to innovative ways of working, with a heavy load of staff vacancies and the current sustained 20 months of intense pressure, seems to be extraordinary. To illustrate this, in the second week of November, there were 966,406 more GP appointments in England compared with the same week last year—and we were not in lockdown at that point last year.
The Statement talks about the transformation funding for elective recovery, announced in September. The plan lists the hospitals that have been successful in getting their schemes approved. I know, from experience in my local area in Watford, that some of the modular ward proposals can move ahead very quickly. Can the Minister tell us the likely earliest delivery date for any one of these projects? Once the buildings are there, when will extra staff be available to make these new wards work? We certainly do not want to see a repeat of the Nightingale hospitals.
The plan says that NHS Test and Trace will be carrying out contact tracing, so will the Minister say whether local test and trace will continue? It is noticeable that this was not mentioned at all, yet only two months ago Ministers were saying that this was where the focus of contact tracing would be. May I repeat the questions that I have asked on at least two occasions to the Minister? What is happening to the funding for the local resilience teams for Covid tracing and other pandemic work from April, given that, at the moment, there is no money in the budget whatever for the next financial year?
Last week, the Minister wrote to my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester about the delivery of vaccines to the vulnerable housebound who cannot go out either to their GP’s surgery or to vaccination centres. He wrote to her after the Question, confirming that GPs have a duty to offer vaccines to the housebound. He went on to say:
“If there are no GP practices signed up to phase 3, the CCG will make these alternative arrangements instead.”
Today’s Daily Telegraph talks about more than 300,000 people—more than two-thirds of the housebound—having yet to receive their booster doses. This is not hesitancy in people coming forward; it is clear that there is a problem. With many GP surgeries having withdrawn from delivering booster jabs because of their increased workload, can the Minister tell me when CCGs will be setting up these new systems and, most importantly, contacting and reassuring this vulnerable group of people about when they will get a visit from the mobile vaccination team? Putting the booster programme on steroids for all adults is of no use if the most vulnerable are not even being contacted. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. If he does not have the answers at his fingertips, I ask him to write to me.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their questions and for acknowledging that I may not have all the answers immediately; I will commit to write to them if I do not.
I will start with the questions on hospital beds and discharge. We are very aware that we have put in £478 million to get patients out of hospitals, freeing up beds. The NHS is also giving ambulance trusts an extra £55 million to boost numbers. It is our priority to ensure that people are discharged safely from hospital to the most appropriate place, and that they receive the care and support that they need. Our guidance sets out how the health and social care system is continuing to support the safe and timely discharge of people in hospital. People who are clinically ready are supported to return to their place of residence where possible, where an assessment of longer-term needs takes place using the discharge-to-assess Home First model.
New or extended health and care support is funded for up to four weeks, until the end of March 2022. During this period, a comprehensive care and health assessment for any ongoing care needs, including determining funding eligibility, should take place. Since March 2020, we have made nearly £3.3 billion available via the NHS to support enhanced discharge processes and implementation of the discharge-to-assess model. This approach means that people who are clinically ready and no longer need to be in hospital are supported to return to their place of residence. We are also reviewing the way that we look at this scheme and how it works. We are very much aware of the issues raised about how we make sure that people are discharged in the most appropriate manner.
On the issue of investment, a number of trusts were asked to bid for funding, very much on the basis of which of those schemes could be delivered immediately and which were longer-term. Trusts have now been informed that their bids have been approved, and they are beginning to work to deliver them. NHS England and NHS Improvement will be monitoring the programme closely. Schemes were selected that could deliver immediate solutions that will support elective recovery this winter, as well as over the next three and a half years and beyond. This is just one element of how we are looking to make sure that we are dealing with things in the short term.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, acknowledges, some of these modular systems can come up to speed quickly, and that was considered in the bids that were put forward. Funding was allocated on a regional basis, based on the number of people living in each area, to ensure that funding is equally spread across the country. NHS regional teams identified and prioritised individual schemes and DHSC evaluated and approved them to ensure that the schemes that had the highest potential to help us reduce waiting lists for elective care were selected.
We have looked at a number of areas and, looking at the regional breakdown, we have had about £112 million in the north-east and Yorkshire; £97 million in the north-west; £131 million in the Midlands; £78 million in the east of England; £105 million in the south-east; £69 million in the south-west; and £109 million in London. There are a number of different schemes at various hospitals, on which I would be very happy to go into more detail if asked.
Turning to waiting lists, we need to recognise that 75% of people waiting do not require surgical treatment; 80% of those requiring surgical treatment can be treated without an overnight stay; and 20% of patients are waiting for ophthalmology treatment for eyes, or orthopaedics for bones, muscles and joints. So we are looking at how, on a targeted basis, we can address that backlog. We hope that, with the new diagnostic centres rolling out, we should be able to tackle a lot of that backlog.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I should declare my interest in relation to medicine, the BMA and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, and I would like to ask about emergency medicine. The winter flow data from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has data from 40 sites across the UK. They are reporting that, in November, there were 275,596 attendances. Their long hospital stays had increased by 13% to more than 48,000 patients. Their 12-hour stays in emergency departments were twice as high as they had been in the previous year, and that was equivalent to 7.3% of all attendees. Their four-hour performance is incredibly low, at 62%. I know from one department that was built for 28 patients that, on a Monday in November, it had 108 patients in. This becomes unsustainable, and the overcrowding is a danger in terms of Covid and infection. It is also a danger to the welfare of staff because, in this particular department, even the staff toilets were not flushing, so the staff had to leave the department just to excuse themselves.
The estate takes time to rebuild and be repaired. What is being done with projects now to create additional space for emergency departments to manage this overcrowding? Is there targeted money going to make sure that the departments are in a good condition of maintenance for the staff? Separate, but related, to that, is the pension block, which has stopped doctors from returning from retirement and has pushed some doctors into early retirement, being addressed in the long term? It is important that doctors who have retired because their pension pot has reached its limit can be incentivised to come back to take pressure off in GP surgeries and in hospital departments, particularly out-patient departments, by seeing patients where their long-term experience and wisdom can contribute to the clinical services.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for the points she makes. We are doing what we can to support the dedicated NHS staff in healthcare services. This year alone, we have invested over £15 billion on top of the existing NHS annual budget, and that includes funding to help get patients out of hospital, freeing up beds and supporting hospitals to manage Covid-19. In addition, we are looking at how we can tackle capacity issues on NHS 111 and A&E. We are giving NHS 111 £98 million to boost capacity, help people avoid unnecessary ambulance trips to A&E and take pressure off hospitals. We realise that NHS 111 is often the first port of call to provide urgent medical advice quickly and book time slots for people at their local A&E or appointments at alternative services. We are also delivering the largest ever seasonal flu vaccination programme, so we hope to tackle it on that basis. A number of CCGs and others are having conversations about how we can tackle the pressures on A&E.
The noble Baroness makes the point about staff who, during Covid, went way beyond the call of duty, and we managed temporarily to address those concerns. We are very grateful to staff who had retired and returned, and we are looking at whether that can be a long-term solution. We need to make sure that no one who is willing to come back is disincentivised. I do not have the details at the moment but I commit to write to her.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the first paragraph of this Statement says that it outlines
“the preparations we are making so that health and social care services remain resilient … and available to patients”.
How does that square with the fate of the residents of Berkeley House in Kent, which was home to adults with severe learning difficulties and autism, who were told at 7.30 in the morning that they would have to leave by 5 that evening? Among them was one resident who had to be sedated to ensure he could safely be moved. Berkeley House is owned by Achieve Together, one of a chain of companies registered through the tax haven of Jersey that ultimately appears to be owned by AMP Capital, a global investment firm based in Australia. How does providing a “resilient … and available” social care system line up with homes such as this being run for profit, not for the public or the residents’ good?
Lord Kamall (Con)
We have to recognise that if we look at the social care system, there are an awful lot of private providers. Quite often, when we look at private providers, it is private patients who subsidise their ability to provide places for state-funded patients. In our health system overall, there will always be a mixed economy, including state provision. Lots of our GPs, for example, are partnerships—they are not state-run, some of them are co-operatives, some are even for profit. When we look at the overall health system, there will be a general balance. I am not aware of the particular case, so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it, but one of the things we are committed to is making sure that we improve services, whether they are state-funded or private, as part of the overall system of healthcare that we have in this country. Clearly, where providers are not providing a service, there will be CQC and other assessments to see whether they are fit.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, Covid-19 is absolutely rife in our schools, both primary and secondary. Teachers are in the front line. There are whole classes and even whole year groups being sent home because the teachers are off sick and they cannot even get supply teachers. A lot of teachers are under 40. Why can they not get boosters? If vaccines really are the answer, during this winter period, that would help more children to be able to stay in school and avoid disrupting their education. Will the Minister tell us about that?
Secondly, I go back to what both noble Baronesses on the Front Bench raised. Where are the social care staff going to come from? When I looked at the paper that sat behind this Statement, I noticed that there was nothing in it about changing the salary level at which visas can be offered to social care workers coming from abroad. Why not? We are desperate for social care workers. Can the Minister tell me—and if he cannot, perhaps he will write to me—what proportion of vacant posts fall below the salary level required for a visa?
Lord Kamall (Con)
In terms of tackling the social care workforce, there are a couple of things: £162.5 million is going on a number of different schemes to make the social care sector an attractive place to work and we are looking, longer term, at professionalisation, so that people feel valued. At the same time, the minimum wage will help lift the pay of many people in social care work, but in the longer term we want to make sure that social care is not seen as the poor relation of other parts of the health service. We want to make sure that we have professionalisation and that it is all joined up. Some of these things will not be tackled in the short term, but we have a short-term programme called Made with Care, which is aimed at targeting and recruiting people to come and work in the social care sector. We realise that we have to do the long-term things, but also to promote short-term measures to tackle the issues we have at the moment. On specific statistics, as I am sure the noble Baroness can imagine, I do not have the details at hand but I commit to write to her.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interests as vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a member of Kirklees Council. I want to pick up on issues raised already by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, and the point that the Minister himself has just made about professionalising the workers in social care. On one hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, there are no spaces in social care for older people to be discharged into, because of a lack of availability of staffing, and we have heard already about some care homes being closed. The issue at the heart of all this is the great chasm of funding being made available for social care.
In my own council area in West Yorkshire, the pandemic has resulted in a 36% rise in demand for social care by adults in the last year, yet the funding from the Government is nowhere near going to meet that demand. What we have then, as a consequence, is older folk who have first gone into hospital because of ill health, and there is then nowhere available for them to be discharged into to continue their recovery and gain back their independence. The chasm of funding is at the heart of this. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will no longer impose the social care precept on the council tax payer, which, since 2016, has been at either 2% or 3% per annum? This is a totally regressive tax and has cost taxpayers in my part of the world well over £200 a year. What is needed is proper funding from the Government, not the bits and pieces that the Government have announced so far.
Lord Kamall (Con)
When you look at our health and social care sector, you see that one of the issues is a lack of joined-up thinking over the years. We have seen report after report about the future of adult social care gathering dust on the shelves—not forgetting that lots of people who are not older are also in the social care system. The White Paper we published last week was a first attempt to try to tackle the problem long term. We recognise that you have to look at the long-term issue—which, frankly, successive Governments have kicked down the road for years, and not really tackled—and we have made an attempt to do that with the 10-year vision we published last week. But we have also committed to the first three years of funding, to realise that vision. We now have a framework against which to judge future progress in adult social care, so that, overall, it is no longer seen as a poor relation of the rest of the health system and is properly joined up on a number of different levels—not only career paths but also the data that can be shared, so that you do not have the drop-off that happens when someone leaves hospital and enters a social care home and you have to find all that data again; the home is prepared to accommodate that patient with all their specific needs at the beginning.
In the longer term, with increases in technology, we hope that, instead of patients leaving hospital to go to a residential home, they will be able to return to their own home with the help of technology. All that will take time, but we have laid out that vision.
In the short term, we have laid out the winter plan, which includes looking at how we tackle some of these social care issues and how we recruit more social workers via the £162.5 million. The Made with Care plan will make sure that social care seems more attractive. For a long time, no one has really “sold” social care as a career. We want to ensure that it is seen to be just as valid a career as any other and offers a real career path. We also want to see a professionalisation of the industry, so that people feel valued.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in responding to my last question, the Minister referred to the mixed economy of ownership of healthcare provision. I am sure that he is aware that 84% of care home beds are provided by for-profit providers. Tonight, the “Panorama” programme is looking at HC-One, which is the biggest care home chain provider, with 321 care homes, formed in 2001 from the collapse of Southern Cross. I will not ask the Minister to watch the programme, since I know that he is a very busy person, but will he undertake to look at a summary of it, particularly the fact of the funding of HC-One, which appears to include a £540 million interest-only loan from a New York-listed property company? A great deal of this has been uncovered by the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability & Research.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for sharing all that data with me. The point remains that our system of healthcare will, through CCGs at the moment and integrated care services in the future, continue to commission some from the state and some privately; that is the way it is. What is really important is not who provides it but the care that the patient receives at the end of the day, and the fact that taxpayers are getting value for money. We should judge outcomes, not inputs.
Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) (No. 4) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/1207), laid before the House on 29 October, be annulled because they fail to address the underlying cause of the shortage of HGV drivers.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the House annuls the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) (No. 4) Regulations 2021, I make it clear that I do not intend to test the opinion of the House. I remind the House that I have an interest, as I hold a C+E HGV driving licence and am a qualified HGV driving instructor, albeit somewhat out of date.
The House will be fully aware that we have faced a very serious shortage of HGV drivers, which has led in turn to petrol stations running out of fuel. There are obvious shortages of certain lines in our supermarkets and elsewhere, but these have been carefully managed by the industry to minimise the inconvenience to consumers. The good news is that, thanks to the efforts of my noble friend the Minister, the Commercial Motor magazine reports that the shortage is no longer deemed to be critical. Apparently, ONS statistics reveal that the number of HGV delivery drivers has increased from 233,000 in Q2 to 261,000 in Q3. It is reported that there are an extra 22,000 drivers aged between 45 and 65. There has also been an increase of 4,000 drivers over the age of 65 and past normal retirement age. We should congratulate my noble friend the Minister, who had the sense to write to every single HGV driver in the land—including me—asking them to come back to HGV driving.
In addition to the very slight relaxation to drivers’ hours provided by this and several other similar regulations, my noble friend has also altered some driving test requirements to free up more examiners for HGV testing. We have already debated these changes. I have no technical problem with the changes to drivers’ hours. My Motion refers to the serious underlying causes of the shortage, to which I will draw your Lordships attention. That is why I have tabled my Motion.
The first problem is now well known and concerns the lack of decent facilities for HGV drivers. This is part of what I said some time ago:
“This amendment concerns the provision of suitable rest facilities for drivers of commercial vehicles so that they can comply with the law and industry can attract and retain suitable drivers. The road transport and the bus industries are currently experiencing a shortage of drivers. Part of the cause may be the poor image and working conditions of the industry. In the past there were many establishments, collectively known as transport cafés, distributed along the trunk road network. Nowadays few survive and most have been turned into Little Chefs or Happy Eaters. Unfortunately, heavy commercial vehicle drivers are not welcome because their vehicles are large and their spend is modest in comparison with that of most car drivers.”—[Official Report, 26/7/00; col. 524.]
I went on to talk about the need for a shower at the end of a day’s driving. I made that speech 21 years ago in your Lordships’ House, so the problem is not a new one. By chance, I recently saw a cartoon in the November 1987 edition of Truck & Driver magazine. The caption was, “Well try finding a cafe round here that’s not been turned into a Little Chef”. It is a planning problem that has been around for a very long time.
In order to be granted a vocational driving licence, the applicant needs to pass a medical examination. This is vital to protect the public from the consequences of a driver being taken ill while driving. Noble Lords will recall the tragedy in Glasgow a few years ago, when six pedestrians were killed. Even before Covid-19 struck, GPs—including mine—have been very reluctant to undertake these medical examinations. For my penultimate examination, I had to go from my home near Petersfield to Maidstone in Kent to get an examination. It is obviously far from ideal for the examination to be undertaken by anyone other than the applicant’s GP, because he or she has the patient’s notes going back, often to birth. This was a factor in the Glasgow tragedy, and the tragedy was entirely avoidable if the GP had been involved.
A further issue can arise if the HGV driver experiences a medical problem. For instance, a few years ago, I needed to undergo an angiogram procedure. As a result of that procedure, my consultant cardiologist was able to assure me that I was fit and safe to drive an HGV. But the DVLA’s medical panel then took several months to reinstate my HGV entitlement. Apart from interfering with my leisure activities, it had no adverse effect on me. However, it may cause a commercial driver either to retrain or return to another trade. It is exceptionally unfair and there seems to be little that an ordinary HGV driver can do about it. Of course, I did not exercise any influence because, first, it would be improper, and also I wanted to see how it would work out for an ordinary HGV driver. I am told that the advice among drivers is not to tell the DVLA about medical conditions and just not to drive an HGV against the doctor’s advice. The poor performance of the medical panel is my noble friend’s ministerial responsibility.
A further difficulty concerns the investigation of serious road traffic collisions. These are extremely distressing for all concerned but, so far as I can see, the police are very slow to exonerate a driver when he or she appears to be blameless. This can result in unfair dismissal and difficulty in securing employment and motor insurance—yet another disincentive to being a professional HGV driver.
A commercial driver, in addition to having an HGV licence, must have a driver certificate of professional competence. Maintaining it requires 35 days of training every five years. I do not have a DCPC as I am exempt, and nor do another 70,000 group C+E drivers and yet another 70,000 group C licence holders. We do not have a shortage of HGV drivers at all, but a shortage of HGV drivers with a DCPC. The problem is that the training provided is not well regarded in the industry and many drivers let their DCPC run down and stop driving commercially. This has a serious adverse effect on part-time and occasional driving because it is not worth having a DCPC for that purpose.
We have left the EU. My noble friend the Minister could easily temporarily relax the requirement for a DCPC while she considers what is to replace it. That would still, in time, give her the corps of professional drivers that she rightly worked so hard to achieve, while the shortage of HGV drivers would be diminished in the short term.
I have banged on for many years about the licensing of goods vehicle operators. The system is still far from effective at eliminating rogue operators from the industry. These operators abuse drivers, force them to flagrantly breach drivers’ hours and give the industry a bad name.
HGV drivers are often despised, despite performing what we now recognise as a vital role in our economy. They are persecuted by traffic wardens when seeking to make a delivery and hounded by the DVSA over relatively trivial infringements of the drivers’ hours rules, while rogue operators are allowed to continue operating. They must frequently make very early starts to get our supplies delivered when and where we want them, which is simply not attractive to people coming into the industry. They also often have to defecate and urinate in the open due to lack of facilities. The staff at regional distribution centres have for decades been allowed to treat them badly for turning up a few minutes adrift from the planned schedule. The work is so unattractive that there are very few female HGV drivers.
My noble friend the Minister has correctly pointed out that many of the reasons why HGV driving is unattractive are down to the industry, and to an extent she is right. However, the two leading trade associations are not doing a first-class job for the industry as far as I can see, and some matters are not for the industry but for central government. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for ensuring that we have this important and very interesting debate. The reports of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee have been very wide-ranging in the points that they have raised relating to the series of legislation that has come through on drivers’ hours.
The first relaxation of hours was in December 2020 until 31 March 2021 and went from 90 hours per fortnight to 99, and from nine to 11 hours per day for a maximum of two days a week. I say to noble Lords: 11 hours a day of driving? The Minister is looking at me as if I have got the information wrong. I hope she will put me right later on.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
These regulations, made at the end of October, further extend the relaxation limits to HGV drivers’ hours until 10 January next year, at which point this temporary exemption will have been in place continuously for six months, since 12 July this year. The instrument extends the normal daily limit of nine hours’ driving a day to 10 hours, up to four times a week, with an overarching limit of 56 hours’ driving in a week and 90 hours in a fortnight—or, as an alternative, introduces an amended weekly rest pattern that allows an additional day of driving in a fortnight, provided that an equivalent period of rest is taken before the end of the third week. This exception increases the maximum permitted driving time in a fortnight to 99 hours from the standard 90 hours.
In its 18th report of the current Session, published on 11 November, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, repeated its concerns
“that cumulative tiredness in HGV drivers may constitute a road safety hazard”.
It said:
“The responses to the consultation exercise quoted in the Explanatory Memorandum ... also take that view and add that these Regulations make HGV drivers’ working conditions worse, which is having a negative effect on recruitment”.
Continuing, the committee said—again I repeat something that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said:
“Our concern is bolstered by figures … that indicate that a significant proportion (27%) of the drivers stopped in roadside checks are breaching the Drivers’ Hours legislation. We have repeatedly asked the Department for Transport to provide evidence that would allay our concerns, but the responses have indicated that the Department does not have information either way”.
The department has said that it has
“not been made aware of any increase in accidents involving HGVs since the temporary exceptions to the drivers’ hours rules were first introduced in July 2021”.
That, not surprisingly, says the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, is “not sufficient to allay” its concerns.
Therefore, I invite the Government to say in their response what evidence they have that the relaxation of limits to HGV drivers’ hours provided for in these regulations, which have been in effect for nearly five months, does not increase cumulative tiredness to an extent that constitutes a road safety hazard. On how many occasions has the relaxation in hours provided for in these regulations actually been used, and by how many different firms? Why does the Department for Transport not have figures on the proportion of drivers stopped in roadside checks who breached drivers’ hours legislation in force at the time they were stopped? I would have thought that that was a fairly important piece of information, which one would have thought the Department for Transport would have.
The Department for Transport provided the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee with 28 short, medium and long-term interventions it had put in place to alleviate the existing HGV driver shortage. One can of course take the government line that this shows how active and focused they are in seeking to address the driver shortage—a shortage that they have known about for years but have nevertheless still been caught on the hop by—or one can take the view that the Government do not know what steps will address the driver shortage issue. That would be consistent with their inability to provide the information and meaningful assurances sought by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and would suggest that the 28 interventions simply reflect an approach more akin to thrashing around in all directions hoping that a course of action will finally turn up trumps.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says in its report on the list of 28 interventions that
“while this list shows the various strands of the Department’s current activity, we still lack a strategic statement of the programme’s objectives, milestones and costs, against which its effectiveness and value for money can be assessed.”
Can the Government now provide that strategic statement, either in their response today or subsequently, and indicate the cost of each of the 28—or perhaps now more—interventions and the specific impact each one is expected to have on the existing HGV driver shortage, bearing in mind that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has argued that these specific regulations on drivers’ hours will not address the underlying causes of the shortage?
On one specific intervention, namely increasing cabotage for foreign hauliers in the UK, which extends through to the end of April next year, can the Government say today how that meets the Prime Minister’s previously stated desire to see significantly higher pay for UK drivers? Allowing foreign transport operators to make unlimited journeys in the UK for two weeks before returning home can only mean UK drivers facing more competition for work, which will depress rather than increase levels of pay, as previously desired by the Prime Minister.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee commented that no formal impact assessment had been prepared and that the Explanatory Memorandum provided no information on how many additional HGV journeys might be added by this instrument or what the take-up by foreign operators might be. Continuing, the committee said:
“We therefore have no means to assess whether the number of operators involved will constitute a threat to the UK workforce, or to measure whether the legislation is likely to be effective.”
Can the Government in their response give some figures to indicate what the impact has been to date of this relaxation in restrictions on cabotage?
It appears that the underlying causes of the driver shortage—and I will not go through all the reasons mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—relate to pay and conditions, including the provision of decent facilities for drivers away from the cab of their vehicle. The job, and the standing it has at present, does not appear attractive, particularly to younger people. The workforce is overwhelmingly older white males and is certainly not diverse, which means that the actual potential recruitment pool is less than it might be. I understand that pay is now rising, turnover is falling, provisional licences are increasing and further improvements are anticipated in the new year—albeit there is still a shortage which will not be properly addressed until next year.
I am sure the Government will have some hard information to give on the current driver shortage situation today in their response and the extent to which it is the Government’s 28—or is it 32?—measures that have or have not delivered, and the extent to which they agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on the underlying causes of the shortage of HGV drivers, which these regulations on relaxation of limits to hours, the noble Earl has powerfully argued, fail to address.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister gets up to reply, could she tell the House whether it is the Government’s intention to renew these regulations next year, and, if so, why and on what basis?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate today, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has extensive knowledge of and expertise in this area. We are very grateful for his input. I will address the drivers’ hours issue first, as fully as I can, and then go on to discuss some of the other issues that have been raised.
Let me start by saying that we are absolutely committed to ensuring the welfare of drivers and protecting all road users, and we recognise that the long-standing drivers’ hours rules that are in place are critical to achieving these objectives. We have therefore deployed these relaxations with the utmost care. Safety is the key consideration, and there are four pillars to our thinking. First, safety must be considered with regard to the extent of the relaxations made. Secondly, we must protect drivers against any cumulative fatigue. Thirdly, it must be clear to the industry about when and how it should use these relaxations; we have published clear guidance on this. The last pillar is about the use of these relaxations.
First, on the extent of the relaxations, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson: I thought she was talking about the current SI—not the one before last—when she said 11 hours, because it is now 10 hours, as I am sure she knows. I was shaking my head when she said 11 hours because I thought we were talking about the current relaxation, not the one that expired many months ago.
The drivers’ hours relaxations are very limited; I think noble Lords will agree on that. No requirements of the rules, whether it be breaks during the day, daily and weekly rest periods, or weekly and fortnightly driving limits, have been removed. The rules have been relaxed in a limited and controlled way.
I will not go into the details of the relaxations, because noble Lords have mentioned them, so I assume that they are aware of them. But, of course, these two relaxations are underpinned by the requirements of the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005, which also limit drivers’ working hours to an average of 48 hours a week over a 17 to 26-week reference period. These regulations also limit drivers to a maximum of 60 hours in any given week, provided that the average is still 48 hours. These working time regulations provide the protection against cumulative fatigue, which is the second pillar we considered when putting the 2021 regulations into place.
The third pillar is the published guidance. We are absolutely clear about when and how these relaxations can be used. There has to be evidence of a detriment to the wider community, there must be a significant risk of a threat to human and/or animal welfare, and there must be confirmation from the haulier’s customers that these risks actually exist. Only then can the operator use the relaxation. Operators using the relaxation, or proposing to use it, must notify the department. The operator must also notify the department later on about whether it has used the relaxation or not. Of course, this assists with transparency, and we can check compliance.
Some noble Lords may feel that that is not enough and that perhaps we need more evidence of who is actually using these relaxations. As of July last year, there were 68,982 HGV operator licence holders in Great Britain, which rounds up to 69,000. In October, 141 operators submitted notification forms. So, that is 141 out of 69,000. Only 111 of those submitted forms to follow up with the department, and just 80—out of 69,000—actually used the relaxations. We are not hearing from industry that they are not using the relaxations because they are too complicated, or whatever. It is because the safeguards are in place and we have set those out in guidance, and we are absolutely clear on the circumstances in which these relaxations can be used. Therefore, I am content that they are being used in circumstances when it is really necessary to meet those criteria that we set out in guidance. So, let us face it, we are talking about very few drivers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was concerned about this impression that the Government want to worsen conditions. I am not getting that from the industry. I think it recognises this very limited use of drivers’ hours extensions. We have acted really carefully, again within the guidance, to make it clear that transport managers should make sure that risk assessments have been carried out if they plan to use these relaxations at all. They must monitor and review where the relaxations are used; it must also be done in agreement with the workforce.
I believe there are sufficient safeguards. I hear from HGV drivers quite a lot, and I am not hearing anybody, as yet, say to me that they are being forced to work extended hours owing to these relaxations. Maybe I will get a flurry of emails tomorrow—something tells me I probably will not.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the evidence of incidents. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was aghast that the Department for Transport does not have up-to-date, real-time information about incidents on the roads. That is because the data is collected by the police and not the department. The data from one year goes through a series of checks and is usually delivered annually from the police to the department midway through the following year. We are not hearing from the police that there is a flurry of serious incidents with HGV drivers. That is a good thing. None of us wants to see incidents on our roads, and I believe that the protections are in place to ensure that they do not happen.
We must come to the very important issue of enforcements and the oft-quoted figure of 27% in the SLSC report. I think it is terrible too; I cannot agree with your Lordships more. It would be an astonishingly bad figure if it were representative of the sector as a whole—which it is not. I had the privilege of visiting the DVSA on Friday. I chatted to a group of enforcement people, who showed me some of the really bad stuff that goes on out there: drivers’ hours, wheel nuts—we have some very strange configurations of wheel nuts—and all sorts of things which are really bad. I was shocked; I congratulated them on their work and encouraged them to continue with great vigour. Then they showed me their pièce de résistance, which they have had for about 18 months.
They have access to all the ANPR cameras in the country, and they basically track all trucks, which is very cool. As they track all the trucks, they look at which ones to target on the basis of the intelligence they have coming through and what has happened before. In that 27%, there has already been a great big screening of all the trucks wafting around British roads, and they are the ones that have been targeted by the intelligence coming out of the fantastic work the DVSA does—not only the intelligence it gets from industry but the operator compliance risk score, which I am sure noble Lords are well aware of. They can do it in real time; they can see a truck driving up the road, and if it has a little red flag by it, they can send a car out, stop it and enforce it.
The other issue to note, which is regrettable, is that overseas operators make up a large proportion of non-compliance on UK roads. That is very disappointing, and we will need to look at it more closely. Between 12 August and 31 October, the DVSA undertook 111 checks against operators that had notified the department of their intent to use the relaxations; 58 offences for drivers’ hours were identified, of which only 12 related to the relaxed rules—this is the important bit, which certainly goes back to what my noble friend Lord Attlee was saying—and none was sufficiently serious to warrant a fixed penalty. To be honest, if it is five minutes, it is probably not worthy of a fixed penalty.
I reassure my noble friend that the Government are aware that we do not want to victimise HGV drivers for very small infringements, and that it must be sufficiently serious to warrant a fixed penalty. That does not mean we want to give them an easy ride, but we understand that, sometimes, for a few minutes it might be impossible to stop, for whatever reason. In general, though, that enforcement record is pretty good.
I hope I have been able to convince noble Lords of the thinking behind these relaxations. The noble Lord asked whether we would extend them. That is not currently our intention, although of course we are looking at the data very carefully as we head through and past the Christmas period.
Now I can come on to some good news. I am sure that noble Lords will have spotted today that there is some good news coming out of the sector. My 32 different actions, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is so fond of mentioning, are working, which is brilliant. Logistics UK, one of the large representative bodies, has come out today with a report showing that people are returning to the industry, if they had previously left. We also know from DVLA data that it is pumping through 4,200 applications a day—we have thrown an awful lot of resources at that.
We are looking at the lack of facilities, which is something that we take very seriously. We have completed the tender for a report reviewing parking and facilities countrywide. We have a £32.5 million pot of funding that we can use to encourage the private sector to improve facilities and set up new ones. I would like to share with noble Lords that I had a really good ministerial trip on Friday: I went to open the Ashford international truck stop and, my word, it is amazing. It sets a really high standard. I encourage all private companies and operators that have truck stops to go and look at Ashford because those in charge have done a lot of thinking about what drivers need. It is a class site, with 600 HGV parking spaces available. Now we have to think about how we either improve lots of existing sites or find places for new ones, because noble Lords will recognise that there are issues with planning.
I will finish with a couple of other issues. On medical examinations, we have set out plans to widen the pool of registered healthcare professionals who do DVLA medical questionnaires, which should help. We are also working with GPs to make sure that routine medicals are restarted.
We have launched a review to look at ways of streamlining driver CPC. My noble friend said that it would be easy to relax it—I wish it were. We cannot even suspend it, as it would take primary legislation to do so. However, we believe that ongoing professional training is a valid part of an HGV driver’s life so we are looking at reviewing how to make that better. Randomly saying that you must have 35 hours does not seem the best way of making sure that HGV drivers are up to speed with the regulations.
As I said on Friday, if we do not look after them then they will not look after us, so we need to look after them and the Government are doing that. We are working very closely with the industry. Hopefully, next year we will have a hugely impactful year of logistics. We will make sure that people understand that HGV driving is a good career that we want people to come into. The Government are doing everything that we can to improve the situation, but we recognise that, at the end of the day, this is a private sector and we must support this private sector in doing what it does best.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am interested in the Minister’s visit to the DVSA and her comment that a large percentage of the drivers not obeying the rules work for foreign operators. Is that not rather at variance with the Government’s decision to relax the rules on cabotage for foreign operators? Is that not a risky decision?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We must recognise that the vast majority of all haulage operators obey the rules. It is because we have such a good, targeted approach that we are able to target those that do not. A lot of work goes into connecting the dots between different vehicles belonging to the same operators.
Let us turn to cabotage, although I will probably write further on this subject. The cabotage extension is very limited, going from being able to do two journeys under cabotage to a period of two weeks. From what we understand, this is about a tiny percentage of haulage journeys. I will see if I can get any further figures for the noble Baroness. Again, I am not getting huge numbers of hauliers writing to me saying “This is terrible, they’re stealing our business.” Most hauliers have more business than they can possibly cope with. I will write with that information but I do not think you can necessarily relate the two. It is the case that the vast majority of haulage operators and drivers follow the rules.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The noble Baroness made reference to the driver hours relaxation and gave some figures, for which I thank her very much. Is not the real explanation of why those figures are low that, in the consultation, the proposition was opposed by the Road Haulage Association as well as Unite the Union? Clearly they were not going to queue up to use it, because they did not agree with it anyway.
I notice as well that the noble Baroness said that the cabotage extension is limited, so that is two of the 28 items down here where the Minister herself has admitted that they have had a fairly limited impact. I suggest that it is not the Government’s 28 items—or indeed 32, if that is what it is now. The biggest one so far as far as road haulage drivers are concerned has been the increase in pay that has happened. I do not think that this featured too highly in the 28 courses of action to which the Government referred.
Finally, what is the significant proportion of drivers stopped in roadside checks who are breaching the drivers’ hours legislation? I gather that it is not the 27% that was quoted in one survey, so what is the figure? Why was it that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee repeatedly asked the Department for Transport to provide evidence that would allay its concerns but the responses indicated that the department does not have information either way. Why did not the department provide any information then?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I could possibly give an entirely new speech on this but I would probably not be popular if I did—my Whip agrees with me.
The RHA wanted something entirely different—we know that. It always wanted us to open the floodgates and allow EU drivers to come in. Indeed, I am looking at the noble Lord and trying to remember whether any good ideas have come from the Benches opposite as to how we solve the HGV crisis. I believe Keir Starmer wanted to open the doors to 100,000 EU drivers—that was the Labour way of solving this crisis. We have taken a very different stance. As the noble Lord will know, no EU drivers are willing to come flooding in anyway, as I have said many times. We have set out a range of short, medium and long-term actions. Some are very substantial; for example, we removed the HGV levy. That saves hauliers lots of money, and from that money they can pay their staff more. We have also frozen VED. As I have said right from the outset, there is not one thing that will fix this; it is a whole succession of things. Some are short, medium and long term, some are big and others are little; that is why we have 32 actions. I am proud of those 32 actions and I believe that they are fixing the crisis.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am especially grateful to the Minister for explaining how limited the relaxation is to the drivers’ hours. It is very helpful for her to clear up the issue of the 27% infringement rate. I have always been very well aware that when the DVSA stops a commercial vehicle it is normally acting on intelligence, so it is not surprising that it finds a high rate of infringement both on drivers’ hours and vehicle condition. It does not go and stop a Tesco’s lorry, for instance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about the complexity of the drivers’ hours regulations. They are indeed very complex if you want to go right up to the limit. If you do not need to go right up to the limit, they are quite simple.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the lack of a strategic statement. The problem the Minister has with facilities is very wide-ranging, and the planning system is a very major obstacle to providing better facilities. I do not think £32 million will go very far; it will not be easy to change the planning system, and this is not even a matter for my noble friend’s department. However, I am extremely grateful for her responses and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Monday 6th December 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 View all Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (3 Dec 2021)
21:38 - Division on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 25 / Noes: 74 - Amendment 27 disagreed.
Baroness Mallalieu
“(4) No person may be appointed a member of the Committee unless they have confirmed that they—(a) are not affiliated to an organisation promoting animal rights;(b) are not a member of an organisation promoting animal rights;(c) are not currently employed and have never been employed by or been a consultant of an organisation promoting animal rights;(d) are not in receipt of, nor have ever been in receipt of, payments or funding, whether directly or indirectly, from an organisation promoting animal rights.”
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
I am the lucky recipient of yet another of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He did not indicate to me why he had decoupled it from the previous group. I think the Minister has, in effect, already replied by saying that he is not prepared to put in the Bill who should be on the committee. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, effectively sets out who should not be, and I assume that the same answer will come to me.
However, I would like to say, literally in a sentence, that one of the reasons for widespread disquiet about the Bill is concern about who may or may not find places on the committee. I come from an area where the animal rights movement has been particularly virulent, especially during the badger cull, with people with balaclavas damaging farm property, threatening people, letting livestock out and so on, and, more recently, damaging all the tents at the local country fair by painting Animal Liberation Front logos on everything. As a result of that, a lot of us are concerned that some well-known public figures who purport to be friends of animals and campaign on their behalf do not condemn this terrorism. We are concerned that, whoever comes on to this committee, they should be, as the Government have indicated is their intention, people with proper scientific experience and knowledge who can contribute—not from a neutral point of view, because that is impossible, but whose judgement can be relied on—rather than people who are merely from pressure groups. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Very briefly, I think the concerns on this amendment were answered in the response to the previous group. As it is not necessary to have in the Bill who should be on the committee, it is not necessary to have in it who should not be on the committee.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for moving the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. We have already debated this, but I understand my noble friend’s concerns regarding conflicts of interest and what they may mean for the committee.
We want the committee to succeed, and I am confident that the Bill and the draft terms of reference will ensure that that is the case. As has been said today, the Secretary of State for Defra will be responsible for appointments to the committee and appointments will be decided in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. Applicants would, in line with best practice, be required to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the recruitment panel. The draft terms of reference set out that the Secretary of State may decline to consider an application from an individual whose conduct suggests that their membership could damage the reputation or credibility of the committee—for example, their membership of an extremist organisation. My noble friend’s amendment is simply not necessary. Defra has shown that this tried-and-tested approach works. There are a number of existing Defra-owned expert bodies which give balanced, reasonable advice on animal welfare issues. Few would ever accuse the Animal Welfare Committee, for example, of being made up of zealous activists.
I say again that noble Lords can be reassured that the process of recruitment of members of the committee will be rigorous and that members will be chosen on the merits of their expertise. This is what is needed in order for the committee to perform its role. I hope that this reassures noble Lords and that, together with the reassurance given by my noble friend the Minister on the previous group, it will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, could she reassure the House that, for instance, Chris Packham and Mark Avery of Wild Justice would not be eligible to be on the committee?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am afraid I am not able to give that reassurance. All I can say is that they might not be considered to be experts.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I just hope that the reassurance she has given us will be followed by future Secretaries of State. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Ridley
“Animal Sentience Committee
(1) A Committee within the Cabinet Office, called the Animal Sentience Committee, will be established and maintained.(2) The function of the Committee will be to determine whether in the process of formulating and implementing policy it is satisfied that Ministers of State and the departments of state are having, or have had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to reduce conflict over membership by creating an internal committee of the Cabinet Office.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 9, 11, 33 and 37 in this group, which are in my name. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I have torn up three-quarters of my speech to speed things up. I declare my interest as a fortunate owner of farmland, woodland, moorland and river. I affect the welfare of sentient animals, both positively and negatively, from time to time.
Together, these amendments would cut some of the Gordian knots that we have wrestled with today, and would deliver an animal sentience committee that reported to Parliament but was independent of Defra. The role of the committee as proposed in this amendment must be understood together with the animal welfare strategy that it would be required to produce under Amendment 11. The committee would then be required to report to Parliament on the compliance of Ministers with this process, as in Amendment 33, to which Ministers must respond, as in Amendment 37.
If the sentience committee is to ensure that animal welfare is properly considered, and to act as an accountability mechanism to Parliament, to create it as a creature of Defra raises a number of problems. It may not be welcomed by other departments, which, as the draft terms of reference confirm, are under no obligation to co-operate with it. A committee within the Cabinet Office would have a clear, overarching remit, set a cross-departmental standard and be independent of other departments, whose Ministers would still be required to respond to the committee’s reports to Parliament. The other advantage of a statutory committee within the Cabinet Office is that it avoids the problems identified at earlier stages of the Bill around who should or should not sit on the committee, which we have just discussed.
A committee within the Cabinet Office that is not a Defra committee would be better placed, I would argue, to drive change across government, avoid inter-departmental resentments—as I said earlier—and ensure that all due regard to animal welfare was properly and consistently applied. Then, as with the current proposal, it would be for parliamentarians to hold Ministers to account.
Amendment 11 would ensure that there was a clear strategy setting out how, in the process of developing, deciding and implementing policies, the animal welfare implications of those policies must be considered.
Amendment 33 largely replicates the existing Bill but takes account of the animal welfare strategy, while still allowing the sentience committee to play a role where it feels that there has been a failure of process in compliance with the strategy before a policy decision has been made. This would seem a much more impactful approach to driving change across government than the current proposals.
Amendment 37 ensures that Ministers must explain to Parliament any failure to comply with the animal welfare strategy identified by the sentience committee. It would also mean, for example, that if the matter was a policy relating to the Department of Health, it would be for the Health Secretary to respond. The Bill is not, at the moment, clear on this, although the draft terms of reference make it clear that that is what is intended. That intention should be made clear in the Bill.
I hope it is clear that these amendments are intended to be helpful and are in the spirit of trying to turn a bad Bill into a less bad Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, there is a large number of amendments in this group, so in the interests of time and the number of groups yet to be debated I shall focus on Amendment 38 in my name, which would insert a new clause after Clause 3 requiring the ASC to submit an annual report on its work to both Houses of Parliament. I shall also speak to Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.
The animal sentience committee is being set up as a non-departmental public body with an advisory function. The latest available figures suggest that 63% of such bodies present an annual report to Parliament. It is clearly in the interests of accountability and transparency for MPs and Peers to be able to regularly scrutinise the committee’s work. A yearly report would also allow parliamentarians to gain a wider view of animal sentience issues over the preceding 12 months and of any emerging policy trends that impact on it. Requiring an annual report through this new clause would ensure that this essential transparency and accountability measure is sustained throughout the lifetime of the committee. I urge the Minister to consider including it in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I thank your Lordships for amendments, and I hope that I can provide some reassurance on the points made.
I start with Amendment 9, in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley, which would establish the animal sentience committee as a committee within the Cabinet Office. I would argue that Defra is well placed to host the animal sentience committee—which I will refer henceforth to as “the committee”. Defra’s hosting allows it to be affiliated as a constituent of Defra’s animal welfare centre of expertise, alongside other expert animal welfare committees, such as the Animal Welfare Committee. This provides for these committees to draw upon one another’s expertise much more easily than if they were hosted separately.
In his explanatory statement, my noble friend suggested that, if the committee were under the Cabinet Office, it would be easier to reach agreement on membership. It is not clear how changing the host department would achieve this. We believe that our approach to recruiting experts means that the committee will have the right experts. The same considerations would apply regardless of which department was responsible for supporting the committee.
Importantly, Amendment 9 would mean that the committee would be non-statutory, with no independent existence from government. This would undermine its purpose—one of proportionate scrutiny and accountability. A statutory committee allows experts the appropriate independence to achieve its function.
Amendments 11, 33 and 37, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley, would require the animal sentience committee to publish an animal welfare strategy and for the committee and the Government to undertake actions associated with this. In this Bill, we have given the committee the power to produce reports about individual policies containing its views on to what extent the UK Government are having, or have had, all due regard to the ways in which those policies might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. We believe that it is important for the committee itself to decide which policies to report on, within the remit of the terms of reference. We would expect it to form an overview of all policy decisions with a significant effect on the welfare of animals. This need not cover every single policy decision but could cover those which are of a higher priority to animal welfare.
To ask this committee to produce reports relating to every department annually would be a significant burden and would mean less scrutiny on those policies that really matter. We want the committee to be targeted, timely and proportionate in how it operates. It is better to focus on policy decisions which have the most impact. The co-operation of departments is necessary for the committee to be able to work effectively, and Defra is already working to secure this. I believe a collaborative approach is the most appropriate one.
The committee’s role is not to set out a strategy for animal welfare nor to devise plans for future policy. These are clearly a matter for the Government. In May this year, the Government launched Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare. This sets out the Government’s current and future reform programme on animal welfare, covering both kept animals and wild animals under a series of strategic themes. I do not see the need for the committee to publish its own animal welfare strategy.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, feels that we have already covered Amendment 13 and the remit of the animal sentience committee in group 2. But I am happy for him to raise issues in a moment if he feels we have not.
I turn to Amendments 17, 22 and 34, in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, concerning the reports of the animal sentience committee. The committee will be made up of eight to 12 members, and we anticipate it will take forward six to eight reports a year. However, Amendment 17 would require it to issue a report on all policy decisions. This is neither feasible nor desirable. We want proportionate and targeted scrutiny and accountability, and in so doing, the committee is to consider which policy decisions it deems most important. It should not be beholden to consider every policy decision regardless of its importance to animal welfare.
The question in Clause 2(2) is designed to allow the committee to express its views in an informative way to provide a proper understanding of the decision-making process followed. We believe that the committee’s recommendations are likely to be nuanced. The purpose of these reforms is not to impose a simple “pass or fail” test, which Amendments 22 and 34 suggests it should. That is not necessary, and it is likely to be unhelpful, and indeed unworkable, in many cases.
There may well be cases where the committee’s report into a policy decision does not identify major concerns but makes recommendations that would further improve future decision-making. The proposed amendments would not cater for this situation. While I understand, in principle, the rationale for limiting the requirement for Ministers to reply only to reports which identify major concerns, this would generate missed opportunities to consider valuable recommendations for improvements.
I turn to Amendments 20 and 25, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which query the use of the phrase “all due regard” when describing what the committee is to consider in its scrutiny of policy formulation and implementation. The technical meaning of the phrase “all due regard” in this instance is not considered to be materially different to that of the phrase “due regard”; “all due regard” emphasises that the committee should assess the extent to which all relevant factors affecting animal welfare are being considered.
I turn now to Amendments 21 and 26, again from my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which seek to clarify that the committee can consider positive impacts on the welfare of some animals of a policy alongside the negative effects of that policy on the welfare of other animals. This point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Meeting the welfare needs of animals includes avoiding negative impacts as well as providing for positive experiences. Depriving an animal of its ability to have positive experiences, like exhibiting natural behaviours, counts as an adverse effect. I can assure your Lordships that the reference to “an adverse effect” in the Bill allows the committee to consider whether the positive experiences of an animal have been restricted.
We consider that the committee is already able to express its views on the ways in which a policy decision may not be able to maximise the welfare needs of animals, and that it may set out missed opportunities to make positive improvements to animal welfare. This is outlined in the draft terms of reference. Furthermore, I assure my noble friend that the Bill does not change existing law on pest control or impose any new restrictions on individuals or businesses.
I turn to Amendment 32 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, concerning the Bill’s scope with respect to the devolved Administrations. The committee will select policy decisions made by the UK Government on which it can issue reports. This will cover all matters that do not fall within the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations. As animal welfare policy is a devolved issue, it is a matter for the devolved Administrations as to how they wish to recognise and consider animal sentience when formulating and implementing devolved policies. It would be inappropriate for their Ministers to be held to account to the UK Parliament on matters that fall within their legislative competence.
Scotland has already used secondary legislation to establish an advisory body, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which advises its Government on those policy areas for which they are responsible. The commission has been asked to consider how the welfare needs of sentient animals are being met by policies of the Scottish Government. The Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly are free to introduce their own legislation, should they wish. In addition, the Welsh Government have powers to set up a committee through secondary legislation if they wish to.
Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the animal sentience committee to publish an annual report. We wish to ensure that the committee is as effective as possible in undertaking its role. Reports issued by the committee will be made available on its public website. Ministers will be required to prepare a written response to these reports for Parliament, which will create opportunity to hold Ministers to account. This process will provide a great deal of transparency about the committee’s work and the policies it has chosen to consider. Further transparency will be provided through the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Act.
We will conduct regular performance reviews of the committee to ensure that it is fulfilling its purpose. However, we would not want to commit to an onerous annual reporting process for the committee in statute. This could take resources away from the committee’s primary scrutiny role. Ministers are required to lay timely written responses to every committee report before Parliament. This means that Parliament will be well aware of what the committee has been working on.
Finally, government Amendment 36 is a technical amendment that clarifies the time limit in which Ministers must respond to reports published by the committee. The Bill requires Ministers to lay a written response to a report before Parliament within three months of the report’s publication. This amendment excludes from that time limit certain periods in which Parliament is not sitting. We wish to make it clear that, in these limited circumstances, a Minister may submit a written response at a more appropriate time. We are committed to Ministers providing timely responses. That is why we want the time limit established by the Bill to be clear. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for raising this issue. While we did not have the opportunity to discuss this amendment in Committee, we have considered his contribution and improved the wording of the Bill.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I am obviously a little disappointed that my brilliant suggestion about the Cabinet Office committee has not fallen on more fertile ground. To use an analogy, you would keep a sheep dog in a kennel rather than with the sheep, but I will not pursue that one. I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the academic robustness of the Committee’s work.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 23 and 35 give the House the opportunity to discuss the robustness of the science on which the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill is allegedly resting. I detect a lack of enthusiasm for the wide-ranging debate on this topic that might have otherwise ensued at a more timely part of the day, so I shall keep my remarks as brief as can.
I was once on the Zambezi and had the opportunity to observe the crocodiles. These are largely placid animals that sit basking in the sun but, when hungry, they can move with terrifying rapidity and can kill very rapidly indeed. The person I was with, who knew about crocodiles, said—and I will stand corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, if I have got any of this wrong, of course—that the brain of a crocodile is a very small thing. The size of a pea was suggested to me, and that there was no capacity within the brain at all, neurologically, for a function that allowed for any memory. The consoling thought that was offered to me was that, since a crocodile cannot remember anything, if it did eat me, it was not personal.
We are about to enact a Bill—we are close to passing it through our House—without limitation that, as I understand it, declares a crocodile to be a sentient creature; that is, a creature that can experience pleasure and pain, and science is prayed in aid to support this. I take the crocodile simply as an example, there are other creatures with brains almost as small as a crocodile and probably even smaller that are being covered and in scope of this Bill. The difficulty of this is, they have very limited functions, partly because the size of the brain simply limits the functions that they can actually have.
No one doubts, as a matter of science, that a crocodile, as I say taken as an example, will respond in a certain way if a sufficiently strong stimulus is applied to it. That is a neurological reaction explicable by the movement of chemicals and electrons through the nervous system and in what passes for the crocodile’s brain. What we are being asked to do here goes way beyond that. How can this be extended scientifically—not by analogy, not by empathy, but scientifically—to include the concept of pain in a crocodile as we understand pain.
Pain is more than a simple neurological reaction. Pain, as we understand it, exists in anticipation. One worries about it coming in one’s direction. It exists in reflection; one thinks about it in the past. One has coping strategies for dealing with it, and so on. Most importantly, it exists as a time of abnormality. Pain is abnormal; we want the pain to go away, so that we can go back to normal. How can a creature with no memory have any conception of what normality is, let alone what abnormality is? How can it understand pain, beyond that neurological reaction, in any sense that we understand it? Yet there are scientists, or people who hold themselves forth as scientists, who say that scientifically that link can be made when it is actually almost incomprehensible for most of us. Who are the scientists in whom the Government are placing such faith for the scientific basis of animal sentience that they claim to exist? Where do they gather? Which respectable journals do that publish in? Who is this cadre of leading animal sentience scientists?
Of course, there are animal welfare scientists and veterinarians, and people like that, but this is very specialised, a very narrow and a relatively new field—only over the last 20 years. It has no leading lights at the moment; it is, I would suggest to your Lordships’ House, predominantly ideologically driven, and it is based in large measure on funding being supplied by what might be thought of as groups and foundations with a prior view.
So my question really to my noble friend, even as he trembles on the brink of his success—he is very close to getting his way and seeing this Bill through with practically no amendments—and before he commits the nation to this Bill and this version of animal sentience, is whether he should not think twice about the claims that he makes and the confidence that he rests in what is a very ropey branch of science. Should that not lead him to pull back and consider this amendment, which requires peer review of scientific reports from the committee? In fact, it requires peer review of all reports, and I realise now that that is a bit silly, because some of them will just be procedural—but we can work on the wording. On the scientific reports of the committee, could not he and I work together to get an appropriate amendment at Third Reading that would try to make sure that we rest at last on robust science and not on something ropey and partisan? If it is ropey and partisan, we will come deeply to regret it.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I shall just comment very briefly on what my noble friend has just said. I disagreed with him on one point, when he said that there were no leading lights in the science of sentience. I draw his attention to a wonderful book published by Oxford University Press just a few months ago by the great Cambridge psychologist Nick Humphrey. Nick says, after 60,000 words of argument, as he put it to me in an email:
“My conclusions are quite radical—and at odds with both academic and popular wisdom. I argue that the only animals that have evolved to be sentient are mammals and birds, and not all of these. We really don’t need to worry about lobsters or octopuses.”
He did not add, “or crocodiles”.
So I think that there is developing science on this, and my noble friend is quite right that it needs to be peer-reviewed and investigated. I think that we will find the goalposts move on what is sentient, and that it is not a given that everything with a backbone is sentient or, indeed, that some of the decapods and others are as sentient as we have heard in recent years.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my various interests in the Countryside Alliance, including chairing the organisation. I apologise for being unable to take part in this Report stage earlier, but I was isolating and was only just released less than two hours ago. However, I was watching the proceedings very carefully, and it seemed to me that there was an emerging pattern—a serial rejection of all the amendments proposed by my noble friends and others, whether on issues of retrospectivity, on the composition of the committee, or on the matter of the risk that this committee is going to present of more judicial review. I could only admire my noble friend’s élan in batting away each of these suggestions, which came from former Ministers, from a former Leader of the House and from a former leader of the party—and from a brace at least of Queen’s Counsel, as well as suggestions and advice from a former Master of the Rolls. They were all swatted away elegantly by my noble friend.
I simply wish to say that my noble friends are sentient beings, too, and I believe that we are being treated cruelly. There is a case for reference to an independent committee to make advice as to whether all these suggestions should have been taken more seriously. Perhaps, if Ministers dismiss the advice of the animal sentience committee with the same alacrity, we will have little to fear from its future proceedings.
However, the truth is that there is less of a risk to specific aspects of farming or other activities that we can identify now than, I judge, of gluing up government with a constant process of analysis and rejection, followed by review, of proposals made by the committee. Indeed, there is to be not just one committee but two and, as we heard earlier, they will refer matters to each other, in a description that reminded me very much of a passage from “Yes Minister”. Ministers sometimes, when they occupy two briefs, as I once did, are encouraged to write letters to themselves in their dual positions. Now we have two animal committees that will be encouraged to refer matters to each other. This is an overcorrection because of a promise made earlier.
The suggestion of my noble friend Lord Moylan that, at the very least, we should ensure that the advice that the committee gives is grounded in the soundest possible science and is peer reviewed seems eminently sensible. I also join his modest suggestion that this might be the exception and the one proposal that the Minister might entertain.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. Why do we have delegated committees? Why do parliamentary bodies contract out part of their function? The only answer, it seems to me, is that you need very specific accumulated scientific expertise—in the field of economics, or whatever—that you would not reasonably have from a legislative Chamber.
When I made the point on an earlier amendment that there is no such thing as a disinterested expert—we all have our prejudices and opinions and scientists are still human beings—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that I was Luddite or, worse, “Goveian” in my attack on all experts. But this is surely having it both ways. We cannot say, “We must have this outside committee but there is absolutely no reason for them to base their recommendations on reputable science”. If we are not prepared to require the experts to rule on the basis of where the expertise is, on what possible basis are we creating this committee at all?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I bring your Lordships back to the amendments, which are on peer review and publication, but I say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who entertained us wonderfully with his stories of crocodiles. Why does he think that the Government—his Government—would use “ropey advice”, as he put it, to make decisions? I find that a quite extraordinary claim, particularly given the recent report on cephalopods and decapod crustaceans, which is the basis of a debate we shall be coming to shortly, which was done by the London School of Economics. I certainly would not classify the LSE as “ropey”. So why does he think that there is evidence of “ropey” scientific evidence being used by the Government in this Bill?
There is a certain amount in this that is very similar to Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on publication. As I said on his amendment, it concerns me that, once we start asking for everything to be published, particularly in an academic journal following peer review, we are adding a lot of time and delay to the committee’s work. Policy scrutiny reports differ in purpose, content and form from academic journal articles. The scientific evidence requirement for publication could limit the committee’s work to areas where a body of research already exists. Such research will not be in place for every policy that would impact the welfare of animals as sentient beings. In fact, I see part of the committee’s value as its ability to examine questions that have not been considered before.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. I do not want to detain the House, but I was very entertained by my noble friend Lord Moylan’s trips down the gradations of sentience that might exist across the animal kingdom. I was trying to work out whether he was a follower of Aristotle—who believed that animals lacked rational souls and therefore were outside the sphere of justice—or whether he was Descartian or Rousseauan in his view. I do not want to go into a philosophical—
Lord Moylan (Con)
It may help my noble friend—seeing as he was so kind as to ask the question, I am sure he will be interested in the answer—to know that I stand on every occasion with Aristotle on this, as on so many other matters. I just want that to be clear.
Lord Benyon (Con)
That is good to know. I am very grateful. However, I differ from him entirely if he thinks—which I do not think he really does—that the Government, of whom I am proud to be part, would engage with any form of ropey bunch of scientists. In fact we will come on to talk about, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the degree of scientific breadth that went into the 300 different pieces of work studied by the London School of Economics in its reports on decapods and cephalopods. It is an indication of the expertise that exists out there.
I think my noble friend Lord Hannan has the advantage on me in that he believes that legislators do not need experts. I may have misunderstood him, but as I gaze around this Chamber I see precious few scientists, with one notable exception. There may be more—of course, there is the noble Lord, Lord Trees.
Lord Benyon (Con)
No, I do not include the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. Both Houses lack the kind of expert rigour that we need in decision-making. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his Amendments 23 and 35 concerning the academic rigour of the committee. We will ensure that the animal sentience committee is comprised of members with the right expertise. They will be best placed to decide what the committee’s priorities should be and, in doing so, they can consult others. I reassure my noble friend that the annual work plan of the committee will be made publicly available. This will ensure that its priorities and approach are fully transparent. As the draft terms of reference for the committee show, we fully intend to appoint members through a rigorous procedure of fair and open competition.
Of course, peer-reviewed evidence from academic journals has a role in informing the committee’s work. However, I do not believe it is necessary for the committee’s reports themselves to be published in academic journals. It is critical that the committee should be able to advise in a timely way—this is the key point—on policies that are being developed. To require the committee’s recommendations to undergo the full academic peer-review process would cause considerable delays in enabling Parliament to hold government to account. This amendment would severely compromise its role. I hope with those few words I have reassured my noble friend, and he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, although he says he does not want the committee’s work to be peer-reviewed, does he still abide by what he said in Hansard on 25 May when he was talking about pollinators? He said:
“It is right to use science as the absolute arbiter in this.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 891.]
Is science going to be the absolute arbiter for this committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I hope I can reassure my noble friend that science and good scientific evidence is at the heart of decision-making and that is why we need the right advice for Ministers—so, yes. However, his experience and mine will have been that one can get conflicting scientific advice, so one needs to choose scientific experts with care and make sure that they give clear, unbiased opinions to Ministers and that their information can make better policy. Therefore, scientific evidence will be at the heart of this and we will follow it in the selection of committee members.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, does he think that Mrs Carrie Johnson has the expertise and rigour to be on the animal sentience committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will make sure that every single person who applies for the committee has the necessary expertise, whatever background they come from. We will be looking for a range of people, from those with agricultural experience, those with experience of animals at the end of life in the slaughter process, and veterinarians. I made a list earlier; I will not repeat it because there were some long words which I cannot remember, but they will undoubtedly be a factor in deciding who will be members of the committee.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a great disappointment that my noble friend has not conceded the very sensible proposal I made. It was unsurprising, however. What did surprise me were the remarks from the Opposition Dispatch Box. A more thorough-going endorsement of government policy better presented it is rare to imagine coming across. The idea that the Government never take scientific advice that needs to be checked or disputed and that they would never take dodgy scientific advice, now endorsed by the Labour Front Bench, is one I will cherish and store up for reference, no doubt, on some future occasion. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Deech
“(4A) Recommendations made by the Committee must respect legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to place a duty on the Committee to have regard to the balancing factors included in the Lisbon Treaty, Article 13 of Title II, to which the UK was a party before Brexit.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am very sorry that the Government have not appreciated the centrality of this amendment—the decent working of the whole Bill. I beg to move.
“(4A) Recommendations under subsection (3) must not be detrimental to—(a) nature conservation,(b) biosecurity,(c) crop protection, and(d) human health.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that the Committee take into account the consequences of their recommendations for nature conservation, biosecurity, crop protection and human health and thus to help HMG meet its ambitions of the Environment Act 2021 and Agriculture Act 2020.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 28 standing in my name. This is a similar amendment to the one I moved in Committee and it asks that any recommendation from the animal sentience committee is not detrimental to nature conservation, biosecurity, crop protection and human health.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench will know very well, our major concern is the unintended consequences of his project and what these could lead to. My concern is that there is huge potential for causing damage to nature conservation. We have just completed discussions on the Environment Bill, and much of what that seeks to achieve could be undermined by some of the decisions of the committee that are then translated into action by Ministers. It is the same for biosecurity, crop protection and human health. I refer to pests, in particular.
The reason that the committee could put undue influence on the Government is that Defra’s largest postbag in the last 15 to 20 years has been on animal welfare, and the Government regularly receive petitions on animal health and welfare issues. We even heard today that Her Majesty has received a petition signed by school children. It is also well known that public consultations consistently receive high response rates—for example, those on bovine TB and badger culling. It is for that reason—this intense emotional pressure—that I asked my noble friend the question about the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in New Zealand, and whether he would follow its recommendation. He has not yet replied to me. I think he will shortly—at least, I hope he will—in which case he will set a precedent. I have been waiting three weeks for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to reply to some of my questions, and I have been waiting 10 days for the Secretary of State to reply to my questions. So Defra is not very high in my good books for replying to questions.
It is important that the committee should understand the difference between societal ethical values and public opinion; the two are very different. Backing public opinion could lead one to unscientific and wrong recommendations. My noble friend the Minister mentioned scientific evidence. As he rightly says, there will be contradictory scientific evidence; I hope that when the committee gets scientific evidence, all the contradictory scientific evidence will be clearly reported and not ignored.
I turn to the issue of biodiversity. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in his place because there are important ways in which those who care for the countryside and look after it have to manage pest control. I want to ask my noble friend the Minister about this. He said in Committee on 20 July:
“To be specific on whether the Bill will interfere with pest control, the answer is no. Pest control is highly regulated. Rules ensure that the trapping and killing of vermin is humane, using permitted methods.”—[Official Report, 20/7/21; col. GC 30.]
My noble friend is right to a point: pest control is regulated—but it is not checked. If he wanted to buy some serious rat poison he would have to produce a licence, as he knows. However, you can buy the same rat poison online without any identification or licence; so, there is legislation, but it is not controlled.
With the committee able to act with the remit that it will have, there is potential for more of this to happen. I ask my noble friend to consider fox snares, which are a widely misunderstood device; a fox snare is to tether the animal, not to strangulate it. The fox snares now being used are of the highest international standard, but the animal sentience committee may choose to engage only with stakeholders and the public rather than consult those who actually know about these things. Will fox snares be an issue that the animal sentience committee can look at? What about Larsen traps? They are permitted under Section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act; they do not meet the criteria, but they are allowed under general licence. That is a perfect example of where the animal sentience committee could cause all sorts of problems. It is hugely important that Larsen traps are effective during the breeding season to keep corvid numbers under control.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 45 in my name is in this group. I have listened to crocodiles and in the next group we will get crabs and lobsters, so I will introduce the fish. If the Minister thinks it right to put crabs and lobsters in the Bill, he might consider my amendment.
There is a very significant body of scientific evidence that fish feel pain and are sentient animals. Individuals are capable of experiencing pain and feeling emotions such as fear. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, a fish may be a protected animal if it is under the control of man, but the Explanatory Notes on Section 59 read as follows:
“This section provides that anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing is not covered by this Act … The term ‘fishing’ should be understood as applying to ordinary activities of fishermen and anglers, and also the ordinary activities of those who own and run stocked ponds in allowing fishing activities to take place on their ponds.”
My amendment proposes that precisely the same provision be placed in this Act as was put in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It would give reassurance to a great many people who enjoy fishing.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I echo the point of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about biosecurity. The implications of not taking care of biosecurity, which is mentioned in his amendment—I do not necessarily agree with all of the amendment—are fundamental; it is an ongoing threat to biodiversity and the ecological strength of this nation. I re-echo that point on biosecurity in terms of this Bill. As we know, at the moment we have few protections for biosecurity in our current arrangements, but, hopefully, that will change in the new year when there are greater controls on imports to this country. I just wanted to re-emphasise that point in the noble Earl’s amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for making that point, which is incredibly important, particularly to me, as someone who lives in Cumbria, where we have so many problems with tree diseases and are losing so many trees. It is pitiful watching some of the woods being taken down around places such as Ennerdale and Loweswater.
Coming back to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, he is right that we do need to look out for any unintended consequences of legislation. There are concerns that there may be an adverse impact on the environment. It is important that the Minister is able to reassure noble Lords that there will not be these outcomes from the Bill being enacted. This brings me back to the points we made earlier about how critical it is that the animal sentience committee has the right members who are highly qualified to advise the Secretary of State on these matters when any proposals are put forward.
Looking at Amendment 29, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I say that it is not necessarily unfortunate to be stuck in Scotland at the moment; I might like to be joining him there. There was a debate on the Environment Bill about lead shot, and I will be interested to look at government progress on this.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, introduced Amendment 31 on electric dog training collars. These are opposed by the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, the Animal Behaviour and Training Council and the British Veterinary Association. I am aware that the Government have previously announced plans to look at banning shock collars on dogs, and on this side of the House we would support the Government if they wanted to go down that route.
The final amendment, Amendment 45, was introduced by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. I thank her for it and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to her concerns.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for the opportunity to discuss and explain the interaction of the Bill, and the animal sentience committee, with important policy matters related to animal welfare.
Turning to Amendment 28, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I can only apologise to him that I do not have a response at present to his point on New Zealand. I want to make sure I get it right, because I do not want to be criticised on the Floor of the House for replying to him late or giving him the wrong answer to a question—but I will reply to him.
This amendment would require the animal sentience committee to ensure that its recommendations would not have a detrimental impact on certain other matters of public interest and great importance. I agree with my noble friend that these vital matters of public interest should be properly considered in all relevant government decisions. But the animal sentience committee is not a decision-making body, and the committee will not have the kind of expertise to evaluate these kinds of impacts. I do not think it would be fruitful to impose this requirement on the committee itself.
Ministers should consider the full range of relevant factors and arrive at a decision as to the appropriate balance between them, for which they are accountable to Parliament. I fear that this amendment would mean asking a committee, which is not accountable to Parliament in the same manner, to prejudge this balance.
We should also be careful to task the right experts with particular scrutiny and advisory functions. The right people to comment on a policy’s effect on human health, for example, are doctors and medical scientists, rather than animal welfare experts. I would not ask doctors to provide an expert opinion on animal welfare issues. Ultimately, we must allow specialist expert committees to focus on their own particular remit. For these reasons, I believe there are better means to ensure that the important matters my noble friend raises are given fair consideration in policy decision-making.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for coming in on biodiversity—I am glad he was in his place for this amendment—and to the Minister, who has gone further than he did in Committee.
As we know, the animal sentience committee has to consider whether an animal has been deprived of one or more of its five welfare needs as set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. One of those is the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury or disease. That opens up a huge ambit for the committee. At the moment, we are extremely fortunate in having a Minister in Defra who understands the countryside, how it works and the need for balance. What many of us are concerned about, given the emotion and public opinion that some who are less concerned about that balance are able to generate, is that future Ministers who are not so attuned to the countryside and what happens there—I can think of quite a number in the past who were not—will not be as strong and forthcoming as my noble friend Lord Benyon. That is where we are concerned, and it is why we are trying to alter the Bill in some respects.
I have clearly failed to persuade my noble friend. He has the brief that I so often had, which at the top right-hand corner says “Resist”. His resistance is going to overcome my willingness to change, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Benyon
“(3) The following do not count towards the three months referred to in subsection (2)—(a) any day in a period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, and(b) any day in a period of four or more days during which both Houses of Parliament are adjourned.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect that periods when Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for 4 or more days do not count towards the period in which the Minister is required to respond to a report by the Committee.
Lord Benyon
“(b) any cephalopod mollusc, and(c) any decapod crustacean.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds cephalopod molluscs (for example, octopus and squid) and decapod crustaceans (for example, crab and lobster) to the definition of “animal” for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to your Lordships for your forbearance, and for your views and insights on this important piece of legislation. I will also speak to the consequential Amendment 43.
As I have said during previous debates on the Bill, the Government’s approach to recognising the sentience of animals will be guided by the scientific evidence. My department commissioned an independent review from the London School of Economics and Political Science of the evidence surrounding the sentience of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans for that very purpose. As promised, I made the findings of that review available to your Lordships for consideration ahead of today’s debate.
Sentience is broadly understood to be the capacity to feel pain. Our Animal Welfare Committee advised in 2018:
“Sentience is the capacity to experience pain, distress and harm.”
The review considered the findings of around 300 scientific studies, using a set of criteria based on brain structure, nervous system complexity and testing for adaptive behaviour to assess whether these classes of invertebrate are sentient. The report itself was subject to peer review.
The Government have given careful consideration to the contents of the final report. We accept that there is strong evidence of the sentience of these invertebrates. It is only right, therefore, that they are included in the provisions of the Bill. That means that the animal sentience committee, once established, may produce reports under Section 2 of the Bill in relation to the welfare of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans.
However, I want to be clear that this amendment does not alter existing legislation or policy. I have heard, for example, the concerns put to me by representatives of the fishing sector, and I can assure this House that nothing in this amendment, or indeed in the Bill, changes the rules governing the activities of individuals or businesses.
Naturally, in due course, the Government may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to amend the scope of other animal welfare legislation to include cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. While that is not the question we are discussing today, I take the opportunity to assure your Lordships that any changes to existing laws would be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and we would consider carefully how we would engage industry in their development.
Today, we propose simply to recognise the sentience of these invertebrates in line with the scientific evidence. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and my noble friends Lady Fookes and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for their previous amendments on this subject. I hope that they, and the rest of the House, will support this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is with some regret that I note that my noble friend at the Dispatch Box did not thank me for my previous amendment on this subject. I accepted as far back as Committee that it was likely that cephalopods and decapod crustaceans would be added to the list of sentient beings covered by the Bill, although I did not expect it to be done in the Bill but through the secondary legislation which it contemplates.
I introduced an amendment in Committee that said, beyond vertebrates, the Government can only add, to the list of sentient beings, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans and no more. This was countered, so to speak, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, who put down an amendment that actually added those two classes of creature to the face of the Bill. Neither amendment, of course, proceeded at Committee stage. I find it rather sad and curious that, of those two amendments, my noble friend at the Dispatch Box selected that promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and has rather ignored mine.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I have been up, and indeed in, many African rivers, but not the Zambezi, like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. So, I will try to be as brief as he has been, but I want to make two comments: one about Amendment 39 and one about Amendment 42.
The inclusion of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods within the remit of this Bill is warranted, evidence based and consistent with current legislation with regard to cephalopods, in that they are protected under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, so I support this amendment. However, currently in the Bill, it appears that larval forms of decapod crustacea would also be included. These can be microscopic; they are the fauna of plankton, and then they grow up into shrimps and prawns and so on. I ask the Minister: at what point does a larval decapod crustacean become sentient? A briefing from the Marine Biological Association and the National Oceanography Centre expresses concerns particularly that, if larval forms of crustacea are included, it might compromise their environmental monitoring and research functions. I ask the Minister if consideration has been given to an amendment along the lines of Amendment 41, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland, that excludes embryonic forms.
Amendment 42, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, myself, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, removes the possibility, currently in the Bill, for the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the list of animals covered in the Bill. This would still be possible but would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny through primary legislation. This would recognise that, as scientific research continues, evidence may accrue from which it might be argued that other invertebrates may have some degree of sentience. Crustacea are but one group within a vast taxon of arthropods that includes many thousands of species including the insects.
In the excellent LSE report that reported on the sentience in decapod crustaceans and cephalopods, there is a matrix of criteria—eight in that report—in which evidence of varying strengths may be aggregated in varying levels of confidence to arrive at an overall judgment whether a particular group may be considered sentient. There is not a clear demarcation between sentient and non-sentient.
The inclusion of further groups of invertebrates as sentient merits very thorough and balanced political, economic and societal—as well as scientific—consideration, and should ultimately be a parliamentary decision in primary legislation.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend may not like it but I will support him—I hope he appreciates that—because he said something very sensible about Larsen traps. On a small Midlands farm I catch between 40 and 82 magpies—that is the most I have ever caught—a year. Visitors congratulate me on the huge clouds of linnets, yellowhammers and whatever that we have on the farm, so I was delighted to hear what he said about Larsen traps.
In relation to government Amendment 39, I have always thought that putting a lobster into boiling water must be cruel. People say, “Oh no, they don’t feel, they’ve got no brain”. I have no idea whether they have a brain or not, but it must be cruel, and the Government are making a very good move in seeking to protect such things. While I support the amendment, however, I am not sure that it should be in the Bill—in primary legislation. I would have thought that it could have done by SI; I am not sure that this is necessarily the right way to go about it. I will, however, on this occasion support the Government without any compromise.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am a bit perplexed by all this. The Government have decided to include lobsters and octopi—I prefer those terms because I understand them—but to exclude fish and, if they do not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the minute creatures that they produce. It seems to me that we are on a slippery slope here: the sentience committee could come to the conclusion one day that fish have sentience and feel harm, and then we would ban them. Once you start down this road, there is no limit to where you can go in describing creatures as sentient. That troubles me enormously, and is why I am less than enthusiastic about my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, with this amendment we move on to Clause 5. It rather intrigues me, because it makes an exception of homo sapiens, and I wanted to ask the Minister whether that means that the Government see us as a non-sentient species. Perhaps he will answer that: if the answer is yes, I would probably agree, on track record. However, I will not detain the House. As my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville would do, I want to thank the Government for this amendment and Amendment 43, which we very much support. I understand and greatly respect what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, but I am also aware that the recent scientific evidence on the mental facilities of species such as the octopus—how it is intelligent in a very different way from that in which mammals are intelligent—should be taken very seriously and included in the Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I am absolutely delighted that the Government have tabled Amendment 39, which, as we have heard, has picked up the amendment I tabled in Committee and expands the definition of animals in the Bill to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopods.
It has also been good to hear support from some noble Lords, although I am sorry that it seems to have made the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, so sad. As the Minister said in his introduction, this amendment follows the London School of Economics and Political Science’s report, which concluded that there is strong scientific evidence that decapod crustaceans are sentient and can experience pain. I will not go into the detail of the report because the Minister has done that admirably, but I draw attention to the overarching central recommendation that all cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans should be regarded as sentient animals for the purposes of UK animal welfare law; they should be counted as animals for the purposes of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and should be included in the scope of any future legislation relating to animal sentience. To be honest, that could not be clearer. The LSE is a well-respected organisation.
The report also provides some helpful recommend-ations for improving best practice and welfare and for regulating existing commercial practices that are of reasonable and widespread animal welfare concern for decapod crustaceans. In addition, it is consistent with the approach other countries have taken, for example, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, some Australian states and territories and some German and Italian cities. Importantly, the report also includes recommendations about how industry can be supported through any necessary changes. Will the Minister confirm that marine industries and the food sector will have advice and help to manage any impact that a change in legislation would bring?
I want to say once again a big thank you to the Minister and the Government for taking this forward and proposing its inclusion in the Bill. I am sure he is very aware that he has the strong support of these Benches.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. I think it might be helpful to the House if I say how this came about, as it answers the points about how we got to the stage of including decapods and cephalopods in the Bill. It is a matter of serendipity. For many years people have been pushing for work to be done, and it was done by the LSE. It just so happened that that report came into the Government’s hands over the summer while we were in the process of going through the Committee stage, and it seemed an obvious moment to take this forward when the findings of that report were so clear.
To cheer up my noble friend Lord Hamilton a bit at this late hour, I cannot think of any other species that are likely to go through this process. If there are any, I suggest that it will probably be at least a decade before someone is standing here recommending that we take that forward. It may be less; this is a fast-moving area of science, but it has taken many years—I do not know how many precisely—for decapods and cephalopods to be recognised in this way. I hope that is reassuring.
The noble Baroness asked a question about the food industry and making sure that, if the committee were to make recommendations about how one treats these organisms as part of food processing or cooking and the law is then changed because Ministers accepted that advice, there would have to be a huge amount of work with the food industry to make sure that it was prepared for it. However, this amendment does not change anything. It does not change the law; it just allows it to be within the remit of the committee to give advice to Ministers who will then take other factors into account, regarding, for example, the marine environment, fish, the economic benefits of the fishing industry to coastal communities or the importance that the Government put on fish being part of the nation’s balanced diet. These are the sort of wider factors that Governments will take into consideration.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Moylan feels put upon. I thought that I was the victim here, but clearly that is not the case. I will try to be kind to him when I come to his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 41, and here my remarks relate to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill recognises that live animals with a backbone—vertebrates—are sentient. A government amendment has been tabled to also recognise decapod crustaceans and cephalopod molluscs as sentient, as I have said. It is our intention and expectation that the committee will concern itself with consideration of the welfare of live animals. In practice, it would be difficult for the committee and government departments to identify the way in which a policy under consideration affects the welfare needs of a foetus or an embryo, as opposed to those of the mother animal. It is unlikely, therefore, that the committee would find itself considering a policy beyond its remit. The central recommendation in the report is that these cephalopods and decapods will be regarded as sentient animals, but we carefully considered the recommendations in the review. The evidence of sentient decapods and cephalopods is clear: we are committed to being led by science when it comes to sentience, and that is why we amended the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, as I mentioned, the Government are led by the science when it comes to sentience. We have considered the review’s findings carefully before amending the Bill to recognise these invertebrates as sentient. I can confirm that, at the present time, there is no intention to treat any other invertebrates, beyond decapods and cephalopods, as sentient animals. The scientific evidence that led to the Government commissioning the LSE review has been many years in the making. I can assure the House that this will continue to be the case for future extension, using the delegated powers in Clause 5.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I note what my noble friend says about there being no plans—and I fully accept that that is so, as he has assured the House—but if there are no plans, why do the Government wish to take the powers to continue to pursue them? Would it not be better if the Minister would just accept that primary legislation will be required as and when the science demands it?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I hope I can reassure my noble friend by saying that if the Secretary of State were to use his or her powers to recommend another species or group of species to be included, that would be the subject of parliamentary oversight. It would be an affirmative resolution requiring debate in both Houses and would be subject to other areas of parliamentary scrutiny, such as Select Committees and other means by which noble Lords and people in the other place would seek to hold that decision to account. I hope that we would not wish to risk this Bill becoming out of date by removing the ability to update its scope should the scientific evidence develop.
While we are not aware of any instances on the horizon, we cannot discount the possibility that new evidence will emerge in the future that demonstrates the sentience of some additional category of invertebrate. Decapods and cephalopods were the invertebrates most likely to qualify for being regarded as sentient animals. The likelihood that another category of invertebrate might one day be shown to be sentient is small, but it is not zero. That is why we wish to leave an option to update the definition if needed. Such a power must be subject to appropriate checks and balances, of course, and I will address this point shortly.
In the meantime, I take this opportunity to clarify that the Bill is all about government policy decision-making and how well particular decisions take account of the welfare needs of animals. The Bill and our amendments do not change existing law or impose new restrictions on individuals or businesses. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the time has come to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopods in the Bill and will therefore support the government amendment. I also hope that the points I have set out reassure noble Lords and that they will be content not to press their amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Benyon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Benyon’s first amendment to Clause 5.
Lord Robathan
“Expiry
This Act expires at the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, who is unavoidably detained somewhere in the country—I am not quite sure where—I beg to move this amendment. I am sorry that the Minister feels put upon, because I think he is doing a very good job defending what some people have described as indefensible, and well done him.
This is a very simple sunset clause. It is fair to say beyond peradventure that some of the arguments raised in the past six or seven hours show that there is dispute over whether the Bill is a sensible idea. Therefore, surely, we should have a sunset clause so that, after five years, we can look back and say, “Actually, it’s not working very well, let’s scrap it”—or improve it, or whatever it might be. That is all a sunset clause does, and that is why I move it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Robathan. In anybody’s language, this is an extremely controversial Bill—that has come from a number of extremely distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House. The most appalling collateral damage could be caused by the Bill which no one has anticipated. That is the problem. When you have such Bills with a mind of their own and committees that can roar off doing all sorts of things and are completely independent, it is only later that you realise that it was a very great mistake in the beginning. In all modesty, I think the Minister should seriously consider this sunset clause so that we can reconsider whether the Act, as the Bill will no doubt become, has been a good idea, whether it has achieved what it set out to do, or whether it has caused so much damage that it needs to be radically revised. A sunset clause of five years gives us a wonderful opportunity to think again, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, this amendment sets a sunset clause on the Bill. Sunset clauses are quite rare and are usually associated with emergency legislation to deal with a time-specific problem. Recently, we have seen sunset clauses around the Coronavirus Act and previously, in the 2000s, in anti-terror legislation. This Bill is not a piece of emergency legislation passed to deal with something that is time specific. It is establishing the animal sentience committee for the long term, so we on these Benches do not believe that a sunset clause is appropriate or necessary.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Robathan for introducing Amendment 46 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which would insert a clause that would repeal the Bill after five years. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for pointing out that sunset clauses are needed more for emergency legislation.
The Government have laid the Bill before Parliament because there is an ongoing benefit from a targeted mechanism that provides greater transparency for the consideration of animal welfare in central government policy decisions. However, we know that this must be done in a timely and proportionate way. Animal welfare considerations will not cease to be relevant in five years’ time, so it is hard to understand why the committee’s work should be brought to an abrupt halt at that point. It is the Government’s considered view that it would be plainly wrong for the Bill to expire after five years, as the animal sentience committee will have plenty to contribute beyond that time.
That is not to say, of course, that there will not be a review of processes to ensure that the Bill and the committee continue to fulfil their objectives well. As indicated in the committee’s draft terms of reference, we plan to ensure that it is subject to annual performance reviews. Defra will ultimately be accountable for the committee’s ongoing effectiveness and good governance. In addition, the Bill will be subject to the standard post-legislative scrutiny process, including a review of its effectiveness. That will take place within five years of Royal Assent. I hope that that reassures noble Lords and that my noble friend will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, does she not feel that a sunset clause might in fact be to the great benefit of the Government, because they would not need to have the dramatic act of wrapping up the committee and the Act; it would merely come to its own conclusion? If, on the other hand—unlikely, in my opinion, but not impossible—the committee was doing extremely well, legislation could be introduced to continue it. It is not difficult to extend the life of an Act; it is much more difficult to abolish an Act altogether. If it lapsed automatically, it might be to the advantage of the Government in the future, rather than their disadvantage.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I do not agree with my noble friend, because the committee’s work will be ongoing, and it will also respond to changes in scientific research that may come out in the course of its many years of work. To introduce a hard stop—a hard deadline—to its work would be both unnecessary and impractical.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, if I might say, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Hamilton, because it is not a question of ending the work of the committee, but of saying, “Is the committee doing well after five years, and do we just continue it?”, which is very easily done. I have some experience of this in the past. However, I shall not force this to a Division, my noble friend will be pleased to know. Both my noble friends on the Front Bench will be particularly pleased to know that there is only one more clause to go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness
“(3A) The Secretary of State must set up an independent committee of experts to report on the possible consequences of this Act.(3B) The Secretary of State must publish a response to the report by the independent committee.(3C) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements to move a motion for debate on the report of the independent committee and the Government’s response to it in each House of Parliament.(3D) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made until the motion in subsection (3C) has been debated in each House of Parliament.”
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 47. This is the last amendment to be debated and I call it the lifebelt amendment. Since 4 pm—with a couple of breaks in between, but nearly seven hours ago—the Government have heard of all the things that are possibly wrong with this Bill. There are problems with the terms of reference; problems with the setting up of the committee; and the abdication of power by the Government to the committee. My noble friend on the Front Bench has heard expert opinions from both the legal and the veterinary side about the difficulties that this Bill could pose. The zoologists are equally concerned that the terminology in the Bill is so wishy-washy that it will be very hard for some decisions to be made accurately.
I drafted this lifebelt amendment, which proposes to give the Government time for considered thought about the Bill. Yes, my noble friend has got his Bill; he has fulfilled his instructions from on high and defeated every amendment. But having got his Bill, would this not be a sensible time to set up a committee to look at the unintended consequences, of which so many have been raised, before the Bill is enacted? This would give the Government a chance to have a look again if they were persuaded, on the evidence of the committee, that the Bill ought to be redrafted in a different way. I totally applaud the sentiment behind the Bill. We want it, but we also want one that is right, so I offer my noble friend a lifebelt at the last moment. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, this seems quite novel as an amendment—to try, once a Bill has gone through Parliament and become an Act, to judge it afterwards. It is a novelty that I find perhaps rather difficult. I share the noble Earl’s thoughts about some of the issues around the Bill, but this is probably overly bureaucratic and, if we believe in Parliament, probably not the best way to move forward on this occasion—despite the great respect I have for him.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I agree; I too hold the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in the greatest respect and the highest regard. Of course, he is absolutely right to say that any Government should consider seriously unintended consequences when considering any new legislation but, along with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I agree that this proposal is overly bureaucratic. Do we really need another committee? We seem to have an awful lot of them already. Expert advice will be readily available to the ASC, as we have heard, as well as to the Secretary of State.
I am very pleased that we have reached the end of Report and I congratulate the Minister on his resilience.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, and I congratulate her on hers, too—and I thank her for her help in making this Bill better, although we have more to do. I join in the praise of my noble friend Lord Caithness. In my short time in this House he has proved himself to be a redoubtable holder of the Executive to account, if that is not a tautology.
He calls this the “lifebelt amendment” but I call it the “committee on the committee amendment”. I thank him, but it would require the establishment of a committee to assess the impacts of the Bill after it had received Royal Assent but before its provisions came into force. We believe that it is for Parliament to satisfy itself about the impacts of the proposed legislation before it approves it, and not to pass legislation on the proviso that it goes through further approval before coming into force.
The Bill has been subject to exacting scrutiny in this House. It has been scrutinised by the EFRA Select Committee, and there has been no absence of scrutiny of the Bill and its implications. My officials and I remain ready to answer any questions that noble Lords may have about the Bill. Parliament remains free to seek the views of outside experts on any aspect of the Bill. I have been clear throughout its passage what the implications of the Bill are; it does not change existing law or impose new restrictions on individuals, businesses or any organisation outside the UK Government. It will establish the committee, on the purpose, structure and membership of which I have spoken today at length. I give absolute assurance that Ministers will continue to have full discretion and responsibility as to the appropriate balance between animal welfare and other matters of public interest.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister not only for his reply but for the backbone that he has shown throughout the proceedings today. He has done a marvellous job at resisting, and I hope that the English batsmen learn from him before they take on Australia in the Ashes. But the bowling was all from one end today; Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition were mostly absent, although the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made a superb job of playing vice-Minister today. I hope that she gets her normal verve back and becomes a proper opposition Minister for the next Bill.
I really am grateful to the Minister. I believe that he listened, but I do not believe that his brief gave him any room for manoeuvre. He has done an excellent job in fulfilling his brief and saying “resist” to every amendment and getting the Bill through. I have great pleasure in withdrawing my amendment.